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.

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?

It is always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the people I represent in London West. I’m pleased to contribute to the debate that has unfolded in this Legislature over the past four weeks on the address from the Lieutenant Governor in the government’s throne speech.

A throne speech is what opens a session of a new Parliament. It is a big picture of you, of the government’s priorities, and the issues that it is planning to focus on in this session of government.

It’s interesting; as I’ve said, four weeks ago we all gathered here to listen to the address from the speech from the throne, and now, in the waning days, we understand, of this very rare summer session, we are continuing to debate that speech.

Speaker, the context in which this debate is taking place is certainly of huge concern to all of us in this place, and, in particular, for the people we represent.

Our health care system is crumbling around us, and we hear this all the time in the stories that constituents bring to our offices. Some of us have had personal experiences with family members who have also encountered the fraying of that health care system that we need to be able to rely on.

Housing is a major concern for every Ontarian in this province, every constituent who is represented by MPPs in this chamber. In London, our wait-list for subsidized housing has grown to over 6,000 people; it’s an increase of over 1,000 in just the last four years.

We also have a climate emergency that has never been more apparent and more frightening, when we consider the implications of not taking action to address climate change.

Unfortunately, this throne speech is not a document that gives Ontarians hope that any of those issues will be addressed.

It doesn’t give Ontarians hope, who are grappling with the reality of an 8.1% inflation rate—unprecedented. I read a petition just earlier today that referred to the first-ever 4.5%, I think, inflation rate. That petition was written just a year ago, and now we are looking at inflation of over 8%.

The affordability challenges that people in this province are facing are very real, and they are having an incredibly difficult impact on people’s lives. People need to feel hopeful that the government, the people they have elected to govern in the best interest of all of the citizens in this province—they need to feel hopeful that the decisions that are made are going to be ones that help them in their daily lives, that help them with the health care system, that help them with housing, that help them with affordability, and that take bold action to address the climate crisis.

I want to get back to health care. I’m going to spend a significant amount of time, during my remarks, on what is happening in our health care system and what I am seeing in London and the surrounding areas.

As you are probably aware, Speaker, there are about 25 hospitals across the province that have closed or reduced hours in their emergency rooms and other areas of the hospital. This includes many of the small hospitals surrounding the city of London.

We had St. Marys, Seaforth, Clinton, Listowel, Wingham, Walkerton, Chesley—all of those are small hospitals in southwestern Ontario, in the immediate vicinity of London, that had to either close their ERs or cut back services.

The reality is, in these small hospitals they only have, typically, a very small number of staff. So when you have staff who are on leave or who are sick with COVID, it can have a dramatic effect on the hospital’s ability to operate.

So, in the case of those small hospitals, the pressure that’s being experienced is directly related to the health care worker staffing pressures, and how that has manifested in London, at London Health Sciences Centre, are some cutbacks in some hospital programs. We heard that the maternity ward at LHSC was preparing pregnant women that they should be ready for the possibility that they may not be able to get a scheduled induction if they need one. The epilepsy unit announced a temporary closure because of the staffing shortage.

In addition to these cutbacks in hospital services, we’re also seeing a growing list of people in our communities who don’t have access to family doctors, and we know what happens when people don’t want have access to primary care. They can’t get access to the preventive screening tests that they need to prevent a visit to the emergency room. They are not able to get things looked at before they become acute and lead them into a crisis situation in the hospital. This is a problem that I certainly encountered from the very beginning, when I was elected in 2013, but I have never seen it as bad as it has been. Every day, we hear from two or three constituents, at least, who can’t get access to a family doctor.

I want to give you an example of one of the recent calls that we took. A 90-year-old man had a heart problem and called his family doctor, but his family doctor was fully booked and ready to leave on vacation. They had someone to cover, but there was a gap of three or four days until that coverage was going to be in place. He tried to go to urgent care in the city, but it was closed. He was going to try to go to emergency, but he was concerned about how hard it was to be seen and was reluctant to go to emergency, and with good reason. We just saw, over the weekend, in London, the emergency room posted a sign that prepared people in that room to be ready to wait 20 hours. That was the number that was written on the sign. People are looking at a 20-hour wait to have their health issue looked at.

Speaker, I want to get back to what I said initially—that this is very directly related to the shortage of health care workers that we are experiencing across the system.

I want to read a quote from one of the CEOs of one of these small hospitals, Michael Barrett. He is the CEO for the South Bruce Grey Health Centre hospitals, and he talked about the fact that the hospital corporation is using private agency nurses to fill the gaps and help maintain some coverage of the ERs. He told a reporter, “It is concerning that a considerable amount of money is being spent on agency nurses and we’re not in a position because of the collective agreement to be able to do the same for our own staff.

“We pay agency nurses considerably more than what we pay our staff.”

He said he wants to do everything he can to entice his staff to work these difficult shifts. But other than raising the concern, as he said he and others like him have—he was unaware of the government doing anything to help hospitals like his deal with this staffing pressure.

We know what the government needs to do. The government needs to repeal Bill 124. That has been the universal refrain of health sector workers and public sector workers since that unconstitutional—as we will find out—legislation was brought forward in this place.

The government needs to take some action on the violence that health care workers are experiencing in the workplace. I want to commend my colleague the member for Nickel Belt on her perseverance in trying to get legislation passed that will address the escalating violence that health care workers are facing on a daily basis.

We saw that a physician in London, actually, in the spring, was attacked by somebody with a knife and a hammer. Somehow, that person got into the hospital and assaulted the doctor.

We just recently saw an incident in Goderich where an armed man came in and threatened health care workers.

So, clearly, there is a need to take action on the violence that health care workers are facing.

But to get back to Bill 124 and the urgency of repealing that bill: We know that what that legislation does is cap any wage increases for public sector workers at 1%, and when you have a period in which inflation is 8.1%, a 1% increase is very clearly a loss of pay. It’s a cut in pay. It is not a wage increase at all. And it is just so disrespectful to these front-line workers who have been there for us throughout the pandemic, all through every single wave and I know will be there for us in the fall as that inevitable new wave materializes.

This is good for me to share, Speaker. I want to just read from an email I received from a nurse in London West. Her name is Lindsay Smale. She says, “Many of my co-workers chose to leave. They retired early or they moved to a position in a much less stressful environment”—she counts herself among them. “Many have left the profession entirely.” She says, “We are no longer able to provide the same level of care. Patients are suffering....

“Bill 124 is the biggest slap in the face to the very people who stepped up in a time of uncertainty, when we didn’t know if we were going to get sick at work or bring it home to our families.” She says she’s currently looking at obtaining an American nursing licence so she can go practise in the US, and she’s not the only health care worker who is looking to relocate because of the disrespect that they feel from this government, the inadequacy of the compensation and benefit packages that are offered and just the challenges working in such a high-stress environment.

Speaker, in the face of these issues with our health care workforce, one would have hoped that the throne speech would have offered some solutions. The Premier—the throne speech claimed that they would implement whatever measures are needed to deal with the health care pressures, and yet they didn’t. They did not repeal Bill 124. That should have been the very first bill that we were dealing with in this place. Instead, we saw this government bring forward legislation that is going to force—through financial coercion, if nothing else, but it’s going to force vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities who are in alternative-level-of-care beds in hospitals to move to a long-term-care home that is not of their choice and where they will very likely end their days. It could be miles away from their family, and this legislation shows no regard for the actual needs of those patients, those frail people, to have family members around them.

But worse than that is this government has pushed through that bill with no opportunity for public consultation whatsoever—no opportunity for experts to propose amendments that could possibly improve this bill; no opportunity to hear from people who have loved ones in long-term care and could talk about what it would mean to them if their loved one was forced or coerced—pressured to move from a hospital or else face a big bill, but pressured to move into a long-term-care home that was not of their choice.

The other thing that we have seen this fall is messages, signals from this government that they see privatization as the solution to Ontario’s health care woes. The research has confirmed what happens when you introduce a profit motive into the health care system: equity suffers; access suffers. Health care providers, who are treating patients—when there is money involved, they may be less likely to say that’s not actually a treatment you need, because they know they get a profit for providing that treatment.

The minister has talked about how Ontarians will get health care with their OHIP card and not their credit card, but the reality is, when you go to a for-profit clinic, that for-profit provider can charge you for a wide gamut of services that you will receive. From the food or the pain medication, there are lots of ways that for-profit providers can make a buck off services that are covered by OHIP but are delivered in a private for-profit system. The people I have heard from in London West are vigorously opposed to any privatization of our health care system.

Speaker, I want to just close by saying that this government, as we have seen so often over the last four years, missed another opportunity to actually engage with Ontarians, to actually put forward positive solutions that would address the pressures that people feel every day in their daily lives.

One thing I didn’t address yet when talking about affordability is the issue of ODSP. We saw, again, a budget that was rammed through without any opportunity for public input, a budget that includes only a paltry 5% increase to ODSP. That’s $58 more a month. That’s $14.50 more a week. For someone who is struggling to try to get by on $1,169 a month, when you can’t find housing for less than $1,200 a month in my community and many communities across the province, that is insulting. It is legislated poverty, as many people have pointed out, when this government uses the social assistance programs to keep people in a condition of poverty which they will never be able to get out of. We have heard from many people that a 5% increase is not enough. What we need to do is to double social assistance rates.

I’m happy to be here to speak about the throne speech.

First, let me congratulate everyone who is here on their re-election, or their election if it’s the first time. It’s not easy to do. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak with a lot of you yet this year. It’s always good, in the hallway, when we do the congratulations and the quick, little handshakes and stuff. We’re on different sides of the House, but we’re all doing the best we can for our ridings. I’m very thankful for that.

I’m also thankful for everyone who volunteered, especially those who weren’t successful. I’ve worked on some campaigns where you put your heart and soul into it and you don’t win. I remember taking down signs in the rain after not winning an election, after volunteering in it. It’s hard—not just in my riding, but in all ridings. That’s how democracy works. Only one person gets to win. It’s great that all these people put the effort in.

The first time I heard a throne speech as an MPP, I wasn’t sure what to expect from it. I didn’t really understand the format of it. But it’s the idea of sort of explaining what’s happening—there’s hope on the horizon; there’s relief coming; there’s a direction to follow. I really took that to heart, and this time I was listening for that hope and opportunity.

I’ve always been a glass-half-full guy—my mom generally is, as well. One day she was in a bad mood, and I said, “Mom, you’re kind of glass-half-empty.” She said, “What’s that supposed to mean?” I said, “You know that expression: The glass is half full or the glass is half empty.” And she said, “It doesn’t matter if it’s full or empty. Sooner or later, that glass will be broken.”

I feel like the glass is about to break. There is a lot of stress and a lot of frustration in the province, and you can feel it. As we all went to the doors and we spoke to people—man, there was a sense of frustration. There was tension out there, primarily in my riding. I ventured into everyone else’s riding as well. It had to do with just—things were so unaffordable. People I talked to who are more affluent were talking about feeling the squeeze—but really worried about their neighbours and wondering how their neighbours, who made a lot less money than them, were going to make ends meet and how difficult it was.

People are very stressed out because of health care. Not just because the pandemic has really—during the election, the sun was out and we were taking our masks off and there was a bit of hope. The idea of Bill 124, it’s slowly, slowly crushing our health care workers; it’s grinding them down. There’s a lot of stress out there. I’ll go on about health care. Earlier, I was listening to my colleague talking about emergency room closures. It really got to the point where, if you heard in the news that an emergency room was closed, it didn’t feel like news anymore. I remember the first time I heard it, I was shocked. I think the number she said was 25. When you get to 25 emergency rooms closing, it’s no longer news, right? It just becomes the normal.

I remember in 2018, when I was running, hallway medicine was normal—that we were talking about hallway medicine. It’s underfunding, it’s showing up every year with the same size cheque and ignoring the cost of living, and so our hospital wasn’t provided with enough money to make ends meet. In the beginning of the election, we talked about hallway medicine; it was a major story, and people were in shower rooms. And near the end of the election, we went to talk about it and the press wouldn’t show up because they said, “That is normal now.” I feel like, right now, hospital emergency room closures have become normal for people. They’re angry about it, and they want it fixed, but it doesn’t seem odd anymore, and that’s a dangerous thing to have.

The other thing that is becoming more and more normalized is the privatization. I cannot understand—and I can’t get anyone to explain it to me—why it’s okay that we can pay a private agency more money than we can pay public sector nurses. It just boggles the mind. I had met with a long-term-care facility who needed PSWs and wanted to hire PSWs, and the way their budget was set up, was they had a max budget for employees and they had an overflow budget they could get into for a private contractor. They wanted to hire these people from the private contracting place, which they weren’t allowed to do because of the contract that excludes them from doing that, which is a whole other matter we should take apart one day. But they wanted to hire somebody because they were hiring contractors on a regular basis. Imagine every day you show up somewhere, but you don’t work for the store like the name on the front—you work for a third party. But every single day you’re there and you want to work there and you’re getting to know the residents, but you’re making more while the agency is making more than the people you work with. And the place that is hiring the contractor? They can’t hire you because their budget excludes it. That’s a broken system. That isn’t a system—when we’re talking about financial responsibility, having public organizations say, “It’s okay to spend extra money as long as some of it slides over to a private contractor” doesn’t make sense. That’s not the most fiscally responsible thing that we can do.

The other thing when it comes to health care, Speaker—and this is near and dear to my heart; I’ve talked about this a lot over the last four years—is the opioid epidemic, the pandemic within the pandemic. We are losing a generation of people on a regular basis. And I know in Sudbury, we’re getting hit extra hard. I read recently that I think Thunder Bay may be overtaking us, but that’s nothing to brag about either way. People are dying from overdoses. People are struggling with addiction with no hope out there, and this is something we really need to tackle. I know that COVID sucked all the air out of the room and we had to focus there, but we really have to do something with the opioid epidemic. It is ravaging all of our communities.

The Minister of Labour is here and he’s aware of this. Sometimes when you mention someone, it sounds like you’re going to make a jab, but it’s not. It’s something when it comes to skilled trades that we need to help people, because often in the skilled trades, you get sore from doing work, you end up on painkillers, you want to go back to work and you could end up addicted on opioids. And it’s easy to hide when you have a decent income. It’s easy to go into the washroom or your car or truck or go home, but the risk of overdose is there. We really need to supplement and bring up the number of skilled trade workers that we have, and we need to provide the resources for people to get help to get away from addictions. I don’t believe I heard anything about that in the throne speech.

Bill 124 I mentioned before. I’ve actually mentioned Bill 124 a lot, and I think on this side of the House, we mentioned it a lot. We’ve talked about Bill 124. This is not a good bill; it’s not at all. We’ve gone over how it’s unconstitutional. We have the blueprint for it. Bill 115 that the Liberals tabled was basically the same bill but just aimed at education workers only. This one was all public sector workers. At the end of the day, you know what the courts are going to do. If I was a betting person, I would say they’re going to rule it as unconstitutional. It cost the Liberal government—it cost us; the Liberal government took the fall for it, but it cost us $100 million in penalties. We could do a lot of stuff with $100 million. We could four-lane Highway 69 with that kind of money. Why do this?

The other thing too is, as politicians, the leaders of our communities, we stand up all the time—everyone in our community, really; it doesn’t have to be a leader—and talk about health care workers and that they’re our heroes, and we’re sincere, all of us, on both sides of the House, that they are heroes. They are giving their all. If you think back to the beginning of the pandemic when we weren’t quite sure how it was spreading or how it was happening, they were really going above and beyond. To tell these people, “You only deserve 1% at the max, if you can negotiate the 1%,” what a slap in the face that is. It really, really is. It’s a dangerous precedent. We talk about nurses a lot, but these education workers, snow plow drivers, these are all public sector workers. When you tell people you’re not worth that much—it’s not just the financial model; you’re literally telling them, “You’re not worth that much to us.”

I talked last week about education workers. A lot of people think of teachers, but education workers also includes the faculty that clean the building, support staff, EAs, the people in the offices. I talked last week about Charity who works full time and goes to the food bank to feed her children. We’re from different parties, but I think we can all agree that if someone works full time, they shouldn’t go to a food bank. We have to address that, and Bill 124 prevents that from happening. You need much more than 1%, especially with our cost of living going up 8.5%. We really need to do that.

We’re seeing that result because as the government makes inroads to attract more PSWs, to attract more health care workers, more nurses, what we’re seeing at the same time is that they’re exiting. What we’re doing, as much as possible, is turning on the taps to the bathtub, but we left the plug out of the drain. So they’re leaving maybe even quicker than we can fill them. We have 5,400 fewer health care and social service workers today than one year ago. We’re just burning money trying to attract people but not understanding why they’re leaving. And I don’t mean casually leaving; they’re running for the door. We have to be realistic about this. If you want to keep nurses, if you want to support things, a major thing you can do is just repeal Bill 124. We’ve been calling for it for a long time. Maybe there was a reason in the past; I would disagree that there was, but maybe there was. But it’s time to re-look at it and repeal it. If you want to come in on the weekend or the evening or any time to repeal Bill 124, we’ll come in to do it. We’ll pass it with no objection. You’ve got to get rid of this bill. It is bad for everybody. It is bad for those workers it’s affecting; it’s bad for all of Ontario.

I know that Bill 7 wasn’t part of the throne speech, but I want to talk about Bill 7. My colleague from Mushkegowuk–James Bay brought this up. He’s our francophone critic, Speaker. He was talking about what happens with Bill 7. It’s about making room in health care. The idea, basically, is that there are people who need to go into long-term care, who are better served in long-term care, but there are no beds. And so the idea is, we’ll make up room in the hospitals by putting people into long-term care that maybe they don’t want to go to. In northern ridings, that’s up to 300 kilometres away. That’s a three-hour drive. My colleague, the francophone critic, said: What happens if the only language you speak is French and you’re put into a long-term-care facility where they don’t speak French? What happens if you’ve got dementia and you don’t understand what’s going on, and when they explain it to you in a language you don’t speak, you still don’t understand what’s going on?

Let’s be honest about long-term care—and I want to say this without blame because this did not start four years ago; this started a long time ago. Nobody in Ontario is excited to go to long-term care. We need to all put the moose head on the table and just be honest about the elephant in the room. It is not a good system. There are some good providers out there, but by and large, nobody is waiting for their kids to have the conversation with them about going to long-term care and thinking, “Yes.” Right? It needs a lot of work. It’s broken.

I’d venture that if you’re sending someone to a long-term-care facility that doesn’t have a waiting list, that has open beds, it may not be the cream of the crop long-term-care facility. It might be the one that you would see on 60 Minutes. We are going to take people, our seniors, our grandparents—I know it’s not just seniors, but by and large it is—the people who built the country, who supported their children and grandchildren, and we are going to repay them by pulling them out of their community and parking them somewhere they don’t want to be. And let’s be honest, it’s probably not the best facility out there.

The other part as well, while we’re talking about it being broken, is that we all know, in this room, that long-term care is broken to the point where the family supplements and fills in those gaps. I remember running as a candidate. I was in North Bay listening to a consultation about long-term care, and there was a lady there talking about having to go every day to get her mom ready in the morning and to give her breakfast, that she’d brush her mom’s hair and she’d feed her mom—all these things. And she was proud of that, because her mom took care of her for a long time. But the part that she found frustrating was that she has to go, that if she’s sick or on Christmas morning, if she doesn’t go, they don’t have the resources. The PSWs are stretched so thin that her mom might not eat. Her mom might not get dressed. Her hair might not get brushed.

So that system that, let’s be honest, governments over the years—different parties—have been looking the other way about, we all know it exists, but we haven’t really acknowledged it out loud. We haven’t said that we need to fix this. As a group, we haven’t taken that step forward. We are going to pull that away from these people. And we know, from COVID-19, when family was prevented from visiting, that the seniors that were in long-term care did a lot worse. In some cases, they died. And I don’t mean from COVID-19; they just deteriorated really quickly because they didn’t have family around. If you have to travel three hours, you’re not going on a weekday. You’re just not. And you’re not going in the winter because, in the north, the roads kind of suck in the winter.

So we really need to think more beyond “we need to free up some beds.” We need to understand how this is going forward. And frankly, this bill, there’s no consultation on this. There’s no committee on this. It’s being rammed through, and that’s probably a hint that it’s not the best thing to do, that it’s not a popular thing to do. Sometimes when you’re in a leadership role you have to do stuff that’s not popular, because it’s the right thing to do, but I would argue that this is not one of those times. This isn’t one of those times where you’re doing something unpopular for the right reasons. This is something that’s going to come back and not turn out very well.

The other thing was, talking about the budget and cost—time flies when you’re speaking—the number one thing that I heard talking to people is that they were saying that the cost of living is just too high. At the time it was gas. Gas was two-something. And people were telling me how they were skipping meals; they weren’t having lunch because they were home-care workers, and “I can’t get out to all the different homes if I have lunch, because I can’t put gas in my car.” But the cost of food has gone through the roof. The cost of everything has climbed so much, and wages haven’t kept up with it at all, not even close.

I think that there’s discussion about the budget, and the budget is important, but really, Speaker, the budget is a bit of a brag. What’s important is what you actually spend, because a lot of times in the budget, there are all these really high numbers, and then at the end of the year they review and those numbers weren’t spent. And we’ve got to start looking at what we’re actually putting into the expenses.

You know, I talked earlier about mental health and addictions. Very minimal investments have come to mental health and addictions, and we need to invest that money. When inflation is over 8% and people are worried about buying food, there is something very, very wrong. When full-time workers—this is a startling fact, and some of the newer members are going to realize this when they meet with food banks in Canada: In the last 10 years we’ve gone from generally the largest users of food banks being single men, and we have gone now to the largest users being workers who work 40 hours or more a week, and then it’s families. That is a broken system that we—I and all of us—need to come together to solve. We cannot have people working full-time and not making enough money to buy food. I think we can all agree on that. People need to be able to put food in their mouths.

The price of gas, I talked about. I was reading on Hansard—I want to thank our interim leader for bringing this forward. He was saying, “ExxonMobil earned US$18 billion in the second quarter of this year.” Chevron made $15 billion. Shell made $22 billion. BP oil just saw its “biggest profits in 14 years.” All of those companies “more than tripled their profit from a year ago.”

Good for them, but do you have a sense we’re being gouged? Let’s be honest, right? Sudbury always has been. In Sudbury, you drive less than an hour away, it’s always 10 cents less. I don’t know how expensive this is in transportation. I don’t know how expensive it is to drive less than an hour. But it’s always 10 cents less. But we’re really feeling like these prices are spiking us.

I think it’s great that people are going to electric vehicles, but that isn’t an option for everybody in the north. And also, the government ripped out a bunch of charging stations, so there are not a lot of places to charge your car. I know they have changed that stance and they’re building some more, but there’s a time before we get to electric vehicles and until we get there, we have to make sure that the consumer isn’t getting gouged. I didn’t hear anything about this.

I didn’t hear anything about helping consumers make ends meet, or putting more money in their pockets, or ensuring they’re being effective or ensuring that grocery stores aren’t raising prices simply because they can. Because in the shareholder meetings, they’re saying, “We raised a lot of money because we could.” And we as government—all of us together, opposition and party—we’ve got to hold them to account on this.

I’ve got about a minute. I want to talk about ODSP. They raised ODSP—they’re going to raise ODSP by $50. So for a month, someone on ODSP is going to have $1,227. That’s poverty. All of these things that we’re talking about, all of these struggles to make ends meet, if you are in legislated poverty when the government is saying, “You don’t deserve enough money to pay your bills”—that has to change. That has to change immediately.

We can’t have people in legislated poverty. We can’t because of the mental health, the stress it causes, the reality that you just cannot get back on your feet and you feel the world closing in on you. Poverty is crushing for people.

I wish I could go on. I only have about eight seconds, so I’ll stop there, Speaker.