I’m surprised to hear that the member for Don Valley East is not aware of the fact that since 1979 hospitals have actually been able to charge for alternate-level-of-care patients. I guess that’s perhaps part of the problem.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is, we are using—when a patient in a hospital acute care setting has been seen by a doctor, and that doctor has said that their time in an acute care facility should come to an end because they would be better serviced in the community or in a long-term-care home, we are facilitating that for them. That is what we’re doing. We’re listening to medical professionals across the province of Ontario, who all agree. And I think the member opposite—in some of his statements—agrees as well that when you are ready to be discharged from a hospital, when you are on the long-term-care waiting list, the best place for you is in a long-term-care home. We are going to make that happen.

Nursing shortages continue to plague Ottawa hospitals. The Queensway Carleton Hospital in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean has had to close ICU beds due to lack of nurses.

Nurses without specialized experience are being assigned to work serious cases in the ICU or trauma cases in the ER. In at least one case, a nurse with only a few months’ experience was put in charge of an entire unit overnight, by herself. Speaker, this is unsustainable and risky. Why is the Premier refusing to repeal Bill 124 and address nursing shortages?

Recently, I met with the nurses of ONA Local 84 who work at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. They are burnt-out and frequently left in tears over assignments that they do not feel qualified to take on.

There are nurses who are quitting and working minimum wage jobs in retail because at least it doesn’t have the stress of nursing.

Will the Premier finally listen to nurses, address working conditions, and repeal Bill 124?

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.

Let’s get something out of the way: I don’t want ALC patients to languish in acute care hospitals. It’s not fair to them and it’s certainly not fair to the patients of Ontario. Our seniors deserve to age with dignity in supportive environments of their choosing, but this bill does not accomplish that.

The number of ALC patients in this province has ballooned over the last four years, and now this government is trying to rush things through without addressing the root causes. They could treat health care workers with respect and repeal Bill 124, but they won’t. They could reduce the massive wage differentials between long-term care, home care and acute care hospitals, but they won’t. They could improve conditions in long-term-care homes, implement the recommendations from the long-term-care commission, but they won’t. I guess you’re seeing a trend here, eh? They could prioritize primary care, but they won’t. Instead, they have chosen to make patients victims by forcing them to leave their families and move to distant long-term-care homes.

So, to be clear, I want as many seniors to age with dignity in the place of their choosing as possible, and I want our acute care hospitals to focus on what they do best, which is providing acute and critical care. But this bill is not the way to do it. This bill violates patient autonomy and is coercive.

True patient consent must pass three tests, as I mentioned this morning: The patient must be capable, they must be fully informed and they must give their consent voluntarily and freely. When it comes to the management of personal health information and authorizing admission to long-term care, this bill fails all three tests. Consent is simply not required. It also fails when it comes to transferring patients to long-term care. Again, consent is about enabling patients to make an informed decision that is voluntary and free. It’s not about getting a yes from a patient. It’s not about getting a signature from a patient or their family. And it’s definitely not about holding a gun to a patient’s head and saying, “You don’t have to go to this long-term-care home, but you will have to pay $1,500 a day if you don’t.”

And don’t let references about past bills from 1979 fool anyone into thinking this bill is about the same thing. That one and this one are completely different.

The definition of coercion is “the practice of persuading someone to do things by using force or threats.” The threat of a $1,500-per-day bill sure sounds like coercion to me, especially when it comes to vulnerable patients and their families, especially when there is already a power differential that exists between patients and their health care teams.

With that in mind, it’s actually amusing to think that Bill 7’s short-form rhetorical title is the More Beds, Better Care Act. It should probably be the more people, better care act, because at least that would start solving some of the fundamental staffing issues in long-term-care homes. But this bill has nothing to do with that. The long-form title is actually along the lines of amending the Fixing Long-Term Care Act with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and “to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act.” The change is consequential, and the major purpose is all about circumventing consent.

The sponsors of this bill know that. That’s why the bill actually says, “Despite subsection 3(2), this section ... shall not be interpreted or construed as being inconsistent with the residents’ bill of rights.” But it is a violation, and it is inconsistent with that bill of rights. And just saying that it isn’t doesn’t make that true.

This bill does not protect confidential patient information, and it fails to pass the three tests of informed patient consent. The worst part is that we couldn’t even invite any lawyers or medical ethicists to explain this to the members across, because they opted to circumvent going to committee—for shame.

There are other major issues with this bill. It can send patients hundreds of kilometres away from their homes, without consideration for their choices or their cultural or social needs. There is no reassurance to patients that their long-term-care homes will be adequately staffed or that they will remain adequately staffed—

Speaker, let’s talk about what this bill really means. It means that we’re giving up on those who took care of us, our seniors, the people with disabilities and the people who are most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable communities that some of my colleagues have pointed out. So in my short time, I just want to point out the fact that, when we’re talking about a health care crisis, this bill is essentially blaming those who are the most vulnerable people in our province.

No one wants ALC patients to end up in hospitals. No one here does. I don’t, and I know ALC patients themselves certainly don’t. Out of the 6,000 patients who need ALC, only about 1,800 are the ones who actually need long-term care. That means we need to build capacity for long-term care. We need to improve long-term care, and we need to make sure that we have things like inspections, things like staffing. What impact will this bill actually have on the crisis that we’re facing in our long-term care or our health care? It does not solve that problem.

The capacity issue that we face in our long-term care: Donna Duncan, the CEO of Ontario Long Term Care Association, said the following in the Toronto Star. She said that the nursing homes themselves actually do not have the capacity to take up the patients who might end up in these homes as a result of this bill because we’re not addressing the fundamental problem, which is staffing, which is the issue of these homes and which is what’s happening in our health care system.

So what we’re asking for is, withdraw Bill 7. All patients have the right to consent, especially our elders. They’re the people who built this province. These are the people who are the most vulnerable and these are the people who should not be blamed for the crisis that many of the past governments—including this government, because they were in power for the past four years—have created, this health care crisis. We really need to do better by everybody, especially those who are waiting for us to make the right decision.

The fact that there are so many advocates across this province talking about this bill and the fact that we did not have committee hearings—and we actually heard from more than, I think, a dozen people who joined our meeting yesterday, which was a mock hearing just so we could get an understanding of what people are saying. We heard from so many people who talked about the fact that we need to withdraw Bill 7. We need to fix the health care crisis, and the way to do that is to retain and recruit staff. We need to make sure we recognize internationally trained professionals who want to contribute to this province. We need to make sure that we actually help the health care system by investing in our health care system, and we need to invest in our home care. That’s where these seniors and these people want to be. They want to be in their homes, with the care they need.

And I appreciate that the member for Niagara Falls is finally reading the bill.

But did they do anything? No.

And now, somehow, they come here, when you have a government that has from day one made enormous investments in health care—we’ve talked about it: a new hospital in Brampton, new hospitals in Niagara. The largest hospital expansion, I think, in Canadian history is in Mississauga. The largest expansion of long-term care in Canadian history—province of Ontario. The largest investment in health care for Ottawa is happening under our government right now. That’s what’s happening in the province of Ontario. We’re hiring thousands of nurses, thousands of PSWs, hundreds of doctors.

They talk about—and I heard the member from Scarborough Southwest talk about, “We’ve got foreign-trained doctors and medical professionals.” Well, we’re actually doing that. We’re doing it, Madam Speaker. It could have been done, but it wasn’t done.

Now, I want to talk—the opposition House leader asked me a question about respite care. She said, “Well, are you going to bring back respite care as part of this?” Well, yes, of course we are. It was part of the news conference.

They say, “You’re going to move people hundreds of miles away.” The announcement talked about what we hoped to accomplish with this program. Yes, there are almost 6,000 people in hospital who should not be there. There are about 2,000 of them who are waiting to be in long-term-care homes, who have applied and want to be in long-term-care homes.

Are there some that should be in home care or would rather home care? Absolutely. Of course there are. That’s why we’re spending $1 billion to improve the system. That’s why I wish they would have voted for it and not against it. They’re going to have another opportunity, though. They voted against the throne speech, but very soon, colleagues, they’re going to get one more chance to vote for home care, a $1-billion investment, and we’ll see how that goes.

The member from London talked about respite care. Colleagues, I’ve talked about this before, when I first spoke. This is the program where you have a loved one and you’re taking care of the loved one at your home. More often than not, it’s an elderly couple: a husband who’s taking care of his spouse and he doesn’t want or she doesn’t want them to be in a long-term-care home, but they need a break. They just need a break. It happens, right? It happens.

The option they have available to them right now is the hospital. That’s the only option they have available to them: the hospital. This bill changes that. This bill reopens the respite care program in the province of Ontario, making available space for about 500 people who are in the hospital right now as ALC patients to come out of that, where they’re not being taken care of, and to get the respite care.

The member from London asked for that to be done. We were already doing it, but the members of the NDP say, “Well, despite the fact that you’re doing it, we can’t vote for it.”

It also said that ward beds, three- and four-bed—and why do I bring up the ward beds, the three- and four-bed rooms? It’s because the member for Niagara Falls, in his speech, talked about how—not even in his speech, in his public Twitter feed—says that we are going to move people into three- and four-bed ward rooms. Now, forget the fact that you can’t do that, but the member spoke about it—

So I’m glad that the member for London screams out that it’s not in the bill. But then I remind the member for London that nor is a $1,500-a-day charge in the bill, nor is sending people 300 kilometres away in the bill, nor is sending somebody 100 kilometres away in the bill.

What the bill ostensibly, though, is about—which they don’t want to talk about, because the NDP and the Liberals together, whether in coalition or separately, like to see chaos, right? They don’t like to see things actually accomplished. It’s not in their interests to do it. It’s about protecting the status quo.

You’ve heard about this a lot. We talk about the status quo a lot. That’s really the essence of the opposition: They are the party of the status quo. That’s what they are. Forget the fact that, to be clear, it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought in socialized medicine in the province of Ontario in the first place, right? It was a Progressive Conservative government that did that.

That’s right. Almost every hospital that you see in this province was conceived of, thought of and built by a Conservative government.

And I forgot to mention how medium-sized hospitals—I thank some of the members in some of the smaller jurisdictions, who kept saying, “You know, the Liberals kept starving small and medium-sized hospitals. They kept starving them. They could hardly do anything.” Well, of course, we fixed that funding model too. I forgot to mention that. I almost forgot what I was talking about, because there are just so many good things that are happening.

But what is the bill ostensibly about? It is about looking at somebody who’s in a hospital—Madam Speaker, I’ve actually been there. I’ve been there. I’m not lucky enough to have had a parent, my own parent, that lived long enough to come even close to a long-term-care bed, but I have a father-in-law who did. He was discharged from the Markham-Stouffville alternate-level-of-care centre at the old Humber Valley site—at 400 and Steeles, I think, or something like that.

He didn’t want to go at first. He didn’t want to go. Do you know why he didn’t want to go? It wasn’t because of the distance, but he just thought that that meant too much of a difference, a change for him. You know, “I can’t be on my own anymore and I worry about it.” Once he got there and saw how good the care was in comparison to a hospital, he was grateful for the opportunity that he had to go there. He wasn’t so excited about transitioning out, but we saw what happened. As a family, we saw what happened: He started to do better. He started to thrive. He came back. He came back to the point where he could live on his own again. And I’m glad the member from Niagara Falls is almost finished reading the bill, because he seems to be agreeing with some of this now. He came back. But that’s what we are offering.

The member for Toronto Centre talked about—and I was at the Rekai Centre just a couple of days ago. It is a wonderful place. Not-for-profits are wonderful. Our municipal homes are wonderful. Our for-profit homes are wonderful. What has not always been wonderful is the regulations that they, the Liberals and the NDP, failed to put in place to ensure that the quality of care was equalized among all sectors. We did that. But I was at the Rekai Centre, and she is correct: It’s a great facility. Many members of the LGBT community are now transitioning into that home. It is a home of preferred choice.

But the member talks about how if somebody is in ALC—and if I’m wrong, the member can correct me, if I get it wrong—we won’t be able to address their specific needs. But again, that is incorrect. It’s incorrect. It’s not—I’ll choose my words carefully. It’s incorrect. Why? Because of a couple of things. First of all, nobody can be discharged to a home that doesn’t have the staffing. It’s part of the Fixing Long-Term Care Act. So when they talk about how there are not going to be enough staff, that’s actually incorrect; the law doesn’t allow that to happen.

But part of why we are doing this, part of the rationale for consent, part of the rationale to look at a patient’s needs is so that we know that before we offer a facility that is not a preferred choice, we can ask: “This is what this patient, who is discharged from a hospital, needs. Can you cover this person’s needs?” Whether it is cultural, whether it is, as I’ve said, dialysis, or many of the patients in hospital have dementia, they need specialized care. We can ask, “Can you handle that?” And they will say to us, yes or no. If it’s a no, then we’ll say, “What do you need in order to handle the person we want to send to you for better care?” They may say, in the case of somebody with dementia, “We need additional resources from behavioural services Ontario to ensure that there’s an attendant who can work with the patient.” They may say, “We need a special diet for the patient.” They may say, “We need larger beds for bariatric patients.” They may say, “We need kidney dialysis.” And there’s funding in place to ensure that that happens—funding that doesn’t exist now but that will exist because of this bill. It is matching up the needs of the patient with the resident—the person who will become a resident. So we don’t have to ship people off to get dialysis.

Who would get up in this place and advocate for a system that they know is not in the best interests of the patient?

What we’ve heard from the opposition today is ludicrous—that, somehow, offering a better quality of care to somebody is going to make them give up. My father-in-law didn’t give up because he was asked to go somewhere else. He ended up thriving. And that is what we are trying to accomplish with this bill.

At the same time, it is unacceptable—the member from Niagara Falls talked about how Ontario is a rich province—that if I have to bring my child to an emergency room, or if you have to bring your grandchild, your child, a parent, a loved one, that they have to wait, and that if they need to be put into a hospital, there’s not a bed available. Why? Because we have people there who aren’t being treated in the best possible way. It doesn’t serve the needs of the person who’s waiting. It doesn’t serve the needs of the person who wants or needs a room. And we can do it better.

The worst part is, the NDP are arguing for a reduced level of care. They are arguing to treat our seniors—because that’s what this bill is talking about—like less, that they don’t deserve the same quality of care that somebody else gets. I think that’s wrong. That’s why we’ve made the investments that we’re making. That’s why the bill does what it does. That’s why it makes the extra investments. Their lies, their argument, everything that they say runs counter to what is best for the patient, but what it is best for is the status quo and the people they’re more interested in—because, I would submit to you, Madam Speaker, it’s not the patient who, as my parliamentary assistant said, wants to become a resident, wants to have a home; a patient who will get treatment, who will get care in a long-term-care home while waiting, if they’re asked to move, at the top of the waiting list for their home or preferred choice.

Better care in your community—close to your family, close to your spouse, close to your caregivers, while waiting at the top of the list for your preferred choice. I think it’s a choice that Ontarians understand is in the best interests of the people of the province of Ontario.