Bill C-295

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to ensure necessaries of life are provided to residents of the facilities.
The enactment also allows the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and the officers 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.

The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I very enjoyed my talks with the member for Vancouver Centre. We have had a number of great conversations about various issues, including seniors issues. I have found her to be an outspoken supporter and critic when it comes to seniors issues. It is an absolute privilege to be standing here on legislation she has no doubt proudly brought forward.

This is an act that would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners or their managers who fail to provide necessities of life to residents of the facilities.

I believe it was Rawls who said that if we could go back to what he called the “original position”, meaning if we knew we were entering society but did not know how we were going to enter society, it would make sense that, if we knew one of the outcomes was to be in one of the more difficult positions in our society, we would want to do everything we could for such individuals.

For example, one could be sitting outside the world, and one could come into this world not knowing where one was going to come in, whether one was going to come in as Bill Gates, a billionaire, or whether one was going to come in as someone at the other end of the economic spectrum. If coming in as Bill Gates, one would probably be fine. One's concern would probably be if one came into a more challenging place in our society. For example, on the challenges an individual who faces a disability may have, one would want to make sure society was innately fair to persons with disabilities.

I believe this is a little analogous here. If in fact we knew we might have the lottery and might end up as an individual without any sort of control over our life whatsoever, with perhaps reduced faculties going forward, we would want to make sure this society, this country, was fair to those individuals. Unfortunately, that is not always the case today.

I, of course, as everyone else in here, will be in that situation hopefully at some point in my life. That is a little different than the original position, in that most of us will be in the position where we will be coming toward the winter of life, and perhaps facing reduced faculties and having our complete life, from food to recreation or even just to seeing daylight, completely at the control of someone else. What a difficult position to be in.

I revel in the wisdom of folks who are a couple of years my senior, and so I have often had conversations with individuals. It can be a very challenging time for individuals who have had very high-functioning lives or have been in charge of the destiny of many others in life. These are people who have been surgeons and doctors, or people who have had other lives under their control and who had control over everything in their life and have been successful in life. They find themselves now in a state where they are completely reliant on others. What a sacrosanct responsibility for those individuals who are now in charge of these individuals who have given so much to society and who have built the greatest country in the world.

We have such an incredible responsibility to make sure those people who built our country are taken care of. Unfortunately, we heard through the pandemic and before the pandemic that oftentimes people just did not get fair treatment in their life. That is why this legislation is a step in the right direction. We, as a society, have to make sure those individuals who have given their entire lives to building this country, building the best country in the world, are protected. If others are in fact letting them down, there must be consequences for not providing these people the care when they need it most. Individuals in some cases are completely and utterly reliant on those individuals, so if there is neglect or, worse, willful neglect or even purposeful harm, these individuals must be held accountable.

That is why I will be proudly voting for Bill C-295. I thank the sponsors of this bill for bringing it forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make sure it is a criminal offence when owners and managers of long-term care facilities fail to provide the necessities of life to residents within them.

We have an aging population. One is six in Canada will be one in four in just a couple of years. We all have members in our families, such as mothers and fathers, who are aging. I am aging. We are all going to need long-term care. The Conservative Party absolutely agrees that we have to protect the most vulnerable, and this bill is a good start. It would make sure the necessities of life are provided. However, the bill does not necessarily go far enough.

I am going to take up the theme of the pyramid of needs. We know that in the pyramid of needs, food, shelter, clothing and security are at the bottom, and this bill would address those necessities. We all heard stories of people who were left in their own excrement, did not have enough water or were dehydrated and of the lack of food during the pandemic, but what about their emotional and mental well-being? More needs to be done there.

My mother died in long-term care, and the children had to choose who would go in. That is not fair or compassionate, so there is more to be done with the bill. We also saw, even after science showed that those who were vaccinated could get and transmit COVID the same as the unvaccinated, that people were discriminated against and not allowed to visit their loved ones, even with reasonable accommodation.

Let us think about what happened during the pandemic. I received so many calls at my office from people who were trapped on one side of the border and could not visit their loved ones who were dying in long-term care facilities. There was no compassionate exemption made. I applied many times, but usually the length of time it took to get approval meant the person had already died. It is tragic when somebody is alone and vulnerable without even one family member there.

I can remember that when my mother died in long-term care, I had to hold up an iPad so that my brother, sister and all the people who were not able to see her could say goodbye. After 95 years of a well-lived life, it was very sad. Then there was the whole issue of funerals. The number of people was limited and people were not allowed to go to them. That was also very sad. The bill takes a good first step to address some of these things.

At committee, I was pleased to see that some amendments were accepted, one being that the definition of “managers” was not specific enough. We want to make sure that all facilities, whether private or public, have standards of care. That is another issue that was not addressed. There are differences in the standards of care across provinces and types of facilities. I was lucky that my mother was at Albany Retirement Village in Petrolia. It did a wonderful job of taking care of her, although many times I had to stand at the window to say hello to her during the pandemic.

The other thing this bill would allow is for judges to consider this an aggravating factor in offences involving volunteer activities or somebody in a position of trust or authority. That is a good thing.

I thank the member for Vancouver Centre, who is a doctor herself. We are all aging, and she has brought these concerns before the House. It sounds to me like this is the moment when all parties are agreeing that, yes, we need to do something and it needs to be an enforceable criminal offence. We have a lot of laws in the country, but we do not necessarily spend a lot of time enforcing those laws. In this case, it is so important. These are vulnerable people who, in many cases, like if they have dementia, do not have the acumen to fight for themselves. We need to be the ones to put measures in place so those looking out for them are dealt with.

I would say, as a woman, this is also a gendered issue. We know that 85% of the people who are in long-term care facilities are women. We also know that 86% of the workers and volunteers in these facilities are women. We need to provide protections for those who give care and for those who are being cared for. We need to make sure that we are not just meeting the base level of the pyramid when it comes to their emotional and mental health needs.

We know that isolation caused huge issues during the pandemic not just among people in long-term care facilities, but even in the general populace. One in five people ended up with mental health issues coming out of the pandemic. The suicide rate was up immensely. Violence was up immensely, at 32% for the people in this age demographic of long-term care. Of course, we have seen a huge rise in crime across the country, a 39% increase. Therefore, addressing all levels of people's well-being will be important and this bill does not go that far.

I would argue that, in the future, people need to remember the lessons learned from the pandemic. It did not really help when we kept individuals away from seeing their loved ones and let others in because, at the end of the day, we let 90% of the people do what they wanted and the 10% who were unvaccinated could not, yet the science showed that both could transmit COVID. I think the reasonable accommodations of masking and personal protective equipment would have really addressed a lot of the loneliness, the agony of watching loved ones die, or not being able to get to loved ones who were dying, which was very serious.

The other thing I would say is that long-term care facilities have been studied over and again. There was a report at the health committee in 2018, when I was there, that talked about standards of care and the number of individuals needed per resident, which is not the same for all residents, for example, those who have dementia compared to those who are at a high-functioning level. Therefore, we certainly need to look at best practices in the country and adopt some kind of minimum standard of care with respect to the number of caregivers and the amount of time provided. We hear a lot about how many minutes of care residents will get a day. Clearly, we cannot tell human beings that they have had their seven minutes for the day and that is it, that is all; we need to be more compassionate than that.

While I am happy to see this bill and think it is a great first step, I would like to see us go further. I think the government has a huge opportunity, as it reflects on what happened during the pandemic with the violation of people's rights and freedoms, not just for those in long-term care facilities, but also the seven million Canadians who were prevented from leaving their country for three years, to do a thorough review and come back with policies that will address not only the basic needs of people, but their mental health needs and the emotional supports they need. Obviously, it is one step at a time.

I am happy to say that we will support this legislation and look forward to doing more things to protect our seniors, who are the most vulnerable in society.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Bill C-295, I assume I am not the only one here today to be overcome by sad memories of the COVID-19 pandemic.

My thoughts go out to everyone who lost friends and family during the pandemic, one of the most difficult times we ever experienced as a society. There were 14,000 deaths in Quebec. It would be an understatement to say that the pandemic has had a lasting impact.

On that note, I will now address Bill C-295 in greater detail and share what the Bloc Québécois thinks of it.

The Liberal Party of Canada is suffering from a worrying bout of amnesia, since, in March 2021, the NDP moved a motion to nationalize and impose standards on long-term care facilities. All of the other parties voted against the motion. Why then are the Liberals introducing this bill today? Have they forgotten that that is an NDP position and not a Liberal one? Who knows? I must say, since the emergence of the NDP-Liberal government, the two parties seem to share some of the same positions. At least the bill introduced today is slightly different from the motion moved by the NDP in March 2021.

The Bloc Québécois proposed two amendments to Bill C-295 that were accepted. The first aimed to replace the concept of manager with that of officer. In an earlier version of the bill, the concept of manager was far too broad. As my colleague from Shefford so eloquently put it, if the concept of manager had been retained, the bill could have applied to a public servant responsible for procurement or to a nurse team leader. This is absurd, considering that the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to provide the necessaries of life to the residents of facilities. The concept of officer is well established, since, in the bill, it applies to directors and senior administrators, including the president, vice-president, and so on. In short, the amendment puts the responsibility squarely on the people who run the homes, and not the workers who are already doing all the work.

The second amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois requires judges to take the laws of Quebec and the provinces into account. It seems to me that members here in the House of Commons often need to be reminded that health care falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. While successive Liberal and Conservative governments have repeatedly tried to interfere in this provincial jurisdiction, nothing will magically change that fact.

Several provinces, including Quebec, already have legislation in place to tackle elder abuse and require care facilities to have policies and processes for handling complaints. It is therefore important that judges take these laws into account before imposing any prohibition orders.

Lucien Bouchard, one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois, said the following:

The government has neither the intent nor the mandate to abandon any part of Québec's constitutional jurisdictions...

Successive governments in Québec, regardless of their political option [as to the status of Quebec], have always worked to reaffirm its jurisdiction in order to foster its people's [Quebeckers'] control over its economic, social and cultural development....

This quotation is timeless, as enduring as Canada's resolve to make decisions for Quebec.

I campaigned for the “yes” side during the referendums of 1980 and 1995. I distinctly remember the federalists' fear campaign. They still make similar arguments today.

When Quebec stands up to Canada and stands up for its interests, threats to freeze funding that Quebec is entitled to usually follow. It is funny. Ottawa pulls out this argument as though it were pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Just two weeks ago, here in the House, Ottawa threatened Quebec with lower health transfers if we refused to exchange our francophone workers for unilingual anglophone doctors.

During the pandemic, in May 2020, the negotiations between the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and the federal government were particularly tense, including about the need to call in the army to help with the long-term care facilities. In his Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister of Canada used Quebec's need for military assistance to announce his intention to impose Canadian standards in long-term care facilities. It was also a Liberal campaign promise in 2021. The Liberals promised a hefty $6 billion for long-term care facilities provided their standards were imposed.

This bill raises a question. If the federal government is now going to be interfering in Quebec's long-term care facilities and private seniors' residences, will the government threaten to freeze or reduce Quebec's health transfers? That is an issue that needs to be considered. Do we also need to reiterate that, in December 2020, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion denouncing the implementation of pan-Canadians standards for long-term care and demanding an increase in health transfers?

This paternalism must stop. Not only does Quebec already have standards to prevent neglect and abuse, but it also has solutions on how it can improve in this area. Earlier, my colleague from Shefford listed a set of standards that Quebec is implementing to try to ensure that what happened during the pandemic never happens again. We are talking here about prevention, rather than criminalization, in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑295, so that it can be improved in committee. We need to ensure that, with this bill, we are actually helping the provinces and Quebec to protect their seniors, rather than just quickly adding criminal offences to the Criminal Code without thinking about the long-term consequences.

I will end my speech on a more personal note. My mother lived in a long-term care facility from January 2020 to November 2020 and passed away there. She did not die from COVID‑19 necessarily, but she did experience it. She received remarkable care. When talking about this bill, I want members to keep in mind that there are people in our health care system who do an amazing job. It is not the workers themselves who are targeted by this bill, but the officers.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand and to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to neglect of vulnerable adults.

The reason I want to speak to the bill is that my grandmother passed away in September. In fact, December 9, this Saturday, would have been her 96th birthday. I call my grandmother “Oma” because we are of Dutch heritage. In 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, I remember my oma being pretty lively. She still had her wits about her; she could sing songs in Dutch and English, and she really participated in our family life. We very much enjoyed and cherished her, like many other families do across Canada with their elders.

However, when the pandemic came, I, along with my cousins, aunts and uncles, had to make some hard decisions regarding the treatment of my grandmother in our family home, where she resided. For a period of time, to protect her, she was isolated from the broader community that had sustained her life in such a positive way since she immigrated to Canada in the 1950s. To make a long story short, like with members of many families across Canada, my grandmother's dementia accelerated at a very quick rate once she was isolated from those she loved. When I first got elected to Parliament, we heard at the HUMA committee from experts in geriatric care that one of the biggest mistakes we might have made during the pandemic was separating seniors from those they loved. My grandmother was isolated in her home, and her mental health deteriorated very quickly. My aunts and uncles and my mother, who was her primary caregiver, had to make the difficult choice to put her into an assisted living facility, one that would have been covered under Bill C-295.

I have to say that I was very pleased with the quality of care my grandmother received at the Chartwell facility in Mission. Staff were loving and conscientious, and they did everything to protect my grandmother. That was positive. However, while she was there, her dementia continued to accelerate; it got worse and worse, and she could no longer stay in an independent living facility with her meals provided. Family members had to make the very difficult decision to put her into a long-term care facility. What I am about to say now is a little brash, but it is a fact. When children make a decision to put their parents into a long-term care facility, it is almost like a death sentence. They know that it is the last place they are going to go. For children to make that decision for their parents is one of the hardest things they are going to have to do throughout their life.

Canadians believe in the health care workers at our long-term health care facilities. They believe that those people have the best interests of vulnerable Canadians at heart. They believe and trust that our systems are going to work, to make sure that the quality of life for those they are responsible for is upheld in a dignified way, one that respects the human dignity of the individual. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all long-term care facilities across Canada. All of us read, heard and experienced the horror stories that people talked about during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially when loved ones were separated from their seniors. I will be very clear that this was not the case with my family, but like many other MPs across this country, I heard from families who had negative experiences. For that reason, I am supporting the intention of the bill before us because it gets to the essence of a very big fear that many children have for their parents: Will they be protected? Will their human dignity be upheld when they cannot be with them and they have to entrust the care of their parent to a stranger at a medical facility?

The amendment to the bill, made to paragraph 215(2)(b), reads, “with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(b.1) or (c), 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.” It goes on under the prohibition order to outline, as the member of Parliament referred to before, that an owner or officer would be responsible in those conditions. The bill would send out a signal to long-term care facilities that maybe have not got it right, that not getting it right is not good enough. We always need to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors who have devoted their lives to this country, receive the type of care they need.

For me and my children, it was a daunting experience when we went into some of those facilities. Many seniors, unlike my grandmother, unfortunately, do not have a large support system to protect them. They do not come from a large family like mine, where there are 20 grandchildren, another 20 great-grandchildren and six siblings to spread out the work and make sure someone is there every day to watch out. Not every family has that. Not every senior is blessed with a large family like that. That is why the bill is important. Sometimes seniors may have only one advocate, and that person may still be working a full-time job or have other responsibilities and cannot be there every day. When they do show up and see that something is wrong, they would know that laws in Canada are there both federally and provincially, as outlined in the legislation, to ensure that, in the case of abuse or neglect, there would be a mechanism to protect the senior, and laws to safeguard them if a horrible situation does occur.

We have so much to do, mostly at the provincial level, in this country to uphold the dignity of seniors at the vulnerable stages of their life that they encounter upon entering an assisted-living facility or a long-term care facility that the bill before us would address. I do acknowledge certain apprehensions that came forward in witness testimony. I believe in the essence of the bill and its use of a collaborative approach, which I have heard about from my colleagues. The bill is worth supporting in order to send a signal that we need to do more to protect our vulnerable seniors to ensure their quality of life at the end.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code on neglect of vulnerable adults.

COVID-19 brought to light issues in the long-term care industry. Canadians did not, and will not, accept the conditions that were on display during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care facilities. This bill was initiated in that global atmosphere, with the primary objective of better protecting vulnerable people living in these facilities. Seniors and persons with disabilities in long-term care deserve safe, quality health care.

Bill C-295 is one method of delivering this care. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, who sponsored this bill, is proposing changes to the Criminal Code in three ways. First, this bill proposes to amend section 215 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the failure to provide the necessities of life for a dependent. The bill would give owners and officers of long-term care facilities a duty to residents that is similar to parents' duty to their children; it would criminalize failure to ensure that the necessities of life, such as food, lodging and care, are provided to residents.

Second, this amendment would be supplemented by a prohibition order against persons convicted of this new offence. This order is an accessory to the sentence that may be imposed. It is discretionary and would allow the court to prohibit, for a period of time that it determines, the convicted person from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, even voluntary employment, that would place that person in a position of authority towards a vulnerable adult.

The third and final change proposed by this bill is the addition of an aggravating factor at the sentencing stage, requiring the court to consider a heavier sentence for organizations that fail to meet their legal obligations to a vulnerable adult.

This bill was studied last spring by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to focus my remarks on the work done by this committee and the results obtained.

Various witnesses were heard, several briefs were submitted and the majority shared the same concern, that the term “manager”, which was initially proposed in the bill, could result in the inclusion of frontline workers in this new offence. Given the critical shortage of staff in care facilities, according to the Canadian Association for Long Term Care, the proposed measure could “have a devastating impact on recruitment and retention by unintentionally creating undue risk and hardship for front-line staff. This will exacerbate an already emergency situation in many [group] homes” and facilities. LTC providers across the country provide an invaluable service to seniors and persons with disabilities.

Justice committee members from all parties welcomed amendments to this bill to carefully identify owners and officers as the responsible decision-makers, who are accountable for mismanagement. They are the ones holding senior management positions, such as those of CEO or chairperson.

The objective of the bill is laudable, but it should not interfere with the already precarious operation of LTC facilities. Officers are the individuals who make the key decisions on the care offered, the staff in place and the budget allocated to equipment, to name a few examples.

For vulnerable persons, their inability to care for themselves makes them completely dependent on the care provided by these people, who have committed to helping them by making these decisions with their best interests in mind. However, neither owners nor officers provide direct care to their residents; rather, they oversee the facility's operations, make key management decisions and ensure that the staff under their direction have all the tools they need to carry out their duties. Owners and officers who take all reasonable precautions and care in the performance of their duties would not be affected by this change in federal law.

With this amendment, the bill would specifically place responsibility on owners and officers of long-term care facilities who fail to ensure the necessities of life are provided to residents of the facility they manage, if this would result in causing or risking permanent harm to the health of the residents in their care.

Vulnerable adults in long-term care facilities depend on the good care of frontline workers and also on the thoughtful decisions of the management team. Frontline workers such as personal support workers, who provide direct care to LTC residents, would not be affected by this change in federal law. Sufficient staffing levels and adequate functional equipment, to name a few examples, come down to management decisions that can have an impact on the health of long-term care facility residents. Owners and officers therefore have a central role to play in the health of the adults entrusted to their care.

I am grateful for the work of the committee members who adopted the amendment to make the maximum sentence four years in this case, similar to the offence under section 161 of the Criminal Code, which deals with orders prohibiting persons convicted of offences against minors from working around them. The committee worked collaboratively to advance the cause of vulnerable people in long-term care facilities, and I remain convinced that we can continue to work in the same direction. Our seniors deserve better.

The current state of the bill is, in my opinion, improved and more in line with the principles of criminal law. We have all heard the difficult stories of people trapped in long-term care facilities at the very start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in many cases without food or water. The individuals at the helm of these facilities must be dissuaded from making decisions that risk jeopardizing the health of their residents. The bill would send a clear message: Vulnerable adults in long-term care facilities can rely on third parties to provide them with a decent life, and there is no justification for compromising their health and dignity. We remain committed to working with the provinces, the territories and the long-term care sector to ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities live and thrive with the highest standard of care.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am confident that Bill C-295 will be passed quickly by this chamber so it can be studied by the other place. The revised version would more specifically place the responsibility on the people whom, as a society, we trust to make sound decisions with respect to the care of our seniors so they can live out their final years in peace. Canadians should have access to safe and quality health care at all stages of their life.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am rising to speak to Bill C-295, an enactment that amends the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to ensure necessaries of life are provided to residents of the facilities.

I have had a few opportunities to replace my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study this bill a little more in my capacity as a former project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and intimidation.

To come back to the bill, it also “allows the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and the officers 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.”

The bill is perhaps a little opportunistic. It follows the abuse that occurred in seniors' residences during the pandemic. That is what it seeks to address, but the bill creates criminal offences in these cases. Liberal logic dictates that filling the Criminal Code with offences is a way of helping people.

I will explain the bill in a little more detail, along with progress made in Quebec and what remains to be done.

Bill C‑295 adds two definitions to the Criminal Code, long-term care facility and officer, with the goal of building criminal offences around them. I could list them. We seriously examined the bill. In particular my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord studied it in depth in committee. Upon reflection, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at third reading, because the Bloc proposed two amendments that were adopted.

The first sought to replace the definition of “manager” by that of “officer”. We discussed this a great deal in committee. The notion of “manager” that previously appeared in the bill was much too broad. In the previous definition, an official responsible for purchasing or a nursing team leader would have been affected by the bill. Many witnesses said this went much too far. As for the notion of “officer”, it is well defined in the bill. It covers directors and senior members of the board such as the president and the vice-president. In short, the amendment places the responsibility on people in charge of the centres and not on the workers, who are already struggling to keep the health care system going.

The other amendment ensures that the judge will take into consideration penalties under the legislation of Quebec and of the provinces. Some provinces, like Quebec, have laws against abuse that force health care facilities to have policies and a complaint process. The judge will take that into account in imposing a prohibition order.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is relevant to determine whether including criminal negligence of seniors in long-term accommodation in the Criminal Code will help them get the care and services to which they are entitled.

Seniors have been the biggest victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognize that. They were overrepresented in the number of deaths. They are also the ones who suffered and continue to suffer the most from the aftershocks of the virus through isolation, anxiety and financial hardship.

I want to point out that Quebec already has legislation on elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines and protects informants who report mistreatment. That is what I was working on at the time. Community organizations and the health care network worked together on this new law.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government is acting within its purview with this bill, which would add tools for investigators. We therefore took the time to study the bill in committee to assess its usefulness. Beyond prosecuting managers who commit crimes or who could do so, it is important to ensure that seniors receive services that improve their quality of life. In this regard, the Bloc Québécois would like to emphasize the other important role the federal government should play in health care, and that is to increase transfers so as to cover 35% of system costs. The Bloc Québécois also wishes to reiterate that the sad events that happened in residential and long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs, are no excuse for the federal government to impose national standards on these facilities.

Of course, we saw the critical situation in CHSLDs, which ultimately forced the government of Quebec to ask for military assistance on April 22, 2020, following a failed call to mobilize citizens to help with staff shortages in care facilities. In May 2020, negotiations between the Legault and Liberal governments were particularly tense because the federal government refused to extend the military assistance in Quebec. In a way, the federal government used Quebec’s need for military assistance in the throne speech to announce its intention to impose Canadian standards in CHSLDs.

This was a way for the federal government to impose its requirements when faced with the provinces and Quebec joining forces and calling for a 35% increase in health care transfers. Quebec reiterates that demand. The government is back on the attack, supported by the NDP, trying to impose its standards. The Liberals are still clinging to this idea. In the 2021 electoral campaign, they promised $6 billion for long-term care in exchange for imposing their standards.

I could list many events in Quebec politics that show how concerned Quebec is with what is happening in residential and long-term care facilities. I will remind members that sections 91 and 92 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, define the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. They specify that health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug certification and quarantine. Let us keep this in mind, because it is important.

The Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP keep stubbornly trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially health care, because it is so obviously important to people. The federalism they stand for, however, requires each level of government to operate within its areas of exclusive jurisdiction. We had this debate before the election. In 2021, the NDP introduced a motion to impose national standards on long-term care facilities. We had already spoken out against that back then. What we want is for the federal government to do its part, because of the staff shortage and, obviously, because we have to find ways to work on solving the many problems facing the health care system.

Thirdly, the Quebec government had to answer to the opposition in regard to its ministers’ decisions. As we know, the Quebec minister who was responsible for seniors and caregivers at the time moved a motion on December 2, 2020 denouncing the Liberals’ desire to impose Canadian standards on long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs. It was adopted in Quebec’s National Assembly. The Bloc Québécois supports the National Assembly of Quebec’s unanimous position and denounces the Liberals’ centralizing vision.

Since then, the Quebec ombudsman has released a report making recommendations to the government. A provincial plan for deploying emergency personnel, a protocol for deploying extra staff in exceptional circumstances, and a Quebec strategy to combat staff shortages are also in place, and our computer systems have been updated. In addition, Quebec’s department of health and social services presented a Quebec action plan to recognize the complexity of care and service provision in long-term care facilities. We also adopted legislative measures to define the guiding principles that must be followed regarding living environment quality and organization and established the procedure for applying them through regulatory means. In short, Quebec is taking action and already has ideas for fixing the situation. The federal government will not be able to any better, since it knows nothing about the situation on the ground in these particular hospitals.

We know that the Quebec government has presented its plan to reform the health care system. This plan includes a range of measures, including large-scale recruitment of workers, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals and more accountability for executives. In addition, the coroner is still investigating, and some people are calling for a public inquiry. In short, in every case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and fix their system; the federal government cannot just jump in and start doing the work Quebec is already doing.

As we know, these regulations are part of the Quebec Act respecting health services and social services. Most long-term care facilities, some 86%, are public, compared with only 46% in the rest of Canada. We said all this before, when we were debating national standards for long-term care facilities. Let us be clear, Quebec and the provinces have the expertise and experience needed to manage long-term care facilities. The federal government does not. For all of these reasons, Quebec opposed every one of these national standards.

If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec emerge from the pandemic and provide better care to our seniors, it should stop being so paternalistic. It should forget about imposing federal nationwide standards that are not a good fit for a range of different social and institutional contexts. It should actually increase health transfers, which would enable Quebec and the provinces to attract and retain more health care workers.

At least, there have been some amendments to this bill that the Bloc Québécois agreed with. We heard the testimony and followed the committee's work very closely and rigorously. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill, with a view to focusing on the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to give some of my thoughts on Bill C-295, which was introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre. It is an act that would amend the Criminal Code on the subject of neglect of vulnerable adults.

I am very pleased to be speaking to this subject, especially on behalf of all vulnerable seniors in my riding, but also their families. Families, as we have seen over the last three years, also suffered through the subject matter we will be discussing as part of the bill.

It is a fact the chronic neglect and abuse of older adults living in long-term care facilities is a long-standing problem. This is something that slipped under the radar for many years before COVID so frighteningly put it to light and exposed what was there all along.

Bill C-295 would specifically amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and officers when they fail to provide necessaries of life to residents of facilities. We would finally, this Parliament, be putting into the Criminal Code a specific offence when the people who run these facilities fail to uphold their part of the bargain.

It would also allow the court to make an order prohibiting any owner or officer of such a facility from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge or in a position of trust or authority toward vulnerable adults. Again, there will be consequences for people who are in those trust positions, but it will also allow courts to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty it owed to a vulnerable adult.

We could rightly question why it has taken so long to even consider putting these things into the Criminal Code, but here we are, and it is about time we moved forward with the bill.

I want to also recognize that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights did its due consideration of the bill. During its review of the bill, 15 witnesses appeared before the committee, including the research chair on the mistreatment of older adults, from the University of Sherbrooke, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. There were 15 witnesses in total over four meetings at that committee. The committee also had 26 briefs submitted to it as a part of its study.

Going to the committee report, I will direct members of the House to the fact that one of the big changes that was made was replacing the word “manager” with the word “officer” and specifically putting a new definition, so now the people who are covered by the word “officer” include the chair person of the board of directors, the president, vice-president, the secretary, the treasury, the comptroller, the general counsel and the general manager or managing director of a long-term care facility. Again, it goes after that top echelon of people who are responsible not only for the overall budget of a place but for how it directs its care levels, its staffing standards and the level of service that residents can expect at those facilities.

It is no secret that there has been a long history of neglect, and what the pandemic did was shine a very important light on that. However, it has often been called “hidden neglect” because many people who worked in the industry, worked at long-term care homes or even those who were responsible for reviewing their actions have known that unfortunately this has existed for quite some time.

It is also a fact that during the pandemic especially, there was a huge difference between the for-profit long-term care homes and the public or non-profit facilities. The for-profit facilities had a much worse patient outcome overall than not-for-profit homes in general.

In my home province of British Columbia, the Seniors Advocate recently reviewed the situation with for-profit long-term care homes. It has been noted that in British Columbia the cost of a publicly subsidized long-term care bed through a private operator has jumped 35% in the last five years. The Seniors Advocate found that not-for-profit facilities spent about 25% more per resident on direct care when compared with for-profit care.

When a review was conducted on the financial records from 2021 and 2022, it showed that long-term care facilities operated by for-profit companies delivered 500,000 fewer care hours than they were funded for by the province.

Again, it speaks to the larger theme, that when profit is introduced into the health care system, other considerations seem to make their way to the forefront rather than looking after the people for which the facility was designed.

I also want to point out that we are all very familiar with the time when the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to some of the hardest hit long-term care homes, where they documented horrific accounts of inhumane treatment, abuse and substandard care.

According to the Canadian Armed Forces' reports, dozens of residents in two Ontario nursing homes died, not from COVID-19 but from dehydration and neglect.

I have looked at some of the short Coles Notes from those reports. I will read them out for the record: “conditions in two of the seniors homes...appeared to be nothing short of horrid and inhumane as ill-trained, burned-out and, in some cases, neglectful staff coped with the growing care needs of elderly residents”, residents faced “inadequate nutrition” because most of them were not getting three meals a day — and when they did, “underfeeding was reported.”; “Respecting the dignity of patients is not always a priority.”; Other patients were “left in beds soiled, in diapers, rather than being ambulated to the toilets.”; and “troops had to send a senior to hospital after the resident fractured a hip and was not cared for by staff.”

These are just some of the alarming things that came out from the Canadian Armed Forces that were deployed to those homes. Again, for the people who are familiar with long-term care homes in Canada, this was nothing new. All COVID-19 did was to serve to shed a light on that.

On October 23, 2020, CBC posted a story to its website. I will quote from a part of its investigation:

CBC Marketplace reviewed 10,000 inspection reports and found over 30,000 "written notices," or violations of the Long-Term Care Homes Act and Regulations (LTCHA), between 2015 and 2019 inclusive. The LTCHA sets out minimum safety standards that every care home in Ontario must meet.

Marketplace isolated 21 violation codes for some of the most serious or dangerous offences, including abuse, inadequate infection control, unsafe medication storage, inadequate hydration, and poor skin and wound care, among others. The analysis found that of the 632 homes in the Ontario database, 538 — or 85 per cent — were repeat offenders.

I also want to recognize that women represent 65% of patients in Canadian residential continuing care facilities. This is absolutely a gendered issue to which we need to pay close attention.

In addition, the vast majority of care providers in supportive care are women, with a significant portion of these individuals being newcomers or immigrants, especially among personal support workers. Women account for the majority of the workers among both immigrants, which was 86%, and non-immigrants, 87%.

My NDP caucus believes that the victims of negligence in Canada's long-term care facilities deserve justice. Part of the confidence and supply agreement that we have with the Liberal government is the tabling of a safe long-term care act to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live.

Although Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction, I do not believe it goes far enough in this regard. Rather than addressing this issue solely through a private members' bill, we expect that the government will follow through on this requirement and table legislation that puts these standards into more encompassing law, so that all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, can not only ensure that their loved ones are getting the care that they deserve, but that our vulnerable seniors have the full force of law to ensure they are living with the dignity they deserve.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), be read the third time and passed.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to engage in this debate on Bill C-295, and I want to commend the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing forward this bill. I am not sure we will be supporting it, and I will explain why in a moment, but she has brought forward a bill that addresses what is perhaps one of the most existential challenges facing not only Canada but western developed societies, which is the aging of our population.

A huge demographic challenge facing our country of course is the aging of our population. There are more and more Canadians who are becoming seniors. There are more and more Canadians who are moving out of the workforce, which is creating significant workforce shortages, and we are experiencing those today. At the same time, these seniors are requiring more and more care, which of course imposes a burden on taxpayers.

I would not for a moment suggest we should not be providing for the seniors who built our country. We owe it to them to do that.

However, the COVID pandemic, the first pandemic of its kind in over 100 years, left virtually every government around the world unprepared to meet that challenge. Here in Canada, that challenge manifested itself, among other things, by creating significant shortages of competent workforce members within our hospitals to address the increasing numbers of patients coming in suffering from the COVID virus. This became an acute problem for hospitals across our country.

There was not a province or territory that was not impacted by the fact that our hospitals could not provide the care needed. Beyond that, our long-term care facilities suddenly found themselves faced with this incredible challenge of having vulnerable seniors they were in charge of who had now contracted the COVID virus and trying to put into place protocols that were going to protect those vulnerable residents of those homes.

This bill seeks to address that by criminalizing the failure to provide the necessary care in those homes. More specifically, this enactment, Bill C-295, would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers who fail to provide the necessities of life to residents of their facilities.

I think all of us can agree that is a worthy undertaking to make sure our long-term care facilities have the kinds of services and protective protocols that would protect the residents of those facilities. The problem is we have significant labour shortages in our country. Until we have actually addressed those labour challenges, it would be imprudent to impose on these facilities criminal sanctions that effectively mean these homes could not provide the kind of care the Criminal Code would require but that our labour challenges cannot address adequately.

My challenge with this legislation is we are trying to do two things. We are trying to provide those facilities with the labour force they need to adequately protect residents and patients, but at the same time we are trying to criminalize the activities of these facilities when in fact they are in no position to comply with the law.

I would raise one other point. The proponent of this bill, the member for Vancouver Centre, has said that this is all about protecting the most vulnerable within our society. I commend her for standing up and defending the rights and the welfare of our seniors, the ones who find themselves in extremely vulnerable positions.

However, there are other seniors and other Canadians who are also in vulnerable positions who call out for protection and those are our mentally ill, the mentally disordered in our society, who are now finding themselves caught under Canada's medical assistance in dying regime, Canada's assisted suicide regime, which is being extended by this government to the mentally disordered within our society, including those suffering from depression.

I do not know how we square that, on the one hand, advocating for the protection and welfare of seniors in our homes, but, at the same time, saying that we are going to also advocate for assisted suicide to be extended and expanded to include the mentally ill.

There is something wrong with that picture. It troubles me deeply that we have found ourselves in this place where competing ideologies are taking place right here in the House of Commons.

I earlier asked the proponent of this bill if she would support Bill C-314, which seeks to extract and remove the mentally ill from Canada's MAID regime. She hummed and she hawed and she explained this way and that way.

At the end, all we could conclude was that, no, she was not prepared to protect the mentally ill against medically assisted dying but, at the same time, would be advocating for the seniors in our homes and the residents of our long-term care homes who find themselves vulnerable and could see their lives and their health impaired by another pandemic.

We can see that I am quite frustrated to be placed in the position of having to judge the member for Vancouver Centre's bill based on her inability to understand that there has to be consistency when we bring forward legislation.

When we promote an ideology that is supposed to protect the most vulnerable in our society, that does not mean we can pick and choose between different vulnerable groups. We need to address their needs in a wholesome way, in a holistic way, and we have to be consistent in how we apply our ideology.

Unfortunately, that is not taking place here. Quite frankly, I lament that our country is moving down this road, where some of our most vulnerable are going to find themselves at great risk because of the life and death policies that this government is adopting, which have not been properly thought out.

I am going to ask the member for Vancouver Centre to reconsider her position on Bill C-314, as I will reconsider my position on her bill, Bill C-295. We both have objectives to protect and defend the rights of the vulnerable.

I call for one thing: consistency. All those who are vulnerable in our society are worthy of our protection.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to represent Scarborough—Agincourt and delighted to speak today about the progress of Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding neglect of vulnerable adults.

Bill C-295, introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, seeks to criminalize owners and officers of long-term care facilities who neglect the residents in their care. We all remember the circumstances that led to the introduction of this bill, and it is hard to forget the headlines in recent years about the chaotic situations within the walls of long-term care homes. Available information shows that charges are rarely brought for negligence in caring for vulnerable people, and none were brought in connection with the recent cases of abuse denounced by the media at the height of the COVID–19 pandemic.

The Criminal Code currently addresses elder abuse through offences of general application. This means there is no specific protection, so neglect or abuse must be prosecuted under existing laws, such as laws regarding all forms of violence, abuse, fraud, and failure to provide the necessaries of life to a dependant who is unable to withdraw from a person's charge due to age or other circumstances. It is also possible for a person to be held criminally liable for aiding, abetting or conspiring with a third party to injure or harm the physical and psychological integrity of a vulnerable adult. These general offences do not necessarily target the right people.

The bill, as drafted, would target those in senior management positions and clarify consequences for their operational decisions. I will speak today about a few statistics that justify our support for the amendments proposed by the justice and human rights committee, and about some of the measures taken by our government to support the efforts of the provinces and territories in their fight against elder abuse.

According to the Royal Society of Canada's June 2020 report “Restoring Trust: COVID-19 and The Future of Long-Term Care”, home support workers provide up to 90% of direct resident care. It is not surprising to see a higher percentage of home support workers compared to nurses or other professionals working in long-term care facilities.

Another study, released in 2020 by Statistics Canada, entitled “The contribution of immigrants and population groups designated as visible minorities to nurse aide, orderly and patient service associate occupations”, informs us that Black and Filipino women are significantly overrepresented in this sector.

Thanks to the amendment adopted by the committee, this bill targets owners and officers of long-term care facilities, not frontline workers. In the legislation, “officer” will be defined as “the chairperson of the board of directors, the president, a vice-president, the secretary, the treasurer, the comptroller, the general counsel, the general manager or a managing director of a long-term care facility, any other person who performs functions for a long-term care facility similar to those normally performed by a person occupying any of those offices, or any other person designated as an officer of a long-term care facility.”

Frontline workers devote themselves to the task of care, often in difficult working conditions. With the amendments that have been adopted, committee members carefully took into account the very real difficulty in attracting and retaining workers in the care sector. This bill targets the correct decision-makers. This was the issue most often raised by groups representing long-term care facilities across the country, and it was recently raised in the ombudsman's report in Ontario entitled “Lessons for the Long Term”, published at the beginning of this month.

The data speak for themselves. Our population is aging, and these percentages will undoubtedly rise over the years.

The segment of the population most at risk of institutional abuse is made up of women aged 85 and over. In Canada, more than one-third of these women live in institutions, as they tend to outlive their male partners and may not have the health or support to age at home.

Forms of institutional abuse include physical abuse, neglect, emotional and verbal abuse, financial abuse and sexual abuse. Individuals in institutions may also experience systemic abuse, which is defined as systemic practices that result in neglect, substandard care, overcrowding and violation of dignity.

Some research suggests that up to 1% of Canadian seniors are victims of violent crime or physical abuse, and approximately 45% of seniors report having experienced some form of abuse by age 65. In addition, recent provincial and territorial reports, as well as reports from organizations serving seniors, have revealed significant systemic problems within long-term care facilities.

There are other adults who are also in long-term care facilities. Indeed, people with a disability or permanent incapacity often end up in these facilities because it is the only institution capable of providing them with the necessary care.

In my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt, we have three long-term care homes, one transitional care home and many senior housing facilities. In fact, 27% of the riding population of Scarborough—Agincourt is made up of seniors. It is so important that we provide competent care for all seniors across Canada.

Some seniors will have exhausted their own financial resources. Others will be placed by relatives, who are themselves aging or unable to provide the necessary care. To the same extent as seniors, these adults are vulnerable to neglect by those who have an obligation to care for them.

With a rapidly growing aging population in Canada, it is expected that companies specializing in this field will also experience some form of expansion. Currently, there are 2,039 long-term care homes in Canada; of these, 46% are public and 54% are private. The percentage of facilities varies considerably from province to province. For example, 86% of long-term care facilities in Quebec are public, compared with only 16% in Ontario.

This government is working on a number of measures to enhance protection for seniors, including a federal policy definition of senior abuse to better guide our policies, working in partnership with stakeholders and other levels of government to improve data collection, education and programs tailored to helping seniors and elders. It is also putting in place more measures to prevent senior abuse before it happens. Several commitments have been made in this regard, including the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada's mandate letter commitment to work with the Minister of Labour and Seniors to strengthen Canada's approach to elder abuse.

Initiatives have been put in place to address identified gaps in our long-term care facilities. Moreover, $740 million in funding has been invested to support our most vulnerable populations through infection prevention and control measures to protect those in long-term care and those receiving home care and palliative care. Several bilateral agreements have been signed, for example, to increase the number of beds in Nova Scotia or to establish screening protocols in Saskatchewan.

Most recently, the government provided $3 billion over five years to support provinces and territories in their efforts to improve long-term care in their jurisdictions. This is in addition to the $1 billion provided for the creation of the safe long-term care fund. This money will be used to protect people living and working in long-term care, and all provinces and territories have signed a bilateral agreement for this fund.

The work continues to evolve; despite our best efforts, we are not immune to another pandemic. We need to put elements in place to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

I am confident that the members of this House will recognize the importance of moving this legislative reform forward so that it can be quickly considered by the other chamber. The path ahead of us in long-term care facilities is one of collaboration as we continue to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to improve outcomes for seniors.

We must recognize that for many, illness strikes without warning. We cannot control its speed or its effects, however we can ensure that those in need of long-term care receive the best possible care in well-maintained facilities that afford them the dignity and respect all Canadians deserve.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand here to day to represent my communities of Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra.

New Democrats support this bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to protect vulnerable adults. The bill would create a new offence for the owners and managers of long-term care facilities that fail to provide the necessities of life for their residents. The bill would allow the courts to make an order prohibiting the owners and managers of these facilities from working with, volunteering with, being in charge of, being in a position of trust with or being in a position of authority over vulnerable adults.

The bill is the start a conversation about the conditions of care in this country and the dignity that seniors and other vulnerable adults deserve. There is still more work to do. Today, I spoke with the Canadian Federation of Pensioners. The organization has been meeting this week in Ottawa to address the ongoing crisis of the care economy, health care and access to aging with dignity.

They sent me here today with this message. They have highlighted the following four actions that need to be addressed, even more so than the bill: ensure that funding for care is spent on care; improve the accuracy and transparency of monitoring and reporting because we need data; define profit because we need to talk about what it means to have profit in long-term care; and make revenues and expenditures for publicly funded care homes available.

We have seen that, through the global pandemic, long-term care facilities were hit incredibly hard, exacerbated by the appalling conditions in some facilities that led to the deaths of more than 14,000 residents and staff. The pandemic has shown that facilities that are for-profit do not put the needs of their residents first in every case. Reports prove that for-profit long-term care facilities have worse client outcomes than the not-for-profit facilities. Without checks and balances, corporate greed can lead organizations to prioritize their profits before the health and safety of their residents.

This month, the Office of the Seniors Advocate in British Columbia published a report that reviewed for-profit and not-for-profit long-term care facilities and their patient care. They examined how money directly impacted the quality of life for people living in long-term care. Its report found that not-for-profit facilities spent 25% more on residents in direct care than for-profit facilities. An even more unacceptable fact found in the report is that for-profit facilities delivered 500,000 fewer hours of care than they were funded to deliver. Those are hours stolen from seniors and put into the pockets of private corporations and their CEOs.

In contrast, not-for-profit facilities delivered 93,000 more care hours than they were funded to deliver. They gave more care, and that highlights not only why public long-term care facilities are more compassionate, but also that the workers in long-term care deserve to be paid for those compassion hours.

New Democrats have said many times that we will end for-profit and private long-term care. It is public health care, and it needs to stay public. The recent pandemic has shown us that for-profit companies cannot be relied upon to protect our loved ones and keep workers safe. By continuing to have for-profit long-term care with little oversight, those private investors will continue to cut corners on care and increase pressures on the health care system, putting more Canadians at risk.

Here, I need to mention the abysmal record of the Conservative government in Ontario. It continues to advance a privatization agenda for health care, which is dangerous and irresponsible.

Therefore, I want to take a moment to go back and recognize the incredible staff who work in long-term care. They face unrealistic demands and step up every day, often suffering physical and mental injury. We must do more to support staff, who continue to be pushed to the limits as they feed, bathe and care for loved ones in long-term care. Here in Canada and around the world, women, and disproportionately immigrant women, continue to do most of the care work in institutions and facilities. Pay is low and working conditions are harsh. Many of these care workers are seniors themselves.

Translating Research in Elder Care collected data for over a decade about care aides from more than 90 nursing homes in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The researchers learned that 67% of care aides are over the age of 40 and that 61% speak English as a second language. A third of them work at more than one nursing home, often because their work does not offer full-time hours or a living wage and benefits. This is the lived experience of care workers in Canada.

The government needs to stop the gender discrimination experienced by care workers and pay them appropriately. It must recognize their skills and experience. When immigrant care workers come to work in Canada, their credentials need to be recognized and they need to be compensated equally. When staff continue to be undervalued and underpaid, they suffer moral injury while trying to administer care. The government must do more to change this reality in health care and in long-term care.

Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction for protecting care and care workers, but, yes, as I have said, there is more to do. That is why Canada's New Democrats have included a safe long-term care act in the confidence and supply agreement. A safe long-term care act would address the needs and dignity of vulnerable adults, including those with disabilities, who have been let down by the current government over and over again. They have not been provided adequate housing or community supports. This reality is unacceptable.

In closing, the government should move immediately on tabling a safe long-term care act. The NDP is ready to make that a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to once again speak to this bill. I already spoke to it at second reading, and I want to reiterate what I said at that time: The Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C‑295.

This bill warranted review in committee. It should be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. Negligence toward anyone in our life is wrong. Negligence toward our seniors and most vulnerable is shameful.

Our seniors were the victims of terrible treatment during the 2020-22 lockdown. They were often abandoned in institutions with a lack of services, a lack of staff or staff who were ill equipped. They were shuffled from one institution to another. They were considered to be in the margins, people we did not need to take care of like they deserved. They were cut off from their loved ones. Many of them died without even having their close family, children or spouse with them. That is unacceptable. Often, they were not properly fed or fed at irregular hours. They were mistreated.

Collectively, our behaviour was unbecoming. We were like ungrateful children. This must never ever happen again. In Quebec, we have legislation to address this issue, an Act to combat maltreatment of seniors and other persons of full age in vulnerable situations. I mentioned earlier that I hoped that the federal government would model its legislation on the Quebec law, and I think it did so in some regards.

Bill C‑295, which has been moved for adoption, was amended in committee. That is why we wanted to study it in committee. There were things in the bill that bothered us. We worked hard in committee, and I thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work we did. Many, if not all, of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were adopted. Now we have a bill that seeks to improve living conditions for our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, whether by reason of age, illness, mental disorder or disability. I think that it does us credit to think of these people during our deliberations here in the House.

These people will now be protected when they live in long-term care facilities. Situations like the ones that occurred between 2020 and 2022 were already prohibited and liable to prosecution. Now, both the owners and the officers of long-term care facilities will be personally responsible for providing necessaries of life to residents of the facilities. Again, we are talking about seniors and people with disabilities or mental disorders, people who are sick. They need us. We needed them at one time. Now, they are the ones who need us. It is wrong not to take care of them.

I therefore welcome this bill with a certain amount of pride. I hope it is not used to prosecute people for contravening its provisions, but rather to encourage them to respect what is now enshrined in law and what should be the minimum we are required to do for some of our most vulnerable citizens. One of the main responsibilities of any government or society is to treat seniors with dignity, respect and fairness. Bill C-295 tells us that we must do just that. We cannot be negligent toward our seniors or toward people who need us without being subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code.

That is not all. Their economic well-being also deserves attention. The federal government must provide the transfers that the provinces have been demanding for far too long now. These transfers are necessary for Quebec and the other provinces to properly administer health care services. In response, the federal government tells us that it intends to set conditions on its transfers and dictate the way we care for the less fortunate. Where, when and how this should be done, the federal government has no idea. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, long-term care homes or health facilities, except those catering to veterans.

The expertise exists not in Ottawa, but in Quebec City. I think that setting conditions on health transfers is outrageous. It does not mean that seniors in long-term care are going without food or baths. It means that the people in charge of these health services are being deprived of the financial means they need to meet the needs of these citizens properly. That is also unacceptable. I think that if the federal government and Parliament want to look into the well-being of the less fortunate, economic aspects should not be overlooked. We have been talking about this for years, and I am fairly certain the talking is not over. I would be very surprised if cheques were sent out next week, but I can promise that we will be there keeping an eye on things. The health care system matters.

That is not all. There are health transfers, but there is also the economic well-being of seniors. As we saw recently, the federal government decided to make seniors aged 65 to 75 poorer. The government acknowledged that needs had increased. God knows they have, and quite a bit more than the government was willing to acknowledge. It gave a 10% increase to seniors aged 75 and over, while leaving retired seniors aged 65 to 75 to fend for themselves. However, all of our laws recognize that people in that age bracket are seniors. This is an unacceptable decision, one we have also frequently criticized in the House, and we will continue to do so.

We have an opportunity to fix this inequity. My colleague, the member for Shefford, is sponsoring Bill C-319, which we will have to vote on in the near future, probably when we return from the parliamentary break week or before the holidays. We hope it will be as soon as possible.

On the one hand, the bill proposes to increase pensions by 10% for all seniors aged 65 and over, across the board, regardless of their age, sex or race. Everyone who is 65 or over and living in Canada should be entitled to the 10% increase. People know very well, as I do, that the 10% increase does not even come close to covering the added economic burden resting on our seniors' shoulders. Groceries cost nearly twice as much and rents are skyrocketing. We are having to strike committees to look into the issue. We are out of ideas for how to stem these increases. Seniors are getting a 10% increase, which is not much at all, so the least we can do is give it to all seniors.

On the other hand, Bill C‑319 also proposes to increase from $5,000 to $6,500 the maximum income a retiree can earn with no penalty clawed back from their pension. That, too, seems reasonable to me. It is the least we can do. We want to tell people that they have a right to their pension, but should they decide to work a little to make ends meet, we will not penalize them for it. I think it would be shameful to penalize them when the pension we are giving them amounts to crumbs.

We can talk about Bill C‑295 and the need for us to properly take care of the most vulnerable, seniors, people with intellectual deficiencies, the sick and persons with disabilities in our long-term care facilities. We can talk about transferring money to the provinces and Quebec that is needed to provide adequate health care services in our hospitals and we can talk about the need to provide equitable and basic economic conditions to seniors. In any case, we are talking about taking care of the least fortunate among us. It does not seem right to have to talk about it here. This is something we should be doing, no questions asked, without even having to vote. This should already be in effect. Let us hope this gets done.

In closing, I would remind the House that a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Let us prove ourselves worthy of our seniors. Let us prove ourselves worthy of the benefits of the society in which we live.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise and contribute to the debate on Private Members' Business. Tonight we are debating Bill C-295, moved by the member for Vancouver Centre, whose bill proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code to create a new offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers who fail to provide the necessaries of life to the residents of their facilities.

The bill would also create a process by which courts could make prohibition orders against the owners and managers of such facilities, prevent them from being in charge of or in a position of authority over 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 it owed to a vulnerable adult.

Her concern for vulnerable adults is most certainly a credit to the member, and I share this concern for many reasons. Many of my constituents have shared with me, as a member of Parliament, personal stories about fraud, abuse and neglect of elderly or vulnerable family members. I share this concern because, like most Canadians, I have, and had, vulnerable adults in my family.

My own grandfather was defrauded by his caregiver in the final months of his life. I have spoken about it in this place before with respect to other bills designed to enhance protection for vulnerable adults, but I am going to do so again. My grandfather spent the final months of his life worrying about money and a possible financial burden on his companion because a caregiver defrauded him. This crime did not take place in an institutional setting. The perpetrator of the crime provided care to him in his home, preparing light meals and doing housekeeping. This was the level of care he needed to stay in his home with his companion comfortably, yet he was defrauded.

The local RCMP detachment had a poster in the police station imploring people to report fraud and to be aware of elder abuse, yet despite obvious and overwhelming evidence, it took months for charges to be laid. The police kept saying they were too busy to get around to arresting the suspect. This resulted in my grandfather's passing away before they eventually arrested and charged the caregiver who preyed upon an elderly couple in their own neighbourhood.

I mention this episode again in the House to be clear that I know first-hand how vulnerable adults can be prone to abuse, fraud and neglect. I also know first-hand how poorly the justice system reacts to such cases of abuse and fraud, so I can only image how slowly and reluctantly authorities react to cases of neglect. There is no doubt much more needs to be done to protect vulnerable adults. My family experience is enough to convince me of that even if I did not also have the weight of so many similar stories from the people I represent in Calgary.

I am also very concerned about the rise of incidents of violence against seniors. We know that under the current government's watch, crime has gone up significantly in every category, but according to Statistics Canada, the rate of violence against seniors has gone up faster than the increase in violence against all other age groups.

I too was appalled by the collapse of care in some seniors homes during the early weeks of the pandemic and that the military was called in to restore the most basic care and ensure that the necessities of life were delivered to helplessly vulnerable seniors.

However, this bill is not about establishing who cares the most about seniors. It is not about how to fix shortcomings in the seniors care system. It is not about how seniors care is funded or how it is delivered. It is not about regulating standards of care in long-term facilities. This bill proposes a Criminal Code amendment. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence and give addition order-making power to courts. It was supported by parliamentarians at second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. During the hearings, 15 provincial long-term care associations, organizations and businesses submitted briefs opposing this bill.

Six national organizations also opposed the bill, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association for Long Term Care, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian College of Health Leaders, and CanAge. These associations raised concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill. Some said that if passed, this bill will have a devastating impact on recruitment and retention by creating undue risk and hardship for frontline staff. They raised concerns at committee that this bill would exacerbate what is an already precarious situation with chronic labour shortages in the industry.

It was also remarked that this bill and the debate around it have had a tone of general opposition to privately owned long-term care facilities, in favour of publicly operated ones. To those who assert without evidence, mostly from philosophical conviction, that privately owned and operated long-term care facilities are more prone to instances of neglect than publicly owned ones, they could run for provincial office, which is where such facilities are regulated, and they could get involved in the regulation of health care facilities and the general regulation of commerce. They could also consider whether a new offence and new order-making provisions are the best way to protect vulnerable adults. Perhaps they could propose comprehensive anti-elder abuse legislation, something that the previous justice minister was tasked with in his mandate letter but failed to actually do before he was shuffled. During the 2021 election, the government promised a safe long-term care act, but it has not introduced one.

The Criminal Code really is a blunt instrument, and given the testimony at the justice committee, one really must reconsider whether this bill will help vulnerable adults or whether, through unintended consequences, it will make the highly stressed system of care for vulnerable adults worse rather than better. What good are new offences in the Criminal Code when existing offences are not enforced? Prohibitions against fraud, abuse, and failing to provide the necessities of life already exist in the Criminal Code, but we need better enforcement and prosecution of our laws. What good is a new offence if existing offences are not enforced?

We have seen this before with private members' bills, when a member proposes a change to the Criminal Code in order to draw attention to an issue and force a vote in the House of Commons to signal concern about an issue, but without actually creating a comprehensive solution. This is admittedly part of the limitations of private members' bills. In this case, the member for Vancouver Centre cannot propose changes that commit public money, and she cannot propose provincial regulations in the federal House of Commons. The Criminal Code is one of the things that a member can change but, again, it is a blunt policy instrument. It is a long and complex law already.

I do not like to have to criticize a bill for what it does not do, but if one just focuses on what this bill actually does, we have to consider the evidence that was presented at committee. We have to be concerned about the consequences and consider whether there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can and should be applied to horrific cases of abuse and neglect when they arise. As I have said, when existing laws to protect the vulnerable are not a priority for law enforcement and for our courts, what is the point of passing new laws?

While I commend the member for trying to deter and punish future cases of neglect through the Criminal Code, I will not support this bill, given the evidence of harm that it will cause to the ability of existing facilities to retain workers and attract investment at a critical time, when facilities are struggling with acute labour shortages and rising costs.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit worried about Bill C‑295 at first. I was afraid it would encroach on provincial jurisdiction, but in the end, that is not the case at all. I am quite happy about that.

The bill specifies that if an owner or officer of a long-term care facility is convicted of failing to ensure necessaries of life, that owner or officer will be prohibited from doing paid or volunteer work in the presence of elderly or vulnerable persons. However, the bill does not specify how, after the prohibition period, we can ensure that the owner or officer is no longer a threat to people in vulnerable situations.

Does my colleague think that a risk assessment should be carried out before the end of the prohibition period in order to allow paid or volunteer work with people in vulnerable situations?

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in relation to Bill C-295, an ct to amend the Criminal Code, neglect of vulnerable adults.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, Bill C‑295 seems to us to be a good bill. However, we would like it to take into consideration the fact that, in certain provinces and in Quebec, specific provisions were adopted to respond to the various problematic situations encountered during the pandemic. We know it wasn't easy, and it was the situation we experienced in long-term care facilities during this pandemic that brought us this bill.

So, since provisions have already been adopted in Quebec and, possibly, in other provinces, we think it would be appropriate for the court that will eventually have to consider offences to take into account the sanctions and measures that have already been imposed under provincial laws, whether those of Quebec or another province, on individuals who are accused in connection with the same events.

This would not nullify anything. It would simply mean that the judge would have to take it into account when sentencing. In Quebec, fines are provided for, among other things. So if a prison sentence were requested, for example, the fine might not be ordered, since a fine has already been paid, or the prison could be replaced by the fine. The judge will be able to decide what seems appropriate and judicious in the circumstances, but we ask that he take into account sanctions that are imposed under another law.

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

Yes, I'm doing that.

I am pleased to move amendment BQ‑1.

Bill C‑295 makes officers of long-term care facilities for the elderly accountable. We think this is perfectly legitimate. However, extending this concept to workers does not seem appropriate to us.

The proposed amendment speaks for itself. We propose removing managers from the list and retaining only officers and board members.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

We'll get started.

As you can see, our chair is not here. He was delayed. He asked me if I would serve as chair today, so I'm doing that. Hopefully, I can run as tight a ship as our normal chair does.

I welcome officials from the justice department. They will help us by answering any technical questions that members may have about the bill and about the amendments.

From the justice department, we have Matthew Taylor, who has been here many times. He is general counsel and director of the criminal law policy section. We also have Isabelle Desharnais, counsel. Welcome to you both.

We're ready to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑295, I would like to remind members of the committee of a few things. Members should note that any new amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

You all received the agenda and amendments package again yesterday. Now we can proceed with clause-by-clause study of the bill.

(On clause 1)

I will now call clause 1 of Bill C‑295.

First, we have BQ‑1 to deal with.

Mr. Fortin, would you like to move BQ‑1?

[Dr. Marie Beaulieu]

Yes, certainly.

Apart from their traditional home, which they can own or rent, seniors can now find themselves in a host of congregate living settings. I think the notion of community is just as important as the notion of a care environment. In congregate settings, services are normally provided.

As a result, seniors who find themselves in private seniors' residences, either for-profit or not-for-profit, can experience situations of abuse, as I was saying earlier. They may also live in intermediate resources or in family-based resources.

Consequently, if, as seems to be the case, Bill C‑295 is limited to residential and long-term care facilities—CHSLDs in the Quebec nomenclature—I think a number of situations created by this notion of a community of care and services could be excluded.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here to talk to us about Bill C‑295, which deals with the very sensitive issue of elder abuse.

Ms. Beaulieu, I had the opportunity to meet you and exchange with you in my former life, at the Université de Sherbrooke, when I was working as project manager on raising awareness of elder abuse and bullying. I thank you for what you brought to my work, and I acknowledge your expertise and your commitment.

If I understood you correctly, you said, in the second point of your presentation, that you were surprised by the fact that Bill C‑295 does not apply to private seniors' residences and does not refer to them. That could even be one of its shortcomings. Given the reality in Quebec, where seniors' living environments are becoming increasingly diverse, could you tell us more about that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies. It was a pleasure to hear your summaries. I want to thank you so much not only for your attendance but also for your leadership and advocacy in this area. We are all going to be part of this aging demographic at some point in time and we need to get this right.

It's unfortunate, however, for many of you who are here that this almost feels like déjà vu. Two years ago we were talking about this issue, and this government has done nothing to advance this by way of passing its own legislation, notwithstanding a throne speech three years ago, notwithstanding mandate letters to the Minister of Justice and the minister responsible for seniors in which they were instructed to bring legislation specifically to address elder abuse across this country. They have done nothing, and it's taken a member of the Liberal caucus to bring a private member's bill.

I asked the particular member last week about why the government has not taken steps and why she did. Her response was, “Someone had to do it.” I don't think that is the appropriate approach to take given the seriousness of this issue, the seriousness of it not only to our elders but also to the industry at large.

I do want to read a couple of passages from a submission this committee received prior to today from the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. I'm going to read out various passages, and I would love to hear from all of you, or some of you, your thoughts with respect to this submission, whether you agree or you do not, and ultimately what you can recommend to those of us on this committee about how we can strengthen this particular bill. You've identified so many flaws in this bill. We really need to collectively work to improve this if we're going to make a difference in the lives of seniors.

I'll start by saying this:

The Canadian Association for Long Term Care (CALTC) is unequivocal in its support for ensuring anyone responsible for elder abuse is accountable, regardless of where and how it occurs. However, this Bill not only focuses on a singular setting, it only considers physical abuse, of which protections already exist...This legislation does not consider the emotional, psychological and financial elements of elder abuse....

...It is our position that the best way to address these gaps is for the government to develop and consult on well-considered legislation that addresses elder abuse in all its forms and in all settings.

...We urge the [government] to recommend against passing Bill C-295 and instead call on the government to introduce comprehensive elder abuse legislation in its place....

CALTC is deeply concerned that this approach is flawed and not well-considered—

That's in relation to the problems with the retention of employees.

—As outlined, the health human resources challenges in long-term care homes are already at emergency levels. By targeting the people who work on the frontlines, providing critical care to vulnerable residents, we expect this legislation to exacerbate these challenges.

Last of all, they put together a recommendation to replace the words “long-term care facilities” with “licensed health care facilities”, thereby ensuring that no matter where care is provided, it is held to the same standard. They also recommend replacing the definition of “owners and managers” with “health care professionals” to ensure that all staff, regardless of their role in providing care, are held to the same standard under the law.

That is for anyone to answer. Please go ahead.

[Marta C. Hajek, Chief Executive Officer, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members and fellow panellists.

Thank you for today's opportunity to address the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-295.

My name is Marta Hajek, and I serve as the CEO of Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario. Our provincial organization is dedicated to the prevention of elder abuse. We raise public awareness through educational forums in communities, and we deliver training across all sectors that want to recognize and prevent instances of abuse and neglect.

While we are not legal experts, three decades of experience has made us experts on systemic challenges, those that hinder appropriate and coordinated responses to the silent pandemic. We work to fill the gaps in which too many older adults fall undetected and without support.

Taking action to allow for the prosecution of those with governance and executive authority over practices that lead to predatory or abusive behaviour towards vulnerable persons is good. Being held accountable would encourage owners and executives to better consider the consequences of their investment and operational choices for their clients and society. It would be welcomed.

However, the proposed amendments in Bill C-295 alone will not address those factors that lead to abuse: profit over care, which fosters chronic understaffing; and age discrimination.

Our primary concern remains. We urgently need a national elder abuse prevention strategy, a whole-of-government approach with emphasis on prevention when crafting policy and legislation as well as early detection through collective and sustained efforts.

Elder abuse prevention in Canada is fragmented. Those affected do not have equitable access to the necessary supports. Elder abuse is not a homogeneous issue. Instead it is a complex one. We should all be deeply concerned about its exponential growth.

While the intent to amend the Criminal Code is laudable and may succeed in punishing some who wilfully commit neglectful acts in long-term care settings, it will not significantly reduce instances of abuse. Wider structural reforms to the administration of justice across all jurisdictions are necessary to ensure consistent reporting and convictions. Focusing exclusively on long-term care and using age-neutral language such as “vulnerable” without additional qualifiers is akin to putting even more blinders on our system of prevention and intervention.

While 7% of older people reside in long-term care settings, 93% live at home or in the community. While the devastating Canadian Armed Forces report identified the pervasive nature of neglect and abuse in long-term care settings, instances of reported cases of elder abuse in the community rose 250%. Many more cannot or did not report abuse for fear of humiliation, reprisal, consequences to the abuser or confusion on where to even turn for help.

Elder abuse is a violation of human rights. It carries with it significant negative impacts on our public health and safety systems. Applying an ageism lens to policy considerations for the protection of vulnerable older persons prevents myopic approaches that leave many in our collective blind spots.

Most recently, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario, as a member of the Canadian Coalition Against Ageism, joined a delegation of Canadians from civil society and government to participate in the 13th open-ended working group on aging at the United Nations. Together, our diverse voices called for the declaration of the UN convention on the rights of older persons. This binding instrument would promote and preserve the dignity, safety and security of all older persons. Canada and the world must do better, because if not now, then when?

At the same time, some Canadian jurisdictions are waiving liability for service providers who fail to provide the necessities of life or provided substandard care during the pandemic. The government, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has an obligation to uphold the rights of older Canadians. This waiving is a step away from that accountability.

Inconsistencies and the lack of a comprehensive national strategy create confusion and do little to prevent neglectful practices from continuing behind closed doors. We cannot any longer allow this to remain unchecked.

Let's be clear. Let's name the issue and define it to inform better data-collection practices and support real, targeted and systemic actions. Let's work together to make sure provincial and federal laws are aligned and federal law enforcement, Crown counsels and the judiciary are better able to recognize and have those instruments to respond to elder abuse and neglect. Let's work across all jurisdictions to enforce standards to ensure that all Canadians have access to places where they can age safely and with dignity.

Finally, let's continue to work together to educate our communities and those who enforce our laws and administer justice, and to provide the supports that people need to advocate for themselves or on behalf of someone else who is unable to do so for themselves.

This is our submission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

[Dr. Marie Beaulieu, Professor, Université de Sherbrooke and Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to participate in its study on Bill C‑295, which would amend the Canadian Criminal Code by adding provisions related to the neglect of vulnerable adults.

I am here as a researcher who has been working on elder abuse and ways to combat it since 1987, so 36 years. Although I am retired from Université de Sherbrooke, I am still an adjunct professor there, as well as an adjunct researcher with the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults and the Research Centre on Aging. I am also the co‑director of a centre that works with the World Health Organization to promote senior-friendly environments and combat elder abuse. Not only have I worn many hats in this area, but I am also deeply interested in the issue.

It's not hard to guess the context underlying this bill. The COVID‑19 pandemic, specifically the way it was handled and the impact it had in two types of senior residential or care settings laid bare the organizational dysfunction, which was partly known. These places are congregate living settings for seniors that may or may not provide care and services, as well as residential care settings where both adults and seniors in vulnerable situations live. I want to stress the fact that these two settings are different, something that isn't clear in the bill. I'll come back to that. Both types of facilities employ a lot of administrators, referred to as “managers” in the proposed amendment to section 214 of the Criminal Code.

I want to make six brief points for the purposes of today's discussion.

First, the bill focuses on the organizational dimension of elder abuse or mistreatment. In doing so, it sets aside the common definition of elder abuse, which, implicitly at least, focuses on the interactions between individuals within what is presumed to be a relationship of trust. I applaud the fact that the bill addresses the role that organizations play in elder abuse, because it puts the issue in a broader context, shining a light on community, organizational and institutional dynamics.

Second, the definition of long-term care facility proposed in the bill seemingly does not include congregate living settings known as private seniors' residences in Quebec. They are places that lease accommodations solely to seniors, on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. Seniors who live there have to be independent or semi-independent. I'd like to understand why the definition excludes those settings. It's even more surprising given that Quebec's act to combat maltreatment of seniors, CQLR c L‑6.3, was amended in the spring of 2022 to include those living settings, among other things. I think that's a discussion worth having.

Third, the bill introduces the idea of vulnerable adults, not vulnerable seniors, and I agree with that decision. Long-term care settings are indeed home to people of various ages who live there because they require the support. Nevertheless, I recommend that the bill use the term “adult in a vulnerable situation”, instead of “vulnerable adult”. When you refer to someone as being in a vulnerable situation, it means that their vulnerability is not inherent and that it may be temporary or the result of specific circumstances. In my view, the term “adult in a vulnerable situation” is both more inclusive and less stigmatizing.

Fourth, the bill focuses on a specific facet of elder abuse—neglect. While I can appreciate why that choice was made, it's important to understand that the line between neglect and violence can be very unclear at times. Keep in mind that neglect can take various forms: psychological, physical, material and financial. There is a lot of crossover with the various types of abuse.

Fifth, discussions with police officers have opened my eyes to the fact that criminal negligence is difficult to prove. Prosecutions and convictions based on those offences are few and far between, and require very specific evidence. Therefore, I would like the committee to consider the applicability of this proposed Criminal Code provision. I look forward to discussing that. What evidence is necessary in order to secure a conviction under the proposed provision?

Sixth and finally, paragraph 215(2)(b) of the Criminal Code refers to conduct that “causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” That raises questions in my mind. I wonder about the significance of the word “permanently”, because it should be enough to cause significant injury to the person, regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent.

In closing, I want to say that making these changes through the Criminal Code was a smart decision given the fact that the code applies countrywide. We all know that measures affecting health care run the risk of creating jurisdictional overlap between the provincial, territorial and federal governments.

As my colleagues in the legal field say, I respectfully submit these comments for your consideration. I look forward to our discussion.

[Isabelle Desharnais]

Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code, which flows from the Westray bill, sets out an employer's duty to its employees. Bill C-295, however, addresses the duty of the employer or manager to residents. The provisions aren't quite the same; they don't apply to the same set of circumstances.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I want to say a big thanks to the witnesses for being here today to discuss this important bill, which deals with an issue we all care about.

I'd like a few things clarified, so I have some short questions. A moment ago, the discussion focused on the need to clarify the terms “owner” and “manager”, and I'll come back to that.

Bill C-295 is adding the definition of the term “long-term care facility” to section 214 of the Criminal Code. That definition could be problematic, however, because it does not mention the fact that those facilities come under provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, what constitutes a long-term care facility is defined very prescriptively. The definition excludes situations where a senior makes a clear and voluntary decision to reside in such a facility when they don't necessarily lack the ability to care for themselves.

Ms. Desharnais, you talked about the difference between owners and managers. Do you see anything in how the bill defines a long-term care facility that could be problematic?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on March 8, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

Since I believe all members and House guests are here today, I don't have to go through the rules of Zoom and whatnot. You're all experienced with this.

For Ms. Larouche, I want to let you know the sound tests have been done and the interpretation services have been verified.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Elisha Ram, senior assistant deputy minister, income security and social development. From the Department of Justice, we have Matthew Taylor, general counsel and director, and Isabelle Desharnais, counsel.

They're not going to be making any remarks, so we're going straight into questions. Hopefully, we'll get a full round in before we get our next round of witnesses.

We'll begin with six minutes for Mr. Caputo.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's fine, thank you.

Earlier, my first question was mainly about types of abuse. I would now like to come back to the definition of a long-term care facility. Bill C‑295 proposes the following definition: “a residential facility, or part of a residential facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide long-term accommodation, meals, assistance and care to three or more adults who reside in the facility...”.

It does contain some key words. In your opinion, is it complete or should anything be added to it?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In the report titled “Elder Abuse: Identifying the Issue and Combatting All Types of Abuse”, published in 2021, the committee's recommendation 4 asks “that the federal government identify and implement mechanisms to protect whistleblowers in long-term care”.

Do you believe that Bill C‑295 will help whistleblowers such as employees file complaints about elder abuse?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the three witnesses for being here today.

I will also take a moment to recognize National Nursing Week. This concerns today's witnesses. Nurses are doing an outstanding job.

To follow up on what Mr. Lake said in response to a question, I remain convinced that it is not just health care for seniors that is underfunded, but all health care in general in Canada. That is why I am making a heartfelt plea and, in solidarity with nurses, I continue to call for an increase in health transfers. This is one of the Bloc Québécois' positions, and today's topic is directly related to this increase. We have talked about the importance of the increase we are calling for to bring the federal share of funding up to 35%. We can't think about better funding and better support for staff if we don't also think about better support and more financial resources for the health care system.

That was my little introduction.

I would now like to turn to Ms. Hall.

In response to some questions, you said that Bill C‑295 targeted only specific types of facilities and, therefore, did not meet all the needs in terms of abuse. Abuse does not occur only in long-term care facilities or in one type of residence. We are also seeing a diversification of the types of places where seniors live, and we must take that into account when we talk about abuse. I know that in Quebec, in particular, there is a lot of scrutiny of home care.

You also say in your brief that Bill C‑295 targets only one specific type of abuse—physical abuse—while there are many other types of abuse, including financial abuse and emotional abuse.

Could you comment on the shortcomings of Bill C‑295 in this regard and on the measures that could be taken?

[Jodi Hall]

We remain deeply concerned about the overall scope and impact of Bill C-295 as presented. We feel that many of these challenges are already addressed within provincial legislation and within the Criminal Code as it exists today.

Certainly moving away from this legislation would be our first choice. Second to that, if the committee is putting this bill through, we would ask that they reconsider the definition of “manager”, in that it's specific only to the long-term care manager, as well as the definition of “long-term care facility”. We would recommend that they apply more broadly across the health care system.

For us, when we consider that the intent of this bill is to address elder abuse and that very similar staff would be providing very similar care in a hospital setting, for example, why would this legislation only target elder abuse that would be present in a long-term care environment and not in a hospital setting?

As for recommendations for amendments, it would be to focus on those areas and broaden out the setting and the professionals that the bill would apply to.

[Jodi Hall, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association for Long Term Care]

Members of the committee, I want to start by thanking you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss Canada’s long-term care sector.

My name is Jodi Hall, and I am the CEO of the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. CALTC is committed to ensuring quality long-term care for all, and we advocate on behalf of seniors in long-term care homes and our members. Our members include many of the provincial long-term care associations and a range of long-term care operators from non-profit, faith-based, and private corporations.

CALTC appreciates that the spirit of the proposed bill is to protect vulnerable adults, and we support the introduction of legislation that would address elder abuse in Canada. However, the bill before the committee does not accomplish that. If it were to pass in its current form, I believe it is likely to have a devastating impact on the long-term care sector throughout the country.

Long-term care homes are currently facing a number of issues that impact their ability to be sustainable. First, the health human resources crisis is a critical challenge. The latest data from Statistics Canada from the final quarter of 2022 notes that there are over 38,000 vacant positions in Canada in long-term care homes. This is more than double the number of vacancies in 2019.

Provinces are making investments in long-term care, and the leadership and frontline teams in long-term care homes remain dedicated to providing high-quality resident care every day. However, they are doing so with limited resources, and many are in homes that have aging infrastructure.

Our sector needs support. We face significant, systemic issues, including widespread staffing shortages, aging infrastructure and chronic underfunding. These are not new issues. Decades of underinvestment laid the foundation for the perfect storm, which painfully played out through the pandemic and has left homes to continue to struggle today.

In the last election, the government committed to investing $9 billion in long-term care over five years. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for that commitment to be realized. These investments could be used to help support the recruitment of staff, to increase our standards of care and to invest in the much-needed infrastructure that's required.

While long-term care has received more attention as of late, we have not, as a country, come together to talk about creating a sustainable long-term care sector. In the next 15 years, there will be another 10 million seniors in Canada. We need to address the questions around long-term care sustainability, but today we are here to address Bill C-295.

CALTC members are unequivocal in our denunciation of elder abuse in all forms. This bill that has the potential to have a devastating impact on long-term care homes while not addressing the multi-faceted considerations that are needed for elder abuse legislation in Canada.

As well, “manager” is so broadly defined within this bill that it includes almost all long-term care staff. As it stands, this bill focuses on employees in long-term care and only in long-term care, as other settings—for example, a hospital—that provide similar care with similar employees, often to those who are waiting to be admitted to a long-term care home, are not noted.

We believe that this will further increase the challenges around recruitment and retention. Creating further obstacles to recruitment and retention for long-term care is not the way to improve quality or safety in the homes.

All levels of government have the opportunity to work with the long-term care sector to build a resilient path forward. Unfortunately, I believe the bill as presented does not take advantage of that opportunity. Moving forward, the government should launch inclusive consultations with long-term care residents, families, providers and others in the health care system to identify existing gaps in elder abuse protections and how best to effectively address them without causing unintentional impacts, as this private member’s bill will do.

If the committee should choose to proceed with the bill, we ask that at the very least the scope of the bill be not limited to long-term care facilities and long-term care managers but be refocused on all health care settings and all health care professionals so as to not result in inequities in recruitment and retention being directed at long-term care homes alone.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I'm happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on March 8, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study on Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait till I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those who are on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. Please adjust to the desired setting now. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses, who are all appearing by video conference today.

First we have, from BC Care Providers Association, Terry Lake, chief executive officer—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

That's fair enough.

You highlighted that there's a new definition for “long-term care facility” and a definition for “manager”, but there's no definition in Bill C-295 for owner, yet owners—whatever or whoever that might be—could be criminally charged.

Wouldn't your legislation be improved by having a clear and concise definition of who an owner of a care facility is?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much, colleagues, for inviting me here to speak on my bill, Bill C-295.

I think it is an important bill, even though it sounds like a simple bill. It's an important bill, because the issue of long-term care is a provincial jurisdiction. It is not in the Canada Health Act. It's purely provincial jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can have a role is to do something within its jurisdiction, which is the Criminal Code.

What this bill is meant to do is amend sections 214 and 215 of the Criminal Code to protect vulnerable adults. It extends the definition to vulnerable adults. Currently, sections 214 and 215 deal with child abuse and negligence. We are now using it to extend the definition to vulnerable adults.

The bill puts in some specific definitions. It tells us what a vulnerable adult is. A vulnerable adult is a person who, by virtue of age, mental or physical illness, or disability, is frail. That's meant to be a vulnerable adult. The ability to take care of that vulnerable adult follows completely through with sections 214 and 215 of the Criminal Code with regard to children.

Why are we doing this? We're doing this because currently the only national standards that we have for long-term care, which is a provincial jurisdiction—and I want to keep stressing that—is a national voluntary set of standards. Everyone should and could try to...etc. There is no mandate for this. This continued on for a very long time, until COVID-19 exposed the vulnerability of that system.

As we well know, about 54% of all long-term care facilities are run by the private sector. Many of them are not-for-profit. Some are run by the church-based sector, but most of them are just private.

I think, again, it's what we saw after COVID-19. We found that while only 3% of people who got COVID-19 were in long-term care facilities, they made up 43% of those who died. That was really out of whack. It was an overbalance of that.

At the same time, while other countries had 41% of people in long-term care facilities dying from COVID-19, in Canada we actually were the worst. We had about 69% of our seniors getting COVID-19, and dying from it, as we well saw.

I think the reason is that we don't have mandated standards. The federal government cannot stand up and mandate standards. It is something the provincial government's going to have to do.

Currently, what this bill does is it defines who a vulnerable adult is. It expands the duty of care from a child to a vulnerable adult. It actually puts in some other definitions. For instance, it defines what a “long-term care facility” is. A long-term care facility is where three or more people are vulnerable by virtue of—as I said before—age, mental illness, physical illness, disability, etc. They are not related to the caregiver by blood or marriage. That rules out somebody who's looking after grandma or grandpa at home. This is about a facility. There must be three or more people in the facility.

Now, it defines “manager”. What is a manager of a long-term care facility? It defines what a manager is and the duty of that manager. It defines what that duty is. There is “failure to perform”. If that manager fails to perform a duty to provide the necessities of life and the appropriate care to vulnerable adults, then they would be liable, as obviously this bill tells you, to certain penalties—a fine or jail time.

It also talks a little about what was wrong. Why did COVID-19 expose this problem that we didn't know about before? As a physician, I knew. I knew about the problem with long-term care units. I looked after patients in some of these units. We knew what the problems were.

After what happened with COVID-19.... As you know, the armed forces went in to help in some of these facilities. Their report is scathing. It talks about how, in fact, many of the people in these areas.... The cleanliness was lacking; protocols were lacking; most of the aides who were performing the work to take care of seniors had no formal medical education or health care education or training—they were just doing this. They were moving from patient to patient during COVID, using the same gloves and the same protective equipment; they did not often wash their hands, and I think those are the things that we saw.

What this bill is striving to do is.... The Canadian Standards Association has set standards that are very clear for what is required to care for vulnerable adults in these facilities. What this is doing is saying to managers and owners of these facilities, if you don't do it, you're going to be penalized. It brings in teeth and accountability to something. This is the only way that the federal government can intervene.

I'll leave it there, and I'll be happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted in the House on March 8, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

As you're all members, including the panellist, I won't go into how to use Zoom or your interpretation functions.

In the interest of time, I would now like to welcome Dr. Fry to our committee.

Dr. Fry, the floor is yours. You have five minutes. Then we'll have questions and answers right after.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-295, under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here today as the seniors critic for the NDP to talk about Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code targeted at neglect of vulnerable adults.

This bill would do two things. First, it would amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and 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 the 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.

I am going to be in support of this bill. We saw dreadful outcomes during the pandemic. So many seniors across this country faced challenges that we cannot imagine and then there were deaths beyond our imagination. It is really important, as we remember this time, to remember the men and women in uniform who serve this country, who were sent in to some long-term care facilities and saw things they were horrified to see in their own country.

It is really important to understand that when we ask those in our military to step up for us, they are used to stepping up outside of our country in these kinds of circumstances. They were in this country and saw seniors who had died just because of neglect, because they were dehydrated. This is Canada and that should never happen. Those folks did a huge service to us, something I hope they never have to do in their own country again.

It is also important to point out that the vast majority of seniors never enter long-term care. That is important. I hear from the Seniors Advocate in British Columbia all the time that we should remember most people stay at home and that is where they end their lives. However, when seniors move into such facilities, families and loved ones need to know those people are safe and that standards are in place, something they can put their trust in.

We know that sometimes families move their loved ones to be closer to them from one province or territory to another. What is surprising is that the standards are different in each part of this country, which really leaves increased vulnerability. I appreciate that the government did table some long-term care standards, but the thing that was terrifying to me is that they are voluntary. A lot of good work was done in looking at those standards, making sure they made sense for long-term care, and now we see that they are voluntary.

This worries me because it provides a huge risk to seniors and the people who love them most. Again and again, we see loved ones doing the best that they can. If they live far away or there are any kinds of challenges, knowing that their loved one is in a long-term care facility and not getting the support that they want makes people feel ill.

I am going to quote something important by Candace Rennick, CUPE's national secretary-treasurer, who said:

Voluntary standards did not protect the 17,000 residents of long-term care homes who have died so far because of COVID-19. Canadians want better protections for seniors. This country needs standards that are backed by the force of law. People need to know that their loved ones will spend their last days living with dignity and respect. They need to know that there will be penalties and consequences for long-term care service providers that don’t follow the rules.

If all we have in this country is a national voluntary standard, there will never be the level of accountability that I think Canadians want to see.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code, but I am afraid that it will not do all that it must to protect seniors. We need more long-term support for them and a practice of having more accountability. What this really means to me is that when seniors die in this situation, there need to be actual charges laid, and we are not seeing that. We are seeing families taking on long-term care facilities, and that is not right. There needs to be a process and we need to start having charges laid. That is a real deterrent.

Graham Webb, executive director and former staff lawyer of the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, has called the Criminal Code amendments “a very viable approach”. However, he said, “I'm really not aware of a single charge ever having being laid for the neglect of a long-term care resident. I think it’s important that the criminal justice system is able to respond when we see such flagrant cases of institutional abuse and neglect of older adults.”

I think that is startling. Even if we see a minor change to the code, it is still not fulfilling the other end, which is the actual movement toward laying those charges and holding people accountable.

Members know just as well as I do that when people are held to account, other people observing start paying attention. I think it is shameful that in this country seniors are so vulnerable that they can be sacrificed without a thought. They built our country. We owe them so much more, and we owe them dignity.

One of the things I found particularly painful in my role as the seniors critic is how many people with loved ones in a seniors facility have come to my door and talked about how hard they worked to try to look after them. They could not always be there the way they wanted to, because they had to work or because they had children. Then, when they went to visit, they saw things that horrified them, and they fought in that system the best that they could and with everything they had. Now that their loved one is gone, the pain is so raw that they do not want to talk about it because of the guilt they feel. They feel guilt because our system is broken. That is wrong, and that is why we must fix this.

To me, it goes back to the simple reality that we need to see the long-term care standards in legislation. We need to raise the bar. I get that every province and territory wants to do their own thing. I respect that, but let us make this the bar. If any province or territory wants to be higher than that bar, good for them. Let us make sure that no senior in all of Canada falls below it. Let us make sure that no family is in a position that they would think of moving their loved one from one province to another, simply so that they get better care. That is ridiculous.

I think Canadians need to listen to those on the front lines. For example, Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, noted that there has been “no consequence whatsoever” for the abuse and neglect that was exposed during the pandemic, or for the needless deaths of residents due to poor infection control and non-COVID-19 reasons, such as dehydration and starvation. How could a senior be starved to death in this country? This is Canada. She further noted, “I think we need to search our conscience if the lives of the elderly are not worth a formal government bill and real change with teeth.”

As we vote on the bill before us, which hopefully people will support because it is a small change in the right direction, I hope we all think about our commitment to the people who built this country. Those people are increasingly vulnerable as they age. Think about the hard-working families who are doing everything they can to support that loved one. Think about the fact that we still do not have legislation that has teeth so that we can make sure to support seniors as they age.

In closing, as a person who represents a rural and remote community, we also have to recognize that those in small communities often see their loved ones go far away to get long-term care. They have to travel a great distance, which means they cannot be with them. Let us all fight to make sure that wherever one's loved is, they are safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about Bill C-295 and the new offences it would create in cases of neglect of seniors. The neglect of seniors and vulnerable people is a serious problem in Canada, and abuse is endemic.

Ensuring the protection of vulnerable seniors is a very personal matter for me. My grandfather and his companion were defrauded by a caregiver. They were vulnerable seniors who were victimized by an individual who they had every reason to believe they could trust. The circumstances are sadly familiar to thousands of other families who have endured senior abuse. They spent the final months of their lives worrying about money.

My grandfather's companion of nearly 30 years not only endured my grandfather's final months of illness and death, but also feared confrontation with the individual who defrauded them and remained in their neighbourhood. She worried about running into her at the grocery store or other places. My grandfather, who was 90 years old and in ill health at the time, did not live long enough to see justice done.

The police did not treat the case as a priority despite the case being relatively simple and straightforward. There was a poster in the police station that invited members of the public to report situations of abuse. The public communication around this problem is that it is a problem and should be reported to police, yet the police are slow to act and did not act within my grandfather's remaining time alive.

My grandfather was luckier than many. He had the support of family and was not ruined financially by the fraud. The particular fraud was not sophisticated and it was detected. Eventually, charges were laid and an arrest was made. He was not injured in body and was not denied physical care, but he was a vulnerable person like so many other Canadians.

I thank the member for drawing attention to the issue of vulnerable Canadians through this private member's bill. This bill is welcomed.

Sadly, neglect does not only occur in institutional settings, but this bill would address issues where neglect within institutions occurs by making changes to the Criminal Code that would hold operators and managers of such facilities to account when they neglect to provide the necessities of life to people in their care. I think all Canadians would agree that this level of neglect is a criminal matter and ought to be a criminal matter.

This bill would also allow courts to make an order prohibiting persons charged with certain offences from working in proximity to vulnerable Canadians. That is a good step forward as well.

There is so much that could be done. With private member's bills, we are very limited in what we can do with the one chance we get if we draw a low number for Private Members' Business. I certainly do not blame the member for all the things her bill does not do. However, there are many problems that need to be addressed, including fraud, emotional abuse, violence against seniors, abuse, neglect and other harms that occur outside of institutional settings. These are pressing issues the government needs to deal with.

I am disappointed by the government in this case. It has taken a private member's bill to make any headway on this issue, despite the Minister of Justice's own mandate letter, which calls upon him to take action. His mandate letter calls upon him to finalize a proper definition for “elder abuse”. It calls upon him to get better data on this problem and to establish new offences and penalties. He has not done so. This bill from a private member will, but the government, which has said this is a priority, has failed to do so.

The bill would actually fulfill a piece of the Conservative platform that my colleagues and I were elected on, so I certainly support the member in this. It does not matter to me who gets credit in this kind of thing. We want to improve the lives of Canadians, and that is what we can often do in Private Members' Business, so I support her efforts, but I am disappointed in the government for its lack of progress in this area.

We have a minister who was tasked with this, and I wish he had spent more time on protecting vulnerable Canadians than he has on expending enormous effort on Bill C-21, where the Liberals have had to backpedal on those amendments they put forward at committee. There was Bill C-5 that the minister put forward, which would actually weaken penalties and sentencing for violent crimes and other crimes.

Therefore, it is disappointing that we do not have a minister who will take this seriously, but fortunately we do have a private member who is taking a positive step forward.

We know the vulnerabilities of seniors in institutional care, like the vulnerability to neglect. This was all laid bare during the pandemic. We heard other members comment on this. The abandonment of vulnerable seniors, the failure to supply the necessities of life to seniors, is appalling. It was appalling to many Canadians, so action needed to be taken.

It is outrageous, really, that the Canadian Armed Forces would be called in to provide care in seniors facilities. That is not the purpose of our armed forces. That is not something we would normally think of in terms of aid to civilian authority by the Canadian Armed Forces. We are thankful for their ability and the work they did, but what a failure it was, down to an individual level in some cases, and certainly a failure of the management of facilities to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are able to get the necessities of life.

On the data, the minister's own report says there is an enormous gap and a failure to understand the extent and patterns of types of abuse, but Statistics Canada knows a bit about that. It says that between 2014 and 2019 the rate of violence against seniors grew faster than for any other age cohort, so we know that violence against seniors is on the rise. We know that fraud among seniors is on the rise.

I support what this member is doing with her bill. I am glad that this House is now taking time for us to give public voice to the vulnerable and to ensure that, I hope, fewer families and fewer seniors spend their final months as victims of crime. With that, I thank the member for her private member's bill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette, because I want to take the extra minute that he left on the table.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code, neglect of vulnerable adults.

At the outset, I would like to start by applauding the member for Vancouver Centre for her leadership on this file and for emphasizing that caring for and protecting vulnerable persons and adults is of the utmost importance. It is an important topic of discussion, not only to me personally, but also to my constituents at my seniors community council meetings.

I would like to acknowledge the following private and public long-term care facilities, along with their staff, for the great service they have been providing to the community of Richmond Hill: the Mon Sheong Care Complex, the Revera Elginwood Long Term Care Home, the Richmond Hill Retirement Residence, Delmanor Elgin Mills, Sunrise of Richmond Hill, the Langstaff Square Care Community and Mariann Home Richmond Hill.

Protecting vulnerable residents in long-term care is a laudable and important goal, not only for me and my constituents, but also for many Canadians. This issue is of national importance. Canada's population is aging, and more persons may find themselves living in institutional care or will be in the near future. Statistics Canada reported that the number of people over the age of 65 has increased by 42% since 2010. This is the fastest-growing rate among all G7 countries. As our national demographics shift, there will likely be a corresponding increase in the number of residences offering long-term care and the number of adults residing in them.

In addition, more than one-third of women 85 years of age or over live in care facilities. In Ontario, for example, approximately 54% of residents in long-term care are over the age of 85, and approximately 10% are over 95 years old. Importantly, it is not only seniors who live in long-term care. In Ontario, 6.6% of all residents are 64 years of age or younger.

All residents have diverse needs, and we have a responsibility to protect them from abuse. We are so grateful for the many excellent health sector professionals who take care of our vulnerable populations. We want to ensure that all residents of long-term care facilities receive the high-quality service they deserve.

Beyond individual harms, we must also be mindful of systemic issues that adversely impact the quality of life of residents. Systemic practices, such as understaffing, overcrowding and insufficient resources, can all harm those whom have come to care settings precisely because they cannot receive the care they need at home. In light of these statistics and issues, Bill C-295 will address the systemic challenges and the harms that would continue to potentially impact a growing part of our population.

Our criminal law already contains a wide range of measures to address the abuse and neglect of vulnerable persons, including offences of assault, fraud and failure to provide the necessaries of life. Bill C-295 will build on this framework and improve protections in the context of long-term care accommodation. Residents of long-term care facilities accounted for 43% of the COVID–19 deaths in Canada from 2020 to 2021. They were 13 times more likely to die of COVID than non-residents 69 years of age or older.

We have seen too many harrowing situations involving seniors in recent years, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are provided with an environment free of neglect. This is why our government doubled down on its strong leadership and action to support vulnerable adults all across the country. It will continue its collaborative work with provinces and territories to help support improvements in long-term care, including $1 billon for the creation of the safe long-term care fund and $740 million in the safe restart agreements.

On January 31, 2023, the Government of Canada welcomed the release of complementary, independent long-term care standards from the CSA Group and the Health Standards Organization, or HSO. Together, these standards provide guidance for delivering services that are safe, reliable and centred on residents' needs, that foster a healthy and competent workforce and that create safer physical environments by promoting a culture of quality improvement and learning across long-term care homes. Additionally, budget 2021 provided $3 billion over five years to support provinces and territories in their efforts to improve long-term care in their jurisdictions.

Currently, there are 2,039 long-term care homes in Canada. Forty-six per cent of them are public and 54% are private. The percentage of facilities that are public versus private varies considerably from province to province. For example, 86% of long-term care facilities in Quebec are public, while only 16% are public in Ontario. Whether for profit or otherwise, the operators of such facilities have significant responsibilities to their residents, and this bill would ensure that those responsibilities are fulfilled regardless of the environment where care is provided.

Bill C-295 would provide important new tools to respond to practices that fall below the standard expected and that put seniors and other vulnerable persons at risk. COVID-19 strained our long-term care facilities and shone a spotlight on system weaknesses, offering us a key opportunity to introduce reforms and do right by our elderly and vulnerable populations.

Bill C-295 provides us with this opportunity by introducing the following three major improvements to our Criminal Code.

First, the bill would add a category of persons in section 215 under “Duty of persons to provide necessaries”, specifically targeting owners and managers of these facilities who fail to provide the necessities of life to their residents.

Second, it would create a prohibition order against these people so that for a period of time determined by a judge, they are prohibited from seeking, accepting or keeping any employment, even as a volunteer, where they would be responsible for adults who are vulnerable.

Third, as the sentencing stage is an integral part of the criminal process, following a conviction, a judge must consider a variety of factors to determine the best sentence to impose in the circumstances of the crime committed. This means that Bill C-295 would create aggravating factors at sentencing for an organization that has failed to meet its legal obligations to a vulnerable adult.

I think the reasoning behind Bill C-295 is quite simple: that organizations have a responsibility to the vulnerable, and failure to meet this obligation must be punished in a clear and unequivocal manner.

The situation of vulnerable people in long-term care facilities has been repeatedly denounced over the past few years, with the conditions of these facilities and the care provided coming under increased scrutiny, particularly at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. While law reform alone will not eliminate neglect and abuse in long-term care facilities, it will send an unequivocal and clear message.

I am proud to fight on behalf of our seniors and other vulnerable populations who use Canada's care facilities. Through this bill, we can inform all facility residents that we care about their well-being and are looking out for them. We can also support the many wonderful health sector professionals who provide care to residents every day by fixing operational problems and systemic challenges in facility management.

In closing, Bill C-295 is a crucial first step in providing a level of accountability and restoring the public's trust in Canada's long-term care system. Focusing on the role of owners and managers by proposing measures to target their criminally negligent behaviour is important. I support Bill C-295 because it recognizes the responsibility that long-term care organizations have to their residents. Neglect cannot and will not be tolerated. I urge all members to do the same.

The House resumed from November 29, 2022, consideration of the motion 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding neglect of vulnerable adults, and I want to thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for seconding the bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed clear evidence of abuse of seniors in care facilities across the country. With the lack of appropriate care and protection, as well as negligence and failure to follow accepted protocols, this situation resulted in appallingly high rates of COVID transmission in many long-term care facilities and led to increased mortality rates.

This bill aims to prevent a recurrence of those tragic outcomes by creating an offence for owners and managers of adult care facilities who fail to provide due care in accordance with accepted protocols and who are negligent in their duty to provide the necessities for a good quality of life. It would also allow courts to make an order prohibiting the owners and managers of such facilities from being in charge of or in a position of trust or authority toward 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.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)