Judy Sgro
You may never have set foot in Centre Block on Parliament Hill – but this Monday, February 13, from 10 am to 1 pm your voice will be heard there.
That’s because we’re opening Parliament to all Canadians, holding a special pre-budget consultation on Stephen Harper’s potential cuts to Old Age Security – and we’re webcasting the whole thing.
What’s more – you’ll be able join our accompanying live chat to submit questions to our expert panel and share your views with other concerned Canadians and even Liberal Caucus members.
There’s no RSVP required, just click this link a little before 10am EST and join us on Liberal.ca.
By now, 20,000 Canadians have signed our petition “Don’t let Harper steal your retirement benefits.”
They, like you, know that the Conservatives are ignoring facts, evidence and expert opinion because fundamentally Stephen Harper doesn’t believe that government has a responsibility to help ensure the financial security of Canada’s seniors.
In a time when the aging population is increasing and the crime rate is decreasing, the Harper Conservatives are spending more on prisons and less on pensions. This is unacceptable.
Liberals brought in the Canada Pension Plan. Liberals brought in Old Age Security. And Liberals will continue to fight for balanced pension reforms that will ensure Canadians’ financial security in their retirement.
Thank you.
Judy Sgro
Liberal Seniors and Pensions Critic
I guess what I am saying also is that I would like to see some LPC policy, with clear direction and not just a continuous criticism of other parties policies with no indication of our real position. People I talk to every day ask me what the LPC would do differently; and I can not tell them, so they ask me why they should join party. They want to know what they are supporting, other then anti this and anti that.
As I posted earlier and elsewhere,
I would propose some changes to the OAS that I think the LPC should be discussing and that we all have some say in. Those changes may look like:
• Cut off any OAS payment to anyone with pension earning over $45,000, or gradually reduce it to 0 by $55,000
• Increase the amount payable to lower incomes on a graduating scale that matches the scale of reduction of the top OAS receivers.
• Plan this to affect all of the pensioners earning over $60,000 immediately, ie stop or reduce it over 5 years starting now.
• Plan for a replacement to the OAS for all except those most in need, ie ones who can not save for pensions because of very low lifetime incomes, and replace it with more opportunity for tax free contributions by everyone say with an affective age of 30 now.
• When all pensioners are brought up to above the poverty line, then we can consider saving money to pay down debt, not buy jets.
My premise is that we all have need of lower wage earners to do the jobs that must be done and that we do not do ourselves and that OAS was designed with the intention of supporting those valued members of society when they retire. It was not designed to give higher income pensioners who had higher lifetime incomes more opportunity to live better, which is like taking from the poor to give to the rich.
As a senior who is aging with and into disability, I want to emphasize the fact that many persons with a disability view Old Age Security as a means of reducing their poverty. To increase the age of entitlement from 65 to 67 will only extend and enhance poverty in the lives of people who are aging with and into disability. – James Hunsberger
Good morning, (it is still morning in BC). I opened my e-mail at about 10:00am to discover that the teleconference was taking place from 10:00 until 1:00pm EST. Guess what? It was already over and still only morning here! How long has this been in the works? Don’t forget that we, in the west need a little more lead time. I read my e-mail regularly but would expect more than 12 hours notice if you really want input from a large segment of the population.
I read through the posts and liked what I read. Now we need a strong policy to reflect the Liberal perspective and values. Certainly, it seems the right time to look at clawing back the benefits long before the $65,000+.
I hope there can soon be a conference regarding the sell-off of our natural resources, the lack of value added industries, the down-grading of our education system, the dumbing down of our indigent work force, the lack of opportunities for the First Nations peoples who are the fastest growing segment of our population, etc., etc. We are in a particularly distressed place here in BC with far right wing governments at all levels. I weep for my country.