I think what the report demonstrated was that we don't have the proper financial incentives or oversight. You could argue, Mr. Davies, that, if we get it aligned, then being a for-profit operator will be of marginal value.
I can't speak for Ontario. I know Jodi was talking about the way money is managed. That's not the way it's done here in British Columbia. We give a lump sum payment to a contracted provider, and we come up with that lump sum by saying you should spend this much on this, that and the next thing. They do provide statements that say, “Here is what we spent on this, that and the next thing”, and we look at that, but we don't do anything with it.
The classic example is around wages. In British Columbia, all care-home operators are funded to provide industry-standard wage levels, so they are provided enough to pay care aides at the industry standard. Whatever they pay them less than that, they get to keep. That's the problem.
There are things we could do quickly, and what we could remedy quickly is certainly the money we're giving you to pay wages for—we call them care aides in British Columbia—personal support workers, whatever. You have to pay that, and if you don't pay it, you have to give it back. What we pay you for the nurse, you have to pay, and if you don't, you have to give it back. We take away the incentive, and by that we take away the profit. We take away the motive for making a profit.
There was a very clear pattern. As Pat said, it's a pattern, which means there are exceptions to the pattern, so yes, there will be good performers or, as the economists would say, good actors, in the private field, and there will be bad actors in the not-for-profits.