Questions?

I have to say, I’m surprised the government isn’t standing up defending this substantial bill before us, but they aren’t, so here I am.

There are a few things I want to say about the bill before I go into detail. One is that environmental assessments are one of the few tools that people have to protect their interests and to protect the larger interests of Ontarians around environmental issues. When you propose changes that don’t, in fact, enhance protection of the environment or the population, one has to be very suspicious about what those changes really will deliver on.

We believe that the environment, those of us who depend on the environment—so all living humans—should be protected, and we have grave concern about this proposal to reduce the period for consideration of commentary by people on environmental initiatives.

I have to say, Speaker, you’ve sat through question period on a regular basis. You, for your sins, have sat in that chair when we’ve debated bills. You have heard what goes on or does not go on in committees. And as you’re well aware, interest in commentary or public input is extraordinarily low. This government, in its behaviour towards environmental matters, has a very consistent record, and that is one of ignoring environmental concerns. This is a government that’s involved right now in carving up the greenbelt, involved in deals that are generally seen as shady, smelly, smoky—take your pick.

When you have a government that is undermining its own credibility by not trying to appear above reproach, you have to ask substantial questions about what actually is going to happen when even the smaller changes to environmental protection are undermined.

We’ve seen in the past the abuse of ministerial zoning orders to ram through developer deals despite the opposition of local communities, except, of course, when a minister’s interests are involved, as a minister in northern Toronto was upset about some low-income housing—that being put on the back burner.

And as my colleague from Spadina-Fort York can attest in great detail, this is a government spending about $650 million of public money which is going to enable the giveaway of a massive chunk of Ontario Place to a for-profit company based out of Austria. Ontario Place is a lakefront park meant for all Ontarians, not to be sold off. Any other park that you start selling off chunks of, in this city or anywhere else in the province, raises substantial questions. This government is just acting as if this is normal, and to be fair, for them, it is normal.

So let’s look at what’s in the bill. Schedule 1, the Environmental Assessment Act: It’s an amazingly small bill, so I’ll just give it the quick treatment. The changes to the Environmental Assessment Act allow the environment minister to waive the 30-day waiting period currently required following the end of a class EA comment before granting an approval to proceed with an undertaking.

Speaker, the reason you have a waiting period is the assumption that the minister will actually think about what came in. It will provide a period when those who have participated in any consultation process will have an opportunity informally to go to the minister and say, “An awful lot of people have concerns here. You have the power to address those concerns. We ask you, Minister, to address them.”

The other part of this bill, Ministry of Infrastructure Act, allows the ministry to assume control of real estate interests of prescribed entities that currently manage their own real estate interests. Now, this is fascinating: The real estate services for these entities will presumably move to Infrastructure Ontario, which oversees real estate services for most government properties.

What’s interesting here is that apparently the government claims that this change—giving more power to Infrastructure Ontario—is a response to the Auditor General’s 2017 report on real estate. I went and looked at the Auditor General’s report. She was pretty tough on what was going on, on what was being done by Infrastructure Ontario, and I don’t see anything in this bill, nor have I heard any public statement from the government, that they’re actually going to deal with the problems at Infrastructure Ontario. Manifests that were called out, pointed out in 2017—I’ll just note a few. In 2017, the Auditor General found that “Almost $19 million was spent in” one year “on operating and maintaining 812 vacant buildings.”

That’s a lot of buildings, if you’re just pouring money out and you’re not using places—money that could be used for housing, could be used for upgrading other buildings. Possibly the vacant buildings could be used to relocate government services so that we aren’t paying rent to someone else. That doesn’t strike me as a very well-managed portfolio.

She noted, “Capital repair funds” were being “used to fund operating costs for managing government properties.”

I used to be a property manager in the co-op housing sector. I didn’t use capital funds for operating. And I’ll be honest; I mean, I picked it up as I went along. I went to a few workshops. I talked to others, talked to property managers, and they were all pretty clear: You don’t mix the two streams, not if you’re running an above-board shop. So that is a real concern.

The Auditor General also noted, “Office space per person exceeds the Ministry standard.” So we were spending more overall on real estate than we needed to. That’s the agency that the government wants to move more real estate control into.

I haven’t heard—and maybe I will be surprised. Maybe I will be shocked, Speaker, and go home tonight and say, “I had no idea.” Maybe the government has dramatically reformed Infrastructure Ontario so that none of these things would be repeated. However, I have my doubts.

I also want to say a bit more about the environmental assessment end. As I said before, the reason for the 30 days is to give people an opportunity—sorry, bureaucracy and political decision-makers—some time to think about what’s at hand. One would hope that having explored, having investigated, having listened to the people, that a thoughtful bureaucrat, a thoughtful minister would take corrective action where necessary or conclude that the information given has validated the initial assumptions. One of the questions that came up earlier to one of my colleagues was about the need for efficiency and deregulation. I don’t know about you, but I was around when the Walkerton water crisis happened. Deregulation—voluntary rules instead of actual regulation—were central to that crisis, that catastrophe, that loss of life. An initiative to peel away regulations that protect life and health make no sense to me. That is not efficiency; that is irresponsibility.

I’ll give you another example of deregulation on a larger scale that didn’t involve tainted water but did involve tainted finances. You were here, I think, Speaker, in 2008, during the international financial crisis. We grilled the government of the day about their behaviour. They actually bought into it. They had hundreds of millions of dollars of—what can I say?—paper assets that were of no consequence anymore, and we went after them on that. People should understand that that crisis at heart was a failure of the regulatory system, that the companies that packaged and sold those junk financial products were unregulated.

So when a government pursues a deregulation strategy, I see both tainted water and financial chaos. And in both cases, in the aftermath—at least with the water, some steps were taken substantially to protect people’s health. I think with regard to the financial crisis, not as many steps were taken. That remains a work in progress—well, a work unfinished and untouched.

Speaker, I don’t support this bill, and I don’t have confidence that the government will protect either our real estate holdings or the environment.

Further debate?

Thank you to the member for Toronto–Danforth for taking the time to look into the Auditor General’s report and sharing with the House what the Auditor General found when they did a deep dive into Infrastructure Ontario.

I’ve just got a general question: When this government is looking at changing the environmental assessment process again—I would call it weakening the environmental assessment process. What are the consequences of weakening the environmental assessment process? What happens when you start doing things like that?

Questions for the member for Toronto–Danforth?

I thank the member for Essex for the question. It’s a good one. I don’t know what the optimal number is. I do know that the agencies that are listed, generally speaking, have negligible holdings. And I do know Infrastructure Ontario in 2017 was the object of a scathing report by the Auditor General on poor practice.

So if you’re in fact moving real estate holdings, and maybe relatively small ones, to an agency that has been found—let’s be generous—wanting by the Auditor General, I have to ask, why on earth are you doing it? Why are you not taking steps in this bill to set standards for management of real estate so that we aren’t paying millions of dollars for vacant properties, so that we aren’t over-housing our workforce, so that we aren’t mixing our capital on our operating funds? If you were doing that, I think that would be a far more interesting debate. I don’t think 14 or 20 or five is the critical thing; I think the critical thing is, do you have good management practice? I have no assurance that, in fact, is what will come out of this bill.

You may well be aware, Speaker, that within the past few years, in New York City, a very severe storm caused about a dozen people to drown in their basement apartments. So if you do not actually pay attention to environmental standards, environmental issues, you put at risk life and property—and health, may I add. So undermining those protections that, over decades, we’ve built up makes no sense at all.

I’ll just note, again, if I have time, the recent example in East Palestine, Ohio, where the railroad disaster, in many cases, is being attributed to deregulations by the Trump administration. Environmental assessment, health and safety regulations are all part of the same package. If you neglect them, you put people’s lives, property and health at risk.

I was talking to a small landlord last night. He’s got a condo on Carlaw Avenue in my riding, and he can’t get a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Why is that? Because you guys didn’t appoint people at the level necessary to have proper functioning of that board. That’s not efficiency; that is neglect. That means tenants are getting beat up. That means that small landlords are getting beat up. That’s not efficiency. You know what that is: That’s chaos.

When you bring forward a bill that says that you’re going to sort out the real estate issues, do you actually have standards within the bill saying that you can’t have a huge portfolio of vacant buildings that we’re paying for? That we’re going to have a standard for space per employee that doesn’t mean we’re overhoused and, thus, wasting money—which is what you’re doing. You’re not setting a standard. You’re turning it all over to an agency that the Auditor General raked over the coals.

If you want efficiency, set smart standards and enforce them. When you actually start doing that, I might think that you’re trying to deal with efficiency. Right now, all you’re interested in is deregulation, and making some people incredibly wealthy and making other people eat that in terms of risk to their lives and property and in terms of their health.

I thank the member from Toronto–Danforth for his comments today. This government has got quite the record on real estate holdings, and these are the holdings that actually belong to the people of this province.

We’ve seen them try to pave over the Duffins wetlands for a deal that they’ve made, apparently, with the developer, who’s going to be leasing it out to Walmart or Costco. Then there was another deal, the foundry. They’ve made a deal with the developer to demolish these heritage buildings at the foundry.

At Ontario Place, they’ve made a deal with two international private, for-profit companies that have nothing to do with Ontario, and they’ve committed Ontarians to spending an estimated $650 million to prepare the site, only to hand it over on a long-term lease to this private, for-profit company.

The second part of this bill actually consolidates the real estate holdings of the people of this province in one agency. Do you have confidence, based on their lack of stewardship of public property, that this will lead to better performance, that this will lead to actual proper stewardship of the land and the property that belongs to the people of this province?

My thanks to the member for Davenport for participating this afternoon. I have to say, it was very interesting to hear the member opposite speak with such concern about a piece of legislation that is going to ensure that we have more efficient government. But I think the take-away I had from it—and it’s a bit of a surprising one, given the feedback that I’ve heard from the member opposite over the last few years—is that he seems to think that the PC government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, is already so efficient that this bill unnecessary. He seems to think that we don’t need to have a bill that’s reducing inefficiencies here in the government of Ontario. I can’t speak for all my colleagues, but I can testify that the attitude the Premier brings forward is that better is always possible.

My question to the member opposite is, if he believes that we are such an efficient government already, does he also not believe that better is always possible and that we need to make sure we’re passing legislation such as this to address any inefficiencies that might still exist?

I have to say to the member, I wish I had written that question to give to you so that I could claim credit for it, because I enjoyed it so much.

First, I’ll be direct right off the top: No, I don’t have confidence that they’ll actually manage this properly or look after the public interest. The Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve came into existence because the people of Ontario put big bucks into it; they preserved that land. It’s part of flood control. It’s part of agriculture pro-duction. We’re seeing it being dismantled by this government, who is effectively transferring wealth in the hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of speculators. I would say that anyone who does that, any government that does that, has abandoned even the most simple principles of government, which is to sell things off at a profit rather than give them away to friends who will sell them off at a profit. I find it extraordinary that they would do it. I don’t find it extraordinary that they would attack the environment to that extent.

The member for Spadina–Fort York has a point of order.

It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and debate the issues of the day and today Bill 69, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure. This bill talks about consolidation of real estate holdings of the province and about a change to the Environmental Assessment Act.

Many of you may know, and for those of you who didn’t, you’re going to find out: I’m actually here because of the Environmental Assessment Act. I have an interest in the Environmental Assessment Act because we fought a large issue in my part of the world and it was fully approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. The local people didn’t believe that it was fairly approved, accurately approved. We continued to fight it and this Legislature passed a law stopping that project. But in that process, I was personally sued by the proponent of the project—and I don’t blame the proponent, actually. The Adams Mine Lake Act stopped the project, but I almost lost my farm because it didn’t do anything about the SLAPP suit.

I was approached by the New Democratic Party to run in a provincial election to bring focus on that issue. I ran in that provincial election for the one goal, to bring focus to that lawsuit, to hopefully get rid of it, and however that happened, three days before the writ dropped, the company dropped the lawsuit.

I didn’t win that election. We came within 634 votes, I believe, of taking out a very popular cabinet minister, a very good MPP: Mr. David Ramsay. And Mr. David Ramsay announced his retirement and we came so close that I thought, “You know what? If I don’t try again, I might never know if I can do this job.” And I’m still trying to figure that out.

That’s how I got here. So my ears always perk up when I hear about the Environmental Assessment Act and when I hear words like, “We have the strongest Environmental Assessment Act in the province, in the world.” I always, “Okay, but.” No one wants red tape, but we do want regulations that actually work.

We’re currently dealing in my riding with an issue that has to do with the Environmental Assessment Act. I’ve brought this issue up several times in the Legislature. I’m going to bring it up again today.

I give credit where credit is due: The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has looked into this issue. We don’t agree on exactly everything that’s wrong, but he did take the time—I would say he’s knee-deep in this issue.

Okay, everyone in my part of the world knows that was a dairy farm. They milked 100 cows there. Some of the buildings are still there and the lagoon is still there. So we asked about the well and we were told there was no well, even though the site was approved. It was engineered and approved. All the boxes were clicked.

Now, everyone knew there was a well there, but the consultation process—under the rules, the way I understand them, everyone within 500 metres of the site has to be notified. The two places that were notified had a personal relationship with the person applying for the business and there was no other notification, except on the Environmental Registry. If there is no public notification, how do you actually get the right information?

The site was approved, there was sewage being dumped into it, and everyone except the MOE knew there was an abandoned well on that property—everyone. Yet all the boxes were clicked. We kept pushing and at some point the MOE realized, yes, there is an abandoned well. It has never been decommissioned and we’re going to have to look into that. Then the MOE kicked into gear.

Again, I’m not blaming the ministry for this. There’s something wrong with the process, because the purpose of consultation is to find the most information that you can. When everyone around the neighbourhood knew there was a well there, but no one in the neighbourhood knew that that construction site—they saw there were backhoes building something, but they didn’t know it was going to be a human storage lagoon. And when we, including myself, went to the MOE we were told, “No, no, no, you’re wrong. This is a new site.” No, no, no.

Then, when they did acknowledge there was a well there, it became apparent that part of the concrete from the original farm was in the storage lagoon. And anyone who knows anything about farms—there’s all kinds of pipes under concrete. All of a sudden, it was then an emergency because that well could be connected to that lagoon underneath that concrete, and the concrete was in the plans of the structure. So they told me, “No, this is not an old dairy lagoon,” but the legacy concrete from the farm was in the plans.

So something is wrong with the system. I’m not blaming anyone within the ministry, but the consultation sucked because it didn’t do its job. Now we are still wondering about other legacy infrastructure underneath the ground at that site, because in the clay belt in Timiskaming, we’ve got 100 feet of clay and it’s very impervious. It’s great for earth and lagoons. But that farm has been there for a long time, so for the last 100 years, those farmers have been doing everything they can to drain that impervious clay. So all around that site, there could be random tiles, systematic tiles, pipes—we don’t know what they did in the last 100 years, and we don’t see there’s been any account for it.

So when people tell me that we’ve got the best environmental assessment system in the country, I question it, because 20 years ago, when we brought up issues on Adams mine, we were told, “Oh, no, no, no. You’re wrong.” And now, 20 years later, on a smaller project, we got the same answer: “No, no, no. That’s not right.” And again, we had to push to make them acknowledge there was a well.

There’s something wrong with our system, and changing these periods isn’t going to make it better.

So are we.

I’m wondering if I could beg the indulgence of the House. On March 1, 1958, my parents were married. Yesterday marked the 65th wedding anniversary for Len and Gwen Glover, and I’m wondering if I could have a round of applause from the members of the House. Thank you.

Applause.

The presentation was extremely helpful. I wanted to share with you an experience I’ve had at city council where I’ve seen different types of environmental assessments placed before different Ministers of the Environment in different administrations and, depending on the type of assessment and what the cities were oftentimes asking for, you would get different speeds of response. For example, assessments around bike lanes or perhaps sidewalk widening and inclusion of bike lanes and road narrowing—it takes a long time for any Minister of the Environment to come out and approve it. Assessments with respect to urban sprawl that may have impact on endangered species or perhaps has impacts on flood protection, sometimes that happens a little quicker.

But in this legislation, the schedule allows the minister to use discretion on whether or not she then waives the 30-day notice, but there’s no prescription to what would lead them to that decision. Does that trouble the member of the House?

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to our member for, once again, a passionate presentation.

I want to reiterate in this House that it was the Conservative government that slashed the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s office. To me, that really does demonstrate a lack of sincerity with regard to our environment.

So the environmental assessment period—I understand the government wants to waive the 30 days, which takes away an opportunity for folks to speak up and share their concerns. Learning about the bill and chatting with some folks, I understand that issues near and dear to Indigenous community members may be missed if those comments aren’t listened to by the government.

Communities that are concerned with environmental racism, with gentrification, with overdevelopment pushing them out will not be heard by the government with that 30-day waiver.

I’m wondering if the member can share with us what they feel is the purpose. What is the purpose of removing that 30-day opportunity to hear from our communities? How are community members to trust what this government has to say if they are removing an opportunity for transparency and accountability, if they’re removing the voice of the community members impacted by these environmental assessments?

I always enjoy our conversations, both here and outside of here, with the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane. In fact, as I look around the room this afternoon, I am so pleased to know that everyone I see in here is in here for the right reasons, and that’s because they care about their communities deeply. That kind of goes against the grain of what you read in the media today, actually, about how all politicians are liars and in it for bags of money and things like that. But I appreciate knowing that I have colleagues on the opposite of the side of the House—even though we’re on the same side of the House—who feel the same way about their communities as I do.

My question is—continuous improvement. What I see in this bill is a small step on the path—a thousand miles starts with one step—of continuous improvement. I was just wondering if the member could say that looking for continuous improvement in the actions that we take as government is a good thing and that we should continue to do so?

What I don’t see is a connection between the amount of time that EA consultation took and the fact it wasn’t done correctly, from what you said. I don’t know if changing the time frame on that would have had a negative impact on that so much. So I was curious what his link is between his presentation and what we’re trying to do to speed things up as far as timing goes. I mean, if the process isn’t done right, it’s not done right regardless of the time, and so I was wondering if he could connect those dots here in debate.

Questions to the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane?

I thank you for the sincerity of that question. I would like to respond, in all sincerity, that I’m not sure that taking out potential time in the comment period is an improvement, because the consultation period in the waste lagoon didn’t work, because it was over and no one knew what was happening. So I’m not sure if this is an improvement, and I say that with all sincerity.

I’m not saying that’s with every project, but that’s what this bill says to me, as someone who has experienced, twice in my life, problems with the MOE. I’m concerned that this bill is not sending the right message to people—not for the government, either. They need to believe that the assessment process works.

I move that, in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should follow the lead of eight other Canadian provinces and ensure PSA testing is an eligible procedure under OHIP for individuals referred by their health care provider.

However, before I begin my speech today, I want to take some time to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for all their hard work and their advocacy on this issue. I’d also like to thank Anthony Henry, who is here in the gallery. Thanks for coming. I really appreciate it. Anthony is someone who has not only been greatly impacted by prostate cancer, but he’s also an activist. He works every day to educate Black men about prostate cancer, the increased risk to them and the importance of screening. He works through the Walnut Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society and is helping to save lives. Thank you for that. I’m proud to share your story today and I thank you for being here.

Mr. Speaker, today isn’t a day to sit back and discuss stats and numbers on the problems of prostate cancer. It’s a day to face the human side of this health issue. In 2022, nearly 1,800 people were projected to die from prostate cancer in this province. That number is way too high. That means that five men are going to die today from prostate cancer. If we, as legislators, can reduce that number by even one by passing this motion, our work is worthwhile, because, at the end of the day, that one life was somebody’s father, grandfather, son or partner. It was a person in this world who was valued, and they did not deserve to have their life cut short.

Right now in the province of Ontario, the PSA tests are not fully covered. Quite frankly, that’s a shame. These simple blood tests are a key screening tool for early detection of prostate cancer. This is also very important. Eight other provinces in Canada cover the test. They saw the importance of it. It removes the barriers for early detection and saves lives. It’s time that Ontario follows their lead.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details on how important this test is and the real life consequences that exist when we continue to put up barriers for testing, I want to talk about the history of how this motion came to be. It was in 2018. I was knocking on doors in Fort Erie—many of us do that during campaigns. A number of men at the door stopped me and asked why the test wasn’t covered. They asked why the PSA test wasn’t covered, forcing them to pay nearly $50 out of their pocket, which they couldn’t afford. I was actually stumped. I honestly never realized such an important, vital test wasn’t fully covered by our health insurance in Ontario. It felt wrong.

So after the campaign, my staff and I dug into the issue. We worked with Prostate Cancer Canada, now part of the Canadian Cancer Society, and learned about the lack of coverage and the importance of this test. I felt it was important that we acted, and the more we looked into it, the more we recognized how much prostate cancer has affected the lives of people around us, because it’s not just the man or somebody who has a prostate who ends up suffering, it’s the family.

Two of my staff out of the three staff I have, fathers, have survived prostate cancer, both thanks to early detection from PSA tests. My father-in-law also had prostate cancer. My good friend Larry Gibson told me he was diagnosed with prostate cancer because of a PSA test and that early detection saved his life. That experience inspired Larry. He thought everyone should have access to the PSA test, so Larry started a golf tournament at the club he owns to raise money. Each year, we participate in the tournament and Larry uses those funds to pay for PSA tests for those who can’t afford it.

Anthony from Walnut Foundation also works in a similar way to take down barriers to testing by paying for men’s PSA tests. Thank you for doing that. It’s so important. That shouldn’t be the case. We shouldn’t have to run golf tournaments to cover the costs of a test that should be part of our universal health care system.

Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. One in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime. That would be over 10,000 in Ontario last year. For many, this is a terrifying reality. To be diagnosed with cancer is life-altering. It changes your entire world and your family’s.

But if detected early—and this is important—the survival rate is impressive. Nearly 100% of people diagnosed early will survive at least five years or more. Early detection is the key. The survival rate for those diagnosed late with advanced prostate cancer is 29%. What you would prefer for your father or your grandfather: 100% or 29%? I think it’s a fair question.

For those worried about the cost, it’s extremely low. I know my Conservative colleagues like to whittle away at our public services and reduce costs, but including this test would cost as little as $3 million annually and save close to $60 million in the health care system. Think about that. If the PSA test is insured—and this is really interesting—the lab will pay the bill of the Ministry of Health. They bill them just $9.50 per test. But if it’s uninsured and the patient goes, he must pay between $35 and $57 out of pocket, depending on the test. Think about that for a second. Can we afford this?

Considering you have held back billions in spending, I hope you can find it in your heart to approve such a limited expense which literally saves lives in this province. But at the end of the day, that shouldn’t matter. We have the ability to fundamentally alter the health outcome of people in this province. It’s an opportunity to allow people more time with those they love. How could any government say no to that? The evidence is clear on early detection. We can’t continue to ignore it. The costs and stats on survival rates are important, but there’s a real human side to this cancer.

I’d also like to take some time today to discuss the story of someone who is living with prostate cancer and how important a PSA test is to them. First off, I can’t thank him enough for coming, and I’m so grateful for everything that you do to bring awareness to testing of prostate cancer and the importance of early detection. I mentioned him already, but today in the gallery is Anthony Henry, who has dedicated many hours of his life for something so important. So thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Anthony, unfortunately, has a significant family history of prostate cancer. His father didn’t receive a PSA test, and he passed away from stage four prostate cancer at the age of 68. Anthony’s brothers and uncles have both been impacted by prostate cancer.

Because of the family history and the experience with his father, Anthony began getting regular PSA tests when he turned 40—and the age is important. In 2015, his PSA levels jumped significantly, and he had a biopsy. Unfortunately, that biopsy found that he did indeed have prostate cancer. In the case of Anthony, early detection—he was advised to watch and have active surveillance. The message that Anthony wants to provide to men, especially those with a family history of prostate cancer: Talk to your health provider and get a PSA test. Stay on top of your health. It could save your life.

But we as government need to remove barriers for getting that test. There should be no deterrent to taking care of your own health. It should be a joint decision with your doctor. It’s that simple.

It’s important that we also recognize the equality issue we have with prostate cancer. There is data and background that show Black men of African or Caribbean background have a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer. Statistics show that Black men of African or Caribbean background have almost double the risk of developing prostate cancer compared to non-Black men. They’re also more likely to have prostate tumours that grow and spread quickly and are 2.2 times more likely to die from prostate cancer compared to other men.

Even with this information alone, we should be pushing to include PSA testing coverage based on shared decisions with your physician when we know there are higher risks in certain groups.

I understand that the federal clinical guidelines do not recommend screening with PSA tests for those with moderate risk. But those guidelines need updating, as they do not meet the needs of high-risk men. The Canadian Cancer Society recommended men and their health care providers make a joint decision on whether to undergo PSA testing after discussing the benefits and limitations of testing, personal values, preference and individual risk. There are numerous international health care organizations that share this shared decision. Research has been conducted since federal guidelines were introduced in 2014—10 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, together we can do something meaningful for the people of the province of Ontario. We can reduce one more barrier and potentially save lives. I truly hope for support from all parties on this motion and together we can work together to better health outcomes for all. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.