Okay, but I plan just to talk within the six minutes.
First of all, I want to thank you very much for inviting me. I also want to congratulate the committee who worked on this amendment.
I have been working in the field of elder abuse for close to 30 years. Throughout my career, I as well as my colleagues have been trying to influence our having a law that would have some teeth.
Older people who are abused are more vulnerable than the younger population. The impact can be much more significant in terms of their health, in terms of their finances, in terms of their quality of life. We want to give the message that elder abuse is not acceptable.
On the other hand, elder abuse is an extremely complex issue. Very often the person who abuses the older person is someone who has a trusting relationship with the victim. Very often it could be an adult child. Sometimes that person is the only emotional link that the older person may have. So it is very complex—it's not a black and white issue—yet the consequences can be very grave, very serious. That is why I like your amendment's talking about aggravating circumstances. I think this is essential.
I also think it is important to differentiate between the abusive person who is a family member and the person who takes advantage of an older person because of that person's age and vulnerability. The dynamics are very different. The private caregiver, the accountant, or the friend next door who takes advantage financially, takes advantage and gives poor quality of care. These people are not necessarily dealing with any positive in emotional value; it is really out of pure greed or desire to control. I think the consequences for these people.... It has to be very clear that abuse is not accepted.
Very often, if it is a family member who is abusing the older person, it is very difficult to get the abused elder to denounce the situation. Very often they will not go to court and will not say anything against their family member, for fear of being abandoned, for fear of reprisal, for many reasons.
I question how this type of law is going to be applied. I really believe that to have such a law work you have to have prosecutors who are well trained in seniors' issues, in elder abuse, and you have to have judges who know how to ask questions about this issue. Even the way it goes to court has to be thought about, because even having an older person as a witness is different from having a younger person. All of the elements can be quite different.
Another thing that is important to differentiate is whether an older person is mentally competent or not, because that also impacts upon the degree of vulnerability. This links with your aggravating circumstances and the consequences on the older person. Again, the person can be defrauded or be physically abused and not be mentally competent, so the witnessing has to be done by others who are around, and this could be quite challenging.
I agree with what my colleague at the table said, that we also need to ensure that there are appropriate resources: resources for health care, resources to help an older person who wants to porter plainte and wants to testify or lay charges against an abuser have someone to accompany them. This is a very frightening, a very scary, thing to do, and for them it is a difficult process.
The other thing I want to talk about in terms of aggravating circumstances is this. To me, aggravating circumstances arise when a person's needs are not being met—such as their health care, such as having adequate supervision, such as having their medication properly monitored. But when a person is left without financial resources to live in the lifestyle they were accustomed to, that too has a significant impact emotionally, psychologically, and it can impact upon their quality of life.
There is another area I have a little bit of concern about. I mentioned the older person not wanting to necessarily press charges against the person who abuses them. It's the whole process of what I will term “signalling” these types of cases. I've heard of bank managers who have witnessed fraud going on in accounts, but they're still not quite sure whether they can call the police. Their manager may tell them, “Well, no, the client is not saying they're having a problem.” If you ask the client if they want the police to be called, they will say no. But banks do witness a lot of fraud, so I think that more work has to be done in terms of how to signal criminal cases of abuse against the elderly. This is a link in terms of giving the message that there is zero tolerance, or that you will do as much as possible to look at the impact the abuse has had on the older person.
In general, that's all I want to say. When I thought about it, I think I had as much to say as I had questions. I'm more than happy to hear your questions, and maybe that way I'll get a better understanding of how this amendment will work.
Thank you.