Justice Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Seeing the clock at 3:30, we'll call the meeting to order, this being meeting 43 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 20, 2012, today we are considering Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, known as elder abuse.

We have some witnesses before us today. Just before we get to that, I would say that for a variety of reasons, Thursday's meeting will be cancelled. The clerk has notified witnesses, some of whom are out of town. We'll cancel Thursday's meeting, and as for the witnesses who were scheduled for Thursday, we'll try to have them here for the following Tuesday.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

That's the Tuesday after the break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes, we have a break in here. The issue would be whether we do clause by clause, which was planned for then, or we do it on the following Thursday.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I believe we agreed that we would move the whole calendar forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The clerk will make arrangements, then, for clause by clause to be done on the following Thursday.

We have witnesses with us today, one of whom is here on a video conference, Madame Beaulieu. She is chairholder, research chair on mistreatment of older adults. In the room we have Susan Eng, vice-president of advocacy for the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and Naila Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network.

I think when you received your correspondence from the clerk, he indicated that you would have up to 10 minutes for an opening address. I'll let you know when you're at nine minutes so that we can cut you off at the 10-minute mark without disturbing what you're doing.

Perhaps we can start with Madame Beaulieu on the videoconference. If you have an opening address, please go ahead.

[Marie Beaulieu, Chairholder, Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults , As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen members of the parliamentary committee, good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your work from afar, thanks to the technology that connects the Université de Sherbrooke to Ottawa. I appreciate modern means of communication.

As the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults, I am very happy to speak to Bill C-36. Allow me to introduce the chair and tell you about my professional background before I go ahead with my comments.

The Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults was created in November 2010, for a five-year period ending in October 2015, as part of Quebec government's action plan to prevent senior abuse.

According to the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Inc., which I represent in North America, this is the only research chair of its kind worldwide. The chair has five goals, including the dissemination of research results to various communities. My presentation is set against that backdrop and based on over 25 years of research practice in the area of elder abuse.

I want to thank the federal government for its concern about the mistreatment of seniors. That social problem deserves attention for various reasons. I will state two main reasons.

The first is the increasing proportion of seniors in the Canadian population. According to Statistics Canada, elderly people made up 14.9% of Canadians in 2012, but it is projected that, within 25 years, one person out of four will be a senior. That figure alone is reason enough for us to look into this.

The second reason is that the response to the needs of abused seniors and their abusers fluctuates greatly from one region to another of Canada. We need knowledge, regulatory and legislative frameworks, and practical guidelines. Your actions are headed in that direction.

The step we are currently taking has to do with the Criminal Code of Canada. More specifically, I am talking about our legislators's option that is currently being studied—the sentencing. I want to begin by saying that I cannot see anyone being opposed to what is proposed. Nevertheless, you will not be surprised to hear that I have some comments to share with you. I divided my comments into two categories. I will begin with the wording of the amendments, and then I will discuss their application.

The proposed subparagraph is set out 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,

I want to begin by commending the legislator for not introducing the notion of vulnerability in the wording. I have been fighting for many years to disprove the incorrect theory that being elderly necessarily leads to being vulnerable, which in turn leads to being abused. I want to break that connection made all too quickly between age, vulnerability and abuse, as everyone will be afraid of aging if abuse becomes an inevitable consequence. In addition, the individual diversity among people from 65 to 100 years old—or even between two 75-year-old individuals—is so great that designating that group with a single notion, that of vulnerability, is terribly limiting.

However, how will a judge assess the significant impact on a senior's life? Those who have been involved in criminal law courts know that, during a trial, the consequences are not presented as evidence. Therefore, the court can hear about the impact on the victim only once someone pleads guilty or is convicted. The victim is then invited to fill out the victim impact statement form at the court where they will talk about the effect of the crime on various areas of their life. Currently, the judge may take that into account or not.

I am wondering how many senior victims fill out that form. I don't really have the answer to that question, which I am adding to the discussion. Although that form is meant to provide the victim with a voice, some of them have a hard time talking about what happened and putting everything in writing. Is that worse or better for a senior? I don't know. However, I tend to believe that, if a senior has cognitive or functional limitations that affect their health, filling out the form would be a challenge.

So what kind of provisions are there to make sure that the judge will consider that significant impact, to use the working of the bill? In my own words, this is the question we need to ask ourselves: How will the judge take those consequences into consideration and deal with them? That's important to know. If we do not know that, we may feel that the proposed subparagraph will not change anything, as judges have always had the power to take the nature of the crime into account—as well as its seriousness and the consequences on the lives of victims—when deciding on a sentence.

The second question I am asking myself has to do with age. How should we define age? Do we base it on chronological age, whereby every day we will all be older than we were the day before? Do we go by physiological age, or health status? Or should we go by cognitive age or brain function? Should we base it on social age, where life is divided into phases, including school, work, marriage or young family and then retirement? In short, how will the notion of age be operationalized in this bill?

The third question I ask myself is about the word “and” placed between “age” and “other personal circumstances” in the bill. Am I to understand that age will not be the only factor considered? Once again, how will the required elements be gathered and how will they be taken into consideration to determine the personal situation of the senior victim?

The second part of my comment is about implementation.

The sentencing is the step that concludes—or nearly concludes—any legal process. That implies that an offence or a crime has been committed and the police got involved. At that stage, the case has already been deemed serious enough and could be developed further to constitute a formal complaint. The suspect or suspects have been identified, although I recognize that, in cases of elder abuse, since we are talking about a relationship of trust, the identification of abusers may be less of a challenge. The case has made its way to court, there was no out-of-court settlement, and the criminal or criminals involved have been convicted or have pleaded guilty. Only then would the proposed subparagraph apply.

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?

All the literature and practical accounts show that a small portion of abuse cases make their way to court. There are of course some more subtle situations that will never come before courts, such as excessive familiarity or extreme rudeness, but there are all those other situations that are never heard about. Many reasons may help us understand why so few cases are heard. A major reason is the structural ageism of our communities.

What value does the word of a senior have for a police officer? How are seniors considered? How are they treated by a lawyer or a judge? How does a crown prosecutor assess the capacity of a senior to testify in a court? Wouldn't a good out-of-court settlement be better than a trial in some cases because the senior may have a hard time testifying?

How can a senior deal with the length of proceedings, from the moment of victimization to the sentencing? It is well known—naive optimism aside—that some defence lawyers use postponements to bring down the trials involving elderly victims.

So, as you can see from my many comments and questions, I am wondering about all the other actions required in preparation for the change we are discussing today. My concern is that the legislation will apply only to a limited number of situations. What, then, can we put in place to help as many victims of elder abuse as possible?

If we assume that 10% of seniors could fall victim to elder abuse in Canada, that would mean nearly 52,000 victims. After all, there are almost 5.2 million seniors in Canada. Even if there isn't agreement that 10% is the right figure, and we assume it is actually 5%, that still means 26,000 victims—and that's a lot. Of those 26,000 cases, how many will make it to court?

With that in mind, I urge you, as members of society and parliamentarians, to continue working together towards other tangible measures that will support victims of abuse. That means doing a better job of raising awareness around the issue and providing proper training to all those who will be working with victims of elder abuse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're down to nine minutes.

[Marie Beaulieu]

Thank you.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

[Marie Beaulieu]

Questions are welcome in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Ms. Eng, would you like to make an opening address of 10 minutes?

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to appear before the committee today to support Bill C-36.

CARP is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization with 55 chapters and over 300,000 members across the country. We focus on improving the quality of life for all Canadians as we age. A critical component of our mandate, therefore, is the right of all Canadians to be free of discrimination based on age and of its worst manifestation, which is elder abuse.

I followed the committee's deliberations at your meeting last week in preparation for today's appearance, and I would say that CARP members would be very encouraged by the all-party support shown for the proposal to increase sentencing for elder abuse convictions. On behalf of people they know who have been abused, and sometimes on their own behalf, they will take heart that Parliament is taking action to eradicate the scourge of elder abuse.

They will also be impressed by the common thread in your deliberations that the proposal, on its own, is but one element in a comprehensive strategy needed to prevent, detect, report, investigate, and ultimately prosecute elder abuse.

CARP has been on the record as calling for a single point of first contact, an elder abuse hotline, if there is evidence of abuse. To reflect our social responsibility, there should be a duty to report. Elder abuse is a public crime, not just a personal matter.

We believe that here is a need for greater caregiver support for the estimated 2.7 million Canadians who are now caring for loved ones at home, and we're calling for specialized investigative support and victim services and shelters for the elder victims of abuse. That is in addition to ensuring swift passage of Bill C-36.

There is no doubt that other levels of government must play a role. The investigation and prosecution of elder abuse crimes falls under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces and municipal levels can provide victim services and shelters for victims of abuse. Spending priorities at all levels of government can increase access to affordable housing, relieve caregiver pressures, and provide income support, all of which can help to prevent elder abuse. That is not to excuse elder abuse in any manner; it is to reflect on some of the pressures that can give rise to abuse.

To be perfectly clear, CARP's view of elder abuse is that it is a crime of predation, so we target the predators, whose crime is made worse because they're exploiting the power imbalance between them and their victims. More often than not, that power imbalance is given to the predators out of trust, familial love, or dependence. That's what makes them vulnerable. That's why, unlike other crimes, the vast majority are committed by those who are closest to the victims. That is why CARP supports Bill C-36, which targets precisely this exploitation and the differential impact due to age and other personal circumstances.

In fact, CARP recommended this provision to the then minister for seniors, Julian Fantino, at our first meeting, in February 2011. As he was a former chief of police, I knew he would immediately understand the operation of section 718 of the Criminal Code, which can increase sentencing for aggravating circumstances. Providentially, and sadly, we had occasion to put this discussion into sharp focus just one month later, with the case of a grandmother who was forced to live in an unheated garage through a Toronto winter.

Bill C-36 adds a clause to section 718.2, but it is instructive to note that the section was originally added to the Criminal Code to direct more severe punishment if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, gender, religion, age, etc. In our opinion, that more directly targets the predator and his or her motivation. Bill C-36 adds the further circumstance of a differential impact due to age.

Taken together, we believe that the provisions can achieve the purpose of deterrence and prevention.

CARP takes the position that even one case of elder abuse is one case too many, but the numbers still bear mentioning. CARP member polling shows that approximately 10% of older Canadians experience some form of abuse, which is consistent with academic and Statistics Canada research. Based on the recently released census figures, there are 4.9 million seniors as of 2011. At 10%, potentially half a million Canadian seniors may be facing some form of elder abuse.

In just 10 years it's estimated that the 65-plus population will grow to 7.9 million. If nothing is done to reduce the incidence of abuse, three-quarters of a million seniors could face elder abuse.

This 10% figure is made worse by several factors.

First, U.K. research suggests that vulnerable seniors, defined as those who are dependent on others for care or who suffer from some type of disability, suffer much higher rates of abuse, at 25%.

Second, there's under-reporting. According to Statistics Canada, about 7 in 10 crimes against older Canadians are never reported to police. Studies of elder abuse in the U.S. show that as many as 90% of all cases of elder abuse go unreported.

Third, the thing that makes this worse is that it's largely a crime that takes place where a person is supposed to be the safest, among their family and friends. Family violence against seniors has increased by 14% since 2004. As the Minister of Justice testified, of the 7,900 reported acts of violence against seniors, roughly a third were committed by family and a third by their acquaintances.

I have a final comment on public awareness. Of course there is a great need for people to recognize what constitutes elder abuse, and, more importantly, what they can do about it. The public service announcements in the New Horizons program have gone a long way to promoting public awareness. Police and prosecutors need further training and resources to better investigate and prosecute abusers, but they are not going to get those resources allocated unless all levels of government make it clear that eradicating elder abuse remains a priority. That's why we cannot lose sight of the importance of a Minister of Justice standing up in Parliament and before this committee to proclaim our collective abhorrence of elder abuse, and for this committee to back that up with passage of Bill C-36.

While we're at it, let's rename the annual Elder Abuse Awareness Day and call it the Day to End Elder Abuse.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Ms. Butt, if you have an opening address, please go ahead.

[Dr. Naila Butt, Executive Director, Social Services Network]

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for inviting the Social Services Network to appear before you as you are examining Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code in reference to the issue of elder abuse.

My name is Dr. Naila Butt. I'm the executive director of the Social Services Network, a not-for-profit charitable organization located in Markham.

The Social Services Network was established in 2004 to deliver culturally and linguistically appropriate direct services to the diverse multicultural South Asian population. Our goal is to inform, support, and empower the community to live an independent and enriched life and to integrate it into the broader Canadian context. With a growing portfolio of services and projects, our multilingual staff represent many South Asian cultures, countries, and faiths, and we have delivered over 27 projects with 32 community partners involving volunteers, coordinated more than 800 awareness and wellness activities, served 4,000 South Asian clients, and engaged over 50,000 community members.

Over the last two years we have established ourselves as a major provincial and national player, particularly as we are at the forefront of addressing the issue of violence in South Asian families, including a strong focus on elder abuse.

One of our main avenues for addressing the issue is through our Impact of Family Violence: A South Asian Perspective, which is an annual province-wide conference project.

Our expertise has also been acknowledged through the awarding of a pan-Canadian initiative funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada's new horizons for seniors program. It sets out to work with South Asian seniors from diverse cultural and linguistic communities and the relevant sectors involved in violence prevention and abuse to identify the areas where seniors are at risk of abuse. The goal is to establish a coordinated community response and increase knowledge on elder abuse awareness and the relevant supports that are needed.

Using a local-level community development approach, this project is currently being implemented in four regions of Ontario—York, Toronto, Peel, and London—with the goal of addressing and reducing elder abuse in our communities.

Why is elder abuse a concern for South Asian families?

Elder abuse in South Asian communities is becoming a growing concern, as SSN front-line staff have identified from their work in the community and as detailed in our Impact of Family Violence conference report.

The report of the May 5, 2011, conference presents a compilation of the collective and cumulative ideas of over 200 conference participants and experts who agreed upon recommended next steps to take this work forward.

There is little concrete quantitative data that outlines the extent of elder abuse in South Asian communities, but the results of the conference and other focus groups that have been conducted by SSN indicate that elder abuse is a prevalent issue that has been silenced in South Asian homes.

In both conferences, in 2011 and 2012, we dedicated a workshop to the issue of abuse against South Asian seniors. Workshop participants included front-line service providers representing diverse linguistic, faith, and cultural South Asian communities who work directly with seniors; South Asian seniors themselves; academic subject-matter experts; and mainstream organizations involved with the issue of elder abuse, including the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, and the Toronto, York, and Peel police services, which have expertise in elder abuse.

A quote from one of our six community workers who work directly with the families and seniors helps to summarize and contextualize this issue: Seniors are not aware of what constitutes elder abuse. They do not know of their rights. They are afraid of speaking out. Many feel ashamed of the treatment they are receiving from their children and grandchildren. Due to language and cultural barriers, they are unable to access many supports that are available.

South Asian seniors are clearly isolated and neglected. Most live with their adult children and their grandchildren, who are busy with their school and paid work. There's a communication gap with youth, and with the adult children at work, there is no time to provide support to seniors.

Many seniors are experiencing exploitation in terms of having their pension cheques taken away from them, leaving them with no access to money, and the expectation that they are to provide child care, housework, and cooking for the family, which are difficult activities for older seniors who are sometimes frail and unhealthy.

Family dynamics are complex, with multiple factors influencing stressors in the home. For example, there are financial challenges for their adult children who, as immigrants, find it difficult to find a job but need to support their own children and their parents.

There is a notion in the South Asian culture that when you have children, they will look after you as you age, just as you took care of them when they were young. In their home countries, this expectation is supported. However, immigrant families experience multiple barriers to inclusion, such as systemic discrimination in employment and education and other settlement stresses that put pressure on this custom.

Seniors and front-line workers described the psychological, verbal, and emotional abuse seniors were experiencing in the home, leading to depression and mental health issues. Some South Asian seniors, such as Tamil seniors, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder related to their experiences of war, and they worry about their families back home. Financial abuse is also evident, leaving seniors dependent on their adult children even for transportation money.

Active and passive neglect of seniors also seems to be evident in this community. Violation of rights is definitely a form of abuse that is experienced by South Asian seniors. False information about their entitlements as sponsored immigrants and fear of deportation and the police are tactics that are sometimes used by abusers to control the seniors in their homes.

In addition, there is a lack of knowledge about the Canadian system and laws, and they do not know where to go to get help. In a few cases we heard about physical violence against seniors in the home.

One of the biggest issues that arose in many of our discussions on the issue of elder abuse was the cultural and specific systemic barriers to disclosure and reporting. Because of this, we inferred that the incidence of elder abuse is higher than has been identified.

What are the barriers for these seniors in accessing services? There is a strong fear of bringing shame to the family, or they may be too proud to confess their problems to others. It also brings shame to the whole family if others in their cultural and religious community think their children aren’t taking care of their parents.

From the adult children's perspective, it can be considered a shame to bring in outside caregiving help for their senior parents, thus placing the burden of caregiving on already busy families. Language barriers, cultural conflict, loss of their social support system, and their changing role in Canada also contribute to the seniors' vulnerability. They don’t know where to go, nor do they have an understanding of their rights and entitlements. Lastly, South Asian seniors are hesitant to use the mainstream services because there is fear that agency intervention will result in family breakup and disintegration of the family.

However, we do recognize that the factors influencing the occurrence of elder abuse in these homes are complicated and go beyond the individual family or cultural experience. For the diverse South Asian populations living in Canada, the most significant stressors they experience relate to the migration and settlement processes. They're trying to find jobs, secure affordable housing, pay the rent, buy groceries, and understand the Canadian justice system.

Stress and poverty are attacking their physical and mental health, with isolation, frustration, and depression taking over. Homes are overcrowded, and families are experiencing stresses within the family home related to the new need for more than one breadwinner here in Canada and the changing role of women and elders.

When examining the issues related to family violence in South Asian families, explanations that emphasize culture often provide an overly simplistic analysis to the complex and confusing web of problems that South Asian families in Canada are engulfed in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute.

[Dr. Naila Butt]

What needs to be done?

We fully support this legislation. Our elder abuse project and other cross-sectoral work that we are doing in Ontario has focused on the fstrategies that follow.

First, provide education for immigrants on what life in Canada is like for immigrants, including Canadian rights, freedoms, and laws, and also on what to expect with grandchildren growing up at home, financial restraints, and the justice system.

Also, there needs to be family counselling for all members of the family, delivered by South Asian counsellors, not mainstream counsellors.

As well, there needs to be more support for adult children caregivers, more support for South Asian programs for seniors, delivered by organizations like SSN, and more peer-to-peer support groups.

Elder abuse information needs to be provided to seniors in their own languages to educate them on what constitutes abuse, the consequences of abuse, and where they can go for help. There is a need for support programs that help health and social service providers and seniors themselves identify the signs of elder abuse, and for more sector-specific, cross-sectoral, culturally sensitive training.

There is a need for South Asian-specific emergency residential shelters and also a need to work on problems with the whole family, as well as a need for more funding for mental health services.

In summary, there is a need for education and support for seniors and families before and after the immigration process, for awareness training for front-line health and social service providers in identifying signs and symptoms, for culturally and linguistically sensitive family counselling programs, for cross-sectoral collaboration, and for more support for adult children and families.

In conclusion, the South Asian population is growing rapidly, and South Asians continue to remain one of the largest visible minority groups in Ontario as a whole. The population of Canada is also rapidly aging. In the York Region alone, by 2026 a 400% increase in seniors is projected.

These statistics, coupled with elder abuse stats, validate our inference that elder abuse is occurring in our communities at a comparable rate proportional to the mainstream population in Ontario—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you. We're out of time.

[Dr. Naila Butt]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Madam Boivin, at our last meeting I think I said that it was seven minutes to start. It's five minutes for each round. I apologize for that confusion last week.

You have five minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I didn't complain.

I want to thank all three of you for being here today to discuss such an important issue. I think we all share the same vision when it comes to the matter of elder abuse. Ms. Beaulieu, I believe it was you who said that no one could oppose such a bill. I challenge anyone here to stand up and voice their opposition to Bill C-36.

Nevertheless, no discussion is ever that simple. In listening to all three presentations, I don't think I heard anyone say that Bill C-36 was a magic bullet. The problem is far more complex and much more nuanced than we might think. What's more, it impacts a group of individuals who are among the least likely to speak up—and that is not meant in a negative way—but who may have the most reason to speak up and complain.

When I began practising law—I'm going to betray my age—almost 30 years ago, when I was called to the bar, the issue of domestic violence was coming to the fore. Everything I have read about Bill C-36 so far very much reminds me of that issue. In other words, it's going to take a lot of education, a lot of publicity, something that is well under way in Quebec. In fact, I was extremely glad to see the ads featuring Yvon Deschamps, for example, speaking out against the taboo surrounding elder abuse.

I have a concern about Bill C-36 and the way it is written. I am not so sure that it will truly do what we think it will. Ms. Beaulieu, you did a good job of making that point when you said that it comes at the very end of the process. So the process must have been initiated for the bill to even be applicable, someone must have been charged. Many sections in the Criminal Code could apply to elder abuse cases, whether we're talking about criminal negligence, fraud or some other act.

My question is directed to the three of you.

When you did your studies—and we have those statistics of the percentage of people it touches, or whom we assume it touches—when a sentencing process is reached, were you aware that judges were not using this as a deterrent, as aggravating circumstances? People from the ministry told us last week that, yes, it was already used. Do you agree with them or not?

[Susan Eng]

I would disagree, simply because the types of sentences that were being handed out really shocked the conscience. People would look at that, and despite all the various excuses you could use—for example, that the person was the caregiver for the older person and therefore you couldn't then send them to jail, etc., or that they didn't know any better, as in one case where one person was really low-functioning—you still look at it and say that can't be enough. It's almost a licence to commit this crime.

From that observation, without adequate statistics on whether judges might have given a heavier sentence had this provision been in place, at least at this point we have to bring it forward as one possible reason that the sentences are inadequate.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Are you all reasonably satisfied that when it says,

the bill says, “had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age”,

it doesn't specify that it has to be an older person? It refers to “age”—meaning what?

[Susan Eng]

Well, it wouldn't mean anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think Madam Beaulieu wants to say something. Go ahead.

[Marie Beaulieu]

Thank you, Ms. Boivin, for your comments, which I sincerely appreciate.

You are raising some points that I touched on during my 10-minute presentation. I wonder whether judges aren't already using their discretion to take into account the fact that the victim is a senior.

I am troubled by the fact that so few cases ever make it to court. When you examine the case law, something I did two or three years ago, you find very little there.

One probable solution lies in educating all of the stakeholders in the justice network about what it means to work with seniors. That was what I recommended earlier when I said that police officers needed to learn how to work with seniors with respect to gathering evidence. That recommendation also applies to crown prosecutors, defence counsel and judges.

Will this amendment do a lot more? It may in the few cases that actually lead to a conviction. My overriding concern is that this bill targets only a minority of the situations out there, when the focus should really be on prevention.

So, while I would never oppose Bill C-36, I would urge Canada's parliamentarians to continue considering all the other steps in the process, particularly those focusing on prevention and better support and assistance.

On my end, I am working on a research project aimed at identifying better police practices with respect to seniors, because everything goes back to that. If the police don't go about gathering evidence in the right way from the outset, the case will never result in a conviction.