Robert Aubin

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has 32 public servants working for him at the Privy Council Office, including eight senior policy advisors. He also employs 16 exempt staff, including a policy director and another senior policy advisor.

Since he has such a large team, could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs give us an update on his strategic plan for the three parts of his mandate?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

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?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

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.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

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?

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of two groups of Canadians who want to make the government realize, if such a thing is even possible, how important it is to save leading-edge water research.

The Experimental Lakes Area is a unique, internationally renowned infrastructure designed for freshwater research and education. We must do whatever it takes to protect it.

[Public Works and Government Services, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that a $500 million overrun is completely unreasonable. The renovations to Parliament Hill's West Block are now expected to cost $1.2 billion. Considering the way costs have ballooned under the Conservatives’ disastrous management, there is no reason to think they will not rise even higher. Who will pay this exaggerated bill? Canadians.

Why have the Conservatives been twiddling their thumbs instead of keeping a close watch on these costs?

[Infrastructure, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we will make another attempt at getting an intelligible answer.

Canada's infrastructure is in bad shape. In Quebec, outdated water mains are exploding under pressure, overpasses are falling apart and collapsing, and ports, like the one in Trois-Rivières, are waiting for funding for development projects.

While stakeholders are being told to wait until 2014 because there is no more money to fund current programs, we have learned that $2 billion from the 2011 budget—which was supposed to be allocated to infrastructure—has not been spent.

How can the minister justify this situation?

[Transport, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport will also soon consider a motion to examine the budget implementation bill. This bill contains transportation-related changes, namely with regard to the Canada Shipping Act. The Standing Committee on Transport must therefore examine these changes.

Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport keep the Minister of Finance's promise and put the review of Bill C-45 on the committee meeting agenda?