CARP calls on MPs to separate OAS changes from Budget Bill
Open letter
May 7, 2012 - CARP issued an open letter calling on MPs to support motions to separate the changes to the OAS eligibility age from the rest of Bill C-38 citing strong opposition from its membership and the fact that it was never put before the electorate. Read more
|
|
Callout: Please Use CARP E-Voice to ask your MP to Defend the OAS – Bill goes to Second Reading on Monday
Please take a few minutes to take action
Please Use CARP E-Voice to ask your MP to Defend the OAS – Bill goes to Second Reading on Monday
Draft legislation to raise the eligibility age for Old Age Security is part of the Omnibus Budget Implementation Bill C-38 speeding through Parliament this week.
On Monday, May 14th, Parliament will vote on whether to give it Second Reading and send it to Committee. At that point, the overall thrust of the provision cannot really be changed in Committee.
Nonetheless, a fuller debate in Committee might raise enough issues to amend the provisions and reduce the impact of the proposed changes on the most vulnerable.
That is why CARP issued an open letter calling on all the MPs to support breaking the Bill up into more manageable chunks .
In fact, the better result would be to not give Second Reading approval in principle to the OAS proposals and to withdraw those provisions until they have been fully examined and brought back only if warranted.
But make no mistake, breaking up the Bill and sending it to separate Committees may only delay the inevitable. Ultimately, the government’s Parliamentary majority allows it to control the votes on the Committees as well as in the House of Commons.
That is, UNLESS your own Member of Parliament thinks it might be worth reconsidering and govern him or herself accordingly in Monday’s vote.
You can tell him/her whether or not you think he/she should vote/convince his/her party leader to:
1. split the Bill to allow for full discussion of the proposed OAS changes
2. Not vote to give Second Reading to the whole Bill [or just the OAS section if they agree to split it up] because you think the OAS provisions should not be given approval in principle at all
You can use CARP E-voice CARP E-Voice to email your own MP [be sure to include the name of your riding] as well as the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, and the House Leaders:
Bloc Quebecois
Louis Plamondon- louis.plamondon@parl.gc.ca
Conservatives
Peter Van Loan - peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca
Liberals
Marc Garneau - marc.garneau@parl.gc.ca
NDP
Nathan Cullen - nathan.cullen@parl.gc.ca
Green Party
Elizabeth May - Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca
|
|
NDP Federal Pension Critic Wayne Marston’s Letter to CARP
Marston said kids could learn a thing or two from CARP's ability to snap into action on the OAS file
I’d like to start by stating how impressed we here in Ottawa have been with the CARP membership’s “Hands Off OAS” campaign. In fact, in a conversation with a young activist recently I cited your campaign as a text-book example of what needs to happen when you want to get the attention of politicians. Read more
|
|
Interim Leader of Canada's Liberal Party, Bob Rae's letter to CARP
Let’s Protect Old Age Security by Improving it, not Cutting it
The Prime Minister say that Canada’s Old Age Security (OAS) program is unaffordable. His solution appears to be increasing the qualifying age from 65 to 67 and delaying retirement benefits for two years...whether it’s a neighbour, a friend or your kids, you almost certainly know someone who will be affected.
Maybe you’re already passed 65 and aren’t worried about these changes. But whether it’s a neighbour, a friend or your kids, you almost certainly know someone who will be affected. Read more
|
|
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May Weighs in on the OAS Debate
PM's latest actions remind Green leader of former PM Brian Mulroney's infamous "Goodbye Charlie Brown" upset
There are few issues as close to our core values as pensions. We have universal health care and its place as a core Canadian value is indisputable. Our shared commitment to ensuring that Canadians have the income support required to live our retirement years in vitality and good health is a close second in sacred responsibilities of governments. Clearly, more needs to be done. Too many seniors, particularly too many women, live in poverty. Nevertheless, Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Pension Plan were never mooted as a target for new policies by Stephen Harper in the recent election, except to commit to greater levels of support. Read more
|
|
Minister of State for Seniors Alice Wong Addresses OAS Issue
Says that the governmen decision is meant to protect retirement income for future generations
I want to assure you that possible changes to Old Age Security would not affect anyone currently receiving benefits, nor would any individual close to retirement be affected. Adequate notice would be provided to Canadians, to ensure they have ample time to plan for their future. Read more
|
|
Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Diane Finley Addresses OAS Issue
Defends government decision
OAS is the single largest transfer that we make to individual Canadians, and it is 100% funded by tax dollars. The evidence clearly shows that on its current path, Old Age Security will become unsustainable and too expensive. That’s why we must act today, to ensure its viability for future generations. Read more
|
|
|  |
|
|
OAS change set to become law unless government can be convinced to slow down and at least discuss it
Heed advice from the PM - in his own words
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once said:
“it has become a standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus legislation following every budget under what we might call the kitchen sink approach”.
In his very cogent arguments, he cautioned
“How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.”
We agree
Unfortunately, Prime Minster Harper was complaining about the Liberals’ Omnibus Budget Bill of 1994 when he was in Opposition, not his own Omnibus Budget Bill of 2012. Read more
|
|
Previous Issues of CARP Action Online
New OAS eligibility is plenty to CARP about
CARP makes the headlines
The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) is leading the pushback efforts against the federal government’s decision to raise the OAS eligibility age from 65 years to 67 years.
In an open letter to MPs, CARP has asked to separate OAS changes from the rest of the Budget. Their main contention is that it was never put before the electorate and fully debated.
“CARP members would be shattered to learn that such a fundamental part of our social safety net was rushed through Parliament on the strength of the government’s Parliamentary majority alone, without adequate opportunity for full debate,” said Susan Eng, vice-president, advocacy, CARP. Read more
|
|
NDP wants ‘Trojan horse’ omnibus bill split up
The New Democrats are asking the Conservative government to split its omnibus bill into several pieces of legislation so that proposed changes to environmental and natural resource laws can be scrutinized.
The Conservatives have limited debate on their budget bill — known as invoking closure — and included new provisions to speed up the environmental review process for major projects.
The closure motion allows for about a week of debate on the omnibus bill, which is more than 420 pages long. Read more
|
|
Tories considering splitting omnibus budget bill into five pieces after opposition outrage: NDP
Conservatives briefly considered yielding to Opposition pressure before deciding they would lump everything together
The Harper government seems to be having second thoughts about the wisdom of lumping major changes to dozens of statutes into one massive budget bill.
NDP House leader Nathan Cullen says his Conservative counterpart, Peter Van Loan, is considering a New Democrat proposal to split the 400-plus-page budget implementation bill into five separate pieces of legislation. Read more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Get Your Free Subscription to CARP Action Online!
|
|
|
What is the fuss all about?
What you need to know
Earlier this week, CARP issued an Open Letter calling on all MPs to separate the OAS eligibility age changes from the rest of the omnibus budget bill C-38. The government has packed most of the new budgetary items into one large omnibus bill, to expedite the passage of budget 2012.
CARP’s open letter tells MPs that CARP members are overwhelmingly opposed to the OAS changes and that no new laws on OAS should be passed without due process and debate in Parliament.
Debates on Bill C-38 have been officially limited, meaning that opposition MP’s have had little opportunity to inform the decision to change the eligibility age for OAS. Various motions and discussions among House Leaders may be taking place to break the massive Budget Implementation Bill into separate components and CARP is asking that the OAS changes be separated to allow for proper debate.
Overwhelming Majority of CARP Members Oppose OAS Changes
CARP members roundly reject increasing the OAS eligibility age, according to recent CARP Polls™. Over 60 percent of CARP members disagree with both the plan to increase the eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 years and the fact that this decision was made without being put to the voters in an election.
The fact that the Conservative government voted last week to limit debate during Second Reading on Bill C-38 to seven days total, before it’s voted on and sent to committee for further examination, will not be well-received by CARP members.
CARP polling shows that almost 90 percent of members think that it is crucial that the government hold public hearings before changing OAS. Members also think that the government should look elsewhere for the savings it expects to achieve in making the changes to OAS. CARP members say that any shortfall in OAS can be made up through closing underused government agencies, reversing corporate tax cuts, or redirecting the savings from the end of the Afghan mission.
“CARP members would be shattered to learn that such a fundamental part of our social safety net was rushed through Parliament on the strength of the government’s Parliamentary majority alone, without adequate opportunity for full debate,” wrote Susan Eng, VP Advocacy, CARP.
The budget bill will be debated in the Commons every day this week, except Thursday, before MPs hold a Second Reading vote on Monday, May 14. Bill C-38 would then be sent to the House of Commons finance committee for additional debate.
To Read CARP’s Open Letter to MPs, click here
To read the Parliamentary Transcripts on Bill C-38, click here
For a schedule of past and upcoming debates on the Bill, click here
|
|
Why the change Prime Minister Harper?
What the PM said about omnibus bills - then vs now
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Government are declining to split the omnibus Bill C-38 into it’s constituent parts, including changes to OAS, which would allow for further debate. Instead, the government is adamant that the bill is in the best interest of Canadians. However, this was not his position 18 years ago when faced down the Liberal Government over a similar omnibus budget implementation bill. Read more
|
|
On the Record: MP’s Comments on Government Plans to Rush OAS Changes
A glimpse into the issue from the floor of the House of Commons
"It is sad that the government is continuing to ignore what really matters to Canadians: environmental protection, old age security, health care and job creation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said repeatedly that MPs are not getting the information they need for proper oversight. He also released a report clearly showing that the old age security program is completely sustainable as it stands now. Why is [the government] ignoring the various reports that clearly prove certain facts? Why is it so determined to fast-track a bill that includes so many cuts?" Read more
|
|
Bill C-38 – Legislative Process Schedule
The Conservative government has been acting fast in trying to approve Bill C-38. Last week, on Thursday May 3rd 2012, the government announced that it will limit second reading debate to only six more days and is expecting that the bill will pass quickly. Read more
|
|
Research that Contradicts the Government's rationalization of the OAS Changes
Parliament's own Budget Officer says facts don't bear out government claims
The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), a mandated body providing independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances and Canadian economic trends, has provided evidence showing that spending on OAS is not a cause for concern. Seniors’ benefits do not threaten Canada’s fiscal sustainability according to the PBO. For long-term fiscal sustainability, government debt must not grow faster than the economy. Therefore, a program is unsustainable when it causes a material increase to the debt-to-GDP ratio – which according to the PBO, OAS and the other senior’s benefits would not do. Read more
|
|
Retired Government Economist Says Government Claims are Not Based in Fact
CARP was copied on a letter from Walter Kelm, a distinguished lifetime CARP member award recipent, retired government economist and author of “CARP’s Kelm Papers” – a series written in 2004 to calculate the effect that baby boomers would have on Canadian pensions.
Based on his extensive research, Mr. Kelm wrote a letter to Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. His detailed letter explains why the changes are not warranted. Read more
|
|
Member Comments on the Omnibus bill and the OAS
Members are saying...
I am writing to voice my objection to having an omnibus bill encompassing so many changes rushed through without sufficient debate. Environmental changes should be given separate and detailed discussion as should the proposed change in age eligibility for OAS. I am opposed to increasing the age for OAS to 67. Read more
|
|
|
