Debates of Nov. 29th, 2022

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it has been interesting to participate in the debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We have heard from all parties their positions and questions regarding the disparities, they say, of indigenous peoples. While the New Democrats have focused on highlighting the ongoing violations of indigenous peoples' rights, others have chosen to focus on the potential composition of the national council for reconciliation.

In my final speech on this matter, I will clarify the position stated by the New Democrats. This party has been guided by advocacy from indigenous peoples in making its position, and we stand by it.

First, on clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-29, about the composition and nominating bodies, clause 9 states the board would consist of nine to 13 directors and clause 10 only names four nominating bodies. This creates opportunities for five to nine directors who could come from other indigenous groups. I think it is important that there is representation from many nations across Canada with the independence that is necessary for this council.

I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that, if they feel the bill does not ensure their voices would be heard through the composition of the board, there would be opportunities to be heard, be it through nominating to the board through the nomination process, providing advice through advisory councils or, as outlined in the bill, reaching out to the council directly.

I thank key witnesses who spoke at committee. Zebedee Nungak spoke passionately about how decolonization needs to be the end goal of this process. Okalik Eegeesiak emphasized, “Reconciliation must come from a balanced approach, mindset and foundation, with mutual respect and equitable resources.” Karen Restoule highlighted the importance of revitalizing indigenous laws and the importance of upholding indigenous rights.

The Native Women's Association of Canada plays an important role to advise and support indigenous women across the country. Indigenous women continue to fight for their rights, and with high rates of violence toward them, reconciliation should address the multiple concerns these communities have.

An amendment the New Democrats made was to ensure the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We have heard in this debate that it is important to ensure that survivors and elders are the centre of this work. The amendments by the New Democrats assure this. Currently, across the nation the rights of indigenous persons are violated, infringed upon and attacked. Often indigenous peoples are deprived of their rights, including basic rights such as housing.

We saw recently, in the Auditor General's report on the government's responses to emergency preparedness, that indigenous families in the Peguis first nations have been evacuees for 10 years after a flood.

Indigenous peoples are often deprived of the right to self-determination, accessible housing, educational opportunities and access to their own lands. This council will lead the conversation on what nations want to see and need from the government to move reconciliation forward. For the council to do its job effectively, it will need access to information on both a provincial and federal level. It is important that it is granted access within the legal limits to report on what is happening to indigenous communities. It will be important to see the council work to consistently protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples with its recommendations.

It is because of the New Democratic Party's recommendations and amendments that the council will use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation.

It is important we do not lose sight of what this legislation has the potential to do. First nations, Métis and Inuit have voiced for years and advocated for years for solutions that can work in indigenous communities.

The work of this national council for reconciliation will be important as it will ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the work that needs to be done as it will monitor government programs and policies. It is vital that reconciliation be on the minds of all Canadians.

I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that hope to be heard that those opportunities remain. The work has started to ensure that indigenous peoples lead the way in reconciliation through the creation of this council. There has been great work already completed and more great work that needs to continue.

As a country, we have a lot to learn regarding reconciliation. I have spoken to members of Parliament from New Zealand who visited us in Canada. One member of Parliament asked how we will know when reconciliation is complete. My response to that question is reconciliation will only be complete when indigenous peoples say it is complete. This is not something that should be determined by governments.

Indigenous communities need to see action from the government that shows it is listening to what communities are saying. Governments must follow the lead of indigenous peoples, especially on matters related to reconciliation, decolonization and to the indigenization of laws, policies and programs that are to impact indigenous peoples.

In conclusion, Bill C-29 leaves me with a sense of hope that it will lead to measurable outcomes. While this bill is not the only solution to addressing the injustices experienced by indigenous peoples, it will ensure the advancement of reconciliation needed for all Canadians.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her work at INAN.

One of the amendments she proposed was to ensure that while not being too prescriptive to the transition committee, we give it the option, if it wanted, to have advisory committees consisting of indigenous residential school survivors and elders, and that this was an important part of what we needed to give it as an option to do as a national council for reconciliation.

Can the member opposite talk about the intent behind ensuring that the voices of survivors and elders be a part of the NCR?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's question is an important one.

Based on the composition and the nominating bodies, it is very important to make sure that we always keep in mind who this reconciliation council is for. It is to make sure that survivors are heard and that elders are heard. We know for a fact that indigenous individuals are the ones who have suffered the most. It is those people we need to honour and make sure their voices are prevalent in the work of the council for reconciliation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, there was an amendment made that shortened the total time frame from approximately 11 months to five months for the council to present its annual report and for the Prime Minister to respond to that report.

Would she like to speak about how that raises the sense of urgency in this process? Does she think that is important?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I did support that motion, because it is urgent.

For indigenous peoples, federal governments and bureaucrats have known for years that there are many issues that need to be addressed. We hear about the social indicators on a daily basis. We hear about the crisis situation on a daily basis. We know that federal departments have this data, and they must be able to share it as soon as possible with the national council for reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent speech.

Creating a national council for reconciliation is one of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report, which is a few years old now. The government is acting on one of the recommendations by creating the council, which will watch over progress on the path to reconciliation. Nevertheless, the government remains responsible for taking meaningful action in response to the many calls to action.

In my colleague's opinion, how can we be sure the government will not offload its responsibilities onto the council instead of taking action itself?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member has asked an important question. It is a difficult one.

Of the many steps that have been taken, including the creation of the national council for reconciliation, we also need to make sure that when we receive reports from the Auditor General and the PBO that we, as parliamentarians, make the government accountable by asking questions about why those commitments have not been met, and why those ongoing boil water advisories continue.

We need to keep pressuring this government to re-educate it on why it is important to make sure that the people of the Peguis First Nation, which has been evacuated for 10 years, get the attention they need so that they can return to their homes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize that I am participating virtually from the traditional territories of the Musqueam and Coast Salish peoples. I would also like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to thank the interim board of directors and the transitional committee for the council, which carried out extensive consultations to develop the framework for Bill C-29. I would also like to thank the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and all the MPs who support this important legislation, in particular, the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the witnesses who gave testimony on Bill C-29. Their thoughtful amendments have strengthened this legislation while respecting the council's independence.

With Bill C-29, Canada takes another step on our multi-generational journey towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Of the 94 calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, three of them call upon the government to establish a national council for reconciliation. The council would be a permanent, independent and indigenous-led organization monitoring and supporting the progress of reconciliation in Canada, including the full implementation of the TRC's calls to action.

As the member of Parliament for Steveston—Richmond East and a lifelong resident of metro Vancouver, reconciliation with indigenous peoples is a moral imperative. Unearthing and celebrating indigenous peoples' history is a key step as we begin to make amends and build a more inclusive history for Canada.

In the spring, Richmond dedicated a new street in honour of B.C.'s first indigenous lieutenant governor, Steven L. Point, who chaired the Stó:lo Nation and sat as a provincial court judge before his 2007 to 2012 term at Government House.

In April, I attended the unveiling of a new plaque in downtown Vancouver celebrating the rediscovered indigenous Métis heritage of one of Canada's most inspiring heroes, Terry Fox.

Embracing indigenous stories and history is an essential step to building a more inclusive Canada.

On the road to reconciliation, these symbolic steps are necessary but insufficient unless they are accompanied by meaningful economic partnerships and improvements to the quality of life for indigenous people. That is why my community of Steveston partnered with the Musqueam and Squamish first nations, and have since established the largest craft fishing harbour in Canada.

In the spring, to ensure the B.C. fisheries remain sustainable and to restore salmon populations, the federal and B.C. governments came together and announced the doubling of funding contributions for the British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund. Salmon is an essential part of the traditional diet of our local indigenous communities. Protecting this vital food source is crucial to advancing the cause of reconciliation in British Columbia.

We cannot have reconciliation without addressing the serious housing crisis indigenous peoples face both on and off reserve. This September, Vancouverites and the Salish people welcomed the Prime Minister to their traditional territory where the Prime Minister committed to providing $1.4 billion to create nearly 3,000 homes on traditional lands in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood.

Settling long-disputed land claims is perhaps one of the most important steps on our multi-generational journey to reconciliation. This year, the Prime Minister and the chief of the Siksika Nation signed a historic land claim settlement, which is one of the largest agreements of its kind in Canada. The deal provides $1.3 billion in compensation to the Siksika Nation to resolve outstanding land claims over 46,500 hectares of the Siksika's reserve.

In July, the Government of Canada and the Shuswap First Nation announced a negotiated settlement agreement of a 100-year-old claim, including a settlement of $21 million.

Although these settlements inch us closer to reconciliation, we know that change is not happening fast enough. Creating a national council for reconciliation would do more than fulfill 30 of the TRC's 94 calls to action. The council would be able to conduct comprehensive studies and provide advice on how to overcome systemic injustices within Canada that impede us on the path to reconciliation.

Last week, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs provided testimony about its experience and concerns with Canada's information system. It informed our committee that data sovereignty is an integral part of article 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms the right to just, fair and equitable compensation for confiscated traditional lands. The union pointed out that to receive the documents necessary to establish its cases, it has no alternative but to use the access to information process. In other words, indigenous nations must rely on the party they are in dispute with to produce documents and must pay for each ATIP submission.

Bureaucratic pain points such as accessing information and systemic and social injustices are obstacles on our path to reconciliation. A national council for reconciliation, as provided for in Bill C-29, would go a long way to identifying these concerns and holding governments accountable for them.

As part of the accountability process, the council would compile an annual report that would be presented to the minister and tabled in Parliament. It would outline the progress of reconciliation and offer recommendations for change within government and throughout Canadian society. The legislation would require the government of the day to respond to the report and outline its plans to advance reconciliation.

Every level of government, and indeed every Canadian, is responsible for advancing the cause of reconciliation, but the federal government must lead from the front and be a government that works for everyone. Bill C-29 is about moving forward as a government, but also moving forward as nation. In the words of Chief Dr. Robert Joseph, “Let us find a way to belong to this time and place together. Our future, and the well-being of all our children rests with the kind of relationships we build today.”

A national council for reconciliation is about more than redressing old grievances. It is about founding a new relationship with indigenous peoples, a relationship built upon respect, a dialogue and a new-found sense of partnership. I look forward to seeing the work of the council and its future recommendations to bring about reconciliation in Canada.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it has been seven years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission produced its report and the calls to action, which is as long as the government has been in power, yet only 13 of the 90-something calls to action have been implemented. This would be one of the more basic ones to implement. Had we done it earlier, we would be further ahead.

I am wondering if the member can comment on why it has taken so long to get to this point and why the government is lagging so far behind in its promises to indigenous people.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what we are working toward, and we are taking into consideration the hundreds of years of bills not being paid by the Crown. That is the work we will make sure the council does. It will be independent of government and will bring solutions and recommendations forward and hold the government accountable.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to follow up on the last question for the member, I note the time frame of the progress. It started in December 2017 with the Prime Minister announcing that he was going to pursue this national council for reconciliation. From January to June 2018, the interim board of directors did the work it needed to do and reported, and had 20 very solid recommendations. It actually included in those recommendations a draft bill that could have been put forward in 2018. We then waited three and a half years for the minister to appoint, in the next step, the transitional committee members.

Why does the member think there was a lack of urgency for three and a half years while this just sat in limbo?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, this is precisely what we are working for. The council will be independent. It will need to engage with provinces, territories and different jurisdictions on all 94 calls to action, and it will report its findings and recommendations back to the government. It will be an independent process. We will be accountable for supporting the council's needs.

Criminal Code

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved that Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand for the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-295, which would amend sections 214 and 215 of the Criminal Code to include penalties for the neglect of vulnerable adults.

What this amendment would do is add some definitions. One is “long-term care facility”, which means somewhere with three or more adults unrelated to the owner or manager by blood or marriage. We are also defining what a manager is. A manager is somebody who administers, hires staff, purchases supplies like medical supplies, directs the daily performance of facility staff, coordinates and plans care for the residents and how the staff provides that care, applies protocols and procedures to give good care, and controls and evaluates those procedures and the quality of care in order to do something very important, which is to provide the necessities of life to residents.

Section 215 of the act defines the duty to provide necessities of life and the bill defines the failure to perform this as meaning to endanger life or to cause health to be injured permanently. Those are the two things we mean by the words “failure to perform”.

This bill would also prohibit an offender who has been found culpable from seeking or obtaining work in any facility that takes care of vulnerable adults, or even volunteering in a facility that takes care of vulnerable adults. By “vulnerable adults” we mean anyone who is vulnerable as a result of age, mental disorder, illness or disability or who is frail. The penalty for failure to do this means a person would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or would be punished on summary conviction.

Why are we bringing this up right now? It is because COVID-19 showed us that vulnerable adults are very much at risk. Let us look at the deaths in Canada as a result of COVID-19. Sixty-nine per cent were vulnerable adults, compared with the international average of 41% anywhere else in the world. We know that long-term care facilities are under provincial jurisdiction, so what we saw across this country during COVID-19 was a large variability in the results and deaths by province, depending on what province they were living in.

It is interesting to note that in long-term care facilities, residents got 3% of the total COVID cases, yet that resulted in 43% of deaths from COVID. For instance, in Ontario, the incidence of death in long-term care facilities was 13 times higher than for the average 69-year-olds living in the community. What does that tell us? It tells us that there is a definite association between long-term care facilities and deaths and outbreaks due to COVID.

We know that 54% of long-term care facilities in Canada are private, and what we have seen is that many of them are not only private but for-profit. Following the first year of COVID, we got a report from the 4th Canadian Division's joint task force. If members will recall, we sent in the armed forces to help in some of these long-term care facilities. We also had a report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, or CIHI, as it is called. Both of these were scathing reports. They sounded like something out of a horror movie.

We heard that many of the aides who worked in these areas did not have any real training. They did not have any ongoing medical education or health education training. Many of them did not follow protocols and many were not registered. Many of them were also not able to provide the care they were supposed to be providing.

We found that cleanliness was a huge issue, according to those two reports. There were cockroaches in these areas and people did not take care of residents who soiled themselves. They laid in their soil, sometimes for a whole day.

We found that the ability to give medication was compromised. Medication was often outdated in the facilities, and for the people who were getting medication, it was not even working for them. We also found out that cross-contamination was huge. Many persons who were working in these areas would go from one patient to another without changing their personal protective equipment and without washing their hands, causing cross-contamination.

We heard some horror stories. We heard about the abuse of these patients, where if they complained of pain or decided that they needed help, quite often they would get pushed roughly and handled badly. However, it was the lack of any protocol to deal with the pandemic and an epidemic that was very frightening in some of these facilities.

These facilities are run by the provinces. Long-term care facilities are a provincial jurisdiction. What can the federal government do? What we can do is make those people who own or manage these facilities liable with a penalty under the Criminal Code for the failure to provide the appropriate care by any medical standard whatsoever.

Let us remember that there was burnout at these long-term care facilities. There was also the fact that many of the people who worked in these facilities were being paid less than equivalent medical personnel in other facilities of any kind.

We have just thrown seniors under the bus in many of these long-term care facilities, and we saw that with the deaths from COVID. I think we should be ashamed that, in Canada, we have a 69% COVID death rate in vulnerable adults versus 41% in any other country in the world. We need to do something about it. We are saying that we should make accountable anyone who manages such a facility, or owns such a facility, who did not have any of the protocols and did not do anything about cross-contamination.

We found out that the reason a lot of the aides were not doing the kinds of things they needed to do with personal protective equipment was that they were told that they should not spend money and that they should use it once, twice or three times. We know that is not how to deal with contamination.

Some of this was all about saving money. Some of it was about being scared. Some of it was about not knowing what to do and not having sufficient protocols and procedures. I really believe that we need to work with the provinces to create new sets of protocols and a real set of standardization of care for persons in long-term care facilities.

We need to make those who run or own those facilities very accountable under the Criminal Code. We could have the same penalties as under the section of the Criminal Code for the abuse of children or for failure to provide care for children who are vulnerable. We need to do this now for seniors.

I think that most of us know that COVID-19 is not our last pandemic. We know that with globalization, with people travelling everywhere, anyhow at any time, the cross-contamination of disease from one jurisdiction or one country to another can create what we now call pandemics. Pandemics are happenings, and pandemics are here to stay.

We need to be very clear about setting clear accountability and clear penalties for those who fail to provide care for vulnerable adults, which is the first thing. Then, as most of you will know, we need to also look at how we work with provinces to provide a pan-Canadian standard of care and a clear standard of care for many of these facilities. We know that 54% of them are for-profit organizations and are private sector organizations, and they do not have the appropriate ability to take care of adults.

Members who know a senior person or a vulnerable adult, whether they be disabled or senior, who actually perished or was harmed irrevocably under COVID-19 in one of these facilities would support this bill, because they know that it is important. If we do not care for the vulnerable among us, if we allow people to make money off people's vulnerability, if we allow people not to take due care and not to have compassion and the best quality of care for those who live in their long-term care facilities as adults, then we are failing, and we are failing badly.

I hope members will support this bill, because I think it is absolutely necessary. It is currently the only way the federal government can take care of this problem. It will take a while to negotiate with provinces. It will take a while to look at standards of care. It will take a while to do that, but in the interim, those who fail to provide appropriate care for vulnerable adults living in long-term care facilities will be penalized under the law, under sections 214 and 215 of the Criminal Code.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I was elected, I worked in Quebec as a project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and bullying. I can confirm that Quebec already has a comprehensive action plan and is working very hard on the issue of abuse.

My colleague mentioned the armed forces. It is interesting to note that during the pandemic, a report from the armed forces indicated that Quebec already has standards for long-term care centres, but it does not have the means to implement those standards.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that the solution is to give Quebec and the provinces the necessary means, in other words, to give them more money by increasing health transfers to 35%.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say not necessarily. We are talking about a specific component of health care under the Canada Health Act, which is what the federal government has as its ability to provide universal health care. Long-term care facilities are not part of the Canada Health Act, so transfers to provinces in any way, shape or form are going to have to be tied specifically to quality of care, to protocols for care and to outcomes. This is a totally different kettle of fish. This is not about funding medicare.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I volunteer in several long-term care homes. I have a lot of experience volunteering in them. I also had the opportunity to speak recently with the CEO of UniversalCare. One of the most important things he mentioned was the lack of staff. He has applied numerous times to have people come over from other countries who are nurses and PSWs qualified to assist us in these homes. Unfortunately, the Liberal government keeps turning them down.

Why?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple: The federal government does not have jurisdiction for credentialing any health care worker. This is purely provincial legislation and provincial jurisdiction, so the provinces make a decision about whether or not someone can work as a licensed nurse or physician.

At the same time, the colleges of nurses and physicians are the ones that decide what credentials a nurse or doctor requires in order to practice quality of care under their jurisdictions. This is something that we have to talk to and work with the provinces on. I am sure the federal government is very interested in moving this agenda forward, and it is always prepared to assist in funding some of those decisions that need to be made.

The Province of British Columbia, for instance, has just starting credentialing more internationally trained workers to come here to become nurses and physicians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on this bill. The NDP will be supporting it, because we, as the party of health care, have been extraordinarily concerned about the deplorable conditions in long-term care, which COVID may have exposed but which have existed for a long time.

My question is about resources. The bill, of course, would punish people after neglect has occurred. The NDP is concerned about preventing that neglect in the first place. In the last election, the Liberal Party promised to invest $6.8 billion in safer long-term care. It also promised to invest $1.7 billion to ensure personal support workers are paid $25 an hour, and $500 million to train 500,000 personal support workers. I do not think a single dollar of that funding has flowed yet from the government.

Can my hon. colleague tell the House when the money is expected to flow, so we can take care of our seniors instead of punishing people who abuse them?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to do both. We need to have the carrot and we need to have the stick. We know long-term care workers are the lowest-paid health care workers in all of the health care jurisdictions. We know that. We know they are not registered. Many of them are not fully trained.

What we need to do is talk to provinces, as I said earlier on in response to my colleague who asked a question, and we need to work with provinces whose jurisdiction this is. We have that money set up to deal with provinces when they negotiate.

As a physician, I can tell members the federal government should not just be handing money over with no strings attached. We need to hand money over to deal with setting clear protocols, pan-Canadian guidelines and pan-Canadian standards of care, and to have the ability to ensure that the people who work in these facilities have very clear protocols on how they work.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing this private member’s bill to strengthen the Criminal Code provisions to protect our loved ones who reside in long-term care facilities.

Almost every Canadian knows someone who has been a resident of a long-term care facility. It goes without saying that when a family member or friend gets to that point in their life when they need extra care, we want to know that they are safe and being taken care of.

I also want to take a moment to thank the health care aides, nurses and the kitchen, laundry, housekeeping and recreation staff who work in our long-term care facilities across Canada. They should know how appreciative we all are of everything each and every one of them do.

Whenever we talk about frontline health care workers, I always feel that there is not enough attention given to those who work in our long-term care facilities. They provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It does not matter if there is a blizzard or horrendous weather, they answer the call and go to work. From working holidays to working night shifts, I know that it is not always easy on their families. I also know that the job is not easy on their bodies. They do it because they truly care for the residents that they serve.

In many cases, the residents they care for start to feel like a member of the family. Long-term care facilities are not hospitals. They are people’s homes. The people who live there are not patients. They are residents. While this distinction may seem trivial, I can assure members it is not. In most cases, this will be people’s last home. It behooves us all to ensure that we do everything we can to protect those who are most vulnerable and in need of care.

The pandemic showed how fragile our long-term care facilities are in this country, as my colleague just outlined in the presentation of her bill. There is a litany of reasons for that, but I want to start by talking about the challenges that both health care workers and the residents of those facilities face.

A significant number of the workers in our long-term care facilities are shift workers, who must either pick up extra days or work double shifts to try to get 40 hours a week. There are very few full-time health care aide or nursing positions that guarantee 40 hours a week. Many health care workers have a job at another long-term care facility to earn enough money to provide for their families.

We quickly saw the consequences of how long-term care facilities are staffed as soon as the pandemic started. Immediately, staff could no longer work in more than one facility to contain the spread of COVID. The result was that facilities were then short-staffed. It only got worse as people either had to quarantine or could no longer work as many hours as their child care options became severely impacted.

Sadly, we watched in horror as the news stories started to emerge about how short-staffed certain long-term care facilities were. Some families had the ability to take their loved ones into their homes as soon as the pandemic started. However, it was only a small number as the level of care was too much. As family members were prohibited from entering care homes due to the pandemic, all they could do was hope and pray that their loved ones were taken care of.

In many cases, when a parent, sibling or close friend becomes a resident of a long-term care facility, it is not unusual to visit them multiple times a week. Children come into the facility to help their parents eat, wash and clean up their rooms. Anyone who has ever worked in a long-term care facility knows how integral family members are to the well-being of the residents. A lot of family members also become volunteers at the long-term care facility, to help where they can, to ease the workload and to make the residents as comfortable as they can.

All that support was gone as soon as the pandemic started, and with the staffing challenges that were already present going into the crisis, unfortunately, we quickly learned of the dire consequences for many residents.

We must never forget the Canadian Armed Forces medical and support personnel who were temporarily deployed to support our long-term care facilities. It was their report they tabled in May 2020 that brought considerable attention to the conditions they encountered in our long-term care facilities.

They discovered systemic deficiencies in the establishment and management of infection control areas within long-term care facilities. There was a lack of care and distribution of personal protective equipment and enforcement of personal health measures. As well, as previously stated, there were severe staff shortages that compounded problems in long-term care facilities.

It is with that in mind we can turn our attention to the provisions contained in Bill C-295. I welcome the debate and attention on amending the Criminal Code to protect those who live in long-term care facilities.

Currently, the Criminal Code states under “Duties Tending to Preservation of Life” that a parent, guardian or spouse is under a legal duty to provide necessaries of life to those under their care when they are unable to do so themselves due to age, illness, mental disorder or cannot otherwise provide for themselves. That is the most important area.

There have been numerous court cases over the years where people have been charged and convicted of such crimes, but to the best of my knowledge, never has the owner or manager of a long-term care facility been charged and convicted under this section of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-295 would amend the Criminal Code to clearly stipulate that owners and managers of long-term care facilities would be added to that list of being legally responsible to provide necessaries of life to residents of their facilities. This level of legal protection for those who live in long-term care facilities, as stated in Bill C-295, must be studied. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill.

It is imperative we refer this legislation and have the much-needed debate about how the federal government can better legally protect those who live in long-term care facilities. As the onus would be on the Crown to lay the charges, we must carefully craft the legislation to ensure there are no loopholes.

I would recommend to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to invite legal and health care experts to ensure the definition of “necessaries of life” is adequate to ensure there are legal penalties for those who fail in their duties. This will start a much larger debate about whether provincial regulations, which dictate the operations and level of care, including accountability provisions, are stringent enough.

As we debate this legislation tonight, I can assure members there are currently long-term care facilities that are running short-staffed. We know there are staff having to work double shifts so residents can get the care they need. As well, there are still far too many rooms in long-term care facilities with four beds, which is a challenge at the best of times let alone during a pandemic or flu season.

We can all agree that all levels of government, including the non-profits and companies that provide long-term care, must dramatically improve the conditions of long-term care facilities.

In closing, I was proud to run under our Conservative platform in the last election which would have directly provided federal funding that would have boosted the number of health care aides and other critical staff working in our long-term care facilities. I welcomed our commitment to prioritize and streamline immigration to include new measures to attract health care workers, especially in priority areas and regions. Our pledge to devote specific federal infrastructure funding to renovate and improve long-term care facilities was well received by many who work in the health care field.

Let us ensure this is just the start of a much larger conversation about how we can improve the living conditions, including the level of care, our loved ones receive. This legislation should pass second reading and be sent to the justice committee as quickly as possible.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-295 is a bill that makes sense. It is a bill that we want to study in committee, that we want to support so that it moves forward. Like most bills in their original form, it is far from perfect, but it is worth examining.

In Quebec, like elsewhere in Canada, the pandemic tested us in ways we never wanted to experience. The worst of what we went through was the abandonment of our seniors. Some seniors had a much harder time during the pandemic than most people, particularly those living in long-term care facilities. They were sometimes left alone in wretched conditions. They were isolated from their loved ones. They were often inadequately fed or only given something to eat at odd hours. I think that is shameful. In this situation, we behaved like ungrateful children towards our seniors. I hope that this sort of situation never happens again. We have a duty to work on that.

In Quebec we have the law to combat elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines to be imposed and protects informants, because there are people in long-term care facilities who will testify and intervene to try to prevent certain situations from deteriorating. We need to protect those people. We must encourage people to blow the whistle on untenable situations. In Quebec, with this legislation to fight against abuse, we are able, or we try by giving ourselves the tools, to better protect people who assume their responsibilities and intervene in situations like that.

The federal government's legislation parallels Quebec's legislative provisions, but in my opinion, and at first glance, it is doing so within its own jurisdiction. For now, from what I have seen of Bill C‑295, I am satisfied. We will have to take a closer look at the bill. There are some aspects that could easily go off the rails. We know that the issue of protecting jurisdictions is relevant to almost every bill introduced in the House. We will have to look at this more closely, but I agree, at first glance, Bill C‑295 seems to stay within the parameters set for federal jurisdictions.

The bill refers to the Criminal Code, and that is obviously a federal law that was passed and amended under federal jurisdiction. That particular aspect seems to be appropriate. However, the bill must not push boundaries and lead to interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions.

Having said that, I am somewhat concerned. When I look at Bill C-295, I am concerned that this bill will be considered as a panacea and that we will ease our consciences by believing that passing Bill C-295 means that we will have done what needed to be done to protect seniors and give them better living conditions. Everyone knows that is far from true. The federal government's first responsibility is to properly manage the taxes it collects. We know that the taxes the federal government collects far exceed the cost of its own responsibilities, which means that it must return some of that money to the provinces, especially for health care.

At first, 50 or so years ago, the federal government was paying around 50% of the health care costs of each province and Quebec. Today, the proportion is around 20% to 24%, and it keeps going down all the time. The provinces are calling for a health transfer equivalent to 35% of their expenses. That is a reasonable figure that takes into account all the formulas. I would even say that this figure is lower than it should be, but it is still too high in the eyes of the federal government. The provinces can no longer manage.

I was talking earlier about a scandal—elderly people left in beds without care, medication and adequate services for hours, people often not eating all day because there was no one to bring them a meal. These situations are unworthy of us as a society. They are 99% due to a lack of funding. The institutions are no longer able to pay the staff they need to take care of our seniors. How much longer will we tolerate this?

I think we have a responsibility to prevent this. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to give the provinces the excess money it has collected in taxes. It must transfer the money to the provinces so that the provinces can manage their health care institutions properly. That is the only way to address the problem.

I recognize that this bill is about looking after seniors, and of course that is commendable. I am certain that not one of the 338 members in the House would say that that is unimportant or that the money should be used for something else. We all agree it is important. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in order to run health care facilities properly and take care of our seniors properly, the money needs to be transferred. It is cruel and pointless to keep this money here in Ottawa when it is the provinces that need it. Health transfers are essential. We recognize this and the provinces are asking for it.

What is the federal government's response? It says there are conditions. It will transfer the money if we use it in a certain way, if we provide this or that type of care in a given facility, if we expand business hours, if we do this, that or the other thing. There are conditions.

Let us keep in mind that this money does not appear out of nowhere. It is tax money the government takes from Quebeckers. The government says it will give the money back, but only if they comply with its conditions. It can impose conditions when it has jurisdiction the other level of government does not.

If I give children pocket money, I may tell them they cannot spend more than a dollar on candy. I may impose conditions in an attempt to teach them to manage their money properly. The thing is, the federal government does not manage any health facilities. The federal government manages health care for indigenous people and veterans and looks after new drug approvals and quarantines, but it does not manage a single long-term care facility or hospital. What makes it think it has the authority to impose conditions?

The conditions that the federal government wants to impose on the provinces are very likely to do much more harm than good, not to mention that they will prevent a rapid resolution of the problematic situation that has continued year after year. The provinces do not have the money to operate hospitals. The federal government says that it will not provide funds unless the provinces agree to its conditions.

In my view, this stubborn refusal is unworthy of a responsible government and leads to situations such as those that occurred during the pandemic. I do not want to put all the blame on the federal government. We all have some soul searching to do, especially the governments of each province, and I am certain that is what they are doing. The Quebec law I mentioned earlier was passed specifically to prevent this type of situation from happening. That is a good example.

However, the money is there to provide dignified care for our seniors. I am asking our government to carry out its responsibilities, to be fair, to be responsible with respect to our seniors and to transfer the money to the provinces to provide better care.

Bill C-295 is a bill that we must study, that we are going to study and that we will probably improve. I think the idea behind it is good, and we will work hard on it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, as always, to stand and speak on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, bringing their concerns, ideas, hopes and aspirations to this chamber.

As health critic for the New Democratic Party, I am always happy to see a bill that addresses the state of health in our country and proposes a solution. This bill is very specific. Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code, targeted at the neglect of vulnerable adults, would do two things.

First, it would:

[amend] the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers to fail to provide the necessaries of life to residents of the facilities.

Second, it would:

[allow] the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and managers of such facilities from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults and to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult.

All Canadians were horrified over the last two years to see residents in Canada's long-term care homes living in the deplorable and, frankly, outrageous conditions that so many of the people who built this country are forced to live in. We saw how seniors in long-term care homes have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In Canada, long-term care residents accounted for 43% of all COVID-19 deaths.

Between March 1, 2020, and August 15, 2021, over 56,000 residents and 22,000 staff in Canada's long-term care and retirement homes were infected with COVID-19, resulting in more than 14,000 deaths among staff and residents. Frankly, the most astounding figure that I saw was that Canada had the worst record of all OECD countries, the highest percentage of deaths in long-term care homes on a per capita basis of any OECD country. That speaks to a deplorable and long-standing issue in our long-term care sector.

Throughout the pandemic, there was a difference between for-profit long-term care facilities and public or non-profit facilities. The for-profit facilities had much worse patient outcomes than not-for-profit homes in general. According to an analysis by the Toronto Star, residents of for-profit facilities have been more three times as likely to catch COVID-19 as those in a non-profit facility, and for-profit facilities have seen more than twice as many staff infections per bed. Resident deaths have also been more common in for-profit facilities.

All Canadians were stunned when we saw that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had to call for the Canadian Armed Forces to be deployed in some of the hardest-hit long-term care homes across Canada, where they documented horrific accounts of inhumane treatment, abuse and substandard care. “Assault” is not too strong a word.

According to the CAF reports, residents in two Ontario nursing homes died not from COVID-19, but from dehydration and neglect. The stories were documented by soldiers. I have read those documented notes of CAF soldiers, who simply wrote down in unembellished form what they saw when they entered those homes. They read like a horror story from a third world. They found residents lying in bed in soiled underpants. They found instructions that care aides were not allowed to change the bedding on a bed for 24 or 48 hours, even when the patient had an incontinence problem. Incorrect medications were given to patients. Patients were malnourished and were not fed properly. This was simply outrageous.

I want to make the point that COVID did not cause these problems. COVID exposed these problems in Canada's long-term care sector.

To date, more than 30 proposed class actions have arisen from the COVID-19 pandemic across Canada, and several of them allege that the owners and operators of long-term care and retirement facilities failed to take appropriate health and safety measures to protect their residents from COVID-19. Several provincial governments have adopted legislation limiting the potential liability of long-term care owners and operators.

For example, under the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act, 2020, plaintiffs now need to show that those operating long-term care centres were grossly negligent to avoid statutory liability protection. That is a higher standard than applies to ordinary negligence claims. In this country, what provincial Conservative governments have done is to act not to protect the vulnerable patients in long-term care homes, but to protect the managers and owners of those long-term care homes who were responsible for unbelievable incidents of abuse and neglect. That is shameful.

The courts have not yet considered the meaning of “gross negligence” under that legislation, but the phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada going back 80 years. I can state that it is a very marked departure from the generally required standard of care or even simple negligence.

Under section 215 of the Criminal Code, it is currently an offence for a person to fail to provide the necessaries of life to a person under his or her charge if that person is “unable by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge,” and “is unable to provide themselves with necessaries of life”, and “the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” That is a very high standard, because it requires death or a permanent injury to be the foreseeable outcome.

Bill C-295 would create a specific offence under section 215 of the Criminal Code where a person is an owner or manager of a long-term facility and fails to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facility, and where “the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently”.

We have some concerns about even that test, but the point is that bringing the attention of Canadians and members of the House to the deplorable conditions in the long-term care sector in this country is a valuable and worthy exercise of our time in this place. Anything that we can do to address that is needed.

We think that Canada's New Democrats have a much better and more structured approach to this problem. We want to end for-profit long-term care and bring long-term care homes under the public umbrella.

Long-term care is part of our health care system. When seniors are in hospital, they are in a health care system. Very often after that they are transferred to a long-term care home and suddenly they drop off the health map. That is incomprehensible and it endangers these people. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the reality that for-profit companies cannot be reliably counted on to protect our loved ones and keep workers safe.

We also believe that the victims of negligence in Canada's long-term care facilities deserve justice. That is why, due to the confidence and supply agreement, the one that the Conservatives scoff at, the New Democratic Party was able to force the Liberals to commit to tabling a safe long-term care act, to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve no matter where they live.

I was in this House for nine years of the Conservative government. It never passed a long-term care act. With the current government, in the seven years since the Liberals have been in power, they have never passed a long-term care act. It took the New Democrats to come to this House and demand that on behalf of Canada's seniors. That is a positive step that we look forward to enshrining in this place.

Although Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction, it of course will not solve the problem. Rather than addressing the issues through a private member's bill, Canada's New Democrats expect the Liberal government to honour the confidence and supply requirements through government legislation. We will be present for that.

Finally, the Liberal Party promised in the last election to invest $6.8 billion in long-term care, $1.7 billion to ensure personal support workers are paid $25 an hour and $500 million to train personal support workers. That money has not flowed yet and New Democrats are calling on the government to honour its commitments and start putting money into the long-term care sector so that every senior in this country, no matter where they are, gets access to safe, quality, long-term care as their age and their contributions to our society so dearly benefit and deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, on a quick point of order, I just wanted to bring to your attention that during the last debate, we saw the member for Avalon walking around picking up papers off a desk. We asked him what he was doing and he confessed that he was trying to make life easier for the pages so they would not have to spend all this time picking up—

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

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my point of order has a little more substance than the one we were just treated to by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I just want to point out to my colleagues that during his speech, the member for Vancouver Kingsway was shuffling his papers near his microphone. Some people may not realize it when they are speaking in the House, but these sounds are very disruptive for the interpreters and people sometimes forget to pay attention. I just wanted to point that out. I did not want to interrupt his speech for that, but I think it is important to remind the members about this, in order to help the interpreters.