When COVID-19 overwhelmed long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec in spring 2020, the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to provide emergency assistance. What military personnel encountered shocked the nation: seniors left in soiled beds for days, residents crying out for help that never came, dehydration, malnutrition, and preventable deaths. The military's reports documented conditions that many described as horrific. This deployment revealed systemic failures in long-term care and raised profound questions about how Canada cares for its most vulnerable citizens—and what role, if any, the military should play in civilian health emergencies.
The Deployment
Operation LASER
In April and May 2020, as COVID-19 spread through long-term care facilities, provincial governments requested federal assistance. The Canadian Armed Forces deployed approximately 1,700 personnel to 54 facilities in Ontario and Quebec under Operation LASER. Military nurses, medics, and general duty personnel provided direct care to residents, supported infection control, and worked alongside—and sometimes in place of—civilian staff who had fled or fallen ill.
What the Military Found
Internal reports from the deployment documented devastating conditions. In some facilities, residents had not been fed, bathed, or changed for extended periods. Infection control measures were absent or inadequate. Staff were overwhelmed, undertrained, or simply not present. Some residents had been left alone with dying roommates. Cockroaches and insects infested some facilities. The reports described conditions that met or approached abuse and neglect.
These conditions did not emerge only because of the pandemic. COVID-19 exposed and exacerbated longstanding problems in a system that had been failing residents for years. Chronic understaffing, low wages, poor training, and inadequate oversight created vulnerabilities that the virus ruthlessly exploited.
Understanding the Crisis
Systemic Failures in Long-Term Care
Canada's long-term care system is primarily provincially regulated and largely privately delivered. For-profit chains operate a significant share of facilities, particularly in Ontario. Research conducted before and after the pandemic consistently shows that for-profit facilities have higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths, likely related to lower staffing levels, more overcrowding, and older physical infrastructure.
Staff in long-term care are predominantly women, many of them racialized or immigrants. They are chronically underpaid, often working part-time at multiple facilities to cobble together a living wage. This practice of working at multiple homes facilitated the spread of COVID-19. When the pandemic struck, some staff could not afford to stay home; others left an untenable situation.
The Role of Privatization
The military reports reignited debates about privatization in long-term care. Critics argue that for-profit operators prioritize shareholder returns over resident care, cutting staff and services to boost margins. Industry defenders counter that public and non-profit facilities also experienced outbreaks and that adequate funding, not ownership model, is the key factor. The evidence, while contested, suggests that ownership matters and that for-profit facilities on average provide lower quality care.
Regulatory and Oversight Failures
Long-term care facilities are inspected by provincial authorities, but inspections had become less frequent and less rigorous in the years preceding the pandemic. Complaints mechanisms existed but were often ineffective. Residents and families who raised concerns faced retaliation or dismissal. The pandemic revealed that regulatory systems designed to ensure quality care were inadequate to the task.
The Military's Role
Emergency Response Capacity
The military deployment demonstrated that the Canadian Armed Forces have capacity to respond to domestic emergencies. Personnel adapted quickly to an unfamiliar care environment. Their presence stabilized facilities, provided basic care, and likely saved lives. The deployment showed what properly resourced and coordinated response could accomplish.
Documentation and Accountability
Perhaps the military's most significant contribution was documenting what they found. The reports, initially internal, were made public and galvanized attention. They provided official confirmation of conditions that advocates and families had long described but that had not achieved public prominence. Military credibility lent weight to accounts that might otherwise have been dismissed or minimized.
Limitations and Concerns
Military deployment in civilian care settings raises concerns. Military personnel are not trained for long-term care; their deployment was an emergency measure, not a model. Using the military normalizes what should be unacceptable—that civilian systems have failed so completely that armed forces must intervene. Some worry about mission creep, with the military increasingly called upon to address civilian failures in areas from flood response to pandemic care.
The military itself has faced criticism for its own institutional problems, including sexual misconduct scandals. Presenting the military as rescuers while civilian systems fail oversimplifies both military capacity and civilian shortcomings.
Aftermath and Accountability
Legal and Criminal Investigations
Following the military reports, various investigations were launched. Police investigated some facilities for potential criminal neglect. Coroner's inquests examined deaths. Regulatory bodies reviewed licenses. Civil lawsuits were filed. As of the time of this summary, many of these processes remain ongoing, and meaningful accountability has been limited. Few individuals or organizations have faced significant consequences.
Policy Responses
Governments announced various responses to the long-term care crisis. Ontario committed to increased inspections and staffing standards. The federal government proposed national standards for long-term care, though implementation remains uncertain given provincial jurisdiction. Some funding increases were announced. Yet fundamental reform—addressing ownership models, staffing levels, and funding adequacy—remains incomplete.
Families and Advocates
For families who lost loved ones in preventable circumstances, the aftermath has been painful. Many describe feeling abandoned by systems that should have protected vulnerable people. Family councils and advocacy groups have pushed for stronger accountability and systemic change. Their voices, while occasionally heard in policy discussions, often go unheeded when political will fades.
Broader Questions
How We Value Care
The long-term care crisis reflects how Canadian society values—or fails to value—care work and those who receive it. Care workers are poorly compensated despite performing essential, difficult work. Elderly and disabled people in care facilities are often invisible until crises force attention. A society that truly valued care would invest in it differently.
Emergency Preparedness
The pandemic revealed that Canada was unprepared for a public health emergency in congregate care settings. Personal protective equipment was lacking. Infection control expertise was insufficient. Staff could not be rapidly mobilized. These failures suggest the need for better emergency planning specifically for vulnerable populations in institutional settings.
Military Deployment in Civilian Crises
The CAF deployment raises questions about when and how the military should be used domestically. Climate change is increasing demands on the military for disaster response. Pandemic preparedness may include contingencies for future deployments. If the military becomes a regular responder to civilian system failures, what does that say about those systems? And what does it do to the military's primary roles?
The Path Forward
Staffing and Working Conditions
Meaningful reform requires addressing the conditions of care workers. This means higher wages, benefits, and full-time positions with one employer. It means appropriate staffing ratios that allow care rather than just basic survival. It means respect for work that is essential but undervalued.
Ownership and Accountability
Some advocate for moving away from for-profit long-term care entirely, expanding public and non-profit provision. Others call for stronger regulation that ensures quality regardless of ownership. Either approach requires political will to prioritize resident care over industry interests.
National Standards
The federal proposal for national long-term care standards faces jurisdictional challenges but addresses the reality that quality of care should not depend on which province one lives in. Standards could address staffing, physical environment, infection control, and accountability mechanisms. Implementation would require negotiation, funding, and enforcement capacity.
Questions for Further Discussion
- What accountability is owed to residents and families affected by failures in long-term care during the pandemic?
- Should for-profit operation of long-term care facilities be permitted, and if so, under what conditions?
- What role should the federal government play in establishing and enforcing standards for long-term care?
- How should Canada prepare for future health emergencies affecting vulnerable populations in care settings?
- When, if ever, is military deployment appropriate in civilian health or social care settings?