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.

Families in my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh have reached out to me with respect to uncertainty for the transfer of their loved ones from the hospital to a long-term-care home that might not meet the needs of the residents and the families.

Could the member explain what measures will be taken into consideration when proposing appropriate long-term-care homes for ALC patients?

Yesterday, the part-time long-term-care minister said 100% of residents have access to AC, but of course that doesn’t mean their bedrooms when they’re in quarantine or asleep. In fact, he was proud that one in 10 long-term-care residents don’t have AC in their bedrooms through the summer heat where they have to stay for 24 hours a day when there’s a COVID outbreak. He also said consent is required to move patients from hospitals to long-term-care homes that they don’t want to.

He asked me to read the bill, so I thought I would: “This new provision authorizes certain actions to be carried out without the consent of these patients. The actions include having a placement co-ordinator determine the patient’s eligibility for a long-term care home, select a home and authorize their admission to the home.”

It also says—because I’ve read language before. Subsection 60.1(4) of his own bill says actions can be “performed without consent if reasonable efforts have been made....”

So given he made two inaccurate statements twice in one morning, will the minister explain why he thinks misleading residents is a better strategy—

Interjections.

A lot of the conversation has been about consent, but I want to raise the issue of informed consent. It’s estimated that up to 90% of people living in long-term-care homes may be facing some sort of cognitive impairment. Do you feel satisfied that this government can ensure that residents in long-term care who are being moved are actually doing so with true informed consent?