Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was age.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am once again coming back to the issue of zero tolerance, as that is what strikes me the most. I think that's what the government is trying to do, and we all agree with that approach.
Witnesses we received before you, at the beginning of our study, saw a connection between elder abuse and conjugal violence, for instance.
Not that long ago, it was not in the Criminal Code. It was added to the same section as evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner. It was seen as an aggravating factor.
Again I'm playing lawyer a bit with you because I understand—I think we all do—the social impacts and all that needs to be done on social housing, on raising seniors out of poverty. There are so many aspects on which we all agree, but right now we are facing the sentencing issue. The sole purpose of this committee is to see if this is going to help work against elder abuse, in a criminal aspect, for the purposes of sentencing.
In the objective of getting to zero tolerance....
I will read the title of the bill:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse). “This Act may be cited as the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act.” We want to add as an aggravating factor
evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
You're our last group of witnesses before we start the study, article by article, which means one article—that one.
If we put in “significant impact”, we leave everything else, but “significant” still bothers me. It's not a trick question. It's not to avoid anything, because we're going to vote in favour whatever happens, but I do believe that if we want to help amend the Criminal Code to include the elder abuse disposition in subsection 718.2.... We have zero tolerance for kids, we have zero tolerance for a spouse, so shouldn't we have zero tolerance for our seniors, for our elders? That's my question.
4:50 p.m.
Community Development Social Worker, Elder Abuse Intervention Team, City of Edmonton
I think we should have zero tolerance, you're right. As we go back over time, it was maybe child abuse that we looked at initially, then spousal abuse, and we said “No, this is not acceptable in our society and we need to deal with it.” And laws were put in place. So I agree with you on that point.
Bullying is another issue that I think we have to take a strong stance on as well, and say that's not acceptable; it's not acceptable in the schoolyard or anywhere. For seniors, I'd point out that there's also bullying. That will be another whole area that we need to talk about at some point.
I think zero tolerance for sure. Whether this gets at it, so that we get .... It helps to some degree, but I'm not sure how far it takes us. It does help. The wording “significant impact”...I'm not a person in the courts a whole lot, but I think judges, lawyers.... The judges, for example, at the last point, in making a decision, are taking a lot into consideration. I think there has to be some discretion, if you will, and something put on them perhaps to sort through that and say from his or her perspective, “This is what I've decided based on some of these factors.”
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I'm afraid it will become a discussion in front of the court on the word “significant”. If I go back to the example Raymond gave of his 88-year-old...basically age is not a factor, but I want to say, “Buddy you went after that guy. That fact in itself, plus....” Of course, it has an impact. I don't want it to start deviating to the question of whether it had a significant impact. It had an impact. We all agree. Every time a gesture of violence is made—and we're on the Criminal Code. I'm not talking about anything else. I'm talking about somebody who has been charged with an infraction under the code who is now under the sentencing process. I don't personally—but that's me—want it to become a lawyers' debate about “significant impact”. The impact is sufficient for me, and it protects even more the senior. It shouldn't be a debate.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
If we look at the prevalence of elder abuse, some of the witness testimony, such as CARP's, when they came before us, said that the incidence was 10%, drawing on academic studies, Statistics Canada, and the like. Of course, it may be higher, first because of under-reporting, and second because the Statistics Canada data and the data they drew upon from the academic study were from some four years ago, and Dan Albas seems to have even more recent data. And of course we have to bear in mind that this is a growing demographic, so the incidence of elder abuse is only going to grow.
I want to deal with the specific issue of the vulnerable, the issue Mr. Goguen brought up. Here, the incidence is much higher. Defining the vulnerable as those who are dependent on others for care or who suffer from some form of particular disability, the incidence here seems to rise to something closer to 30%.
Now, my question, seeking to elicit comment from all of you because of your experience and expertise, has to do with the systemic causes or contributions to elder abuse amongst the vulnerable. I'm speaking about situations mainly in the health care system, where we may have poorly developed or poorly coordinated home care services, or hospital overcrowding, or low support for caregivers, or insufficient resources for caregivers, or inadequate options for long-term care and the like.
All of you are involved in one form or another in the delivery of social services, so my question to you is this. Much of what I've just talked about in terms of systemic contributions to elder abuse amongst the vulnerable really lies very much in the area of provincial jurisdiction—along with, of course, the federal role in subventing the kinds of services that the provinces can't provide. You're from different provinces here—we have Quebec, we have Ontario, we have Alberta. Do you find that these causes are becoming exacerbated, or are they being improved, and how can they be addressed and improved, etc.?
4:55 p.m.
Program Supervisor of Social Work, Elder Abuse Intervention Team, Catholic Social Services
What is happening in health care—the statistic was given here about the growth of the aging population—is going to have a huge impact. The way services are rolled out and implemented, waiting times, having enough resources and enough people to do the work—these things constitute a severe issue, in my opinion, that needs to be looked at. That's why I respectfully suggested that, just as you pointed out, the provincial part needs a bit of push to get caught up to this issue, because it's going to catch up to us really quickly.
5 p.m.
Director, Department of Social Services, Jewish General Hospital, As an Individual
I think what you said is very important, in the sense that the way we treat our seniors is an indicator of the way we as a society respect one another. We talk about systemic abuse, about the growing elderly population, and the growing health care needs of the elderly population. If we do not as a society address these properly, we are also contributing to the abuse of the elderly.
Systemic abuse is going on. People have a hard time, maybe, seeing themselves as participants in systemic abuse, but it is there.
We have some laws in Quebec for placement of seniors that in my opinion are quite abusive. Seniors have to get out of a hospital, once they no longer need acute care, within 48 hours. Then they have to go into an evaluation bed, and then they have to go into a transit bed, and then they can get to their final bed. They're moved four times before they get to their final nursing home. To me, that's abuse.
So yes, we have to look at all those things. If we don't deal with this issue systemically, then we're almost being.... I don't know what the word is, but just looking at the individual who does the abuse is not sufficient.
5 p.m.
Program Manager, Long-Term Care Best Practices Initiative, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Yes, it is a systemic issue that I think needs to be addressed systemically as well, in terms of the approaches that need to be made; you can't just say that it's acute care or it's long-term care or it's community care. You have to work together as a team, looking at it holistically so that the approach is also holistic.
5 p.m.
Community Development Social Worker, Elder Abuse Intervention Team, City of Edmonton
I'll just make one comment in terms of the home care services in Alberta. If I look back to 15 or 20 years ago, it was well researched and was stated that home care programs were the way to go in terms of health care with seniors: going out and treating in the home as opposed to seeing all of the seniors going into institutions.
We still went on and built the big institutions, recognizing that it really wasn't the most effective method to deal with any of the health care issues they had. That decision was made, for whatever reasons, and I think today we still struggle as far as having enough home care resources out in the community is concerned. I think that needs to be looked at to really deal with all kinds of issues—not just elder abuse—so that we build up the workforce in terms of the home care, and in terms of the education for that home care staff as well, as they go out and deal with those issues.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I think that ends our round. We actually went an extra round.
I want to thank the panel for being here. You brought a great deal of evidence to us.
As an old policeman, I really thank you for being so kind to the police community that has worked with you. I think that's where much of this has to start. They're the people who are the first on the ground for many of these things, and I think you recognize that they are able to make that turn and bring those issues to you.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
