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. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  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 15:26 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.