The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Hedy Fry Liberal
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Second reading (Senate), as of Dec. 7, 2023
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-295.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to ensure necessaries of life are provided to residents of the facilities.
The enactment also allows the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and the officers of such facilities from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults and to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
An hon. member
On division.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I therefore declare the motion carried on division. When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker, for those who do not remember, I just want to quickly refresh them. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code under section 215, to ensure that there is a clear duty of the persons responsible for providing the necessaries of life to vulnerable adults to do so. It is very clear.
I want to thank the House. All of the parties have supported this bill because, I think, we saw what happened during COVID, the fact that many units and institutions responsible for caring for vulnerable adults did not follow protocol, did not do all of the things that they needed to do to ensure the safety of vulnerable adults. The bill is very clear, and I want to thank those who saw it and who spoke to it at the committee stage. There were some excellent amendments made that were accepted unanimously by the committee and are incorporated now into the bill.
I just want to remind everyone that it must be made clear that when we refer to people who are taking care of the necessaries of life for vulnerable adults, we do not include in that group people who are family or blood relatives who are looking after anyone. They are out of this equation. The ones we are talking about are people who are looking after three or more vulnerable adults and who are not actually bound by blood or family ties.
We have seen what happened. As a result, I brought this bill forward because, as we well know, the federal government has no responsibility, really, for long-term care facilities because they are actually under provincial jurisdiction. However, we do have some ability to look, as we did, at child abuse and to look at the fact that anyone who is not caring for and bringing the necessaries of life to vulnerable adults should be held responsible.
I must say that about four or five days ago, a report came out in my province of British Columbia that showed that, actually, for-profit agencies were not using all of the money they were given to care for vulnerable adults. They were not actually providing the hours of service. However, non-profit societies were providing more than the hours of service they were being paid for. Therefore, I think it is really important for us to recognize that this tells us that there need to be some regulations, some ability to enforce this ability to take care of vulnerable adults. By “vulnerable adults”, I want to remind the House, we do not just mean seniors. We mean any adult who is vulnerable because of age, disability, mental illness, or any other inability to take care of themselves personally. This is the definition of a vulnerable adult; it is not only our seniors.
I want to thank everybody in the House. I could speak and speak, but members have heard me speak about this. I know that most of us in the House actually support this bill, and I want to thank everyone for their support. I am hoping we can get this bill passed so we can protect the vulnerable adults in our society, especially now that we know there is evidence that COVID is on the rise again. The respiratory syncytial virus is on the rise again. Influenza is on the rise again this fall. I just want to let members know that we do not want a replication of what happened during COVID.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Madam Speaker, I was a bit worried about Bill C‑295 at first. I was afraid it would encroach on provincial jurisdiction, but in the end, that is not the case at all. I am quite happy about that.
The bill specifies that if an owner or officer of a long-term care facility is convicted of failing to ensure necessaries of life, that owner or officer will be prohibited from doing paid or volunteer work in the presence of elderly or vulnerable persons. However, the bill does not specify how, after the prohibition period, we can ensure that the owner or officer is no longer a threat to people in vulnerable situations.
Does my colleague think that a risk assessment should be carried out before the end of the prohibition period in order to allow paid or volunteer work with people in vulnerable situations?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, that is a good question.
If someone did not provide the necessaries of life and was responsible for doing it, and we penalized them either with fines or jail time and prohibited them from being able to even volunteer in such institutions for three years, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have learned some lessons. It is important, therefore, for people who are allowing those institutions to exist to check that they have learned their lessons and are going to do the thing right again.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, it just seems unique or perhaps interesting to me. We see that the Liberal government has been pushing this euthanasia regime that would open up assisted suicide even to those who are mentally ill. I am just wondering if there is going to be any interplay between this bill that the member is bringing forward and the euthanasia regime that the Liberal government has been rapidly advancing in this country.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, no, I do not see that it has any relationship to this bill.
The MAID, medical assistance in dying, bill is very clear in terms of what it is supposed to encompass and how it is supposed to encompass that. This has nothing to do with that. Before MAID even came about, there were institutions that looked after vulnerable adults. We want to make sure that we do not have a repeat of what happened during COVID-19, and that vulnerable adults get the care they desire.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague brought up the treatment of our seniors during the COVID pandemic, because Canadians were horrified to see so many vulnerable Canadians, our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, living in what were appalling conditions. I am glad to see that her bill addresses that.
On a more systemic basis, we have been promised a long-term care bill. That legislation, according to experts and stakeholders, would mean that we would have to establish binding, mandatory, quality care standards in long-term care homes across this country. That is to protect our seniors.
Would the hon. member agree with the NDP that we need binding, mandatory, quality and enforceable standards in legislation so that we could make sure that every senior in this country is not left in a vulnerable state, as they were during COVID?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question that the hon. member posed.
What we have to remember is that these institutions are under the jurisdiction of provinces. What we know is that the Canadian Standards Association set very clear guidelines for what is meant to be the best care to provide the necessaries of life. Based on that, there is an opportunity, if we want to look at a long-term care bill, to work with the provinces to ensure that through such a bill, the Canadian Standards Association guidelines would be implemented.