44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 29, 2022 10:00AM
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.
1453 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1323 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1530 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a quick point of order, I just wanted to bring to your attention that during the last debate, we saw the member for Avalon walking around picking up papers off a desk. We asked him what he was doing and he confessed that he was trying to make life easier for the pages so they would not have to spend all this time picking up—
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:37:34 p.m.
- Watch
That is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think my point of order has a little more substance than the one we were just treated to by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
I just want to point out to my colleagues that during his speech, the member for Vancouver Kingsway was shuffling his papers near his microphone. Some people may not realize it when they are speaking in the House, but these sounds are very disruptive for the interpreters and people sometimes forget to pay attention. I just wanted to point that out. I did not want to interrupt his speech for that, but I think it is important to remind the members about this, in order to help the interpreters.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:38:14 p.m.
- Watch
I noticed the same thing. Indeed, members must take care when they are holding their papers near the microphones. It can be very disruptive.
Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, the greatest riding in the country.
I want to take a quick moment to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for this very important private member's bill, this very important piece of legislation. I am glad to hear that many of the folks in this room who have been speaking tonight are in support of this legislation.
Today's debate is about elder abuse. What is elder abuse? According to the World Health Organization, abuse of older people is:
...a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person. This type of violence constitutes a violation of human rights and includes physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse; financial and material abuse; abandonment; neglect; and serious loss of dignity and respect.
Currently there is no standard definition in Canada. It can mean different things to different people, depending on their life and ethnocultural experience.
The government is committed to strengthening Canada's approach to elder abuse. This includes creating a policy definition. The creation of a policy definition would provide a common understanding of the issue. Having the same understanding would help raise public awareness and support cultural change in hopes of preventing elder abuse. This would also help the Government of Canada to better target its programs and policies directed at addressing the topic.
To support the development of the policy definition, in the summer of 2021, the government held nationwide consultations, seeking feedback from experts, stakeholders and Canadians on a definition. Activities included an online consultation and targeted round table discussions. The Government of Canada is taking concrete measures to prevent and combat elder abuse.
In addition to cofacilitating the regional round tables on a federal policy definition of elder abuse last year, since its inception in 2017, the national seniors council has provided multiple recommendations to the Government of Canada and has examined issues related, notably, to elder and financial abuse.
Their first report on the issue was published in 2007 and led to inform the Government of Canada's awareness campaign on elder abuse. In March of 2019, the council hosted an expert round table and a town hall on financial scams and harms targeting seniors perpetuated by strangers or by someone they know. The council concluded its work on this topic with the release of a “what we heard” report, summarizing the discussions as well as a number of federal initiatives that currently address the issue. The report was published on the Government of Canada website in August 2019.
The Government of Canada also participates in the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for seniors forum, which works to discuss issues of importance to seniors, advance issues of common concern and focus on concrete collaborative projects. For this work cycle, one of the key priorities established by the forum is addressing abuse experienced by seniors during the pandemic and beyond. This is key in our fight against senior abuse and critical to ensuring that we collaborate with our provincial and territorial colleagues to develop policies that reflect the needs of seniors and ultimately promote their full social inclusion.
Most recently we launched the 2022-23 New Horizons for Seniors program call for proposals for community-based projects. This call for proposals closed November 1, 2022, and included a specific national priority for projects that help to prevent elder abuse. For members' awareness, the 2021-22 New Horizons for Seniors program call for proposals for community-based projects resulted in providing almost $13 million in funding to 607 organizations that identified that their project would have a focus on the national priority of preventing elder abuse and fraud. Of the 607 organizations, 419 projects have programming on elder abuse awareness as a key objective.
Through the New Horizons for Seniors program, the Government of Canada is investing in projects that address one or more of the program's five objectives, which include expanding awareness of elder abuse. In 2020-21, Justice Canada approved more than $800,000 through its victims fund to support public legal education information projects with nine organizations across Canada. With this support, these organizations produced clear, accurate and informative material on elder abuse and neglect, specifically designed to reach seniors and those responsible for their care.
I should also mention that budget 2021 invested $50 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada to design and deliver interventions that promote safe relationships and prevent family violence, including elder abuse and other forms of violence, such as child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, that put Canadians at a higher risk of experiencing elder abuse later in life.
Our top priority remains to protect Canadians' health and safety. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted long-standing and systemic challenges in infection prevention and control, staffing, infrastructure, and quality of care in long-term care homes across Canada. Canadians were really concerned and so were we.
We immediately knew that something had to be done, so we took action. To keep older Canadians safe and improve their quality of life, the federal government has been working collaboratively with provinces and territories, while respecting their jurisdiction over health care.
Through the 2020 fall economic statement, we invested up to $1 billion for the safe long-term care fund. This funding supported the provinces and territories in protecting those living and working in long-term care settings, as well as improve infection prevention and control measures.
Some of the other actions to support provinces' and territories' long-term care facilities during this time included creating volunteer inventories to support the public health response, including in the long-term care sector; deploying the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Red Cross to long-term care homes to respond to urgent needs; and accelerating training for up to 4,000 personal support worker interns to address critical labour shortages in long-term care facilities and home care.
Through budget 2021, an additional $3-billion investment will further support provinces and territories in their efforts to ensure that standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made. This includes improving the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds, as well as workforce stability measures such as wage top-ups and improvements to workplace conditions. Palliative care is also a vital service for people living with life-limiting illness, often elders, and those delivering that care.
We are committed to improving the quality and availability of palliative care for all people in Canada. Budget 2021 provided nearly $30 million to help advance the government's action plan on palliative care and build a better foundation for coordinated action on long-term and supportive care needs.
I promise that we are committed to continuing to work with provinces and territories to ensure the quality and availability of palliative care for everyone in Canada, including people living with life-limiting illnesses, caregivers, stakeholders, and communities, as well as those who are most vulnerable.
We know that better care throughout the entire health care continuum, especially supporting home and community care and long-term care, is a key component of addressing elder abuse. We also know that seniors want to stay in their homes for as long as possible when it is safe to do so.
We created the age well at home initiative, which provides practical supports to seniors who want to continue living in their own homes. This $90-million incentive, from budget 2021, helps community-based organizations provide practical support to help low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors stay in their home, again, for as long as possible.
Elder abuse is an important human rights issue, as well as a social and public health issue. Elder abuse can undermine an older person's quality of life, autonomy, dignity and sense of security. All Canadians and levels of governments play a role in preventing elder abuse. That is why we have been taking action to ensure Canadians can age with dignity and respect.
Older adults are among the fastest growing demographic groups in Canada. Data from the latest Canadian census shows that from 2016 to 2021, the number of persons aged 65 and older rose 18.3% to seven million Canadians. According to population projections, in 2051, one-quarter of the population could be 65 and older. That is why it is all the more important that we take concrete and effective prevention efforts to address elder abuse.
In the future, our actions will become more and more important as we progress in our work to better target our programming and policies directed at addressing elder abuse.
1473 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:48:28 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton West for a very short minute.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would have had longer, I am sure, if the member for Kingston and the Islands had not stood on a point of order, and probably the most ridiculous one I have heard in seven years here in the House.
Now, I am glad that at least one member of the Liberal Party is bringing forward some legislation that would help seniors. It had been promised in the government's throne speech, but of course we have not seen anything.
I am very proud to be speaking in support of the bill. Before I joined the House as the member of Parliament for Edmonton West, I lived in Victoria, where I was very proudly vice-president and then president of the greater Victoria Eldercare Foundation, Victoria's and Vancouver Island's largest seniors foundation, assisting six seniors homes.
Apparently my time is up already, but I just want to give a quick plug to—
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member will have a full nine minutes once the bill comes back for debate.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:54:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to address the question of pollution pricing.
Our government knows that putting a price on pollution remains the most effective way to fight climate change while making life more affordable for Canadians. Not only does pollution pricing ensure it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada, but for eight out of 10 Canadians who receive the climate action incentive payments, the federal pollution pricing system actually puts more money back into their pockets.
Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; addressing it is an economic necessity. The reality is that Canadians are confronted every day with more extreme events, such as floods, hurricanes and wildfires. A few months ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing that climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. Responsible governments can only grow the economy and make life more affordable for Canadians if they have a responsible climate plan. The member opposite, respectfully, has neither a credible plan for the environment nor the economy.
However, I would also like to reassure my hon. colleagues that our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and that many are worried as our country's economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates. Still, inflation in Canada is high and we know that Canadians are feeling it when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. The good news is that there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Our country has an AAA credit rating, has the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the pandemic. Also, our unemployment rate continues to be near its record low.
We do appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians. It is a difficult time for our families, friends and neighbours. That is why the government is supporting Canadians who are most affected by inflation. For example, by doubling the GST credit for six months, we will deliver $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families, including more than 50% of Canada's seniors. I thank the member opposite for supporting that measure.
Canadians will even start to see some more of these targeted measures this week. On Thursday, December 1, Canadians can begin applying for the Canada dental benefit. That means the parents of kids under the age of 12 will be able to claim $650 per child for visits to the dentist.
We are also moving forward with new measures introduced in our fall economic statement a few weeks ago. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans permanently interest-free, including those that are currently being repaid. We are making major investments in housing affordability, and our key benefits are indexed to inflation. We have a world-class child care program and have cut costs by more than 50% just this year, and we have reduced taxes for the middle class and for small businesses.
We will continue to work hard to make sure that life is more affordable in Canada and to grow an economy that works for everyone.
595 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:57:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with every word the parliamentary secretary just uttered, he emitted carbon dioxide. If Canadians could charge a carbon tax on Liberal speeches, we would retire the national debt. Sadly, the Liberals never pay the price for their verbal pollution.
This climate cult is intoxicated on green Kool-Aid. It fervently believes the end is near and we must repent for the sins of capitalism. Only by adopting the communism which the current Prime Minister openly admires can we be saved by the ravages of a warmer climate.
The Minister of Labour is obviously tired of reality not conforming to his climate creed. He is not truly tired of Canadians complaining about the winter; he is tired of winter undermining the precepts of his climate cult. Canadians are tired of the current arrogant, entitled government.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:58:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think Canadians can count on this government to continue supporting those who need it the most through targeted and fiscally responsible measures while running a tight fiscal ship. In the months ahead, we will continue to work hard to build an economy that works for everyone, to create good jobs, to make life more affordable for Canadians. Our government believes that our country is the best place in the world to live, work and thrive, and we will work hard every day to make sure we keep it that way.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 6:58:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for spending his evening with me on this very important matter. Last month, on October 24, I raised the issue of increasing EI premiums, particularly at a time when in Canada, Canadian workers and small business owners are just fighting to stay afloat.
I know there has been some debate in this place back and forth on whether it is a direct payroll tax increase. We are going to put that aside because we know that even the Prime Minister, then the member of Parliament for Papineau in 2013, described it as such. What is important is that the definition does not matter. What matters is the impact that workers and small business owners from across my riding and the country are worried about.
In this place, we have discussed the headwinds that workers are facing: rampant inflation, skyrocketing costs of living, the continued record setting of new highs by food banks, and so on. Therefore, instead I want to read into the record the other side of the equation, which is the state of our small businesses, which employ over 88% of all Canadian workers in the private labour force. I am afraid to report that it is grim.
Last week, I met with people from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who provided an update that, as I had feared, showed that Canadian small businesses continue to fight for survival. Nearly two-thirds have pandemic debt, with an average pandemic-related debt amount of $145,660. One-sixth of small business owners have considered permanently closing.
Therefore, I want to put into context what that means for workers. If we use Statistics Canada's definition of a small business as being any business with fewer than 100 employees, and the most recent employment figures by Statistics Canada, it shows that almost 6.2 million Canadian workers are employed by small businesses. That means that if one-sixth of small business owners have considered permanently closing, over one million Canadian workers are at risk.
Surely, then, considering the macro and microeconomic situation that our nation is in and the inflationary environment that workers and small business owners are facing, would my hon. colleague not agree that now is not the time to raise EI payroll taxes?
387 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Canada's small and medium-sized businesses are the heart of our economy. They define our communities, our main streets and our neighbourhoods across the country, in big cities and small villages. Helping them innovate is good for Canada, and that is why our government has addressed and continues to address barriers that are preventing them from growing.
With Bill C-32, we are proposing to cut taxes for Canada's growing small businesses, which will help them continue to grow and create good jobs. We are also working with payment card networks, financial institutions, acquirers, payment processors and businesses to lower credit card transaction fees for small businesses. We want these fees to be lowered in a manner that protects existing reward points for consumers and does not adversely affect other businesses.
We believe an agreement can be reached, but should it be the case we are not able to come to an agreement, we will introduce this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity in the new year and move forward on regulating credit card transaction fees.
We have already published draft legislation amendments to the Payment Card Networks Act, and I invite the member for Spadina—Fort York to read them and provide feedback.
We all want Canadians to have good jobs, but it is also important to keep a good social safety net, and employment insurance is certainly one aspect of it. EI is a tool that helps provide resources for people in their time of need.
I would like to remind the member for Spadina—Fort York that it is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, not the government, that sets the annual employment insurance premium rate according to a seven-year break-even rate, as forecast by the EI senior actuary. It does this every year and has done so since 2016.
The commission is a tripartite organization representing the interests of workers, employers and government. It is mandated to represent and reflect the views of its respective constituencies. The employment insurance premium rate will be $1.63 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2023. That is 25¢ less than it was in 2013 when it was $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings, and notably, this was under the management of the current Leader of the Opposition.
In June 2013, the national unemployment rate was 7.2%. It is now 5.2%. Over two million more Canadians are now working compared to June 2013, including 500,000 more since the beginning of the pandemic. The seven-year break-even mechanism ensures stable and predictable premium rates for Canadian workers and employers. In fact, annual changes to the premium rate are subject to a legislated limit of just 5¢. The mechanism is also intended to ensure EI contributions are only used for EI purposes.
This is a prudent and transparent way for EI premiums to be managed, and I do not understand exactly why the hon. member would be against it.
501 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 7:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that EI is an important tool and an important safety net. Saying this is something that is set every seven years is an easy cop-out, but the thing is that seven years ago we did not have the pandemic. Seven years ago, we were not facing the highest inflation rates and the cost of living increases in over 40 years, which is the highest it has ever been in the lifetime of half of Canadians, myself included.
Instead of his saying that this is something that is really not up to them and that it is done every seven years, I want to ask my hon. colleague to try to live in the now and the reality small businesses and workers are facing today. I will repeat the question: Will the government at least consider delaying the increase to payroll taxes to another time?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 7:06:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be clear, it is set every year on a seven-year average, not set every seven years.
In addition, it is important to reiterate our government is committed to continuing to support small businesses and help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living. I spoke earlier about what we do for small businesses.
Let me remind my colleague about our affordability plan for Canadians, a suite of measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support to help make life more affordable. This includes launching dental care for half a million kids under 12, helping 1.8 million Canadians pay their rent, doubling the GST credit for six months, enhancing the Canada workers benefit, supporting affordable early learning and child care for young families and providing a 10%-increase to old age security for seniors 75 and older. In addition, government benefits that millions of Canadians rely upon are indexed to inflation to help keep up with the cost of living.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 7:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question tonight is about the IRGC. The IRGC is the Iranian regime's tool of terror at home in Iran, its tool of terror in the wider region and its tool of terror around the world, including here in Canada. We know that Canadian citizens and people with close connections to Canada have been killed by the IRGC, most notably when the IRGC shot down flight PS752, murdering dozens of Canadian citizens and many more people with close connections to our country.
The IRGC continues to be active, advancing terror around the world. We have seen the images out of Iran of how the IRGC is terrorizing the people of Iran. We also have heard reports of death threats that continue to be made by this organization against Canadians, so Conservatives have a simple proposition in response to this horrific reality, which is that we must do everything we can to shut down the operations of the IRGC here in Canada. That means listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization within the Criminal Code.
We have a statute in the Criminal Code that is designed to allow the listing of terrorist organizations so that we can shut down their operations in Canada, prevent them from fundraising, prevent them from recruiting and prevent any member of their organization from being here or operating here freely.
I put forward a motion four and a half years ago in this place to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. We had a day-long debate. We had a vote on it. Every present member of the Liberal caucus actually voted in favour of my motion to list the IRGC. I thought that was great news. We had the two major parties in the House come together, recognizing that the IRGC is a terrorist organization and voting, in an admittedly non-binding motion, to call on the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. It should have been a given, after cabinet ministers voted to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, that they would have gone ahead and listed it as an organization.
In fact, on another issue we had the House unanimously call for the listing of Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, and Proud Boys was listed as a terrorist organization within a couple of months. In this case, it has been four and a half years. The government likes to talk about other things it has done on Iran, but I have been continuously asking the same question over the last four and a half years. The government voted to do this, so why has it not?
In four and a half years I have never gotten an answer. If the government has a good reason for not listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, it should at least provide its answer and make its case, and we would have that debate. However, we have received no response, and sadly I predict we will receive no response tonight, on that basic question.
Does the government intend to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, which is what it voted to do? If not, why not? Other measures were taken previously. The Conservative government listed the Qods Force as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code, designated Iran as a state sponsor of terror and ended diplomatic relations with Iran.
Those policies have continued under the current government, but it has not taken any substantial new steps. The latest we have heard is the Deputy Prime Minister explicitly acknowledging in a statement about a month ago that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, but the government still has not listed it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code.
Hope springs eternal. I will keep asking the question. Could the government please list this terrorist organization as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code? If it refuses, could it at least explain why it will not act?
661 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 7:11:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Madam Speaker, I speak today in this House in solidarity with and offering my full support to the brave men and women of Iran who are rising up against this brutal regime. For too long the Ayatollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the so-called morality police have repressed the Iranian people for their own gain. The brutal killing of Mahsa Amini was a spark in a long history of repression and violence the Iranian authorities have imposed on their own people. Now people from across Iranian society have risen up to demand freedom, justice and accountability.
I want to make it clear to Iranian Canadians and Iranians abroad that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada stand with them as they fight back against the shameless disregard for human rights. Our government, along with our international partners, is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law. I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, in response to these recent incidents, as well as long-term actions against Iran's systemic human rights violations.
Canada has imposed vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime, the IRGC and their leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA. These sanctions, which explicitly target the IRGC, also target several sub-organizations, including the IRGC air force and the air force missile command directly. This freezes all assets in Canada that belong to listed individuals associated with the Iranian regime, the IRGC and their leadership. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.
Our government has also listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. By doing that, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, victims of Iran's human rights abuses will be allowed to take the Iranian regime to court for damages relating to terrorism and its support of it. However, this, of course, is not enough. Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, with the Special Economic Measures Act, SEMA, to ensure all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.
Furthermore, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will work toward pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This means that 10,000 officers and senior members of the Iranian regime, including its top leaders, will be permanently inadmissible to Canada. We are doing this in a targeted way, making sure to punish those who are involved in these activities while ensuring we do not negatively impact those Canadians, our neighbours, who may have been forcibly conscripted into the organization a long time ago, despite having no affiliation with the regime today. Working with the international community, moreover, the UN Security Council has now passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which come into effect under Canadian law through the United Nations Act.
I will end as I started by letting all Canadians know, especially our Iranian Canadian community here at home, that we will not waver in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, countering terrorist threats in Canada and around the world and holding the Iranian regime accountable for its heinous crimes, human rights violations that are oppressing the freedom-loving people of Iran. We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats both in Canada and right around the world.
618 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
