I love to listen to the member across speaking about Tommy Douglas, and I like that he’s supporting the automotive industry.

As the member said, he was a big supporter of Tommy Douglas. But Tommy Douglas supported user fees for health care. In October 1961, in the Saskatchewan Legislature, he said, “I think there is a value in having every family and every individual make some individual contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility.”

I want to give the member the opportunity to clarify: Does he agree with Tommy Douglas about supporting user fees in health care?

Questions and answers?

I appreciate the member opposite’s remarks in debate this afternoon. In particular, when he talks about the north, I very much appreciate it. I have property in the Ottawa Valley, right near my colleague here from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and I appreciate that economic development needs to take place right across this province.

Maybe the member opposite could explain, in his opinion at least, when we think of the Ring of Fire and the natural mineral resources we can use—I know the Premier said, “Let’s not export them. Let’s put them to good use, and we can build our own supply chains and build our own EV plants, whether it’s in Windsor or whether it’s going to be wherever in Ontario.” Who knows what’s going to happen in St. Thomas? Who knows if it’s going to be EV, if it’s going to be an automotive plant, if it’s going to be food or food processing? It’s going to be great. The bottom line is, talking about automotive—how does EV help northern Ontario and the Ring of Fire help complement what you’re trying do in northern Ontario for economic development?

It’s always a real pleasure and honour to hear the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane speak. His speeches are always full of history and humour, and there’s always something to be learned from them.

He talked about the poison pill. I know that the government wants to shame us for not supporting their budget. If we can’t support most of what you’re doing, if not all, we’re not going to wear it.

Today we are debating a bill where we’re talking about bringing manufacturing back—something central to the NDP, and something that we believe strongly in the official opposition—about returning potential auto sector jobs and expanding electric vehicles and green vehicles for the future, and here is a simple, straightforward matter, where we could vote on it together.

I would like to ask our House leader: Is there a willingness by us—if the government is willing to come across at the ideas stage, to sit down with us when they’re building the blueprints for their bills, motions and ideas? Is there a willingness from the opposition to work with them for a better Ontario?

It gives me particular pleasure to address the House this afternoon to speak about the importance of moving forward now on third reading of the proposed legislation, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act. I am thrilled to hear that His Majesty’s official loyal opposition is supporting this bill clearly. I thought the member for Niagara Centre was perhaps only speaking for himself, but all of the NDP caucus is planning to support this bill. I congratulate His Majesty’s loyal opposition for seeing the light on this, and I hope that the members of the unrecognized parties, one of whom is in the House now, will make it unanimous. Let’s hope for that. I will speak with that goal in mind.

Speaker, this bill confirms our government’s commitment made to all Ontarians, a commitment to secure new investment opportunities in growth communities across Ontario. This bill in particular is taking steps to help secure new investment opportunities for a site in the St. Thomas area specifically. This site has the potential to create thousands of new jobs for the community, for the region and, indeed, the province.

Global investors and organizations are looking for regions in which to invest, and currently there is a shortage of shovel-ready industrial mega-site projects in the province of Ontario that are comparable to other jurisdictions. In the United States alone, there are close to 40 jurisdictions offering global investors some form of certified mega-site programs. Without immediate action, Ontario will be unable to compete for and win these transformative investments, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that come with these investments. That is why this legislation is necessary. This is necessary because we live and work in a global economy. If we don’t modernize and act now, much like from 2003 until 2018, Ontario will be left out. If passed in this House, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act will secure the important investment opportunities necessary to have both direct and indirect jobs in the tens of thousands created.

My colleagues the Honourable Steven Clark and the Honourable Vic Fedeli stated in this House that our government is focused on securing these major investments that will employ generations of Ontario workers in rewarding and well-paying jobs. As mentioned before, Ontario is in fierce competition with other jurisdictions when companies consider making larger investments in manufacturing and industrial operations, including such investments as this multi-billion-dollar transformational project.

We know that, in contrast, the previous Liberal government for 15 years, from 2003 to 2018, chased away 300,000 manufacturing jobs. This was due to their mismanagement, the uncompetitive business environment they created, high taxes, red tape and regulation. Countless business owners told us, and presumably told many members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, that the Liberals strangled Ontario’s competitiveness and made it very difficult for businesses to compete due to these high taxes, cumbersome red tape, higher energy costs and payroll taxes that suppressed growth.

Speaking of red tape, we have a great minister, the first full-time minister to reduce red tape and regulation in this government of the 43rd Parliament of Ontario. That’s how committed we are to eliminating red tape regulation and burdensome and cumbersome roadblocks to job-creating investments. The job losses that we saw under the Liberals can now be a footnote in history as our government takes leadership, supported by the official opposition and hopefully—hopefully—the unrecognized party members to make it unanimous in passing this bill in short order.

Through this proposed legislation, we are taking steps to ensure that Ontario can continue to compete worldwide. Since taking office in 2018, just four and a half years ago, our government has created a playing field that produced over 600,000 new jobs. The once struggling Ontario auto sector now employs 96,000 workers and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of individuals in supply chain, parts manufacturing and distribution through the province.

As has been said in this House before, and I applaud it, that is the key to protecting core public services, to being able to make record investments in health care and education and social services and infrastructure. When we create jobs, when we grow the economy, then the treasury has the revenue to do right by the people of Ontario, to fund the public services that we all depend upon.

In 2022 alone, our government secured 150 new deals, resulting in thousands more secure, high-paying jobs. Ontario has now become one of the most competitive places for businesses to invest and grow. We have a talented workforce because our government has made significant investments in the growth of skilled trades. We have state-of-the-art research and development and an abundance of critical resources which have contributed greatly to our increased manufacturing sector.

We pledged to the people of Ontario, both in 2018 and 2022, that our government would honour its commitment to reducing the burdens of red tape regulation and high taxes and unleash the potential for the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. We will continue to make good on that pledge, and the more support we have from His Majesty’s loyal opposition, the faster we can get the job done. We look forward to getting it done.

Under the leadership of the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the Honourable Parm Gill, our government is getting it done. Our government has introduced with his leadership—and passed—eight red tape reduction bills. We’ve taken 400 individual actions to reduce red tape, and we have reduced Ontario’s total regulatory burden dramatically in just a short time. To date, our red tape reduction efforts have saved businesses and other organizations $576 million in compliance costs each year. But reducing red tape is only one factor.

The critical factor is what we’re doing with this proposed legislation: securing new investment and expansion opportunities in Ontario focused on a particular area and moving forward from there across the province. This is to ensure that we have a suitable place to land an industrial site where timing and associated costs are readily known and streamlined to meet project timelines. That is what we mean when we say it is shovel-ready. As my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, stated last week, our government is working closely with municipal partners to introduce a land-boundary adjustment to allow the site to be fully situated within the municipality of St. Thomas, ensuring that the site is shovel-ready for investment.

As an example for other municipalities to follow, the St. Thomas site is considered highly attractive as a mega-site and has been identified as one of the few potential mega-sites in the province. We have been working not only with municipalities but also with First Nations across the province to identify other large-scale sites that will be needed in the future to support our rapidly growing array of strategic manufacturing and industrial projects.

It is important to emphasize that this is not the first time that such an idea has been pursued. A specific act with respect to the targeting of a municipal area for investment and growth was actually passed by the former Liberal government. I can’t recall and I’ll have to look at the record as to whether or not the official opposition, which was the third party then, supported the Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act back in 2009. But with a general shortage of quality industrial land, it is imperative for Ontario to show that we are not just open for business; we need to also demonstrate that Ontario is ready for business. That means a serious leadership approach to being shovel ready.

With that, I once again thank my colleagues on the government benches for their efforts in speaking to this bill, for the leadership of Ministers Fedeli and Clark and, as well, for the support of His Majesty’s loyal opposition. Let’s make it unanimous.

Further questions?

Thank you to my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his debate. During his debate, he talked about supporting the bill. There has been lots of conversation today about poison bills and how debate happens and omnibus bills. Previously, we talked about not travelling bills or going to committee and rushing people deputizing and speaking to the bills.

In terms of presenting solutions to the government, what are some tips, out of the many years you’ve been here, on how we could work more effectively together to have good legislation for the people of Ontario?

Speaker, through you: The member offered so much valuable information, and I couldn’t help but think that one of the lessons—and there’s always a teachable moment—I draw from is that he spoke about the ways that this House can work collaboratively together.

The type of bill that’s before us now is very focused, it is very purposeful, and it’s also reinforcing a process around annexation that already exists.

I’m very curious to hear more from this member about when the government members oftentimes stand up and provide quotes that are out of context, or try to create a “gotcha” moment about a party that says no. In this case, this party is saying yes to a bill that actually is going to bring manufacturing and jobs back to Ontario. I’m very curious to know: What is it, specifically, about the bill that makes it so agreeable?

It’s my honour to stand today and support and say yes to this piece of legislation that isn’t a perfect piece of legislation, but one that we have certainly found common ground on.

It’s especially a good opportunity because I know previously, this Conservative government had cancelled electric vehicle rebates, ripped EV charging stations out of the ground. At one point, we know that the government didn’t have much faith in GM Canada’s ability to be resilient in the face of the pandemic. Clearly, we care about auto workers. I don’t know that that was always the opinion on the side of the government, but I’m glad to see that today, we’re in a place where auto workers and the auto industry—which we know has been severely under-supported over the last couple of decades—are finally getting help today.

My question to the government is, since you’ve had this change of heart toward auto workers and the need for more manufacturing jobs, will we see additional change of heart, say, around the issue of injured workers receiving compensation—

Questions?

That was a very long question, and I have a very short answer. We have pledged to work for workers. We’re getting it done. We’ll continue to get it done, with or without the support of the official opposition.

Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you in the chair; it’s the first time.

It is always an honour to rise in this House to represent and speak on behalf of the good people of my riding, Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. This Bill 60 and the changes that this government is making to our public health care system are of significant concern to the people in my riding. They call to share their hopes and their dreams and—I’ve been hearing so much from my constituents—to ask the question: Why is this government rushing to dismantle our public health care system, our publicly delivered, world-class health care system that has been the envy of the world?

As has been said here, health care is in crisis. We acknowledge that; we recognize it’s in a crisis, but it’s this government’s job to fix that crisis with the solutions they already have before them, not in fact to make it worse. For example, in Hamilton, we have world-class health care facilities. We have Hamilton Health Sciences, we have McMaster Children’s Hospital and we have St. Joseph’s. These are world-class hospitals that are struggling under the underfunding, the lack of funding, the lack of supports they need to be able to continue to deliver the health care the people of Hamilton need. It’s been said many, many times here that the solutions—in fact, it’s been said that you’ve manufactured this crisis, taken hallway health care that was a legacy of the Liberals and doubled down by making it worse by underfunding health care, and by introducing Bill 124, that has created and exacerbated a health care human resource crisis.

It’s a mystery to me why this government would, rather than the easy solutions which are to fund the health care hospitals we have, these world-class hospitals, cut them off and let them have to put people on wait-lists for surgery. Why you wouldn’t make sure they have the adequate funding? Why you wouldn’t make sure that the money you have in contingency funds and $12 billion of unspent money could be going right now to address wait-lists? Why are you not doing that? Why is that not your first choice?

Why are there 12,000 children on a surgery wait-list in the province of Ontario when you could start to address that by making sure these closed operating suites, these unused facilities are open again so that people could start getting the procedures and the surgeries they need to save lives, relieve pain and suffering and the fears of parents who are hoping that their children would get the care they deserve under this government?

I also wonder why you continue to disrespect health care workers, nurses and PSWs and refuse to repeal Bill 124. You continue to underpay them in a time when they are burnt out, stressed and doing the best they can in a system that you have destabilized further. Why are you taking nurses and PSWs back to court on Bill 124 when it’s been shown that this is an unconstitutional bill? Why is that not your first act?

The question really stands: Why are you rushing, rather than looking at the solutions that are before you? Why is your first act, the thing you’re putting all your effort into, to introduce profits into the health care system? It’s been called the profitization of our health care system, and it’s hard to describe it as anything other than that.

We have talked in this House about the proud history of the NDP and Tommy Douglas and our medicare system. All of you know, and all of you have been hearing from your constituents, that that is the pride of Ontario. That’s one of the things we’re so proud of: that people can get access to the health care and the emergency care they need, despite their ability to pay, anywhere in this province. To now go down the road of a two-tier health care system is exactly the wrong, wrong direction and nobody, if they understood what you are doing, would support this. I can only imagine that you are also hearing from your constituents that this is not what they expected and this is not where they want to see you going with their precious health care system.

Rather than taking the steps that you know will help to relieve the burden and will help to improve our publicly delivered health care system, you’re still rushing to introduce privatization without learning the lessons of the past. In this bill, there are absolutely no protections for patients seeking care in private, for-profit, corporatized facilities. It’s not in the bill. All you have to do is to look at the evidence that comes from what already exists in private, independent health facilities.

The report from the Auditor General is invaluable, and I wonder whether the opposite members, the MPPs or the ministers, have taken into account the findings of this value-for-money audit that the Auditor General has put out, because the warnings are there. The recommendations to protect patients both financially and health outcomes are in this report, but nothing has been put into this bill to address that.

Let me just point out some of the highlights—not really highlights; some of the actual dire warnings or recommendations that come from this report that should have been included in this bill but are not there.

I’m just going to start by—it’s interesting reading if you take the time to look at it, but really, the Auditor General said that there is “inadequate and inconsistent monitoring of the quality of outpatient surgeries.” No one is monitoring the results, the outcome of how people fare after they have surgeries or procedures in these independent health care facilities. There’s inadequate monitoring.

There’s also “no regular review and monitoring of funding and billings for outpatient surgeries.” So it’s all fine and dandy for you to say that people won’t have to pay extra—it’s absolutely not the truth, because in Ontario, people already pay extra for these procedures. They pay dearly for these procedures.

In fact, the Auditor General goes on to say that there’s absolutely “no provincial oversight to protect patients against inappropriate charges.” The ministry has not sufficiently reviewed “unusual billing patterns or trends to identify possible issues, such as inappropriate billings or inappropriate rendering of services.” These are the findings that the Auditor General did in 2021, and these problems still exist and are only going to be exacerbated by this bill.

I think the overall conclusion of the Auditor General that speaks to the two protections that people should expect from a government—to protect them financially and to protect their health outcomes—when they’re being driven by this government to private, for-profit clinics, the Auditor General says, clearly, “The ministry does not have a centralized way to measure and report on surgical quality and outcomes for all surgeries being performed in Ontario.” That’s shocking. There’s no oversight in place, and this bill does not put any in place.

The Auditor General also goes on to say that “We found that some patients could be given misleading information as part of sales practices to make a profit.” So the warning is here. This is already happening. The quality of people’s outcomes are not being monitored, and the fact they’re being charged inappropriately and overcharged for fees is not at all being addressed by this government. I would be curious to know what the government is doing to address these recommendations and these findings from the Auditor General.

The Auditor General’s work is invaluable to all of us in this House to do our work. Her work is stellar, and her work is invaluable. She’s an independent officer of this Legislature, and we should be listening to this and using this to make our bills better and to improve our bills. She said, mincing no words, that “the ministry is putting patients at greater financial risk by allowing additional private organizations to provide publicly funded surgeries while also being allowed to charge patients directly for additional uninsured services to make a profit without appropriate oversight mechanisms in place.”

There it is. It’s happening already in this province. You’re putting a bill forward that’s going to double down on this and that has not in any way addressed those concerns.

My question to the government would be, what happens if something goes wrong in one of these private clinics? What is the procedure when there are complications or urgent issues that arise? How will this impact our emergency rooms that are already closing? Have you considered any of this? Because it’s not in the bill, and in the debate that I’ve heard, you don’t address any of the concerns that people have.

So I would just say, despite the despair that we feel that this government is not protecting people when they need health care in this province—that in fact, you’re protecting profits over patients—I just have to end with a quote from Tommy Douglas, because it is the anniversary of his passing. Despite the despair that we feel, I think Tommy’s words would be, "Courage, my friends; ’tis not too late to build a better world.” That’s what we should be aspiring to, not a downward spiral to privatization and lack of services for the people of the province of Ontario.

I find it interesting in the House this afternoon—especially since we were just debating putting together this big piece of land for, potentially, a new automotive manufacturing plant—to hear from the opposition that they actually want to set the price of vehicles that an auto manufacturer can charge. I find that amusing.

But I know for the member, who had to have life-saving surgery himself and has been quite open about that in the House, that wait times are very, very important. They’re very personal to him.

I was wondering if he could speak a little bit more about how important it will be for everyone in Ontario to be able to get the health care that they need, faster and more effectively, when they need it, and to be able to pay for that with their health card.

Before I continue, I also want to remind members: We do not refer to other members by their name and we do not make reference to whether a member is or is not in the House or in the chamber.

Further questions.

Mr. Fedeli has moved third reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of St. Thomas and the Municipality of Central Elgin.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 28, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60, An Act to amend and enact various Acts with respect to the health system / Projet de loi 60, Loi visant à modifier et à édicter diverses lois en ce qui concerne le système de santé.

Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you to the member opposite as well.

I was reading in Hansard yesterday that the member for Nickel Belt was talking about how, in Health Sciences North in Sudbury, we have 17 surgical units available. Only 14 of those are open; typically, they don’t even run the entire year because they run out of government funding.

I’m curious to understand why the Conservative government thinks that’s a better solution than providing the funding to operate these existing, publicly structured, already-built hospital surgical rooms; that funding them at a lower cost doesn’t make sense, but funding a private clinic where there’s a profit margin that will cost more, ultimately—it’s through the OHIP card, but it still costs the only taxpayer we have. There’s only one taxpayer; we’ll pay more, all of us, as taxpayers. Why is that a better solution than actually funding the hospitals that exist, that could be doing the work with the equipment in facilities that we already have?

Thank you to the member across for his comments. I wanted to just dig a little bit deeper. I think it’s important for to us recognize that there is a description of the annexed area that’s described in the bill, in the schedule, but we have learned that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can oftentimes prescribe a different outcome.

I just want to make sure that the area described, the annexed area in the bill, in the schedule, is going to be exactly what is going to be prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing afterwards.

Well Speaker, I think the question calls for an answer about all of Ontario. This is mega-site specific. It will have the effect, we believe, of creating directly and indirectly tens of thousands of jobs. But as I’ve indicated, we are in conversation with municipal partners. We are in competition with 40 other potential jurisdictions in the United States. We are having conversations and we’ll continue to have conversations with Indigenous persons and their leadership. We will make sure that we identify properly ready, receptive mega-sites for these kinds of investments everywhere that we can.

I want to thank the member for Durham for educating us on not just the work that’s required for a mega-site, but the preparation. The member discussed the competition, with close to 40 US jurisdictions offering mega-site programs. With this in mind, the government needs to grow the economy and invest in the future, because if we don’t, somebody else will.

Speaker, can the member talk about this challenge for large-scale projects and how this legislation, if passed, will attract investment in Ontario that will have otherwise gone elsewhere?

I’m glad I have this opportunity because, as the member was speaking this morning, all I kept thinking in my mind is I want him to think of this scenario. He comes from Ford; he’s an autoworker. If he has the ability to buy and pay for a car at, say, $10,000—just to make it easy—under the public system, and then he has that exact same vehicle that he can get that’s privately done at $15,000, which one is he going to do? It is a perfect example of for-profit in our health care system compared to public.

I would love to hear from the member: Is he going to buy the $10,000 public vehicle or the $15,000 private vehicle?