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?