Thank you for the question from the member for Brantford–Brant.

Immediately after I was appointed Minister of Mines I joined our great Minister of Energy at the Canadian Energy and Mine Ministers’ Conference in St. John’s. At the conference, I was excited that Minister Wilkinson shared my sense of urgency for developing critical minerals that we know are necessary for a low-carbon economy. We can’t go green without mining and we know the critical minerals in the Ring of Fire represent a nationally, if not globally, significant opportunity.

Our government committed almost $1 billion for infrastructure and community supports, but we need the federal government to come to the table with the funding. Based on my early discussions with the federal government and Minister Wilkinson, I believe they are a willing partner and will come to the table as a full partner.

Our government ended the regional framework in favour of bilateral agreements with First Nations to understand their unique priorities and perspectives. Our government signed historic agreements with Webequie and Marten Falls First Nations, who are proponents for their community projects on the Northern Road Link.

Speaker, the results have been fantastic. First Nations-led environmental assessments are now under way for two road projects in the Ring of Fire. By working in partnership with First Nations, we are building momentum on this project and charting a plan forward to economic reconciliation.

In fact, it’s only the opposition who are suggesting that our seniors should be strong-armed. In fact, we’re doing just the opposite. We’re providing different opportunities and solutions for those people who are being discharged from hospital and who are on the waiting list for long-term care.

Now we’re going even a step further, Mr. Speaker: In addition to the four hours of care that we’re already moving towards, through this legislation we are providing additional resources for dementia care and over $60 million in resources for Behavioural Supports Ontario on an ongoing basis. We’re providing kidney dialysis, for example, in homes. Only the opposition would suggest that we should bring somebody from a hospital to a home and back and forth.

We think our long-term-care homes can do better. That’s why we’re providing those additional resources to do that. It is about working with patients in hospital who want to be residents of a home, working side by side with their family, because we know how important family is to the well-being of their loved ones in long-term care, and that’s—

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The supplementary question.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 2, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

On August 11, 2022, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to implement budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading agreed to.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7, An Act to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021 with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and other matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2021 sur le redressement des soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne les patients ayant besoin d’un niveau de soins différent et d’autres questions et apportant une modification corrélative à la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The division bells rang from 1149 to 1150.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

Second reading agreed to.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1155.

“To the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session.”

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Motion agreed to.

“To the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session.”

There being no further business at this time, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1500.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

This petition is titled, “Petition for an Official Statement of Apology on Behalf of the” Government “of Ontario to the McIntyre Powder Project Miners.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas over 25,000 Ontario mine workers were subjected by their employers to mandatory, non-consensual inhalation of finely ground aluminum dust known as ‘McIntyre Powder’ between 1943 and 1979, as a scientifically unproven industrial medical treatment for the lung disease silicosis; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario supported and sanctioned the McIntyre Powder aluminum prophylaxis program despite the availability of safe and proven alternatives to effective silicosis prevention measures such as improved dust control and ventilation, and also despite expert evidence from the international scientific and medical community as early as 1946 that recommended against the use of McIntyre Powder treatments; and

“Whereas the miners who were forced to inhale McIntyre Powder experienced distress, immediate and long-term health effects from their experiences and exposures associated with aluminum inhalation treatments, as documented through their participation in the McIntyre Powder Project;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide an official statement of apology to the McIntyre Powder Project miners.”

I completely agree with this petition. I affix my name and present it to page Juliet to bring it down to the Clerks’ table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and woefully inadequate to cover the basic costs of food and rent;

“Whereas individuals on the Ontario Works program receive just $733 per month and individuals on the Ontario Disability Support Program receive just $1,169 per month, only 41% and 65% of the poverty line;

“Whereas the Ontario government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018, and Canada’s inflation rate in January 2022 was 5.1%, the highest rate in 30 years;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized through the CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to increase social assistance rates to a base of $2,000 per month for those on Ontario Works, and to increase other programs accordingly.”

I agree with this petition, will affix my name and present it to, again, page Juliet to bring it down to the Clerks’ table.

I would like to thank Colette Pilon, from Capreol in my riding, for these petitions.

“Saving Organs to Save Lives....

“Whereas Ontario has one of the best organ transplant programs in the world;

“Whereas there are currently 1,600”—actually, 3,600—“people waiting for a life-saving organ transplant in Ontario;

“Whereas every three days someone in Ontario dies because they can’t get a transplant in time;

“Whereas donating organs and tissues can save up to eight lives and improve the lives of up to 75 people;

“Whereas 90% of Ontarians support organ donation, but only 36% are registered;

“Whereas Nova Scotia has seen increases in organs and tissue for transplant after implementing a presumed consent legislation in January 2020;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Change the legislation to allow a donor system based on presumed consent....”

I fully support this petition, Speaker. I will affix my name to it and send it to the table with page Prassan.

“Make PSW a Career....

“Whereas there has been a shortage of personal support workers (PSWs) in long-term care ... in Ontario for many years;

“Whereas Ontario’s personal support workers are overworked, underpaid and underappreciated, leading to many of them leaving the profession;

“Whereas the lack of PSWs has created a crisis in LTC, a broken home care system, and poor-quality” life “for LTC home residents and home care clients;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Tell Premier Ford to act now to make PSW jobs a career, with” permanent “full-time employment, good wages, paid sick days, benefits, a pension plan and a manageable workload in order to respect the important work of PSWs and improve patient care.”

I fully support this petition, Speaker, will affix my name to it, and ask Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

“Whereas northeastern Ontario has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Ontario;

“Whereas specialized MS clinics provide essential health care services to those living with multiple sclerosis, their caregiver and their family;

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is recognized as a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Immediately set up a specialized MS clinic in the Sudbury area that is staffed by a neurologist who specializes in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, a physiotherapist and a social worker at a minimum.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it, and ask my good page Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

“Make Highway 144 at Marina Road Safe....

“Whereas residents of Levack, Onaping and Cartier, as well as individuals who travel Highway 144, are concerned about the safety of a stretch of Highway 144 in the vicinity of Marina Road and would like to prevent further accidents and fatalities; and

“Whereas three ... accidents occurred in summer 2021” and six accidents have occurred so far in 2022, “resulting in severe injuries, diesel fuel spilling into the waterways, the closure of Highway 144 for several hours delaying traffic and stranding residents; and

“Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has completed a review of this stretch of Highway 144, has made some improvements and has committed to re-evaluate and ensure the highway is safe;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the Ministry of Transportation review Highway 144 at Marina Road immediately and commit to making it safe, as soon as possible....”

I fully support this position, Speaker, will affix my name to it and ask my good page Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

“Protect Kids from Vaping....

“Whereas very little is known about the long-term effects of vaping on youth; and

“Whereas aggressive marketing of vaping products by the tobacco industry is causing more and more kids to become addicted to nicotine through the use of e-cigarettes; and

“Whereas the hard lessons learned about the health impacts of smoking, should not be repeated with vaping, and the precautionary principle must be applied to protect youth from vaping; and

“Whereas many health agencies and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada fully endorse the” proposals to reduce vaping for youth;

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To call on the Ford government to” act “in order to protect the health of Ontario’s youth.”

I support this petition, Speaker, will affix my name to it and ask Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

“Oversight, Regulations and Limits on Fees Charged by Retirement Homes....

“Whereas residents of retirement homes are mainly seniors on fixed incomes who often pay very high amounts for rent and services and cannot afford big cost increases;

“Whereas we are seeing more financial hardships on seniors, their families and caregivers who support them, due to retirement homes exponentially increasing the costs of the services they provide to their residents;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To protect retirement home residents from financial exploitation, the government should implement oversight, regulations and limits on the fees charged by retirement homes for all services they provide to their residents.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

I’d like to thank Jasmine Richer from Capreol in my riding for this petition called “911 Everywhere in Ontario.”

“Whereas when we face an emergency we all know to dial 911 for help; and

“Whereas access to emergency services through 911 is not available in all regions of Ontario but most Ontarians believe that it is; and

“Whereas many Ontarians have discovered that 911 was not available while they faced an emergency; and

“Whereas all Ontarians expect and deserve access to 911 service, throughout our province;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To provide 911 emergency response everywhere in Ontario by land line or cellphone.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask Liliana to bring it to the Clerk.

Mr. Parsa, on behalf of Mr. Calandra, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 7, An Act to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021 with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and other matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2021 sur le redressement des soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne les patients ayant besoin d’un niveau de soins différent et d’autres questions et apportant une modification corrélative à la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

They matter to me. They matter to everybody in Ontario. There were so many people who wanted to be heard on that bill, who wanted to share their story of what it means to have a loved one in a long-term-care home away from where they live, away from the people who support them.

The stories are always very similar. We unfortunately had this happen in our area when, seven years ago, Health Sciences North was so overwhelmed that they declared a crisis and people were sent to long-term-care homes not of their choosing. I had 200 files in my office of families who were trying to bring their loved ones back to be with them. We were able to help a few, but the great majority of them ended up dying alone, away from their families, without their circle of care, without people who supported them, most of them wondering. Why am I here? How come nobody comes to see me? How come nobody cares about me?

It doesn’t take very long when you’re frail and elderly to simply give up on life. This is what this government is doing right now. You are setting up for, currently, 300 of them before the end of the summer, 1,000 by March 2023. You are setting up for hundreds of people who will give up on life because of the decision you are making right now. Think about it. We have a responsibility for everybody in Ontario. We have a responsibility for frail, elderly people in Ontario. And the decisions you are making right now will lead them to decide that they don’t want to live anymore. I cannot live with that, Speaker. I just can’t. We can’t fix this.

We all agree that many of our hospitals are facing hallway health care. Many of our hospitals are full to the rafters, to capacity, to extra capacity. In my hospital, we now have a huge room, eight people, beside the morgue in the basement of the hospital because it is so full. Are they full? Yes, they are.

How do we care for people who become ALC? We all know the solution is: Bring them quality home care—at home. Support them where they want to be supported. We wouldn’t have to pass this Bill 7 and we wouldn’t have to send frail, elderly people to die away from their loved ones. We can just fix home care.

We know how to fix home care. Mandate today, this afternoon, that all of the home care providers provide 70% permanent, full-time jobs, well paid with benefits, sick time and a pension plan, and problem solved. Tens of thousands of PSWs will come back to do what they like to do, to do what they’re good at doing, to care for people at home.

There are tens of thousands of PSWs everywhere in Ontario who work at Giant Tiger, at Food Basics, anywhere but in home care where they want to be. Because working in home care does not pay the rent and feed your kids, because working in home care, you are not paid when you travel between clients. You barely make above minimum wage. They will pay you the $18 when you give a bath, but the minute you change the bed or do non-hands-on care, you’re back at minimum wage.

Why is it so hard to respect these women—because 95% of them are women. Why is it so hard to respect these women and fix the problem of ALC in our hospitals at the same time, and give what 90% of elderly people want: to live in their own homes? But the government doesn’t want to listen to any of this. The government wants to send elderly people away from their families. In the north, it will be hundreds of kilometres away.

We all know what will happen. Our loved ones will give up on life. When you meet the criteria for long-term care, you have a long list of ailments and illnesses. It doesn’t take long when you get depressed, when you get discouraged, when you give up on life, that life will give up on you.

How can you live with a decision like that, when there are solutions available? How can you be voting in favour of something that takes away your basic rights? Don’t you have parents? Don’t you have mothers and fathers you care about? We all know where they will end up. The good long-term-care homes are full. Finlandia Hoivakoti—108 beds, 565 people waiting. You’re not going to be discharged to Finlandia Hoivakoti. St. Joseph’s Villa, St. Gabriel’s Villa—same thing: 128 beds, over 390 people waiting to go there. You’re not going to be discharged to St. Gabriel’s Villa. You are going to be discharged to Extendicare York, which hasn’t been renovated in 50 years, which has one bathroom per floor. It doesn’t matter that there are 32 people who want to go to the bathroom; there’s one bathroom. Is this really what you want—not to mention the distance that people will have to travel.

In my riding, when this happened, there was a man who phoned my office and his care coordinator every single day because he wanted his wife to be moved closer to where he lived. She had been placed in a long-term-care home not of her choosing, and he wanted her back. He phoned my office every single day. We did everything we could to bring her back so that they could be together again. Working with the CCAC, at the time—Richard Joly was the executive director—we finally got her to move, and she died that day. They were never able to hug each other. They were never able to see one another.

I know how those sad stories feel, and I don’t want any of you to have to go through it.

Vote Bill 7 down. We can do better.

Further debate?

I recognize the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Long-Term Care, I want to speak about the proposed amendments to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021.

To respond to the challenges currently facing the health system, our government released the Plan to Stay Open: Health System Stability and Recovery. This plan includes a suite of changes and an additional $37 million this year, and $62 million annually moving forward, to help ensure Ontarians are getting the right care in the right place and to help avoid unnecessary hospitalizations.

This funding includes: $20 million to create a new local priorities fund, delivered by Ontario Health, to support timely interventions based on community needs; a $5-million boost to Behavioural Supports Ontario so the program can increase specialized staff and access to therapeutic supplies and equipment; $2.6 million for the Baycrest Virtual Behavioural Medicine program—these are just some of the funding investments included in the plan.

The plan also includes the proposed amendments to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act that I’m here to detail today. Because we are acting now to secure the stability of our health system, it is paramount that we maintain stability as we continue our recovery and are faced with new challenges moving forward.

Our current challenges will not be new to anyone here. We all know much of the focus over the last few months has been on hospital emergency departments, and rightfully so. However, emergency departments are a part of a much larger health system. Long-term care is a critical part of this system as well. There are actions we can take now to address these challenges—actions that will help us to avoid overstraining the health system and establish better models of care.

One of the main ways to help with hospital capacity challenges is to ensure that patients are getting care in the appropriate setting. There are many patients in hospitals across the province whose care needs could be met elsewhere, for instance, in long-term care—alternative-level-of-care patients, ALC. There are now approximately 6,000 ALC patients in this province. Approximately 39% of these people would be better served in long-term care. Moving patients out of the hospital and into long-term care frees up much-needed space in hospitals for patients who require hospital treatment. This also benefits the ALC patients since they are being moved to a more appropriate setting where they can receive the care they need.

That’s why, as part of our plan to stabilize the health system, I’m seeking to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, in order to improve how we transition ALC patients to long-term-care homes, because our priority is for people to live and receive care where they can have the best possible quality of life, close to their family and friends.

In hospitals right now, there are currently about 1,900—when this bill was first introduced; this number has grown—ALC patients waiting for long-term care. Some of these patients have been waiting for more than half a year, even though they no longer require hospital treatment. This contributes to backlogs in acute care services in hospitals because they occupy beds that other patients urgently need. When they cannot be discharged, these patients continue to receive care but in the wrong setting: an acute care setting instead of a long-term-care-home setting. The hospital is not the appropriate place for them to be.

That is why I am putting forward proposed amendments that, if passed, would allow us to continue conversations with ALC patients and support the movement of some patients to temporary care arrangements in long-term-care homes while they wait for their preferred home. It is important to note that this would only apply to ALC patients who are eligible to receive, and would benefit from, care in a long-term-care home but who are either waiting in hospital for their preferred long-term-care home or do not wish to apply to a suitable long-term-care home. This would only happen after conversations with a placement coordinator and after efforts have been made to obtain consent. By allowing a placement coordinator to assess and authorize an ALC patient’s admission to a long-term-care home without their consent—and we were just talking about assessment—this amendment will, if passed, enable attending hospital clinicians to discharge patients from the hospital to a more appropriate care setting that better meets their needs.

These changes, if passed, may be met with some concern at first—certainly I had concern at first when I initially started to read it—and there may be initial barriers to implementation. But parameters within the changes will help ease these concerns, as they did for me.

One of these parameters is that the home must be within a specific distance from the patient’s preferred location, including that it is near a partner or spouse, loved ones and/or friends. I would like to repeat that one: One of these parameters is that the home must be within a specific distance from the patient’s preferred location, including that it is near a partner or spouse, loved ones or friends. Another parameter is the requirement that the long-term-care home must be able to meet the ALC patient’s care needs, whatever these needs may be. In addition, field guidance will be developed to support implementation and promote ongoing conversations with ALC patients, which will encourage consent and choice.

Long-term-care placement coordinators will be encouraged to make ongoing efforts to re-engage with patients who have not consented at frequent points throughout the placement process. At any stage in this process, patients can change their minds and consent, or choose an alternative care option.

Furthermore, hospital patients who have applied to live in a long-term-care home but have been moved into another suitable home temporarily will remain on the wait-list and be prioritized to be permanently moved once a bed becomes available at one of their preferred homes. So, again, people that are moved into a suitable home temporarily will remain on the wait-list and be prioritized to permanently move once a bed becomes available at one of their preferred homes. They do not lose their place in the queue. They can also choose to remain permanently in the initial home that they are moved to. Change is hard. They may like their temporary home. The changes will also recognize the importance of partner and spousal reunification in long-term care.

These proposed legislative amendments will, if passed, reduce ALC patient volumes and support their movement out of hospitals now and in the future. This change is crucial because it would help ensure that patients who need hospital treatment can get the emergency treatment, surgeries and other hospital services they need when they need it. At the same time, it would make sure that ALC patients receive care in a more suitable setting that will offer a better quality of life while they wait for their preferred long-term-care home, moving from being a patient in a hospital unnecessarily to being a resident in a long-term-care home which meets their care needs.

The Ministry of Long-Term Care is also taking several other actions that will ease the strain on the health system. These include the following:

—opening up long-term-care beds that no longer need to be held for pandemic-related isolation purposes, through a minister’s directive put into effect on August 23, 2022;

—reactivating long-term-care respite programs for high-need seniors to prevent possible hospitalizations;

—expanding specialized supports and services to support movement out of hospitals and to avoid entry into hospitals; and

—enabling community partnerships to provide more supplies, equipment and diagnostic testing in long-term-care homes, to prevent potential hospitalizations.

These interconnected actions, along with the proposed changes to the legislation I detailed earlier, will help reduce the number of ALC patients in hospitals and ease the strain on hospitals now and in the future. This will, in turn, reduce the risk of a hospital bed shortage at the peak of a potentially challenging flu season and possible COVID-19 wave in the fall and winter.

This proposed amendment is part of a broader strategy from our government to ensure recovery and stability in the Ontario health system. As always, our government is working hard both to help Ontarians stay healthy and to ensure that the appropriate level of care is available when it is truly needed. The goal is to ensure that Ontario’s health care system is stable and strong so that Ontarians can count on the system today, tomorrow and moving forward.

Ensuring that the long-term-care sector is stable and that residents experience the best possible quality of life, supported by safe, high-quality care, is a priority for our government. That’s why, at the end of last year, we introduced the aforementioned Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021. This landmark piece of legislation was proclaimed into force on April 11 and speaks to our government’s ambitious plan to fix long-term care in Ontario. This plan centres on three key areas: building modern, safe, comfortable homes for Ontario seniors; improving staffing and care; and driving quality through better accountability, enforcement and transparency. We’re taking action and making progress under all three of these areas.

When it comes to building homes, for instance, we have made historic investments. We have invested $6.4 billion to build 30,000 new and 28,000 upgraded long-term-care beds. We are making incredible progress on these projects and already have more than 30,000 new and 28,000 upgraded long-term-care beds in the development pipeline.

The fact that we have already reached our targets is made even more impressive concerning the supply chain and other issues that have affected the construction sector in the last couple of years. Of the 365 projects that are in the pipeline, 115 projects have proposed to be part of a campus of care model. This model focuses on healthy seniors’ living and integrating the long-term-care home into the broader health care system.

Additionally, with the redevelopment of older homes, the prior system of three- to four-bed ward rooms is being eliminated and all homes will now be up to modern design standards.

We also recognize the diversity of our aging population. That’s why 39 of the announced projects have proposed to serve Ontario’s francophone population and 30 have proposed to serve Indigenous communities. The progress we are making and the bed allocations we are announcing on a monthly basis are just what this province needs. We are building beds for our loved ones in the communities that they call home.

We also marked the sales of unused government properties to build new long-term-care homes in Etobicoke, Hamilton and Mississauga. These sales are part of the surplus provincial lands program. The program uses the sale of unused government properties to secure much-needed land for building long-term-care homes in large urban areas of the province where available land is costly and difficult to secure. The program opens the door for additional uses for unused land, such as affordable housing and recreational facilities.

Another innovative program we have created to build is the Accelerated Build Pilot Program. In February of this year, we celebrated the completion of the first brand-new long-term-care home built under this program.

Of course, when building new and upgraded homes, it is vital to ensure that there are enough staff to provide care within the homes. That’s why strengthening staffing is a key part of our government’s plan to fix long-term care. When it comes to staffing, our central commitment is to increase the hours of direct care provided by registered nurses, registered practical nurses and personal support workers. We aim to increase it from the 2018 provincial average of two hours and 45 minutes per resident per day to a system average of four hours per resident per day over four years. To achieve this ambitious target, we are investing up to $4.9 billion by 2024 to help create over 27,000 new full-time positions for registered nurses, registered practical nurses and personal support workers in long-term care. This includes a commitment to invest $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion for staffing increases in the 2023-24 fiscal years, respectively.

In addition, this funding will support a 20% increase in direct care time by allied health professionals, including physiotherapists and social workers by March 31, 2023. The focus must always be on the residents and providing them with the care they want and need. To build this culture, the ministry will continue to engage with residents, essential caregivers and families to understand what quality of life and quality of care means to them.

We’ve already taken many steps this year to achieve our ambitious staffing goals. This year we are providing $673 million to long-term-care homes to hire and retain up to 10,000 long-term-care staff. This is a major investment that will lead to more direct care for residents. We will continue to do what is needed to ensure that there are enough staff in long-term care to meet our target of providing a system average of four hours of daily direct care per resident.

In addition to all of the progress we are making on long-term-care staffing and capital development, we’re also making progress to drive quality in long-term care. We are achieving this through instituting better accountability, enforcement and transparency in the sector. A key factor in driving quality is the inspections system. The inspections system exists to keep residents safe, and the ministry continually assesses information and reprioritizes inspections daily based on harm or risk of harm to residents. As part of the work to fix long-term care and ensure long-term-care residents’ safety, our government is investing an additional $72.3 million over three years to increase enforcement capacity. This will allow us to hire 193 new inspections staff, which will double the number of inspectors across the province in the 2022 fiscal year. This will make Ontario’s inspector-to-long-term-care-home ratio one of the highest in Canada.

With these new inspectors, we will have enough inspectors to proactively visit each home every year, and proactive inspections will be conducted alongside the continuation of reactive inspections, which are the best way to promptly address complaints and critical incidents. Some of the province’s new inspectors will have an investigative background, and this will ensure that the inspectorate have the skills and certification needed to investigate and lay provincial offence charges when warranted.

The new proactive inspections program adds to the current risk-based program of responding to complaints and critical incidents. The program also takes a resident-centred approach by allowing for direct discussion with residents, so that the focus is on their care needs, as well as the home’s program and services. The results from proactive inspections will help the government determine where the sector can benefit from additional resources, including guidance material and best practices.

Our government has also created and expanded the innovative Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program. Ontarians who need long-term-care services frequently report that they prefer to remain in their homes for as long as possible. Our government listened by launching the Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program to help seniors remain stable in their own homes, while also providing peace of mind for their caregivers.

This program was announced in October 2020 for five communities, with a total commitment of $33 million over four years. The program was then expanded to additional communities with a further commitment of $137 million over four years, and last fall we announced that we were investing another $82.5 million over two and a half years to expand the existing Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program to an additional 22 communities. This final expansion made the program available to all eligible seniors across Ontario.

The program provides individuals eligible for long-term care and soon to be eligible for long-term care with 24/7 access to non-emergency support through home visits and remote monitoring. The program also leverages the training and expertise of paramedics in a non-emergency capacity, to help seniors and their caregivers feel safe and supported in their own communities. This has had the added benefit of potentially delaying the need for care in a long-term-care home.

As of this summer, there are more than 23,000 individuals receiving care through the Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program. This is yet another action we are taking to help maintain the stability of our health care system while ensuring that Ontarians receive the care they need and deserve.

It is extremely important to our government to hear from the people within long-term-care homes when moving forward with our plan to fix long-term care. That’s why we’re always connecting with residents, essential caregivers, families and long-term-care staff, including registered nurses, registered practical nurses and personal support workers. The feedback and insights that we receive from people on the ground in long-term care are invaluable and help shape the solutions and directions of our government. This will continue to be true moving forward, as we continue to innovate and evolve in long-term care and in the broader health system.

For the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, this is a critical time for action in Ontario. That’s why we’re doing everything we can to fix long-term care and to ensure that our broader health care system is stable. That’s why I’m here today, joined by Minister Calandra, to put forward proposed amendments to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act. Through these proposed amendments and the other actions we are taking, our government is taking a holistic approach to solving the challenges facing the health system. This is the only approach that will work, because of the interconnected nature of our system. Using this approach, we will ease the current strain on the health system and help ensure that every Ontarian has access to care when they need it, where they need it.

Further debate?

I’m thankful to rise and speak to Bill 7 today. Let me say this clearly: Bill 7 is one of the worst and most cruel bills I’ve ever seen before this Legislature. Despite what the part-time Minister of Long-Term Care keeps saying to try to cover the true intent of this bill—I’m going to begin by reading a section of this bill directly: “The actions listed ... may only be performed without consent if reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the consent of the ALC patient or their substitute decision-maker.”

So there you have it: Action can be taken without consent, Madam Speaker. The weasel words that are in it are what is considered reasonable efforts and who defines it. Honestly, this government has dropped even outwardly denying the fact that they’ll be moving people without their consent. They wanted to deny that reality, and now they’re moving on to simply saying our hospitals are over capacity and they need to move people. Tough luck, seniors and those with disabilities; you’re moving somewhere you probably don’t want to be, away from your community and your family—their solution. Those are cruel actions by this government. And the reality is, Madam Speaker, some will give up and they’ll die early. They are taking our loved ones who are sitting in hospitals waiting for care and they’re going to rip them away from the health care staff they know and their loved ones, from their families, and they’re going to ship them to long-term-care homes without their consent, mainly going to for-profit homes where the openings are, where people don’t want to go.

The minister is smiling right now. There’s nothing to smile about.

Going back to Christmas, in a place called Oakwood Park Lodge and Millennium Trail Manor, 60 of our seniors died over Christmas—60. Do you know why they died? Lack of staff. Lack of PPE. There’s nothing funny about it. Christmas Eve, they were calling my house and we were talking to the family as they were crying. Every one of those deaths could have been prevented.

So when you smile when people are dying—and if you take a look at AC. Can you imagine being in a long-term-care facility tomorrow or yesterday and how hot it was, and they’re sitting there with no AC? Last night at the Jays game, they wouldn’t open the roof because it was too hot, because they wanted the air conditioning in the ball park, yet our seniors are living without air conditioning. It’s absolutely disgusting.

I think we all know in the House what happens in many of these homes during a pandemic. Close to 5,000 people have died in long-term care in this province during COVID—close to 5,000; 40 of them died just in the last two weeks. Private homes have the worst record for long-term-care deaths.

I ask my colleagues on this side, the Liberals, independents, the PCs: Do you guys not have parents? Do you not have grandparents? Aunts and uncles who are going to these long-term-care facilities with a lack of staff? The quality of food is not good. A lack of PPE. Did any of you guys have anybody die? I raised it the last time I talked. I had my father-in-law and my mother-in-law die in these facilities. How do you guys sleep at night? Because I’m telling you, I don’t.

Speaker, we literally have had our military come into long-term-care homes to sort out the mess from years of underfunding, neglect, corporate greed and quite frankly, the privatization that was started under the Conservative government of Mike Harris. That’s when it started. The military—not Wayne Gates, not the Ontario Federation of Labour or the health coalition—found absolutely disgusting things in those homes. They documented seniors dying because of dehydration—the basic need of water that we have our pages come and give to us all the time. All we have to do is put our hand up and our page will come and give us water, but if you’re in a long-term-care facility, according to the military, not Wayne Gates, they couldn’t get that in a long-term-care for-profit home.

Do you know what the result was, Madam Speaker? And I appreciate you looking at me. They died. They died because of dehydration in the richest province in the country. How does that happen? I don’t understand it.

The record stated that people died simply because of lack of staff. They needed water and assistance for cleaning, and our loved ones died because of it. Moms, dads, grandparents, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law—whoever they are.

It’s so disturbing to think that seniors and those with disabilities may be forced into a private home without consent. The government has gone out of their way to play down the reality of this bill. They have gone as far as suggesting these changes are just simply conversations with ALC patients to request they reconsider the homes they may choose to go to.

But then one must ask, what changes here? Hospital administrators today have always had the ability to try and use reasonable effort to move ALC patients to a long-term-care home. There is nothing new. No, instead, this government intends to use one of the particularly powerful tools of persuasion: financial ruin.

I don’t know anybody—I shouldn’t say I don’t know anybody, but I know there are a lot of people that won’t be able to afford what they’re going to be asked to pay if they want to stay in a hospital. You see, if you are in a hospital waiting for long-term care, then your stay is covered by OHIP. We all know what OHIP is. We all have OHIP in this room. The system built by Tommy Douglas that says no one should have to be bankrupt trying to get medical care is still the cornerstone of our system here in Ontario. But, this government, through this bill, thinks it’s okay for seniors and people with disabilities to be charged $500 to $1,500 per day to stay in these beds. That’s what this government is doing to seniors. They’re saying that if you try to fight it, they may charge you and then move you without your consent. It’s in the bill. I was asked about the bill. The bill’s right here; I can hold it up. I’ve read it a number of times.

This comes back to: What are we debating here today? They aren’t just numbers on a sheet. These are real humans—moms, dads, parents, brothers, sisters. I’ve spoken directly with these people. I know them. They live in my community. They’re our neighbours. If you have a loved one in a hospital right now waiting for LTC, you will be terrified. I don’t know how the families can sleep at night knowing what this government is going to do to the seniors of this province. I’m going to frank: I don’t even know how my fellow MPPs can sleep at night passing a bill like this, particularly knowing—I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I will be—that these seniors that we move out of the hospital are going to die, and they’re going to die a lot sooner than they had to. It makes no sense.

I’m dealing with a family right now in my riding. He’s 84; he’s sick. She’s 84. They’re trying to get him into a place that’s close so that she can walk and go take care of her husband. They’ve been married for 60 years. That’s what we have to continue to protect. Shipping people 30—I don’t even know what the kilometres are going to be; they haven’t told us exactly what they are, but the rumors are out there: 30 kilometres, 100 kilometres, 300 kilometres away from your family. I challenge anybody here—Speaker, I challenge anybody to tell me that if your mom or dad gets sick, do you not want to spend the time with them and make sure they’re getting the proper care? A lot of us know they don’t have transportation. Families won’t be able to go as often. I told the story about my wife; She was there every day, trying to keep her mom and dad alive.

What are we doing? I don’t get this, honestly. Please, don’t support this bill. This bill will make that reality far worse for many. We could have families completely separated between communities.

Somebody said to me the other day—and I’ve got only a minute and a half left—“Well, it’s only 30 kilometres.” Go talk to somebody in Fort Erie who’s going to have to maybe go to Grimsby, a 30-minute drive. We all remember what happened just in January this year: They closed their urgent care hospital, and the community was saying, “What are we doing? We’re a senior community. We can’t get to Niagara Falls.” How do you expect them to get to Grimsby to see their loved ones or whatever the distance is going to be.

It’s completely shameful that this government refuses to understand the real human impact it’s going to have. This bill will cause stress, and in some cases moving away from their family and community will cost lives. The people will never forget what you did to cause such pain. What makes this even worse—these wonderful residents, seniors, who built this province are being targeted by this government, and this government doesn’t seem to care about them.

We didn’t even have public hearings on this bill because this government is too scared to hear what experts, stakeholders and families are really talking about. I’ve got 24 seconds. Quite frankly, I don’t think you want to look the families that may separate in their eyes. They can’t handle the reality.

This bill is cruel, it’s awful, and I’m begging all of you, all my MPPs here, to vote this bill down.

Further debate?

I’m pleased to speak further to the misleadingly titled More Beds, Better Care Act that looks to free up hospital beds by forcing seniors and those disabled into long-term-care homes not of their choice. Since the bill was introduced I, along with my colleagues, have raised urgent concerns with this bill, and in fact it seems the population of Ontario is also alarmed and outraged. The government’s heavy-handed move to bypass committee and thus public consultations is an affront to democracy.

First and foremost with this bill, we are bypassing the Patients’ Bill of Rights, and in this province, or indeed anywhere in civilized society, the government should never, ever use force or coercion by putting someone into a facility without their informed consent.

Speaker, hospital discharge coordinators have long had the authority to have conversations with patients regarding the discharge process. We also know that patients or their designated caregivers have been required to submit a list of their top five long-term-care home destinations. But this bill bypasses the discharge conversation, and instead patients are told where they’re going, to places that could be up to 300 kilometres away from their families.

This side of the House had their own public consultations yesterday morning, and we continue to hear from a frustrated and frightened public. For example, I was contacted yesterday by Michelle from Thunder Bay, who wanted to tell me about her experience looking for long-term care for her mother. Her mother wound up in hospital due to failing cognition and physical decline, and it was clear she needed to be moved into long-term care. In keeping with the rules at the time, Michelle chose five long-term-care homes, but none of these were available at the time.

She was then told to check out a home not on her list that had space available. Sadly, this privately owned long-term-care home was chaotic, dirty and understaffed, and Michelle swore she would never let her mother go to this home. Fortunately, she had the choice to wait until a home of her choosing was available, and her mother was well cared for in her final years.

In addition, the PSW named Susan I referred to last week also said she would never allow her own mother to become a resident in the privately owned long-term-care home where she currently works, and we know that is because there is no staff there.

Time and again, we have tried to tell the government that the health care crisis is a direct result of low staffing levels. These low staffing levels come from front-line workers exhausted by COVID, tired of working short handed and demoralized by the wage and bargaining hammer of Bill 124. Add the many for-profit agencies making record profits from public dollars, and you get front-line health care workers who have had enough and are leaving the vocation in droves.

The government’s choice to ignore the many voices calling for the repeal of Bill 124 demonstrates a government determined to bust unions and to privatize health care. We have heard eloquently from the member from Nickle Belt about solutions, about how easily this government could end the health care crisis. With good pay, benefits, paid sick days and mileage compensation so that PSWs can afford to do the work they love, we could solve this crisis now, but the government chooses not to.

Bill 7 is cruel, punitive and sets the stage for real harm to elders and those disabled. There are much better options that would show respect for workers and respect for seniors and people with disabilities, without stripping them of their rights and their humanity. I beg this government to withdraw this cruel and punitive bill. Please, we must stop Bill 7.

It’s always hard to speak after the member from Niagara Falls, who’s very passionate. I do want to highlight one thing that he said about families being worried about this bill, the 2,000 families out of the millions of families in Ontario who this is going to affect—well, the 500 it’s going to affect immediately. I would hazard a guess that most of them don’t know what’s coming down the pike. They don’t know this bill. It’s going to be a surprise to them.

This is an idea that’s been floated in Ontario for a long time, and there are reasons that it has never happened up until now. That’s because it overrides a patient’s right to consent. There’s a way to work with people, and threatening people with a big hospital bill is not the way to do it.

The government has said, and I appreciate—we’ve been debating this bill as if it was an immediate measure that had to take place because of the circumstance that we have right now. And I want to thank the minister for saying yesterday very clearly that—he said that during his news conference. Well, that’s not the way we’ve been debating this bill. This is not a temporary measure. This is permanent. It’s forever.

I would also hazard a guess and feel fairly confident in saying that there is not one member in this Legislature on any side who would let what this bill allows happen to any of their family members.

Basic questions about how this bill is going to be executed: How far? We heard some members come out—government didn’t clarify it. They didn’t say whether the 300 kilometres in the north was right or whether the hundred kilometres in the rest of Ontario and 30 kilometres in this city was right. They didn’t say where they were measuring from.

Even being attacked on—I think the member from Niagara Falls talked about people having to drive to Grimsby, across the city. And I said something about going from Orléans to Stittsville, which is a 40-minute drive. I was shocked that I was criticized—the criticism came from government members, government staff. It’s not about the distance. It’s about who’s driving. We’re not the ones who are driving. I know we can all get in our car and drive for 30, 40 minutes, and it’s not a big deal. But if you’re 80 years old and you don’t have your kids really close, or if you only have one or two and they have kids, and you don’t have a lot of friends, trying to get across the city is really hard. What happens to couples at the end of their lives, way more often than we know or than we think about, is, they get separated. It happens, and it’s hard. At the best of times, it’s hard. Going from 10 kilometres to 30 kilometres, for some families, is just not going to work.

I heard the Premier say the status quo is not going to work. “We have do this because the status quo”—well, it has been his status quo for four or five months.

For God’s sake, we had a problem in the ERs, and we couldn’t find the health minister for five weeks—five weeks. She couldn’t say a word; couldn’t say, “I’m the new minister, and I’m trying really hard;” couldn’t appear; couldn’t answer a question.

And now we’re doing this bill because it’s so urgent and so necessary and so important that we can actually say people don’t have to give their consent. And in Ontario—in Ontario—we’re saying it’s okay to say, “If you don’t do what we tell you to do, we’re going to send you a bill from the hospital.” It’s perfectly reasonable to ask people to pay the copay. It is totally unreasonable to ask people to pay hospital fees because they won’t do what you’re asking them to do. And there’s not one person in this Legislature who would accept that for their own family.

So when you’re thinking about voting for this, imagine that the person who is at the end of this bill is your mother, your father, your aunt, your grandmother, your wife, your husband.

This is not some theoretical debate. This is not some theoretical thing where we can say, “We can all drive across town, and it’s not that hard.” This is about people, and we have to take more care with people, especially people who have given us everything.

This bill should be withdrawn. It’s not right. I ask that members vote against Bill 7. That’s the right thing to do.

I rise today to speak on Bill 7, the More Homes, Better Care Act. I want to recognize the work of the many residents that have reached out to me: Kate Chung, Cassandra Ryan, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, the Ontario Health Coalition, health care professionals, caregivers and loved ones.

This bill gives hospitals more power to remove the elderly and the sick, and move them into a long-term-care home they do not want to go to, without their consent. This bill would allow hospitals and give them the right to charge up to $1,200 to $1,500 a day to a patient that does not move out of the hospital.

Let’s get a few facts straight: No one wants to stay in a hospital any longer than they have to, period. There are 38,000 people waiting for a long-term-care home in Ontario. The good homes are full. In my riding, we have Kensington Gardens. That home is full. The only long-term-care homes that do not have waiting lists are those that people do not want to move into. These are substandard homes. These are for-profit homes. These are homes where the building is aging, where people live four people to a room, where there’s not enough staff available to help people eat and to change them at a regular level or help them bathe. These are homes where basic standards are sometimes not maintained because this government has made the decision to not properly enforce the rules and have a sufficient number of inspectors go in to ensure those rules, those standards, are maintained. These are the homes that have had seniors suffer and die during the pandemic—nearly 5,000 seniors.

It is also a myth that patients in hospitals are waiting for a long-term-care-home slot. It is a myth that they are all waiting for a long-term-care-home slot. There are many people waiting to move into another type of hospital care, such as rehabilitation or mental health care, but they cannot move because these beds are full.

Hospitals don’t just provide acute care. Elderly people and disabled people—people in need of a hospital bed—should not be discriminated against, and I would like to thank Cassandra Ryan and Kate Chung for their very eloquent letters to me explaining that. These people have lived full lives. They’ve paid their taxes, they’ve raised their families, they’ve volunteered in their community, they’ve contributed to building Ontario. They should not be treated as a nuisance, or as undeserving, or as the reason why emergency rooms are somehow full. It is not ALC patients’ fault that Ontario’s hospitals have the fewest hospital beds per person of any province in Canada. It is not their fault. It is not their fault that nurses and health care workers in Ontario are leaving and quitting because they are not paid properly. And it is not their fault that hospitals are not provided with sufficient funding from this government to do what they need to do to care for the people of Ontario.

It was an honour to listen to my colleagues today speak about the solutions that experts and stakeholders and family members are advocating for, because the solutions are clear: Ontario needs to provide a holistic and kind solution to the health care crisis, which means addressing the staffing crisis by repealing Bill 124 and paying our health care workers properly. It means committing to increasing funding to home care—not for-profit home care, but home care that is provided so people can get their first choice, which is to stay at home. It means increasing caregiver allowances so family members can provide care to loved ones. And it means reforming the long-term-care-home model, moving away from a for-profit model where we warehouse our disabled, our sick and our elderly, and moving towards a long-term-care-home model where people are provided with the quality care they need so that they can lead good lives.

Bill 7 is not the direction that we need to go to. We have better solutions that are being proposed to us, and I urge this government to look at them and implement them instead of this.

As always, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the people of Scarborough–Guildwood. You know, I have to speak to Bill 7, because it affects long-term care. The members may recall that when the pandemic first hit, the people in long-term care in Scarborough really suffered. One of my long-term care homes, Extendicare Guildwood, had over 54 people who succumbed to the virus. You know, the long-term care—a couple in my riding succumbed to COVID-19. And so when we’re doing things that affect long-term care, it’s something that affects my constituency directly, and I feel that I must speak to this bill and let them know, as a Legislative Assembly and as members of this House, when we’re doing debate, that we’re putting their interests ahead.

One of the cautions that I would have to this government is that this is such an important bill in terms of the quality of care for people that we shouldn’t be rushing this. We shouldn’t be pushing this through without hearing from the people of this province. Giving it a chance at committee would have been an opportunity to improve it, but we didn’t have that chance. So here we are with just a few minutes, really, left in debate.

This is a time when Ontario is facing a crisis in its hospital systems and—still, I would say—in its long-term-care system. Bill 7 is concerning in the approach that it is taking because it is shifting a problem that is identified in the hospital system and putting it on a long-term-care system that is also in crisis. I don’t know how that is going to solve anything in terms of the quality of care that is needed for people.

When we think about those who are providing that care, those doctors and nurses and all of those front-line-care workers, there are a lot of people we don’t list when we talk about front-line care—those people preparing the meals, those people attending to the cleanliness of those facilities. All of them have that sense that the system is overburdened.

The fact is that 33 long-term-care facilities are currently in outbreak. This is worrying when we think that we’re facing a flu season as well as a COVID season. Time and time again, we’ve said in this Legislature that to relieve that pressure valve on the system, we should repeal Bill 124. I want to put a plug in for that as we have this very important debate.

I recall, in my riding, a family who faced a situation that really illustrates the pain potential of this policy that we’re talking about. An elderly resident was moved from a Scarborough Health Network hospital to an Ottawa-based hospital during COVID, during the peak of that pandemic, and it made it impossible for his relatives to visit him. Sadly, very tragically, this resident passed away in a hospital in Ottawa, away from his family. That grief was further compounded when, through some sort of technical rule, the hospital billed his family for the return transfer of his body home. They were just heartbroken. This is not something that we want to see in our province. It’s not something that we want to see, where there is a rule that is applied to the disadvantage of residents. Ontarians are not in favour of this.

I just want to say that when a family is faced with that very difficult decision of where to put their loved ones—in my own family, this is a very close issue. My second dad, my stepdad, is in a facility right now, and we are thinking about where he is going to go. The last thing we need is for him to be further away from us, because as a family—my mom, my brothers—we’re always at his side, because that is his lifeline. Why would we want to take that away?

I would urge the government to caution, really. With the speed in which this is happening, we cannot leave people further disadvantaged by this. I would say, rethink Bill 7 and put the patients’ needs first.

Further debate?

It is an honour to rise today representing the great residents of Toronto Centre and to speak to Bill 7. My colleagues have spoken eloquently to what is wrong with the bill, and I wanted to use my time to provide some additional commentary on it.

First of all, the bill will force our two-spirit, queer and gender-diverse seniors back into the closet by forcing seniors into long-term-care homes that they don’t want to go to. A hospital bed is no one’s choice of where they want to call home, yet this bill does exactly that. It doesn’t even pretend to hide its contempt for patients who have complex reasons for waiting. We understand how complex these choices are in Toronto Centre, especially with our population of aging seniors who are queer.

I hope this government understands that they are pathologizing our beloved queer and trans elders at their peril. My constituents have survived to the point that they are already ready for long-term care because they have had to advocate for themselves to survive homophobic and transphobic institutions. Moving out of the neighbourhood that they know, away from friends and families that they trust can only mean further isolation and fear of rejection.

But don’t take it from me; Arne Stinchcombe, a psychology instructor at the University of Ottawa who researches health and aging, told a TVO news show:

“‘There is evidence suggesting that fears of homophobia and transphobia within formal care prevent health care utilization, timely diagnosis and treatment of major health conditions and treatment adherence among older LGBTQ2+ people’....

“Providing inclusive and safe environments for LGBTQ seniors is ‘essential’....”

Earlier this year, I had the honour of attending the opening of the Rainbow Wing at the Rekai Centre right here in Toronto Centre. It is a brand new facility that was designed specifically for the 2SLGBT seniors’ community. It’s in a non-profit long-term-care facility and was created out of the recognition for the need to create more inclusive spaces for queer elders to thrive. And yet, still, while this is the first dedicated 2SLGBTQ facility in Ontario, even in North America and possibly in the world, the Rainbow Wing has only 25 beds. We clearly have a long way to go.

This government has not announced a single plan to expand 2SLGBTQ long-term care, and they expect queer and trans Ontarians to believe that forcing them great distances away from their chosen families will make their lives better. Speaker, I assure you that it will not.

LeZlie Lee Kam, a queer elder and advocate for inclusive long-term care, told the same TVO journalist, “I want to make sure that if I have to end up in one of those places, it’s going to be queer-friendly.” It has to be affirming.

In the final days, our loved ones are scared. No one should be forced back into the closet, but I’m afraid that by taking the choice away from our seniors, that is exactly what this bill will do.

The second point that I want to touch on is that it matters to Toronto Centre, one of the most diverse ridings in the country, where our seniors go. Our community and city is home to 120 different languages, so our elders need to be close to their families so that they can lean on them for support, especially when they have to translate the complex health care system for them into languages such as Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin, Hindi, Somali, Singhalese, Tamil, Tagalog or Urdu, just to name a few of the languages that we speak.

My grandmother spent her final weeks in a city of Toronto long-term-care home called Fudger House. She actually was able to receive her care in Cantonese as well as Mandarin. She was able to eat culturally appropriate food. I couldn’t imagine better care for my grandmother as she died in the facility that was there, but she was taken care of in the way that she needed. I recognize how fortunate we are now, especially considering what we have in front of us today.

Not allowing seniors to exercise agency in health care during the time in life when people are at their most vulnerable, and most medicated, will make existing racial inequities in health care even worse. This government has no excuse for rushing through a bill that will affect vulnerable and already marginalized communities.

I want to finish by quoting my constituent Cee, who reached out to me to talk about how the government is planning to force people into long-term-care facilities that they don’t want to be in:

“This stuff was going on well before I retired,” but now it’s making it worse. “It demonstrates to me that the political will is lacking” and seniors need help. “Old people aren’t sexy. They cost the system and aren’t looked upon as people who contribute anymore.... They’re going to die anyway ... so why bother making their lives more comfortable?”

Speaker, Bill 7 is redesigning our health care system to take care of corporate shareholders, not people. It doesn’t have to be this way. Privatization is a political choice. I choose people over profits, and I think you should too. Please withdraw Bill 7.

I rise today with a deep feeling of frustration and disappointment that we’re debating third reading of Bill 7 without having had an opportunity to review this bill at committee, without having public input, and without having the opportunity for amendments. It’s not right for the vulnerable elderly in our province to pay the price for years of underinvestment in our health care system, especially after the last two years. After the last two years, where we’ve seen so many loved ones live in such tragic circumstances in our long-term-care homes, to now tell seniors—frail, elderly people—that we’re going to take away your rights, we’re going to force you to leave hospital without your consent if that’s what government chooses—we don’t have to approach it this way. We can fix the health care system and honour our elders at the same time.

It is true that we need better spaces for people in hospital who are alternate level of care, who would be better cared for at home or in a long-term-care home, but the reality is, if we’re going to provide that care, then we need to invest in that care. We need to invest in a better home and community care system. We need to ensure that we have proper staffing and those staff are paid well and recognized for things like their travel time so the elders who want to be cared for at home—and most would like to be cared for at home—can actually receive that care. We need to invest in better primary care that’s more accessible and available for elders who are being cared for at home. Finally, we need to invest in a long-term-care system that will prioritize care over profits, so that when those elders move to a long-term-care home, it actually is a home, a home that provides the level of care and dignity they deserve.

So, Speaker, how do we accomplish that? Well, you start by investing in the people who actually provide the care: the nurses, the PSWs and the front-line health care workers. For well over two years now those front-line health care workers have been overworked, underpaid and underappreciated. They have been saying over and over again, along with doctors and so many other health care experts, that we need to repeal Bill 124 so they can negotiate fair wages, fair benefits and better working conditions. Why don’t we start with that instead of having the government actually resist paying health care heroes as heroes?

Speaker, long-term-care administrators and advocates are saying, “Hey, we’re understaffed too.” So there could be some major unintended consequences to the provisions of Bill 7, especially if elders are moved far from family, friends and caregivers. I can’t tell you how many caregivers I’ve met in my own riding who spend hours caring for their loved ones. If they live hundreds of kilometres away from those loved ones, it will be incredibly difficult for them to be able to provide that additional care, which will actually put more pressure on our long-term-care system.

Speaker, as we speak, the Premier and the Prime Minister are meeting. We need the federal government to step up with more funding for health care, long-term care, mental health care and the social determinants of health, such as poverty and homelessness, but we also need a provincial government that’s actually going to spend those funds and flow them through to the systems that we need to support in this province, not underspend their health care budget by $1.8 billion, like what happened last year.

I believe there was an opportunity for us, if we could have had an opportunity at committee, to work together across party lines to deliver some solutions that will put seniors first and, unfortunately, Bill 7 as it’s written right now does not accomplish that. I encourage all members from all parties to stand up for the dignity of our elders and vote no on Bill 7.