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.