I want to thank the member for her question, because it allows me to share another bit that I didn’t have enough time to, which is that when we talk about freeing up beds, when we talk about freeing about the ability for staffing, when we talk about clearing ALC beds, this legislation actually does not free up nurses and specialized staff.

We need to talk a little bit about the types of alternate care and, when people in the hospital are in this situation, what kind of care they receive. In long-term-care homes, for example, will that actually allow for nurses and PSWs to be freed up?

And the fact that we need thousands—Speaker, thousands—of PSWs and nurses: One of the things that we could have done is to allow for internationally trained professionals and so many others who want to be nurses and PSWs in this province to become certified, and allow them to be paid better. Repeal Bill 124, so that we can retain and recruit more health care workers in our province.

If we walk back a little bit and actually talk about what happens when someone ends up in the hospital—first, no one ever wants to go to a hospital. You’re not going to a fancy hotel to stay. Let’s be clear; let’s be honest: You’re ill. You’re not well.

I have so many seniors and I know so many people who don’t want to go to the hospital even when they’re not well, especially in the crisis that we’re facing right now. So the fact that these people, when they refuse, for example, to go to the designated long-term-care home—if they refuse, then they will be charged. There is a financial hammer on this, and that means that people will feel that financial coercion in order to go to that long-term-care home.

So one of the things I would urge this member, as well as all the other members in the government—if you really care about Scarborough, show us. Come to Scarborough and provide the funding that we need, because our hospitals are some of the oldest hospitals in the province.

Let’s be completely clear: This bill strips away the rights of the most vulnerable people in our province, our seniors and our elders, who are in hospital, who are sick and not well. It takes away any say that they have in their future health care. It actually, in fact, makes provisions that their health care information can be shared with whomever this government chooses. These are our most vulnerable citizens.

In addition to this, if they won’t leave, if they choose not to go when they’re being forced—people around the bedside are forcing them and making these decisions for them, and if they don’t choose to go, the government can’t handcuff them; they can’t use restraints. But then what can they do? They can use a tool, the hammer of financial ruin, by charging them thousands and thousands of dollars a day while they are in hospital. This is outrageous. It’s the cruelest thing I’ve ever seen from this government, and believe me, that’s saying a lot.

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?

Order.

Interjections.

The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Further debate?

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 will not be heckled about that.

Our hospitals are some of the oldest hospitals. They need to be repaired.

Interjections.

There are a lot of things that we can anticipate happening. There are a lot of advocates across the province who have been really worried about this.

I think this will answer your question. One of the quotes that I can share is from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. This is what they said: “We oppose today’s proposed amendments to the FLTCA 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. #RightsDontAge.”

Speaker, that’s what will end up happening. So many people will lose their support, will lose their community and their family because they will be forced to go to a home that may not be up to par with what they need or the care that’s necessary. Most of the beds that are empty and people don’t want to go to them—it’s because they don’t have that quality that’s necessary.

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—

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?

Questions?

Interjections.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.

I have a simple question: Do you want to go to Orchard Villa? Yes or no?

We know how bad things were in long-term care during the pandemic, with people, frankly, left to rot in their beds without care. We also know that the government refused to spend $1.8 billion of money allotted to health care during the pandemic, during the worst health crisis of a generation.

What I see is that you are pinning the blame on seniors instead of improving the retention and respect of health care staff by rescinding Bill 124. The government has announced that hospitals can blackmail seniors with high fees if they don’t agree to wherever they’re being shipped off to. How is this not coercion?

You know, Speaker, I guess the member for Scarborough Southwest—when I listened so attentively when she was speaking—didn’t hear what I had to say. People who are being moved out of a hospital setting will be moved to an appropriate long-term-care facility. And every one of them—nobody will be moved to a long-term-care facility that does not meet the provincial standards.

We have more inspectors, twice the number of inspectors—more than anywhere else and more than ever before. So wherever I end up going, it’s going to be a home that meets the provincial standards. The level of care will be expected to be at the provincial level, or I won’t be going.

Just think about the 5,800 beds across the province of Ontario that now, in our hospitals—once this is fully implemented and we’re able to rationalize our system, the opportunities for those hospitals to provide the kind of care that everyone else in this province needs. That’s why we have our hospital system: so that the care you need is there when you need it. By moving ahead with this legislation, we are going to help Ontario get there.

But I will say this, and the people of Ontario agree with us: We were dealt a terrible hand. But our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, Minister Elliott at the time, Minister Fullerton at the time, Minister Phillips—we dealt with it in the most proper way, and the people—

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?