November 29, 2006
ORDERS OF THE DAY LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2006

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise today to bring forward concerns from seniors and long-term-care providers in my riding, the great riding of Oxford.
On October 3, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care introduced a bill entitled Bill 140, An Act respecting long-term care homes. Concerned caregivers and their families called Bill 140 a "care less act."

One of the many promises that the McGuinty Liberals made during the 2003 election was to provide increased funding of $6,000 and 20 minutes of additional daily care for each long-term-care resident. This bill, of course, does nothing of the kind. Bill 140 breaks that promise to seniors. People have worked hard throughout their lives and now deserve to live in comfort and dignity.

Last Friday I met with representatives of peopleCare nursing home in Tavistock, Maple Manor Nursing Home in Tillsonburg, Oxford Regional Long-Term Care Facility in the great town of Ingersoll, and Caressant Care facilities in Woodstock.

These providers of nursing home service in Oxford were very concerned with Bill 140 and the impact that it would have on their long-term-care facilities.

In their visit to my office, they brought postcards signed by hundreds of my constituents -- people who are presently in long-term-care facilities, people who have family in long-term-care facilities and just general community people.

I just want to read for the record what the people who signed these postcards wrote, and which they brought to my office on the expectation that I would bring them here to Queen's Park and tell the government how they felt about --

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Is that the "forgotten" campaign?

Mr. Hardeman: Yes. The member from Durham asked about what the campaign is. It says, "The Ontario government has forgotten. Help the government remember." I don't bring these in as a prop, Mr. Speaker. This is strictly based on what the people asked me to bring here to Queen's Park.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll be the judge of that.

Mr. Hardeman: Exactly. Thank you very much, Speaker. I just wanted to explain my position.

The postcard reads, "The recently proposed Long-Term Care Homes Act promises comfort and dignity for all long-term-care residents, but for over 35,000 of them who live in older homes, the promise is empty.

"They will continue to live in three- or four-bed wards and to line up in wheelchairs for crowded dining rooms, uncertain even about the future of their homes in their communities.

"They are the forgotten. Government has no vision or plan for them.

"Instead of a commitment to secure their future and their home, this legislation:

" -- limits the operating licence of their home to as little as 10 years, with no answer to their question of what happens next, and

" -- makes no commitment to fund the structural renewal of the older (B and C) homes as is being done for new homes and recently rebuilt (D) homes.
"Please ask government to remove the cloud of uncertainty they have placed over these residents, their families and communities by amending the proposed licensing scheme and committing to fund the renewal of older homes now.

"They deserve a commitment and plan now, not 10 years from now."
As I said, well over 300 were presented to me last Friday, and more are arriving in my office each and every day. I think it's very important that we have them on the record and to understand what this bill does to our long-term-care facilities. I read into the record a few moments ago the ones that visited mine.
We will all know in this House that a number of years ago the previous government put a program in place that would supplement the daily fee per resident for D homes that needed to be upgraded to A homes. When that upgrading was done, the owners of that facility would use the extra money per day to fund the capital cost of that home.

As that has moved along, of course, we have the B and the C facilities that need to be upgraded to that same standard as the D homes have been upgraded to, but they have no program in place that will fund that capital expenditure. The extra funding that went into the homes that have presently been built is not extended to a C facility home. Where would the owner of that home now get the financing and the ability to upgrade that home?

Of course, the first thing we would hear from the government is that they should go to the bank and borrow the money to build the upgraded home, but when they go to the bank to arrange for the mortgage, the banker says, "Mr. Operator, how do you intend to pay off the mortgage on this facility?" which we all agree should be provided for our residents. And the operator says, "Well, we'll do our best, but the revenue stream that's presently coming in is all I'm going to have.
Furthermore, I'm guaranteed only 10 more years of that and then I have no idea what will happen to this home, because my licence is only for a 10-year period." I think the bank manager would be very quick in saying, "I think maybe you're in the wrong place to get financing for such a venture, because obviously the ability to pay us back is not what we would look for on that type of deal."

Residents who move into a long-term-care home are in need of care, not simply a place to live. Bill 140 puts the emphasis on paperwork and processes, reducing the time focused on caring for residents. And again, that is even extended beyond if the owner of the home actually invests in the capital; that will provide even less money for the care that's presently being provided.

I want to say to everyone here that in the homes I've been in in Oxford county, the care is exemplary and the people who work there work exemplarily hard to try to provide the care that our citizens need. It's the facilities that need the funding to upgrade.

Long-term-care providers in Oxford that I met with expressed many of the same concerns that my colleagues here in the Legislature have been expressing in this House ever since Bill 140 was introduced. Instead of being a plan and a real commitment to improve living standards for seniors, Bill 140 penalizes older long-term-care homes.

As I said, they cannot upgrade and they will eventually lose their licence. That means they're also penalizing the residents of their home. It was just pointed out to me that Madge Hall in Centennial Place in Millbrook has great concerns for what her future will look like in the nursing home, because she is in one of these homes that would not get a licence beyond the 10 years.

Even if they do want to upgrade long-term-care homes, they're getting caught in the cycle again, as I mentioned: To upgrade, they need to spread the cost over the long term, and if they can't get a licence for the long term, obviously they can't upgrade.

The postcards say that under this legislation those seniors are the forgotten and that the government has no vision or plan for them.
It's hard enough for many seniors to move from their homes into a nursing home. For the government to then create that level of uncertainty is unfair and, in my opinion, unacceptable.

I'm calling on the government to do the right thing and make a long-term-care investment in Ontario's nursing homes so our seniors can live in comfort and security, as they deserve, and to make sure they have the assurances that as long as they need to stay in the home they're presently in, it will be there to provide the care they are entitled to, that we as their offspring have an obligation to provide for them in the years when they need that care.

Again, I urge the government to change the bill in order to provide for security for our seniors in our nursing homes.