Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais souligner l’engagement de notre gouvernement à régler la situation des soins de longue durée dans notre province en présentant le projet de loi de 2022 pour plus de lits et de meilleurs soins.

L’impact de la pandémie COVID-19 a eu un impact disproportionné sur les résidents des établissements de soins de longue durée, affectant profondément les familles et les communautés de la province et du pays. La situation s’est considérablement améliorée en 2022, mais l’expérience a souligné l’urgence de poursuivre la transformation des soins de longue durée.

Madame la Présidente, le 23 mai 2021, j’ai eu le plaisir en tant que président des comtés unis de Prescott et Russell de faire un discours lors d’une cérémonie d’inauguration. Nous donnions le coup d’envoi à un projet extrêmement important pour notre région, soit le projet de la nouvelle Résidence Prescott et Russell, un projet de 90 millions de dollars pour un nouvel établissement de soins de longue durée à Hawkesbury, bâtie à proximité de l’Hôpital général de Hawkesbury.

Dès ce moment-là, j’ai réalisé que notre gouvernement était sérieux quand ça vient à investir dans les soins de santé en Ontario. Beaucoup de projets importants ont vu le jour dans notre région durant les quatre dernières années grâce au financement de notre gouvernement. Le projet de redéveloppement de l’Hôpital général de Hawkesbury et du district, qui s’est terminé récemment : j’ai eu la chance d’être invité avec la ministre Mulroney à participer à la cérémonie d’ouverture officielle, il y a quelques mois. L’administration et le conseil d’administration étaient très contents de l’appui qu’ils avaient reçu du gouvernement provincial : l’hôpital communautaire local transformé en hôpital régional à service complet grâce à un investissement de 200 millions de dollars dans l’infrastructure, l’équipement médical et la technologie de pointe.

Que signifie l’achèvement du projet de redéveloppement pour les patients? Ça signifie plus de soins médicaux spécialisés plus près de chez eux dans des installations plus grandes et plus confortables. La construction et la rénovation des bâtiments ont donné lieu à un ajout de 165 000 pieds carrés de nouvel espace, offrant la possibilité d’offrir les services suivants :

—services d’urgence et soins intensifs, trois fois plus d’espace, soit 18 700 pieds carrés dans de nouvelles installations;

—département d’urgence, avec huit chambres et une nouvelle unité de traumatologie;

—services ambulatoires d’urgence, 10 chambres;

—unité de soins intensifs de niveau 2 pour gérer 70 000 visites par année;

—pour ce qui est des soins ambulatoires, ça a permis un regroupement de toutes les cliniques externes spécialisées dans un nouveau bâtiment de trois étages, 72 000 pieds carrés, conçu pour gérer, encore une fois, 70 000 visites par année;

—plus de 40 cliniques avec des spécialistes médicaux et chirurgicaux—nous aurons la chance de recevoir 40 000 patients de plus par année;

—services de réadaptation pour les patients externes;

—hémodialyse;

—unité de soins médicaux de jour;

—service de cardiologie ambulatoire, diagnostics et consultations;

—centre familial de naissance;

—le nombre de lits passe de 69 à 100;

—de nouvelles unités de transition qui verront, d’ici la fin de l’année 2022, 16 nouveaux lits;

—aussi, des services d’imagerie médicale : département d’imagerie médicale à service complet, de 10 000 pieds carrés;

—nouveau « CT scanner » offrant près de 13 000 examens par année;

—nouvel équipement pour « MRI »—imagerie par résonance magnétique—offrant la possibilité de près de 3 000 examens par année;

—nouvelle salle de fluoroscopie et équipement de radiographie; et

—bâtiment conçu et espace réservé pour la future médecine nucléaire.

En tant qu’installations pour la formation :

—installations pour les programmes de formation médicale faisant partie de l’affiliation académique avec l’Université d’Ottawa; et

—installations également utilisées pour les programmes de soins infirmiers pour le collège La Cité d’Ottawa.

Pour les résidents de chez nous, ça veut dire beaucoup. Ça veut dire plus de voyagement à Ottawa. On avait beaucoup de gens qui étaient censés avoir les soins à Ottawa. Ils devaient voyager une heure, puis c’était coûteux et ça prenait beaucoup de leur temps. Ils étaient privés de temps avec leur famille. Puis, j’imagine où on en serait aujourd’hui sans les investissements de notre gouvernement—donc tous ces services-là qui ont été à l’Hôpital général de Hawkesbury.

J’aimerais aussi souligner que plusieurs résidents de la province du Québec viennent dans nos hôpitaux, dans notre circonscription, pour éviter des temps d’attente jugés ridicules dans les hôpitaux de leur province.

Ça nous fait réfléchir à comprendre que notre province est en très bonne position quand ça vient aux services de santé.

Un autre programme qui a vu le jour est celui de formation pour du personnel soignant. Le programme des préposés aux services de soutien personnel, « PSW »—ce programme de formation entièrement financé est conçu pour remédier aux pénuries de main-d’oeuvre en santé et s’adresse aux résidents de l’Ontario. Une autre session est en cours présentement, grâce au partenariat de notre gouvernement provincial, du fédéral, du Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario et du Tri-County Literacy Council, en collaboration avec le Centre de services à l’emploi. Une formation est offerte, une formation de cinq mois, comprenant :

—cours en classe;

—formation rémunérée en cours d’emploi;

—deux semaines de préparation à la formation;

—soutien individuel pour la garde d’enfants, le transport et d’autres soutiens, si nécessaire; et

—certification de préposé aux services de soutien à la personne, délivrée par le Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario.

C’est difficile à croire quand les gens disent qu’il n’y a pas assez de choses qui sont faites pour rectifier le manque de personnel dans les soins de santé.

On peut aussi parler des services de paramédic communautaire. J’ai siégé, en tant que maire et président des comtés unis, sur le comité de services d’urgence—un programme, encore là, qui est subventionné par le gouvernement provincial, qui permet d’offrir des soins à domicile qui aident à désengorger les urgences dans nos hôpitaux.

D’autres programmes, avec les services de police—en siégeant sur le comité de sécurité, j’ai pu réaliser qu’il y a d’autres programmes qui ont été mis en place pour aider les personnes avec des problèmes mentaux. Encore une fois, c’était une visite des policiers, puis ça faisait en sorte qu’on évitait beaucoup de visites dans les hôpitaux.

Aussi, on n’entend pas parler souvent de ce dossier-là : l’implémentation du cadre de la planification pour la sécurité et du bien-être dans les collectivités, plus connu sous le nom de « community safety and well-being plan », qui est un plan qui était imposé par la province aux municipalités. Nous espérons, grâce à cette initiative, de pouvoir entreprendre de meilleures communications avec nos représentants des organismes qui offrent des services de tout genre aux personnes vulnérables, tels que des services communautaires pour faciliter l’accès aux personnes âgées, qui est encore une autre façon d’éviter des visites à l’hôpital.

En collaboration avec ServiceOntario, nous cherchons des occasions d’aider les hôpitaux, les services paramédicaux, les fournisseurs de diagnostics et d’autres partenaires du système à fournir des fournitures et des services médicaux dans les foyers de soins de longue durée afin d’éviter l’hospitalisation inutile des résidents. Des partenariats et des services seraient identifiés en réponse aux besoins locaux.

Nous continuerons de chercher des occasions de mettre en oeuvre des partenariats novateurs entre les hôpitaux et les foyers de soins de longue durée qui permettraient aux hôpitaux de fournir des soins dans des foyers de soins de longue durée où de tels partenariats contribueraient à réduire la pression dans nos hôpitaux locaux.

Tous ces projets sont possibles grâce à l’aide financière de notre gouvernement, et j’en suis très reconnaissant.

This government has invested more in the health sector than any other provincial government in the past, and it’s kind of sad that a minority of Ontarians do not realize that.

I am thankful for our government introducing the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022, An Act to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021. We are talking about improving staff and care, hiring 27,000 new care staff to increase the amount of quality care received by residents, which will allow our government to fulfill its commitment of providing an average of four hours of direct care per resident per day. Last year: a $270-million investment to increase staffing levels to 4,050 long-term care staff across the province. This year: a $673-million investment to long-term care to hire and retain up to 10,000 long-term-care staff across the province. This is part of our $4.9-billion investment over four years to reach our commitment of an average of four hours of daily care per resident. We have invested $100 million to add 2,000 nurses to the long-term-care sector by 2024-25 by supporting the training of thousands of PSWs and nurses who want to advance their career in long-term care.

For Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, the four-hour-care funding represents $2.7 million in additional funding in the year 2021-22, $6.6 million in funding in the year 2022-23, $11.9 million of additional funding in the year 2023-24 and $16.7 million of additional funding in the year 2024-25.

About the new and redeveloped beds in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell: I will name a few, and I’m really thankful for all these projects, starting with:

—the Roger-Séguin centre reconstruction, which will include 15 new and 110 redeveloped beds;

—Maxville Manor, which will include 38 new and 122 redeveloped beds;

—Sarsfield Colonial Home, which represents 18 new and 46 redeveloped beds;

—St. Jacques Nursing Home, which represents four new beds and 60 redeveloped beds;

—the redevelopment of the Prescott and Russell Residence: 78 new and 146 redeveloped beds; and

—St-Viateur in Limoges: 71 new and 57 redeveloped beds. By the way, I would like to mention that this is a privately owned long-term-care facility, and they were the ones with the least COVID rates in the whole riding. That altogether represents 224 new beds and 541 redeveloped beds in our small riding.

While in government, the Liberal Party neglected the long-term-care sector—almost a third just in our riding, these beds, compared to the 611 net beds between 2011 and 2018 while the Liberals were in power. That’s quite something.

Of course, this increase of 611 beds—we’ve heard it before—was an increase of 0.08%, while the population of Ontarians aged 75 years and over grew by 20%. This was 611 beds for 176,000 people. This left a wait-list of more than 40,500 people and meant an average wait of 152 days to get a long-term-care bed.

Our government promised to prioritize long-term care, and we are delivering on that promise by building 30,000 net new beds and redeveloping thousands more across the province. We also want this new living environment to be welcoming to families, friends and visitors, as they are extremely important to the well-being of the residents.

Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour les aînés francophones de notre région? La santé et le bien-être de nos résidents en soins de longue durée sont la priorité absolue de notre gouvernement, et cela inclut de veiller à ce que nous répondions aux besoins culturels des résidents. Nous savons qu’il n’y a pas d’approche unique et nous devons continuer à travailler avec les communautés culturelles pour répondre à leurs besoins.

Pour ce qui en est des lits occupés par les francophones dans notre région, on a :

—le centre Roger-Séguin, qui a 113 lits occupés par des francophones;

—The Palace, 16 lits occupés par des francophones;

—la Résidence Saint-Louis, 198 lits occupés par des francophones;

—Centre de soins de longue durée Montfort Long Term Care Home, 128 lits;

—Élisabeth Bruyère Residence, 60 lits occupés par des francophones;

—Centre d’accueil Champlain, 160 lits occupés par des francophones;

—St. Joseph’s Continuing Care Centre, 133 lits; et

—Chartwell Lancaster Long Term Care Residence, 60 lits.

Je crois que c’est important pour nous, les francophones. Je suis confiant que nous créerons plus de lits, grâce à cette cible de 30 000 nouveaux lits de notre gouvernement.

Je crois vraiment que notre gouvernement est sur la bonne piste. Nous devons faire en sorte que toutes les organisations qui offrent des services de santé travaillent mieux ensemble pour le bien de notre communauté.

Madame la Présidente, je crois que les gens ont très bien compris que notre gouvernement est celui qui investit le plus dans le domaine de la santé. Les chiffres démontrent le manque d’action des libéraux qui ont été au pouvoir pendant 15 ans et qui ont été appuyés par le NPD.

En tant que nouvel élu, j’aimerais remercier les membres de l’opposition. J’apprends beaucoup en tant que nouveau député. Une des leçons que je reçois du parti de l’opposition depuis quelques semaines est la suivante : comment poser la même question une centaine de fois en changeant quelques mots. Je vous remercie pour la leçon. Je crois que l’opposition devrait faire un effort pour travailler avec nous pour continuer à trouver des solutions au lieu de mettre leurs efforts à critiquer notre plan.

En terminant, je veux encore mentionner que je suis fier de faire partie d’une équipe qui travaille constamment à faire en sorte que les Ontariens obtiennent les meilleurs services possibles en soins de santé.

Thank you for the question. I think we’re doing a terrific job with this bill. It’s all about investing in long-term care and hospitals, and I think we’re there when it comes to the record investment by our government. We’re going to be looking after our people.

I can say for myself that in my riding, with the big $200-million investment at the local hospital and the $90-million long-term-care project, it’s hard for me to agree with the opposition. All I can say is, there is major investment done in our riding and I thank our government for that.

Merci. Je tiens à remercier le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. J’ai écouté attentivement ses commentaires sur ce projet de loi. Nous pouvons tous convenir ici, je pense, qu’il y a une crise dans les soins de santé, dans nos hôpitaux, sûrement. Parlez à n’importe quel hôpital en ce moment du problème et il vous dira que le problème, ce ne sont pas les lits; ce n’est pas « l’issue. » C’est le manque d’infirmières. Pourtant, rien dans ce projet de loi ne recrute une seule infirmière ou ne supprime le plafonnement de leurs salaires.

Pourquoi le député pense-t-il que la réponse la plus appropriée à cette crise est de continuer à manquer de respect à ces travailleurs sur le dos des plus vulnérables de notre province?

Votre gouvernement dit qu’on n’est pas à l’écoute. Dans votre projet de loi, il y a six fois que vous mentionnez « sans consultation avec le patient ». Je peux vous dire, dans le projet de loi, c’est assez clair que c’est l’intention—ce que vous allez faire. Mais ma question ne s’arrête pas là, puisque vous le savez, la francophonie—félicitations pour votre élection. Je voulais commencer avec ça.

Mais on sait que la francophonie, les lits sont très—il n’y a pas tant de lits que ça. Dans ma communauté, moi, à Hearst, il y a deux ans d’attente, ou trois. Puis à Kapuskasing, il y en a peut-être deux aussi—deux ans d’attente. Ça veut dire que si je suis francophone, on a des lits—« ALC beds », des lits qu’on considère à niveau de soins différent. On a beaucoup de monde. Ça vient enlever la pression sur le système. Là, on dit à ce monde-là que, sans consultation, on va vous envoyer dans un lieu différent. Ça veut dire que moi, si je ne parle rien qu’en français, ils vont m’envoyer dans une maison qui parle rien qu’en anglais? Mais s’ils m’envoient dans une maison francophone, ça veut dire peut-être dans votre coin du pays—ça veut dire peut-être à huit heures de chez nous.

Vous trouvez que ça, c’est raisonnable? Sans consultation? Ce n’est pas raisonnable. Ça c’est manquer de respect envers les aînés, c’est manquer de respect envers notre culture et notre langue, puis on mérite beaucoup mieux.

Puis moi, en tant que président des comtés unis, j’ai siégé sur le comité pour notre maison de soins de longue durée. S’il y a quelque chose que j’ai constaté, c’est que, oui, on contracte la COVID-19, donc certains employés ne peuvent pas faire leur shift. Je pense que c’est quelque chose qu’on ne mentionne pas souvent, mais je pense que c’est important de mentionner que c’est un facteur, parce que les investissements sont là dans notre région. Les nouvelles maisons—

Là, on va prendre les personnes qui sont dans ces lits-là—des « ALC », comme on peut dire en anglais—puis on va les transférer à des lieux, peut-être anglophones, où le monde n’est pas capable de s’exprimer. Il n’y a pas de grandes options, là.

S’il faut transférer du monde, pour respecter leur langue et leur culture, il va falloir les envoyer probablement à un coin d’Ottawa qui est à huit heures de chez nous—à huit heures de chez nous, et plus.

Alors, je vous demande : comment allez-vous répondre à ce besoin-là? Votre projet de loi dit « sans consultation »—ça veut dire que je ne pourrai rien dire. Vous allez assigner la personne dans ces maisons-là. Alors, j’aimerais entendre votre point de vue. Comment allez-vous respecter ces francophones-là dans ces maisons—

Point of order.

Questions?

Interjections.

Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I do want to ask my friend from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell—and congratulations; a great victory for Stéphane. I also welcome the new member for Thunder Bay–Superior North. I listened to her earlier, and I was concerned with one of her answers to the questions. When asked by my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga, was there anything in this bill that was redeeming, to that extent, she said—essentially; I’m paraphrasing—“Absolutely nothing.” So I have to conclude that she wants the status quo of 5,800 people being left in ALC beds in hospitals, where it’s inappropriate. Some will stay, but most will be able to find a place that is—

Interjections.

Can we have order, please? Can we have the member to order, please? Excuse me. Thank you.

My apologies on that. I made an error in regards to rotation.

The time is out, and we are on to further debate. The member from Davenport?

Speaker, on a point of order: I believe there was an error in rotation there. That question should have gone to the government side, and it unfortunately went to the opposition side.

Interjections.

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.

Really? This is a brand new Speaker. She’s been in the chair an hour.

Absolutely, there were.

While low-paid PSWs and other care workers got sick or were forced off the job, we remember the army had to be called in to help. Their report—which these members don’t even talk about; they don’t even want to talk about it—identified absolute—

Interjection.

Their report—and I encourage you, if you haven’t done it, to read it. Please read their report, because it identified absolutely horrifying examples of neglect happening—and let’s be very clear—predominantly in for-profit long-term-care homes. Those report findings: What did this government do with them? They ignored them, and they went even further: They blocked our calls and the calls of those families for a full public inquiry into long-term care—shameful.

Throughout the pandemic, there was a—and I just want to say, because the other interesting thing that was going on here—

Interjection.

Despite the death and the neglect that was so evident in the for-profit sector, many of those same corporations—again, let’s not fool ourselves that this has nothing to do with the fact that so many of those Conservative staffers have moved into lobbying for those homes. Many of those same corporations were granted 30-year licence renewals—shame.

Of the 30,486 beds announced by this government, more than half of them—16,304—were in the process of being allocated to for-profit corporations as of November of last year. This is this government’s record. It’s the record of a government that applies arbitrary caps on salaries of our front-line heroes. It’s the record of a government that gifts shareholders of corporations that have failed our seniors—and that’s why the chorus of criticism is growing across this province. That’s why this government is working so hard to spin this a different way.

I want to be completely clear: This bill is going to be an absolute boon for the for-profit long-term-care sector. And I want to add as well that I think we can expect that, due to those worse outcomes for residents in those homes, they will have much shorter wait-lists than non-profit and municipal homes. People don’t really want to go to them, and they are more likely where those seniors are actually coerced to go. I think that’s the saddest part of all this: As people have found that those for-profit long-term-care homes had such a terrible track record during the pandemic, folks don’t want their parents to go there. They don’t want their loved ones going there. But this government wants to send those seniors there so badly that they’re willing to put in place legislation that will result in the coercing of those seniors to go into those homes. This is about dollars and cents. This is about profits. This isn’t about patients. This isn’t about creating more opportunities for other patients to move into those hospital beds.

This government’s position has been that this bill is going to address hospital capacity, even if it’s at the expense of the rights of patients. But this, like their plan to expand the use of private services in the health care sector, absolutely ignores the fact—and I mentioned this in my question to one of the members opposite previously—that this is a staffing crisis. This is about staffing.

I won’t pretend that hasn’t been a long-standing issue. We’ve seen government after government—certainly in the last 20 years—dealing with a staffing crisis in our hospitals and our long-term-care facilities. But that was without question made worse by the pandemic. And what was this government’s response? To put in place some kind of arbitrary cap on the salaries of the very same people they call heroes, and then wonder why in these conditions they would be fleeing, desperate to get out of this sector. They’re treated with such deep, deep disrespect.

The crisis has reached, without question, a breaking point. We’ve all talked about that in here. We’ve all heard it in our communities. The government here, though, is still refusing to address the root of the problem. I think that’s what’s so shameful about this legislation. Because you would think that in this moment the government would be looking for real solutions, not just solutions to footing the bills and padding the pockets of the shareholders of long-term-care corporations, no, but actually finding solutions that will mean that our loved ones get the care they need and, yes, are moved into the most appropriate care.

Their only solution, ever—and it’s really mind-boggling—seems to be to look to the private sector, even knowing that it’s going to drain money from a public system, exacerbate a staffing crisis and ultimately pad a system that we know failed Ontarians so badly in the pandemic.

I want to speak in the remaining moments that I have here about a better way, because this government could use the lessons of the pandemic to make historic changes to the way we deliver seniors’ care. Ninety per cent of seniors would prefer to stay home. Providing publicly funded, quality, dependable home care would go a long way toward keeping people healthy in their homes and keeping hospital beds and workers free to care for folks who are in need. But this bill doesn’t mention home care, not even once, and it doesn’t put forward a single idea to expand it.

Perhaps the most effective way, I want to add as well, to improve seniors’ care would be getting the profit out of long-term care. The government could have chosen to meet the growing demand and reduce the wait-list and wait times by expanding the not-for-profit and municipal sector, where funding goes to patient care instead of padding the dividends of those wealthy shareholders I’ve spoken about.

I wanted to add: There’s a new culturally sensitive long-term-care home and affordable housing development that’s being planned to be built in my community for Portuguese-speaking seniors. It’s been in development for years, but we need it built yesterday. Under the current system that’s in place, they can’t access provincial funding until the building is completed. They’re continuing to work. They’re spending so much time—the community has been working on this for years, fundraising like crazy, while seniors in our community wait. And now what this government is telling us with this legislation is that those seniors might not end up even in Toronto. Gosh knows where they could end up if this bill is passed. And their families could be coerced into that, based on what this government decides to put in those regulations. Again, do we trust this government to put the interests of those seniors and vulnerable people ahead of padding the shareholder pockets? No, we do not. It’s really unacceptable.

I spoke in my response to the throne speech recently about the need for humility from this government instead of hubris. This is an opportunity to get this right. What this government has presented in this legislation is a lost opportunity. It’s very unfortunate.

Listen to seniors. Listen to advocacy groups. Listen to the health care workers who are telling you that this legislation will harm people, not help them. Bring some transparency forward instead of hiding the changes in your still-to-be-announced regulations; how about that?

Seniors in Ontario deserve dignity, respect and agency. This bill is going to affect some of the most vulnerable seniors out there, especially those with dementia—

No, there were no cuts.

They don’t like being faced with the truth.

Point of order, Speaker.

Order, the member from Renfrew. Thank you.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member opposite for her contribution to the debate. The members opposite, as a whole, have been saying to this government, “Do something about crowded emergency rooms and closing emergency rooms,” and yet when we added 3,500 new hospital beds, they opposed that. Then, when we said we were going to add another 3,000 hospital beds, they opposed that.

What I’d like to know is just how you expect people to be able to get into the hospitals if nobody is leaving the hospitals and you don’t want us to build any more beds.

I have a minute left, so I’ll make the most of it.

As I was saying, seniors in this province deserve dignity and they deserve respect. What this bill will do—again, it’s this “just trust us” approach with a government that has given us and Ontarians absolutely no reason to trust them. It’s going to target the most vulnerable among us.

I would urge the government once again to expand the opportunity for these folks to come and speak to you. Reach out to those people who are going to be most impacted. Listen to what they have to say. Do something to actually improve working conditions and pay for nurses and other front-line health care workers, because that will do more than anything that this bill will accomplish.

We have a responsibility to make sure that we don’t divide our most vulnerable residents from their families and from the care they deserve. I would encourage the government to take a second look and do something more positive with the opportunity they have here.

I spent two minutes talking about home care because that’s what seniors want: They would like to stay in their home, at least in my community, and I think, from speaking to seniors, across this province. So I would urge the member opposite to take a moment to really read this legislation and consider what’s not said here and what’s going to be determined in regulations because I think that is what is concerning to most Ontarians.

It’s a low bar to say that the only thing that this government has put in this legislation that they’re preventing is the actual physical restraint of individuals. But, unfortunately, it is a low bar, because what we think is going to happen is that people will be coerced using other means.

Our health care workers—the same people this government and these members stood up and proclaimed were heroes during the pandemic—have been hit hard with an arbitrary wage cap, while the cost of living is increasing for them, they’re living with PTSD from the experience of COVID, for goodness’ sake, and they’re overwhelmed, overworked.

We have a staffing crisis. If this government wants to actually do something to deal with the crisis in our hospitals right now, they would be addressing that. Repeal Bill 124.

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?

Ancaster–Dundas.

Why would this government treat our seniors so cruelly after all they have been through?