There are growing signs that the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) is confused.
The latest has slipped under the radar: the incredible 180-degree turn he’s made on the issue of retirement age.
The law requires that a public consultation on the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), its status and future be held every six years in the parliamentary committee.
Important exercise: Our collective systems like the QPP are precious and, in order to serve us long, must be adapted to new realities (aging, scarcity, etc.).
This type of advice can make it possible to counterbalance the bad reflexes of our democracies, such as short-term thinking.
- Listen to the provincial and federal political column with Antoine Robitaille and Philippe-Vincent Foisy, presenters at QUB Radio QUB radio :
the plough
The hearings began on February 8th. A detailed consultation document indicates that “raising the minimum age for eligibility for the QPP retirement pension could be a potential solution to inflation, longevity and yield risks. We would live from 60 to 62 years.
Immediately, QS and PQ defended the idea, filing motions asking the government to commit “not to move the retirement age.”
In a press conference this morning, Liberal leader Marc Tanguay spoke of a “hugely important” consultation. When asked “Will you vote with QS and PQ?” “, the interim boss is outraged: “That would put the cart before the horse,” because advice must come first. He accuses QS of having too many “certainties” in this matter, of being dogmatic.
But a few hours later, the PLQ in the faction changes position. On February 14, in the plenary hall, Tanguay accused the government of only having thought of this option. He calls on the prime minister to “calm the workers, workers down”.
- Listen to the provincial and federal political column with Antoine Robitaille and Philippe-Vincent Foisy, presenters at QUB Radio QUB radio :
“Our recommendation”
On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Eric Girard indicated that he will most likely give up — he will announce in the March 21 budget — to touch the eligibility age.
Liberal financial critic Frédéric Beauchemin tweeted: “The CAQ backed down and listened to our recommendation. “You have to have nerve, don’t you? Less than 20 days ago, the Liberals were open to the idea of turning back time, saying a reflection was needed, chastising the parties who flatly opposed it. Then triple backflip. And some time later even “our recommendation”!
If the Liberals are in power, have they forgotten? – plead for rigor and responsibility. In 2016, Finance Minister Carlos Leitão claimed that the transition from 60 to 62 was “inevitable” in the short term: “A person who retires at 60, for example, can normally have 25 years of working life left. It’s not like 50 years ago. You have to adapt! »
At the time, organizations like the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business applauded. Today, I am told, they would have liked “the old party of business” to think a little before putting the cart before the horse.
