Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today in the House to speak against Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The genealogy of Bill S-7 takes us back to Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, which was tabled by the Liberal government in 2001. The original intent of the Anti-terrorism Act was to provide the Canadian legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, 9/11 as we now know it.

There is no question that day should not and indeed cannot be forgotten. The images of passenger planes flying into those iconic towers repeat themselves over and over again in news, television and film, and undoubtedly in the mind as the memories of the many who were personally impacted by that act of terror.

I note with sadness that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his partner have such memories to bear.

As these images repeat themselves, we witness the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents, including 24 Canadians over and over again. That day we awoke to a new kind of threat and a new level of threat. Most importantly, we awoke to a new and profound sense of vulnerability, so we responded.

Several provisions of Bill C-36 became permanently enshrined in other legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code and the Access to Information Act. However, several parts of the Anti-terrorism Act had sunset clauses expiring in February 2007. These provisions concerned investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provisions.

These measures were largely without precedence in Canadian law and for good reason. We believe that these provisions run contrary to fundamental principles, rights and liberties enshrined in Canadian law. The rights and liberties violated include the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. We believe that these are important restrictions on the authority of the state because in their absence there is not sufficient protection of an individual's freedom.

As per the terms of the Anti-terrorism Act, these provisions, in order to be extended, had to be adopted by way of resolution by both Houses of Parliament. However, the resolution was defeated soundly, 159:124 in this House, and these controversial provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act sunsetted.

We know that the efforts did not end there. Similar bills were proposed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the forms of Bill S-3, Bill C-19 and Bill C-17 respectively. It seems this is an annual, or almost annual rite. Now they are back.

Time has passed in the interim, a decade roughly since Bill C-36 was brought before the House, and time has been instructive. Since the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act, the recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provision has never been used. The investigative hearing provision has been used once in the Air India case. Many consider that exercise to have had no positive effect, in fact quite the opposite.

Paul Copeland, a highly experienced and respected lawyer representing the Law Union of Ontario, speaking about this sole experience with the investigative hearing provision, said to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2010 that the Law Union characterized this episode “as a fiasco, and I think that's an appropriate description”. He went on to say about all the provisions examined:

The provisions you are looking at here, in my submission, change the Canadian legal landscape.... They should not be passed, and in my view they are not needed. There are other provisions of the code that allow for various ways of dealing with these people.

This seems to be the nub of the issue. Without such extreme provisions, without changing the legal landscape of Canada, without breaching the rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens, we have successfully protected the safety and security of Canada and Canadians from terrorist attack. These provisions have proven over the course of time to constitute an unnecessary and ineffective infringement.

As the former NDP justice critic said in the House in 2010:

When facing a crisis, we as political leaders feel that we have to do something even when all the evidence shows that the structures we have, the strength of our society, the strength of our laws, are enough to deal with it. We passed legislation in early 2002 to deal with terrorism when we panicked. We have learned in the last eight years that there was no need for that legislation.

The only thing to add to that summation is that in the past decade we have learned that we did not need this act.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. As Denis Barrette, spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, noted before the standing committee on Bill C-17 in 2011:

Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today.

He concluded:

We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished.

We have borne witness to that in this country.

While these provisions have proven to have no effect on the fight against terror, they have had a profound social impact on Canada and many Canadians. On the eve of 9/11 this year, I showed a film at my local review theatre, the Fox in the Beach. The film is called Change Your Name Ousama. It was produced and directed by local filmmaker Fuad Chowdhury and focuses on a community in my riding of Beaches—East York called Crescent Town. Crescent Town is a very densely populated and diverse community, which is largely made up of Bangladeshi Canadians, most of whom are Muslim.

The film is not a point of view film. It was made for television and screened at the Montreal film festival. It includes significant interview footage, for example, of the assistant director of CSIS. It also includes footage of our Prime Minister in a fairly recent CBC interview telling Canadians that the major threat to Canada is still Islamicism. The film also tells the story of what it feels like to be one of about a million Muslim Canadians living in a political climate where their religion has been held to be a threat to the security of their country.

It is noted in the film by a University of Toronto academic that governments, through their actions, have the power to create stigmas and to marginalize communities. Of this we need, in this place, to be very mindful and sensitive. This is where the film gets its title. It was the advice, amidst the political fallout of 9/11, of a Muslim leader of Crescent Town to members of his community, “Change your name Ousama. Shave your beard. Do not wear your kufi”. In essence, “change or disguise your identity”.

Motivated as they have been, bills such as that introduced in 2001 by the Liberals and its partial reprisal today in the form of Bill S-7 have had that impact. They have left so many across this country and in my riding feeling like they have something to apologize for, as if the onus rests on them to demonstrate somehow that they are not terrorists.

Herein lies a great tragedy. In Bill S-7, as with Bill C-36 before it, we have before us a bill that contradicts not just the legal heritage of this country but a fundamental social and political heritage that takes us back decades at least, a heritage of which we should be proud and protective. The heritage I speak of is the opportunity to maintain and exercise one's culture and religion in Canada freely and still be and feel fully Canadian. This social and political heritage is one that has made us a great place, a place where so many around the world long to come to live.

Justice and Human Rights

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr.Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are in agreement with this amendment, since this motion seeks to amend the French short title of the bill to substitute the use of “personnes âgées” for “personnes aînées”, and therefore the short title would read “Loi sur la protection des personnes aînées au Canada”.

In testimony before this committee there were certain witnesses, such as Madame Marie Beaulieu, who expressed concern with equating vulnerability solely with age. Doing so would be derogatory, because we all understand that a senior is not vulnerable simply because of age. I'm getting to understand that more and more as I age myself.

This is not what Bill C-36 proposes, and the short title of the bill as introduced reflects what is clearly stated in the bill, which is that the impact of a crime on a victim can be exacerbated because of the combination of a victim's age and other personal circumstances. This said, we do not object to this amendment, given that the use of “aînées” in the French short title would be consistent with the French titles of other federal initiatives, such as

…the Initiative fédérale de lutte contre les mauvais traitements envers les aînés and the programme Nouveaux Horizons pour les aînés.

I think again, in trying to be consistent on our consistencies, we are in agreement with this amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I appreciate my colleague's comments. You should never feel badly about not being a lawyer. Lawyers are not the possessors of the absolute truth. If you have three lawyers in a room, you may end up with three different interpretations. And I'm not trying to insult anyone by saying this.

I say that with the greatest love for my profession, but that's part of our DNA, I suppose, and at the same time the difficulty we face all the time is to use the words that really represent what we're trying to say. It's not always easy.

I never claim to know the absolute truth.

I read and re-read the document by Cynthia Kirkby and Havi Echenberg, published by the Library of Parliament, and it was worth it. It was a legislative summary of elder abuse. The authors quoted some jurisprudence.

In R. v. Kralik, the judge said:

I must also bear in mind, as I am directed by s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code, that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Certain factors are deemed to be aggravating factors, but the factors listed in s. 718.2 are only examples of aggravating factors. In my view, abuse of a frail, isolated elderly person, particularly an elderly person who was “not as sharp as she once was,” can be considered an aggravating factor.

In this case, the judge is not asking that the impact be significant. My concern, when we are talking about a senior, is that we are creating a new way of seeing things that goes against what all the witnesses have said, both the witnesses for the government and for both the opposition parties.

The offences in the case my colleague, Mr. Leef, mentioned, involved property. So we can't talk about aggravating offences. If I get into a senior's car with the intention of scaring that person, it isn't the fact of getting into the car that is an offence, but wanting to terrorize that person. That is something different. If someone just hits a person who happens to be a senior, the ruling will not even be based on that. We are talking here about offences against the person, be they assault, financial offences or others still. I understand the fact that we want to use section 380.1 in a specific case of fraud where you want to see a significant impact. But if we are talking about an assault, say someone pushes a senior, that may not have a significant impact.

These are comments I heard when I started talking to people in my riding about Bill C-36. I told myself that they would be proud of us because we were going to vote with the government on this. I think it is a good bill. But when I explained to people what it involved, they invariably told me that it was still flawed, that the criminals would get away with it and that we, the politicians, were only finding loopholes for them.

So this is what I'm bringing forward. I think this is what should be applied. It doesn't revolutionize the Criminal Code. I didn't hear the department representative speak about it. This summarized precisely what we want to do, which is to put an end to elder abuse.

I won't say any more. That is my opinion, and I am sharing it.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I think it was explained quite well in both comments. I know that Madame Boivin has a legal mind, so my trying to give my version of interpretation probably won't help. We could sit around and talk about it all day long, and I certainly appreciate where she's coming from.

I was just reading over the clause, and the great news about this is that this act, Bill C-36, finally enshrines this category of individual into legislation where it wasn't enshrined before, and we can all celebrate that it's automatic, that it doesn't need to be considered as an aggravating factor any more.

The challenge, or maybe the danger—and this is rather funny, and Madame Boivin pointed it out—is that we might be swapping sides here. They're being tough on crime, and we're relaxing a little on our position here.

You can simply say that the evidence of an offence had an impact on a victim, but I think it's pretty simple to say that every act of crime has an impact on the victim, plain and simple, regardless of age, gender, or location.

The challenge is measuring what that impact is. Let me give a quick example, because I know I don't want to get into a legal interpretation debate with Madame Boivin. I know she's well versed in this, and we've had some back-and-forth on different committees, playing our perspectives.

If, let's say, an elder's vehicle is broken into when that person is not around, and it's a youth who does it, then there's going to be some impact of that crime on the elder. If that instantly becomes an aggravating circumstance and the sections kick in, then there's no room for interpretation. There's no room to back off that; it becomes a little bit of a challenge on the offender's position. It may very well put the victim in an awkward position in trying to deal with a crime that is now being treated as though there's a direct aggravating circumstance that invokes this section.

I think our position is that the word “significant” already acknowledges that there's an impact, and we don't want to have that as the baseline variable here. “Significant” adds a little bit more. I appreciate the point that we have to be careful about how big a burden that puts on the person who's testifying, but I think the courts and the crown will be able to work out that term—work out those standards, work out the guidelines around what “significant” means—and maintain that consistency. As Ms. Findlay and Mr. Villetorte indicated, it's just maintaining that consistency.

There you have it. I think Ms. Findlay's argument expresses our position.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for what you've brought out to my colleague, Madame Boivin.

This motion proposes to eliminate the reference to “significant” in clause 2 of the English version and the reference to “important” in clause 2 of the French version.

The Criminal Code provides a broad range of offences that apply equally to protect all Canadians, regardless of age, health, or gender. All offences have an impact on their victims; however, this impact may be exacerbated by reasons of the victim's age and other personal circumstances, such as their health.

As Mr. Villetorte has very ably outlined for us, the Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, which we recently dealt with, amended subsection 380.1 of the Criminal Code to add an aggravating factor to the fraud offence, again aimed at helping seniors and the elderly.

The fact that the offence had a significant impact on the victims “given their personal circumstances, including their age, health and financial situation”, shows that we are trying to achieve consistency here.

The wording of Bill C-36, as introduced, recognizes that offences may have a significant impact on elderly persons who are particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances and, in our view, ensures consistency throughout the Criminal Code in denouncing crimes committed against elderly persons.

Therefore, because of that consistency factor, we cannot support this proposed amendment.

[Matthias Villetorte, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Based on the wording, the proposed subparagraph in Bill C-36 is intended for cases where the impact on the victim may be exacerbated by the combination of the person's age and other personal factors. Furthermore, we must also ensure some consistency with respect to the Criminal Code. The idea of "significant impact" or "effet important" is already used in section 380.1. This doesn't just ensure consistency; it also addresses cases where there is not just an impact on the victim, but a significant impact, given the victim's age and other personal circumstances.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It will come as no surprise. I think everyone has had the opportunity, before today, to review the amendment we were going to move. This amendment follows on the various testimonies we have heard and expresses the purpose of the bill, which is to amend the Criminal Code with respect to elder abuse. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the word "significant"—or "important" in French—from the proposed subparagraph. The amended clause of the bill would read as follows:

2. Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had an impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

Although, practically, I know what the outcome of my proposed amendment will be, given my talents as a mathematician, I simply want to explain again why I have put forward this amendment.

This is one of the rare bills we all support, as to its content. It is a necessity, even though, after reading the documentation provided by our brilliant Library of Parliament analysts, we can see that judges have already been considering the commission of an offence against an elderly person as an aggravating factor. Having said that, all the witnesses mentioned, even if they were not necessarily speaking about the criminal offence and sentencing, that there was still a lot to be done with seniors, and we certainly cannot think that this bill will fix everything.

In looking at it, we thought that we would put ourselves in the shoes of our Conservative colleagues and, like them, try to be tough on crime. We decided to try to be a little tougher with a view to avoiding any debate. We know that this is pure legalese. When a person is before the courts and when submissions on sentencing are rendered, if the expression "significant impact" is given…

“...a significant impact on the victim”,

…given that it is new, there will probably be endless discussions on it. The purpose of the amendment, pure and simple, is to avoid all possibility of parallel debate that has nothing to do with what we are trying to do within Bill C-36. And by "we", I mean the committee, the government and the opposition parties. The bill aims to give a little more protection to our seniors, who are sometimes vulnerable. Sometimes they aren't, but some people commit offences against them as though they are, and are then surprised to learn that they can be charged. We want to send the message that our seniors must not be attacked financially, physically, morally or in any other way.

I told you a story about something that happened recently in Gatineau, involving a 99-year-old woman. I still cannot believe that there are people who would stoop so low and commit this kind of offence. That person will have the opportunity to plead his case before the courts. People are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. If that person is found guilty, I would not want there to be a debate as to whether the offence had a significant impact on the victim. Instead, I would want to know whether there was an impact on the victim because of her age or any other personal circumstances.

We all have the opportunity here to be serious about this issue, and I have no reason to believe that the government is not. We hear its tough-on-crime rhetoric, and we are regularly accused of being soft on crime. For once, I feel comfortable saying that it seems we have found a way to say exactly in writing what we intend to accomplish. It isn't perfect yet, but almost.

Since we are lucky to have someone from the department here, I would like to ask him, in case I am mistaken, whether removing the word "significant" or "important" changes something with respect to the burden of proof in sentencing.

Mr. Villetorte, I'm not asking whether you agree or not, but I would like to know if, by removing the word "significant" or "important", it changes anything with respect to the burden of proof in sentencing and the way in which the judge would be called upon to judge the aggravating factor as such.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order, this being meeting number 45 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 20, 2012, we have Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse). Today we're going to deal with clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(On clause 2)

The chair calls clause 2, which I am calling now, and I understand the NDP have an amendment, NDP-2.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

In addition to passing Bill C-36, should we take any other measures to denounce, prevent and punish elder abuse? Also, should anything be added to Bill C-36 to prevent, denounce and punish elder abuse?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lithwick, you talked about zero tolerance in hospital centres. I also liked the fact that you discussed harm reduction if close relatives are involved. In your statement, you talked about the difficulties involved in reporting elder abuse cases, as well.

Other witnesses pointed out that sentencing is one of the last steps of judicial proceedings, and a very small percentage of elder abuse cases are reported to the police or reach the stage where charges are laid before courts.

In your opinion, what, if any, will be the impact of Bill C-36 on cases other than those where elder abuse has reached the sentencing stage? Do you think it will contribute to preventing elder abuse and will also encourage reporting, which is often difficult to do?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the four of you for joining us in this important study of the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. On behalf of our seniors, I want to thank you for the work you are doing.

I think that everyone around this table, regardless of party affiliation, knows that this will not solve all the problems our seniors experience on a daily basis. There are many other avenues to explore, but we will deal with this issue for the time being.

You have understood that Bill C-36 basically has to do with the sentencing part. Under the bill, abuse in not an offence. It applies only to the post-trial stage. We are aware that, in certain cases, there may have been no trial even though there should have been one. However, in cases where a trial was held, abuse was presented as an aggravating factor brought before the court for consideration prior to the handing down of the sentence.

At times, in committee or in the House, we wonder what the scope or importance of our work is. Last week, while we were in our respective ridings and the House was not sitting, there was an absolutely horrific high-profile case in my region. In a hospital centre, a 99-year-old lady—and I am not making anything up—was sexually assaulted by an orderly. If that is not horrific, I don't know what is. Of course, when Canadians hear about something like that, they want the accused to hang. He will have the right to his trial; I agree with that. That will not be sidestepped. However, I would be very pleased if Bill C-36 were to become a reality and the court were to apply this amendment proposed to the Criminal Code, whereby it would consider the victim's age and the impact of the offence on that person as aggravating factors.

Most of you have brought up one of my concerns, the fact that it is mentioned that this had a significant impact. I am wondering—and I am asking the question—if we should not remove the notion of “significant impact” from the proposed subparagraph. Here is what we could simply say.

I'll read it in English for you.

Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following:

evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim.

Would you be at ease if we removed the word “significant”? My scare is that we're trying to help, but at the same time, as a lawyer, I'm wondering if we're not just creating more debate in front of the court. How do you define “significant”? Just the fact that it was done to a senior, it had an impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation—it couldn't hurt. It would be better, in my opinion. What do you think?

[Josephine Santos, Program Manager, Long-Term Care Best Practices Initiative, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario]

Good afternoon. My name is Josephine Santos. I am here today representing the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, often known as RNAO. I am a registered nurse and the lead manager for RNAO's work on the prevention of elder abuse. Elder abuse has always been a priority for our association, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-36.

Nurses know in the core of our being that no person ever deserves to be abused or neglected. AIl seniors should be able to live out their final years and enjoy a sense of respect, dignity, safety, and security. As individuals and as a society we must deliver on our duty to protect elders and fully eliminate elder abuse.

RNAO fully supports the amendment of the Criminal Code to include age and other personal circumstances, such as health and financial situation. In itself, however, this amendment will not produce the changes needed to end elder abuse and neglect.

Given that many instances of elder abuse and neglect go unreported, RNAO urges a multi-faceted approach that also includes effective prevention of the root causes that make people more vulnerable to elder abuse and neglect, such as poverty, discrimination, social isolation, and lack of affordable housing. RNAO's recommendations on addressing these social determinants of health are available in more detail in our formal written submission to this committee.

From November 2011 until April 2012 I had the privilege to represent RNAO on Ontario's long-term care task force on resident care and safety. This task force was created in response to media reports of incidents of abuse and neglect, some of which were unreported, in long-term care facilities. In 2011 alone, there were more than 3,200 incidents of abuse and neglect reported to Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. That works out to about 3.5 cases per 100 nursing home beds.

What we learned through surveys, submissions, and a review of the evidence is that the top factors leading to abuse and neglect in this sector include staffing issues, for example, not enough staff, heavy workload, inadequate training and skills. Other factors included dementia, mental health, and addiction linked with responsive behaviours such as being aggressive or violent. A resident may sometimes be a victim of abuse and sometimes represent a danger to themselves, other residents, or staff. In fact, about half of the incidents reported in 2011 involved resident-to-resident abuse. This means that residents with specialized needs must be better supported to ensure safety for themselves and all others in that environment. Areas that need to be addressed towards improved safety include funding for specialized facilities, dedicated specialized units within long-term care homes, appropriate physical plant conditions, specialized programs, and appropriately skilled and knowledgeable staff in sufficient numbers to care for vulnerable residents with high needs.

In May of 2012, the long-term care task force on resident care and safety released its report along with a list of 18 actions to improve care and safety—actions not only relevant to Ontario but of value from coast to coast to coast. In addition to supporting these action items, RNAO recently submitted feedback to our provincial government to help inform Ontario's seniors care strategy. RNAO has brought along copies of this submission for the standing committee, because it includes our evidence-based recommendations on how to improve seniors' care, health care, and safety across sectors, including minimum standards of nursing care in long-term care.

With funding from the federal government, RNAO and the Canadian Nurses Association in 2010 launched the prevention of elder abuse centres of excellence—also called PEACE—in 10 long-term care homes across the country. Positive outcomes of the PEACE initiative included behavioural changes and increased confidence of staff in responding to instances of abuse. Building on the success of this project, RNAO, through federal funding, is now developing a best practice guideline that will focus on addressing awareness, prevention, identification, and strategies for intervention when instances of abuse or neglect are known or suspected. This guideline will complement other evidence-based RNAO clinical best practice guidelines such as client-centred care; screening and caregiver strategies for older adults with delirium, dementia, and depression; promotion of safety; alternative approaches to the use of restraints; and prevention and management of violence in the workplace.

All of these evidence-based guidelines, as well as implementation resources, are available to be downloaded from the RNAO website without charge, along with information on RNAO's long-term care best practices initiative.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 44 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are meeting pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 20, 2012, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse).

We have with us today Josephine Santos, program manager, long-term care best practices initiative, from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario; Melanie Perka, program supervisor of social work, elder abuse intervention team, from Catholic Social Services; and from the City of Edmonton, Patrick Power, community development social worker, elder abuse intervention team—and we see the elder abuse intervention team as one body here.

I know it has been explained to you in the letter from the clerk that if you have an opening address, you can take up to ten minutes to make that opening address to us. I'll let you know when you are at nine minutes so you can cut it off at ten minutes, to ensure a fair distribution of the time. After you have made all of your opening addresses, we will turn to the committee to ask questions.

I've already explained that the bells are scheduled to ring at 5:15, and we will end the meeting at 5:15.

Ms. Santos, if you have an opening address you wish to make now, please go ahead.

[Marie Beaulieu]

Mr. Goguen, you are asking what the strength of this bill is and how we can improve it. That reminds me of a principle in law called the Beccaria principle, which says that it is not important how severe the punishment is as long as it is prompt. So it is not about making sure that the sentence is severe, but rather that it is imposed consistently. Perhaps one of the strengths of Bill C-36 is that it reminds us to consider the fact that we are talking about a senior in all cases. In my view, that is a strength.

How can we improve the bill? I am not too worried about improving the wording. I would rather go back to a point that I have raised just now and that I consider important; everything has to do with enforcing the legislation. If we want judges to use it, they have to be able to have access to the information provided by seniors or their loved ones, information about the impact on the senior’s health, be it physical or financial. My concern is that we do not always have the right mechanisms in place to allow judges to get all that information. What can be improved is to work on restoring seniors' proper place and finding out what seniors and their loved ones think.