Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Petitions, April 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I recently visited some residents in the Quebec City region who were worried about the cuts to old age security announced by the Conservatives.

Today, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by over 500 people in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent who are opposed to funding for old age security being cut. In fact, they are aware that the experts say this public pension program, which works to combat poverty directly, is financially viable—because that is what the experts say. They are therefore calling not only for this program to be continued in its present form, but also for the guaranteed income supplement to be increased so that seniors are able to escape from poverty.

[Pensions, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, attacking women is a national sport for the Conservatives. Abortion, pay equity, organizations that promote women's health—nothing is sacred. The most vulnerable people, such as seniors, are also under attack. The minister says that the eligibility age for old age security must be raised.

What should we trust, the minister's common sense or the experts' studies? I wonder. Does the minister not understand that studies show that the most vulnerable will be affected by an increase in the eligibility age for old age security?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble giving credit where credit is due, but when things are not done properly, they need to be criticized. First of all, not all seniors in need are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, and secondly, it is not enough to keep seniors who receive it above the poverty line.

The objective is therefore not achieved. Many seniors who depend on federal government allowances live below the poverty line. Moreover, what is given with one hand this taken back twice over with the other. While it is true that this measure is an attempt to combat elder abuse, it is also true that old age security is being attacked. That is something that will keep many seniors in poverty and hit middle-class seniors and those who are most vulnerable financially. It is just one more example of what this government is doing to promote elder abuse.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this important information to our attention. Indeed, I support all the prevention measures to help address elder abuse. The measures that the hon. member listed are very important. However, the fact remains that there is still widespread abuse of seniors. We cannot say that the government's measures go far enough. They have to go farther. I am sure my colleague agrees with me on that. The prevention measures in place are indeed excellent, but unfortunately, they are not adequate and the numbers on every kind of abuse prove it.

I might have another solution that could help seniors. The committee finds that basic funding for non-governmental organizations is an effective way to build the necessary infrastructure for reducing elder abuse. I do not know whether this is the case in my colleague's riding, but in my riding I am faced every day with community organizations that contribute tangibly to prevention and helping seniors, that do not have enough funding to do their work. And I am talking about organizations that operate with a lot of help from volunteers and donations from the community. A little more help from the government would be welcome.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here in the House today to speak to Bill C-36 as the seniors critic for the official opposition.

It is no secret that Canada is facing an aging population, which, I would like to point out, is not a problem in itself. 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. Our aging population is clearly not a problem in itself.

However, 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.

We have known about our aging population for some time now, since those who are 60 today were not born yesterday. We began taking measures a long time ago to prepare for this situation.

One question that keeps coming up right now about our aging population has to do with all kinds of abuse that our seniors are suffering. Since we have an aging population, it is especially important that we seriously ask ourselves how we can help our seniors. We must ensure that elder abuse diminishes and, ideally, that it disappears altogether.

Today, Bill C-36 is a good start and could become part of the solution to the problem of elder abuse.

I would like to begin by briefly talking about elder abuse. Clearly, all forms of abuse are unacceptable in our society, but there are certain distinctive characteristics of elder abuse.

The most prevalent kind of abuse that seniors tend to suffer is financial exploitation. Next, in order of prevalence, comes psychological abuse and, finally, physical abuse ranks third.

Another distinctive characteristic of elder abuse is that it is often people close to them who commit the abuse: members of their family, even their immediate family, neighbours, friends and caregivers.

Another thing about elder abuse is that it is largely under-reported. In fact, according to the Réseau québécois pour contrer les abus envers les aînés, nearly 80% of abuses are never reported. That is a huge percentage. Why? Because seniors are especially vulnerable. They are afraid of being isolated and uprooted from their lives. They are afraid that if they report a family member, that family member will reject them and they will end up even more isolated. They are afraid that if they report the person who cares for them, they will stop getting their regular care and will be sent to a nursing home. For abused seniors, reporting that abuse has specific and very significant consequences. As a result, seniors unfortunately often put up with abuse and keep mum in order to protect themselves from something that they believe could be worse.

Seniors need to know that someone will be there for them, that if they report abuse, they will get all the help they need to get through the situation.

Bill C-36 recognizes the seriousness of elder abuse. The Criminal Code currently recognizes a number of aggravating factors in cases of child abuse or abuse of persons with disabilities, but there is nothing in the legislation to make elder abuse an aggravating factor. The vulnerability of seniors in cases of abuse has not been recognized. Bill C-36 recognizes this factor.

The NDP is pleased to support this bill at second reading because we believe it is an important and necessary measure.

However, that is not all. A very interesting committee, the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, studied the issue of elder abuse and made some recommendations to Parliament with a view to addressing this problem.

Bill C-36 tackles the criminal aspect of elder abuse. We must consider whether we want to punish people who carry out the abuse and whether we also want to prevent abuse. They do not necessarily go hand in hand. Giving a longer sentence to someone who commits elder abuse may not really reduce the number of cases of abuse or increase reporting of elder abuse. These two things do not necessarily go hand in hand. Yes, we have to punish the perpetrators, but we also have to prevent and reduce abuse and ensure that we make it easier for seniors to report it.

There were some very interesting things in the committee's report. First, it is important to launch an extensive awareness campaign. We have to make people aware of elder abuse and show them that this abuse is serious. People must know that society has a role to play in helping seniors report abuse.

Second—and I am still talking about targeted, effective measures—the report talks about prevention programs. Not only do people have to be made aware of the problem, but we have to go one step further and prevent elder abuse. For example, the committee mentions training people who care for the elderly and providing family members with information so that they can recognize the signs, determine whether an elderly relative is being abused or not, and support that person in reporting the abuse.

Third, there has to be an intervention service. It is all well and good to prevent abuse or detect it and help an elderly person report it, but once that happens, what then? Seniors need to know that they have access to people and a system that can help them through their ordeal. They do not have to be afraid of losing their freedom, their loved ones or their independence if they accuse an abuser. Intervention services should include offering seniors who have been mistreated psychosocial and other care. That is another very important aspect of what should be done to fight elder abuse.

Fourth, the report talks about a legal response, which Bill C-36 addresses. Yes, there is a “legal response” element to tackling elder abuse. However, there are three other elements that are just as important.

The NDP will support Bill C-36, but we must be clear about the fact that it is not enough. If we focus only on legal measures, we will be missing a very important point. We must not forget that we need to prevent crime, and not merely punish criminals. Unfortunately, punishing criminals is the Conservative way. We saw this with the mandatory minimum sentences proposed in Bill C-10. However, prevention and intervention are measures that can truly help people who suffer abuse, and we do not talk about that enough here in the House.

Here are some suggestions of concrete measures that could be taken in response to the suggestions made by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. Factors that cause seniors to be more vulnerable include poverty and dependence on family members or caregivers. This means that a senior who has limited resources is much more dependent on others and will therefore be much less likely to report any financial or other abuse. A senior who does not have a spot in an affordable, appropriate seniors' home and must therefore live with a friend, neighbour or family member will be unlikely to report that person, because the senior would have nowhere to go if he or she were forced to leave.

Thus, creating a national affordable, suitable housing strategy for seniors would be another way of tackling elder abuse. I could mention several other ways of doing so. In closing, I think my message is clear: some legal measures are needed, but that is not the only way to tackle the problem of elder abuse.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by seeking the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, according to our colleagues' pretty simple math, perhaps the OECD study is wrong. However, even if the old age security program costs the government more for the next 20 years—that is a fact and we all agree on that—the government's studies and experts are saying that we can deal with this.

Yes, certainly, if the government reduces its revenues, it will have a hard time funding programs that are important to Canadians, but we must bear in mind that a budget is not an obligation; it is the government's choices.

Will the government choose to invest the money needed to ensure our seniors' quality of life or will it choose to invest elsewhere? That is the question people need to ask. There is no reason for the government to present these cuts as inevitable or as an obligation. That is false. Our program is sustainable. This is not merely an opinion. It is not a matter of common sense or simple math. This is what the experts are saying.

So, let us focus on that and ensure that our seniors will have a better quality of life, instead of doing something else with the money that belongs to them.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Conservatives have finally quoted an expert to justify their cuts to old age security. Unfortunately, their chosen expert is a former governor of a bank, and I do not think that the opinion of that former governor holds much water in light of the calculations of the Government of Canada's chief actuary.

I am sorry, but if the Conservatives do not put any faith in the conclusions of the Government of Canada's non-partisan experts, then how long will it be before they get rid of those positions? Why not get rid of a few more while they are at it?

It is true that we will be dealing with an aging population, but the situation will be temporary. The government is not saying that since there will be more seniors, it will help and protect them; it is saying that since there will be more seniors, it will make cuts to the programs that help them escape poverty.

At any rate, cutting those kinds of programs will not save money because it has been shown that poverty affects the crime rate, people's living conditions and their health. The provinces are going to be forced to foot the bill. There is no evidence that raising the age of eligibility for old age security will really save any money.

It seems to me that there is a tidy sum of money set aside for old age security and that the government would like to get its hands on that cash and do something else with it.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today is the second time the NDP has proposed an opposition day motion on old age security. It did so the first time a few weeks ago because the government raised some suspicions about how it planned to go about reforming the old age security program. The Conservative government refused to answer any questions, which is why the NDP moved an opposition day motion to ask the government not to balance the budget on the backs of seniors.

Unfortunately, we need to have a second opposition day dedicated to old age security today because the government finally announced its plans and confirmed the fears of many Canadians. The government confirmed that it would gradually raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67.

I am proud that we, as a party, are opposing this austerity measure proposed in the Conservative budget.

Some time ago, I travelled around the province of Quebec and met with many people from across the province. I would like to share their concerns with the House today.

First of all, they asked me what would happen to their private pension plans. That is one concern that was raised and that is completely understandable. In fact, many doubts remain about what will happen to these pension plans if the government raises the age of eligibility for old age security. Some may ask, what does one have to do with the other? There is definitely a difference between old age security and private pension plans arranged between employees and employers. However, they are related. Indeed, the calculations made by employers for their private pension plans are based on the fact that employees will receive old age security at age 65 and the employers can therefore reduce the amount of the private pension when the old age security is paid out.

People are worried. Small unions have just negotiated their working conditions and pension plans, and they are worried about whether they will be able to renegotiate their pensions or whether there will be a gap between when their private pensions diminish and when they receive old age security. That is one concern for which, unfortunately, we have yet to receive a clear answer.

I was also asked when the Prime Minister intends to retire. Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question, but I would like to.

People are also wondering whether there are other ways to reform old age security, since the proposed reform seems to be a direct attack on the people who are the most vulnerable to poverty. It is true. Why is this government choosing to push back the old age security eligibility age? Unfortunately, we have no information on that either.

The government seems to be making things up as it goes along. It needs to make cuts somewhere so why not here? There are other solutions, but there have been absolutely no discussions on this whatsoever and this is another question we are unable to answer because the Conservative government is not providing us with any information.

In any event, one thing is clear: there is no need to cut old age security. To me, the types of cuts the government wants to make to old age security are not the issue, because the important thing here is that the government does not have to touch old age security.

Someone else asked me the following question. He wanted to work longer, but his employer lets go of employees when they are 50 or 55 because he says they get too old or cost too much. That person wanted to know whether the government had thought about that.

That is a very good question. Just because the government requires people to work two more years, that does not mean that everyone can. When a person does physical labour, at age 55 their body is no longer able to do the work. Even if the government threatens to cut people's pensions or to give them money later, they might not be able to work that long.

Then there are the people who want to work longer and can, but are dismissed when they reach a certain age or are strongly encouraged to leave their job to make way for young people. This brings us to another possible solution. If the government wants people to work longer, then why not give employers incentives to keep their employees longer? That would be a good way to address the problem.

The government could also help people who decide to continue working after the age of 65 or 67. That is already built in to a certain extent because people who decide to continue working for another five years are not penalized and they accumulate the amount of old age security, which they can receive later. This is one example of a very attractive incentive. No one's arm has to be twisted. However, it will not be any more effective, because those who can no longer work at 55, 60 or 65 can no longer work, and that is that. There are other ways to encourage people to stay in the labour market, and there are other ways to encourage employers to keep their employees longer.

Can the hon. member tell me how to better prepare myself? The Conservative government keeps on saying that it will give us time to prepare ourselves for the delay in accessing old age security. What can I do? Hon. colleagues, there are things that can be done to prepare for retirement. Unfortunately, not everyone can do them.

Consider that someone working full-time at minimum wage may be living below the poverty line. Will this person be able to put aside $50 or $75 a month for retirement? Unfortunately, they will not. Even if they were told 20 years in advance, this person would not be able to adequately prepare and would be affected by the increase in the eligibility age for old age security.

There is something else I wanted to talk about. I believe that these concerns and questions that are not being addressed indicate that the increase in the eligibility age will have major consequences. This is a direct attack on the middle class and on the people most vulnerable to poverty.

The government has not convinced us that it was necessary to make cuts to the old age security program. Experts have all stated that the old age security program is sustainable. The member opposite spoke about “pretty simple math”. I am sorry but, in my opinion, a minister's common sense or the “pretty simple math” done by a Conservative member do not hold up against a study conducted by a Government of Canada chief actuary. They do not hold up against the findings of a parliamentary budget officer, a study conducted by the OECD on pensions throughout the world or a study conducted by university X or Y, which all show that the old age security program is sustainable. I am sorry but the “pretty simple math” argument does not fly. I do not believe that it holds up against the opinion of experts who all agree that the program is sustainable.

The number of seniors will in fact increase for 5, 10 or 15 years, but we are able to deal with that increase since it was expected. Actuarial calculations are done over decades, 50 or 60 years even. The actuarial calculations allowed for an increase in life expectancy. Logic and common sense tell us that we cannot disregard the arguments and conclusions of experts. What is more, since the Conservatives did not have specific objectives, we do not know whether the proposed measure to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 meets the objectives. We do not know if these measures will really have the expected impact on old age security.

First and foremost, the objective was not clear. Second, the government has not provided any figures or studies to show how much money it will save. Will the amount saved be sufficient to make the old age security system sustainable? I get the impression that the Conservatives are just winging it. They are saying that cuts have to be made somewhere, and this is where they are going to be made. Why? We do not really know. It is truly ridiculous that the Conservatives are going to attack a program that places Canada among the countries that are best equipped to combat poverty among seniors. They are going to make cuts to this program without explaining why and without explaining what the impact will be.

In conclusion, the NDP feels that cuts to old age security are clearly not necessary and that a lot more could be done to improve the quality of life of seniors rather than reducing it.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to ask a question. Earlier, one of our colleagues said that she suspects the NDP cannot stand up for victims. My colleague's speech, which I just listened to, gave a fine example of how all parties can work together to come up with measures that will truly help victims.

We are not talking about victims' revenge; we are talking about real tools to help people defend themselves. I would like my colleague to comment on that a little.