Debates of Feb. 14th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is quite refreshing to listen to someone who really knows what she is talking about. As an economist, she spoke in depth about a number of subjects today. She indicated that there were costs, not just because of climate change but also because of the lack of support for the most vulnerable people and populations.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the official opposition, which says that financial supports for the most vulnerable individuals are inflationary measures.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I believe that the social safety net is essential. That is what we have in Quebec, and we are often considered models of social democracy around the world.

However, I believe that the federal government is in a poor position to help the most vulnerable members of society because it just throws money around. Unfortunately, it only duplicates work already being done. For example, we do not need an employment insurance system managed by Canada, particularly when it is very badly managed by Canada. We should simply have one system in Quebec that actually works.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague challenged the Conservatives about accepting climate change and whether there was something we could do about it. Of course the climate is changing and as Conservatives we will do something about it. We would bring in more projects like LNG Canada in Kitimat so we could export clean natural gas to the world. That would displace 50% of the emissions being produced by coal throughout the world by those countries that do not have the option to use natural gas.

Would my hon. colleague like her province to lift its ban on producing natural gas so Quebec could be part of the solution and could help export clean natural gas to the rest of the world to displace dirty coal?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, let us set the record straight: Quebec does not need natural gas at this time. We have hydroelectric power, which works quite well.

We could export it. However, natural gas is a fossil fuel and there is a purchase option for this type of natural resource, as Bernard Landry said.

For now, we do not know all the potential effects of natural gas on the environment. Why would we use resources that are not necessarily good for the environment when we can develop our own resources, as we do with hydroelectricity in Quebec?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion moved today by the Conservatives simply proposes spending cuts. Under the Harper government, all they wanted to do was cut spending for health, veterans and crime prevention.

There is also the issue of revenue. The evidence was very clear: We know that Canada loses more than $30 billion of taxpayer money to tax havens every year.

What does my colleague think of the Conservatives' motion, which does not address the issue of the $30 billion that goes to tax havens every year?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Joliette, is working very hard on the issue of tax havens. Oddly enough, we never see the Liberals working hard on the issue of tax havens. Once again, there is patronage involved and, clearly, some measures are not effective. There is waste, including money sent to tax havens, and quite frankly that is shameful.

I agree that we must fight tax havens. As I said in my speech, we must make better use of the resources we have. That is what a good, well-functioning government does.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her excellent speech. I also thank the members of the Conservative Party for giving me the opportunity to speak in the House about the difficult conditions in which thousands of people find themselves and to examine some possible solutions that ultimately do not seem to fix much.

Inflation is real, galloping and impacts the cost of everything, from gas, to housing, to food, to cars. It requires far more comprehensive measures than today's populist proposals. I am not surprised by any of the general statements at the beginning of the motion. It is true that inflation can wreak havoc on families' budgets and that it is currently causing the cost of goods and services to skyrocket.

Social housing is a topic that speaks to me. I was just at a meeting this morning with people from the Coop d'habitation Boréale, a housing co-operative in Rouyn-Noranda. As an aside, I would like to say hello to my friend Jean-Philippe. It is his birthday today, and I wish him a happy birthday.

This co-op's model is adapted to our region's reality, with a total of eight entrances. These are duplexes with backyards. This model provides for affordable housing for families. However, it is incredibly difficult to obtain financing for the necessary renovations, both from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and lenders.

In order to get this money, the co-op is being asked to increase rents to match market pricing. So much for affordability. The government's maze of red tape makes it hard for volunteers, and it takes far too long to get answers. Not so long ago, CMHC employees were able to guide these volunteers. They no longer have the time to provide the same support.

The co-op housing model is a viable option for tackling the housing shortage. It addresses inflation and rising rents. However, this model should not be seen as mere apartment buildings. It should also be seen as the possibility of having duplexes, triplexes and other types of residences that will better suit families. Having a backyard and parking is also a way to improve the quality of life for younger families with less income.

It is important to ensure that co-operative housing developments like these remain in place to continue to provide affordable and accessible housing. CMHC needs to ensure that the co-op model remains an option and adapt its programs to help small co-op models make the necessary repairs.

If the Conservatives really want the government to help people deal with the rising cost of living, we invite them to support the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois. These are more equitable solutions to help ensure that prosperity is more equally shared.

Immediate relief must be provided to those hardest hit by inflation. This must be done by increasing the purchasing power of seniors living on essentially fixed incomes, by providing direct financial support to low-income earners, and by creating a program to support those most affected by a sudden spike in fuel prices, to the point of threatening their livelihoods. This includes farmers, taxi drivers and truckers.

We have to make the economy more resilient by tackling the structural weaknesses that cause inflation; reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, whose chronic instability causes price shocks; restoring essential links in the supply chain; and tackling the labour shortage that prevents businesses from offsetting supply shortages by increasing local production. We also have to take care of health, our children's education, and the environment.

The Conservatives' stubborn refusal to think about things, to ground their choices in this new industrial revolution, will cause a rift. In this motion, the Conservatives are repeating previous motions that were all rejected by the House. When they talk about inflationary taxes, they mean cancelling the carbon tax, reducing EI premiums and reducing Quebec pension plan contributions. They talk about cutting spending, but they do not specify what spending. These proposals would help briefly, but they are not real solutions. They will probably just exacerbate our problems.

Let us come up with solutions to deal with the labour shortage. One good way to do that would be to increase people's income. Another would be to encourage older workers to keep working by not clawing back their guaranteed income supplement. Still another would be to make it easier to hire temporary foreign workers in high-demand occupations by transferring responsibility for that to the Government of Quebec, which is already doing the impact studies the federal government requires of business owners. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology actually just completed a study on this and will be releasing its report in the coming days.

We need to do a better job of protecting what has taken us all these years to build: our expertise in green mining, our hydroelectric capacity, our expertise in heavy-duty electric transportation, and our battery and electric vehicle supply chain. We need to leverage our expertise in quantum technologies and artificial intelligence. We can do even more with centres of excellence on advanced materials and the accelerated commercialization of micro-electronic components.

I could talk at length about Quebec’s capabilities, but my colleagues will be joining the debate shortly to highlight these aspects.

These are the steps that the government could take to address the source and effects of inflation. It is important to understand our approach.

Our monetary policy ensures a balance between supply and demand to keep price increases within a range around 2%. This policy is the responsibility of the Bank of Canada, which makes decisions independently.

The government also has a role to play. Its challenge is threefold: to protect the poorest, especially annuitants and those on fixed incomes, from the effects of inflation; to try to ensure that the inflation we have today, which is essentially due to current circumstances, does not become structural or long-term; and to work to make the economy more resilient and less vulnerable to inflation shocks by addressing its structural weaknesses.

The Bloc Québécois proposes a balanced and responsible approach, namely, targeting support programs for individuals and businesses to help those who need it, without exacerbating the upward pressure on prices, and clearly identifying the drivers of inflation so that we can address it directly.

In terms of solutions, we need to help those who are hardest hit, specifically seniors who live on fixed incomes and their savings, which are losing value at an alarming rate. They are the most affected by the rising cost of living. Before the surge of inflation, Canada was one of the industrialized countries where retirement income replaced the lowest percentage of working income.

The Bloc Québécois proposes to immediately stop reducing the guaranteed income supplement for the poorest seniors who are seeing cuts this year because they received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year and to increase old age security to protect the purchasing power of seniors who are faced with the rising cost of living.

We need to build more social and community housing. After growing by 6.8% in March, housing costs increased by 7.4% in April over the previous year. This is the steepest increase since June 1983. The housing shortage was already a serious problem, but it was aggravated by pandemic-related factors. Low-income households, which spend a larger share of their earnings on housing, are particularly affected.

Building social housing takes time and requires permanent and predictable programs rather than ad hoc programs, like far too many of the ones we have now. In Quebec, federal intervention has been particularly problematic. Quebec is the only province that provides ongoing funding for the construction of social housing through its AccèsLogis program. Quebec needed an asymmetrical agreement that gave it full control, which the federal government blocked for two years.

The Bloc Québécois proposes to boost the construction of social and community housing. The federal government should permanently allocate 1% of its revenues to Quebec through flexible and predictable transfers, which could provide additional funds for its programs.

We need to safeguard the independence of the central banks and tackle the labour shortage. The Bloc Québécois proposes establishing a tax credit for young graduates in the regions, as well as for immigrants, calling on experienced workers, transferring the temporary foreign worker program, establishing a productivity policy that includes measures such as research and development support based on productivity and support for investments in the empowerment and digital transformation of businesses.

We need to make supply chains stronger and more resilient, which would enable our SMEs to identify weak points in their supply chains, help them connect with domestic suppliers and propose new ways of managing inventory, to make them less vulnerable.

We need to strengthen our competition system through the Competition Act to limit the concentration of corporate ownership and major companies’ ability to abuse their dominant position, which makes prices rise.

We need to limit our dependence on oil. We know that the price of oil rose by 33% between December 2020 and December 2021. We need to accelerate the energy transition to shelter the economy from sudden spikes in the price of fossil fuels. This can be done through the electrification of transportation, energy retrofitting, support for businesses that want to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy and redirecting financial flows toward green economic development.

In Ottawa, however, the Liberals downplay the problem and propose waiting for it to resolve itself, while the Conservatives want a more restrictive monetary policy and question the independence of the Bank of Canada.

Then there is the NDP, which is proposing an all-out spending spree that could further fuel inflation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, as the member was concluding his speech, he spoke about what the Liberals are doing, what the Conservatives would be doing and what the NDP would be doing. Could the member inform us, if the Bloc Québécois were to form government in the House, what it would do?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will be very refreshing to have our own national government in Quebec. Our economy will be based on the needs of Quebec and Quebec alone.

It is clear that Ottawa is hurting Quebec's development in all sectors. They are focusing their energies and centralizing, concentrating, health expenditures without taking into account what Quebeckers need. I find that problematic.

Ottawa is also causing a systemic slowdown, particularly in terms of housing, by signing agreements with Quebec two or three years after signing with Ontario. That, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem. A Quebec government by and for Quebeckers would be a magical solution.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest. He listed at length all the ways in which he demands the federal government support the social programs and social spending in Quebec, yet when it came time to listing what New Democrats were asking for, he basically dismissed investments in our provinces.

Which one is it? The member cannot have it both ways. Does the hon. member want more investments in his province of Quebec, or would he run an austerity budget, just like the Conservatives would?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and the strength of his values and convictions.

In the current context, I think that we need to make realistic suggestions, but there are some things that we cannot compromise on, such as helping those in need. Not everyone is in need right now. In that sense, the next budget should set out robust measures to support economic development. There are some important things that need to be addressed, such as the construction of housing. With regard to the labour shortage, one of the biggest problems back home is that people are unable to find housing. We need to find solutions to those problems.

I am also thinking of seniors. In my opinion, it is very important to implement a fixed and recurring income increase for them because right now they are not able to earn any additional income. We will approve this type of measure, but we will be expressing our concerns about others.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I hear my hon. colleague speak so eloquently to our need to give up on our oil and gas industry here in Canada, but we know that the royalties and revenues from oil and gas go to fund the equalization formula.

I wonder if my colleague could speak on behalf of the people who elected him as to whether they would be happy to do without the portion of the transfer payments that comes from the royalties from oil and gas.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I look forward to no longer being treated like a poor province because of equalization. Quebec systematically receives less than its fair share because of the way the federal government works.

Rather than constantly trampling all over the provinces, the federal government should be making real health transfers to them, like the ones that should have been made through an agreement with the provinces. The federal government created an imbalance by backing out of funding for health care, which dropped from 50% to 22%. We are talking about billions of dollars a year. Honestly, we can do without the equalization money.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we had a total of 1,462,795 visits to food banks across Canada last year, 31% of whom were children and 8.9% were seniors. Meanwhile, Loblaws is making record profits.

Does the hon. member agree that we should extend the profit windfall tax, which has been applied to banks and insurance companies, to grocery chains such as Loblaws to double the GST and allow Canadians to be able to feed their families?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is food for thought. Competition will absolutely need to be fostered, and I think that the Competition Act may permit that. I believe that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology would like to examine this issue next. That is my answer, given the time at my disposal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with the terrific member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. She will be doing the second half of our response to yet another Conservative opposition day.

For once, we are seeing the Conservatives not doing the same thing that they have done multiple times. We can talk about a waste of opposition days. Basically, numerous times over the course of the past year, they have put forward opposition days saying, “Let us make pollution free again.”

Today, the Conservatives have put forward a motion that calls on the government to do a number of things. They say they have learned lessons from the terrible carnage of the Harper years, the slash and burn we saw under the Conservatives for nearly a decade, a dismal decade in Canadian political life.

They say they have learned their lesson, and they reference a number of things. They are really concerned about the Canadian public and regular families this time. Yes, when they were in power, all they cared about was the ultrarich and billionaires, but they have learned a lesson from that, or at least that is what they are ultimately saying.

The Conservatives have put forward a number of very vague suggestions. I would like to talk about how that contrasts with how the Conservative Party acted during the dismal decade it was in power.

First of all, they decry deficits. You will recall, Madam Speaker, as you were in the House for many of these years, that the Harper government had record deficits. It had eight deficits in a row. Members of that government were horrible money managers.

We do not have to rely on my word or the word of the many Canadians who threw them out of office. We can also rely on the Department of Finance. It produces fiscal period returns. It compares government political parties, such as the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP provincial governments. We have not yet formed a federal government, but the time is coming.

The fiscal period returns of the federal Minister of Finance actually show that the Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals when it comes to managing money. When it comes to putting in place the financial structure around federal government finances, the Conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals. The best party at managing money, and this comes from the fiscal period returns issued by the Department of Finance in Ottawa, are NDP governments. That is something we are proud of.

Tommy Douglas, our founding leader, was one who brought forward the proposition that one of the ways to ensure we adequately manage money is to ensure that the ultrarich pay their fair share. Obviously, the Harper government failed to do that, which is why we had eight consecutive years of deficits.

This motion, as far as Conservatives are concerned, is basically saying to the Canadian public, “Do not do as we do, but do as we say.” Their track record was absolutely lamentable. Why was the Harper government so bad at managing money? That brings me to my second point, where they talk about limiting expenditures.

The Harper government put in place, and it is true that the Liberal government that preceded it started to lay the foundation, but the Harper government really put into place that intricate network of overseas tax havens, which today cost Canadians over $30 billion a year.

The member for Carleton is the current leader of the Conservative Party. It has changed leaders a lot in the last few years, so we will see how long he lasts. The member for Carleton was part of the finance committee that studied the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that talked about that $30-billion figure.

In fact, the PBO said that is a conservative figure. It may be far beyond that. The Harper government signed tax treaties with alacrity and with any tax haven that wanted to step up. The Conservatives were there making sure that the rich and the billionaires had a place to put their money, and that they never had to pay their fair share of taxes.

This is linked because Conservative financial management really is an oxymoron. It links the fact that we had deficits to the fact that it allowed the widespread, indiscriminate taking of money overseas so the wealthy in Canada never had to pay their fair share.

This is simply bad financial management. That is why the Conservatives have a track record just as dismal as the Liberals in putting in place measures that ensure investments in the country, investments from the federal government that go to those who need it the most, and that is to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

As an aside, it is kind of rich that at one point in this very long motion, which really does not talk about anything specific in terms of action, the Conservatives do mention that housing costs have doubled under the Liberal government. That is indeed true, but they forget to mention, and maybe it is in the fine print or in a footnote, that housing prices doubled under them as well, Therefore, they are half the problem. The Conservatives doubled housing prices and the Liberals have doubled them again.

What we need is an NDP government that can ensure there is affordable housing for Canadians so they can have a roof over their head at night.

What did the Conservatives do in this appallingly bad period, the dismal decade of awful financial management?

It is interesting that we hear the Conservatives piping up. I am not sure what they are saying, but I am sure they will have time during the question period.

What they did with these eight-time deficits—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member wanted to know what I was saying. I was saying that we already had an NDP government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. There is a bit of chattering on both sides, including from parliamentary secretaries, who should be leading by example. I would ask all members to please give some respect to the hon. member who has the floor. If others have questions and comments, then they should wait for me to indicate that it is time for that.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I am sure everyone wants to hear what he has to say.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we can see the Conservatives and Liberals competing. The Conservatives are saying that they did more for tax havens and the Liberals saying that they did more.

We know the banks got a ton, hundreds of billions of dollars both in liquidity support from the Liberals and from the Conservatives as well. This was another by-product of the dismal decade of the Harper government, $160 billion in so-called liquidity support for Canada's big banks to maintain profits. This is something else that Liberals and Conservatives fight over, who did more for the big banks.

In this corner of the House, we actually believe that regular people should be the ones who are the focus of the federal government. We have certainly shown this over the course of this Parliament, with dental care and a rental supplement. These are all things that the NDP fought for, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus, and now we are fighting for pharmacare. We are fighting for more things that will actually benefit people.

I need to get back to the final point of this motion, which talks about cutting spending. As I have already mentioned, the Conservatives sprinkled their largesse to billionaires and banks indiscriminately like there was no tomorrow, but they did cut spending in a few key areas.

Appallingly, the Conservatives cut money to health care. The health care crisis that see today is a by-product of that dismal decade of the Harper government but also the refusal of the Liberals to make up for what the Conservatives destroyed in health care.

The Conservatives also destroyed the network of veterans centres, to ensure that our nation's veterans, who fought for our country, who put their lives on the line for their country, no longer had access to services. The Liberals have made that up in part, but they still have a long way to go. Our critic, the member for North Island—Powell River, has spoken eloquently about the fact that we have a debt to our nation's veterans and that we need to make up for that.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the Harper government and its cuts was the slashing and burning of the crime prevention centres across the country. Crime prevention centres are absolutely fundamental in ensuring that the crime rate goes down, not up. We know that a dollar invested in crime prevention saves us $6 in policing costs, in court costs, in prison costs. It is very cost-effective.

What did the Harper government do? Did it cut back on its largesse to the big banks? No. Did it cut back on its largesse to pharmaceutical companies? No. Did it cut back on the indiscriminate opening of doors to overseas tax havens? No. It signed more tax treaties with tax havens to ensure that the ultrarich had more places to hide their money.

However, the Conservatives did cut the crime prevention programs across the country. They gutted them, and we see the results today.

I will be voting against this motion, as will the NDP caucus, because, quite frankly, this is not the direction in which the country needs to go. We need to ensure that we are focused and that we invest to help regular families, seniors, students and people with disabilities right across our country. That is what the NDP believes in.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague used the word “largesse” a number of times in talking about the Conservatives and their support for corporate Canada. I would like to remind the member that the coalition of which he is a part used the same largesse when they dished out money to Loblaws to help it buy some new refrigeration equipment. Just a short time ago, Loblaws announced it was dropping its price freeze.

I would like the hon. member to explain to the House his efforts in lobbying Loblaws to bring back the price freeze, given the generous financial contributions that the coalition government gave it over the years.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is so incomprehensible I do not even know where to start.

First, yesterday, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford actually forced through the agriculture committee the greedflation study that would compel the CEO of Loblaws to come forward to Parliament. The Conservatives did not do that; the NDP did it.

Second, we know about the hundreds of billions of dollars, almost a trillion dollars between them, that the Conservatives and the Liberals poured into liquidity support for Canada's big banks. Quite frankly, the Conservatives have no lessons to give anybody.

The network of overseas tax havens is absolutely unbelievable, the $30 billion that Conservatives put in place. That has robbed Canadians each and every year. That money is taken from seniors, students, families, people with disabilities and small businesses. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I wish the the NDP and that member, our partners in this supply-and-confidence agreement, a happy Valentine's Day. It is certainly one of the more challenging relationships I have ever been in, but, nonetheless, happy Valentine's Day to them.

The member brought up the agriculture committee. I could not help but reflect on a comment that was given last night at the agriculture committee by Dr. Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work. He said that clearly inflation was not due to the Prime Minister either, that our inflation and our food inflation were both below average for industrial countries.

Would my colleague like to comment on how inflation is a global problem? While it does not bring a lot of comfort to those who are experiencing it in Canada, we are experiencing these problems throughout the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is right. It is a challenging relationship. In some respects, the NDP has forced through real things that will have a real impact on people, dental care being one of them, as well as the rental supplement and the additional affordable housing, which the Liberals gutted 30 years ago. Finally we are starting to see investments that will lead to more Canadians having a roof over their head.

However, the Liberals need to follow our advice in a whole range of areas. That includes the greedflation about which the member spoke. The reality is that the Competition Bureau needs to have enhanced powers to cut back on what we have seen, which is the most egregious gouging of Canadians. Both the Liberals and Conservatives seem to think that is okay.

For the windfall taxes, the Liberals only have put in place 2% of what is needed. We are losing over $30 billion a year and the Liberals need to ensure that those who are winning these amazing excess profits actually pay their fair share to Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech and his humanism.

We are talking about the cost of living and inflation. In my opinion, the most vulnerable people are seniors who do not necessarily have the means to re-enter the workforce and earn a higher income.

Would my colleague agree that OAS should be increased by at least 110% for seniors aged 65 and over?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP believes that a guaranteed annual income is absolutely essential for persons living with disabilities and seniors. There are seniors across the country, including in my riding, who spend the night sleeping on the ground outside or in their car.

It is incomprehensible that the major banks are making billions of dollars in profits and that there is a lack of investment in seniors.