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?

I’ve said in the House before that sometimes the questions from my own side are harder than the questions from the other side.

I am honoured and a bit daunted by the prospect. I am House leader, but I think from my perspective—and I’ve been in this House for a while. I have tried and we have tried to work with everyone in this House. I don’t always agree with everyone in this House, and I make it very plain when I don’t. But where we can work together, we will work together. We’re all here for the same reason, and I hope that in the future we do a better job of working together.

The goal of the bill is obvious. It makes sense. It’s not saying that there are no issues, because it’s not that—there is going to be a loss of farmland. Whenever there’s a boundary change, there are going to be people who are impacted. It’s not saying that no one is going to be impacted, but the overall benefit is larger than the problems that can be solved, and that’s our bar for a bill. If the problems caused are greater than the benefit that could happen, then it’s thumbs-down for us—I was going to say “two thumbs-down,” but I can’t do that. It’s pretty simple. If the benefit outweighs the risk—this bill very much does that, and that’s why we can support it.

I’ve talked about it in my remarks—how the auto industry has impacted northern Ontario or is going to impact northern Ontario, and how the electrification of the auto industry is going to have an even bigger impact on northern Ontario.

Regarding the Ring of Fire, the one thing that we are all going to have to realize is, we all have to benefit. There has to be a true partnership with the people who are there now. That has not happened in the past. Indigenous people are still paying the price for that. We have to be cognizant that the people who live there now have to be partners. Unless we realize that, the Ring of Fire may never happen, and that is a very serious issue.

I haven’t been here that many years—I’ve been here 12 years—but there are things that have changed. Before, when the government dropped a bill, or introduced a bill, the opposition would often have a couple of weeks or a month to do the research; we’d have a bit of a heads-up. It wasn’t always friendly. Sometimes when the opposition has more time to do research, it causes the government a bit more trouble, but at the end of the day, the province gets better legislation, because it’s our job to find the faults, if they are there.

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.

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?

I want to thank the member for that question. In health care, we want our patients to get the service they need, as quick as they can. If you have to wait for 18 months to have a surgery and I can get it done in four months and pay with my OHIP card, that’s what I’m going to do. I want to get it done quickly and have the care to take care of me and be able to get back on my feet and get back to work. So that’s what I would do.

If we can move the non-invasive surgeries out of the hospital so we can do the heart valve surgeries and the cancer surgeries in the hospital, that would save a lot of lives in the province of Ontario. I think that’s the way—

My goal is to get surgeries done. We have a 200,000-surgery backlog due to COVID. We have to get these surgeries done so we can get these people up and running quicker.

Time for questions and answers.

I recognize the member for Mississauga-Lakeshore.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for her debate today.

I just want to ask the member a few questions. I hope that she can answer them.

Do you go to LifeLabs and do you use LifeLabs? It’s a private organization where you pay with your OHIP card. And if you do have a family doctor, which most of us do have, it is another private organization where you pay with your OHIP card. So are you against family doctors and LifeLabs? Do you want us to put them back into the hospital?

As well, the late Jack Layton, rest his soul, used Shouldice Hospital to have his hernia repaired. Do you agree with what Jack Layton did?

Well, that was a multi-pronged question that went in all directions, but I would take from it that you’re asking me if I think that it’s okay, because I am forced to go to a privatized LifeLabs, a privatized diagnostic clinic, that I agree that the Liberals began the privatization of health care? No, I don’t think that makes any sense at all. I don’t agree with that.

Do I support family doctors? Of course I support family doctors. I want to give a shout-out to my doctor, Dr. Nathanson, who has been looking after me and my family and all my brothers and sisters for many, many years. Absolutely we support the idea that people should have access to health care, publicly delivered, publicly funded.

Yes, the Auditor General, particularly when it comes to cataract surgery, identified in this report that people were being overcharged for specialty lenses, that the surgeon said, “I only work with that kind of lens,” that they paid the money and afterward didn’t realize that it was optional. There were pressure sales tactics to spend extra money for something that should have been covered under the public dime, so it’s absolutely happening already.

I think what’s really important to note is that we’ve had the warning from this government and that they’re not being heeded. This is only going to continue, so people that are already stretched thin and are seeking care in their most vulnerable moments will be pressured into spending money that they don’t have and they don’t need to spend.

We think that the whole idea of dental care is something that people should be able to have covered. People go to emergency rooms—I think one in five visits to the emergency rooms are for pain in people’s teeth. That is a waste of a service when we could be covering dental practice in a publicly funded system.

And eye care: Eye care is very, very expensive for families that can’t afford the tests for their young children. They can’t afford the glasses. We should be bringing that into a public system to allow people, from head to toe, to have the kinds of supports they need to keep themselves healthy.

Interjection: Your constituents will thank you.

Further questions?

Further debate?

I was intrigued by the comments from the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. I’m an optometrist. I have a small-town private clinic. I sell some of my patients glasses and/or contact lenses. Using her logic, because I support my family that way and I bill OHIP, it sounds like she’s intimating that I’m somehow gouging people. I would just like her to give clarity to optometrists across the entire province of Ontario who operate their own private clinics, billing OHIP and also selling people optical goods, whether they’re good people or bad people, from her logic.