Evidence of meeting #46 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Health.
We are meeting today pursuant to a request under Standing Order 106(4) by at least four members of the committee to discuss a request in this case to undertake a study on the state of long-term care in Canada.
We will go first to Ms. O'Connell to move her motion.
Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I think it's obviously quite important to have this discussion here today. I'm going to speak about the motion on having the debate here, which all Liberal members supported .
I want to start by saying it's unfortunate that here we are in the calendar session meeting as the health committee during the greatest pandemic of our time, certainly, with the greatest impact that we saw across this country in long-term care, and the need to study this as a committee is crucially important.... This was something that Liberal members had identified as their next study of choice in the rotation with the agreed upon motion, but unfortunately that changed on May 28 when there was a change in the scheduling of issues.
However, I think the commitment—certainly from Liberal members, and I'm sure there are others maybe we'll hear today—to get back to the study of long-term care is incredibly important. This is why we're bringing forward this motion now. We don't think it can wait any longer. We think, as a committee, we have a duty to speak about the important issues that are affecting Canadians.
Certainly, as a health committee in the pandemic, it's also very timely as we've seen I think just today the details coming out in the media on the Quebec coroner's preliminary inquest. In Ontario, we have a new Minister of Long-Term Care and we have more media reports of some issues there. This is incredibly timely, if not something we should have been looking at, but again, we're at the will and the whim of the committee.
In terms of the specifics in the motion—I'm sure it's in front of all of you—I'm going to refer for now to the section of the motion, or the meat of the motion.
I'll read this motion for the record. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Health undertake a study for no less than 4 meetings, consisting of no less than 2 hours per meeting, for the purpose of calling subject matter witnesses on the state of Long-Term Care in Canada;
That the committee’s area of study include, but not be limited to:
a. Consulting broadly and completing an analysis of steps that need to be taken to ensure that residents in Long-Term Care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve with a specific focus on proper pandemic planning and the creation of standards;
b. Examining infrastructure needs in Long-Term Care and how federal infrastructure funding could help create spaces for pandemic planning and enhanced quality of care;
c. Exploring opportunities for federal/provincial/territorial partnership with the objective of improving care for Canada’s most vulnerable populations;
d. The difference in quality of standards between non-profit and for-profit Long-Term Care facilities;
e. Examining workplace conditions including wages, infrastructure, qualifications, and paid sick leave;
That potential witnesses be sent to the Clerk no later than 5 days after the passing of this motion; and, that the Clerk shall use the regular process of establishing numbers of witnesses relative to the weighting of each recognized party’s proportionality on the committee.
I'm going to start by speaking to section (a) of this, consulting broadly and completing an analysis of the steps that need to be taken to ensure that residents in long-term care facilities receive the quality of care and life that they deserve.
Mr. Chair, many communities were hard hit, certainly after the first and even into the second wave of the pandemic. The vast majority of what we saw were the horrible conditions that some long-term care facilities were in. In my riding in particular, we were hit hard at Orchard Villa in Pickering. We lost over 70 residents and it is tragic. In fact, I've already attended one-year memorials, so with the fact that, as a health committee, we have not yet studied this, it's something that we absolutely must do. I still remember a time when committees would study a subject matter, create a report and have recommendations to the government. I think that's what we're trying to get back to by this point.
Section (a) of this motion is really about that broad awareness and analysis and speaks to the fact that we want to put forward, as a committee, what we hear from witnesses. Witnesses should include families to share the experiences they went through with their loved ones in long-term care. We should hear from workers to see what they experienced and what needs to change. We need to hear from subject matter experts, people who understand how other countries around the world have implemented better long-term care standards but also pandemic preparedness. We saw a lot of these failings, so to speak, these long-term care homes not prepared to deal with a pandemic that had literally life-ending consequences.
The second piece I'm going to speak about, or section (b), examines infrastructure needs in long-term care. I think this is crucially important and very timely in Ontario. I can speak to this point. At the time this happened, we realized, or many were saying, that a lot of these long-term care homes didn't even have air conditioning. In the heat and in these waves, people were dying, not just from COVID but from malnutrition or dehydration.
I know that, before the pandemic hit, one of the calls was for proper air conditioning, proper ventilation. Again, this is basic pandemic preparedness. At the time, our premier, Premier Ford, said that every building, every long-term care home, would have air conditioning and that not a single new one would be built without it. It turns out, just in the news, I think last week or maybe the week before, that Ontario never changed those regulations. There are new long-term care homes being built in this province right now without air conditioning.
Again, I understand that it's provincial jurisdiction, but as a health committee, we need to hear about these things. We need to hear best practices and make recommendations to the government so that, when they are engaging in these discussions with provinces and territories, we can say, “This is what we heard. This is a group of people, advocates or families who have shared their experiences, and this is maybe a standard that we think should be across the board.”
If you get into section (c), exploring opportunities for federal-provincial-territorial partnerships, again, I spoke to that in section (b) in terms of needing to hear from a wide variety of witnesses in order to have these conversations with provincial and territorial partners at the table, so that we can say exactly what we're hearing. We can, as a committee, like I said, make recommendations.
This shouldn't come as any surprise for a committee. Our government has committed already to the issue of long-term care and creating national standards. There was already $1 billion in the fall economic statement and then $3 billion in budget 2021.
I think it's incredibly important that, as the health committee, we say something about this. In my previous committee, which was finance, this process, having a committee report, is incredibly important. I'm going to compare it to how we would do things, for example, for the budget.
The government, the Minister of Finance, would always call or open up public consultation for the budget coming up, in whatever year that was. They would always open it up online and do round tables. That would be driven through the ministry of finance and the Minister of Finance's office. At the same time, there would be outside groups, for example, that would be also putting together their budget recommendations. Then the finance committee would also start a consultation process.
Why do I bring this up? It's because there is nothing wrong.... In fact, I would say it's imperative that, as a committee, we do our own independent study—committees are independent—with all parties having the opportunity to bring the witnesses who they feel—
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
There is a problem with the interpretation. I am hearing a lot of echo.
My intention really is not to interfere in Ms. McConnell's speech as she is trying to interfere in provincial matters. But I am having difficulty understanding what she is saying, because I hear an unpleasant echo at the same time as the French interpretation.
Liberal
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Pagé
We will check.
If you could talk, we'll see if the translation is working. Please go ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Monsieur Lemire, how long has this been a problem—for a couple of minutes or just now?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
It has been going on for several minutes. However, I hear it less with you. I was hearing it more with Ms. O'Connell.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'll ask Ms. O'Connell to check her mike boom.
Maybe you could back up a couple of paragraphs so that Mr. Lemire has the opportunity to hear all of your argument. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is the echo still coming through? Is it my headset, or is it perhaps the interpretation booth?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
It seems to be working well now, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
I'm sorry. I'm not reading from a script, so where I think I left off was in regard to the partnerships with provinces and territories.
I was comparing it to the finance committee, for example, when we would do a yearly budget, and the fact that the ministry, or the Minister of Finance would engage in consultations on any upcoming budget, and then there would be a kind of independent outside external consultation. For example, a chamber of commerce might do consultations with their members and then feed it up into the consultation process at one particular stage. Then the finance committee would do its own pre-budget consultations. In fact, they are mandated to do so, but the finance committee, in particular, for example, would set the scope.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Can I ask you to check the French interpretation again? Because I am still getting the echo.
As several hands are up, why don't you give the floor to the next person and come back to Ms. O'Connell afterwards?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. O'Connell has the floor and she's able to keep it as long as she has something to say. Perhaps we should suspend and check the sound again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The clerk advises that it should be good now.
Ms. O'Connell, if you want to carry on, please go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to suggest checking the booth, because I haven't changed anything in my headset.
In terms of the parallels between committees, again, there was a specific and distinct role for the finance committee in their preparation for the upcoming budget. Those budget implementations or consultations often had provincial and territorial, whether it was consultations or.... In fact, one year we invited the premiers from all the territories, or if we could particularly get there ourselves.... We wanted to hear kind of more specific input.
The point of that comparison is that committees all the time engage in consultations, even if they are at times in provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction. It's a way for us to consult to see what the federal government can do. Is there a role for the federal government to do more? What are the concerns from provinces and territories? We can't know what those issues are unless we have those conversations.
The reason I bring this up in the context of item (c) in the main motion is that committees often engage in consultations and bring their own witnesses, their own themes of a study, when it's a topic that the government is actively engaging in. The government's going to do its own consultations. There are third parties bringing forward their own recommendations as well. I just don't understand why, as the health committee, we would be silent on such an important issue, so this is what I think is so crucially important. We're going to be able to engage as a committee with witnesses and in a forum that is a little bit different from what maybe third parties or the government itself can engage in.
It's also good to have a different perspective. Our committee is made up of multiple parties, all parties that have party status in the House. There are opportunities for dissenting reports and amendments. There are opportunities for recommendations based on what witnesses tell us. I think it's incredibly helpful to have that, to be able to provide that to the minister and to the government.
It's incredibly important that we don't stay silent and that we have those varying perspectives that would make up a report as well as recommendations. Then, as a committee—again I'm referring to finance—we would often look back and ask which committee recommendations were accepted by the government and which weren't. Did we need to go back and speak to witnesses again on that? Was there more information that was needed? It gives us an opportunity to really dive into these really important topics.
That, as I said, doesn't stop our committee, even in the section referring to federal-provincial-territorial partnerships, from having those conversations where there are areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. Are there jurisdictional questions? Let's bring all of those witnesses together and then, once we hear the testimony, we can move forward and determine what we'd like to do next or what we recommend to the government. The government can choose to take it or not.
This is our role as a committee. I see this as a paramount role of this committee, especially on a topic like long-term care, where we saw so many residents pass away from COVID. We heard horrible descriptions of what happened.
I want to next turn to section (d) of the motion and the difference in the quality of standards between non-profit and for-profit long-term care. This is an area of a lot of attention, because we certainly saw that the for-profit model had major issues. The homes that had substantial outbreaks, had issues, were for-profit homes. That's not to say that they were all for-profit homes, but that's where we saw these issues.
There was an earlier motion in the House from the NDP, and my criticism of that motion was that it just said to get rid of for-profit, and had no details on what that looked like. How do you do that? Do you move forward in a phased way? Who takes those homes on?
I fully recognize that we need to look at the for-profit model and why they had so many issues of the homes that had outbreaks and issues. Why was it the for-profit model? Frankly, you can't get into that debate in an opposition motion. The way it was written, it had no details or parameters around that. I think this is a perfect opportunity for us to look into that. Why did this happen? What would the vision be? How do you phase it in? Who takes it on? What happens to those residents? Are there other provisions or standards that we can then create to help ensure that, at the end of the day, it's not for profit but it's the quality of care to the residents who live there? All seniors as a baseline have the right to live with dignity.
Paragraph (e) is as follows: “Examining workplace conditions including wages, infrastructure, qualifications, and paid sick leave”. I have heard, certainly, and I'm sure many members have had these conversations as well, that workplace conditions are certainly a factor. Often there are not enough people working in long-term care. The wages are low. It's precarious. Workers have to go from one home to the next simply to earn a decent wage. How does that infrastructure look? Workers were worried about getting sick and bringing that home as well. They didn't have enough PPE. There were the qualifications, and there was also the paid sick leave. If somebody was in contact with somebody else with COVID, could they take time off work?
These are all issues. Certainly, our government committed early on in the safe restart and in the other funding to help prepare for this, to increase wages, in particular in long-term care. Some provinces took it on, and others didn't.
I'd love to hear from the nurses association, as one example, in this study to talk about how workers in long-term care are doing. What's the state of their mental health? Are we going to be in a workforce shortage? How do we encourage and how do we train workers in a way that provides a good wage and not the horrific conditions that we saw throughout this pandemic? This must be weighing incredibly heavily on people who were working in these situations and living in these situations, for sure.
On that note, I want to highlight some things for anybody who may wonder why we are looking at this. Frankly, I would argue that we should have been looking at this before, but I think as committee members we all agreed to move forward on the work plan, with the Liberals indicating that when it came back to our turn to study a specific area, it was going to be long-term care. I would like to have studied this sooner, and I know that many of my colleagues would have as well, but here we are. For me, the important piece is that we just get on with it, and we actually bring forward and hear from the people we need to hear from.
I want to read a little bit into the record, Mr. Chair, with regard to why this is so important. This is an excerpt from the Operation Laser report that the Canadian Armed Forces observed in long-term care in my community. I have to warn you that some of the stuff is pretty graphic. This is at Orchard Villa in my riding, not too far from where I am right now, actually.
These are some of the things they noted:
1. Infection control:
a. Lack of cleanliness noted:
(1) Cockroaches and flies present; and
(2) Rotten food smell noted from the hallway outside a patient's room. CAF member found multiple old food trays stacked inside a bedside table.
b. Inappropriate PPE use noted throughout all staffing levels (doctors included); and
c. Poor IPAC/PPE practices (double/triple gowning and masking, surgical mask under N95, scarves under masks, etc).
Standards of Practice/Quality of Care Concerns:
a. Patient's being left in beds soiled in diapers, rather than being ambulated to toilets;
b. Mouth care and hydration schedule not being adhered to;
c. Lack of proper positioning (head of the bed raised) for meals/fluids;
d. PSW and Nurses aren't always sitting up residents before feeding/hydrating/giving meds; choking/aspiration risk is therefore high; includes observation of incident that appeared to have contributed in patient death (code blue due [to] choking during feeding while supine—staff unable to dislodge food or revive resident)....
This is what happened in my community. A resident in long-term care choked to death because they weren't sat up for eating. It goes on to talk about “Respecting dignity of patients not always a priority. Caregiver burnout noted among staff,” an important piece to section (d) that I was referring to.
The report also notes:
f. Unsafe nursing medication administration errors;
g. Staff putting food and important belongings outside of residents reach....
It goes on to talk about:
i. Incident of likely fractured hip not addressed by staff; Med Tech and SNO addressed and transferred resident to hospital;
j. Multiple falls, without required assessments following the fall;
k. Inconsistent and suboptimal assessment and treatment of pain; and
l. Lack of knowledge evident regarding what qualifies as a restraint. Multiple scenarios of walking aids being removed, or mattresses set on floor as patients were unable to stand from that low position (to prevent them from wandering the facility).
Supplies:
a. Liquid oxygen generators not filled therefore not usable;
b. Limited and inaccessible wound care supplies;
c. Found 1 working suction locked in basement storage room; remainder of suction units not functional, last battery check was in 2014;
d. Oxygen concentrators not easily accessible.
e. Patients were sleeping on bare mattresses because of lack of access to laundry/linens; and
f. Poor access to...soaker pads....
It goes on. Obviously this is a reminder for family members who had their loved ones in facilities like this. I don't think I need to read on, but I can. I think the point, when you hear of that, is that this is just one home. That's just one home in my riding that had those conditions.
I know there are other members who are going to speak on this motion, but when you think about that and when you hear about those conditions, how could you as parliamentarians on the health committee today not support doing a study, calling witnesses, hearing from families, seeing what their loved ones went through, and hearing from workers who were completely overworked and saw conditions that at times they couldn't even help and what that must mean for them. How do we make sure workers are never put in this situation again? How do we make sure that family members aren't reading about these conditions, about their loved ones being in soaked diapers and covered in cockroaches?
As a committee, this is the greatest tragedy we've seen in this country throughout this pandemic. As a committee, as parliamentarians, we have an absolute responsibility—not even a right—to look into this, to hear from people, from families, from workers and from experts, and to make recommendations to the government so that this never happens again.
The government has already committed to permanent changes and national standards. Why, as a health committee with all of our respective backgrounds and input on this subject, would we not want to make recommendations on what those standards should be? As the health committee, why would we not want to have our voices heard, our constituents represented and these witnesses called?
Mr. Chair, I can go on and on and on about this, but the point is this. This is, as I said, an enormous tragedy in our country. We have a duty and a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to provide a voice to the voiceless.
Through this study, we will be able to bring in and hear those witnesses. Then, as a committee, our duty is to make sure that we do everything we can to write a report, to make recommendations and to make sure that what we hear is reflected in the government's deliberations, in the government's work with provinces and territories, because this absolutely has to be done in partnership.
We have that opportunity, as the health committee, to bring forward what we feel should be done and to make sure that our constituents and the constituents across this country, in regard to long-term care, are absolutely heard and reflected in our report.
Mr. Chair, maybe I'll leave it there for now, but technically, do you want me to reread the motion into the record that I've moved?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You can do as you wish. You could say to the committee that you move the motion as read, if you wish.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Sure. Since I did start off by reading it, Mr. Chair, I'll do it that way, that I move the motion as read.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
We'll go now to Ms. Sidhu.
Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is a very important motion, and I hope the other members of the committee will support it.
As many of you know, my riding of Brampton South has been impacted by the pandemic. Grace Manor, one of the LTC homes in Ontario, required assistance from the armed forces early in this pandemic, and the report they wrote had some shocking stories. This is an issue that Canadians care about deeply.
Mr. Chair, I need to explain why, as a local MP, I had to sign this letter, and why I believe all members of this committee should support this motion. Due to the dedicated work by a group of long-term care families, multiple stories emerged from a long-term care home in my riding. First, there was a recent story that a staff member had been withholding medication to residents. Second, residents died of dehydration. In my riding, Mr. Chair, residents died of dehydration. This happened after the CAF report, Mr. Chair.
Last Friday there was a protest in my riding organized by families of long-term care residents worried about their loved ones, about their parents, about their grandparents. This is happening in June 2021, a year and a half into this pandemic.
Mr. Chair, I'm confident that any member of this committee would be ringing the alarm if this happened in their riding or in their province. Many of us have met with individual family members and organized communities leaders, such as the Canadians for long-term care group. In a response to this motion they said that they are beyond happy to see this. The Canadian Association for Long Term Care is ready to take part in this. People want the issue of long-term care taken seriously.
I want to share maybe the single most important reason that this committee needs to undertake this study as the next priority. According to the National Institute on Ageing's long-term care COVID-19 tracker, residents of long-term care homes accounted for only 4% of the positive cases in Ontario, but 42% of COVID-19 deaths in the province have been among the residents of long-term care homes. Nationwide, it is 59%, despite only counting as 6% of positive test cases. This is a shocking figure.
When the majority of deaths have a clear commonality, it is important that we investigate that as part of the COVID study. The seniors and other residents of these homes are among the most vulnerable Canadians, and the provincial government has a duty of care to them, which was grossly neglected during this pandemic.
Our seniors did not just build this country; they defended it too. Generations of brave Canadians from all walks of life have stepped forward to serve and sacrifice for our country. Hundreds of thousands have fought and many continue to serve, so we have a responsibility.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the virus have disproportionately affected them, particularly those living in long-term care facilities. Some seniors spent a prolonged period alone and separated from their families and communities. We heard stories, Mr. Chair, where seniors could not see their family members who spoke their language, and they were so vulnerable. Many sad stories are there. Public health measures meant many seniors needed to rely on friends, families or community services for access to groceries and medicine.
During the first wave of the pandemic more than one in three long-term care homes across Canada faced an outbreak situation. They simply were not prepared for a severe outbreak of a virus like this. There is an extent to which this is understandable. The COVID virus did not even exist two years ago, and it spreads more easily than other common viruses. Most of us did not see this coming, but we need to know how to be prepared for the future.
Most people would have expected family facilities, like long-term care homes, to have standards to enforce infection controls and prevention procedures that would have reduced the risk of this virus. This was clearly not the case. Much has been said about the labour practices of industry, with personal support workers having to combine part-time shifts at multiple homes, and working conditions that do not encourage them to stick around. I have met with many representatives of PSW professionals, and there have regularly been issues of morale and stability in the field.
They have also told me about the impact of the pandemic on staff. It has been widely acknowledged in Ontario that the problems in our long-term care go back decades. However, even shortly before the pandemic began, the provincial government in Ontario made cuts to long-term care and health care services in its budgets, which led to decreased facility inspections and issues with staffing across the province.
We can all hope that the pandemic has been the wake-up call that will finally lead to short- and long-term improvements in long-term care homes, but we need a road map. After the tragedies we have seen, Canadians want the federal government to be there to work with the provinces and territories on what is their jurisdiction.
I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents asking for that, and I'm getting many calls right now. There has been much discussion about public versus private and non-profit versus for-profit homes. In Ontario, for-profit homes had significantly more deaths than public ones, and some parties have proposed eliminating for-profit homes entirely. However, not all provinces have had this experience, and this discrepancy between death rates, between these models, is less significant. We should hear testimony on the pros and cons of each model. We need to study this.
I know there are people who may think the federal government has no role in this issue, particularly in Quebec. I mentioned earlier that 59% of Canada's COVID deaths were in long-term care homes, but 72% of those were in Quebec, by far the most of any province or territory. That is why, from the beginning, we have been working with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec and Ontario.
Today, my colleague, Ms. O'Connell, referred to an article on the CBC website about the results of the inquiry into Quebec's situation in long-term care during the first wave. I read it a few minutes ago, and I was shocked. This inquiry says that Quebec authorities believed there was no asymptomatic transmission for weeks, allowing it to spread undetected. As Ms. O'Connell mentioned the source of this report was a coroner's inquest.
Géhane Kamel, the coroner, said the goal of the inquest was not to determine guilt but to come up with recommendations to prevent future tragedies.
I agree with her that the goal of this study was not to blame provinces but to work with them hand in hand. That is why we should be doing our own study on this issue to make recommendations as to how the federal government responds.
Going back to the article, there were disturbing things found by this report. For Canadians watching this committee at home, if you are easily disturbed, I recommend you mute my speech for about a minute.
These are the facts found by this inquest. There was a shortage of oxygen equipment. The report says that dead bodies were left untouched for hours and that staff were working despite having symptoms of COVID-19. A patient attendant could not receive a COVID test, despite losing his sense of smell two days earlier and having flu-like symptoms. He was told he couldn't be tested because he had not travelled abroad. Finally, I would like to use one last quote from a nurse in this article: “It was a horror movie.” Another nurse spoke of the delay in funeral homes' receiving bodies.
Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry about this horrible report out of Quebec today. How can we not work with Quebec and all provinces and territories?
The National Institute on Ageing researchers also found that deaths in Canada's long-term care settings were three times higher compared with other OECD countries. Not surprisingly, Mr. Chair, most Canadians fear having to move into a long-term care setting as they age after seeing what happened during this pandemic.
The armed forces reported on the conditions at the LTC in my riding, and I would like to remind members of this committee what they found.
Members of the Canadian Armed Forces also assisted in long-term care facilities. The Canadian Red Cross is still helping. They did a crucial job helping with our parents, grandparents and elders. For that, we owe them our deepest thanks.
I mentioned it earlier in my remarks, but the details are important, Mr. Chair. Staff were found moving from COVID units to other units without changing contaminated PPE. They were not following basic infection-prevention policies like washing hands between patient interactions and were cleaning gloves with hand sanitizer instead of changing them. Wounds were not being treated in a sterile manner. Medications were not being properly documented. Staff were aggressive in repositioning the patients and were not assisting the residents during meals, documenting that they refused to eat rather than helping them. With regard to the last one, they were leaving food in the residents' mouths while they were sleeping. That was at the beginning of the pandemic. It was actually the most serious of the five homes within the report.
However, it was revealed that the Ministry of Long-Term Care continued to investigate the home. In March, it was found that the long-term care home's owner had failed to document the fluid intake of three residents. The result of this was that one of them died of dehydration. As a result of a separate investigation, a nurse who worked at the same home is now facing 11 charges of failing to provide the necessities of life for withholding medications from residents.
Mr. Chair, it is irresponsible. Not making substantial adjustments after the tragic first wave proved to be dangerously irresponsible. As it stands, Canada needs to be prepared to train higher and to fund more personal workers, even in the absence of a pandemic. We have an aging population and seniors want to stay in their homes as long as possible, something that is even more true after the devastation that was seen in long-term care.
We need to bring improvements to this field, to the working conditions, to the pay and to the respect they are given. It is a field overwhelmingly dominated by women, often immigrants and people of colour. These workers need to be appreciated so that the best of them stay in the profession and the bad actors are no longer allowed to remain because we are desperate for workers.
Another home in the CAF report was the Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke. Some of the issues noted include COVID-positive patients not being isolated and continuing to room with ones who had tested negative. They were allowed to wander around, risking spread throughout the home.
There was a general culture to fail to use supplies, including basic PPE, because they cost money. The report also described severe understaffing during the day, leading to patients not having the proper support, and the morale and well-being of the staff being at risk. There were nearly a dozen fungal infections from improperly used catheters, and gross non-adherence to some recurring orders, such as regularly checking vital signs or turning patients, in some cases using the excuse that it may wake them.
They also noted abusive and aggressive behaviour, and degrading or inappropriate comments directed at residents, as well as inaccurate reporting to the patients' families regarding their status on things like feeding, pain levels and general conditions.
At Hawthorne Place Care Centre in North York, there was little to no disinfection done prior to catheterizing, with significant gross fecal contamination being noted in numerous patients' rooms. There was a significant shortage of RNs, especially on weekends. There was a significant deterioration of cleanliness standards throughout long-term care. Staff reported that some residents had not been fed for several weeks. Forceful feeding and dehydration was observed, causing choking and aspiration. There was a noted incident of a catheter being in place three weeks beyond the scheduled change date.
We also need to examine different ways that provincial governments have responded to the crisis in these homes. In Ontario the people were promised hiring around long-term care homes after the devastation of the first wave, but no substantive improvement materialized. As the second wave began, these facilities were still unprepared for a full outbreak. Despite warnings that there was an immediate need to hire and train more infection prevention experts and thousands of personal support workers, the provincial government remained slow to act.
We need to work on this for the sake of residents in long-term care and their families. Let me be clear. It is never too late to study this. It is never too late to talk about these issues. These issues are not over. These tragedies are not behind us. They are still happening today, not in Vancouver, not in Calgary, but they are happening here in my riding of Brampton South. This is why my constituents sent me here to speak on their behalf. I am doing so now, proudly and with full responsibility. We all have a responsibility.
I would like now to speak about our government's record for the awareness of the members of this committee and Canadians who are watching. Our position is clear. Those living in long-term care deserve safe and quality care, and to be treated with dignity. The pandemic has shone a light on systemic issues affecting long-term care facilities across the country. In 2020's fall economic statement, our government committed $1 billion to the safe long-term care fund to ensure our seniors and their caretakers are well protected and supported. Not only that, but in budget 2021 we have invested $3 billion to ensure standards across the nation for long-term care.
For a sense of what budget 2021 includes for Canada's seniors, I will list a few things.
Budget 2021 proposes to provide $90 million over three years, starting in 2021-22 to Employment and Social Development Canada to launch the age well at home initiative. Age well at home would assist community-based organizations in providing practical support that helps low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors age in place, such as matching seniors with volunteers who can help with meal preparation, home maintenance, daily errands, yardwork and transportation.
This initiative would also support regional and national projects that help expand services that have already demonstrated results in helping seniors stay in their homes.
For example, knowledge hub can help seniors access the local services available to them, or provide information, resources and training to community-based organizations in delivering practical support to seniors.
Our position is clear. Those living in long-term care deserve safe, quality care and to be treated with dignity. As I said before, the pandemic has shone a light. Budget 2021 also proposes to provide $41.3 million over six years, and $7.7 million ongoing, starting in 2021-22, for Stats Canada to improve data infrastructure and data collection on supportive care, primary care, and pharmaceuticals.
We have invested every step of the way, and regularly supported our seniors with the funds required to keep them safe. However, we need to keep taking action. We need to continue acting in support of Canadians and long-term care homes, and we can do this through the help of this motion. We can make recommendations.
We are all so lucky to be Canadian. We have had one of the best vaccine rollouts in this world, and we are now number one in the G7, G20 and the OECD for first doses administered and rapidly catching up on the second doses.
Canada isn't great because it is Canada. It is great because of the Canadians who live here and who, for generations after generations, have worked hard to make this one of the best places to live in the world. From all over the world, hard-working individuals who wanted only the best for themselves, their families and their communities made their way to Canada. They built this country to what is it today from coast to coast to coast. Canada's seniors have given their all to leave behind a country that will propel us forward in this world and allow us to thrive, to prosper and to be able to reflect Canadians' values in our dealings with other countries.
All of us should reflect on the immense contributions Canada's seniors have made in shaping our country. They are friends, family, neighbours, co-workers and role models. They have laid the foundation for a better life for millions of Canadians.
On the Liberal side, we recognize the contribution of Canada's seniors to our country. Not everyone in this industry is a bad actor, Mr. Chair. It is full of dedicated, caring people working in circumstances that are difficult and emotionally draining at the best of times, but there's an urgent need to reform. The federal government has a role to play in protecting the health and safety of all Canadians. The children and families of long-term care residents have been asking for this for over a year, and we owe it to them to give this study full consideration.
Now that we are building back our economy and starting our recovery, let us find strength in the legacy of resiliency, determination and compassion provided to us by seniors. We owe them our debt of gratitude. Now we need to be there for those who raised us and built this country.
That is why the Liberal members on this committee have brought forward this motion to say to Canada's seniors that, yes, absolutely, they deserve safe, quality care, and they deserve to be treated with dignity.
Let's hear from families. Let's hear from workers. Let us study this.
This is a very important issue. We need to study this. We need to give some recommendations. Our seniors are looking. Canadians are watching. Mr. Chair, this is our responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.