It gives me great pleasure to introduce nurse Angela Preocanin—she is the Ontario Nurses’ Association First Vice-President—as well as Erica Woods, also from ONA. Welcome to Queen’s Park, ladies.

Over the last month, seniors, their families, physicians, nurses and health experts have all warned that government Bill 7 will do nothing to stop emergency room closures, nothing to hire or retrain more nurses or to end the crisis in our health care system. An opinion poll in today’s Globe and Mail confirms that a majority of Ontario families agree.

Why is the government plowing ahead with this dangerous plan?

The private, for-profit home care providers cannot retain and recruit a stable workforce. They cannot do the work right now.

Patients are already feeling this pressure from hospitals. Vulnerable people are being told their best option is to move into an expensive retirement home or a long-term-care home that they don’t want to go to.

The government should be supporting people in their own homes. That’s what they want. They should be fixing our home care system, which was privatized by the previous Conservative government, by strengthening the home and community care system.

Why is the government pushing frail, elderly people into long-term-care homes against their will and without their consent?

The crisis in the health care system will not be solved by pushing our elderly away from their families into for-profit, long-term-care homes that nobody wants to live in.

The health care system needs permanent solutions to recruit and retain valued health care workers, like permanent paid sick days, like repealing Bill 124, like giving nurses a chance to negotiate a fair wage after two and a half years of hell.

Will the government stop pushing risky plans that are opposed by the majority of Ontarians and commit to solutions that actually address the crisis in our health care system?

The bill is quite simple. It amends the Auditor General Act to provide that the duty to furnish information applies to documents and information that are otherwise confidential, subject to certain privileges; and subsection 10(2) of the act is also re-enacted to provide that the Auditor General’s right to access information applies despite other rights of privacy, confidentiality and privilege.

This is an act that exists in Nova Scotia, and most provinces are moving ahead with amendments to the Auditor General Act because of what happened at Laurentian University.

Madame Collard moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 20, An Act to amend two Acts with respect to sexual assault evidence kits at hospitals and education about sexual assault in nursing programs / Projet de loi 20, Loi modifiant deux lois en ce qui concerne les trousses médico-légales en cas d’agression sexuelle dans les hôpitaux et la formation sur les agressions sexuelles dans les programmes en sciences infirmières.

I was really interested in what the member from Toronto Centre had to say about this bill, the strong-mayor bill. When you look at a bill, you often look at who could benefit from this bill, and who could be hurt by the strong-mayor bill. What is your best guess as to who stands to benefit from the passage of this bill and who stands to not, or even be hurt, from the passage of this bill?

Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York. I was just going to ask her a similar question I’ve asked already: When you look at this bill, the title talks about housing; the bill does not. Who do you think will benefit from the passage of this bill, and who do you think could be hurt by the passage of the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act?

J’ai écouté avec attention le membre de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, qui nous a parlé vraiment pendant 20 minutes de logement. Le titre du projet de loi est « pour des maires forts et pour la construction de logements ». C’est un projet de loi quand même assez étoffé. On parle de trois annexes. On parle de 14 pages. J’aimerais que le membre nous dise où dans le projet de loi—dans les 14 pages du projet de loi—on mentionne « construction », parce qu’il n’est pas là, sauf dans le titre. Où, dans les 14 pages du projet de loi, est-ce qu’on mentionne le mot « logement »? Parce qu’il n’est pas là, sauf dans le titre.

Ce dont le membre a parlé, que c’est important d’avoir plus de logement : parfaitement d’accord, mais le projet de loi n’a rien à faire avec ça. Je lui pose la question : sur quelle page, quel paragraphe, quelle annexe est-ce qu’on parle de construction ou de logement?