Good afternoon. I am really pleased to rise today to join the debate on this new bill, the so-called More Beds, Better Care Act, or, as it’s been called by experts, health care workers and seniors’ advocates: “morally repugnant,” “shameful,” and “a violation of patient rights.” It seems the government is feeling this negative response to this move as well, as they enter into—and we’ve seen it all week this week—serious damage-control mode here in the Legislature and in the press.

What I would like to start with, Speaker, is explaining and trying to understand a little bit about why there has been such a negative response out there to this legislation. Let me start by explaining that this bill seeks to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, to include a provision that would allow hospitals to discharge patients determined to need what they call alternate levels of care, or ALC, without their consent—and I underline that: without their consent—to increase, allegedly, hospital capacity. It’s part of the ministry’s stated plan, and this is what they’ve said they’re trying to achieve, to move 200 people who have been in hospital for six months waiting for long-term-care beds, within the next three months, to a total of about 1,000 more by March 2023. By amending the Health Care Consent Act, this bill will provide authority for clinicians and placement coordinators to determine the eligibility for a patient to be transferred into long-term care, and that could be a location far, far away from their loved ones, from their caregivers, or it could be—and I think this is increasingly likely under this government—to a private care home. It could be, as we have all discovered, unfortunately, in the great tragedy that overtook this province during the COVID pandemic, to a private care home that could offer substandard care.

Let me tell you, and I think we’re all hearing it—I know we’re all hearing it, and that explains, in part, why the government has been in damage-control mode this week. We’ve been hearing a great deal of fear out there from families with loved ones in this situation. I think many of us here at some point in our lives have experienced this, have had somebody in our families who were in long-term care. I certainly have. If we haven’t, then we will. You can be sure of that. It’s almost a given: At some point, you’ll probably go through this with your family, if not yourself, right? We’re hearing from so many of these families who have people in this situation right now. We’re also hearing from seniors and others in long-term care themselves or in hospitals right now who are terrified, absolutely terrified, that they could end up separated from their families, from their support networks.

Rainer Pethke, who cares for his 95-year-old mother while looking after his own kids—and this is the other piece of this; it’s often people who are sandwiched between those generations. He told CBC this week that his heart absolutely sank when he heard about the changes that were being made in this bill. And I wanted to quote him, because it really touched me: “My fear is they’ll move her into some location, Lord knows where, where I can’t support my son, I can’t support her” and “eventually, I wouldn’t be able to support even myself.” And that is reflective in a lot of what I’ve heard from people in my community—similar concerns.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly issued a statement on this bill, and I want to quote it as well: “We oppose today’s proposed amendments to the” legislation “revoking the right of seniors in hospital to consent to #LTC which will result in them being moved far from supportive family & community, again attempting to ‘fix’ health care to the detriment of #seniors.”

The Minister of Long-Term Care has been working really hard to walk back this element of this bill this week, spinning that this power has already existed. So why include the change in the legislation then, Speaker? That’s what I want to know. If this was already there, if they already—what is this all about? Really, I’ve been struggling all week to understand that spin. I cannot for the life of me get my head around it, because the fact in this bill is that most of the requirements, the criteria, the restrictions—even the geographic boundaries from within which ALC patients could be transferred into long-term-care homes is going to be determined in regulation. And what does that mean for those watching? That means behind closed doors, that’s what that means. Everything in here that really matters is going to be determined in the regulations. That’s my read on this bill.

Many, many people—I will say, as well, as I find it very concerning, although it’s definitely been a trademark of this government over the last few years—are just hearing about what’s happening, what’s going to happen here. And the reason that they’re just hearing about it is because, hey, it’s summer. A lot of people are hopefully taking vacations or spending time with their families, maybe not paying attention to the news every second of every day. And the other piece of it is that the government is actually, once again, trying to rush this legislation through. And you’ll know, anybody who’s been watching what’s been going on over the last few years, that this government has used every tool in the toolbox to try to limit the ability of opposition and the public to have their voices heard on debate and in discussion and to actually provide the time and the opportunity for real, fulsome debate and discussion and amendment of legislation, which is what we should all be here to do. We are legislators, right?

Ontarians who want to have their say on this bill won’t even have time to participate in the legislative process in any kind of fulsome way because the minister has already publicly stated he wants the bill passed by September 1. So, Speaker, here we are once again faced with significant changes to our long-term-care system, to our hospitals, being rushed through the House with little review, little oversight and with most details, again, to be determined after it has passed. This Premier and this minister are asking vulnerable seniors and their loved ones to simply trust them to respect their rights, their health, their autonomy. Well, Speaker, I can tell you that we don’t trust this government. I think most people do not trust this government. And, I tell you, where they really don’t trust this government? They don’t trust this government when it comes to long-term care because 5,000 vulnerable seniors died under this government’s watch. This “just trust me” approach isn’t going to fly.

This is a government and a Premier who claim to be building an iron ring—do we remember that? We remember that. They claimed to be building an iron ring around long-term care, while over 4,000 seniors died. They cut comprehensive inspections to a pitiful nine out of 626 long-term-care homes in 2019. Remember that? I remember that. They were cutting millions of dollars from long-term care even before the pandemic began.

I want to thank the member from Davenport for her passionate speech and for sharing with us exactly what many seniors in our province have gone through throughout the past couple of years, as well as the reality that we’ve had in this province and the deterioration in our long-term-care sector.

One of the things we’re noticing—and it’s clear from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence’s question—is that this bill doesn’t actually address the crisis we’re facing in long-term care or in health care in general. Rather, it’s just something they have put forward which takes away consent, takes away patients’ rights.

One of the things I think is important to highlight is that clearing ALC beds will not actually free up nurses or doctors. I would like the member to maybe add a little bit on why this government might be doing this. Does it actually do anything for our health care crisis or what’s happening in long-term care?

I’ve been listening to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga’s comments. The member wants the official opposition to support this legislation. Earlier today, the interim leader of the official opposition asked the Minister of Long-Term Care in this place if he would ban hospitals from billing for hospital beds for people who continue to stay there. And the member opposite talked about if people prefer to stay, they won’t—the long-term-care minister refused to answer that question. It was very notable.

Afterwards, in scrums—and I want to just share this with everybody here, because it’s coming out in the news reports as we sit here—the minister has been quoted as saying now, “If they refuse to move into their home of preferred choice, then yes, absolutely,” the hospital will charge them, “because we need those spaces for patients who need acute care.” The Minister of Long-Term Care has confirmed that those patients will be billed if they don’t take the spaces that are immediately offered to them. I’d like to know the member’s response. Please, give me a reason to support this terrible piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to see you in that chair.

I’ve heard the member opposite talk about how this bill will force patients in ALC into long-term-care beds far from their families and loved ones. I’ve heard them talk about how this bill will force them to live in ward rooms with three other residents. I would remind the members opposite that it was our government that made the investments to modernize long-term care and eliminate these ward rooms. I would also like to remind the members opposite that this bill will include regulations to ensure patients are moved to a home that is in a defined geographical distance from their preferred location. Furthermore, they will maintain their priority position on the wait-list of their preferred home and be given the choice to move when a spot becomes available.

Given that the concerns raised by the opposition have been alleviated, will the member be supporting this plan to free up capacity in hospitals?

Thank you to the member opposite for her contribution to the debate.

I understand your compassion for seniors. As my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore said earlier, we all have parents who are aging as well. We’re concerned about them. We all have compassion for all of the people we’re talking about. Part of this is to make our health care system work better, and that’s the impetus behind bringing the bill forward.

I know you have compassion, as you’ve stated, for these patients who are in hospitals, but could—

Well, what does he think? Do you agree with him or not?

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 7. I want to begin by thanking Premier Ford and Minister Calandra for bringing forth this legislation, and so quickly, in this very shortened session of the 43rd Parliament, because they recognize how important it is that we actually move to do something to take the pressure off our hospitals, which are, yes, struggling with a lack of resources in order to deal with the challenges they have on an ongoing basis every single day.

When I came here in 2003, it wasn’t long after that—and I heard the NDP, just as we did, talk about alternate-level-of-care patients in our hospitals, and what a challenge that was, and how it was growing every day. The NDP screamed every day as well about, “You’ve got to do something about that.” They used to be referred to, not very nicely, as “bed blockers,” and then we became a little more cognizant that it just wasn’t appropriate to use that terminology. Instead, they’re alternate-level-of-care patients.

They want us to do something about it, so Minister Calandra, along with the folks in the Ministry of Long-Term Care, are doing exactly that: They’re bringing forth legislation. And I have to say, Speaker, it is so disappointing to hear the fearmongering and the invention of gremlins and monsters. You’d think there was a monster under every one of those beds, according to the NDP, because they’re creating all kinds of unnecessary fear in the minds of families and ALC patients themselves. There is nothing in this bill—in fact, it explicitly makes it clear that no one will be moved to a long-term-care facility without their consent.

They’re going on and on and on about how you can be assessed without your consent. People are being assessed all the time. It’s a necessary part of our health care system. Every time you go into a hospital, the chart is at the foot of the bed. The physicians come in and do assessments on a regular basis. Nurses do assessments on a regular basis. We need to know the condition of our people. That’s absolutely necessary. You need to know the level of care that is necessary. You need to be able to determine whether it’s appropriate or not to actually move that person to a long-term-care home, because in the case of some patients, it will not be appropriate; their health condition will dictate that, no, it’s not appropriate to move them to long-term care. They will have to be either stabilized, their level of health will have to improve or they may not be leaving the hospital at all, but that can’t be done without assessing the patient to determine whether it’s even feasible to move them to a long-term-care home.

But for most of my almost 20 years, we’ve had a situation where we have had beds in our hospitals occupied by people who should not be in the hospital; they should be in a long-term-care home. And what have we done to try to solve that problem? Revolutionary change: 58,000 beds, either new or redeveloped beds, in our long-term-care-home system. That is absolutely paramount. You won’t be able to solve the problem if you don’t have the places to move the patients.

So, revolutionary change: 58,000 beds, either new or redeveloped. Now we are creating the space for those people to go. Next, what do you do? Now you try to find appropriate placements for the people themselves, and try to determine who’s going to be going or who can go, who is healthy enough to leave a hospital. Nobody’s leaving a hospital if they’re not healthy enough to leave that hospital.

And then the process can begin to put people, who we care about so much—because a hospital is no place for an elderly, vulnerable person. That is not the place for them. There’s no activity area. There’s no common cafeteria or eating hall or dining hall. There’s no courtyard where they can be taken out to get some fresh air. That’s not what hospital care provides.

You know, the member for Scarborough Southwest said, “Nobody wants to be in a hospital. It’s just not a very nice place, and nobody wants to be there.” But do you know what, Speaker? We have some very nice long-term-care homes, and we’re building even more. So there will be places that have compassion, that have the facilities for those elderly people that have given so much to us, the younger generation, the younger part of society. They have given so much. Now we’ll be in a position to care for them in the appropriate housing, accommodations, buildings and institutions, or whatever we want to call them. We’re going to call them “their new home.”

So what do you want to have for your new home? Would you like to be in a hospital for your new home where—do you know what your life is? In the bed, walk the hall, in the bed, walk the hall, in the bed, walk the hall—if you’re able to. But in that long-term-care home that we are building—as I said, 58,000 new or redeveloped homes—you will have a home where you will be comfortable. You will be comfortable. And you will be, if it’s appropriate, placed in a home that matches your needs and your desire to be there, because if the home that is your choice does not have vacancy at that time, you’re still going to be on the top of the list. And when there is vacancy in that home, that’s the home you will get. It is all predicated on where you live, proximity to your family—those are the considerations that will be taken.

So I would ask the opposition—and I realize that there’s two elements here. On the one side, it says, “Hear the other side.” I know that’s supposed to be the job of the government: “Hear the other side.” And you know what? It would be really good if the opposition would practise that, as well—to actually read the bill and not try to extrapolate out of it something that you want to be able to say because that will generate the news story and that will generate the fear that you people are living on over there. That’s what’s going on. The alternative—I’ll use that word again, the alternative—what I hear from the other side is, “Scrap this bill. We don’t need this bill. This is a bad piece of legislation.”

Do you know what the alternative is, Speaker? The alternative is the status quo. The alternative is the status quo, where 5,800 people across this province are in an inappropriate setting for their care. They’re in a hospital when they shouldn’t be there. Now, anyone among those 5,800 whose health has deteriorated while they’ve been there because they’re aging out will not be moved. If it’s not appropriate that they can be moved to a long-term-care home, they will not be moved to a long-term-care home. But for those who have seen their lives limited, and, in fact, negatively affected because they’re in a setting that was never designed to support them in the condition they’re in, they will be moved, when it’s appropriate and where it’s appropriate, to a facility that will enhance their last years, their last time, so that they will be in a comfortable setting for whatever remainder of time they have on this earth. They will be in a comfortable setting, not one that was never designed to help them.

The long-term-care system, in its very infancy, was built to give care for people in those declining years. I know it’s evolved a lot over the years and it has changed, and the ages of people who are in them and the acuity levels of people who are in them has changed, as well. We understand that. I’m old enough to remember when the long-term-care system was in its infancy. It’s a different level of care. It’s a different client and different residents that’s in those homes today. But we have a responsibility as government. We have a responsibility as every citizen. And it includes the responsibility of the opposition. When they see something that will actually lead to the improvement of the lives of those people, they should not be out fearmongering. They should get behind it and support it because this is actually very good for the seniors in our province.

I want to thank my colleague for doing such a great presentation. I really appreciate that you went through the explanatory note, because in the second sentence it says, “This new provision authorizes certain actions to be carried out without the consent of these patients.”

Six times in this bill it talks about “without consent.” But they say we’re fearmongering. They say that we don’t read the bill.

I’d like to hear from you—why do they say that we’re fearmongering, yet it’s in their bill? It’s very clear. What do they have to gain from doing that?

As a preamble to the question that I have for the member, I’m going to quote the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital, which is the hospital that services my riding, the riding of Essex, among others. The quote is as follows: “The time is now to make some fundamental changes moving forward that will benefit our patients, and Windsor Regional Hospital is all on for that and fully supports it.”

My question to my colleague and member here is this: Does he agree that the time is now to make changes, or rather, does he agree with the position of the NDP that the status quo should be maintained and we should make no changes whatsoever?