Justice Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Sure.

I want to follow up with some questions Ms. Boivin raised with respect to the qualifier word “significant”. I'm having trouble envisaging a situation of elder abuse that had no impact on a victim. I think every crime impacts somebody somewhere along the line. You might agree, or at least be open to the suggestion, that the word “significant” is important to reserve this special provision of aggravation and sentencing for those cases that are more serious as opposed to less serious. I want to hear your comments on that.

I'd like to start with Ms. Perka, if you don't mind.

[Melanie Perka]

I only have a hesitation because I'm scared that it would turn into a debate.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'll tell you why I think that word is important, and I didn't draft this legislation. If you give special protection to everybody all the time, you give protection to nobody. I think when you use words like “significant impact”, you're reserving that for the more serious cases, as opposed to all cases in which the damage might be less serious than those we want to exemplify and make as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Do you have any comment?

[Melanie Perka]

Well, it's people's perception.

I've worked on a case where the son would come and borrow $100 to $200 a month and then she couldn't pay rent. That was extremely significant to her. In a court of law, is that going to be looked at when you have a comparison of the example I gave where there were multi-millions taken? When you look at that, this $100 or $200 looks less significant, but it definitely wasn't, in her life.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I agree that “significant” is not a precise term—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Rathgeber. You're out of time.

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to take the floor after my colleague, as I also want to add my two cents to the discussion on this very relevant issue stemming from the bill before us.

Earlier, zero tolerance was discussed. We want to protect seniors. We want to stop age-based crimes against seniors. With that in mind, I think that, if the victim is affected owing to their age, that should be an aggravating factor. There is no need to prove whether that is important or not for the victim or the accused. If the victim is affected owing to their age, that should be taken into account as an aggravating factor.

What do you think about my idea?

[Maxine Lithwick]

I would like to clarify something when it comes to zero tolerance. I think zero tolerance is necessary in long-term care facilities, hospitals and institutions. Zero tolerance is necessary in those places.

However, in the case of people abused by their close relatives, I think we should have a harm-reduction approach. At times, that family member represents the only relationship they have in their lives.

We want to let people know that abuse is not going to be tolerated, but it's also within a continuum.

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

I will let Ms. Perka answer, as I think she had something to say about that.

[Melanie Perka]

I tend to agree. I would like to see the focus beyond the age, because someone was left vulnerable due to those factors and exposure to abuse, and maybe not so much on the significant....

[Patrick Power]

I agree with Ms. Lithwick in terms of a continuum and really examining what that person is doing, because we do see a lot of situations where there is a mutual kind of thing happening in terms of mutual support, if you will, between the abuser—as much as we hate to think about that—and the older person. They provide transportation. They get them to this place or that place, whether it be a doctor and so on. The senior looks to them for those kinds of things. Even a social contact is happening at times between those two individuals. I think those things have to be taken into account as well, as we're looking at that situation.

Maybe that fits within the context of this amendment, because you're looking at everything. You're not only saying it was a bad thing this person did and we need to put him or her away for three years; there are other considerations. That person can be taking care of that older person in some way or in some regard.

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

I will clarify my question again.

I am not talking about the result, as far as sentencing goes. I agree with you that the sentence should take into account the victim's age or their relationship with the abuser. All that should be taken into consideration. I mainly want to know, in cases where there is an impact owing to the person's age, whether that should not be taken into account. It is not only about the level of the impact, but the fact that, for a person, if there is already an impact owing to their age, that impact should be taken into consideration.

That's the clarification I want to make. Thank you.

[Maxine Lithwick]

Yes.

[Patrick Power]

I'm sorry, but I just have to comment. We're on a slippery slope if we're just talking about age. I think we're also talking about the well-being of that person, the cognitive abilities, and so on. We're not going to say an 85-year-old cannot manage cognitively because he is 85. We're going to look at what's going on in the household, the kinds of decisions he's making, the person who's taking advantage of him. If that person were 55, it would be the same sort of thing. It's not just an age factor, I don't think. I think that's where a number of people in the professional community have said let's be careful when we're looking at this and when we're talking about age, because it becomes ageist perhaps.

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

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was talking about the choice between “significant impact” and simply “impact”, but age and, as the bill mentions, the degree of vulnerability should be considered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Goguen.

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

I want to begin by thanking the witnesses.

Obviously, your testimony clarifies certain aspects. We are very appreciative of your comments.

I have worked in an area related to seniors. Ms. Lithwick, you said earlier that you have been working in that area for a long time and that you have always striven to amend the Criminal Code to protect the elderly

with a law that has some teeth. Does this law have some teeth? Does it help?

[Maxine Lithwick]

I think it's going to give a message to those people who do abuse the elderly criminally that this is not going to be taken lightly by our society. I was just at a meeting in Quebec with some police officers and other health professionals who are looking at.... In Quebec, we do have an action plan for elder abuse, and when I showed them this, they were all excited. There are a lot of things that go along to get to this point of sentencing. I think that's the biggest question. But they do want the message to get across. For those people who do abuse the elderly, who do crimes against the elderly, if it gets to this point, it's something that is not going to be tolerated. It is serious.

Right now there's no message out there. In terms of fraud against the elderly, we know how high it is. In terms of situations of neglect against the elderly, we have plenty of situations where we've seen that. We know it's a complex issue, but right now the legal way of addressing it, or a criminal way, is a last resort. When it gets to that point, we want the message to be clear.

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

Certainly, one amendment to the Criminal Code existing in a vacuum is not going to cover the scenario. I know there's the new horizons program. There's been some advertising on television, some promotion to combat senior abuse. I'm told that's had some fairly good results. Certainly that's something that puts meat on the bone, so to speak. I trust you'd agree with that, and there certainly should be some more of that, should there not?

You seem to have quite a background in the international scene. Does this amendment compare favourably to what you've seen done in other countries? Are there other solutions that you could cast some light on that would be helpful?

[Maxine Lithwick]

I would say the laws are very different. In some areas, their civil laws are much more involved in elder abuse. There's mandatory signalling. In the States, you have to signal any situation of elder abuse, but yet they don't identify more situations of elder abuse than we do here in the provinces where there's not mandatory signalling. For the reasons that were said before, you have to have the proof.

Does this fall in line? Yes, it does. I do know that in some countries and in some states they're developing similar laws, but they're also developing a whole area of elder law so that everything is looked at and taken into consideration. The people who prosecute are experts in seniors' situations. They understand dementia, they understand loss of autonomy, they understand caregiving stress, so they know how to do it and they work with the police officers. The judges, too, are educated.

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

It's holistic.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes, you have a minute and a half.

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

There seems to have been quite a lot of debate about age versus vulnerability and which is the most important. My thought on it, and I'd like to canvass your thoughts as well, is that the vulnerability seems to be the key element. Obviously, age affects different people at different stages for different reasons.

Would you agree that this act sends a message to the Canadian public that we're not going to tolerate abuse of the aged, but that it's more focused on vulnerability than on age? Look, you could be very vulnerable at 50 versus 75. You could be a lumberjack at 75 and have all your faculties. Is vulnerability not the more important factor to take into consideration?

[Patrick Power]

I think so, definitely. I think that was in the last conversation we had. Health has to be taken into account, for sure. We can't get lost in the age part. People around the room here know people who are 80, 85, 90, or 95. I've worked for 30 years in the field of gerontology. The things that people can be doing at 90 and 95 are just amazing. We're not going to say that people are vulnerable because of their abilities.

[Maxine Lithwick]

I think we also have to keep in mind psychological vulnerability.