Human Resources Committee on May 11th, 2020

[Jodi Hall]

The short answer is yes. I think there are strategies that we could work on together. Mental health is a critical issue not only for the residents in our homes but also for our workforce. We would very much like to champion developments in that regard. We have a higher percentage of female residents, so certainly there's a host of other issues that can stem from that, and we would be very open to further conversations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

I am sorry I ended your time, but I gave you the floor for a lot longer than six minutes.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies. Thank you for your presentations.

First, let me say that seniors have been hardest hit by the current crisis. In Canada, it is mostly women living alone who have been affected in terms of health, mental health and finances.

I want to talk about the financial situation. My question is for Ms. Lennox. I hope the interpretation issue has been resolved.

Since the beginning of the crisis, there have been demands. We have put in place assistance and emergency measures, which have been well received. We have provided our support to workers and businesses. Yet, even today, we still feel that we have left seniors behind.

We believe that old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits should be increased. Right now, the annual income of people who receive both amounts is $18,000, which comes out to less than $2,000 per month.

Ms. Lennox, is this an important issue for you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot, I believe we have an interpretation problem.

Ms. Lennox, I'm told that your interpretation is not on the English channel. If it was, you would have simultaneous interpretation.

[Marissa Lennox]

I just made that change, so I was able to hear—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Oh, did you get the question?

[Marissa Lennox]

I was able to hear the question, not the preamble, but the question was just with respect to OAS programs being increased.

It's interesting, and you raise an important point. We do hear this a lot from our members, and it's something that has come up quite a lot during COVID. The government established $2,000 as the minimum that a family could survive on. For those who have lost employment, they established that $2,000 as the benchmark that a family would need to sustain themselves through COVID-19. However, as you know and as you mentioned, many seniors live on far less than that. CPP, OAS and, in some cases GIS, don't amount to $2,000 a month, and that's something that I know we've heard, and it's why we're urging the government to follow through on its commitment to increase OAS by 10%, and also the CPP survivor benefit, which we know involves individuals who are the most vulnerable. They're often women who have had low-paying, precarious work and don't have as much CPP as, say, a spouse.

Did I answer your question?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Yes, thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Lennox again.

Unfortunately, the crisis is going to have a major impact on businesses. There will be more bankruptcies. In fact, we regularly ask questions about it. As we know, many workers' savings lie in their pension funds; it is their nest egg.

Do you agree with pension funds being preferred creditors in the event of bankruptcy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Could you hold your microphone as you answer, Ms. Lennox? It's better for interpretation.

[Marissa Lennox]

Yes.

Absolutely, we've long advocated for pension protection, particularly for those with corporate-defined benefit pensions. If you're calling for super-priority, I think there are a number of concerns because, as we move forward, we may see a series of bankruptcies, which may put people in...

Am I answering your question directly? I'm sorry, did you try to interject? Okay.

We may see more bankruptcies as a result, and I think the fear is that many pensioners will be left behind, and they are often at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the distribution of assets at the end.

With respect to retirement plans, one thing I would say emphatically that our members are extremely passionate about is the need to eliminate RRIF withdrawals. Part of the reason is that currently in the COVID era, that requirement increases your tax liability, which is a real problem for many of our members who are looking to maximize their cash and their flexibility in arranging their affairs at the moment. We welcome the reduction of 25% for RRIF withdrawals. This was not applied retroactively, as you know, and many would like to keep their savings untouched at this time.

Thank you.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Ms. Hall. My next question is for you.

I heard your association's appeal. Each province will be affected; each will have to take stock, both in terms of housing and human resources. As you know, of course, health, social services and human resources are provincial jurisdictions. I feel each province will have to account for what went well and what was more difficult. Long before COVID-19, the Bloc Québécois was demanding that the provinces be given the capacity to provide adequate healthcare.

Do you agree that health transfers to the provinces should be increased by at least 5%, as the provinces are asking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Please give a short answer, Ms. Hall.

[Jodi Hall]

As I mentioned, with the aging demographic that we have, I think the provinces are incredibly challenged to provide the level of services that we know seniors need from a health care perspective. There is a lot of opportunity, I believe, for that shared responsibility approach and for ongoing collaborations. I know that provinces have been asking for additional funding. We believe there is a very strong conversation required for that.

There are many opportunities for collaboration on the development of a pan-Canadian human resource strategy to look at how we can support modern infrastructure developments that best support seniors in care today. I think a multitude of other opportunities can happen when we have the opportunity to sit down and figure out a strategy that best supports seniors across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Hall.

Ms. Kwan, you have six minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. My questions will be for Ms. Lennox.

One of the key issues that I know seniors are concerned about is with respect to interruptions to the GIS. Even though the government has extended the deadline for seniors to file their taxes, some will still not likely be able to meet that deadline. Would you then support the government's grandfathering of all seniors receiving GIS automatically for 2020-21?

[Marissa Lennox]

Yes, we would. That's something we would absolutely support, particularly for those who are on GIS. They're our most vulnerable. Grandfathering is something that we would fundamentally support, yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The other thing I've asked of the government is to make sure that, for seniors who might be receiving emergency benefits during this COVID period, those benefits not be counted toward their income for the purposes of calculating GIS next year. Can you comment on that, please?

[Marissa Lennox]

It's an interesting proposal. I'd not considered it, but it sounds like a very good one. As I said, people on GIS are in the lowest income bracket and could use a number of supports at this time. I think that would be a positive step forward for the government to take, absolutely.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much. There's no question that, as you indicated already, seniors on these fixed incomes are not being recognized by the government as being in need of support during this COVID period. As such, they have not come in with what would be a much simpler approach—namely, a direct universal benefit for all. That would capture seniors, students and everybody else instead of the complicated system we have today. I appreciate your comments on that.

I now want to turn to the long-term care issue that both witnesses touched on. There's no question that throughout this pandemic, the failures of the system for our seniors in long-term care facilities have been highlighted. One of the issues, of course, is that we see a stark difference between the private long-term care facilities versus the not-for-profit long-term care facilities.

To that end, Ms. Lennox, can you comment on whether you would support national standards being established, which you've already spoken to, in a care guarantee? What would that entail?

[Marissa Lennox]

Obviously, you raise something that is a very hot topic of debate at the moment. That's in part because of The Star's investigation. This weekend we saw that for-profit nursing homes have four times as many COVID deaths as city-run homes do. In many ways this isn't a surprise. There have been numerous studies around the world comparing for-profit and not-for-profit homes and municipally run homes. Generally the trend is that for-profit homes tend to have poorer performance. You can see why this might be the case given the increased pressure, obviously, to turn a profit. One of the biggest budget line items is staffing. In the absence of clear ratios or number of hours per resident, this is often the first thing that does get cut. Food budgets are another thing we know are absolutely deplorable in these long-term care settings.

However, we do know there are both good and bad examples in private, as well as public, long-term care homes, which speaks to your comment about a national standard. At a minimum, I think part of the go-forward is that we have to ensure that all provincial and territorial jurisdictions align their health workforce in these facilities to be consistent in terms of qualifications, credentials, specialization, and even staff ratios.

Then even when you reflect back on how some of the homes performed, why was it that in B.C., care workers stopped working at multiple homes two weeks before care workers in Ontario and in Quebec did? These are some of the questions that I think really need answering. It's possible that had the federal government stepped in with greater leadership.... I understand the provincial and federal jurisdictional challenges, but had there been some sort of standard in place that ensured best practices, we might have seen a better performance.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Part of establishing a standard that would apply in all provinces and territories could be to bring long-term care under the Canada Health Act.

[Marissa Lennox]

I think that's a really important point. If you look at the true definition of long-term care—and every province categorizes it differently—if you require the highest level of institutional long-term care, that is a health service, and, frankly, it should be treated no differently from how a hospital is treated. In that case, it should be under the Canada Health Act. I think there's real merit to deeming long-term care facilities hospitals under the Canada Health Act, because, as I said, when you look at the characteristics of patients in these facilities, these facilities are really operating as hospitals. Ultimately, that would bring long-term care up to hospital standards, with better infection control and prevention, and nursing and staff training and education standards, and it would become part of the envelope of federal financial transfers under the Canada Health Act. I think that would be great.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

I would venture to say, actually, on the private versus for-profit long-term facilities, even in British Columbia we notice a significant difference. A lot of our long-term care facilities in British Columbia, previous to a Liberal provincial government taking over, were in fact not-for-profit agencies. They switched over along with the staffing that went into a private approach to it, and even then we saw the difference in terms of the impact for seniors.

Full disclosure: the NDP call for long-term care facilities to be fully in the non-profit regime.

Thank you.