Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to address this bill on an impromptu basis yesterday. I was really struck by the long list of different government agencies that had real-estate-making authority. In fact, the list was so long that somebody had to actually write it down for me and pass it to me so that I could read the list. It was so long I couldn’t remember it. There were 14 agencies on it, and it really struck me, gosh, that’s a lot of organizations, all that have real-estate-making authority for the government of the province of Ontario.

So my question to the member from Toronto–Danforth is the following: Is 14 different government agencies making real estate decisions too many, is it too few or is it just the right amount?

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.

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.

Next question?

Ms. Surma has moved second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

Thank you. That’s actually a very good question. The minister, as part of the minister’s duty, has discretion on many issues, but there should be some kind of parameter on what that discretion is, because this government has—and I’m just using this government; we have vast disagreements in principle on the greenbelt and on some other things, and we would question some of the minister’s discretion.

Ministers need to have the ability to make decisions, but the decisions need to be encompassed in something that people have faith in. If you have good regulations and effective regulations—the idea is not to slow things down; if people have faith in the process, it should speed it up. When people don’t have faith, that’s when they start putting spokes in the wheels, even maybe if the wheels should be turning. People need to have faith, and every time that they see something that’s just, you know—you lose faith in the system. You lose faith in the system.

Speaker, I think if you’ll seek it, you’ll find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

My thanks to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for his participation this afternoon. I appreciated hearing from him with regard to some of the impetus behind his involvement in provincial politics. It’s always important to remember those anchoring moments and why we got involved.

I thought he spoke very well about some of his particular concerns or perspectives around different aspects of the legislation. I don’t think we would have some of the same experience or perspective on it.

I’m wondering if you could speak a little about the real estate management aspect of the legislation. I think it is an important part of it. I think having that management in place is key, so for the last 30 seconds, over to you to speak about the real estate part.

I want to thank the member from Niagara Falls for bringing forward this motion again. I think I was here the last time he brought it forward, and I know he’s very committed on this issue. I also want to thank Mr. Anthony Henry, the guest who is in the gallery here, for all the hard work that he’s doing to educate people, particularly in the Black community, about prostate cancer.

Cancers touch all of us. I can disclose that there’s prostate cancer in my family as well, so I certainly empathize with people wanting to make sure that we do everything we can to support people with cancers here in Ontario.

Our government invests in cancer care through Ontario Health, who is our adviser on cancer and renal systems; it was the former Cancer Care Ontario. We flow about $2 billion to hospitals to support direct patient care every year. Through Ontario Health, several screening programs are available with the goal of finding cancer earlier, leading to better health outcomes for patients.

Ontario’s cancer screening programs detect pre-cancerous changes or cancer at an early stage when there is a better chance of treating it successfully. Screening is for people who do not have any cancer symptoms, and I certainly encourage Ontarians to speak to their physicians or any primary care provider to discuss their care plan.

Ontario Health oversees Ontario’s overall cancer strategy, including critical programs and services such as:

—cancer surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy;

—Ontario’s cancer screening programs, such as the Ontario breast cancer screening program, ColonCancerCheck, Ontario cervical cancer screening program and the Ontario lung cancer screening program;

—the Ontario Renal Network, which manages dialysis services for the province; and

—tracking performance to ensure constant improvements in cancer, chronic kidney disease and access to care.

Speaker, I’m proud to say that, given the success of Ontario’s cancer strategy, cancer incidence rates have been stable since 2001 and mortality has been declining since 1983. But of course, there is still more to be done.

Cancer screening and associated diagnostic services are delivered in Ontario through primary care, through hospitals, independent health facilities and other health care providers practising outside of hospitals, like community-based colonoscopists—have to get the emphasis on the right syllable with that one.

Last month, our government introduced Your Health: A Plan for Connected and Convenient Care. The plan focuses on providing people with a better health care experience by connecting them to more convenient care options close to home while shortening wait times for key services across the province and growing the health care workforce for years to come.

One of the key initiatives includes expanding access to integrated community health services centres, where cancer screening and associated diagnostic services are delivered in Ontario. We are increasing access to surgeries and procedures, such as MRIs and CT scans, cataract surgeries, orthopedics, colonoscopies and endoscopies.

In addition to shortening wait times, providing these publicly funded services through community surgical and diagnostic centres will allow hospitals to focus their efforts and resources on more complex and high-risk surgeries. We’re also investing more than $18 million in existing centres to cover care for thousands of patients, including more than 49,000 hours of MRI and CT scans, 4,800 more cataract surgeries, 900 other ophthalmological surgeries, 1,000 minimally-invasive gynecological surgeries and 2,845 plastic surgeries.

For over 30 years, community surgical and diagnostic centres have been partners in Ontario’s health care system. Like hospitals, community surgical diagnostic centres are held accountable to the highest quality standards, the standards that Ontarians deserve and expect across the health care system. To further support integration, quality and funding accountability, oversight of community surgical centres will transition to Ontario Health. This improved integration into our broader health care system will allow Ontario Health to continue to track available community surgical capacity, assess regional needs and respond more quickly across the province and within the regions where there are gaps and patient need exists. Our government is clear: Ontarians will continue to use their OHIP card and never their credit card.

Based on clinical guidelines established by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care—which the member referenced—currently the province, through OHIP, funds the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, test for men under these circumstances: men who are receiving treatment for prostate cancer; men who are being followed after treatment for prostate cancer; and, finally, men who are suspected of having prostate cancer because of a family history—like Anthony—and/or the results of a physical exam with their provider. I should note that Ontario’s policy in this area is akin to that of British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Quebec. Prince Edward Island only covers PSA testing as a screening tool after the age of 50, but patients must still speak with a health care provider about tests.

Most international and national guidelines and recommendations—including those by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Physicians—recommend against screening for prostate cancer using the PSA test due to the lack of evidence to suggest a universal benefit to screening. Should these recommendations from the experts be updated, Ontario will, of course, review eligibility in consultations with our clinical partners at Ontario Health. Ontarians who are concerned about their risk of prostate cancer—and Anthony probably talks to many people who would fall in that category—should reach out to their primary care provider about test eligibility and have that discussion with them.

Our government also supports cancer care through the Ontario Public Drug Programs; approximately $1.7 billion was invested last year in cancer drug expenditures. I would like to highlight in this House that take-home cancer drugs are funded through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program and make up about 58% of the Ministry of Health’s total expenditure for cancer drugs.

All of these services are priorities highlighted in our Ontario Cancer Plan 5, a strategic five-year guide for improving the cancer system in Ontario that was launched by our government, with the support of Ontario Health, in 2019. The scope of the work in this plan includes all stages of the cancer care treatment journey from diagnosis through to recovery.

I’d like to close by thanking the member for bringing forward this important motion—it’s important to talk about prostate cancer and raise awareness, as Anthony Henry is doing in his community; certainly, it’s good for all of us to raise awareness about it in ours—and giving me the opportunity to speak about some of the investments the government is making in the cancer system and the reason for our decisions. As always, Ontarians who are concerned about their risk of prostate cancer or any other cancer should speak with their primary care provider. Ontarians can also connect to Health811, formerly Health Care Connect, to find available primary care services in their area.

Further debate?

Further debate?