header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. PMO Staff Run Government; Ministers Represent It
  2. On A Mostly Harmless Birthday
  3. The Trouble With Political Communications
  4. Politics: War By Other Means
  5. On the function of Social media
  6. C-18 is an existential threat, not a benefit, to democracy
  7. On Missing A Little More Than A Sub
  8. The Realpolitik Of Open Nomination
  9. What Is An Open Nomination, Really?
  10. Alberta election about identity, not policy
  11. The Trouble With Electoral Reform
  12. Mr. Bains Goes to Rogers
  13. Question Period
  14. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  15. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  16. It's not over yet
  17. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  18. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  19. Next steps
  20. On what electoral reform reforms
  21. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  22. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  23. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  24. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  25. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  26. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  27. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  28. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  29. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  30. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  31. older entries...

2016-11-30 16:43 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Canada Pension Plan, Government bills, Pensions and pensioners, Third reading and adoption,

Pensions et pensionnés, Régime de pensions du Canada, Troisième lecture et adoption

Madam Speaker, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook talks a lot about the negative aspects in the bill as he sees it. I see this is as a very positive investment in the future. Minister LaMarsh actually funded for the future, and we have to do the same thing again. We have done a lot of things for seniors in the last year with the reduction of the retirement age back to 65 and the increase in the GIS. However, if the member does not want to improve the CPP for the future, would he rather get rid of the CPP altogether? Which is it? Do you think it is sustainable, or do we improve it for the future? Why does he want to keep it at all?

Madame la Présidente, le député de Flamborough—Glanbrook parle beaucoup des aspects négatifs qu’il attribue au projet de loi. J’y vois un investissement très avantageux pour l’avenir. La ministre LaMarsh a en fait jeté les fondements de l’avenir et nous devons faire de même aujourd’hui. L’an dernier, nous avons fait beaucoup pour les aînés en faisant revenir à 65 ans l’âge de la retraite et en augmentant la Sécurité de la vieillesse. Si toutefois le député ne veut pas perfectionner le Régime de pensions du Canada pour l’avenir, préférerait-il qu’on s’en débarrasse? Quel est son choix? Pensez-vous qu’il est viable ou devons-nous l’améliorer pour l’avenir? Pourquoi veut-il le conserver?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 13:26 on November 30, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-11-29 16:29 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-12-01 12:31 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.