It’s always an honour to rise and participate in the debate—today, on Bill 7 at second reading. For members opposite and for people watching at home: One of the reasons second reading debate happens is so that concerns can be raised and addressed—and amended at committee. Advocates for the elders, seniors, doctors, and health care policy experts have all raised serious concerns about the implications of this bill and the possible unintended consequences.

I understand that we are facing a health care crisis and that that crisis predated the existing government, but it has been made worse by the existing government because of their failure to invest in the people who deliver care. Nurses, front-line health care workers and doctors have all said that wage caps and benefit caps are a significant contributor to the inability to retain nurses and other front-line workers in our health care system. Yet the government—after calls from almost everybody across the province, including the opposition—has failed to say, “Maybe we need to make an adjustment and invest in the people who deliver care.”

One of the concerns that seniors have is the consent provisions in the bill. I’ve heard the argument about, is there consent or is there not consent? Well, I guarantee you, Speaker, that elders deserve clarity around the consent provisions in this bill, because when you combine this bill with legislation that I know has been there since 1979, they could charge elders up to $1,500 a day if they do not consent to being transferred to a long-term-care home they do not want to be in. One of the reasons they may not consent is that they would be a long distance away from their family, which is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. We already have a home care system and a long-term-care system that’s underinvested, understaffed and overwhelmed. Family members play a key role in providing additional care for elders. It will be incredibly difficult if elders feel forced to consent to agree to move a long distance away from family and lose that additional care, which will then put additional pressure on existing staff.

I would say to the official opposition and to the government: Listen to the concerns that people have and amend this bill at committee, because we know that properly placing alternate-level-of-care patients is important to the health care system.

First of all, repeal Bill 124 so nurses and front-line health care workers can negotiate fair wages, fair benefits and better working conditions. Speaker, do you know what it’s like to be overworked in understaffed wards and feeling underappreciated and disrespected by government? Do you know what it’s like to not be able to access mental health benefits, for example, because your benefits are capped, let alone being able to have your wages keep up with inflation?

Second, two years ago, we were asking this government to fast-track the accreditation of internationally trained health care professionals. They are now finally starting to do that. According to the RNA, that was 15,000 to 20,000 nurses or other front-line health care workers who could have been part of the system, taking a burden off the system, if the government had acted on that two years ago.

Speaker, I have more solutions I’d like to offer, but I know my time has run out.

So I encourage the members opposite: Listen to the advocates, listen to the seniors, listen to the health care policy-makers who are putting forward concerns about this bill and address those concerns, because we know that we need a better process for properly and justly placing seniors who have alternate-level-of-care needs.

I don’t believe the member opposite has actually been attentively listening to my comments. My comments have acknowledged the need to address alternate-level-of-care patients in hospitals.

What I’m asking the government to do is to listen to the experts and address the concerns that elders have about this bill.

It’s an honour to rise to give my first member’s statement of the 43rd Parliament.

I want to thank Guelphites for trusting me with your vote, and I will continue to work hard to be your voice at Queen’s Park.

I campaigned on a promise that I would push for solutions to the housing affordability crisis and the homelessness, addictions and mental health crisis so many people are facing in our community.

I want to acknowledge and thank Guelph city council, Wellington county, social service agencies, private developers and donors who have all come together to build three vitally important, permanent supportive housing spaces in my riding, with wraparound mental health and addictions support. Housing the most vulnerable will improve people’s quality of life and reduce pressure on our stressed health care system and hospitals. It will also address the many challenges that small businesses in our downtown are facing.

To realize these benefits, we need the province to chip in with some operating funds. Every $10 invested in permanent supportive housing saves the province $21.72 in other costs, so I urge the government to work with us, to respond to Ontario’s Big City Mayors, to partner with the city of Guelph and municipalities across the province who are putting forward solutions to address the homeless crisis, as well as providing mental health and addictions services and supports for the most vulnerable in our community.