Scott Andrews

[Retirement Income Bill of Rights, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today to speak to the bill.

To refresh us on what the bill would do, I would like to quote a few words from the member from Toronto who proposed it.

In broad strokes, the bill would create substantive, justifiable rights relating to retirement income, give every person a chance to accumulate retirement income, promote good plan administration, and set out in law that pension reform goals to which we aspire legislatively.

This bill, in a few short steps, would improve people's financial retirement.

For a lot of people, retirement takes years of planning. Those who start working in their mid-20s to mid-30s are not always thinking about retirement. Thirty years or 25 years is a long way away. A lot of factors can go into what may happen to one's retirement savings over that 30 years. We only need to look back at the last 10 years to see what happened when the markets collapsed and people's retirement savings vanished overnight, making them have to work longer. One never knows what might happen to one's retirement savings. It has taken at least the last five to six years to get back to where their savings were almost 15 years ago.

Wherever I have travelled in my riding over the last little while, the number one issue I have heard from seniors has been how they are struggling in their day-to-day operations trying to survive on the little bit of pension income they have. The cost of living is going up. The cost of a quart of milk has gone up over the last little while. This impacts many seniors. There are a lot of seniors out there who are going to the malls to get warm, which is a shame. When one gets to that age in life, one should be able to retire in dignity and with respect.

I hear it everywhere I go. A lot of seniors are finding it very hard. A lot of them will admit that they did not think of retirement planning for the last 30 years. We have to make sure that these things are there so that people have the retirement savings they need.

People refer to some of the programs we have in place now, such as the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, the Canada pension plan, and old age security. As the member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned, when we look at the sum of those plans, it is only in the range of $27,000 a year. With the cost of everything going up, and as people are getting older and living longer, their needs become greater. When they get to a stage where they need care and help, it is costly.

My mother is 82 years old. It is not easy living alone in a home one has lived in one's entire life. When property tax goes up by a small increment, it can really cash-strap a lot of our seniors. When they get into a home or alternate living, it is not cheap. It costs of a lot of money. A lot of people at that age are spending every nickel on it. They have no money left over to share with their grandchildren, family, and friends.

We need people to be thinking about this. We need to make sure that people are guaranteed an honourable retirement. All this bill is doing is proposing a bill of rights for retirees and seniors to make sure that they have the funds to live out retirement with dignity.

Getting back to the GIS and the CPP, one of the things I hear most, and what really gets me going, is that the government will say that it has given a little increase in the CPP. It gives this increase to the CPP; people receive it in January. They have their increase in their CPP, and it is not a whole lot, but it is a little. It is not enough to cover the cost of a carton of milk. However, by the time June comes around and they get reassessed, they are clawed back on their GIS. Therefore, they are no further ahead, at all, on any increase in the CPP. It is clawed back through their GIS.

Seniors, retirees and people in the House cannot understand why the government would claw back their GIS. It gives it on one hand and takes it away on the other. I hear it every June, without fail, from people who call our offices and complain that their GIS, their income supplement, has been decreased because they were lucky enough to get a little more on their CPP in January. It is very frustrating.

Much like where we have a number of bills of rights and charters for our veterans, we need to have this bill of rights for our seniors and for retirement.

It is a pleasure to support the bill. I know the member has been an advocate for seniors and pension plans for a number of years now. She has seen what has happened when people's retirement incomes have slipped away through no fault of their own, or through businesses that collapse and pension funds are in jeopardy. I know there were some references made to Nortel.

Bill C-513will help try to preserve that and make sure it gives seniors every tool they need to remain happy in their senior years.

I would like to close by quoting this one the member put together. Basically, it says that is she had to summarize the bill in 50 words or less, she would say it is about “choice, fairness and flexibility”. She goes on:

It is not about tearing down pensions; it is about elevating everyone to the same level. Every Canadian should have the right to a financially secure retirement and I believe this proposal sets the stage for that to become a reality.

That is what the bill is about, and it is a pleasure to support it.

[Ethics, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, also this week, Conservative senators voted to block Michael Runia from appearing before a committee to explain his interference with the Senate ordered audit. Senator Gerstein, using his position as chair of the Senate banking committee, removed himself to explain his role, to protect his own self.

I have a motion before the ethics committee to call Senator Gerstein and Michael Runia to appear and testify. Will the Prime Minister and the Conservatives commit to supporting the motion on Tuesday to finally end this cover-up?

[Ethics, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had to ask repeatedly for Benjamin Perrin's emails before the Prime Minister finally coughed them up. No one believes the story that they were simply forgotten about.

The only way to get to the bottom of why Perrin's emails were hidden from the RCMP is for the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Wayne Wouters, to appear before the ethics committee under oath.

Will the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council appear before the ethics committee?

[Ethics, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the case of the Ben Perrin emails is a complete farce.

The RCMP had been asking for these emails repeatedly since September, and only when it was ready to raid the PMO did they magically appear. No one believes the excuses of this Prime Minister and his office. His office is trying to hide, deny, and deflect.

Why is the PMO obstructing an RCMP investigation? When will they publicly release Perrin's emails, which they now confess they have had for ages?

[Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in this place we get to do private member's bills because of a cause or something we truly believe in. However, this legislation is a solution looking for a problem.

There is no problem with our officers of Parliament being non-partisan. They all do their jobs very well. This legislation, which tries to make our officers of Parliament non-partisan, is sort of like a red herring.

Let us take a look at the individuals in question.

We are talking about only eight individuals who are officers of Parliament who are normally chosen by the government in consultation with all the parties. Usually these officers of Parliament have a fairly good vetting process through the political environment. These individuals are the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These individuals do not need to sign a waiver to say that they have not been partisan and that they will not be partisan. This is something that one goes through during the job interview.

Do members not feel we need to find the people who are best suited for these jobs regardless of their political affiliation? Just because they might be a Conservative, or a New Democrat or Liberal does it automatically make them bad people and they cannot do the job?

Let us look at the government's choice in the Auditor General. One of the most fundamental things in our hiring system is that we hire someone who is bilingual. That sort of got left out when the government hired our current Auditor General.

We really need to look at the individuals who are seeking these jobs and not base it on some party political affiliation that would deem them inappropriate. We want the best people in these jobs and this bill would certainly limit that.

Talking about partisanship and political appointments, if the government were serious in cracking down on partisan and political appointments, why does it not look at some of the 1,157 people it has appointed in six short years from partisan activities to the Canada Pension Review Tribunal, to the Toronto Port Authority, to the Canada School of Energy and Environment, to the Immigration and Refugee Board and to the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees? It goes on and on.

I could sit here and list hundreds upon hundreds of donors, Conservative bagmen sitting on riding associations, supporters, former Conservative cabinet ministers and former staff to different premiers. I could go on and on. Therefore, if the Conservatives are truly serious about cutting out partisanship, why do they not look at themselves and some of the appointments they have made as a government and not look at our agents of Parliament?

The bill is a little misguided. It is a bit of a red herring in this debate and it is trying to cast aspersions on some fine agents of our Parliament. It really misses the mark where the patronage trough begins and it begins with the government and some of the over 1,100 appointments that it has made to different appeals, tribunals and boards in government.

If the Conservatives really want to look at cutting out partisanship, they should look at themselves first rather than try to bring in some phoney legislation that would come to our officers of Parliament, who are all people who go through an enormous vetting process.

I am sure in the vetting process for our Chief Electoral Officer, we would look at what he has done in the last 10 years. For many people who apply for these positions, we would look at their resume in the last 10 years. Therefore, the legislation really does nothing. It only tries to claim some transparency and that Conservatives are all of a sudden concerned about partisanship when deep down they have done that over 1,100 times in the short six years they have been in government.

When we come to private member's bills, we should look at something that could really make a difference rather than some bill that would prop up the government to say how great it is doing things. This legislation is totally misguided.

[Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thumped the chest of government about the Federal Accountability Act and transparency through the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner and how these are all great pieces of legislation they brought forward. However, time and time again, we see Conservative after Conservative breaking these laws and being written up by the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner. What punishment is there? There is a slap on the wrist, and Conservatives carry on doing business as normal.

If they are serious about making changes, would they not want to put some teeth in the legislation so that when Conservatives break these laws, there is actually a fine in place?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep the focus on the current government. The NDP likes to spatter everywhere.

Sometimes the NDP makes good recommendations and the Liberals make good recommendations, but the current government is not fond of recommendations made by the other parties. In this particular instance, we are talking about recommendations from a judge and a full-fledged inquiry. That is where the focus of this debate should be.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. One is not here to cast blame on one government or act in a very partisan nature by asking why one party was there but did not do anything. Maybe our party did not do enough. Maybe the current government is not doing enough. This is about moving forward. With all that information and everything that has happened since, the time to act on this issue is right now.

The government has had all the information from the Wells inquiry to do this particular piece of work, but it has not acted. We did not have the Wells inquiry. After the Ocean Ranger disaster, there were many changes made to the offshore oil production platforms in the province with regard to exploration.

It is sad that an accident has to happen for things to change, but once that accident does occur and there is an inquiry, then it is up to governments to act. The government, in this case, has not acted on the current situation and the Wells inquiry.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has pushed forward, saying that recommendation 29 on an offshore safety regulator is a priority. It is very disappointed that its federal cousins have not moved forward with this recommendation.

It has pushed the federal government, as we continue to push here, but it has received no answers on this recommendation. The provincial government is on board. It has done its part in the Wells inquiry and continues to do so. It has been asking when the federal government going to step up and do its part.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like that member who has only been here a couple of years, I have only been here five years and I can only look at what we have done in the last five years. I am not familiar with what governments have and have not done in previous years, so I cannot answer that question.