Justice Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2012

[Marie Beaulieu]

Good afternoon, Mr. Côté. I would like to answer your question too.

I would first like to clarify something that came up a number of times. When we talk about a relationship of trust in a senior abuse situation, we are not always talking about dependency. We must be careful not to reduce senior abuse to the dynamics between a natural caregivers and seniors losing their autonomy. It is much broader than that. I was referring to children, spouses, grandchildren, neighbours and all kinds of service providers. But there isn't always a loss of autonomy that results in a dependent relationship.

The solution you are suggesting when you refer to restorative justice is very significant. A related pilot project is underway at the municipal court of Montreal. It is led by crown prosecutors, among others. I must say that the municipal court of Montreal is in a league of its own; it is a very large municipal court, so they practice criminal law, which is not necessarily done elsewhere.

A crown prosecutor was telling me that one of the most common cases that end up before them involves an elderly woman whose son lives with her because he has an addiction, mental health or gambling problem. Sometimes, he can get along very well with his mother, but, when he is in crisis or in a bad situation, he can also become violent, or even take money if he is a pathological gambler. The mother often ends up agreeing to go to court, not because she wants to see her son in jail, but because he can have access to the services he needs. She sometimes feels that the health system does not give him what he needs.

That is where things get interesting. We have to understand what motivates victims to go to court and we have to see what range of services we can provide. In those cases, the severity of the punishment is perhaps not as important as providing a service that will make it possible to solve the specific problem that the abuser is dealing with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Ms. Eng, I listened to your testimony with interest. I know your background, being involved on the Toronto Police Services Board. You have a good amount of experience with policing and the criminal justice system.

I think it's important that we reiterate this. You talked about elder abuse being a crime of predation. I think that's true. You said it should be denounced. That is something that we on this side of the table think is a very important aspect of our judicial system. I appreciate your comments on that.

I was also interested, especially considering your background with the police, in your view that this legislation will serve the purpose of deterrence. I think you agree that it will serve as a deterrent. That's a bit of a controversial issue in this committee. Some people on the committee don't believe deterrence can be achieved by having sentences that will actually have an effect. We certainly believe it.

Do you have anything more that you want to add to that?

[Susan Eng]

Part of deterrence is the likelihood of being caught. It's extremely important that people who are not really aware of their own behaviour have a recognition that this is an example of condemned behaviour. The likelihood of getting caught is important. This is why I obsess so much on the duty to report and the responsibility of front-line workers. The likelihood of getting caught has to be increased. That way the prospect of being investigated and prosecuted and finally convicted and sentenced has real meaning.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I want to pick up quickly on the duty to report. We have heard from a number of witnesses that a lot of people may not necessarily feel comfortable coming forth with any of this information, but there may well be signs that somebody who was trained would recognize, so I think education on that is a great idea.

How would you envision a duty to report? Who should have that duty, and how would it be enforced?

[Susan Eng]

As I said earlier, we have to be very cautious, because it is unlike child abuse, where teachers, doctors, and social workers have an absolute obligation to report. In the case of dealing with older Canadians, people who work in nursing homes and institutions have a duty under their legislation to report as well, but in between that, we must be very careful not to infantilize the senior. It may be something that they've chosen to do; if you see a son always operating the bank account, that's not necessarily abuse.

There should be protocols such that you ask in a polite way so as not to offend anybody involved, and also protocols for the public to be educated on that asking, in that it is not meant to offend. There are protocols that are necessary, but I think that as a society we have to start accepting that we may have to interfere a bit in other people's family lives to prevent abuse. We have to walk around that a bit gingerly, just to be very careful of those kinds of complexities.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that if we're all invested in preventing elder abuse, then we have to negotiate those pathways to detecting, including the duty to report.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

That's great.

Do I have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Butt, did you have something to add?

[Dr. Naila Butt]

It is the responsibility of each and every individual to report abuse. That's why the education is so important. It's so that everybody is aware that if anybody—it could be any senior—is being abused, we have to report.

Again, on the other point that was mentioned, in these relationships you don't want to be separated. If it's a son and father, or a daughter, you don't want to be separated.

This acts as a deterrent. What the seniors want or what the parents want is basically just that respect is given to them. I think that is how this law can be used: we actually just inform them that this is what it is, and that if you do this, these are the implications. The objective should be to bring those in the family together versus separating them. That should be the last resort.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madam Boivin, very briefly.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I will be very quick.

This is definitely related to the debate we sometimes have with ourselves and with others as well. If there is one thing in particular that I don't like, it is doing politics on the back of seniors.

When all the parties are campaigning, we go to meet with seniors in long-term care facilities or independent senior residences and we sometimes hear horror stories. Just now we were talking about severe punishment. That is all very well, but, once again, we have to get to the charge; the offence has to be recognized. And we have a problem because seniors are afraid and do not dare to talk about it and report it. They are not going to say that their son—pardon the expression—is shafting them. I have heard many stories like that in Gatineau. That is heartbreaking. The responsibility to report it should not fall on the shoulders of one person in particular. I think that we, as members of society, are all responsible for reporting it if we see situations like that.

Ms. Beaulieu, you said something in the beginning that struck me. I was flipping through some papers just now. If I am not mistaken, you thanked legislators and the government for not introducing the concept of vulnerability. Yet the summary of the bill, which is still the explanation of the bill, says that “this enactment amends the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes”. Are you still proud of us? Could you maybe briefly explain what you were trying to tell us?

My understanding is that the proposed amendment to section 718 actually seeks to make a person's age an aggravating factor for abuse. Does that not sound a bit like vulnerability? Or perhaps I have misunderstood the wording.

[Marie Beaulieu]

You are right. I saw it in the summary, but I didn't see it in the wording of section 718 that we are trying to amend. I believe I was telling myself that the summary would not be in Canada's Criminal Code. At least, the tricky word “vulnerability” that we hear so much about will not be there, and I say...

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

People are going to argue this, the way they argue the title and a host of other things in court.

[Marie Beaulieu]

As I was just saying, the concept of vulnerability is a dangerous concept. If “seniors” is associated with “vulnerability” every time, something is wrong. If “vulnerability” is associated with “abuse”, something is even more wrong. I know seniors who are not vulnerable and I know vulnerable people who are not abused.

I want to emphasize that. Vulnerable seniors might never be abused whereas others who objectively are not vulnerable will be abused.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It is clear.

[Marie Beaulieu]

The idea of associating vulnerability with age from the outset irritates me.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's great, I get it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Findlay.

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

Thank you.

I was very careful to use “victimize”, not “vulnerable”, in my earlier question.

In my riding of Delta—Richmond East in British Columbia we have a large South Asian and Chinese Canadian population. I've certainly heard from constituents that being out of the mainstream in terms of language and culture is a big factor in this issue. It's easy to feel isolated, and even more so if you feel you can't express yourself or you're not sure who it is you're to go to.

I'd like to explore this idea about deterrence and a public sanction by having an amendment to the Criminal Code. I'm aware of a case at home where a son was financially abusing his mother. It came to light because she ended up being hospitalized, and when she was asked questions by hospital staff, it wasn't adding up. Bills weren't being paid and her necessities of life weren't being handled.

In the end I came to find out that there is a special unit within the police force called the elder abuse unit, which I didn't know existed before then. Of course their main concern was her having a more secure situation.

What I found out in being peripherally part of that is that even though the mother did not want to testify against her son—and I think she would have been of an age that it would have been very stressful and she probably would not have been very effective under questioning anyway—the fact that the police became involved and were investigating it deterred that person from doing more damage to his mother. It allowed other members of the family, who had her best interests in mind, to come forward and take over.

This is often how things are resolved. It may not actually be in a courtroom. That public sanction, as you said, I think, Ms. Eng, against this behaviour can evolve into a senior being protected who might not otherwise be.

The other thing that came up was the issue of trust. We heard, certainly in the minister's testimony, that a third of those who perpetrate abuse may be family, a third may be known, and a third may be strangers—something like that.

Having been involved in elder care for my mom, who has now passed away, I know that sometimes even when you are very involved in a senior's life, people can establish a trust with a senior very, very quickly in certain circumstances. I know one time I phoned my mother, and though she didn't have an answering machine, an answering machine came on and a strange man's voice was on the message. When I ran down to her apartment to ask who that was and what was going on, it seemed she had befriended a couple of fellows while going to the grocery store who had helped her with her groceries. She had invited them in, and then they said, “Oh, you should have an answering machine.” They got invited for tea the next day and they put in an answering machine.

I don't know where it was all going, but she was quite angry with me for saying I didn't think that was a good idea.

The fact is that people are sometimes lonely, even when family is around. They're living alone, and that element of trust and the ability to take advantage of it can be established very quickly.

Would you agree with me that these are some of the unique issues with seniors?

[Susan Eng]

I think the importance of this initiative is to start that conversation.

When this bill was first announced, there was cross-country media coverage in newspapers and media of all languages. What it does is start the conversation in people's homes throughout the country. To have them look at it and ask themselves, “Do we know somebody? Did we notice something? Should we be more careful?” This thing can happen. I think that's the message that comes with something with such a high profile as this, in an area that until now has been hidden away and people have ignored.

Obviously we have to fill the gaps. We can't leave this on its own. We have to make sure that people understand this issue.

I want to comment briefly about how to reach through cultural and language isolation, because of course it's an issue for the Chinese community as well. That situation in Toronto with the woman being left in the garage through the winter involved a Chinese family, which, if you accept the stereotype of Asian filial obligations, was certainly a “man bites dog” story, but there was wide media coverage of that story, and our reaction to it got wide coverage. To the extent that something like this gets wide coverage, it doesn't matter about the language barriers. We have very effective other-language media across the country, and they will tell the community that this law is in place. That starts the conversation.

[A voice]

I agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

That ends our rounds.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here. From the chair's perspective, I agree that it's very important that the message get out. I hope the press covers today's meeting and the comments from the witnesses, because I think they are appropriate and I think Canadians need to hear them.

This meeting stands adjourned.