Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I very much appreciated the speech given by another one of my colleagues. It brought the following question to mind and I will rely on his experience to provide an interpretation.

I have been sitting here for hours and have just heard the eighth or ninth intervention from a member on this side of the House. Of course, there is a great deal of consistency in our positions. How am I to interpret the radio silence coming from our friends opposite? Are they avoiding the debate because they believe the bill before us today cannot be perfected, or are they trying to find a new way to muzzle the opposition, out of arrogance?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that to be an interesting observation. I was noticing it myself all day. Earlier, when dealing with a bill addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, I could hear the sounds of sleeping on the Conservative benches. Nobody was getting up to speak.

The issue of elder abuse is a serious issue but we are hearing radio silence from the other side. It is as though they have misunderstood the role of this Parliament.

Parliament exists to debate serious issues. We are all to come together to debate and find a better way forward. The Conservatives tend to use Parliament as a way of putting out spin, misinformation or whatever the latest lie is that comes out of the PMO's talking points. They think that is the role of Parliament. It is not. It is actually an abuse of the parliamentary tradition.

I thank my hon. colleague for pointing out that, once again, when we get a serious issue here, all the Conservatives take a pass. However, if it is some kind of idiotic speech that is given by the backbenchers, they just cannot wait to get in queue.

To bring up the level of debate, I would encourage the Conservatives to get a little more involved.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to touch upon two things.

First, he mentioned the incredible people who give of their time, love and energy to work in nursing homes. However, very often they are poorly compensated, there are too few of them because the employer does not provide enough workers, and there are too few hours spent per senior.

Second, this is the only country in the G7, except for Japan, that does not have a national housing program. One of the things we hear over and over again is that decent affordable housing is key to every family managing and having dignity in their life and in their future, and that goes for seniors too.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on those two aspects.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for London—Fanshawe for being such a passionate advocate on seniors' issues over the last number of years that I have been honoured to work with her.

We have a number of shortfalls in the overall system. Part of it is federal and part of it is provincial. There is the issue of a lack of access to home care. When people do not have the proper home care they need, they have accidents, such as a broken hip, and end up in emergency. However, there is no place to put them and the emergency rooms are backed-up.

When I go into my communities of Englehart, Kirkland Lake, Larder Lake, Cochrane, Timmins and Iroquois Falls, I hear from seniors all the time. There is no housing for them to move into. They cannot afford the places they are staying in and they cannot move into places with dignity. We see this issue of the need to have enough qualified staff to be there to work for them when they are no longer able to stay in their houses.

Yes, this is a big issue and I am glad that we are debating it within the House. Obviously, it seems to be a discussion only among New Democrats, but we have always been the party that has said that seniors are a major priority. No wonder my grandmother was such a strong New Democrat.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I commend the hon. member for his speech, it is a question of the priorities of the Conservative government when it comes to spending on important things like senior care.

We had in our platform, in 2011, a home care transfer and a long-term care transfer. The costing of those things sounds expensive; each one was about $500 million. However, when we think about the hundreds of millions of dollars that government has spent on advertising, the $664 million it spent on G8 and G20 summits, the $50 million for the legacy fund that benefited the member from Muskoka, we have to question where the priorities of the government are.

When we say there is a need for a long-term care transfer or transfers for our seniors, the government says it does not have the money to do this. Then we see this profligate spending on advertising, legacy funds and 1812 celebrations.

Could my colleague address the difference in priorities of the two parties, which has been underlined today by the silence on the government side?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent question.

I want to say to the folks back home, “Get used to it. This is what it is going to look like in 2015 when we have finally gotten rid of the Conservatives. They have abandoned the field to discussion.”

The Conservatives cannot get up and make misrepresentations, so they really do not know what else to talk about. We could be talking about, I suppose, flying limousines for the Prime Minister, hanging out at the Taj Mahal. We could talk about their priorities of taking $50 million in border infrastructure money and blowing it in a slush fund. That is their idea of priorities.

We could talk about the F-35. Well, we are not supposed to talk about the F-35 because they are not sure if it is the F-35 anymore. They were going to have a $10 billion overrun on 65 planes, and then they were going to try to keep it from the Canadian people.

Meanwhile the Conservatives are not interested in the real priorities, for example, getting the transfers for home care for seniors. The hon. Jack Layton, before he died, in the election of 2011, made his one commitment to seniors, that we would pass a bill to get every senior in this country out of poverty. The cost was $700 million. That might seem like a lot, but that is probably not even the cost of replacing the engine in one of the F-35s, because I hear they are not coming with engines.

It is a question of choices. This is what politics is about. It is a question of choices. We have a government that uses its choices again and again to blow money on its friends, to give breaks, to misrepresent facts, to use its time in the House of Commons, not to discuss important issues but to try to misrepresent and fool the Canadian people.

The New Democratic Party has been talking about these issues consistently and coherently. Canadians know that when we are talking about the issues of senior citizens, it is not just that we are going to bring in a mandatory minimum sentence and change the Criminal Code.

We have to have a coherent vision to ensure that, not only can we address criminalization against seniors and their victimization, but that we will have a strategy for fraud that is proactive. We will have a strategy for home care. We will actually have the transfers to the provinces, to ensure the Canadian health system remains something that we can all be proud of, and that it does not continue to deteriorate, as has happened all too often across this country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about the obvious inconsistency in the NDP platform. It is against elder abuse, and yet at the same time it wants to abolish the Senate. However, I am not going to go there.

On a more serious note, would the hon. member agree with me that making the caregiver tax credit fully refundable, such that it would help low-income families, would go a long way to helping those families and a lot of Canadians who are struggling with loved ones and seniors who need help at home?

Second, would the hon. member agree that Canada should develop a more robust national Alzheimer's strategy? We are one of the few countries in the industrialized world without a strong national strategy around Alzheimer's.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from the Liberals to this discussion. It is now between us and the Liberals to discuss these important issues. The Conservatives have all gone to sleep over there.

We need a national Alzheimer's strategy. It is very important. Instead of Conservatives wasting time with attack ads and misrepresentations, I would invite them to actually get serious about some of these issues for a change.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.