Debates of March 22nd, 2021

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech.

Last spring, the Canadian Armed Forces carried out Operation Laser in long-term care homes. The report that was written indicates that the problem was not the standards themselves. The problem was that the standards were not met because of a lack of funding. Recently, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion denouncing the implementation of Canadian standards in long-term care homes and calling for an increase in health transfers.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously spoken out against implementing Canadian standards in long-term care homes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that we knew there were issues in for-profit long-term care facilities long before the pandemic and we refused to act. What it resulted in was thousands of people losing their lives. This is unacceptable.

It seems that the federal government can find billions of dollars for pipelines and for helping its corporate friends while turning a blind eye to offshore tax havens, but when we look at expenditures that will literally save lives, putting in place national standards in long-term care to ensure that people are able to live with dignity and human rights, it seems to be an issue that we immediately need to address. It is beyond overdue. We are not out of the pandemic yet, and seniors and disabled persons deserve better.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, COVID-19 has been hard on everyone, but we know it has been hardest on one group of Canadians. More than anyone else, our seniors and those who care for them have borne the brunt of this deadly global health pandemic, and seniors and staff in for-profit long-term care have been impacted most of all.

I know everyone in this House has heard the devastating statistics. We know that over 80% of deaths in Canada occurred in long-term care homes. We know that 12,000 residents and workers have died in long-term care homes since the beginning of the pandemic. We know this is the worst record among comparable countries and double the OECD average. We know Ontario's for-profit nursing homes have 78% more COVID-19 deaths than non-profit homes. We know that if long-term care facilities are owned by a chain, they are far more likely to have serious outbreaks.

In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, at one point in November, over 90% of the residents at South Terrace Continuing Care Centre, a for-profit centre, tested positive for COVID-19. Heartbreakingly, many of those residents have lost their lives.

These facts and figures are alarming. They are shocking, but much more importantly, each number represents seniors our government has failed. Each percentage represents a loss of life and grieving families left behind, unable to say goodbye, unable to share final days.

What happened and what continues to happen in Canada's long-term care homes is a national disgrace. The thousands of seniors we lost to COVID-19 did not have to die. They are dead because the government failed to protect them. How many more thousands of seniors must die before we finally fix our long-term care system, before we finally decide to actually care for our elders, before we put the care of our loved ones and the workers who care and support them first?

Each December I deliver poinsettias to the long-term care centres in my riding to bring a little festive cheer and holiday spirit to the community. I pop in to say hello, I share a cup of coffee with some of the residents, I chat about how they are doing and how I can help and I talk to the staff and thank them for their incredible work. It is one of my favourite things to do.

Obviously, this December it had to be different, but I still wanted to do what I could to brighten the day of the residents and staff in long-term care homes in Edmonton Strathcona and let them know that while I cannot visit like I used to, I am thinking of them and am fighting for them in the House of Commons. Knowing I could not enter the residence, I put on my PPE, wore my mask, called ahead to make sure I was following every safety protocol and dropped those poinsettias and holiday cards off outside the long-term care centres.

That was a very hard day. I saw family members who were standing in the bitter cold waving at their loved ones through windows to keep their fathers, mothers, grandmothers, uncles and aunts safe. I saw those same seniors isolated, lonely and terrified. I spoke to long-term care workers who broke down in tears because they were so tired and scared. They had been through so much and they felt let down by their government. They were scared; they were tired, absolutely, but they were also mad.

One caregiver, a young woman named Claire, a woman who had worked at a for-profit care centre, explained that before the pandemic she had worked at several different long-term care centres in Edmonton just to pay her bills. While she and her co-workers were doing everything they could to help residents stay safe and healthy, she felt like the government had let her and the seniors in her care down.

This young woman on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, who literally risked her life to take care of our seniors, spoke of the deplorable conditions in long-term care before COVID-19. She told me of cost-saving measures that resulted in the deterioration of care over the years, the understaffing, the increased workload. She told me that the need to increase profit for corporations that owned these homes meant seniors and staff who cared for them were already in a precarious and dangerous situation before the pandemic.

Increasing privatization has moved the focus from caring for our seniors to creating profits for shareholders. I have said this many times in this House, but let me reiterate it: Care and profit are two oppositional forces.

The only way to profit from providing long-term care is to cut the care itself, to cut the number of people providing the care, to cut their wages, to cut the time spent providing care and to cut money from the design and maintenance of the homes themselves.

Long-term care was not working in this country before COVID-19. Experts had warned us. Seniors advocates had told the government over and over again that the level of care was deteriorating and that the profit model in many care centres resulted in massive profits for corporations and increasingly dangerous conditions for seniors and staff.

The fact that there were no national standards of care also meant that there was a huge discrepancy in the quality of care provided, and this was all before the worst global health pandemic of our time.

COVID-19 hit our long-term care centres like a tornado. Every flaw in our system—every unheeded warning about overworked staff, about under-resourced centres, about dangerous conditions—was exposed.

We heard from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. They spoke of appalling conditions, overworked staff, rampant profiteering and a devastating loss of life. Further, they stated:

Canada’s long-term care is in crisis. Frontline health care workers have been sounding the alarm on conditions for years, but governments have failed to take responsibility and act....

The refusal to take responsibility for the crisis in long-term care has gone on for far too long and its true cost is measured in lives lost.

In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, the vast majority of residents and staff at the South Terrace Long Term Care Home tested positive for COVID-19. Very many of those residents and staff got sick, and the loss of life was not just at South Terrace, but also at Carlingview Manor, Montfort long-term care home, Forest Heights Long Term Care Home, and McKenzie Towne Continuing Care Centre, just a few of the long-term care centres that had outbreaks and high levels of infection and death.

What do all of these long-term care centres have in common? All of these long-term care facilities are owned by one very large corporation, Revera. In fact, Revera owns more than 500 long-term care facilities worldwide. While it is not the only for-profit with large COVID outbreaks, it is unique because it is owned by the Canadian pension fund, and its board is appointed by cabinet.

It is because of this that I am joining my colleagues within the NDP to urge the government to immediately bring Revera under public ownership, and not just Revera. We have heard from specialists, we have heard from families, we have heard from workers, and we have heard from seniors themselves just how dangerous and deadly for-profit long-term care has been.

We need to work with provinces and territories to transition all for-profit care to non-profit care no later than 2030. We need more than just words and we need more than just a throne speech: We need long-term care that guarantees standards of care for our seniors regardless of where they live, regardless of how much money they have.

We need to ensure adequate funding for long-term care. The NDP would invest an additional $5 billion over the next four years in long-term care, with funding tied to respect for the principles of the Canada Health Act.

We need to ensure that workers who are caring for our seniors earn wages that reflect the value of their work and are honoured for the support they provide to our families and our seniors.

We need to begin. We need to finally begin to take profit out of long-term care, starting with Revera, by 2030.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we will continue to fight for national standards. We recognize that. We are responding to the whole idea that we can in fact build back better.

The issue that I have with the NDP, is that it would appear, based on my questions, that it has not had any consultations with provincial entities. Our provinces are responsible for the administration of health, and that includes personal care home facilities. We have had New Democratic governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, none of which have ever taken that direction.

Has the NDP done its homework and gotten any support from any province, or is it hoping that Ottawa would do those negotiations on its behalf?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member is talking about our doing our homework when he speaks about fighting for national standards, as if he were not a member of the government that could in fact put in national standards right now. Does he actually know that he is part of the government and that they could do that?

As for working with the provinces I am going to quote André Picard, a journalist who specializes in health care, who tweeted, “Can we please, in the name of all that is good and holy, stopped pretending there is some kind of constitutional impediment to improving care for elders”.

The federal government has a role to play in working with the provinces to make this happen. It has the work to do. It has a job to do and it has not done it. It has been decades.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and the NDP for bringing this issue forward. Like many other Canadians, my mum is in a long-term care residence, and I think this issue is a very important debate to have today.

I do want to follow up with what my Liberal colleague was saying, though, because we do want to make sure that these standards are effective. When bringing up a topic of national standards, it can be very complicated.

I wonder what my colleague would say would be an NDP plan to respect the diverse needs and challenges of our vastly unique country in bringing forward these standards for Canada.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I extend my best wishes to my colleague's mother. I hope she is doing well during this very difficult time for seniors in this country.

I think it is important that we recognize that while we have diverse realities across the country, there is a level of care that every senior, regardless of where they are located, deserves to have, with a level of dignity and a level of respect. That is why I think is so important that we make sure that is in those standards of care.

Of course, we need to be convening and having conversations across the country, but there are those standards of what we feel or know about seniors and the dignity that they deserve to live with. I think it is so important that it does not matter if someone is in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend and thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her touching speech, which was very sincere, like her.

Oddly enough, my question relates to that of the member for Winnipeg North and follows up on the question of my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. Health falls under provincial jurisdiction. The specifics or problems that my colleague mentioned in her speech are generally the result of a lack of funding, and the care provided by long-term care facilities for seniors falls under provincial jurisdiction, even if those facilities are privately owned.

I have a highly relevant question. Has the NDP discussed this proposal with the provincial governments to see how it would be received? If not, it would be like literally shoving rules and standards down their throats, which I do not think is the intended purpose.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we recognize that, regardless of where someone lives in this country, their standard of care should the same. I can tell colleagues that I come from a province where I am deeply concerned that our provincial government is not doing nearly enough to protect our seniors. I do not trust the current provincial governments to care for seniors, and there is oversight capacity within the federal system. This is the that the system was designed. It is the way our health care system works—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton South.

I want to start by expressing what I believe is a general feeling from all of my Liberal colleagues, that there is so much love and appreciation for the fine work, day in and day out, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, by our health care providers, in particular those who have been there in our long-term care facilities.

I know that in saying that, we should also recognize, as has been pointed out, that there have been far too many deaths over the last 12 months in our care-home facilities. It is one of the reasons why it is such an important debate to have. The issue, for me, is establishing national health care standards, something that the Prime Minister and our entire caucus and I believe is absolutely essential. It is one of the things we have learned through this pandemic, namely, that that there is a genuine, tangible need to have national standards when it comes to long-term care facilities. That is something we will continue to push and strive for.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have had close to 4,000 staff members from the Canadian Red Cross who have provided care, or support of some sort, in over 150 long-term care facilities based in Ontario, Quebec and my home province of Manitoba. We are also indebted to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came to the table in the spring of 2020 to provide support for 50 or so long-term care facilities, again in Quebec and Ontario. We understand the value and importance of this issue to all Canadians, no matter where they live in our beautiful country.

I am a bit surprised by my New Democrat friends. Surely to goodness they understand the issue of health care and responsibilities. I have tried to point out what I believe is a fundamental issue with what the NDP members are proposing to do. I would cite the example that in health care Ottawa plays a critical role, as it should, through the Canada Health Act, which we can look at ways of enhancing. We finally have a government that has worked to get agreements on health care accords, unlike Stephen Harper's government, which ignored the issue. We see that in some of the comments by the Conservatives, who do not want to get engaged in the issue of health care. Conservatives will just say that it is a provincial or territorial issue.

We recognize that Ottawa does have a role to play. However, we also recognize that the only way we are going to have the optimal service that Canadians deserve is to get Ottawa working with provinces to recognize the problems and to work toward positive, creative solutions. That is the way we can maximize the benefits.

I am very disappointed in my New Democrat friends for not coming to the table and saying that they have consulted and worked with the provinces and have some of their support. The best I can tell is that the New Democrats have achieved zero support for this idea. It is almost as if they had a caucus meeting and said, “Let's do this, because we want to do this”. Even though, as they say, the NDP favours 100% public ownership of all care home facilities, it is only the national NDP that is talking about that. I have pointed out that we have had NDP governments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta, and I cannot recall any of them, and definitely not in my province of Manitoba where, in the last 20 years, the New Democrats have been in government for 15 of those years, who have supported that.

The provinces are the ones who will ultimately administer this and they play a very strong leadership role. We, on the other hand, can influence them as well. What we can say here is what we, as a national government, want to see across the nation. No matter where someone lives in our country, they will feel comfortable in knowing that there is a national standard when it comes to care-home facilities.

I have confidence, and all members should have confidence, in provinces because it is their jurisdictional responsibility to provide these services. I have confidence in their ability to recognize what is in the national best interest. What the pandemic highlights is that it is in the national best interest. It is in every Canadian's interest to establish national standards. I suspect that over the coming months and years, there will be dialogue between Ottawa and the provinces. Based on what I have heard from the Conservatives, I sure hope it will not be the Conservatives in power then because, at the end of the day, much like the Bloc, they would argue that they just have to give the money. Giving the money is important, but not tying it to anything or providing those standards would be a grave mistake.

We should be sitting down with our provincial counterparts and making the argument that we should all look at what we have learned in the last 12 months. As one member has already pointed out, the serious issues at long-term care facilities even pre-date the last 12 months of the pandemic.

We represent constituents. We are supposed to bring their concerns to Ottawa and debate them in terms of public policy, whether in our standing committees or on the floor of the House or within our respective caucuses. I can tell members without betraying any caucus confidences that the concern for our seniors aged 55 and over is very real, and we want to continue to move forward with a number of initiatives.

One of the most important initiatives, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health or individual members of the Liberal caucus talking about it, is ensuring that we have standards. We recognize that we have lost lives. As a consequence, we can improve the system. However, to jump to the conclusion that the only way to improve this system is to have 100 per cent public ownership might be a stretch.

If we look at our current health care apparatus and the many services that feed into that apparatus, would the NDP advocate that all 100 per cent of it should become publicly owned? As a party, when bringing in an opposition motion, there is also a responsibility to do one's homework. Part of that homework is being to expand on how what one is suggesting can be implemented.

That is why I posed the question. Sure, here is an idea and I have a lot of ideas. Time will not allow me to go through all those ideas, but at the end of the day, we want to make a difference and we are going to do that. Whether via legislative or budgetary measures, this government has made seniors a top priority. On that list we have got to deal with long-term care facilities and standards. We have to deal with issues like pharmacare, the OAS, the guaranteed income supplement and at how we can support our seniors tomorrow by enhancing CPP benefits.

There is so much we can do. A lot of it involves Ottawa working with the different provincial jurisdictions in order for us to maximize the benefits for all seniors from coast to coast to coast. To me, that is what we should be striving to achieve.

Members will get a good sample of that when they read some of the documents we have provided. Last September, we talked, through the throne speech, of ways in which we can—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will now go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where to start. I heard the member say that we need this Ottawa approach, and I am very much against an “Ottawa knows best” approach. I do not think that actually works. However, he also talked about jurisdictional responsibilities. I am a little confused if it is the “Ottawa knows best” approach that he is coming at this with or a jurisdictional approach, which would allow the provinces, in regards to national standards, to make the decision.

The member talked abut funding when it comes to national standards. I am just wondering if the Liberal government is planning on giving money to the provinces tied to national standards. Is that something we could expect in the upcoming budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate that she, like all other Canadians, including myself, will have to wait for the federal budget. I am sure that there will be a lot of good things coming out of it, and an opportunity for Canadians to get a sense of where this government wants to continue to build back better, give more strength to our economy and so forth.

In terms of the member's question, the bottom line is that I recognize, as the government recognizes, that there are provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions, but we also have to listen to Canadians, as we did through the Canada Health Act, for example, where we received from constituents—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am overwhelmed by the parliamentary secretary's cynicism. Everyone can see that long-term care homes had difficulties.

These problems are the result of massive cuts to the health care system. The Liberals played a part in that. The infamous fiscal imbalance did not create itself. That the government is now saying it will implement national standards and the problem will magically go away is the epitome of cynicism.

I have two suggestions for the parliamentary secretary. If he is serious about seniors, he can increase health transfers to 35% and increase old age security.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that it is important for us to listen to what our constituents have to say. I can tell the member that my constituents want to see national standards in long-term care and they support the Canada Health Act, which means that Ottawa needs to do more than just give cash to provinces. At the end of the day, I believe that the institution of health care and the services it provides are things that Canadians in all regions want Ottawa to always have some form of a vested interest in.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member said that he has confidence in the current system. Well, last June, the Canadian Institute for Health Information found that 81% of the deaths in Canada due to COVID-19 were in the long-term care sector. This compares to countries such as the Netherlands at 15%, the U.K. at 27%, Australia at 28%, Donald Trump's U.S. at 31% and Germany at 34%. In fact, the OECD average is about 38%. Canada has the worst record of any comparable country.

I do not know if the member has not read the motion or if he is purposely staying away from this, but we are not talking about public delivery, we are talking about non-profit delivery. How does my colleague and the Liberal government justify such an appallingly poor record when we compare Canada to comparator countries? Does he or does he not agree that we should be making profit off of the care of our seniors, which is what the motion talks about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we were to canvass all of the regions in the provinces, we would find variances in different standards. That is one of the reasons we should be moving toward national standards on long-term care. This way, we would hopefully see better overall service throughout the nation.

I would also indicate to the member that even in the personal care home facilities, a lot has changed in the 30 years that I have been a parliamentarian in terms of clients, the delivery of service and it really varies. One has to be very careful with statistics.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Employment; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Bow River, Small Business.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for sharing his time with me. Today, I will be speaking on a very important issue following the motion brought forward by the hon. member from the NDP. I would like to thank my hon. colleague for moving it forward.

Let me start with a clear statement. I support national standards for long-term care, but I support standards that have been designed correctly and in consultation with the provinces and territories. The motion we are debating today is unfortunately not the correct course of action to take today to support our seniors in the long-term care system.

Canadian seniors have built this country. Many of them literally fought for it. They deserve our respect and care. As a society, it is important that we have open and serious conversations about the care we provide our senior citizens. There is no doubt that the impact of COVID-19 on long-term care facilities across the country has been devastating for Canadians. It has been especially difficult for those who have lost loved ones. As a country, we need to ensure that something like this never happens again. Our government is taking concrete steps in this regard, which I will speak about shortly.

Members of the House know that I have been a vocal advocate for improving long-term care and bringing the national standards in consultation with the provinces and territories. Last May, five of my Liberal colleagues from the GTA, other Liberal members and I sent a letter to the Government of Ontario calling on it to form an independent inquiry into the conditions of these homes and how COVID was able to spread through them so rapidly. From the start, we were sounding the alarm that something needed to be done. In the letter we demanded that the province work with the Government of Canada in creating national standards for long-term care, which I strongly support.

The report by the Canadian Armed Forces described truly horrible conditions at the homes they assisted in, including Grace Manor in my riding of Brampton South. The stories we have heard in the report were tragic. I have met with many families and advocates from across Ontario. This is why my colleagues and I have been working toward progress on LTC standards and our government has committed to work on this long-term solution. It is the responsibility of the provinces to regulate, protect and inspect long-term care homes in Ontario. The province promised an iron ring around them, but this never materialized. Our seniors deserve better.

As of Saturday, Ontario has seen the death count of 3,891 long-term care residents and 10 staff due to COVID-19, and 413 of these have been in Peel. Too many of these deaths were preventable. I truly support bringing in national standards for long-term care, but the motion before us today, I would argue that the first part of it seeking to bring Revera under public ownership is not the right solution to address this important problem.

With my time here today, I would like to explain why. It would be helpful to explain the federal government's role, or lack thereof, in this context. First, allow me to provide a bit of background. PSP Investments is mandated with investing net proceeds from the pension contribution of the public service, the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP pension plan in capital markets in the best interests of the contribution and beneficiaries under those respective acts. It reports to Parliament through the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for its legislation. The organization does include certain information about Revera in its annual report as well.

Under the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for establishing and nominating a committee whose mandate is to establish a list of qualified candidates for proposed appointments as the director of the independent Board of Directors of PSP Investments. Based on the nominating committee's selection, the President of the Treasury Board makes a recommendation for appointment to the Governor in Council, and that is an important distinction.

The fact is that PSP Investments is not part of the federal public administration. It is not a government department or agency of the Crown. It does not receive parliamentary appropriations and it is not a part of the public administration of Canada.

PSP Investments is a non-agent Crown corporation that operates at arms' length from the Government of Canada. Part of the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague asks the government to interfere in the investment decision and strategy of this fund to make one long-term care group, namely Revera, public. It implies that the Government of Canada has authority to enact such a process, but the fact is that PSP Investments is intentionally structured to be at arms' length from the government. It is what ensures its independent and non-partisan role. PSP Investments must be, and is, responsible for its own investment decisions.

The President of the Treasury Board therefore does not have the authority to issue investment direction. Nor can he force PSP Investments to sell or transfer ownership of any of its assets. The organization's investment decisions are not influenced by political direction; regional, social or economic development considerations, or any non-investment objectives. In fact, such kind of interference would put PSP Investments at a competitive disadvantage and could impact its ability to achieve its legislative mandate.

The limitation also extends to Revera, which, as my hon. colleague well knows, is a private company that owns, operates and invests in the senior living sector. It is a wholly owned operating subsidiary of PSP Investments, which operates, develops and invests in senior housing facilities. Importantly, it is subject to the same rules as other businesses operating in the industry and its Canadian homes must be licensed or approved by applicable provincial or territorial government bodies. As such, its services are subject to provincial regulations on the quality of care and services. It is also self-funded, meaning that it has its own sources of financing and prepares independent audited financial statements. Since it is a wholly owned operating subsidy of PSP Investments registered under the Canada Business Corporation Act, it is not a part of the federal public administration.

Our government is taking concrete steps to help seniors in long-term care homes. In last September's Speech from the Throne, our government announced important measures aimed at doing just that and committed to working with the provinces and territories to set new national standards for long-term care, so we could ensure that seniors would be safe, respected and could live with dignity. We all want that. We are taking additional action to help seniors stay in their homes longer. We are pleased to work with Parliament on Criminal Code amendments to explicitly penalize those who neglect seniors under their care, putting them in danger.

In last fall's economic update, our government announced funding of up to $1 billion to establish a safe long-term care fund to help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection prevention and control. More recently, we are seeing progress with vaccinations. Thousands of seniors in long-term care facilities across the country have received their first doses of vaccines, and many have already received their second.

This is not a partisan issue. Our NDP colleagues know that the responsibility of delivering and regulating long-term care falls to the province and territories. A motion that does not recognize this fact does not bring us closer to the national standards. To be successful—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question specifically about the government's record on palliative care. Many people I have heard from are very frustrated by the fact the government has continually made commitments. There was a private member's bill from my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, which passed with unanimous support, calling for a national framework. The government has not acted on or funded this. Opposition members from multiple parties, certainly from our caucus, have been talking about the need for appropriate funding for palliative care since prior to the pandemic. While the government has continued to pay lip service to that, it has failed to do anything on it.

I wonder if the member can account for the government's inaction on this.