44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/17/23 1:10:23 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind all members that the topic at hand is Bill C-34.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the bill is about national security. I cannot think of a more important national security issue than a foreign country influencing our election. It is absolutely tied to this because we know that this is—
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 1:10:49 p.m.
- Watch
There is another point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be challenging your ruling. If that is the case, he should challenge the Chair, and we will allow that process to take place. It is incumbent upon all members to respect the position of the Chair and your authority. You have made a ruling on this, and now the member is challenging it.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be challenging your ruling. If that is the case, he should challenge the Chair, and we will allow that process to take place. It is incumbent upon all members to respect the position of the Chair and your authority. You have made a ruling on this, and now the member is challenging it.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 1:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
I will again remind everybody that we are speaking to Bill C-34. While we do give a lot of leeway on what we debate and discuss in this chamber, I would remind the member to come back to the bill at hand.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the authority of your chair. How this ties into the Republic of China is that it is influencing our elections, and the bill is about stopping the influence of countries like that in our economy. That is the connection. It is as clear as day.
The member across the way is engaging in distraction, suggesting that it is somehow wrong to talk about the influence China has had on two elections. Eleven candidates received illegal donations, and we have yet to find out who these individuals are. Who is protecting those 11 individuals? What are they hiding? We know this is coming from a country we have concerns with.
The bill would try to stop the undue influence on our economy, and there are reports out today saying that this country went one step further. We know that the People's Republic of China is influencing other countries through economic purchases in their economies. However, it just bypassed it all and bought a government with illegal donations, hiring people to work in elections and then sending those volunteers off to work on Liberal-friendly campaigns. Those are the reports in The Globe and Mail that are so troubling. It goes to the root of why we are are here.
Why does this all matter? We are supposed to be making choices for the benefit of this country, not for a foreign country that is, for the time being, in bed with one of the parties in Canada.
The bill needs to be strengthened. We need to do a net analysis on all transactions from the People's Republic of China. We have to bring the threshold down to zero. These are recommendations we heard at committee, and when the bill does finally get to committee, I hope we do add that. We need to add teeth to the bill.
There are a couple of things that are done well in the bill so far. One is the increase in penalties, because of inflation of all things. Everything is getting hurt by inflation. However, the bill would increase the penalties given to companies that would break this proposed act, and we are happy to note that increase. There are other common-sense things we can do to protect our economy from being bought out by the People's Republic of China.
396 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. The bill we are discussing is on the Investment Canada Act and whether we need to update it given some changes in the world.
I will ask a question that I asked earlier of a Conservative member.
Increasingly, foreign investors see the Canadian health sector as place in which they can invest. We have the example of Anbang, a Chinese insurance company that was later nationalized or seized by the Chinese government, which is a major investor in long-term care homes in my province. I wonder if the member agrees with us in the New Democratic Party that we need to update this piece of legislation before us to take into account investments like these, which put the health of Canadians at risk.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member is right on the sector aspect of the bill. The minister is the one who would decides what sectors would be exempt and the ones that would be included in this, which is another issue we have with the bill. Things can change in the regulations without a vote in this place. However, we can see where one might pick one sector over another for political benefit. This is what I believe we have in Canada right now, with the government definitely benefiting from a close and tight relationship with the Government of China and the influence it is trying to enact on our people and our economy. That is what we need to improve on.
I really look forward to getting the bill to committee so that we can put some teeth into it to do the net benefit analysis on transactions so we can see, in a transparent way, up or down, what is taking place out there and whether there are purchases of crucial parts of our economy.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data released, last year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion. Only eight of those projects were reviewed. With this bill, that number would increase to 24, which is barely 2% of foreign investment projects. Does my colleague think that is enough?
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, no, it is not enough. We need to get it down to zero dollars.
This is the virtual signalling that we have from the Liberals. Every day they talk a big game, but when they actually introduce something that is supposed to counter or to do what they have talked about, it does not. That is the most frustrating thing about being here in Ottawa. They are all talk and no action.
Here is an example where we could actually strengthen our country, through this, to make sure that purchases from foreign state enterprises are scrutizined. For whatever reason, the Liberals do not want that scrutiny. One must ask why. Why would they be hiding from the scrutiny that would come from having that transparent process, where every transaction, not even just over a dollar amount but anything more than zero, would trigger the net benefit analysis? I hope our colleagues in the Bloc would support us at committee to strengthen these measures.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, no, it is not enough. We need to get it down to zero dollars.
This is the virtual signalling that we have from the Liberals. Every day they talk a big game, but when they actually introduce something that is supposed to counter or to do what they have talked about, it does not. That is the most frustrating thing about being here in Ottawa. They are all talk and no action.
Here is an example where we could actually strengthen our country, through this, to make sure that purchases from foreign state enterprises are scrutizined. For whatever reason, the Liberals do not want that scrutiny. One must ask why. Why would they be hiding from the scrutiny that would come from having that transparent process, where every transaction, not even just over a dollar amount but anything more than zero, would trigger the net benefit analysis? I hope our colleagues in the Bloc would support us at committee to strengthen these measures.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands seems to be confused around what the bill is about.
It is about the issue of national security and doing national security reviews of takeovers. There is a long record of the government not approving national security reviews for takeovers, such as Hytera, which was charged with espionage in the United States; the Tanco Mine; and many others, and having the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency actually buy equipment from those entities.
The security issue of state-owned enterprises and interference in our country's economy and elections is what the issue is all about. I would like to give the member an opportunity to clarify a little more what the member for Kingston and the Islands seemed to be so confused about.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberal members are confused at all. They know exactly what they are doing. They are helping a foreign state actor influence our economy and now our elections. To that point, we have an example.
In 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese-based company Nuctech to supply X-ray equipment to, of all places, embassies. This is not a mistake. They are doing this on purpose. The only reason why this would be taking place is to let a foreign state actor into our embassies, to scan documents and articles going into embassies across the world. This is not incompetence; it is by design.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I even quickly put on a tie because I was a little disappointed with the comments from the member for South Shore—St. Margarets in relation to the suggestion that any member of the House would somehow be involved with undermining Canadian democracy or the Canadian economy to any extent.
I do not know where it is exactly in the procedural rules, but I think that would perhaps be a little unwarranted. I am wondering if you might be able to address that comment.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 1:20:06 p.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate. I will confer with the table, but I do not think that is a point of order.
Continuing debate, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the world has changed in recent years. It is a reality that all people in this place need to confront themselves with on behalf of their constituents. What I mean by saying that the world has changed is that there are more state actors or other countries that are becoming increasingly hostile to the interests of our country and our constituents.
As this is happening, we need to remind ourselves that our duty in this place is to protect our national sovereignty so that our constituents have bright, prosperous and safe futures, free from persecution, free from the influence of other nations that do not share our country's values of freedom, liberty, personal opportunity and diversity. These are all things we have to work really hard to maintain.
Maintaining and defending Canada's national sovereignty is a big job. There are a lot of different aspects. There is maintaining our national defence and our defensive capacity. The government really has not done a good job of that, frankly.
What we are debating today is whether we have adequate protections for our economy, in terms of protecting our national sovereignty.
When we think about hostile nation-states wanting to exert influence on our country, sometimes we are tempted to think about that problem in really Hollywood-like terms, with planes coming in and invading our country. We have, in recent days, had incursions into our airspace, which sort of proves my point further.
One of the big ways our national sovereignty has been threatened is by the lack of a legal framework and tools that prevent hostile state actors from influencing our economy in negative ways.
What I mean by that are things like being able to purchase major components of Canada's natural resources, particularly critical minerals like lithium, or even hostile state actors being able to own intellectual property on really important things for protecting national sovereignty in the future like, let us say, quantum computing.
We have a duty in this place to ensure that, with respect to nations that do not share our values but, in fact, show hostility, aggression and a desire to erode Canada's sovereignty, we put in place safeguards to prevent them from doing so.
What I think this Liberal government has done with this bill is to try to distract Canadians. They are trying to say “oh, here is a bill that might do some things”, but it really does not get to the heart of the fact that, as I have said, the world has changed and that, given that, we need to have very strong protections to ensure our sovereignty is protected. It needs protection in terms of hostile state actors influencing our economy or, in fact, even taking resources, intellectual property or other things back to their nations that could, in turn, be used to threaten our country and the people we all represent.
I do not think this bill is adequate at all. I want to talk about why, and what the government should be doing to protect our sovereignty, in terms of these economic measures.
Right now, if a state-owned enterprise, a company that is owned, in part or wholly, by another government, another country, wants to buy, let us say, a mine or something like that, that transaction should be subject to a review, both in terms of national security and in terms of whether this transaction is in the best interests of Canadians.
What this bill wants to do is take away the weak, inadequate process that exists right now, and instead of having it go through a cabinet process, where there are people from across the country, different portfolios, different lenses, looking at this, to put all that power into one minister.
I have a big concern with the government, given what it did with SNC-Lavalin. When the Prime Minister was confronted with a cabinet minister who did her job and said, “Whoa, I am not doing this”, he just shunted her aside and replaced her with a minister who was more acquiescent.
I am very hesitant to give the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, power here. Let us say he is under the influence of other nations or under lobbying influence, as we saw in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. If he is faced with that type of pressure again, I do not think he has the chops to stand firm in the best interests of Canadians because he has proven otherwise.
With this bill, the fact that issues would not go to cabinet waters down the process, which should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Certainly an amendment should be considered to remove that process. They should go to cabinet. I cannot understand why they would not.
The other thing to note is that because the world has changed, we know there are countries and state actors that employ this type of capital, like state-owned enterprises, to try to purchase major parts of the Canadian economy. There is a really high threshold in terms of dollar value for what would trigger a review under the current process. For certain countries, I feel that threshold should be zero.
There are some countries that we know are acting against the interests of Canadians and are arguably challenging our sovereignty. Any time those countries want to buy up some of our critical resources or critical intellectual property, there should be an automatic national security review to review whether this is in the best interests of the country. Then parliamentarians and the government can show accountability to our constituents and show that we are not just letting countries be hostile to our country by buying up parts of it. I think that threshold should be zero, and it should be amended in this bill.
There should also be a list of countries that have shown aggression and hostility to this country or to our allies so that they automatically get a review. If they are on this list, there is automatically a review for this type of transaction. That should also be an amendment in this bill.
The other thing to note is that the bill talks about just looking at acquisitions of companies. It is not looking at the acquisition of assets. What do I mean by that? I know there have been a lot of concerns about certain countries that have been hostile to Canada buying up farmland in Canada or buying up critical mines that produce things like lithium. This is of course a substance used in really important things like batteries. It is a really rare earth mineral, and it is important we retain sovereignty of it. If these hostile state actors are trying to avoid scrutiny by our government through a back door, there should be an asset review.
I want to circle back to why I do not think power should be consolidated in the hands of the minister. This week, our Ethics Commissioner said in an article, “The act has been there for 17 years for God’s sake”. He essentially talks about the Prime Minister, the cabinet and a lot of members in the Liberal Party not having a moral compass to know what is right and wrong, not holding the cabinet to account and letting this leader continue.
This is why the bill needs to be amended. There is too much power concentrated in a group of people who think they can get away with things that are in their best interest. When we are talking about maintaining national sovereignty, we need more safeguards and not less for these types of economic transactions.
In closing, I want to talk about what my colleague from Saskatchewan said. This morning, there was a report that said the Chinese Communist Party was directly influencing elections here in Canada. Our sovereignty is under threat, and we should be ensuring strict safeguards. We should be acknowledging the world has changed and that our constituents deserve greater levels of protection, and should be looking at how assets might be produced or taken from Canada and potentially used against us in the future.
I am worried that because this bill does so little and waters down the fiduciary authority of cabinet to look at these transactions, we are putting ourselves in a more precarious position as opposed to a stronger position, particularly given the ethical lapses of the government and particularly given the inability of the Liberal backbenchers to stand up and hold their ministers, who give contracts to their friends, to account. The Prime Minister has had two ethics violations. How is he still the leader of their party? Because of the lack of moral compass the Ethics Commissioner talked about, there need to be amendments to this bill.
1480 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 1:29:59 p.m.
- Watch
As much as we really like having people join us in the chamber, they cannot applaud or react to what is happening on the floor of the House of Commons. However, I thank them for joining us here today.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her bill.
Bill C‑295 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers to fail to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facilities.
Furthermore, 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. It would also allow the court 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.
According to the logic in this bill, filling the Criminal Code with offenses is a way to help people. We will need to take the time to study this in committee.
In practical terms, this is what the bill would do.
Sections 214 through 320.101 of the Criminal Code constitute part VIII, which deals with offences against the person and reputation. First, Bill C‑295 would add two definitions to section 214 of the Criminal Code, namely, “long-term care facility” and “manager”, for the purpose of establishing the following criminal offences.
Section 215 pertains to duties tending to preservation of life. The following would be added after paragraph 215(1)(b): “(b.1) as an owner or manager of a long-term care facility, to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facility; and”.
Paragraph 215(2)(b) of the act would be replaced by the following: “(b) 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.”
Subsection 215.1(1), pertaining to prohibition orders, would be added. This subsection would enable the court to issue a prohibition order against any person convicted under paragraph 215(2)(b). The order would prohibit the individual from “continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards an adult who is vulnerable by reason of age, illness, mental disorder, disability or frailty.” The court would decide the duration of the prohibition order and the sentence. There is no maximum or minimum.
The order can be varied by a court on application of the prosecutor or the offender if the circumstances change.
Whoever fails to comply with the order could be subject to “an indictable offence and...imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years” or to “an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
Finally, the bill introduces sentencing factors for organizations. The act is amended by adding the following after paragraph 718.21(a): “(a.1) whether the organization was under a legal duty that was owed to vulnerable adults and failed to perform that duty”.
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 obviously been the biggest victims of the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were overrepresented in the number of deaths and they suffered and continue to suffer the most from the aftershocks of the virus: isolation, anxiety and financial difficulties.
It should be noted that Quebec has legislation on elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines and protects informants who report mistreatment.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government is exercising its prerogatives through this bill. It would give investigators additional tools. The Bloc Québécois will take the time to study the issue in committee to assess the pertinence of the bill.
However, beyond prosecuting managers who may have committed or may commit criminal acts, it is important that our seniors receive services that improve their quality of life. In that regard, the Bloc Québécois wants to underscore the other important role the federal government must play in health care, that is, to increase health transfers to 35% of the costs of the system, rather than sign the bargain-basement deal that has just been reached.
Finally, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that these horror stories are not to be used as a pretext for the federal government to impose national standards on long-term care facilities. I would remind the House that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously denounced the idea of imposing federal standards on long-term care facilities and is demanding a much more substantial increase in health transfers than what is provided for in the deal this government has managed to force down the throats of the provinces.
On December 2, 2020, the minister responsible for seniors and informal caregivers moved the following motion:
THAT the National Assembly reject the Government of Canada's desire to impose Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly, as this falls under exclusive Québec jurisdiction;
That it express its disappointment that the federal government did not include an increase in health transfer payments in its last economic update, while the provinces must cover significant health spending costs in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic;
That it call on the federal government to commit to not imposing Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly and to increasing health transfer payments to an amount equal to 35% of healthcare network costs.
I think it is worth revisiting this motion. The Bloc Québécois supports the unanimous position of the National Assembly and condemns the centralizing vision that pervades the House.
I also want to remind the House that Quebec has already come up with solutions. In her report of November 23, 2021, the Quebec ombudsman identifies shortcomings and recommends measures that the Government of Quebec needs to take to ensure that this never happens again. For example, the report suggests a risk assessment and management policy, a detailed plan for strengthening long-term care homes' capacity, a personal protective equipment supply strategy, a Quebec plan for deploying emergency personnel, protocols for deploying extra staff under exceptional circumstances, a Quebec strategy for combatting labour shortages, updated computer systems, a national action plan developed by the Quebec department of health and social services to recognize the complexity of care and service provision in long-term care homes, the adoption of legislative measures that define the guiding principles that must be followed regarding living environment quality and organization, and the establishment of the procedure for applying them by regulatory means.
Quebec already has ideas for fixing this situation. The federal government knows nothing about the reality on the ground or about these specific hospital settings, so it is not likely to be able to improve things.
In response to this report, the Government of Quebec presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives.
Additionally, the coroner is still investigating, and some people are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities. In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. The problems are not going to be fixed by the federal government blundering in with its standards, unwanted and unwelcome.
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. I hope that this know-it-all government has understood that. 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.
Unfortunately, the Liberals are pleased as punch to have shortchanged the provinces by offering them six times less than they said was needed to get the health care system working properly. These Liberals are puffed up with pride at the cheap deal they scored, but the problems and hardships in hospitals and long-term care homes will continue because of the government's negligence.
1485 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1339 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
