It gives me great pleasure to present the following petitions on behalf of Mary Margison, who collected all the signatures. It reads:

“Stop Highway 413.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government is pushing ahead with plans to build Highway 413, a redundant and wasteful 400-series highway through the greenbelt that would cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion; and

“Whereas the Ontario government’s expert panel concluded that Highway 413 would be a waste of taxpayer money that would only save drivers 30 to 60 seconds on their commutes; and

“Whereas Highway 413 would pave over 400 acres of greenbelt and 2,000 acres of farmland, destroy the habitats of at-risk and endangered species, pollute rivers and streams, and cause significant harm to historic Indigenous sites;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Stop the plans for building Highway 413.”

I fully agree with the petition. I will affix my signature and deliver it to page Juliet for the Clerks.

When we heard the throne speech, we knew it was an opportunity for relief, an opportunity for hope. And yet, unfortunately, there were some serious letdowns with this throne speech.

I think back to when I first entered this chamber back in 2018. I was pleased to see that this government has learned, because in 2018, if you will remember, Speaker, the throne speech began without a land acknowledgment—a very curious omission, something that was completely absent. Also, in mentioning the pillars of diversity in 2018 and going through all of these different attributes, the government included the word “lifestyle,” which anyone knows is a dog whistle to suggest that being gay is a choice. So I was glad to see that this wasn’t included in this government’s current throne speech.

I worry that the throne speech is really full of empty words, that it’s flimsy window dressing for actual substantive changes, and I am also concerned that it fails to directly address many of the most pressing issues that we see across our province as this time. Some of those issues include affordability, with inflation at an all-time high, and our health care crisis—such a precarious state in all of our hospitals, seeing emergency rooms closing, seeing people leaving the field; it’s a deep concern—also, in education. We need to make sure we have more robust supports for workers and social assistance and actually address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.

To begin my remarks, I’d like to take a deep dive through the throne speech itself. It starts off by talking about the virtues of partnership and collaboration, which is good to hear—that this government is interested in collaborating and interested in listening to the official opposition.

It also mentions the affordability crisis. It does mention inflation, yet we don’t see enough relief to stem that rising tide of costs.

Curiously, it does mention hard-working people, but it also, directly after that, just two paragraphs away, talks about the rising costs of labour. Therefore, they talk about inflation—they know that life is getting more unaffordable, that people are working hard—but they’re also talking about people wanting too much money. That’s a shame.

The government talks about creating good jobs in the throne speech, but they don’t mention, in combination with that, good wages.

They talk about high-quality hospitals and long-term-care homes, but they’ve left out the mention of public hospitals. That is a strange omission, but I get it; we see with government bills like G7 that they’re hoping to move money away from the public system and put it into the hands of a few shareholders.

As well, the government talks about the free rapid antigen tests that were provided directly to Ontarians, but they neglect to mention that that was yet another example of their privatization, of taking public money and putting it into the hands of people like Shoppers Drug Mart, who had a direct financial benefit from this government’s decision.

They also mention adding 3,500 new hospital beds and thousands more nurses—it’s funny that they first mentioned the furniture, almost as though the people are an afterthought.

They also talk about investing $1 billion more to expand home and community care, but what they fail to mention is that, largely, that system is private. In fact, they undertook great pains to make sure that some of the remaining vestiges of home care were privatized under the last Legislature.

There is a mention, as well, of 30,000 new long-term-care beds. I’m sure that people with private interests are just rubbing their hands together, thinking about all the profit they are going to get from people in our system.

There are, again, some very flimsy words, some sentiments saying that in the health care system there’s “an exhausted workforce and increasingly stressed emergency departments.” Those words are incredibly true, but if the government actually believed them, they would repeal Bill 124.

It mentions that nine out of 10 high-urgency patients are finishing their emergency visit within target times—as if nine out of 10 was a success.

They’re attempting to change the channel. But what is deeply concerning, when you analyze the language of the throne speech, is—they mention working with “health system partners.” They talk about doing “whatever measures” and that there’s “meaningful reform.” This is concerning because these are coded words. These are words that are signalling the increasing privatization of our publicly funded health care system.

There’s a mention of paramedicine, yet this government does not take into account the fact that, for instance, in my community of London, one third of paramedics want to leave. They’re actively pursuing another job because of the backlog at hospitals, the amount of stress they’re under, the fact that they don’t get breaks. They’re worked off their feet. All of their shifts are incredibly long. This government provides words, but we don’t see any investments to help make their lives better.

There are further buzzwords, like “stifles innovation,” “status quo.” Yet again, these are buzzwords. This government wants to overhaul the publicly funded health care system. It’s almost as though they’re suggesting that public funding is the status quo. Actually, funding hospitals properly is the status quo. They can’t claim that they have actually maintained that, because they have not funded hospitals properly. We have not seen that under this government’s mandate, yet they’re saying it’s not working. Well, it’s no surprise. If you strangle a system when it stops working, it’s no wonder it stops working because it is underfunded and cut to the bone.

There is also, of course, much finger-pointing. They’ve said that the federal government needs to pay its fair share of health care funding. Let’s look back at history. Provincial governments are calling for 35% of the health care transfers. Let’s never forget that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who cut the federal health care yearly increases from 6% to 3%—yet another example of austerity that we have not seen changed under a federal Liberal government, for that matter.

We also see: “Together, let’s build an economy with better jobs and bigger paycheques,” but it’s very careful language in that they are not saying “better wages.” It’s almost like this government is expecting people to work more so they have a bigger paycheque, but they’re not going to pay them what they’re worth—because they’re clearly not repealing Bill 124 at this stage.

They do, however, include an increase to the Ontario Disability Support Program. I’m reminded of when this government first took power. There was a promised 3% increase, which was cut to a 1.5% increase. After having learned the lessons throughout the pandemic, with everyone agreeing that $2,000 a month was an adequate, sustainable income for everyone in this province, this government still has chosen to ensure that people living on social assistance are well below the poverty level.

I’d also like to take a look at some of the things that we need to consider in terms of affordability. We see across our province that people are having to accept lower wages, and that everything else is going up in price, whether it’s the cost of food, the cost of fuel—the cost of everything else. It would be refreshing to see this government raise the minimum wage, repeal Bill 124—raise public sector compensation by getting rid of Bill 124. ODSP rates need to be doubled to make sure that people are able to maintain housing, to feed their families properly and to have a healthy life.

We also need the government to take an active role to protect people from price gouging. During the pandemic, we heard the Premier talking about becoming an 800-pound gorilla, being on people’s backs, and yet we saw no one who was pursued who reported price gouging across our province.

From the official opposition side, we introduced legislation for a consumer protection watchdog, yet this government didn’t feel it was important to protect consumers; they didn’t feel it was important to make sure seniors aren’t getting fleeced. We saw that door-to-door sales were banned under the previous Liberal government, but that doesn’t stop people—they call on the phone, they make an appointment, they get into people’s homes, and they force them to sign terrible agreements for HVAC systems, for home automation, for so many other things, and this government has done nothing to stop that.

If we take a look at our current health care crisis, right now there’s so much of our public money that is going to private, for-profit industries as it is. We know that health care spending is being used on hiring temp nurses, that spending on temp agency nurses has gone up 550% since pre-pandemic levels. There’s a clear connection here. Many nurses have been exhausted, and they feel, quite frankly, humiliated by this government—to be rejected, to be ignored, to be completely cast aside. We have words, and then we have actions. This government could repeal Bill 124 and deliver the respect that they deserve, and yet instead we see talking points and no actions.

This overreliance on these temp agency nurses is a stopgap that is not helping anyone—it is not only privatization, but it’s ensuring that people are similarly leaving the field to pursue these private industries. We also have the greater risk of injury at work for places that are unfamiliar. We also have concerns about the continuity of care. It’s yet another example of privatization, where this government is taking public money, our tax dollars, and flushing it down the drain. They’re making sure that only a few people are benefiting from that. Here, on the official opposition side, we believe in publicly funding health care and making sure we stretch every last one of those dollars as much as they can go to the greatest level of care, yet this government seems immune to that.

What’s a further tremendous concern is when we see this hinted privatization language within the throne speech. We see examples in Bill 7. We heard the government actually speaking about how people who are in hospitals, who are in an alternate-level-of-care situation, should be paying. This government believes that those people should be paying. This government wants hospitals to charge people up to $1,500 a day for their care. The only other option is for them to be forced into a situation that is not necessarily one of their choosing, into a long-term-care home that they did not choose, through really what is a disgraceful level of coercion for seniors, who deserve far better.

We also want to look towards inflation. We know that inflation is around 8.1% at this stage, yet this government doesn’t offer much relief for taxpayers; it doesn’t offer much relief for the middle class. In fact, in a recent report, it has been indicated that only 16%—did you hear that—of workers believe their wages are keeping up with inflation. That’s shocking. That would leave out so many people across this province. Think about the gig workers. Think about the PSWs who aren’t provided full-time jobs with benefits, because this government is happy to allow private, for-profit long-term-care homes to operate in the way they do.

I want to take a look at privatization itself because, as I’ve said, this throne speech reeks of it; it stinks to high heaven.

In long-term care, for-profit residents—let’s do some facts and figures here—were 60% more likely to be infected with COVID-19 and 45% more likely to die. In the for-profit homes throughout the pandemic, they were five times more likely to die than those in publicly and municipally run homes and not-for-profit homes. Yet instead of taking that information, instead of learning that lesson throughout the pandemic, we see this government is hell-bent on continuing to take public money and put it into shareholders’ pockets, put it into the pockets of insiders. It’s truly frightening. For-profit homes spend 24% less per year on care. That should be obvious. We have a government that talks a good game about finances and conservation of wealth and spending money in a wise, frugal way. This should be clear and it should be very obvious: If the money is not going towards its intended purpose, then it should not be spent. If we wanted seniors to be cared for correctly, then we would have publicly funded, not-for-profit long-term care. It’s obvious.

We also want to look towards how these private, for-profit long-term-care corporations and businesses are able to funnel that money away. Do you know how that is, Speaker? It’s because they pay their staff less money. They work their staff in ridiculous ways—they have part-time jobs without benefits, without respect—and they pay them far less. They hire, in fact, most times, casual staff, part-time staff. They rely on these very same agencies I mentioned earlier to keep their doors open—not just keep their doors open, but keep the pockets of their few investors full.

We should be expanding home care and making sure it is publicly delivered and publicly funded, instead of it going into agency pockets. If we look at how much the home care companies are paid with public funds for a nurse, it’s between $58 and $70 per hour—this was from 2015, mind you. How much do those companies actually pay the staff, pay that nurse, from that $58 to $70? They pay them about $30 an hour. That’s hefty profit—for a PSW, it’s between $30 to $50. That’s how much money they get from the government, yet they pass on less than half of that: $15 per hour for a PSW. That’s a shame, and that should be stopped. That is a very inappropriate and ineffective expenditure. It’s an unwise way to spend our public money.

Speaker, we also need to take a look at a government that needs to build affordable and supportive housing. Throughout my community, we have a really amazing organization, the Forgotten 519. Jenna Rose Sands, Dan Oudshoorn and Dr. Andrea Sereda came together to really show the plight of what’s happening to people who are losing their lives; people who have hopes, people who have dreams; people who have families who are dying on the street in front of our eyes. Yet this government is not funding social assistance well; they’re not building affordable housing. This is the problem. We need to make sure that people are housed, that people are safe, and then and only then can they build back their lives. Frequently, whenever I’ve brought this issue to the House before, we’ve heard this government talk about wraparound services, yet they don’t provide those wraparound services. They are not funding mental health support. They aren’t funding things correctly. We can fix that.

As I look back on this throne speech, we see that this was an opportunity. I had hoped, through all the different iterations of the pandemic and all the different waves, that this government would have learned and that it would have looked at how it did not create an iron ring around long-term care; how it failed working people in Ontario by waiting so long to finally provide sick days, the paltry few that they did, and finally looked towards the future by providing 10 paid sick days—like the member from London West has brought forward once again.

We also have opportunities to make sure we expedite the credentials of foreign-trained nurses, like the member from Scarborough Southwest—the excellent legislation she has brought forward. There was an opportunity back then, and yet we only hear the government making noises about this now.

There is so much more we can do. I look forward to working with this government to make sure we find—that we show what has been missing from this throne speech and what actually needs to be done here in the province of Ontario.

Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

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

I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 24, 2022, 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.

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of 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.

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

I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 25, 2022, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Thank you to the member for Barrie–Innisfil for the question. It’s almost like she borrowed words from my speech and was trying to use them against me. It’s rather interesting.

On the official opposition side, we have always advocated to listen to the front lines in health care.

Throughout this throne speech, we don’t see any listening to the front lines of health care—we hear “working with system partners,” and we saw a government that worked with long-term-care owner-operators throughout the pandemic. They created legislation to protect them from legal liability for all the deaths that happened on their watch. That’s frightening.

Instead, we need to listen to the workers. We need to listen to the nurses. We need to listen to the PSWs. We need to listen to the patients who are actually being impacted. That would include having a committee so that we could actually discuss Bill 7 and hear from the people who are going to be impacted, the people who are going to be coerced and forced out of the hospital into a place where they don’t want to go, hundreds of kilometres away, away from their family. That would be listening. That would be your actions matching your words.

Instead, we have all sorts of talk in this throne speech—but it’s coded language; it’s hiding what is actually going on, and that’s increasing privatization. Quite frankly, that is something I believe Ontarians are frightened of.

Why don’t you just be forthright and tell Ontarians what you’re hoping to do—and that is to make health care for-profit in Ontario?

By listening to people, by actually engaging with Ontarians, the official opposition has been able to advocate on some very important pieces of legislation. Those include the member for Windsor West’s More Than a Visitor Act, something that would give essential caregivers more of a role within health care decisions that are being made for folks in long-term care. That was incredibly important, because, throughout the pandemic, we saw that many of these essential caregivers, these loved ones, these people who provided care, who helped buttress a system that has been woefully undercut and underfunded for many, many years—they were the ones who were actually providing that care, and they were shut out from these homes. They were not allowed to see their loved ones, and that’s so difficult on a senior, on someone with disabilities—the only thing that they look forward to every day is seeing that loved one.

Also, we had other legislation—like Till Death Do Us Part Act, to make sure that loved ones are kept in the same home, from the member for Waterloo, and so many other things.

We see a government that doesn’t want to work across party lines and that doesn’t want to work with each other.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague from London North Centre.

We’ve just heard the member from Barrie–Innisfil stand up—and she makes it sound as though it’s a one-way street, that we’re just supposed to agree to everything the government wants to do, and that it doesn’t work the other way around.

I know that we have brought forward many solutions to the health care crisis—and it’s not just us bringing them forward; it’s actually because we’ve listened to the front-line health care workers, we’ve listened to people who have accessed health care. I shared a story in the House about a woman in my riding who waited over 16 hours to be seen in an emergency department.

This government seems to think that, with Bill 7, just transferring seniors and people with disabilities into long-term-care homes hours away from their own home, without their consent, is the answer to fixing the health care crisis.

I’m wondering if the member from London North Centre could talk about some of the things that we have brought forward and that the public has brought forward, because this government doesn’t want to do committee on Bill 7. So maybe we can have an opportunity, through my colleague, to share some of the things that we’ve heard from the front-line people, the workers, and the people accessing health care in the province.

Questions?

The member, in his speech, was saying how he wants to work with the government. If we are going to be working together to improve health care, to improve patient outcomes—every step of the way, unfortunately, the member’s actions haven’t matched the words. So I’m wondering if his actions will actually match his words going forward.

How many nurses did you fire, John?

I’ve got two quick questions for the member.

This government has been in power since 2018, so they’ve gone through one term. They’re into a second term.

Can the member explain to this House what this government has done with regard to helping front-line workers get the respect they deserve, with bill removal and repealing Bill 124?

Also, I’m sure you are hearing from your constituents, as I am—from northern Ontario—on the measly $58 that people will see on their ODSP increases. How is that actually going to impact their lives? What are you hearing from your constituents in your riding—what this government is touting as the biggest 5% increase ever being made on ODSP rates? What is the reality? What does that mean for people who are sitting at home, who are facing many challenges, who are looking for help, who are looking for leadership from this government?

I listened intently to the member opposite—and of course, as we approach the 10-year anniversary of the passage of the 2012 budget, I was thinking about budgets throughout the years—and it was interesting to me to hear the member opposite say that his party has always stood with front-line workers, when we know that they were a party that propped up the Liberal government, including in a 2012 budget that froze wages across the board, that many public sector unions and labour partners across the province spoke out against.

So my question is, why would the member opposite be part of a party that passed legislation that spoke against the rights of workers and yet now won’t vote for anything that is ensuring that there is more staff in our long-term-care homes, more staff in our hospitals, and more supports for these front-line workers, who deserve all of our support in order to ensure that they are given the tools they need to provide world-class health care here in the province of Ontario?

I’d like to thank the member from Niagara West for his question, although I think there are a few mistakes in there.

One of the reasons that I became very interested and very engaged in politics was Bill 115—and that was wage-suppression tactics that were by the Liberal government at the time and supported by the Conservatives. That was a direct attack on teachers, a direct attack on workers, and one that the Conservatives really supported.

And you see a parallel: There was Bill 115, which took away the bargaining rights of educators in the education system, and now we have Bill 124, which takes away the bargaining rights of nurses and front-line health care heroes. So, really, it’s old wine in new bottles. We see the same tricks. We see the same sorts of omnibus legislation.

Supporting workers in my riding is something that’s very key, and I find it very concerning that the member would try to paint this brush—we keep hearing about this coalition that never existed. It’s funny how this government is really trying to change history, but it’s really not working.

We don’t see any support from this government for front-line workers; if we did, we would actually see them repeal Bill 124.

I want to turn to the Premier’s comments from March 30, 2020, when he was speaking about Bill 124 and speaking about health care professionals. He said: “If it was up to me, I’d just give them the bank.” Well, it has been two years, and we still see this deliberate wage suppression, this disrespectful Bill 124.

To the second part of the question, in terms of social assistance rates: We know that there was a Conservative government that slashed social assistance rates by 22.5%, and then there were 15 years when the Liberals could have fixed that and they chose to do nothing—so much so that that initial cut was drastic, and yet people are worse off now than they were then. And this government seems to claim that 5% is going to change everything; it’s not. As the member points out, $58 is not going to fix it for people. There are people who have spoken to me who have indicated that they’ve withheld medication, that they are on the brink of losing their home, and that if they’re about to go on the streets, they may choose to take that medication. That is a shocking reality that this government refuses to admit. They should not be patting themselves on the back for 5%; they should be doubling it.

We always from the government that the private sector is going to somehow be the greatest thing since sliced bread—it’s going to be choice; it’s going to be efficient; it’s going to be accurate. And yet, no, as soon as they take over contracts, it ends up costing far more, and people don’t have the care that they need.

It’s a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I see some of my friends on the other side. I’m glad they’re here, and I hope we can have a nice, healthy debate and I can bring a smile to your faces.

It’s not about what’s in the throne speech; it’s about what’s not. A throne speech is supposed to be about what a government’s priorities are.

If you look at this throne speech, the thing that really stands out is: aucune mention des besoins des Franco-Ontariens; pas une seule ligne en français. Les services en français pour la communauté sont très importants dans les foyers de longue durée, dans les soins de santé, dans les services communautaires pour les personnes âgées. C’est très important—pas une mention. C’est un grand problème pour la communauté franco-ontarienne. It should be a problem for all of us. For years, governments have continued to try to work and improve upon French-language services. It’s especially critical in health care, and we’re never done. That’s something that should be part of every throne speech. It’s very important. It’s a very important part of our province. That’s why we have the flag flying up here.

The other thing that really stood out is, I couldn’t find the words “environment” or “climate change.” That’s on the minds of most Ontarians these days. If we take a look at some of the storms and floods that we’ve had over the last number of years, the derecho that just hit Ottawa—and, by the way, we’re still waiting there for disaster relief. I know my colleague asked a question about that. Other areas in Ontario are getting disaster relief, but farmers, especially in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell right now, are looking for—there are some sugar bushes out there that are looking for that. I know the member would like to see that as well. So I hope the government obliges their own members and ensures that that assistance that’s happening in Ontario comes here.

Bill 124: It’s an obvious priority for the government, because they keep hanging on to it. It’s not in the throne speech. You have to ask yourself why, if it’s such a priority for the government, they don’t want to mention it again in a throne speech. They’re hanging on to it—except that nurses are leaving at twice the rate.

Bill 124 has been the most damaging piece of legislation to our health care human resources that I can remember, and that even goes as far back—because I’m old—as Mike Harris firing 8,000 nurses and saying they were basically hula hoops. I know I’m bringing back some history, but you guys are familiar with that. And we won’t talk about the 26 hospitals that you closed; they weren’t in the throne speech.

Our challenge in this province and actually across Canada right now is competing for health care human resources, the best and the brightest nurses, doctors, front-line health care workers.

What has Bill 124 done? It has driven nurses out of the system, to retire. It has driven nurses to go and work for private agencies, because private agencies aren’t bound by the restriction of 1%. What happens? They get driven towards private agencies and then they go back and work in our long-term-care homes and our hospitals for sometimes two or three times the rate. That’s not great fiscal policy—and sometimes the same nurses. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think paying two and three times as much for the same person is going to be very helpful. It has also sent the wrong message to health care workers who are currently in the system. What it says to nurses and others is, “You’re not allowed to bargain.” But if you are on a police service or you’re a firefighter, you can bargain. How do you think nurses feel about that? It’s not just about the money, although the money is really important; it’s about respect.

So if the government is so tied to Bill 124, they should have said something about it in the throne speech.

Bill 7: We didn’t see that coming in the throne speech, did we? Nary a mention, not a thing—amazing. A few weeks later, we’re now saying that we are going to pass a law that is going to allow people in the health care system to move people without their consent. I know what the other side is going to say later on in questions: “No, that’s not what the bill says.” I would just ask you to read the bill. It says expressly—even in the explanatory note, two lines in—that this will allow patients to be moved without their consent. Would any of us accept that for our families? I don’t think so.

And now we find out that the threat of a big hospital bill can be used because the patient is deemed to be discharged. The government is kind of covering that over. Oh, they’re going to come out and somebody can stand up—I don’t know if anybody can stand up today and has the authority to say, “That’s not going to happen.” Not one person on the government side has said that. You haven’t said it. Using the threat of a big hospital bill to coerce consent out of somebody—it’s not great. You didn’t mention in the throne speech, (a) that you’re going to do this, (b) how far you can send people—we still don’t know. It doesn’t say how much it was going to cost people if they didn’t consent to something that might not be good for their families.

I’ve seen recently that there were some comments that a 35-minute drive isn’t so bad—well, maybe not for you or me, but for an 80-year-old, that’s a long way away. I know; I’ve watched it over the years—couples get separated. It’s a really difficult time in their lives, and taking out this big stick to say, “You’re going to do what we want you to do. You guys are the problem because you don’t want to co-operate in the system, because you’re going to be uncooperative”—that’s the message it’s sending.

The crazy thing about this is, you’re going so fast—there are 2,000 families out there right now, and if 150 of them know about it, I’d be shocked. So this thing is going to come down the pipe at them, and you’re going to give the people who are dealing with them a tremendous amount of power. That’s dangerous. Whether it’s this or anything else—there’s no check and balance in it.

The government is putting forward the bill as if it’s a temporary measure. That’s the way they’re trying to make it sound. Read the bill. Does anybody see a sunset clause? I don’t. This bill is permanent. It’s not for next week, next month or next year; it’s forever—because you’re not making a bill to repeal it a year later. If you’re going to do that, you’re going to put it in the bill.

Make no mistake about it, someday one of us may be in exactly the same position—and I’m probably closer to it than most of you, so maybe that’s why it makes me more upset.

Actually, it makes me upset because there are so many people out there who already don’t know their rights, who already don’t have power in the system, who already don’t have a voice, and you’re setting up the system—Bill 7, not a mention in the throne speech. Bill 7 is going to fundamentally change how we treat people going into long-term care—our seniors, the frail elderly, people close to the end of their lives, and people with disabilities. It’s a fundamental change.

I know for a fact that this is something that has been talked about for years. There was a reason that it has never been done: It’s not right; none of us would accept it—and we’re going at lightning speed. We could be debating this bill tomorrow afternoon and have it passed by Wednesday with no public consultation—not a comment. The people who are going to be most affected by this? They don’t know. They won’t know until it comes down the pipe and runs smack into them, and they won’t know what their rights are. Here’s the thing—and we’re not thinking about this: We’re all talking about it right now. It’s in the media. It’s in our minds. After that bill has passed, there are 2,000 families out there in Ontario it’s going to happen to. We’re not going to see them. Maybe you will if they call your office, if they know to call your office—because not everybody knows to call our office. Or maybe you hear about it—but you’re not likely to hear about it. Some 2,000 people out of the millions of families in Ontario—that’s not a lot. But for those 2,000 people, it is a lot—it means a lot to them. It’s a senior they’ve loved through their lives, who they want to make sure gets the best care—and now we’re treating them as if they’re the problem. That’s what this bill does. It’s fundamentally wrong.

I don’t think anybody here wants to do what this bill is going to do—I don’t believe that. I think this bill is just getting rammed through because it’s not the right thing to do and the government knows it. The people who are putting this forward know it. We’ll pass it. We won’t see what happens. We’ll hear stories now and then. But if this was your intention, it should have been mentioned in the throne speech. We should have had a longer debate about it. We should have been talking more about this.

The last thing is, I didn’t hear “status quo” in the speech, but what I do know is that every time I hear the Premier say “status quo”—well, for the last four months, his status quo was what we have now. We couldn’t find the Minister of Health for five weeks in an ER crisis. So the Premier needs to know that the status quo he talks about is his.

I want to thank the member opposite for his speech. I did pick up a couple of themes, especially with respect to involvement of the private sector.

Just a couple of months ago, when I was visiting long-term-care facilities, a staff member came to me and wished me success in the election. She let me know that she was voting PC for the first time in her life. That’s probably why I’m here. She was a proud long-term-care nurse who works in the private sector. She cares about her patients and is proud of the work she does to care for people. The narrative that the private sector is not competent and is not doing the appropriate work for their patients is distressing.

Can the member explain how opposing the hard work of our private sector long-term-care facilities that can help build up supportive services to more people and keep Ontario open—

I want to thank the member from Ottawa South for his presentation. He mentioned the previous Mike Harris government and talked about hospital closures, funding cuts—I would add on the destruction of the model for our education system—privatizing our health care sector, long-term care, seniors’ care or home care. There are a lot of things to mention.

I would like to ask the member if you would enlighten us a little bit in terms of the way that the Harris legacy has impacted us and where we are today, and what this bill would mean for the future.

Questions to the member for Ottawa South?

Over the last four years, in my riding, our hospitals have had $21 million of investment in redevelopments that are long overdue and did not occur for 15 years prior to that.

I want to know what the member opposite has to say to those who lie in hallways on gurneys waiting for care.

I had a senior resident in my community who was in septic shock, was on a gurney for three days in the emergency ward before being admitted to a hospital bed, and spent three weeks there. That constituent was my father.

What does the member opposite have to say to those residents, those Ontarians, who lie in wait in emergency rooms, waiting for rooms that they can’t get because there’s an alternate-level-of-care patient who has been discharged, who’s ready to be moved and can’t be moved?

It’s an absolute honour for me to be able to rise in the House today as the member for Brampton East.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all newly elected and re-elected members on their election to this House. Each of us has taken a different path to get here, but all with a common goal regardless of our political stripes: That is our shared belief in the values of democracy, service to our community and doing the best we can for the great people of Ontario. I look forward to serving this term with all of you here today.

Comprised of a population of just over 121,000, the great riding of Brampton East is one of the most diverse, vibrant and fast-growing areas in the country. I would like to thank the residents of Brampton East for putting their trust in me and giving me the honour of representing them in this House. I would like to thank all the hard-working volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly to send me here to Queen’s Park and for the time they took out making phone calls, knocking on doors and putting up signs across the riding. I’m especially grateful to everyone who hosted meet-and-greet events in their backyards. Speaker, we had just over 60 backyard get-togethers in the span of 28 days. Every day, when I take my seat in this Legislature, I always appreciate them and remember the tremendous amount of hard work it took to make history here in Brampton East. It is with their time, love and support that this is a reality. To my friends, to my volunteers and family who sacrificed many long nights and many long days, thank you. Thank you for taking a chance in a riding where no one ever once thought the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario stood a chance. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Without you, this victory would not have been possible. I would also like to give a special shout-out to the hundreds of youth volunteers who helped our team break records knocking on doors. It was with their support that we were able to deliver our party’s message of “Yes” to building Ontario’s and Brampton’s infrastructure, from hospitals to highways, to universities and so much more. They helped us deliver this message to each and every household in this riding many times over.

To me, community is everything. From my early childhood onwards, I was shaped by my community, and I will never forget my roots. That is why I will always be a strong advocate for the residents of Brampton East and Brampton, and that is my promise to all the constituents of Brampton East and Brampton.

Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank two very important individuals to whom I owe everything: my mother, Parminder Kaur Grewal, and my father, Jagdish Singh Grewal. Without their hard work, sacrifice and commitment, I would not be who I am today.

My parents came to Canada at a very young age in search of a new life full of opportunity, with nothing in their pockets but a strong work ethic and a dream to succeed, just like a lot of other immigrant parents that have come to this great country over a number of many years. My mother worked multiple jobs, most prominently in my memory working as a window and glass factory assembly line worker, standing up for countless hours with aching hands and feet, to come home and then take care of my brother, my sister and myself. She always made us feel loved, and no matter the hardships, always made sure that we had everything that we could ever ask for.

My father also worked multiple jobs. In fact, just one day after landing in Abbotsford, BC, in 1989, he started his first job the very next day picking blueberries, and then later to move to Toronto to start a career in heavy-duty mechanics and later join the Canadian Armed Forces here in Toronto. With that said, Speaker, in 1994, I was born, and the forces had different plans for him. He had papers to move from Toronto to be stationed in Petawawa. At the request of my mother, he decided to make Etobicoke North our home and worked as an automotive technician at Chrysler for many years.

Before immigrating to Canada, he was studying to be a lawyer and was a passionate writer and poet, and after years of community involvement in various broadcast media, charitable, sports, writing and poetry organizations, in 2002 he left Chrysler and started the first daily Punjabi-language newspaper in the world outside of India, the Canadian Punjabi Post. As his list of professions continues to evolve and grow, I consider this his most notable achievement, none of which would have been possible without the steadfast support of my mother. I’m extremely sure that, in 1989, when my father landed in Abbotsford, British Columbia, and started his first job in Canada picking blueberries, the last thing he imagined was that his son would be a member in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is one of Canada’s greatest beauties: No matter where you come from, who you worship, if you work hard enough, the sky is the limit.

My parents worked hard, persevered. They never gave up. No matter the financial struggles they went through to establish themselves, they remained positive and hopeful. They are my inspiration. They are the reason why I want to fight for Ontarians and the people of Brampton and ensure that our future generations have the same opportunities of success and the same opportunities to succeed.

I would also like to thank my grandmother, Surjit Kaur Grewal, and my grandfather, Kirpal Singh Grewal, who also served in the Indian Army, retired, then immigrated to Canada. I have been fortunate to spend a lot of my early childhood with my grandparents. I love them both, and I would like to thank them for instilling great values, taking care of me and always being my biggest supporters in any endeavor that I’ve chosen to take in my life. I know there is no one prouder than my grandfather, who watches every time I speak in the House at home on his iPad, and then has his remarks ready as soon as I walk in the door.

As both my father and grandfather served in the military, you can just imagine the discipline in our household and the early wakeup calls, and that is one thing that I’ve never been fond of.

I would also like to thank my younger brother, Chetan Singh Grewal, and my sister, Harleen Kaur Grewal, for always being so supportive and always being there by my side. No matter how big or small of a task, they were always ready to help, and especially during the course of the campaign and in everyday life, they are my backbone. They’re the ones I rely on to get the job done because they work tirelessly, day and night, to ensure things run smoothly, and the success of this campaign would not have been possible without them by my side each and every day. I’m truly blessed to have siblings like the both of you.

Speaker, one thing most people might not understand is the kind of stress it puts on family members of a person who puts their name forward for public office and the sacrifices they must make in their lives. I’m so blessed and beyond grateful for an extended family, close friends and relatives, all of whom played an important role in getting me where I am here today.

I would like to talk a little bit about my own personal journey into public service and politics. I was born and raised in Etobicoke North, and I started my journey into politics and community service when I was super young, between 12 and 15 years old.

As I mentioned before, my father was a journalist, and I would passionately spend most of my days with him, attending local community events, press conferences and meetings, and those that knew me at the time knew that I was most notable for my photojournalism, taking pictures at events, going to press conferences, taking pictures of leaders, and then being very excited when they were published in my father’s very own newspaper and various other outlets, including the national media, depending on the circumstances.

So what this did is, it allowed me to have a lot of face time with government officials, such as Prime Ministers, Premiers, mayors, and it’s through these interactions that my personal interest in politics began. I had the opportunity to meet with some of Canada’s most influential leaders and learn first-hand what had inspired them to run and serve our great country.

One of my most memorable visits was when I was just 14 years old and I was attending a garden party at the Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s residence. And just being there, being able to take in that aura and being able to speak to whomever I pleased, whether it was a minister, whether it was an MP, whether it was a government relations stakeholder, and being able to discuss the various things that mattered most to them really helped inspire me to get here where I am today. At first-hand, I got to build individual relationships and then they encouraged me to get involved further.

It was then when I met the immigration minister and now Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, who I’m proud to call a good friend, someone who’s always encouraged me to pursue my dreams. And as I met Premier Kenney, I met so many other ministers, MPs, and they all had the same level of encouragement to help support my dreams of one day being in the public sector, whether it was through service as staff or through service as a volunteer or through service today as, I’m so proud to be, the MPP from Brampton East.

At every opportunity available to me, I volunteered with many campaigns in various levels of government, from putting up signs to managing campaigns and virtually everything in between, no matter how big or small. At the young age of 18, I became the local riding president of Etobicoke North, a position I held for approximately eight years, to later move on as an elected regional director on the PC Ontario Fund.

And fast-forward—after a couple of nomination attempts which didn’t go my way—to today, to being the candidate in Brampton East and to being the MPP in Brampton East. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable Premier Doug Ford for the role that he played in shaping me into who I am today. I still remember the meetings he used to have with me in Perkins, a famous restaurant in Etobicoke, many, many years ago. I still remember his guidance and words of wisdom over the years. It is truly an honour to be a part of this government today and serve under his leadership.

I would also like to thank two more individuals, MPP Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria and MPP Amarjot Sandhu, who over the last four years have kept me involved and informed in the process. Through their offices, I’ve been able to volunteer and continuously help the residents of Brampton East. It’s a great feeling when you have two brothers in the House which you can continuously turn to for support and guidance. I, alongside my newly elected colleagues MPP McGregor and MPP Williams, hope to amplify the great work that they’ve been doing advocating for Brampton over the last four years.

I’m extremely thankful to all of those who have supported me in my endeavours throughout my entire life. I’m especially grateful to the residents of Brampton East and I’m extremely humbled, grateful and excited to be here and serve in the 43rd Parliament of Ontario.

Speaker, when I think about Brampton, not only do I think about the numerous amounts of young entrepreneurs that we have, because their average median age is 35, we also have a very vibrant social community which continues to thrive and which continues to hold social events and strengthen our community. On many occasions, I’ve had the opportunity of meeting with various seniors’ clubs, and the seniors’ clubs in our area are extremely active and involved in the every day—whether it’s politics, sports, you name it. They continue to promote social inclusiveness and harmony. Not only are the seniors present at these large gatherings, they gather with their grandkids and family members where they engage in various activities like poetry, singing, sports and discussions on current affairs. These gatherings are essential for building communities together and improving mental health, and I’m always grateful for their support. I look forward to working with them over the next coming years.

Speaker, let’s talk about the reasons why we’re all here and what we’re going to do for the people of Ontario as a PC government. Our plan was clearly communicated with Ontarians during this election. I’m glad they voted for a plan that will build Ontario’s infrastructure, from housing to hospitals to universities and highways and so much more.

Over the last four years, our Progressive Conservative government has worked hard to ensure Brampton would no longer be left behind as it was with the previous Liberal government. It is because of these efforts Brampton residents unanimously supported our party’s vision to build more long-term-care beds that better fit the community’s needs. For decades, residents have been asking for care homes which provide service to the people in their own native languages. This is the government that said yes.

Bramptonians have been asking for a second hospital, and unlike the previous government, this government said yes.

Brampton residents asked for a new university, and it is this government that said yes to delivering a new medical school that Brampton residents have been so tirelessly asking for over many years.

Brampton residents were also tired of being stuck in traffic and have been asking for more highway infrastructure for years and, unlike the previous government, this government said yes to building Highway 413.

I’m so proud to be working under Premier Ford’s leadership, a leader that wants to get it done not only just for Brampton, but for all of Ontario.

Our constituents were tired. They were tired of the status quo and wanted change, change that would build the infrastructure that the city so desperately needed, and with our Premier’s vision and the support of Bramptonians, we made history in Brampton East and across the city.

Speaker, as I was going around campaigning during the election, I got to speak to many, many residents in my riding, all looking for Ontario’s plan to grow for the future. Over the next four years, I look forward to taking on the difficult challenges that our province is currently facing, but I am confident that, under Premier Ford’s leadership, our government will deliver a balanced plan to build Ontario up, by growing Ontario’s economy, investing in education, building and renovating schools, strengthening our health care system, investing in roads, transit, modern infrastructure, while cutting red tape and creating good-paying jobs for everyone in the province.

It’s time that we, together, build Ontario: a strong, vibrant and successful province and economy. Let’s keep our taxes low. Let’s continue to create a competitive business environment that attracts investments and creates good jobs. Let’s build roads, highways, and other critical infrastructure that helps get goods and services to market sooner. Let’s build livable and safe communities with good schools and high-quality hospitals and long-term-care homes, as well as convenient transit options. Let’s grow our auto manufacturing sector and become leaders in North America’s electric-vehicle battery manufacturing industry. Together, let’s build a health care system that better cares for patients and keeps our province open.

Again, I’m so proud to be working under Premier Ford’s leadership, a leadership that puts people first. I’m proud to be a part of the government that is making the largest investment in the province’s history to build and expand hospitals across Ontario, especially in communities like Brampton, places that have been advocating for better health care infrastructure for years.

Speaker: promises made, promises kept. We will soon see shovels in the ground across Ontario and see our province grow.

As the time is coming close to an end, I would like to thank the House for allowing me this opportunity to speak about our government’s exciting plans today. Over the next four years, I look forward to taking on the difficult challenges our province is currently facing, but I’m extremely confident that our government will build a stronger province for generations to come.

The members across love to speak about history, as long as it’s not their own history. They love to ignore the fact that they caused a mass exodus of health care workers. They love to ignore the fact that they created a backlog of 22 million services. They love to ignore the fact that the ALC beds ballooned under their administration.

So, to the member across, what would you have preferred—what should the throne speech have said in order for this government to have addressed its own failures?

My question to the member opposite is regarding things that are in the bill. The things that have been mentioned, the language that has been used—“coercion,” “forced to move away from friends and family,” “move to the worst homes in the province”—are all things that this bill protects our fragile seniors in ALC from. What does the member think language like that means to a fragile person sitting in ALC?

I encourage all of us to speak positively to our seniors and not put this fear forward.

Questions?