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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-36, Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, following its review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Bill C-36 builds on our government's commitment to protect the most vulnerable members of society, including the elderly. To this end, Bill C-36 proposes to consider as an aggravating factor in sentencing the fact that an offence has had a significant impact on the victim because of the combination of his or her age and any other aspect of his or her personal situation, including his or her health and financial situation.

I am pleased that the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expressed their support for the general purpose of Bill C-36. Several of them said that the bill would increase public awareness of elder abuse in Canada. This further confirms the important role that this legislation will play in elder abuse cases by emphasizing the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. This government recognizes the concern expressed by witnesses who appeared before the committee who noted that Bill C-36 could not serve as the only response to the problem of elder abuse.

It is important to note that this legislation was never intended to serve as the only response to elder abuse. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would complement the significant resources that our government has been investing for several years to fight elder abuse. For example, the elder abuse initiative has contributed to raising public awareness with its advertising campaign entitled “Elder Abuse--It's Time To Face The Reality”.

Another example of our government's investments in this area is the new horizons for seniors program. Since its creation in 2004, this program has supported projects to upgrade seniors facilities and to increase elder abuse awareness, among other things. Some of the projects funded by this program are Canada-wide and aim to develop and implement awareness activities and to create tools and resources to help seniors protect themselves against abuses, such as fraud and financial exploitation.

Some of the agencies that appeared before the committee have benefited from this program. For example, we heard that the long-term care best practices initiative had received funding from this program to develop long-term care best practices guidelines that would benefit Canadians across the country. Such examples illustrate how this government understands and recognizes that efforts to fight elder abuse must be made at the federal and provincial levels through, for example, legislative amendments in areas of exclusive jurisdiction, as well as investment in community, regional and national initiatives, including the ones I have just mentioned.

As we heard in committee, it would seem that Bill C-36 has unanimous support in principle. However, the opposition parties proposed two amendments during the clause by clause consideration of the bill. The first proposed amendment, which was passed by the committee, amended the short title of the French version of the bill from “Loi sur la protection des personnes âgées au Canada” to “Loi sur la protection des personnes aînées au Canada”. This amendment responded to concerns expressed by a few witnesses that vulnerability should not be defined only in terms of a victim's age.

Bill C-36 would instruct sentencing courts to take into account the significant impact that the offence has had on the victim, considering the combination of age and other personal circumstances, including health and financial situation.

The second amendment to the bill would have eliminated the word “significant” from the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code so that any impact on the victim would be considered as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. In my opinion, such a proposal reflects a lack of understanding of the Criminal Code and, in particular, of the sentencing scheme. The proposed amendment, if passed, would have trivialized the denunciatory and deterrent value of the aggravating factor in Bill C-36 by making it apply to any offence against seniors that has had an impact, even transient or trifling in nature, on an elderly victim.

We agree that every offence has an impact on its victim. However, Bill C-36 addresses cases where the impact of the offence is exacerbated because of the victim's age and health, for example. It also bears noting that Bill C-36 is consistent with recent amendments to the Criminal Code.

Section 380.1 of the Criminal Code was amended, effective November 1, 2011, to specify that, in the context of fraud, the fact that an offence has had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances, including their age, must be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

This provision thus bears at least two similarities with the amendment proposed in Bill C-36. It speaks of a “significant” impact and identifies age as a factor for aggravating circumstances.

It is important to bolster our fight against elder abuse by ensuring that our courts denounce and deter offenders from committing such crimes by imposing tougher sentences.

For the reasons I have noted, I urge my colleagues in the House to give the bill their unanimous support.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very hard and very dedicated work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. But I do have a question for the member.

In committee, we heard several witnesses talk about this bill in its current form. Ms. Beaulieu of the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults of the Université de Sherbrooke emphasized the importance of raising awareness among all stakeholders in the justice network to ensure that Bill C-36 has a real impact and to ensure that judges, prosecutors and police know how to respond and that they have the tools they need to interpret clauses like ones included in this bill.

This suggestion can also be found in an excellent report by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. It also suggested that training and education within the legal community be included in the legal measures to be implemented in the fight against elder abuse.

I would like to know what my colleague's thoughts are on that and if Bill C-36 should mention and include measures like those identified by the witnesses that appeared before the parliamentary committee I just mentioned.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her relevant question.

Obviously, in addition to stakeholders, judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are involved in the justice system and must understand this important program, social workers and nursing home workers must also be aware of elder abuse issues.

An awareness program such as the new horizons for seniors program would complement an amendment to the Criminal Code, since an amendment is not enough, in and of itself, to identify and solve elder abuse problems. In other words, we need to make the penalties harsher and also make sure that everyone knows that these problems must be reported. All stakeholders must be aware of this major issue.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way a question.

With only a small investment, we could lift seniors out of poverty, which would be the most effective way to protect them from abuse.

Why is the Conservative government not making any effort in that regard?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I understood the question, but this government has certainly been taking major steps to draw attention to elder abuse.

That is why we made an amendment to the Criminal Code, as described in Bill C-36. We also introduced the new horizons for seniors program, and ran television ads that draw attention to abuse situations, to make people understand that it is simply not acceptable to abuse their father, mother, aunt, brother or anyone in a vulnerable position.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member.

A modest investment would help lift all seniors out of poverty, which would be the most effective way to prevent them from being victims of abuse.

Why does the government not do this?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, elder abuse affects poor seniors and rich seniors alike.

In 30% of the cases, rich or poor, these individuals are abused by close relatives; in 30% of cases they are abused by friends; and in 30% of cases they are abused by strangers. We are taking a universal approach to this issue. The poor are not the only ones being abused; we are targeting all elder abuse, regardless of the victims' financial situation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. It is always a pleasure to work on issues with him at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I want to focus on the section that will be amended by Bill C-36, a section that deals with sentencing and aggravating and mitigating circumstances that must be considered by the court.

I heard his comment about the amendment that was proposed to eliminate the word “significant”, in the sense that it had a significant impact on the senior. I am not sure I understand his argument and I would like him to elaborate. In fact, the same section includes an aggravating factor, for simply committing an offence against a person under the age of 18 or domestic violence.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to see that elder abuse is an aggravating factor?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, all types of abuse matter. All types of abuse have an impact on the victim.

We do not want to amend the bill according to the opposition's proposal because we want to respect the principle of proportionality.

We want abuse that has a significant impact to be considered an aggravating factor. Significant abuse that has a real impact on the victim deserves a harsher sentence because of that impact. This is consistent with the proportionality of sentences under the Criminal Code, one of its main themes.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's answer. It basically boils down to the work of judges and the latitude that they are given, which is really too bad. What we were proposing was more comprehensive coverage of the different types of elder abuse.

Why are the Conservatives stubbornly refusing to take our opinion into account? Why did they not just offer to provide more comprehensive coverage of the issue and more protection for seniors at that time?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that the hon. member uses the words “stubbornly refusing” when we are talking about respecting fundamental principles of the Criminal Code related to sentencing. The reason we rejected the amendment was because we wanted to apply consistent logic.

I have already explained that proportionality is a central theme when it comes to sentencing. This approach follows the logic of our reasoning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I guess there are issues of reactive and proactive in terms of elder abuse.

One of the major concerns that we have in our caucus is the issue of fraud. With the 419 scams, senior citizens who are using online services are being targeted almost down to their specific background and family because of data breaches. Data breaches have to do with the fact that there are all kinds of third parties out there that are in the business of stealing personal information so they can target and go after people. This is how the 419 fraud is really moving into an area of frightening sophistication.

Would my hon. colleague work with the New Democrats on the recommendations that are being brought forth to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has the tools to deal with companies that are playing fast and loose with data and that there will be consequences? Companies may not necessarily think that the data is being breached but, because of sophisticated hackers, it is and it is the senior citizens and other individuals who are being defrauded. Their information is being stolen and their credit information is being grabbed.

We need to start closing this in advance. Once that data is out there, it is not coming back. Therefore, rather than being reactive, we need to see where the problems are.

Would the hon. colleague be willing to work with the New Democrats on addressing these issues of fraud?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in committee, we are always willing to work with the opposition parties to strengthen the protection for the people of Canada. Fraud for elders is a significant wrong that we want to cure and protect the public from. As members know, we also have another act that deals with white collar crime and increasing sentencing in protection of the public.

We certainly would welcome any good ideas that the NDP may have to strengthen the further protection of seniors.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have worked on Bill C-36 with my colleagues from all parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am also pleased to rise today to discuss the testimony heard in committee during the study of the bill and to make comments.

First, I am going to briefly explain the bill and how it amends the Criminal Code. The bill is entitled “Protecting Canada's Seniors Act” and it adds the following provision:

evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

This specific wording that the bill proposes to include in the Criminal Code seeks to add an element that will allow the court to take into consideration some aggravating factors related to an offence. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that “A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles”. This statement is followed by a list of aggravating circumstances, including hate crimes based on factors such as the victim's ethnic origin or sexual orientation. These aggravating factors are taken into consideration to determine the sentence to be imposed. If there are aggravating circumstances, the sentence will be heavier. This section also provides that abusing a position of trust or authority is also an aggravating circumstance that must be taken into consideration.

Bill C-36 adds another aggravating circumstance, namely the victim's age and degree of vulnerability based on his or her personal situation. Here, I should point out that the victim's age is not, in itself, an aggravating factor, since age is not a vulnerability factor. However, certain acts may have a more significant impact because of the victim's age and personal situation. Here is an example.

Ms. Perka, a program supervisor of social work with the elder abuse intervention team, testified before the committee. In light of her long experience in intervention with abused seniors, she had this to say:

...we have seen that compromised social and spiritual health can result in depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other mental health issues. It should also be mentioned that the guilt a senior carries with them when they find themselves in an abusive situation can be extremely burdensome, due to the fact that many abusers are their own sons and daughters, [a member of the family, a friend, etc.]

What Ms. Perka is illustrating here is that if the victim is a senior who is particularly vulnerable because they are dependent on a friend or family member or a facility for a place to live, it may be that the abuse will make it necessary to move. Because of their financial situation and how important their social network and care network is to such a person, the consequences will be more significant for them since their options for moving to get away from the place where they have been abused are very limited.

I mentioned this aspect to illustrate the needs that care professionals identified when they called on the government to implement measures to recognize a person’s age and vulnerability as aggravating factors.

Now, what will the real effects of Bill C-36 be? This bill does provide one more tool to allow for considering a person’s age and status as aggravating factors when sentence is passed.

We hope that this will give judges the tools they need, but we still cannot be 100% sure of that. We have had some doubts, and I will come back to them later.

Of course, we hope that these additions will have those effects, and I have also illustrated why this is necessary, but what are the limitations of the effects that Bill C-36 will have?

As my colleague said a little earlier, we are talking about a “significant impact”, to use the language of the bill. It will have to be proved that the impact is significant. We do not know exactly how it will be possible to do this. Are cases going to fall through the cracks if it actually has to be proved that the impact was significant? What does “significant impact” mean? How will it be proved that the impact is significant? How far will it be necessary to go to convince the jury that the impact, considering the victim’s age, is significant? We are concerned about this and we would have liked the current government to take our concerns a little more seriously.

We have to be careful. The impact is certainly significant, but a very long and very complex judicial process has to be got through, particularly in the case of elder abuse.

Let us get back to the basics. The results of one study show that one out of five cases of elder abuse is reported and brought to the attention of care professionals, who can then take legal action. That is a very low percentage. I talked about the cause a little earlier. Not all seniors experience this. Some seniors find it very difficult to report people, because of their personal situation and their age. First, most abuse is committed by people close to them: family, caregivers or friends, and so in those cases it is very difficult for seniors to report the people who assault them.

In addition, reporting can sometimes have very serious consequences, particularly for seniors who are in situations where they are vulnerable because of their health, their finances or their housing situation. Reporting is therefore a very difficult thing to do.

Then, once the case is reported, it must be proven that an offence has been committed, which is not always easy, because elder abuse can take many forms. Furthermore, quite often, little evidence is left behind in cases of elder abuse. Consider intimidation, for example. It is sometimes difficult to prove that manipulation or intimidation has taken place. This kind of crime can be difficult to prove. But let us assume that the offence has been proven and the police have built enough of a case to make a formal complaint and bring it before the court. Then it goes to trial, and if there is no out-of-court settlement and the legal proceedings run their full course, that is where Bill C-36 will have an impact.

I am not saying that if the impact is rather minimal then it need not be taken into consideration. No. I am in favour of the goals of Bill C-36 and what it can accomplish. We must nevertheless bear in mind that, because of the procedure I just outlined, this is in no way a solution that will help most seniors who are being abused.

I would like to quote Ms. Beaulieu, who holds the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults at the Université de Sherbrooke. I quote:

We all understand that many cases of abuse may not go through all those steps. What happens to cases of abused seniors that have not made it to the end of the process? In other words, what will be the real repercussions of this measure or how many cases will be concerned?

That is just one concern in relation to the extent of the repercussions of Bill C-36. I would like to call the attention of the House to another concern. As I said a little earlier, this bill adds another element to the Criminal Code.

But do those working in the judicial system have the resources they need to effectively use this new Criminal Code provision? What do I mean by that? I will start with the police, the front-line workers who receive the complaints. For several reasons, including those I have already mentioned, there are specific factors to be taken into consideration when complaints are filed by seniors.

What should we do when we are approached by a senior who says that he has been abused? How can we file the complaint without making him afraid, ensuring that he will not give up partway through the process because he is afraid of the possible repercussions or because he is intimidated by the justice officials? We have to ask ourselves these questions. We have to implement measures to ensure that Bill C-36 has the intended result.

Next, we have to train the lawyers and the judges. How do we discern the subtleties of the repercussions of abuse on seniors?

I would like to quote Mrs. Lithwick of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, who regularly works with seniors who are abused. She said:

I question how this type of law is going to be applied. I really believe that to have such a law work you have to have prosecutors who are well trained in seniors' issues, in elder abuse, and you have to have judges who know how to ask questions about this issue. Even the way it goes to court has to be thought about, because even having an older person as a witness is different from having a younger person. All of the elements can be quite different.

Ms. Lithwick's comments validate what I am trying to explain. When one deals with a case of elder abuse, certain elements have to be taken into consideration to ensure that the process goes smoothly, that there are no adverse effects on the person who has initiated the proceedings, and that the outcome is as beneficial as possible for the victim.

I support Bill C-36. But how can we ensure that it will be effective and have the intended result? Ms. Lithwick provided some very good suggestions to that end.

I will now talk about prevention and intervention because I do not want these issues to be overlooked. When a bill is entitled the Protecting Canada’s Seniors Act, we would expect it to protect seniors. However, I have some doubts in this regard. I am not sure that “protecting” was the best choice of words here. The bill ensures that the sentence imposed on the offender is appropriate, but how does that protect seniors? I am not sure that sentencing is a way of protecting victims. There are many things that could be done to protect seniors from abuse.

I would like to once again quote some witnesses that we heard in committee while examining Bill C-36. Ms. Santos, from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, said:

Given that many instances of elder abuse and neglect go unreported, RNAO urges a multi-faceted approach that also includes effective prevention of the root causes that make people more vulnerable to elder abuse and neglect, such as poverty, discrimination, social isolation, and lack of affordable housing.

What stands out to me is her recommendation for a “multi-faceted approach”. Susan Eng, vice-president of advocacy for CARP, said the same thing in a different way when she stated that the bill “is but one element in a comprehensive strategy needed to prevent...elder abuse.” It can be said in a number of different ways, but what it all boils down to is that a comprehensive strategy is needed.

It seems clear to me that we need a strategy against elder abuse.

Right now I get the impression we are focusing on only a few pieces of the puzzle and trying to put band-aids on gaping wounds without really knowing what the long-term impact will be or the best steps to take to achieve the best possible results.

What strategy is Bill C-36 a part of? We do not know yet. What does the government intend to do to train those in the legal system to ensure that Bill C-36 achieves its objectives? What prevention and intervention measures will be put in place to ensure that seniors who are being abused can report it, if that is what they intend to do? We do not know. A number of elements are missing: a comprehensive strategy, broad intentions, clear objectives and the means to achieve them. It is incredible that no one has received any such information on the subject to date.

Now I would like to turn to a very interesting report prepared by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. That committee consisted of a number of members from different parties. They prepared a very interesting report. A full chapter of the report, entitled “Elder Abuse: Canada's Hidden Crime”, is devoted to this problem. That chapter contains Canada's agenda against elder abuse. This is a specific proposal that should be analyzed by the government as an action plan, not as an isolated measure, as promising and beneficial as that might be. We need a much more comprehensive, viable and long-term vision; in other words, we need an action plan.

This proposed agenda suggests four components of an action plan. The first component concerns awareness. The idea is to ensure that people know how to recognize the signs of elder abuse, that seniors themselves can ascertain whether they are being abused and can provide information to all those who may be part of a solution. The second component concerns prevention, because information is far from enough; prevention is important too. Preventive measures can be taken, for example, by alleviating the isolation of seniors and by supporting caregivers. I could name several others. It is not enough to make sure the crime is punished once it has been committed. Precautions can be put in place before any crime is committed. Then it can truly be said that seniors are being protected. Protection must come into play before any crime is committed, not merely afterwards.

I would like to cite something very interesting that the committee said and that might connect to a debate we heard today. “The committee believes that core funding for the non-governmental sector is a cost-effective way of building needed infrastructure for the reduction of elder abuse.”

When will we see that? I can hardly wait to find out because it may really change matters. Non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations are in the field. These are front-line workers who can determine the needs of their community and respond to them quickly and efficiently.

The third and fourth components mentioned by the committee involve developing intervention and advocacy services to ensure that people are informed of their rights and know how to report abuse and developing adequate judicial measures.

Bill C-36 may be part of the fourth component of the strategy proposed by the committee. The component concerning adequate judicial measures refers to the training of police officers and all other legal system workers.

I would like to close by describing some specific aspects of situations experienced by certain individuals and some challenges they will face. For example, there are newcomer seniors who do not speak the language, do not know their rights and perhaps do not trust the Canadian legal system. We must think of their special needs.

We must also think of the needs of LGBTT seniors, who face discrimination and are more vulnerable in certain respects.

In short, a lot of things have to be done and put in place. I remind the House that Bill C-36 is one step, but what does that step consist of? When will we see a government strategy that enables us to understand the long-term objectives?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for all the work she has done on protecting the elderly and raising awareness about the problem of elder abuse.

Once Bill C-36 has been passed, what is the message my colleague would like to send to the government opposite to ensure that the bill will be implemented fully throughout the country, taking into account our partners, such as the police, the provinces and municipal police forces, who will be helping us eradicate these crimes against our seniors?

In her view, what should the federal government be doing to ensure that the bill will be worth more than the paper on which it was written?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. It is true that all too often we see this government introduce bills that are intended to meet the needs of the community. However, when we dig a little deeper, we realize that they are nothing but a smokescreen and that the more concrete measures that should be taken to resolve the issues have been sidestepped.

I am not saying that this is the case with Bill C-36. I repeat that Bill C-36 is relevant, but unless a comprehensive strategy is considered along with it, I doubt that it will have any significant consequences.

As my colleague said so well, if we want to ensure that Bill C-36 will be effective and that its goals will be reached, some thought will have to be given to training for police forces, for legal counsel and for all the other players in the legal system. Training must be considered to ensure that Canada will benefit fully from the objectives of Bill C-36.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as the member for Gatineau has done, I would like to underscore the important work that the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard does every day in this House and throughout the country by making all Canadians aware of the situation of our senior citizens.

Of course we support this bill. However, this Conservative government has taken other measures that are putting more and more elderly people, more and more seniors, at risk. Right now, the Conservatives are talking about raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. They are also making huge cuts in services, which will hurt seniors in that they will no longer have access to government services.

Given that all these factors will make the elderly even more vulnerable, I would like to hear the member speak in general terms about the situation. In her view, are the actions of this government making senior citizens more vulnerable?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a very interesting one. It is true that, if the government is serious when it says it wants to tackle the issue of the abuse suffered by the elderly these days, there are still many things to be done.

They talk about prevention and intervention. If action is needed to prevent elder abuse, some consideration must be given to the factors that make them vulnerable. What are they? One of those factors is poverty. The government has raised the age at which seniors can receive old-age security from 65 to 67. The elderly are left destitute and their poverty persists. This will not help resolve the issue of elder abuse.

Let us take another example. The elderly rely heavily on the health care system at certain times in their lives. Well, when the percentage of provincial health transfers expected is cut back, serious questions need to be asked about whether the health care system will be available and reliable when people have to depend on it.

I could give you many other examples, such as affordable housing. It is important to make sure that the elderly have access to affordable and appropriate housing. Lack of affordable housing can make them more vulnerable. I would like to point out that one is not necessarily vulnerable because one is a senior. If we really want to resolve the issue of elder abuse, consideration must also be given to factors that increase vulnerability and the incidence of abuse, and this government, at this point in time, is increasing these vulnerability factors, which really is a shame.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. The fourth point she mentioned was the vulnerability of immigrant seniors in particular who do not speak an official language. Unlike many immigrants who come to Canada at a young age and who have an opportunity to learn one of the two official languages, seniors who arrive in Canada not having had the chance to learn French or English find themselves in a particularly vulnerable situation. I would like her to comment further on this specific problem.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is true that the elderly who are new immigrants or who do not speak French or English have certain specific vulnerability factors that must be considered. The committee heard from Dr. Butt, the executive director of the Social Services Network, who spoke about Bill C-36. She said we must make sure that seniors receive the services they need to access the legal system, know the rights they have here in Canada, know they can trust the police, have access to information and to services, and are able to surmount the language barrier, which really is a problem.

The elderly who are new immigrants to Canada are more vulnerable. We must ensure that they, too, are entitled to their dignity and have access to services. So far, I have not heard of any government measures that take these specific issues into account.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, asked a Conservative member a question a little earlier. He asked why the government did not want to invest a bit of money to get seniors out of poverty. Because the Conservative member did not understand the question, I asked him again myself. I was surprised at his answer. He replied that in his opinion, all seniors, whether rich or poor, are at risk of abuse, and therefore the government did not have the intention of doing more to get seniors out of poverty.

My question is for my New Democrat colleague. Do her social democratic values tell her that the government should get seniors out of poverty, using a range of measures? She talked about a strategy. In concrete terms, how would an NDP government get seniors out of poverty to the greatest extent possible?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at present, too many seniors are living in poverty in Canada. In a country like ours, that is unacceptable. We can choose to help these people get out of poverty and we are capable of doing that, but we certainly will not achieve that by raising the old age security eligibility age from 65 to 67.

At present, any senior citizen who is receiving the guaranteed income supplement and old age security as their only income is living below the poverty line. The government is not implementing the measures that are needed to ensure that seniors can continue to contribute fully to their community and live with dignity. We should not accept the fact that a senior, today, has to choose between paying rent, buying food and buying prescription drugs. That this is tolerated is indecent. We have the power to do things differently. For example, the government could increase the guaranteed income supplement for everyone who needs it. Another measure would be to protect pensions. The government could also strengthen protection for pensions in bankruptcy cases, but it is not doing that.

We have a number of suggestions for protecting seniors’ financial security. We hope to see a little more openness on the part of the government in this regard in future.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-36, what the government has named the protecting Canada's seniors act. I am pleased to do so not only as a senior myself but also on behalf of a riding that has one of the greatest concentrations of senior citizens anywhere in the country.

For a legislation with such a grand title, this enactment is actually only one clause long. Simply put, it adds a one-line addition to the Criminal Code section on sentencing, that judges are to consider “evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim [due to] age and other personal circumstances, including health and financial situation”.

Essentially, the bill seeks to increase sentences for offenders who abuse our seniors in the commission of any offence, which is itself a very worthwhile goal, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice outlined in his remarks.

The seriousness and scope of the problem of elder abuse has been discussed over the course of our analysis of this legislation in committee, but it warrants attention yet again.

A number of studies have suggested that as many as 10% of seniors in Canada may be subjected to some form of elder abuse, yet as witness testimony before our committee put again and again, the true figure is likely much greater than that, as many cases go unreported. Indeed, underreporting, often due, inter alia, to the close or even dependent relationship between victim and victimizer, as well as the isolation of many seniors and their frequent lack of awareness about the resources that may be available to them, makes elder abuse a very complex crime to detect, to prosecute and to prevent in particular.

Accordingly, if the issue of elder abuse is to become a national priority, if it is to be effectively addressed and redressed, a concerted effort extending across party lines will be required. In that connection, I am pleased that our committee meetings on Bill C-36 generally took place in an open spirit of non-partisan co-operation. We saw at committee how efficiently matters can proceed when justice bills do not include unnecessary mandatory minimums, which very often are objectionable in and of themselves and disproportionately affect those who are the most vulnerable. Indeed, we observed that it is in fact possible for MPs to work together in a common effort to tackle crime without eliminating judicial discretion, a trend that I hope will continue.

One thing upon which committee members, witnesses and even the minister himself, as well as the parliamentary secretary in his earlier remarks, agreed is that this one-line amendment to the sentencing guidelines will not protect Canada's seniors on its own, the title of the bill notwithstanding.

Accordingly, I will organize my remarks as follows. First, I will briefly look at what Bill C-36 can be expected to accomplish. Second, I will use the remainder of my time to discuss additional avenues to explore appropriate actions to consider if we are to combat elder abuse, and how it can be done in a more comprehensive and effective manner.

The bill before us is a small step. Admittedly, it is a step in the right direction, but an insufficient step. By directing judges to consider the impact on the victim due to age, health and financial considerations as an aggravating factor at sentencing, it may lead to more serious sentences where warranted. Accordingly, when white collar criminals specifically target seniors to defraud them of their savings or of their hard-earned pension money, or if workers at seniors' homes are neglectful or violent toward residents, or in extreme cases when family members violently mistreat seniors, these offenders undoubtedly deserve to be severely punished by the Canadian justice system.

At the same time, we need to be reminded of the considerable evidence showing that longer sentences do not deter crime and that changes to sentencing guidelines are unlikely to have a preventative effect. This is particularly important in the realm of elder abuse. By the time a judge issues a sentence, the abuse has occurred and charges have been laid. Indeed, the offender must be found guilty for there even to be a sentencing process to begin with.

Nonetheless, as witnesses at committee explained, there are so many obstacles to the requisite steps in the process prior to sentencing that it is unusual for a case of elder abuse to actually arrive at the sentencing phase. The impact of this bill would therefore likely be quite modest. Again, and this bears recall, the criminal justice process is rarely utilized in cases of elder abuse. The primary reasons for this, as outlined in a report by the Library of Parliament, are as follows:

(1) the fact that prosecutions are often difficult, as the victim may be reluctant to cooperate in a prosecution against the loved one; (2) the victim may have poor health and possible present or impending mental incapacity; (3) the prosecution may take so long that the victim dies before the case goes to court; and (4) the perpetrator may be the only significant person in the victim’s life and to report and testify against them would result in loneliness and pain from the perceived consequences of the intervention.

Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that Bill C-36 would focus the attention of judges and other court officers on the particular odiousness of the victimization of the elderly, what has been referred to here as “the denunciation objective”.

Ideally, the focusing of attention within the legal system would combine with a new horizons public awareness initiative such that all Canadians would begin to be aware of the seriousness of the problem and the importance of finding solutions. Indeed, if nothing else, Bill C-36 could serve as what I would expect to be a unified statement by this House that the abuse of Canada's seniors is simply unacceptable and that hon. members condemn it in the strongest possible terms, which again goes to the denunciation objective.

Or course, condemnation only gets us so far if it is not followed by concrete action likely to facilitate the detection and, in particular, the prevention of elder abuse. Otherwise, we run the risk that Parliament and the country will move on to other pressing matters and that seniors who need help will be left with nothing but a remnant of moral support. As a case in point of how easily good intentions and even very good work can fade into the background, we need only remember the report entitled “Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians”, published one year ago by the ad hoc Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. That report is a thorough analysis of the challenges faced by elderly Canadians and the challenges faced by government institutions and others who seek to provide them with care. It contains many well-thought-out concrete recommendations on how these challenges might be met. Regrettably, most of the recommendations in the report's 192 pages have not been implemented. Yet we are left debating a bill called the protecting Canada's seniors act, which is, as I said, but one line long. It is a good bill but there is much more that must be done.

I will move to the second part of my remarks and elaborate on what can and indeed needs to be done in this regard.

First, it is crucial, as my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard has addressed, to raise awareness among all Canadians that the abuse of seniors is a significant problem, one that is simply unacceptable. Programs such as the federal elder abuse initiative, mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, are a welcome beginning. However, efforts in this regard must be continued and intensified. The government can do this by establishing its own set of programs as well as helping to fund those that are run by the provinces and non-governmental organizations and that warrant further support.

Increased awareness is required on a variety of fronts. Not only must everyone be made generally aware of elder abuse, but professionals who work with the elderly also require training so they will know how to properly care for seniors, how to recognize signs of abuse and how to minimize patient-to-patient abuse in institutional settings. Family members should be made aware of things they might be doing that they perhaps might not have considered to be abusive but that have detrimental effects on the seniors in their lives. Third parties need to understand that silence in the face of abuse is intolerable and that resources exist for dealing with abuse, if indeed it is reported and acted upon. Of course, seniors themselves are too often ashamed of abuse. They will minimize it and may indeed endure what is a completely unacceptable situation.

It is therefore critical that seniors be made aware that abuse is not something to be tolerated and that a range of options exists for addressing and redressing it. Alternatives to the criminal justice system do in fact exist in this regard. Indeed, seniors must be encouraged to confide in a doctor or call an elder abuse hotline. They need to be told that both hope and help are out there.

Second, in addition to raising awareness, the federal government can take the lead in enhancing our understanding of the nature and scope of elder abuse in Canada. Last year's committee report and witness testimony before the justice committee focused a great deal of attention on the fact that data on elder abuse are sorely lacking and that effective action will be difficult to take without a fuller understanding of the problem.

According to the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, most agencies do not keep information on the number of cases reported or responded to. Without national standards for collecting statistics about elder abuse, we are simply left patching together data from different studies with different scopes and methodologies, along with anecdotal evidence from a patchwork of jurisdictions. HRSDC has funded preparatory work for a national prevalence study through the national initiative for the care of the elderly, referred to earlier. A good way for the government to demonstrate its seriousness on this file would be to ensure high level and sustained funding for the study itself and its recommendations.

A third recommendation that was mentioned in the report and that arose frequently at committee meetings on Bill C-36 was the need for increased funding and support for institutions, often non-profit organizations that do much of the on-the-ground work in the fight against elder abuse. We met some remarkable people at committee who work daily to protect seniors, and I commend their efforts and those of other professionals who are instrumental in preventing, detecting and addressing elder abuse. They described to us some truly appalling cases of mistreatment and yet remain undeterred in their tireless and noble service to seniors and therefore, in effect, to all of us. We should be very grateful to them and very proud of their good work, which we commend them for and trust will continue.

One can hope that such dedicated people will continue their good work regardless of government funding, but we need not equivocate with respect to such a commitment. Groups need financial and other resources to hire and train responders to intervene in cases of elder abuse, and to set up elder shelters and affordable housing, as my colleague for Pierrefonds—Dollard said, and elder abuse hotlines and victim support services, and to develop pioneering initiatives such as financial literacy programs for seniors to help them protect themselves from fraud. The federal government must be at the forefront of funding and nurturing such activities, as my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard said, to help them escape poverty.

Inadequate funding of such organizations can have an impact in ways that we do not always consider. That was explained at committee by a member of the elder abuse intervention team from Edmonton's Catholic Social Services, who talked about how important it was that instances of elder abuse be handled by experienced staff. Unfortunately, cases of elder abuse are too often dealt with by people who may lack the necessary experience, as the organization's inability to offer high-paying jobs leads to employee turnover and employees leaving after short periods of time.

A lack of resources may also mean that when people do as they are told by public awareness campaigns and report abuse, organizations may then become overloaded and unable to respond precisely because they do not have the resources to begin with. As a result, people who report abuse understandably become frustrated and less likely to report it in the future. Ultimately, these organizations are doing impressive things with very limited resources, but they need more government support.

Fourth, the federal government can also do more to help address the systemic inadequacies that are at the root of many cases of elder abuse. Witness testimony before committee highlighted a number of these systemic inadequacies. Employees in health care facilities are often faced with an excessive workload and long hours, factors that can create an environment in which elder abuse is more likely to occur, especially when combined with inadequate training.

Better training is required particularly to help workers detect and deal with patient-to-patient mistreatment, a form of elder abuse that often goes unnoticed. As well, overcrowding can lead to an elderly patient being repeatedly transferred from one institution to another, a state of affairs that one witness at committee said should qualify as institutionalized abuse.

Fifth, and as a corollary to this point, increased funding for home care might help with overcrowding by keeping many seniors out of institutions in the first place, thereby distributing the responsibility. Even though most of these institutions operate under provincial jurisdictions—although veteran hospitals, for example, are federally run—the federal government has a clear role to play in helping to ensure adequate health care funding. When health transfers are clawed back, it becomes that much more difficult for the provinces to address these issues.

Sixth, at the same time as we tackle these systemic problems to which I have referred, we must also deal with those specific individuals who abuse the elderly, which is what Bill C-36 attempts to do. However, there are a number of other ways in which elder abuse can be addressed from a criminal justice perspective.

The minister said at committee that he recognizes the important role that law enforcement officers and other legal professionals can play in preventing, detecting and intervening in cases of elder abuse. I was glad to hear that perspective taken, and I hope to see that recognition translate itself into action.

However, better training required for police officers and officers of the court in how to deal with seniors is something that needs to be put into place. Young police officers may not always know, for example, how best to gain the trust of an elderly victim, and lawyers who prosecute elder abuse cases may need to adjust their interrogation techniques to make them more effective with certain seniors.

Another way of increasing the effectiveness of legal professionals is to include them as part of multidisciplinary teams—a recommendation that was made by almost each one of the witnesses who appeared before us—such as exist already in certain parts of the country and in those of the witness testimonies who made reference to them. When elder abuse is detected, police officers, social workers and health care professionals can coordinate from the start to ensure that the situation is dealt with appropriately from a social and medical perspective as well as from a legal one.

For our part as legislators, we should consider certain changes to the Criminal Code that can have a greater impact than Bill C-36. Witnesses at committee raised the possibility of enacting specific elder abuse laws that would complement those already in place in provinces and territories.

In addition, the committee discussed whether a mandatory reporting law for elder abuse might be appropriate. One witness, a social worker from Alberta, told us he has a legal duty to report the abuse of a child but no such duty to report the abuse of a senior citizen, by contrast.

In general, there seemed to be support, among the professionals we heard from, for a law that would require at least those who encounter abuse in the course of their professional duties to report it to the authorities. Such a law could supercede certain confidentiality barriers so that those who encounter abuse are not professionally bound to keep it secret.

For example, bank employees sometimes suspect that a senior is being taken advantage of financially, but they are unsure whether they are permitted to do anything about it. Clarifying the legal obligations of such an individual could help stem the tide of financial abuse of the elderly.

These are just some of the many ways in which the government could truly be “protecting” Canada's seniors.

I appreciate that the minister and the Conservative members of the committee agreed that Bill C-36 alone is not enough. However, they have yet to put forward sufficient concrete supplementary measures in the realm of health care, research and justice, and they have yet to provide adequate support for community initiatives. Instead, regrettably, health care transfers have been reduced; old age security has been cutback; and attempts to deal with the problems with the Criminal Code, while acceptable as far as they go, focus only on punishment—again, after the fact—and not on the necessary prevention itself. Seniors could be forgiven for looking at this one line “protecting Canada's seniors act” and wondering where the rest of it is.

As a side note, this House, last Wednesday, began third reading of Bill C-28, financial literacy leader act. This is important legislation regarding the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, which itself has a role to play in the combatting of financial abuse of seniors.

At the risk of going beyond the scope of this debate, I do hope that the post of financial literacy leader, once this legislation has passed, would recognize his or her role in combatting elder abuse by improving not only the financial literacy of seniors but their understanding of the rights they possess when confronted with things like inappropriate investments, affinity fraud and aggressive sales tactics, all of which the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada identifies as methods used to target seniors.

Returning and concluding—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is the end of the time allocated for the member's remarks. Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the Criminal Code providing a broad range of offences that apply equally to protect all Canadians, including elderly Canadians—for example, the offence of assault applying equally to protect anyone regardless of whether the victim is male or female, able-bodied, disabled, young or old.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on whether he agrees that the broad range of offences do apply equally to seniors and we do not necessarily have to be targeting elder abuse, creating specific offences for elder abuse.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there may be application under the circumstances and context that is appropriate, but we are dealing here with the specific question of an aggravated sentencing with respect to elder abuse. That is why I have been addressing my remarks to this particular situation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking more about penalties than about offences. Since the member is a great lawyer, I would like to know how he interprets the expression often used by the government in Bill C-36:

....evidence that the offence had a significant impact.....

How does the member interpret “significant impact”? Does the member foresee that it might create a bit of difficulty in interpretation by the different courts that would have to apply the new section?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to allow the courts to make that kind of determination with respect to impact without the inclusion of the word “significant”.

I would trust judicial discretion in this regard to be able to make the appropriate determination, because the word “significant” may in fact, perhaps inadvertently, generate an inappropriate threshold without which the impact that in fact does occur and that needs to be addressed might not be addressed simply we because we have unduly and unnecessarily raised the bar by the inclusion of the term “significant”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Mount Royal gave an elegant and eloquent analysis of this bill, which if I take his analysis correctly, is long on title and short on substance.

Other than this bill being a glorified talking point, what are we actually accomplishing? Were he once again restored to the position of minister of justice, what would he do in terms of substantive amendments to the Criminal Code to actually address the issues raised by elder abuse?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the opening part of my remarks, the bill does achieve a certain modest objective simply in the raising of awareness and sensitization, with regard to this problem, and also by eliciting thereby, through that raising of awareness, from the partners in the system, whether it be governments, health care workers or a non-governmental organization, a greater understanding and awareness on their part.

If a government were to address this in a comprehensive way, it would have to increase the health care transfers for this purpose. It would have to ensure that it does not claw back old age security. It would have to ensure that it would address, as we put it, systemic inadequacies that are at the roots of many of the problems that the elderly endure in the system.

With regard to the legal matters in particular, we would have to address the manner in which law enforcement officers and other legal professionals could play a distinguishable role with respect to the protection from elder abuse, and that would have to address questions of education and training—formation, as my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard put it—and the other matters I referred to in my remarks.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are dealing with another bill that the government has brought forward that deals with a particular reality, and certainly we support it, but there is quite another reality out in the streets of our nation. Across this country we have seen the government gutting programs to seniors, reducing the services that are available to seniors, raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 and making seniors more vulnerable. That is what it does.

We heard today about what the Conservatives are doing. They seem to be waking up. It is about time, because seniors have certainly wakened up about what they are doing to this country and what they are doing to seniors.

I want to ask the member for Mount Royal his opinion on how the government makes seniors every day in this country more and more vulnerable as a result of its actions and cutbacks.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I sought to say in my remarks, this legislation is part of a pattern of criminal justice legislation after the fact, but it does not deal with the whole network of prevention approaches.

Indeed, my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard stressed l'importance de la prévention, which I reaffirmed in my remarks as well, but it is the overall comprehensive social justice approach that is required—in other words, to put forward concrete, substantive measures in the realms of health care, research, social justice, rather than find a situation where health care transfers are reduced, where old age security is cut back and where there is an attempt to deal with the problem through the prism of the Criminal Code and not through a comprehensive social justice agenda with an interdisciplinary perspective on the level of the delivery of services and with the proper formation and training that is involved; indeed, an important federalist perspective, where the federal government, the provinces and territories work together in common cause in this regard.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

In that case, Mr. Speaker, the member suggests that we have not acknowledged elder abuse. However, we have established a federal elder abuse initiative, and it was to raise public awareness. In 2008, we announced $13 million to assist seniors to recognize the signs and symptoms of abuse.

I would like to know if the member was aware of that.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not only aware of it, I specifically referenced it in my remarks and I specifically commended the government for it, as well as the new horizons program. My whole point was that, while these were initiatives that were necessary, they simply are not sufficient. I do not want to repeat all that I said. I commend those initiatives but, as I said, those are just modest steps. We need much more along the lines that I and my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard submitted to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I am pleased to rise in the House to address a question that worries me a lot, the condition of seniors, whom I meet regularly in my riding of Gatineau. I am particularly concerned about this issue because I am the critic for social justice. We have heard the speeches by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard and the hon. member for Mount Royal. They have explained the social aspects of the situation and the problems faced by our seniors in every riding, in Quebec, and across Canada.

Canada has an aging population, in the extreme. Very soon, there will be more seniors than people in any other age group, and we will have to face some difficult problems.

Like the hon. members who spoke earlier, I feel the most disturbing aspect of Bill C-36, and of all the government’s bills, is that it is nothing but a big balloon. When we try to get into it, we find it is just as empty as the others.

We are supporting Bill C-36, but I cannot honestly say to the people of Canada, Quebec and Gatineau that we have accomplished something extraordinary that will have a major impact on their daily lives.

I am very disappointed. For once, we had a golden opportunity to improve a worsening situation. We have all heard about or seen some cases of elder abuse, which can take various forms. Some seniors are abandoned in horrible conditions, worse than anything we would inflict on an animal.

When I read Bill C-36, which was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and came to the first clause, stating that it would protect seniors, I applauded because I knew it was overdue. I tried to turn the pages, but there were none, because there was only one clause. People may say that one clause is often enough to achieve the goal, in this case, to protect seniors, but I am not convinced.

After listening to all the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we realized that there is a serious problem. Besides the fact that the bill will not correct the problem, the minister has drafted it incompletely and it is full of holes. It speaks of an offence that “had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation”.

We in opposition tried to submit an amendment to remove the word “significant” to describe the offence’s impact on the victim. We did so because we knew in advance that determining whether an offence, particularly some form of abuse, was significant would be subject to much debate.

While we were examining this bill, there was a case of abuse in my riding. Perhaps other members have heard about it, because Gatineau is not far from here, just across the river. A 99-year-old woman was sexually exploited by a volunteer caregiver. The woman was a patient in a hospital setting where she expected to receive services, but instead she was the victim of sexual abuse. News of this case spread quite rapidly. Thank God, because of cameras and the co-operation of the accused, the case was quickly solved and the offender was sentenced to 20 months.

With Bill C-36, would it be possible to prove a “significant impact” on a 99-year-old victim who is not fully aware of her surroundings or what is happening?

We can just imagine the kind of arguments back and forth. Would the section amended by this bill, concerning the way judges should pass sentence, have an impact? The bill amends paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. There is a list of possible aggravating circumstances, including evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, or evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of 18 years.

Bill C-36 simply adds one aggravating circumstance to that list:

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

I am astonished to hear the government, when asked about this, say that it is a question of the weight of evidence, or the relationship between this and that, or other word games. And yet, when the subparagraphs on spousal violence or abuse of persons under 18 were added to this section, no such distinctions were made. There was no stipulation of a “significant impact”. In my speech, I want to draw a parallel between elder abuse, as dealt with in Bill C-36, and conjugal violence, which was hidden for so long.

You can no doubt remember how taboo it was to talk about it, and how difficult it was for our police departments to deal with these situations. They did not know what to do. I was a lawyer when people were just beginning to talk out about domestic violence and how it was a blight on society, which it still is. It became apparent—perhaps because of a lack of training at the time, and things have changed a great deal since then—that when the police came to arrest someone, people cleared out because they said it was a family dispute. With seniors, the problem is that it still often remains hidden. It is important to remember that these people are often alone and helpless, and very few people will see what is happening. It is therefore difficult to know what is really going on in their lives and whether or not they are victims.

That, moreover, is what we were told by the CARP organization, which does a great deal of advocacy work for seniors. I will quote them in English:

It is important that elder abuse be recognized as a public crime and not just a personal matter. Systemically, Canada’s rapidly aging population, poorly coordinated home care services, historically low support for caregivers, and inadequate long-term care options may also add a layer to the causes of elder abuse and subsequent under reporting. Over crowded hospitals, inadequate long-term care beds, poorly coordinated at home services, and lack of uniform training for professional and informal caregivers are a recipe for both intentional and unintentional elder abuse.

Will this bill eliminate the problem when, according to the Library of Parliament study, it was already being used? In passing, the Library of Parliament does an extraordinary job of supporting committee work.

The courts already consider the fact that a person against whom a crime has been committed is elderly as an aggravating factor, and this has been enforced in a number of cases. The problem is that even if we were all to agree that being elderly should be added to the list of aggravating factors in the Criminal Code, the fact that Bill C-36 mentions "significant impact" means that we will once again end up with unnecessary legal subsidiary debates.

I do not know whether the amendments are being rejected because they come from the opposition. They do not want to give us any credit, even though they say they allowed us the amendment pertaining to the title. However, we are not so stupid that we are about to consider this a magnanimous gift.

The real gift to seniors would have been to include a section in the act that has a little more punch, a little more crunch, because there ought to be zero tolerance of violence against the elderly and crimes against the elderly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate what my colleague had to say. I am not a lawyer, but this bill seems to be a step in the right direction, which we all support of course. If I can have a little more of my colleague's attention, I would like to ask her if she sees things the same way.

It seems to me that, over the last few months, the Conservatives have often tried to offer us simple solutions to complex problems. However, everyone knows there is no such thing as a simple solution to a complex problem. I get the impression that this bill fits that pattern. I have concerns regarding how much flexibility judges will have when they assess various situations.

Will they simply go down a checklist, or will they have a chance to exercise judgment?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That is indeed an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. That is my greatest fear about this bill.

We were not born yesterday. We are starting to get used to government bills, with their fancy, overblown titles meant to create the impression that we are solving all of society's ills when, in fact, we are solving nothing.

I can see a problem here. Judges already consider the age of the victim as an aggravating factor. That has the effect of making the crime in question even more heinous. They will now have to interpret section 718 during sentencing. Will that have the effect of weakening previous interpretations of the law? I cannot guarantee that. I have asked that question of the member for Mount Royal, who is a lawyer.

We are not in a position to indicate with any degree of certainty that we are not in fact limiting the judiciary's ability to deal with these situations. It is unbelievably sad, but at least we are taking a small step in the right direction. We are at least stating that age is a kind of aggravating factor.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gatineau for her very enlightening speech. It made me think of the speech by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard. These two examples alone are very promising signs of things to come for the government we plan to form in the coming years. I am going to allow myself to set the bar even higher: it might even mean the end of petty politics.

After studying the bill, along with the member for Gatineau, we were relieved to see that at least it did not cause greater harm to our seniors. However, as the member for Mount Royal pointed out, any progress it makes is unfortunately very limited.

I would like the member for Gatineau to tell us if there is anything we could do that would be a bit more constructive than the tiny step made by the government and which could ultimately be seen as offering a helping hand to seniors, rather than just a marketing ploy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we were concerned, because a number of seniors groups told us we should not see age and vulnerability as equivalent concepts. I totally agree with that. People are not more vulnerable just because they are 60, 65, 70 or even 80 years old.

Last weekend, I met some people, one of whom was a 94-year-old woman who could probably outrun me. She was extremely alert and extremely bright. Opinions should not always be based on a person's age alone.

I think there was a kind of awkward fear: they do not understand that it is a crime. Someone who decides to commit a crime against somebody because of his age does not know whether the person is vulnerable or not, he is just trying to take advantage of the other person because of his age. In a similar way, there can be a crime against someone who is under 18. What is the problem?

I could see the situation being resolved this way. It would involve not being afraid of words and to say specifically that an aggravating factor is attacking an elderly person, period. In this context, it would be up to the accused to show that the attack was not related to the age of the elderly person, but that the accused had simply decided to commit fraud.

We could come back to the issue of fraud against the elderly. Just think about Internet fraud, which we hear about all the time; we have to explain to seniors that they must not answer somebody from the Royal Bank who—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in the House to speak to this bill. As a member of the official opposition who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I am participating in the debate at third reading, after the tabling of the House committee's report on Bill C-36.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, has to do with elder abuse, a problem the NDP is very aware of. As the official opposition critic, my distinguished colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, pointed out during her speech in this House on April 27, 2012, that Canada is facing an aging population, much like other countries in the world. According to Statistics Canada, the number of seniors in Canada is expected to grow from 4.2 million to 9.8 million between 2005 and 2036. In 2051, it is projected that seniors over the age of 65 will make up one-quarter of the Canadian population.

I would like to quote what my hon. colleague said:

Our society is enriched by its seniors, who still contribute a great deal to society by volunteering, sharing precious time with their families, helping their friends and neighbours, and investing directly in their communities and their surroundings.

...we need to ensure that the government and its programs adapt to the situation so that everyone can continue to live with dignity until they reach the end of their lives, without any problems. This is possible.

One of the challenges facing seniors is abuse, and this bill is a first step. It amends paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code regarding the principles for determining a sentence. In other words, the judge takes into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances, as applicable, before determining the sentence. Bill C-36 would add an aggravating circumstance to the Criminal Code. The proposed amendment reads as follows:

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

This wording highlights certain elements regarding the victim, such as age, health and financial situation, among other things.

The NDP supported Bill C-36 at second reading and then proposed the adoption of two amendments. One of these amendments concerned the short title in the French version, and I am pleased to say that it was accepted. The title in French is “Loi sur la protection des personnes aînées au Canada”. However, the second amendment was rejected outright. As my colleague from Gatineau pointed out, the Conservatives unfortunately rejected the second amendment, but “significant impact” is being retained. We will see in practice what results from this, but it bodes ill in terms of interpretation by the courts.

According to a report of the ad hoc Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, between 4% and 10% of seniors are victims of abuse. These numbers need to be treated with caution, however, because seniors who are being abused rarely report it, whether out of fear, shame or guilt. The relationship between the victim and the person committing an offence against a senior may also greatly complicate the situation. This is a particularly sensitive issue when the person in question is a family member, friend or caregiver.

Although the NDP will vote in favour of this bill, the official opposition party believes that additional measures are needed to curb elder abuse. These various measures would be implemented in collaboration with the provinces and territories. For example, having a telephone helpline for seniors who are being abused and professionals who specialize in this field would meet the needs of this growing segment of Canada's population.

Apart from all these measures, it must not be forgotten that within this segment of the population, approximately 250,000 people live in poverty, according to Conference Board of Canada figures. Things have to be done to ensure that the elderly can live in dignity, which requires government commitment to income security, affordable housing and health care.

Increasing transfers to the provinces for education, health care and social services, not to mention appropriate funding for NGOs and NPOs that work with the elderly, is the real solution and the way to proper prevention. What is needed is an improvement in the social fabric.

The official opposition supports this bill, but emphatically wishes to state that governments are responsible for adopting an appropriate approach to seniors, who have contributed socially and economically to society throughout their lives.

I believe that a long-term comprehensive strategy, as pointed out by my hon. colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, would be better. Mention was also made of protection before abuse begins, rather than afterwards. Appropriate efforts towards awareness, forms of prevention that can end isolation and support the elderly, appropriate training for all the stakeholders in the legal system and more services for seniors are all measures that would contribute to the well-being of seniors and minimize abuse. We need to remember that everyone will be a senior one day and that all can become victims of mistreatment whatever their sex, race, ethnic origin, income or educational background.

To conclude, for all these reasons, the official opposition supports this bill, even though we find it wholly inadequate and incomplete. It does not provide a comprehensive vision of how to solve the problem of elder abuse.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and for his contribution to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we are closely studying every aspect of this bill.

I particularly appreciated his overview of the problems with the very limited amendments to the Criminal Code, especially in light of the many measures that could be taken to combat elder abuse.

The committee's work has highlighted how important it is to take into account the very important link between victims and their abusers. Most cases of abuse are not easy to prove. As with crimes of a similar nature—and it is particularly true here—friends and relatives are often to blame. Seniors often have a relationship with their abusers, which is based on trust, and they do not wish to jeopardize the relationship by reporting the abuser.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this, as a significant amount of the committee's time was spent deliberating the matter.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.

Unfortunately, caregivers and family members are often to blame for exploiting the elderly, whether consciously or otherwise.

How can this be avoided? There are no magic solutions. It may be helpful to set up a telephone helpline for seniors who are victims of abuse, and to provide adequate funding to raise awareness among both seniors and their abusers. That may be one solution. It might also be helpful to have counsellors who specialize in preventing elder abuse. The Government of Manitoba put in place an initiative along those lines, and that may be another solution. There are many potential solutions to this unique problem.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, who has the honour of representing the riding neighbouring my own.

With respect to how seniors are treated and the challenges they face, I would like the member to speak about a problem found in every rural riding, particularly his own, where seniors who have worked on farms end up isolated because of the vast distances. My colleague is aware of this problem. What is more, I congratulate him on the work that he is doing in his riding—the vast distances that he has to cover are impressive.

In what ways is the problem of isolation in rural areas an additional challenge to helping seniors?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for his very relevant question.

Indeed, our ridings are spread over hundreds of kilometres. Sometimes, adequate information does not reach the people who need it.

I am not suggesting that this only occurs in the country, because it is a problem in both rural and urban areas. However, there are family secrets and sometimes elder abuse is a closely guarded secret.

Once again, the best way of managing and overcoming this problem is through awareness building, prevention and training, and by increasing the availability of adequate services.

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

Mr. Speaker, the subject that we are addressing this afternoon is so important that it is crucial that as many members as possible be able to discuss it. So, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I come to this issue and this bill with a great deal of humility and, like many members of the House, I feel wholly responsible for ensuring that legislation is finally passed that will, I hope, put an end to the unfortunate situations we too often see occur.

Let me put it another way: as members, it brings us no joy to have to address this issue. We would prefer to put all our energy into building the Canada of tomorrow. It is, however, impossible to ignore a problem that, all too often, places seniors in situations that nobody would wish upon them. Our duty to protect is paramount.

Elder abuse affects all of us, and we have a responsibility to protect our parents and family members. Time marches on and, eventually—and sooner rather than later for some in the House—members themselves will be faced with these issues. In fact, I was wondering at what age a person is considered a senior. There was a time when the so-called golden years began at age 55. I recently found out when I got a flu vaccine that being 52 earned me the right to belong to a category of people who are, shall we say, noble; at least that is how I will choose to put it.

This issue directly affects us all. In this life, there is a possibility that we will one day be faced with an unfortunate situation such as the ones we are discussing this afternoon, and I hope that that this will happen to as few people as possible.

Let us not turn a blind eye to this issue. Canadian society, like other developed societies, is rapidly aging. Protecting seniors is, therefore, quickly becoming a fundamental issue for all society. It is time to act, and we on this side of the House want to take concrete action and support the passage of this bill, in the hope that more will be done.

I would now like to cite some statistics to provide a snapshot of an age group that, since the start of our discussions, we have called seniors.

According to the 2011 census, seniors currently account for 14.8%—essentially 15%—of the Canadian population. The population in Quebec is aging faster than in any other province. In 2031—which is practically around the corner—people over 65 will account for 25.6% of Quebeckers, or 2.3 million people.

The situation in my riding is particularly noteworthy. In each and every census, Trois-Rivières is one of Canada's major cities with the highest proportion of seniors. In 2031, it is estimated that one out of every three residents of Trois-Rivières will be over 65.

People in this age group may have varying degrees of physical disability, be more vulnerable, and be more frequently financially dependent on others than young adults. In light of this, many elderly Canadians may become the target of abuse or, quite simply, be statistically at greater risk.

It is therefore difficult to gauge the scope of the phenomenon, but it is important to remember that seniors are often a preferred target, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The NDP has been active on this issue for a long time. During the 2011 election campaign, the NDP proposed that the Criminal Code be strengthened by requesting that sentencing reflect the vulnerability of seniors who are victims of crime. The NDP wants to go even further. Criminalization is only one way of reducing elder abuse. It is not a solution that eradicates the cause. We must therefore attack the cause of this abuse as quickly and effectively as possible.

We must therefore put in place a series of measures to eradicate elder abuse, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, to allocate necessary resources to a strategy that would include the following measures, for example.

We could consider a telephone help line for abused seniors, as is done in certain provinces and is already being done for other groups in society. I am thinking of Tel-jeunes, for example, which has been a resounding success in providing assistance and has demonstrated the relevance of its service over the years. We could consider a “Tel-age” service, although I do not have the specifics, offering a similar service to our seniors.

The creation of specialized elder abuse consultant positions, a project inspired by a Manitoba government initiative, might also be a step in right direction.

I will also take advantage of my speaking time to hail the work of a large number of organizations, in many cases volunteer organizations, that are breaking the silence surrounding this issue and helping increase the awareness of seniors and their families to the risks of abuse.

In my riding of Trois-Rivières, the Table de concertation Abus auprès des aînés de la Mauricie is a group of organizations involved in preventing and putting a stop to senior abuse. Its actions focus on collective elder rights advocacy, awareness and prevention with seniors, institutions and the community.

I want to congratulate them on their determination in taking specific actions such as increasing public awareness of the problems of elder abuse and mistreatment, organizing conferences, seminars and conventions on abuse prevention and collective elder rights advocacy and taking part themselves in similar events organized by other organizations in other regions of Quebec in Canada.

The NDP wants to go further and not merely propose a criminal law response to the problems of elder abuse. The NDP has developed a detailed plan to assist Canada's seniors. Seniors need a constructive and positive approach, not just a punitive approach. Unfortunately, this bill suggests that this is the direction we risk taking.

Lastly, we believe it is imperative that we address the real problems and the real causes at the root of elder abuse.

Are my colleagues aware that more than 250,000 seniors are living in serious poverty in Canada? That is more than the population of Windsor or Saskatoon, for example. By lifting these people out of poverty, we will gradually eliminate the number of people exposed to abuse and violence.

How do we do that? The following are some measures that could be quite effective and relatively simple.

First of all, increasing pensions and strengthening retirement security for seniors would very often allow them to maintain their autonomy, to break out of their isolation and to be less likely to be victims targeted by potential offenders.

Then, two new federal transfer payments could be put forward for home care and long-term care, to guarantee a minimal level of home care and to deal with the national shortage of institutions providing high-quality long-term care. This solution could also be quite popular.

Furthermore, a forgivable-loan program could be set up for intergenerational homes. This initiative, here again motivated by a program in Manitoba, could help up to 200,000 families per year build self-contained units for seniors in their homes. For too long now, in our Western societies, we have placed seniors in institutions, rather than retain all their expertise and experience within our respective families and communities.

As my time is flying by, I will immediately move on to the conclusions.

The NDP supports this bill, as it meets some of the demands we expressed during the 2011 election campaign. However, we should not abandon our efforts now, when there is so much that remains to be done.

In this regard, I agree with the Director of the Department of Social Services at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, who said when she appeared before the committee:

I think we do need to have a multifaceted approach to elder abuse. Just having an amendment to the Criminal Code is not sufficient.

Unfortunately, this bill, once it is passed, will not end the tragedy of elder abuse. The bill is an incomplete solution. We hope to continue the work by attacking the real causes of elder abuse: poverty among seniors, their isolation, and their social and material conditions.

I will close by repeating something that Yvon Deschamps, one of Quebec’s most famous comedians, said—that elder abuse is not very funny.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I thank my colleague for his speech, Mr. Speaker. I do not normally jump so quickly to conclusions, but I understand the context in which he said that.

I appreciate the fact that he took a few moments to talk about the risk factors that can lead to abuse. One of those factors is isolation. The NDP has been promoting intergenerational housing for many years now as part of the solution to the problem. I realize, however, that not all seniors still have family members with whom to live.

Would my colleague like to tell us what difference we could make in the lives of seniors who live alone if the government were to help out in establishing intergenerational housing across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question and we could discuss it for hours, but I will be brief.

Even though we did not mention a specific age, it is becoming more complex than ever to determine how long a person might be a senior. Not only do we have an aging society, but the average life expectancy keeps rising. Therefore, one can hope to be a “senior” for a longer period and live a longer, healthier life.

It appears that members of the younger generation want to maintain strong ties with their parents. We have often seen the bond that develops between grandchildren and grandparents. This kind of privileged relationship is absolutely worth building.

Many families would like to have the financial means to build a residence for one or more of their parents within their own family home, so that younger family members have a chance to know their elders and everyone can learn from each other.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for again pointing out that the Conservatives' response to a problem in Canada of merely making amendments to the Criminal Code is not really dealing with the problem. It is dealing with the effects of the problem but it is not dealing with the problem. Much of what we have been saying here today is that there are other things that need to be done for seniors, including income and social supports, but none of these things are part of the bill.

However, even as I read the bill, it appears that there are some flaws. The definition of “substantial effect” to a senior is not something that a judge in a hearing would know about until after the person is convicted. Therefore, the process of getting to a conviction would not reflect what might have been a substantial effect. Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the premise of my colleague's question. However, there is something that bothers me, so I will reply to his question with another question.

Why has the Conservative government made a habit of taking just one step forward and no more? We saw the same thing happening with other bills. Every time that the government deals with a problem it could solve, it limits its intervention to some kind of marketing or partisan operation. I think “marketing” is the best word, since the government tries to maximize the bill's impact. Why stop right after a good start? Chances are, it is an ideological approach aimed at providing a simple solution to a complex problem. They add a few lines to the Criminal Code or delete a few other ones, hoping this will deal with all possible situations. But that does not work, of course.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for generously sharing his time with me. As he mentioned, this is an issue that affects all of us personally, whether now or later. Therefore, it is important to have an opportunity to debate it.

I also want to take a moment to congratulate the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who does an extraordinary job regarding all the issues around the quality of life of our seniors. She is an excellent critic for this very important group in our society. I really appreciated her speech earlier, and I wanted to take a moment to recognize her work.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), deals with an issue that is of particular interest to me. I represent the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has a growing number of rural municipalities with an aging population. Many municipalities located closer to Quebec City attract young families. Unfortunately, as we go further west, towns get smaller and their population is aging. These municipalities do not always have the financial and material resources required to provide the necessary services for their population. Because of this situation, seniors in my riding may sometimes find themselves vulnerable in their environment.

Bill C-36 seeks to amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code so that the sentence imposed on an offender for a crime against a senior takes into consideration the victim's vulnerability and the terrible consequences of the criminal act for that victim. This means that the significant impact of the offence on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances—including their health and financial situation—would be deemed to be an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

Elder abuse is a very serious and disturbing concern. We only have to think about the many highly publicized cases in recent years that are just heartbreaking. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect our seniors, who contributed so much to our communities—and who continue to do so—whether it is through their volunteer work, their political involvement, or simply their life experience and the families that they founded over time. It is necessary to act now to stop the abuse that, unfortunately, too many seniors are subjected to.

According to a report of the ad hoc Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, between 4% and 10% of seniors will be victims of mistreatment at some point, no matter what their sex, race, ethnic origin, financial situation or level of education. They may find themselves in such a situation against their will in the future. It is impossible to predict.

This statistic may only be the tip of the iceberg, because far too often, victims of elder abuse hesitate to talk about it and to report the person abusing them. Many studies have in fact suggested that only one out of every five instances of elder abuse is reported.

There are many possible explanations for this state of affairs, which is not unlike other incidents, such as the sexual abuse of minors. It may be fear of retaliation, incomprehension, a feeling of shame and guilt, or even the fact that the victim has cognitive disorders. There may also be an emotional tie between the victim and the abuser. Elder abuse is often committed by someone known to and perhaps even very close to the person being abused, like a friend, family member or caregiver. It could also be a neighbour, a professional care provider, staff at a long-term care facility or others.

The fact remains that they are people who are highly trusted by seniors. They depend on these people for different types of care. Or they may simply represent a link to the outside. And in my view, this position of trust makes the abuse even more disturbing.

Since 2004, elder abuse in families has increased by 14%. Of all reported cases, 35% of abuse is attributable to a family member, and another 35% to a friend or acquaintance.

The passage of Bill C-36 would be a first step towards deterring people from elder abuse and towards more severe punishment of those who commit this type of offence.

The Criminal Code already contains similar measures for the mistreatment of the most vulnerable among us, such as young people under 18 years of age. However, in view of the aging of the population and the seemingly growing number of cases—which may simply be increasing because of greater media coverage, but nevertheless are very frequent in our society—I believe the time has come for us to take steps to provide better protection for seniors by directly amending the Criminal Code. The seniors in question may find themselves in vulnerable situations for reasons beyond their control, such as varying degrees of physical disability, or perhaps cognitive problems. Unfortunately, they may also be financially dependent on someone else.

As several of my colleagues have mentioned, the NDP supports Bill C-36 because it at least partly responds to the demands we made during the last election campaign.

On the other hand, we do not think this bill should be an end in itself, but rather the first step in a series of measures to ensure real protection for seniors and to prevent elder abuse.

It is extremely important to severely punish those who mistreat seniors, but we must also take steps to prevent such situations from occurring and to provide families of victims with the assistance they need to get through them.

During the 2011 election campaign, we proposed essentially the same measure that is found in Bill C-36. But the measure we proposed was part of a much broader range of measures designed to eliminate elder abuse, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, of course. In particular, we proposed allocating the resources needed to set up a strategy to try to prevent the abuse of Canada’s seniors.

Our strategy included many things, such as establishing a telephone helpline for seniors who have been mistreated; creating positions for consultants on the elder abuse problem, as Manitoba already has done; and amending the Criminal Code so that anyone convicted of elder abuse would be sentenced appropriately for their crimes. In addition, the NDP believes that it is necessary to tackle the factors that contribute to seniors’ vulnerability to abuse.

Before I was elected, I studied psychology, and I was fortunate to take some courses in gerontology. I was able to see the devastating effect of abuse on seniors, and I also saw that it often occurred because of their environment or because of the physiological and psychological problems that come with the years, with normal aging.

In order to protect them and try to deal with these primary factors, it is essential to ensure that seniors in our communities have a good quality of life. To achieve that, we must improve income security, take steps to ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing, and work towards a universal, accessible drug insurance plan.

I mentioned the rural municipalities in my riding that have problems delivering services to seniors. People in small towns with between 1,000 and 5,000 inhabitants often have to leave their communities. These would include the people in small towns like Saint-Raymond, Saint-Léonard and Rivière-à-Pierre, who have to leave and often go to Quebec City. These problems must be solved, so that seniors do not become vulnerable because they are isolated from the people closest to them.

Bill C-36 is a first step. I will support it proudly, but we need many other practical measures to ensure that seniors in our community can live out their days in safety.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I will ask her a question.

It is one just sham after another with this government. They respond to complex situations—in this case elder abuse— with simple solutions, like an amendment to the Criminal Code. Would a comprehensive response, based on social justice, for example, not be more appropriate?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I know how experienced he is in the area of social policy and justice, and I understand how relevant his question is.

Indeed, this bill is a sham. There is no other word for it. The government is making a fuss over the bill when, in actual fact, it does nothing to address the source of the problem or the factors that, unfortunately, put the elderly in vulnerable situations where they face abuse and mistreatment. It is important to get to the crux of the problem and ensure that seniors enjoy quality of life, and have access to affordable housing and a public pharmacare program, so that they can get all the medical care they need without being unduly burdened financially. These measures must be implemented, and our approach must focus on prevention. This is extremely important.

People need to be given information so that they can recognize situations where abuse occurs. For people who are not familiar with this kind of issue, it is not clear-cut. Certain things may go unnoticed. People need adequate resources in order to take action. The measure outlined today will not be enough to address all the problems faced by the elderly in our society.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

Early in her speech, she mentioned how distressing it is for seniors coping with abuse. The NDP is calling for an open helpline that seniors could call to report abuse. As my colleague stated in her remarks, reporting these situations is not easy. It is important to support people who want to come forward and report what is happening to them. I understand that it really is not an easy situation.

Does my colleague agree that a helpline for seniors to report abuse is a good idea, and that a tool like that would enable seniors to take the next step?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.

Such a phone line could certainly help seniors. They could use this service for various reasons. Some could use it to report their situation, while others, who may not be ready to take that step, could use it in order to find a listening ear, get support and learn a little more about the resources available in their community.

Some type of support may be required before a senior who has suffered abuse feels comfortable and confident enough to report it to the authorities. A phone line where people are always available to answer questions, provide support, show empathy and help the person in their struggle is extremely important. However, it is only one of many measures that should be implemented to help seniors.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the extra time I have been given to ask the hon. member whether she believes that the Conservative government is truly willing to help seniors who are being abused or seniors in general.

Over the past year and a half, the Conservative government has implemented a number of measures that impoverish or marginalize seniors.

What does she think of the Conservatives' attitude toward seniors in general?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has a lot of questions today.

I do not want to cast too much doubt on the Conservatives' good faith. However, unfortunately, the record of bad decisions and cuts to various services for seniors and Canadians in general is quite worrying. I am not suggesting that the Conservatives are targeting seniors directly. However, I would say that they are not necessarily taking into consideration all the measures that could be implemented to help seniors.

As I mentioned, this bill is the first sign of the Conservatives' good faith, and that is why the official opposition supports them. However, the Conservatives are not going far enough to help seniors. It is time for them to take real action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

Bill C-36 deals with the complex and challenging subject of elder abuse. It is difficult to paint elder abuse with one brush because it comes in many forms: physical, sexual, financial and psychological. The scale of the abuse can vary dramatically. It can be something that has been happening over a lifetime or occur when a senior becomes frail and vulnerable. The source of the abuse can be caregivers, spouses, children or even strangers looking to take advantage of a vulnerable, lonely person. Often the abuse is hidden, not spoken of, and this is a great tragedy.

One program or one measure cannot address the varying needs of our older loved ones who are suffering from abuse. We need a comprehensive plan that will address the needs of all seniors and in particular those who are being abused.

That being said, I want to speak in support of Bill C-36. The bill is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. New Democrats had proposed something similar to this in the 2011 election campaign and I am glad to see that Conservatives are taking some of our suggestions.

However, what we had proposed to tackle elder abuse was a complete package, some points of which we see in the bill. We need something more comprehensive, including an elder abuse hotline; the creation of elder abuse consultants, modelled on a Manitoba government initiative; and changes to the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure appropriate sentences for perpetrators of elder abuse. This package would involve working with the provinces in order to develop, implement and fund such proposals.

Unfortunately, Bill C-36, as it stands, will not have the desired impact on reducing elder abuse without the other steps that need to be taken. By merely adding on to the Criminal Code an aggravating factor for sentencing when a crime impacts someone due to their age and other personal circumstances, we are missing an important opportunity to create a system of support for seniors facing abuse.

The key to addressing elder abuse in Canada is not stiffer sentences but addressing the root causes. The best way to combat elder abuse is to give seniors control over their own lives and ensure they have the finances to live in dignity. I have been listening to seniors and meeting with seniors organizations. I have heard over and over again how there is a desperate lack of funding for programs and a very real and legitimate fear that Canada is not prepared for the rapidly rising senior population.

The most important issue voiced over and over by seniors is that they want to stay, for as long as possible, in their own homes. They want to be in their communities, near their friends and family. I really do not think this is asking too much. It is very clear that we need a home care plan, a plan that ensures seniors can stay in their homes and that any modifications that need to be done to those homes are available at an affordable rate.

We also need to ensure that seniors can access services without having to travel great distances, especially as mobility becomes more challenging. A network of community hubs would be an effective way to ensure that access is there for them. This would also help combat the solitude that affects so many seniors, especially single seniors or those caring for their partners or another loved one.

Our seniors are asking for affordable and appropriate housing that will meet their needs as they age. As abilities change, our older loved ones need appropriate care within the community or residence in which they live. Access to families and their social networks is key to the health, well-being and safety of our seniors.

In addition to physical security is the need for financial security. Seniors fear losing control over their finances and over their personal choices. Family and those with power of attorney can take control and take choice away. They can, in fact, can take that senior's dignity away.

Our elders can be forced into housing they do not want and can be told to hand over those finances. Too often we allow this to happen for the sake of convenience or for our own fears for a senior's safety. Yet older Canadians should have a say and they should be able to determine the direction they wish to take. This, I believe, is the most important factor in eliminating elder abuse. With control over their own independence and finances, seniors remain in control of their lives, which makes them significantly less vulnerable.

The World Health Organization has recognized elder abuse as an important problem that needs to be addressed. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that between 4% and 6% of elderly people have experienced some form of abuse in the home. The organization argues that a number of situations appear to put the elderly at risk of violence.

In some cases, strained family relationships may worsen as a result of stress and frustration as the older person becomes more and more dependent. In others, a caregiver's dependence on the older person for accommodation or financial support may be a source of conflict and vice versa. Social isolation is a significant risk factor to an older person suffering mistreatment. Many elderly people are isolated because of physical or mental infirmities or through the loss of friends and family members.

In Canada, seniors are most likely to be abused by someone they know. Canadians seem to understand that. In an EKOS survey in 2009, respondents felt that most frequent abusers were a family member other than a spouse at 62%, and paid caregivers in an institution at 46%.

Knowing what we know about elder abuse and its prevalence, I am wondering what the government plans to do to actually prevent the abuse from happening in the first place. We do indeed need a plan to ensure that our seniors are able to live in dignity and have the financial security to make the choices that determine how they want to live their lives. The government did have a program in place, the elder abuse awareness initiative. While not addressing the root causes of elder abuse, it at least attempted to bring the issue to the forefront. However, the program has ended now and we are left only with the bill on the table before us.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the bill alone would do very little to prevent elder abuse in Canada. It is a step in the right direction and I suppose no matter how small that is it is a good thing. However, without other initiatives such as an elder abuse hotline, elder abuse consultants and a strategy to deal with the root causes of elder abuse, I am afraid the bill would only allow for harsher sentencing and not prevent the abuse in the first place.

In addition to the fallacy of harsher sentencing is the reality that abusers are rarely caught. We need better training for police officers to be able to spot abuse in the first place. Seniors are very hesitant to speak of what is happening to them, often because they fear identifying someone in their family or circle of friends as the abuser.

We heard from law enforcement officials that police officers need better training to allow them to secure the trust of an abused senior so that real remedies can be pursued. Prevention should be our first goal. For starters, prevention is much less expensive than the mounting costs of emergency health care, courts, lawyers and jails. Crass numbers aside, our main concern must be for the dignity of human life and preventing anyone from facing the long, hard road of abuse.

We owe it to our elders to ensure they have a retirement that has dignity. They have worked so hard building this country and are continuing to shape its future. How we treat our elders is indicative of who we are as a society. If we treat our elders poorly, then we are doing a disservice to Canada and Canadians. Our seniors deserve better. Our families deserve better.

I thank the House for its time and indulgence this evening and will reiterate what is required: financial security. That means not reducing OAS by eliminating the age of retirement at 65, and introducing affordable home care and accessible long-term care. In other words, it means all of the things that are not happening in this country.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague, who has also done wonderful work to promote a senior's right to a decent standard of living in our great country.

I agree with everything she said in her speech. She is concerned that this bill might lead to harsher sentences. I would be tempted to tell her about my own concern, which is that Bill C-36 will be a total waste of time and will not achieve its goal. I would like her to comment on that.

The bill talks about a significant impact on the victim. Crown prosecutors will rarely use that section; they will not demonstrate that the offence had a significant impact on the elderly victim. The seriousness of the offence and the fact that it targeted an elderly person will be totally pushed aside, because prosecutors will be unable to prove there was a significant impact on the victim.

It is not worrisome to see another fine effort that will accomplish absolutely nothing, yet again, despite all the work the committees have done on seniors issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so very afraid that she is absolutely right. We spend a lot time looking at government bills that are meant to keep us busy, meant to create the illusion that something is happening.

The reality is that very few seniors report abuse because they have to live in the home of their abusers. Otherwise, they have nowhere to go because their financial security is such that they are dependent. It may be a child or a grandchild that is the abuser. Seniors are very hesitant to tell anyone that someone that they love and trusted is committing this kind of crime.

Finally, of course, we need to provide the training for police officers so that they can take the time. Seniors do not just call up and say, “By the way I'm being abused”. It takes a great deal of time, trust and discussion between an officer and a victim before anything can be pursued. Therefore, additional sentences just simply are not going to work.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is doing an excellent job on this file.

I very much liked her speech and would like to pick up on one aspect of it that can apply to many issues the Conservatives are dealing with quite poorly, in my opinion.

Once again, we have a bill that deals with a serious issue by targeting people after the harm has already been done. There is no mention of prevention. As my exceptional colleague from London—Fanshawe said a moment ago, one of the best ways to prevent elder abuse is to help seniors stay at home as long as possible, be independent and not have to rely on anyone else. That is one of the best ways to make sure such situations do not arise.

The Conservatives took the same approach with bill C-10, that focused on punishment and added new sections to the Criminal Code. That is all well and good, but should we not spend more time talking about prevention and make it so that situations such as these do not arise in the first place?

I would appreciate my colleague's views on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Prevention has to be at the centre of this because prevention means stopping the hurt before it happens. What would any one of us not give to ensure that a hurt that damages a life never happens? After the fact is too late.

She mentioned prevention in regard to home care. Absolutely, seniors need to have that option. I would like to see the federal government invest in real home care instead of playing around and actually cutting the resources to our health care system, such as $36 billion in the future.

I would also like to see the federal government work with the provinces to start talking about long-term care, the kind of care that we should have in nursing homes. Unfortunately, far too many nursing homes are driven by profit. The care, particularly in Ontario, has declined significantly over the years. That is another form of abuse.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important to me. Since I was elected, my work as a member of Parliament has made me very much aware of the enormous challenges that Canadian seniors face, such as violence, negligence and abuse. These are very complex problems.

This bill seeks to ensure that sentencing reflects vulnerability factors in the situations of seniors who are victims of crime, such as their age and other aspects of their personal situation such as health and finances. All these factors would be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes. This responds in part to demands the NDP made during the last election, in 2011. Unfortunately, the bill does not entirely solve the problem, and I will speak about that a little later in my speech.

The population of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is aging. Despite the fact that the rural municipalities I represent are strong communities consisting of engaged citizens who take the time to help their neighbours and the people in their community, the fact remains that it is hard to grow old in places where it is hard to access health care and services for seniors.

Elder abuse is a reality. When my constituents request legal or medical aid, or assistance in remaining independent, such as housing or money, for example, they are told all too often that there are excessive delays and that there is not enough funding for housing facilities. There is also a lack of training for workers in the legal system on how to handle elder abuse cases. A number of problems arise as seniors work their way through the system to regain their independence, something they are entitled to do. It is very disappointing to see that the system does not help those people.

I have heard from expert witnesses and seniors on the front line combating violence against seniors. When the Standing Committee on the Status of Women looked into this matter, it heard from several organizations that do excellent work in the field. They included the National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and the Réseau FADOQ.

Those prominent stakeholders agreed that people who abuse seniors do not receive appropriate sentences and that judges should be asked to consider the age and vulnerability of the victim. Several other witnesses talked about other aspects that are important to assess. Merely providing for adequate sentences will not solve the problem. To really address the problem of elder abuse, all stakeholders will have to work together to prevent such abuses.

All seniors, regardless of culture, gender or income, may become victims of abuse. This is a problem that affects all segments of society. However, some social determinants such as income, social status, gender, education and housing security may leave an individual more vulnerable to abuse. Older women are more often victims of abuse. This is not necessarily because they are physically weaker than men their age but rather because poverty and housing insecurity are more serious problems for all women.

This affects older women because it affects all women. All women have a lower income than men their age. It is therefore a generalized problem.

So as women grow older, they have an income problem and a problem with access to housing. These are the kinds of issues we should be discussing, because the percentage is higher among women and there are many more elderly women because of their longer life expectancy.

I firmly believe that the independence of seniors is essential if we are to end discrimination and systemic abuse. If that is how we treat our grandparents, it says a lot about who we are. If we ignore this systemic problem and do not give them the pensions they deserve, then our society has a problem. Housing insecurity is a problem for many seniors. That is why we need a national housing strategy. We asked for it during the last election. It should be part of this specific amendment to the bill. We believe that the response to this problem should be coordinated with all sectors of society that are involved and all levels of government. Some provincial initiatives have been helping seniors get out of situations in which they are abused or neglected. Above all, public awareness of the importance of the issue is essential.

Major efforts are being made in my riding. For example, the seniors' round table in Argenteuil performs a play in the Laurentians called Faudrait pas prendre grand-mère pour une dinde et grand-père pour son dindon, meaning do not make the mistake of thinking grandma is a silly goose and grandpa is her gander. It is an excellent play whose purpose is to break the silence around abuse, to raise awareness among young people by performing the play in schools, to condemn the widespread infantilization of seniors and to recommend tools they can use to protect themselves. The play will be presented in schools so that young people can understand the issue, and it will also be performed in retirement homes. Workers will also be present to explain that help is available if they ever want to free themselves from abusive situations.

The government created the federal elder abuse initiative, but funding for the program ended last year. Its role was to develop awareness campaigns to ensure that people could recognize and report elder abuse. It was a good start, but unfortunately no more than a first step. The program should have been allowed to continue.

But that is just the first step. The government really has to address elder abuse and neglect. Programs that support independence and personal freedom should be introduced, rather than punitive and paternalistic programs based strictly on legislation. Ageism is the underlying cause of neglect and abuse. Training is needed throughout the judicial and social system if stakeholders are to be able to help elders escape their situations.

This would not necessarily be a compulsory whistleblowing system. It is important to understand that people might be in situations in which they do not wish to report their assailant because he is a family member.

As I was saying, it is an extremely complex issue. The bill is nothing more than a starting point, and I hope that more will be done to prevent elder abuse.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her clear depiction of all the complex issues in elder abuse.

She also made a very good point when she raised the issue of elderly women in particular because, the older women get, the more they become the majority in their age bracket. In addition to their own specific situations, there is the simple fact that their numbers force us to consider their particular situation.

Further to the member's speech, as I am well aware that her riding is quite large and has a large rural component—a reality that has been raised by a number of my colleagues—I wondered if she could give us a few more details about the challenges that seniors face in her riding, in particular. I must admit that her description of a number of specific local and quite extraordinary initiatives was very interesting.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in a rural area and sometimes even in an urban environment, but primarily in a small town quite far from any services, life is extremely difficult for seniors. If you can perhaps no longer drive your car, it is extremely difficult to maintain your autonomy, because there is no public transportation. It is difficult to get to medical care.

If you are a woman, as I was saying, you are much more likely to be poor. This is primarily because of the inequalities that continue to exist in terms of pay equity in our society. Therefore, when you are an elderly woman, you have a lot less money. That is why it is so important to maintain and even increase pensions, the guaranteed income supplement, old age security and so on. These are extremely important programs because, frankly, they help people who might otherwise lose their independence. This is what these programs are for. They exist to help these people.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her very instructive speech.

Unfortunately, I must again burst the Conservatives' bubble and tell them that their solution, that is, Bill C-36, is only a very partial response to a very complex problem. Once again, they are putting the cart before the horse. By focusing on punishment alone, they are not really attacking the problem. We want to minimize the number of victims. A comprehensive strategy is needed.

I would like the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to tell me how a comprehensive solution could prevent elder abuse.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. As we have said, it is an extremely complicated issue. The whole issue has been studied at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I do not believe that we were able to address all of the problems that can lead to elder abuse. We really need to find complex solutions.

Old age security must not be slashed. The Conservatives say one thing and do the opposite. Action must also be taken to help seniors remain in their homes, to increase pensions—as I was saying—to guarantee a minimum level of care at home and to attack the national shortage of high-quality long-term care facilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in the House to this bill. It is a very important issue for the New Democratic Party caucus and something I take very seriously.

The greatest influence on my life was my grandmother who came from the Hawkhill in Dundee. She was a miner's widow in Timmins and pretty much raised me. My grandmother was very passionate about seniors' issues. She used to talk about what she called the “poor wee wifies”, the immigrant mining women whose husbands died. There were no pensions in those days. Women faded into the background in any mining town across northern Ontario and northern Quebec and lived in poverty. My grandmother always spoke about the dignity of senior citizens. In fact, my grandmother was the first New Democrat I knew because every month when she got her seniors cheque, she would come upstairs and tell me that the NDP fought for the pension. That is where I learned some of my first lessons.

We are in support of this bill going forward because this comes out of the New Democratic Party election platform of 2011. We know that the Conservative trolls study our election platform very closely, except that they mostly try to misrepresent it, get things wrong, make things up and say absolute complete untruths about all manners of things in it. However, they finally read something in our platform, which is what we have been pushing for, a strategy on elder abuse. Unfortunately, they could not concentrate enough to notice that we had a much broader platform for dealing with seniors issues, something they have dropped the ball on entirely.

We are now dealing with only one piece of the puzzle. There are elements of it that are important but we need to look at the issue of elder abuse in terms of the larger picture, which are the issues that we in the New Democratic caucus have talked about, such as protecting pensions. When I first heard that the government would protect senior citizens, I thought they would protect them from people stealing their pensions, like what has happened under the OAS. We in the New Democratic caucus believe that senior citizens deserve the right to retire at 65 and that they are not a problem, unlike the Prime Minister who told the millionaires in Davos that, in his view, Canada had a problem and that problem was senior citizens. That is a very shameful thing to say and I am shocked that he said it to the Davos millionaires and did not have the nerve to say it to Canadian seniors when he was campaigning.

We believe that we need adequate pensions, which is a base issue. We believe we need proper social housing for seniors, especially in large rural ridings like mine where seniors are living in old farmhouses that have oil tanks that they cannot afford to fill, where their kids have moved south and there is no proper social housing for them. If they do get into social housing, their entire pensions go toward paying room and board and they have nothing else to live on, which means that their quality of life is then affected. We need to ensure that seniors can move into proper housing with the proper supports and sufficient pensions to live their lives with dignity.

We believe there needs to be a strategy for palliative care and for support for families dealing with loved ones who have dementia or Alzheimer's. We hear many horror stories of elder abuse but the real stories are the small ones, the friction that happens within families because of the pressures they are under when they do not have the resources to help a loved one, a father or mother, suffering from dementia. These are the issues that affect Canadians on a day-to-day basis. The government can certainly pull horror stories of abuse off of the back pages of newspapers. They exist and we certainly believe the Criminal Code should be brought to bear, but, more often than not, abuses happen because of the kind of pressure families are under and we need a coherent plan to address that.

The other issue that seniors face is fraud, which the ethics committee has been studying. We know that data breaches are happening that actually profile individuals. There are massive cyber gangs in Ukraine, Nigeria, et cetera, that are actually able to target individual seniors because of data breaches. We all have a responsibility to look at that. I want to praise my colleagues in all parties on the ethics committee for the work being done to address this. Seniors are using the Internet more and more and we know that fraudsters are targeting them, so we need a coherent strategy to protect them from fraud.

There is a sense of humiliation and shame if people have been defrauded. They do not want to tell their kids that they lost some money or that they got caught up in one of these scams. These scams are really sophisticated and they are getting more sophisticated now because of their ability to gather individual data from citizens. That is another issue that needs to be added in when we look at this.

We are talking about the need to deal with elder abuse. Elder abuse happens in a number of forms. It happens in the form of criminal violence and in the form of the same kind of abuses we see against other victims, but it is also different because, in many ways, it is familial. Simply saying that we will increase mandatory minimum sentences for this kind of crime is a blunt instrument. If there is serious abuse happening, of course we want the judges to have whatever discretion they need to render the sentence that is due, but more often than not, we are seeing, within familial relations, the kinds of pressures that are financial and the kinds of pressure with a loved one.

I remember my wonderful grandfather, MacNeil, my mother's father, who was a brilliant man. He had never gone to school but he was a hard-working miner. He started to suffer dementia as he got older, which had an effect on my grandmother who was trying to look after him in a little house in Timmins without family around and without support. Those are the kind of pressures that we see and seniors see.

There has been a number of great organizations, the health authorities that have come forward, and the work that the palliative care committee did on these issues that we can draw from and actually come together within all parties and look at a coherent strategy.

I want to talk about the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP. CARP has done excellent work in advocating for seniors. Susan Eng spoke out saying:

As a society, we're now far more open to talking about the hidden crimes of spousal abuse and child abuse. Now we need to do the same for elder abuse. …the current law is clearly not robust enough to signal society's abhorrence for this crime.

I think this is something on which we would all agree. In fact, the New Democratic Party is very proud of the work of CARP.

We noticed recently that CARP was attacked by the Conservative government for being what it called a partisan front. I personally find it shocking that an organization that does such good work on behalf of seniors would be attacked by the government. However, it was attacked because the government was feeling the heat on its decisions to steal the pension of seniors under the OAS revisions. I will quote the words of our leader, the leader of the official opposition. He said:

CARP is not to blame for the backlash Conservatives are getting from seniors. The Prime Minister is to blame.

When we hear CARP speaking to issues of elder abuse or to issues of financial security for seniors, we all need to take note. It is a serious issue.

The issues that we are dealing with in terms of support at the family level, the federal government has really been missing in action. The provinces are doing what they can but we have seen the quality of care dropping year after year. It is not the fault of the people working in the homes but we see the inability of seniors to get home care. We see within the institutions the pressure that the nurses and the caregivers are under, and so support starts to drop. That is where people end up having the accidents, the broken hips, the injuries that just destroy whatever quality of life they have remaining. It is the gaps in the system that start to form and the victims are the seniors. Then, within this, is the other element of elder abuse.

A couple of years back in Timmins, we held a forum on Alzheimer's. The issue of Alzheimer's and the need for a national coherent strategy on Alzheimer's is another piece of the puzzle. I am not saying that people who have Alzheimer's will be victimized, but there is pressure on families, especially families in crisis when an individual has Alzheimer's and the lack of a coherent strategy. There is also the issue of dementia, especially when the dementia has not been recognized yet. These are things we all need to look at in terms of how we ensure that we have the proper resources, whether it is at the federal level or at the provincial level.

The New Democrats will be supporting taking the bill to committee. We do believe there are some problems with the bill. Obviously, there are some problems with the bill, it is a Conservative bill. Problem is their middle name.

We want to address and fix some of the problems with the bill but we think it is important to send the message that elder abuse is an abhorrent crime. We need to give families the support they need to ensure that senior citizens, or anyone as they age, have the support they need to live in the dignity they deserve.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you defer the vote to tomorrow following government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The vote will be deferred accordingly.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-36.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #491

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

It being 6:40, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.