I think the member herself has just highlighted the fact why the legislation is needed and why the member should actually be in support of the legislation. That question frankly puts it all out on the table.

Right now, it does not give the families and the patient other alternatives. The conversation stops. This legislation allows the conversation to continue. It allows us to highlight some of the other homes that might be available for this patient in and around the patient’s preferred choices. That is something that this legislation does.

It also provides resources so that we can ensure that any patient who is discharged, with their consent, into a long-term-care home has the resources they need in order to manage that. Just given what the member has said, I think it highlights the need to actually vote in favour of this bill for patients who are wanting to become residents of long-term care.

As I mentioned in my speech, it is part of this transition to Ontario health teams. It’s part of long-term care being the solution to the acute-care challenges that we have faced for decades in this province, Mr. Speaker. We are in a position to participate, and we are. It is part of building an integrated health care system.

As I mentioned yesterday, when we are building systems and making it better, the NDP—the opposition—typically go to their old standby: tearing down what is being built up. This bill allows us to continue that transition, to continue to be part of building an integrated system. It’s better for patients who want to be residents, and I would hope that the member and the members opposite would support this.

She talks about surprise inspectors. Doubling the amount of inspectors allows us to do that work, and if you vote in favour of this bill, it puts it right in there. So I would suggest to the member, vote in favour of the bill for once and you can help us build a better Ontario health care system, as opposed to tearing down what we are building.

The Minister of Francophone Affairs and the parliamentary assistant have helped me identify just how important it is that we bring services to people in their languages, and culturally appropriate services. But it wasn’t just those two ministers; it was part of the most diverse caucus in the history of the province of Ontario that helped me understand, helped this government understand how important it is, whether it’s the Coptic community, the Persian community or the Muslim community, so that people can have services in their own language.

If we are building a diverse province that we are so proud of, services should be available to them in their language, and in the culture that they know best and that they are comfortable in. And that’s what we have done with the largest buildout of long-term care in the history of this country.

Now, the irony is that the member voted against each and every one of those initiatives. So I would suggest to the member to work with us, to help us as we expand services to our friends in the north, because it is so important. Whether it’s the francophone community in northern Ontario or whether it’s our First Nations partners in the north, they were ignored for so long.

That’s why so many Progressive Conservatives from the north are here for the first time: to fix a problem that the other two parties never addressed. We will get it done, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he votes for this bill, because it gets it done for the north as well.

I just want to circle back to what he’s saying. Forget the fact that both opposition parties say that we can’t trust long-term-care coordinators and hospitals to work on the best behalf of the patient. Forget that for a moment, Speaker. He understands, of course, that nobody can be discharged into a long-term-care home that doesn’t have the appropriate staffing, that that is part of this bill and that it is actually part of the Fixing Long-Term Care Act. He does understand that that is actually the case.

So I’m wondering if the member could hearken back to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act and to this part of the bill that is very clear: You cannot be discharged into a home without your consent and into a home that does not have the resources needed to handle the patient who is being transferred.

I’m happy to be here today to speak on this pressing issue. I’m here today to speak on the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022. This bill amends the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, by adding provisions for patients who occupy beds in a public hospital and are deemed to be requiring an alternate level of care. This proposed amendment is part of a broader strategy from our government to ensure recovery and stability in the Ontario health system.

Health care has many moving parts—primary care, acute care, long-term care, health care human resources, and, most importantly, the patient—all of which need to work together to deliver the most appropriate care to our most vulnerable in their time of need. When one or more of these parts are misaligned, it puts a strain on the whole system. In normal times, these strains can be tolerated. COVID-19 showed clearly that we have some long-standing issues that can no longer be ignored.

This government has responded with an actionable plan to secure an improved health care system. The Plan to Stay Open: Health System Stability and Recovery outlines five key initiatives to provide the best possible care for Ontarians while keeping the province open and thriving. The More Beds, Better Care Act amendment to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act is one of those specific actions aimed at delivering better care and increasing health care capacity through making the most appropriate use of health care resources.

When a person’s recovery has progressed to the point where they no longer require the specialized services of an acute-care hospital, they are normally discharged to home if they are well enough, or to long-term care if additional assistance is required. Those patients who qualify for discharge but are waiting for their preferred long-term-care residence end up staying in hospital. These patients are characterized as alternate-level-of-care, or ALC, patients.

As mentioned, health care is a system of parts that must work together. An ALC patient is occupying a bed in an acute-care hospital when that bed is needed for incoming patients. This creates backups throughout the system. It is most visible when a patient spends too long in an ER bed waiting for in-patient admission. It is less obvious when a surgery gets cancelled because a recovery bed isn’t available.

Yesterday, in my riding of Burlington, there were 10 in-patient beds that were occupied by ALC patients at Joseph Brant Hospital. Last year at this time, 20 beds were occupied by ALC patients. Those are beds that are not available to patients in the ER or to patients who will need a recovery bed after a surgery.

Speaker, nobody wants to stay in a hospital a moment longer than necessary, but they need a place to go, one that provides quality of life and meets their needs. ALC bed occupancy is not a new problem. Hospitals have been raising this issue for decades.

COVID-19 has brought this problem to a new level. We have two years’ worth of pent-up surgeries, and we need to be prepared for a possible fall surge of new COVID cases. We need the beds available, and we need front-line health care staff focused on the sickest of patients.

Previous governments have ignored the problem and let the situation build. I’m proud to say this government is the first in Ontario to address the problem in a compassionate, proactive and practical manner. These actions are intended to provide more high-quality spaces for our patients. This amendment provides the tools necessary for physicians and staff to have compassionate conversations with ALC patients and their families about transitioning from hospital to a temporary long-term-care home while they wait for a space in their preferred home to become available.

The intent of this amendment is similar to those of other provinces in Canada, such as British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia. We recognize that the decision to transition to temporary long-term-care homes can be a source of anxiety for patients and their families. We want to assure Ontarians that we are doing all we can do to alleviate that anxiety.

Our government has been working with partners, hospitals, long-term care, union leadership and experts to find the best solution. First, we have invested heavily to improve long-term-care homes in the province of Ontario. Our government is moving quickly on our commitment to build 30,000 new long-term-care beds and to redevelop thousands more across the province. We invested a total of $6.4 billion into the development of new homes and beds, and have 31,705 new and 28,648 upgraded beds in the pipeline. The commitment to build 30,000 new long-term-care beds in the province is the largest long-term-care building program in Canada, ever.

In my riding, 64 new beds are being added to the CAMA Woodlands Long Term Care Home. In Maple Villa Long Term Care Centre, 195 new beds are being added and another 93 beds are being redeveloped.

We have reinvested in more direct care. Before the government’s investments to increase direct care, patients were getti1ng 2.75 hours a day of direct care from registered nurses, registered practical nurses and personal support workers. Our government is investing $4.9 billion over four years to reach our commitment of an average of four hours of daily direct care per resident.

In Burlington alone, in my riding, we will receive more than $46 million in four-hour-care funding over the next four yea1rs and an additional 259 new beds and 93 redeveloped beds.

We are also training new PSWs for these homes. The Ministry o1f Colleges and Universities is working closely with the Ministries of Long-Term Care, Health and Education to bulk up the PSW workforce by addressing recruitment, retention and training initiatives. This ensures that PSWs are available to meet resident needs.

As part of the plan to stay open and based on the advice of the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, we are right-sizing the number of isolation beds based on community demand and COVID-19 risk levels. There will be 300 long-term-care beds that will now be safely available for use, and the potential for 1,000 more beds in the next six months.

Second, patients do not need to worry that accepting a temporary placement in one home will cause them to lose their place in line for their preferred residence. We will work with our front-line partners on placement guidelines that will ensure patients stay close to their loved ones and that no one is out of pocket for any cost difference between their temporary home placement and the cost of their preferred home.

Third, this amendment includes provisions that temporary placements will have the skills and the facilities—