Marking 20 years
of bold journalism,
reader supported.
Rights + Justice
Labour + Industry
Election 2021

The Parties’ Shared Failure on Long-Term Care

The pandemic has highlighted deep problems in seniors’ care. Our politicians chose to ignore them.

Debra Sheets 15 Sep 2021The Conversation

Debra Sheets is a professor of nursing at the University of Victoria and affiliate of the Institute on Aging & Lifelong Health at the university. This article originally appeared in the Conversation Canada here.

As a long-time researcher of the health and social impacts of dementia, I keep a constant, close eye on what governments do to support 500,000 Canadians living in residential care facilities and 7.8 million family caregivers.

Or should I say, what governments don’t do.

So far during this election campaign, I have seen little to inspire hope that any party leader recognizes the pressing needs of seniors in care, 87 per cent of whom are cognitively impaired, or of the families who devote time and energy to them.

Let’s not forget that in the first wave of COVID-19, long-term care residents accounted for 81 per cent of all COVID-19 deaths in Canada (the highest proportion of long-term care COVID-19 deaths in the world), and tens of thousands were left to suffer in isolation, for months on end.

How can the federal election agenda not include a policy ensuring families access to long-term care residents as essential visitors?

Along with loneliness, sickness and death, COVID-19 brought attention to the crucial role that family members play in supporting people in long-term care. Most caregivers are women, who bear the brunt of government inattention to the cost to their mental and physical health as they provide “free” care to their elderly loved ones, who are also mostly women. Why isn’t easing their burden, and that of their mothers and grandmothers who require care, a major platform item for our famously feminist prime minister?

A commonly cited national benchmark for quality long-term care is just over four hours a day of direct care per resident. Provincial averages vary, with New Brunswick the lowest at a mere 3.1 hours. British Columbia uses a target of 3.36 hours per day, and Manitoba averages 3.6. Family caregivers pick up the slack.

Family caregivers may visit daily for several hours to make essential contributions that include assistance in walking or mobility, psycho-social support (such as taking the senior outside to prevent social isolation) and personal care, which can include bathing, grooming, assisting with meals and dressing.

Families also assist with housekeeping, getting loved ones to appointments and doing personal laundry. In fact, these essential care partners contribute up to $66.5 billion annually in unpaid care to patients in hospital, long-term care, group care settings and home care.

In Ontario, one-third of long-term care residents do not even have the comparative luxury of family help: they depend on staff for their basic needs.

As we heard through media during the pandemic, residents who don’t have family present — and that was all of them for months — don’t get the best care from overburdened staff, who have annual turnover rates as high as 400 per cent.

The major parties’ platforms on long-term care issues make frustrating reading.

The Liberal party promises $25-an-hour wages and to ensure 50,000 more workers are hired and trained. This vow at least addresses low wages, now at $17 an hour, and the need to attract more workers.

The Conservatives say they will promote careers in long-term care through immigration, which is not new.

The NDP says it will improve working conditions for staff but offers no specifics.

The Liberals and Conservatives both promise $3 billion to fix up long-term care homes, and both parties say they will use tax credits to encourage seniors to remain in their own homes.

The NDP says it will end for-profit long-term care, which would, in fact, increase quality and safety of care for residents.

A recent analysis by the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicates that one in nine people who moved into long-term care in 2018-19 could potentially have been cared for at home.

That might be a better option, but where would the support be? The Conservatives say they would pay $200 a month to families to care for elders in their homes. That amount cannot begin to make a meaningful difference when caregivers’ lives and savings are taken over by the daily demands of helping their loved ones.

The Canadian Health Coalition argues that what is needed is a National Seniors Care Strategy to establish “consistent standards of funding, care and staffing levels across federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions.”

Long-term care homes in Canada are funded and administered through a mix of private for-profit, private non-profit and publicly owned facilities. The quality of care at publicly owned care homes is better (as measured by higher staffing levels and fewer transfers to emergency departments), yet they account for only 46 per cent of long-term care facilities in Canada. One in three facilities is for-profit; taking that profit out would increase quality.

We spend billions on care homes (ironically named, since many do not seem care-centred), public and private, where nobody wants to end up. Canadians who have spent their lives contributing to this country, with their work, taxes and community activities, deserve more at the end of their lives than to be considered a drain on the public purse.

We need high national standards for long-term care within the Canada Health Act, which currently only covers hospital and doctor services. National standards are also needed to ensure the right for seniors in long-term care homes to have essential visitors always, even in pandemics.

When no other real support is available, tax credits, token payments and aspirational words don’t cut it.

We need equitable access and quality in long-term care across the country. We need the political will and leadership to make it happen and place seniors, caregivers and workers at the moral and operational centre of long-term care. That would get my vote.The Conversation  [Tyee]

  • Share:

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion.
*Please note The Tyee is not a forum for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, denying its existence or minimizing its risk to public health.


  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others
  • Personally attack authors or contributors
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context


The Barometer

Are You Concerned about AI?

Take this week's poll