Debates of March 22nd, 2021

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that I want to speak on this item, and not only in my new role. I and several of my colleagues have been discussing the conditions in long-term care homes and are outraged by them. My riding in particular was hit very hard, with over 70 residents passing away from COVID in the first wave at Orchard Villa, and we saw, even after the second wave, a continuation of our community members getting sick and dying.

We also saw the horrible conditions. My riding was one of the ridings that had the Canadian Armed Forces in their long-term care homes, and we had to read about the unbelievably deplorable conditions that our community members and elders had been left in. Families were feeling helpless and hopeless about being able to provide their family members with care and to be able to be there with them.

We had been advocating support for provinces and territories and for national standards in long-term care and talking about those needs, and those are things I continue to advocate to this day. I was really pleased, along with my colleagues, when I saw the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne recognize and acknowledge moving forward with national standards on long-term care, and then that was backed up again in the fall economic statement by providing a $1-billion safe long-term care fund.

Unfortunately, opposition members have been holding up Bill C-14—

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

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hate to interrupt the parliamentary secretary and I congratulate her on her new role, but I think she forgot to mention that she would be sharing her time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Maybe she wants to take the opportunity to do that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It is imperative that Bill C-14 and the fall economic statement make it through the House. If members are supportive of creating better conditions in long-term care homes, then they need to support and work with us so we can provide $1 billion that will do just that.

I agree that we do need to look at profit models in long-term care homes. Like my hon. colleague who asked at question in the last round, I have family in Newfoundland. There are private long-term care homes there. My family members talk about how incredible they are as is the service that is provided.

I worry about a motion like this, with a one-size-fits-all approach. I come from Ontario where we were very hard hit with the lack of protections for our seniors. With a one-size-fits-all approach, what happens in other provinces and territories that do not have the same conditions, that have homes where the level of service is quite high?

I support looking at the idea of how we change funding models to ensure that service is at the core of what is being offered in our communities, that any federal funding or government supports is actually going to services and not just to the profits of shareholders. I think this is a fundamental approach with which we could all.

However, what I take exception to in this motion is that it feels like the NDP wants to move forward with policies written on the back of a napkin. There is no background. This motion is not based on evidence or what happens after. We have not looked at how we take the profit model and turn it into a service model or what will happen with the facilities? Would these operators just close up and leave these seniors homeless? Would they get passed on to municipalities and the public service? How would municipalities absorb that?

While I support the idea of looking at ensuring our standards are increased, I cannot get behind a motion that essentially creates a blanket approach, without looking at what would happen to our seniors. Our seniors deserve a policy that is thoughtful, one we can all understand and one that can be worked on with provinces and territories to ensure the delivery and the outcomes we want are delivered.

What we have seen from the government has been reaction and support. There has been a lot of accusations around the federal government claiming that it is not its responsibility. We have stepped up. We have provided $19 billion for the safe restart agreement, which was to help long-term care homes. In my home province of Ontario, the federal government provided funds and supports to the Government of Ontario to prepare for the second wave. These funds went unspent. These funds did not make it into the long-term care homes to protect our community members. Instead, the funds sat there.

We need standards to ensure that every Canadian across the country can access the same level of care, no matter where they live, that Canadians can hold provinces and territories accountable if they do not live up those standards and that the funding is set up to hold these service providers accountable.

In my community, we saw PPE under lock and key. That is absolutely outrageous, but the federal government was there to support these community members. We also invested in increasing wages for workers, but if provinces and territories do not move forward with legislation, then we do not see changes. This is why it is critically important.

The member for Kingston and the Islands continues to ask about consultation with provinces and territories and has yet to receive an answer. This is crucial because families deserve to know that if we are going to move forward on a policy, it can actually be enacted. If we were to pass this NDP motion without any details of how it would impact our communities and family members, if a province said it was not going to pass legislation that would change the funding model, then what would happen?

It is absolutely disingenuous to say that one wants to support seniors and increase standards in long-term care and then come forward with a motion that is nothing but optics and would do nothing to actually create the change we need to see. We need to see changes in infrastructure and national standards to ensure that every Canadian across this country gets a standard of care, and stop playing politics with seniors' lives and move forward on policies that would actually make a difference in this country.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay talked about Chinese state-owned Anbang taking over Retirement Concepts and the Liberal government rubber-stamping that sale.

We saw the deterioration of service in retirement homes in my riding of Courtenay, and evidence is clear that across Canada that, even before the pandemic, for-profit long-term care homes led to worse outcomes for residents and staff alike. The pandemic has made the differences even clearer. Companies operating for-profit care homes across Canada made hundreds of millions of dollars this year and paid them out to shareholders, even to state-owned companies.

Does my colleague not agree that every single one of those dollars could and should have gone to improving care and making residents and staff safer in communities like the ones I represent. Parksville and Qualicum have the highest median age in the country and there are lots of private care homes. Does my colleague not agree that money should be there improving care and making residents and their staff safer?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that funding needs to go to service levels. What I disagree with, again, is the NDP coming forward with policies written on the back of a napkin that would not achieve the outcomes they genuinely want to see.

We cannot say that about every single for-profit provider. We heard examples from my colleague from Newfoundland, where service levels are quite high.

We need to look at this with a holistic approach to service standards. I agree that funding should go into services, but we need to do this with a holistic approach to ensure that senior receive high-quality care and there are no unintended consequences from an ill-proposed policy by the NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think that what just transpired was a little arrogant. As if a parliamentarian would write proposals on the back of napkin. I have no desire to get mixed up in all that.

I thought it was especially arrogant when my colleague said in her speech that the provinces are incapable of providing services, that they need to take action and do things properly, that only the Canadian government is capable of doing things and knows how to do them.

All the provinces have come out against national standards for long-term care facilities. The Quebec National Assembly even passed a unanimous motion to condemn these national standards and demand health transfers instead. That was the federal government's job, and it was never done.

I will therefore ask my hon. colleague the following: Does she consider the motion unanimously passed in the National Assembly to be valid, the motion condemning the national standards for long-term care centres and calling for health transfers?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member can call me whatever names he wants. I will not apologize for being forceful and speaking up. Over 70 residents in my community died because we do not have national standards. We have national standards for buildings, but not for seniors.

Let me correct the record. Not every province has said it does not support national standards. In fact, provinces have come forward saying they agree. They want to to see standards for seniors. They do not ever want to see Canada live through a tragedy like this again, and they want to work with us to see what those standards are. If buildings can have national standards, I think our seniors deserve that as well.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and congratulate her in her new role.

We in the Green Party have been very active on this issue. Our leader Annamie Paul lost her father in one of these long-term care homes. It was an avoidable death, like so many deaths across this country. We have the highest record of deaths in the OECD. It is an appalling record to have. We had a long-term care facility in my riding that was sold to Anbang Insurance Group, a foreign owner. That sale was approved by the government.

From the experts we have talked to, we have heard about getting a basic care guarantee, so every person in one of these long-term care facilities has a minimum of four hours of care. Does the hon. member think we should have a national long-term care act so we can set standards across this country and deal with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a quick answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

I think we need to fully study and be open to the idea of having national standards, whether through an official act or some sort of standardized system. I agree our system needs to be based on a standard of care. I think seniors and our loved ones need to be at the centre of these policies, but we need to bring the experts to the table to determine whether it is hours of work, a living wage for these workers or infrastructure improvements. There are a variety of things that need to be changed, including funding models. However, it needs to be looked at in a complete package. That is why I am going to continue to push for national standards.

I thank my colleague for his advocacy on this as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and for me. Much like many of my colleagues across this beautiful country, many of the individuals in my riding who reside in long-term care facilities were impacted.

I first want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces members who assisted at Woodbridge Vista: one of the long-term care facilities in my riding where, unfortunately, many residents passed away. I want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for going in and assisting the staff there and getting things under control. I also want to thank William Osler Health System. It managed the Woodbridge Vista facility for a period of time. The same thing happened at Villa Gambin: the CAF did not go in there, but assistance was required.

We want our seniors to be taken care of. These seniors literally built this country. They are in their 80s and 90s. They toiled away building the beautiful cities and towns we live in and made Canada what it is. We owe it to them to do the right thing. We owe it to them to take care of them.

We know in Ontario, approximately 70% of the seniors in long-term care facilities suffer from dementia, Alzheimer's or a related condition. We know that they are there. They need to be safe, they need to be healthy and they need to be protected. We need to ensure that.

What went on in the early stages of the pandemic was horrifying for Canadians across the country in terms of the death toll, how people passed away and how people could not see loved ones. These are our seniors we are talking about. They are some of our most vulnerable citizens. We know we need to do better, and I wish to thank the Canadian Armed Forces again, the Canadian Red Cross and the individuals who have gone in and assisted.

Our government has stepped up to the plate by working with the provinces. That is very important. Whether it is with the government of Quebec, Ontario or whichever province, we have been there to assist with things such as the safe restart agreement and $740 million to purchase PPE. We have been there to work with the provinces and we will continue to do that.

I am very respectful of this. We have a fiscal federation in Canada. There are certain responsibilities the federal government has and responsibilities the provinces have. Those responsibilities include the delivery of services. With the Canada health transfer, we have transferred literally billions of dollars to the provinces. We did that, but at the same time, the provinces are still the majority funders of health care, specifically in the province of Ontario. We need to recognize that.

I believe in national standards. We need to bring them in, but we must do so in a way that co-operates with each province. We can only do that as such. That is the way our system is built. That is the way we have built such a great country and we will continue to do so. We have seen that co-operation.

I know the Province of Ontario is committed to investing over $2 billion per year into long-term care facilities, hiring 27,000 PSWs over the next four years and committing to a gold level standard of four hours of care for each person residing in a long-term care facility. We need to make sure that is implemented.

I appreciate the NDP's motion today and the member who brought it forward. I wish to speak to the fact that we have a system in place in this country. Yes, there are for-profit operators of long-term care, there are municipal operators of long-term care and there are provincial operators. Each model has its shortcomings and each model has its strengths.

We have seen many long-term care facilities managed for-profit. On average, they have not performed as well as others. That is a fact. However, some of them performed decently. I know the NDP would like to nationalize everything. They would like to nationalize all parts of the economy. Sometimes, it sounds like the NDP cannot even support a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, or CETA or the USMCA. Even when people like Jerry Dias step forward and say we need to support these trade deals, the NDP members still cannot bring themselves to support them.

I would like to go back to comments related to this motion and what is in the motion, specifically with regard to PSP Investments. As well-intentioned as this motion is, I would argue that the first part of it, which seeks to bring Revera under public ownership, is not the right solution to this important issue.

With my time here today, I think it will be helpful to explain the government's role, or lack thereof, in this context. First, allow me to provide a bit of background. We, as Canadians, believe in having a secure and dignified retirement for all Canadians. That is why we enhanced the CPP in our first term in government. That is why we have committed to increasing OAS by 10%.

However, we also have a number of pension funds in this country and one of them is PSP Investments. PSP Investments is mandated to manage the pension contributions of the public service, including the Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is mandated to manage these pension plans and capital markets in the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries of those respective plans. PSP reports to Parliament through the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for its legislation. The organization includes certain information about Revera in its annual reports.

Under the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for establishing a nominating committee. Its mandate is to establish a list of qualified candidates for the proposed appointment of director of the independent board 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. It 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. It is not part of the public administration of Canada.

PSP Investments is a non-agent Crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the Government of Canada. That is a very important point to make to my colleagues who wish to nationalize everything, like those in the NDP. PSP Investments needs to operate and needs to invest its dollars for the benefit of its members. Who are these members? They are union members. They are public sector employees, whether RCMP members, Canadian Armed Forces members or others. The list goes on. They can pull the reports off the website and see that there are literally hundreds of thousands of current beneficiaries and also what are called persons making contributions, or contributories.

Part of the motion brought forth by my hon. colleague asks the government to interfere in the investment decisions and strategy of this fund in order to make one long-term care group, namely Revera, public. It implies that the Government of Canada has the authority to enact such a process. However, the fact is that PSP Investments is intentionally structured to be at arm's length from the government, and thankfully so. That is the right way it should be. This 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 kinds of interference would put PSP Investments at a competitive disadvantage, which could impact its ability to achieve its legislated mandate.

This limitation also extends to Revera Inc., which as my Liberal colleague well knows, is a private company that owns properties in, operates in and invests in the senior living sector. It is a wholly owned operating subsidiary of PSP Investments that operates, develops and invests in senior housing facilities. Through its portfolio partnership, Revera owns and operates more than 500 properties across Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Importantly, it is subject to the same rules as other businesses operating in the industry. Its Canadian residences must be licensed or approved by applicable provincial and territorial government bodies. As such, its services are subject to provincial regulations on the quality of care and services.

That in no way means that I am not in favour of national standards. I am in favour of national standards. Our seniors need to live in a secure, safe environment. The last few years of their lives need to be dignified. We all know that and we all want that as parliamentarians. I do not think there is any disagreement there.

Revera is also self-funded, meaning that it has its own source of financing and prepares independently audited financial statements. Since it is a wholly owned operating subsidiary of PSP Investments, registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act, it is not part of the federal public administration.

Our government has committed, as we saw in the September Speech from the Throne, to ensuring that our seniors are taken care of. We want to make sure that people entering retirement have a safe, secure and dignified retirement. We want to make sure seniors who need to be transferred to a long-term care facility are healthy, safe, secure and protected.

It is great to see that the vaccines are out. It is great to see that in the province of Ontario specifically, to my knowledge, the number of deaths in long-term care facilities has actually diminished to near zero and in some days has registered zero.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed to hear my colleague call out the NDP for wanting to nationalize seniors care. This is about taking care of our seniors.

We can remember when the Liberal government rubber-stamped the sale of Retirement Concepts for $1 billion to Anbang, the Chinese-state owned company. I know, from my riding in Courtenay, what happened. I love the question by my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope: “Are seniors about to find out that their landlord is actually the People’s Republic of China?”

I will tell the House how it turned out. It was so bad that in February 2020, the retirement home in Courtenay was taken over by the province because it failed to provide proper care for those very same seniors we are talking about protecting and bringing under the umbrella of universal health care.

Do my colleague and his party regret approving the sale of Retirement Concepts to the Chinese-state owned company that failed to provide proper care for seniors in my riding and across this country? Does he regret that, or does he stand by the Liberal position of supporting private care when it comes to our seniors, which has clearly failed? We saw that throughout this whole pandemic.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the question, loud and clear.

All operators of long-term care facilities, much like with the safety standards we put in place for food, building codes, cars imported into Canada and operated, need to uphold those standards.

With regard to the Investment Canada Act, when foreign corporations wish to invest in Canada and purchase assets or do anything of the such, they need to be held to very high standards. We need to make sure those standards are always enforced.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge thanked the previous questioner for the question and said he thought it was an important one, but he did not answer it. I will give him a second chance to say whether he regrets the unfortunate decision on Anbang?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member extensively over the years on the finance committee and appreciate his response.

All entities investing in Canada should always be held to the highest of standards. We need to enforce those standards and make sure that we do so all the time.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I served together on the public accounts committee.

As I was listening to his discussion of third party oversight, I was thinking about the Office of the Auditor General in Canada, as well as the offices of auditors general across Canada, and the role of third party oversight of government expenditures to see that action items are being implemented and implemented effectively.

Could the hon. member comment on how there is an accountability piece built into our own government, as well as governments across the country?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on getting his vaccine shot over the weekend. It is awesome. Let us get more jabs into the arms of Canadians. It is great to see.

There are mechanisms, and the Auditor General's office is one of those very important agencies within the federal government that provides oversight and auditing of many institutions. It is very important that it continue that job.

With regard to further analysis and details, when it comes to long-term care facilities, I would repeat that national standards are one of those components. We need to have a multi-pillar approach to ensuring that seniors residing in long-term care facilities are safe and secure, have their dignity and are protected.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out the enormous irony of my colleague telling us, on the one hand, that the NDP, through its motion, is interfering in the affairs of PSP Investments and Revera, and on the other hand, that we need national standards, when standards would be the worst example of interference in provincial jurisdictions. My ears practically started bleeding when I heard that. Can he explain that to me?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois that I believe in the fiscal federation. I believe in respecting the rights of the provinces, but also in working with the provinces to ensure that Canadians who reside in long-term care facilities, whether in Quebec or Ontario, have standards we can be confident about and that are comparable.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate having this opportunity to participate in today's debate on behalf of the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have been listening to the debate throughout the day. It has certainly been, at times, very frustrating to listen to. We have taken this opportunity to identify a clear problem. We know the solutions that are out there, but we still seem plagued by the government's inertia to actually step up and do the right thing.

I want to start by expressing one very key point, which is that our parents and grandparents built this country. Whether they were born here or they immigrated here, this country is the way it is today, with all of its strengths, because of the work they put in. As they age, they deserve to live in comfort, dignity and safety. However, because of decades of cuts, underfunding and privatization, our continuing care system, our long-term care homes system, is broken.

This pandemic has very much revealed so many shortcomings in our society. It has shown the precariousness of work. It has shown where the gaps are in our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable workers, those with the most to lose, are often at the front lines of the pandemic. They have most often been the ones at risk of both contracting COVID-19 and of bringing it home and spreading it to their loved ones. We really need to take a hard look at ourselves as a country and make some notes of what went wrong, and most important, how we can improve.

We have seen the cost of government inaction and neglect. We have seen the devastating loss of loved ones in long-term care centres across the country. In fact, it was so devastating that we actually had to send in the army to help out. The reports that emerged from those interventions were absolutely shocking. We had army medical staff finding residents who were dehydrated, who were starving, and who were left lying in their own feces and urine. There were residents who had fallen on the floor and could not get up, and some who had passed away in their beds with no one noticing. We have utterly failed to protect long-term care residents and workers through this pandemic, and it is absolutely a national disgrace. We owe our seniors so much more.

Today, New Democrats are using our one opposition day in this supply cycle to highlight the sorry state of our long-term care system and the fact that 82% of COVID deaths in Canada happened in long-term care, the highest proportion in the OECD. There have been over 12,000 long-term care resident and worker deaths in Canada since the beginning of the pandemic.

By acknowledging these incontrovertible facts, we are calling on the House today to take action. This is an opinion of the House. The House is calling on the government to take action. We want to see the transition of all for-profit models to non-profit models by the year 2030. We want to see our federal government working with the provinces and territories to stop licensing any new for-profit care facilities. We want to make sure that measures are in place to keep all existing beds open during that transition. We also want to see an additional $5 billion invested over the next four years in long-term care, and we want that funding tied to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We want to boost the number of not-for-profit homes.

There is a very clear precedent in what we are trying to do. In fact, our public health care system is based on this type of federal leadership. When we look at the for-profit model, unfortunately the facts are there for everyone to see. It is impossible for us to argue with them. This has been documented in the news. We have heard the harrowing stories of families who have had to deal with the loss of a loved one in a long-term care facilities, of the grandparents whom grandchildren are no longer going to see, and of the entirely avoidable deaths.

For-profit homes have seen, tragically, worse results than other homes. They have had far more deadlier COVID outbreaks. At the same time, we see these big, for-profit operators getting public subsidies, like the Canada emergency wage subsidy, though I acknowledge it is an important measure in this pandemic and has helped many workers keep their jobs. However, when we have a large corporation taking the wage subsidy while paying out dividends to its shareholders and also experiencing this loss of life, that, to me, goes against the spirit of the COVID interventions that our federal government is providing. It is a part of this national disgrace, and we need to have a full reckoning of how that money was spent.

Research has shown that the homes run on a for-profit basis tend to have lower staffing levels, more verified complaints, more transfers of residents to hospitals as well as higher rates for both ulcers and morbidity. This is the fundamental problem here, because when we come to this relationship between profit and care, I think that care is always going to lose out, because shareholders need their dividends, executives need their pay increases and stocks need to climb in value. When it comes to making a profit, it is a fact that private enterprises are going to be managing these facilities with an eye for what they call “efficiencies”. These efficiencies are usually found with the chronic understaffing, low worker pay, reduced investments in equipment and so on. When it comes to profit and to care, I am sorry, but those two concepts do not belong in the same sentence together. I believe that national standards could include basic references to the standards of care that we want to see in our facilities, including in employee health and well-being and pay.

I have been listening to today's debate, and I hear my Liberal colleagues repeatedly falling over themselves to find a reason to vote against the motion. What they often bring up is provincial jurisdiction. We all acknowledge provincial jurisdiction in the delivery of health care services, but there are ways to show federal leadership.

I believe that the Liberals' motto these days when it comes to bold, innovative leadership on the health care file is: Why go all the way when we can go only go half the way? We saw that with their vote against Bill C-213, brought in by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, on something that was based on their own report and that would follow the principles of the Canada Health Act. We have another proposal to bring forward on national dental care. Here we are using our opposition day motion to propose some basic standards for long-term care homes in the for-profit model.

When we look at the Canada Health Act, it very clearly recognizes provincial jurisdiction, but it puts in place basic principles for provinces to comply with if they want those federal transfer funds, and we are proposing something similar for long-term care. We already have the principle of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, and no one argues about those principles anymore. They are an enshrined part of our health care system, fully recognizing the provincial jurisdiction over health care delivery, but also recognizing that the federal government can play a leadership role with its power of the purse. I remain disappointed in my Liberal colleagues for finding yet another way to vote against a bold proposal when it comes to health care, because health care is top of mind for so many Canadians today, whether it is pharmacare, dental care or serious reform of our long-term care system.

I will conclude by saying that families really want to know that their loved ones are getting the best possible care. If we poll Canadians, we will see an overwhelming majority of Canadians in favour of bringing long-term care facilities under the jurisdiction of the Canada Health Act. An overwhelming number of Canadians want to see government investments to rebuild health care and other public services that were previously cut. We have promise Canadians that our seniors are going to have safe and dignified care, and that families will know that their loved ones will have the care they deserve with proper standards in place.

I appreciate the opportunity to have taken part in today's debate, and I welcome any questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have let down my colleague by asking questions about this motion and trying to scrutinize it. The reality is that New Democrats are doing what they did with a number of issues. They oversimplify them, write them down on the back of a napkin, as has been suggested earlier, and then bring them forward without doing any of the work, such as talking to provinces or figuring out what the effects will be. I am in favour of getting profit out of long-term care. I have stood in the House and said it on a number of occasions already. We need to do something significant. I just cannot support a motion that comes to us in the form of having absolutely no background from a data-driven perspective.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I kind of chuckle at the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have heard his interventions all day long. Let me very clear. This is not legislation. This is not even detailed policy. This is a motion of the House of Commons and it is simply asks members of the House to express that the federal government needs to start embarking on this.

I fully realize the limitations of an opposition day motion. It is what we have to work with. What he has to explain to his constituents is why he is voting against what I think is a road map to sustainable and eventually very detailed measures to actually fix this problem when so many Canadians care so deeply about it.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the NDP motion is all about the well-being of our seniors and long-term care workers. This concern does the NDP credit, since it demonstrates the party's humanity. However, does the NDP recognize that health transfers are insufficient and do not give the provinces and territories sufficient resources to do their job properly?