Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to participate in its study on Bill C‑295, which would amend the Canadian Criminal Code by adding provisions related to the neglect of vulnerable adults.

I am here as a researcher who has been working on elder abuse and ways to combat it since 1987, so 36 years. Although I am retired from Université de Sherbrooke, I am still an adjunct professor there, as well as an adjunct researcher with the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults and the Research Centre on Aging. I am also the co‑director of a centre that works with the World Health Organization to promote senior-friendly environments and combat elder abuse. Not only have I worn many hats in this area, but I am also deeply interested in the issue.

It's not hard to guess the context underlying this bill. The COVID‑19 pandemic, specifically the way it was handled and the impact it had in two types of senior residential or care settings laid bare the organizational dysfunction, which was partly known. These places are congregate living settings for seniors that may or may not provide care and services, as well as residential care settings where both adults and seniors in vulnerable situations live. I want to stress the fact that these two settings are different, something that isn't clear in the bill. I'll come back to that. Both types of facilities employ a lot of administrators, referred to as “managers” in the proposed amendment to section 214 of the Criminal Code.

I want to make six brief points for the purposes of today's discussion.

First, the bill focuses on the organizational dimension of elder abuse or mistreatment. In doing so, it sets aside the common definition of elder abuse, which, implicitly at least, focuses on the interactions between individuals within what is presumed to be a relationship of trust. I applaud the fact that the bill addresses the role that organizations play in elder abuse, because it puts the issue in a broader context, shining a light on community, organizational and institutional dynamics.

Second, the definition of long-term care facility proposed in the bill seemingly does not include congregate living settings known as private seniors' residences in Quebec. They are places that lease accommodations solely to seniors, on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. Seniors who live there have to be independent or semi-independent. I'd like to understand why the definition excludes those settings. It's even more surprising given that Quebec's act to combat maltreatment of seniors, CQLR c L‑6.3, was amended in the spring of 2022 to include those living settings, among other things. I think that's a discussion worth having.

Third, the bill introduces the idea of vulnerable adults, not vulnerable seniors, and I agree with that decision. Long-term care settings are indeed home to people of various ages who live there because they require the support. Nevertheless, I recommend that the bill use the term “adult in a vulnerable situation”, instead of “vulnerable adult”. When you refer to someone as being in a vulnerable situation, it means that their vulnerability is not inherent and that it may be temporary or the result of specific circumstances. In my view, the term “adult in a vulnerable situation” is both more inclusive and less stigmatizing.

Fourth, the bill focuses on a specific facet of elder abuse—neglect. While I can appreciate why that choice was made, it's important to understand that the line between neglect and violence can be very unclear at times. Keep in mind that neglect can take various forms: psychological, physical, material and financial. There is a lot of crossover with the various types of abuse.

Fifth, discussions with police officers have opened my eyes to the fact that criminal negligence is difficult to prove. Prosecutions and convictions based on those offences are few and far between, and require very specific evidence. Therefore, I would like the committee to consider the applicability of this proposed Criminal Code provision. I look forward to discussing that. What evidence is necessary in order to secure a conviction under the proposed provision?

Sixth and finally, paragraph 215(2)(b) of the Criminal Code refers to conduct that “causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” That raises questions in my mind. I wonder about the significance of the word “permanently”, because it should be enough to cause significant injury to the person, regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent.

In closing, I want to say that making these changes through the Criminal Code was a smart decision given the fact that the code applies countrywide. We all know that measures affecting health care run the risk of creating jurisdictional overlap between the provincial, territorial and federal governments.

As my colleagues in the legal field say, I respectfully submit these comments for your consideration. I look forward to our discussion.

Transcript

Discussions (0)