Justice Committee on Sept. 27th, 2012

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

This is one of the points that can be made. In the Canadian justice system, and certainly as part of the common law going back forever, when there was abuse of an elderly person, our courts took that into consideration. Fifty years ago, if you beat up a very senior citizen, the courts would look very poorly on that and would, in a sense, take that as an aggravating factor. I think it's appropriate, as I was indicating in my comments to Mr. Cotler, that we should reflect what we believe are the priorities and what we are hearing in Canadian society to ensure that this is taken into consideration when a matter is before the court. Again, it's not to say that courts have ignored the fact that the victim may be an elderly person. But again, I think it's appropriate to reflect that, as we have in the past.

Madam Boivin mentioned children under the age of 18. Again, yes, it's an aggravating factor, and yes, most Canadians would agree with that. For many decades, and throughout the history of this country, we've recognized that there are special considerations taken if it's children you're abusing in this country.

Over the years we have amended, added, and refined those aggravating factors that we believe are important for a court to take advantage of. That's our job as legislators. We set out what type of behaviour we think is abhorrent and who should be protected and how. We have a very important role, as you know, and it's our job to do that. We're all part of that.

I'm very pleased that this specific amendment has been so well received up to this point. I hope that continues and continues to move through the legislative process.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Certainly, Minister, and it sounds like these new aggravating factors are going to fit well with the Criminal Code and actually complement the ones that are currently there.

I'm curious. On CARP's website they talk about a case that took place in 2011. It was a gentleman by the name of Terence Richard Webb, who was 43 years old at the time, and took advantage of his uncle who had chronic dementia, to rob him of his entire life savings. In fact, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee said, and I quote, “It was one of the worst cases of elder abuse and neglect I have experienced.”

Would you suggest, Minister, that the aggravating factors in this particular case would get somebody more of a sentence than three months of house arrest, 15 months with a curfew, and 100 hours of community service? Could you see that these aggravating factors would actually give this person more significant time in jail for something as horrific as that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I don't comment on specific cases. I'm not in a position to start analyzing any particular case that is now before the courts or has been before the courts.

That being said, you will remember we were very specific with respect to the victims of white collar crime act. If you remember, we had mandatory sentences of two years or more in that particular legislation for individuals who engage in fraud of $1 million or more.

Our job as legislators is to provide guidance, in the sense that we provide legislation. We indicate the penalties, whether they be minimums or maximums with respect to particular incidents, and we rely on the court system to determine each particular case.

As you know, in any particular case there is always the possibility of appeals if it's not acceptable to the crown or the defence. They have the ability to appeal these things to come up with a sentence that is appropriate in each circumstance.

But again, we were very specific with respect to white collar crime, as you know. We initiated these penalties, and that piece of legislation was well received.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

And of course we listen to organizations such as CARP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Time is up.

Mr. Jacob.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us this afternoon.

Here is the first question that I would like to ask you. Have seniors groups or other groups been consulted in terms of federal initiatives to fight elder abuse?

If so, which are those groups and what do they recommend? Have they agreed to Bill C-36 and have they asked that any other amendments be made to the Criminal Code or other federal measures?

Please go into as much detail as possible, Mr. Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

A number of years ago I met with individuals who were representatives for white collar crime victims. As you will know, there were a couple of very high-profile cases within the province of Quebec.

I've met with victims groups. I remember on a number of occasions I've met with them, basically across the country, and among the recommendations they made was that...many times elderly people are specific targets of individuals who come up with these schemes to rob them of their money. A number of them made the point that the loss of money is particularly deep and aggravated by the fact that they are elderly, and they don't have as much opportunity to replace that.

Over the years I have made a point of visiting every province and territory, cities, and I have had round tables on crime where we invite victims groups and individuals to make representations. For a bill like this, I don't table the bill with them and show them that this is okay. What we do is gather evidence and information when we discuss this with the people across Canada. The feedback that I'm sure you have received, and in general, is that this is an appropriate response for this particular issue. But again, it's part of a larger initiative, as I indicated, with respect to supporting victims groups and seniors, and advertisements to get the message out that senior abuse is not acceptable.

Indeed I have had these discussions with my provincial and territorial counterparts. As I indicated in my opening remarks, there are a number of initiatives across the country where the provinces are highly aware of this. I mentioned, for instance, in nursing homes there are a number of initiatives by provincial agencies to make sure that people in a seniors home aren't abused, perhaps by a caregiver or people who visit the seniors home.

Again, it is wide ranging, but as with all of these pieces of legislation, the feedback I've had has been positive.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

In your presentation, you said that it was a first step in the right direction and we should not stop there.

Have federal measures been taken or are they being put in place to prevent elder abuse?

As you must know, income security, affordable housing, access to universal pharmacare, home care and health care are measures that improve the quality of life and, as a result, are preventative measures for seniors.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's a continuing process with respect to initiatives, as I indicated in my opening remarks. One that I pointed out, which again I did get very good feedback on, was the advertisements put out by the federal government. You saw incidents where a senior was either being yelled at or was being abused. Those are the kinds of things that I think are very helpful.

One of the changes that's ongoing, for instance, where we are putting money, is the new horizons program. If you talk with seniors across this country, they're very aware of the new horizons program. I'm glad it's expanded its mandate, so that programs that would be specifically of assistance to seniors in recognizing senior abuse and giving them the tools and the information they need to report this, to resist this...it is something I very much support.

The recent budget that gave an extra $10 million to this area had my support, of course. I'm very grateful to my colleague Mr. Flaherty for increasing these amounts. As I say, I think they're all steps in the right direction. They are reasonable and proper expenditures of government money, so this is what we will continue to do. As I say, one change to the Criminal Code can't be the whole show, and it's not the whole show; it's not the whole story of what we are doing.

I was here about two years ago on the white collar crime act. Again, that's one component of it, but I am very supportive of initiatives like new horizons and applications that come to the victims fund, which is another avenue for seniors who have become victims, for groups to put together applications. I'm very supportive of that. These will continue, you can be assured of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for bringing forth this important piece of legislation. I think all the parties agree it's definitely a step in protecting Canada's most vulnerable.

You've noted and have spoken on a couple of occasions about another piece of legislation, which I believe goes in that same direction. That's, of course, Bill C-21, the Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act. That's a significant piece of legislation, of course. It includes a mandatory minimum penalty of at least two years for fraud of over $1 million. It toughens sentences by adding aggravating factors that the courts can consider. These are significant factors, which include whether the fraud has had a significant impact on the victim, given the victim's particular circumstances, including his age, health, and financial situation, and also the offender's failure to comply with applicable licensing and professional standards. It also considers the magnitude, complexity, duration of the fraud, and the degree of planning that went into creating it.

How can we reconcile the proposed aggravating factors in Bill C-36 to be differentiated from the aggravating factors we have in this other important piece of legislation, Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's a very good question, Mr. Goguen.

The provisions with respect to the white collar crime act are very specific. I think I have the wording here. It targets specifically where “the offence had a significant impact on the victims, given their personal circumstances, including their age, health and financial situation”. It's very specific with respect to the type of offence that's being committed.

You will remember and you've seen stories where people have come up with schemes that deliberately, particularly, targeted seniors, to steal their money, to rob them. I think it was important for us to make changes that are specific to that type of crime. You've enumerated a number of them: people who take advantage of their position or their profession and the reliance people place on that, or the effect it can have on a particular group. It's not just the amount of money, or it's not just the fact that it's been stolen, but you might devastate groups that do good work in society and have them robbed of that. It's of concern to all of us. Again, with respect to seniors, the effect it can have on them...that is specific in terms of aggravating factors.

The provisions you have before you are the general provisions with respect to aggravating factors. If it's a white collar crime, then those provisions kick in. These apply to all offences outside of that. It's a general application. Again, I'm pleased, as you indicated, that there is general support for this.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I would like us to take a minute and talk about how you see the impact of this legislation. I know that, in itself, a breach of the Criminal Code will certainly not have the desired effect. You talked about the New Horizons program, which points to the need to report elder abuse cases.

Do you think that more abuse cases will be reported as a result of the New Horizons program and this amendment to the legislation?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I am confident that all of the initiatives that have been taken by the government and at the provincial and territorial levels will contribute to a heightened awareness and will be of assistance to seniors in this country.

Mr. Goguen, you and I go back 30 years. I don't remember at the time people talking about this that much, and I don't remember this kind of awareness of this. I mentioned to you the advertisements that you would have seen this year with respect to somebody out on the street yelling at somebody and somebody getting money from their relative or their mother—I'm not sure who—but the point is that by doing what we can at all different levels of government here, we are making progress, in my opinion, in this area, because you don't have to explain to people anymore what elder abuse is. They know what it is. They have examples of this. They've heard of it. They've maybe experienced it. They know members of their family.

So to the extent that we continue to push this, and, as I was saying in response to Mr. Cotler, to the extent that the legal profession and members of the police association continue to get people thinking about this issue, we're all better off, because the reality in this country is that there is an increasing seniors population, and I think this is very appropriate. This is an idea whose time has come, but I think all of these help. This is why, when I get together with my provincial counterparts and I hear about the initiatives they have, I certainly, as you would and as all of us would, applaud these efforts here, because this is exactly what we have to be doing. It's not just one level of government; it's not just one piece of legislation. There has to be a complete approach to this, and this is what we're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to be here with you today. Thank you for having me.

I am going to ask my questions right away, if you don't mind.

First, I would like to talk about the choice of words in the bill.

When we talk about offences, does that include omission, for example when a person wilfully fails to provide proper basic hygiene to a senior? Seniors are often the target of this type of abuse. The bill says the following: “that the offence had a significant impact on the victim”. Is neglect included in the word “offence”? According to the National Seniors Council, the definition of elder abuse is not sufficiently clear. Are words like “significant impact“ going to help us determine whether the offence really had a significant impact on the person's life?

Other words raise some questions. You specifically refer to “their health and financial situation”. Why stop at those two examples? Why have other examples not been included? Do not get me wrong, I do not want the bill to be defeated; I simply want to have more information to make sure that the wording is correct. We could have also talked about place of residence. Not having a place of residence or being dependent on someone else can also make seniors more vulnerable and lead to abuse. Access to information can also increase vulnerability.

This is a broad issue, but I will give you the opportunity to tell me why you have chosen those words in particular. Do you think that this paragraph makes the bill sufficiently strict in detecting elder abuse cases?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

In answer to your question, my comment was that this is part of a larger approach. It's not the whole approach. I've been mentioning, of course, the changes on white collar crime and those specific sections, but those aren't the only sections that address some of the issues you have raised.

You asked about neglect. How about people who aren't getting some of the necessities of life? There are provisions within the Criminal Code. Section 215, I believe, of the Criminal Code has an 18-month maximum sentence on summary conviction or, I believe, five years for an indictable offence for people who do not provide the necessities of life when they are in a position in which they are supposed to be caring for somebody or assisting somebody and are withholding those necessities of life.

Again, you ask why we do it here. Well, this particular section deals with the grocery list of aggravating factors we ask the courts to take into account when they are sentencing an individual. But they're not the only provisions.

With respect to your specific question about the necessities of life, have a look at section 215. I think you'll see that it addresses a number of the areas you indicated. Why do we do it here? Well, over the years, this is the section of the Criminal Code that has been modified to take into consideration the priorities Canadians have and it is where we think specific mention should be made. That being said, it doesn't mean that these things were ignored in the past. It doesn't mean that at all. It is saying that these are a reflection of our priorities, but they're not the only ones.

I would refer you to section 215, and indeed the sections with respect to white collar crime. They are specific to the various ways people are taken advantage of.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you. I am going to take a look at that with great interest.

I would now like to talk about the title of your bill, Protecting Canada's Seniors Act. As you said, this bill does not protect seniors; it is a measure that might enable us to crack down on more serious crimes, based on a person's age and circumstances. Why was the wording “protecting seniors” chosen for the title? Would other words have not corresponded better to what the legislation really seeks to accomplish? We recognize that this is an important bill and that it has to be put forward, but we should call a spade a spade.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

This is exactly what it's intending to do. It's trying to send the message out that this kind of behaviour, the abuse of seniors, is unacceptable. Part of the job we have as legislators is that by publicizing and talking about this, we are better protecting our seniors. We hope this acts as a deterrent. It certainly provides denunciation for people who commit this kind of crime. By listing it as part of the aggravating factors, we send out the message that the abuse of seniors in this country is inappropriate.

I think it's very appropriate and correct to call it the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act. Again, I hope it continues to have your support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being here today.

I come from a riding, Okanagan—Coquihalla, where we have a large number of seniors, who moved there because it has good weather. We continue to see more and more people in my riding who are retired, thus this has been a real interest of mine.

First I would like to make a comment that I totally agree with your rationale for not including a chronological age, Minister. It's commonly known that we are living to be older and hopefully healthier, but as those health outcomes improve, we can obviously expect the chronological age will eventually have to be changed. This gives a large amount of discretion.

Going back to some of the comments I've heard across the way with regard to the palliative care report, before I was on this committee I was part of the status of women committee, which conducted a very thorough investigation into elder abuse, specifically of women. Mr. Jacob was saying that the consultation was done extremely.... A large number of people came from all across the country to talk about their experience.

One of the key outcomes, Minister, I'm sure you know, was that the government look at introducing changes to the Criminal Code. I would like to thank you and the government for taking action on this, because a tremendous amount of work went into that study, and I'm glad to see that happen.

We heard quite a bit about the new horizons for seniors program, which is a great initiative. I also find that there's often a disconnect between taxpayers back home and all the programs that many of us are privy to and hear about.

In addition to the new horizons initiative, what is our Conservative government doing to assist seniors victimized by abuse? I certainly appreciate your comments that it was a multifaceted approach. You would expect that, but I would love to hear about any other programs we're currently working on.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

I was among those who were very pleased to see the new horizons program expanded, so there is an educational component with respect to the abuse of seniors. There is an awareness campaign that is now eligible for funding under the new horizons program.

I believe I indicated to one of your colleagues here that I like the idea because seniors and seniors groups over the years are used to and are aware of that particular program. Sometimes it's easier to expand an existing program that people are already aware of than to start something completely new. I was among those who thought that was very appropriate.

Within the victims fund, which is financed through the government, we allow and accommodate those issues that can be specific to seniors, among others. We've encouraged them to make applications in groups and as individuals, to have a look at the provisions within that.

I said “Elder Abuse—It's Time to Face the Reality” is the national awareness campaign that uses advertisements to do this. This comes from the Government of Canada. It doesn't rely on people making an application or pulling together a funding request. It's an advertising campaign. Again, what I have heard back from that is that it's good in terms of what we're talking about here today, which is to raise awareness, get people involved, so they have a stake in this or they recognize it—that's the other part, that they recognize elder abuse when it is taking place.

What we are doing is not confined to changes to the Criminal Code, and as you know, this is the second one that we have brought forward that is specific to elders. But this is in conjunction with those other initiatives, and indeed the initiatives from our provincial and territorial partners, who are recognizing that this is an issue within their jurisdictions as well.

We all have a part to play, but it has to be a comprehensive approach, and I'm pleased that this particular piece of legislation is an important component of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Minister.

We noted in our orders of the day that you would be here for one hour, and I think we've got to that one hour.

I'd like to thank you for appearing before us. The information obviously was worthwhile for the committee, and you are welcome back any time.

I'd like to get the second half of the meeting started. We'll do the order over again, so the opening rounds will be seven minutes.

We have officials with us today, and I'm sure they can answer almost all questions you may have with respect to the bill.

We'll start with Mr. Côté.