From the beautiful riding of Essex, I’d like to welcome my son, Andrew Leardi.

Hopefully I’ll get an opportunity to finish what I start this time.

I rise to speak as the member for Simcoe–Grey. It’s a great honour to be here today as part of a House that is prepared to get things done and to improve lives for the residents of our province.

As the member for Simcoe–Grey, I want to speak briefly about my riding. With a population of over 152,000, it consists of seven municipalities, six in Simcoe–Grey and one in Grey county. I want to highlight this morning the ways in which those municipalities are working together collaboratively to serve their residents effectively and efficiently, something that this government has been working hard with our residents and lower-tier governments to make happen. We know that there is only one taxpayer, and I want to congratulate each of these municipalities for their initiative and their leadership.

On Friday, my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, MPP Byers, and I attended a meeting with the mayors and CAOs of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Clearview, Town of the Blue Mountains and Meaford to discuss their work regionally to address issues relating to transportation and housing—issues that are very compelling and pressing for all of our residents.

Last week, both the councils of Collingwood and New Tecumseth approved the renewal of the water supply agreement that will continue and expand the supply of safe and abundant drinking water from Georgian Bay to the residents of New Tecumseth.

Speaker, these are just two examples of how my municipalities are working very hard collaboratively to provide effective and efficient governance for their residents.

Well, the honourable gentleman is actually incorrect. Perhaps he didn’t have a chance to take a look at the bill, because had he looked at the bill, he would have seen, right in the explanatory note, that in fact consent will still be required. If he went a little bit further into the bill, subsection 60.1(7), he would see, again, that consent is still required.

What we’re doing, actually, is working with our acute care partners to finally be able to be in a position to address the challenges that have faced acute care for a very, very long time in this province. Long-term care is in a position to be part of that solution, and it’s in that position, ultimately, because of the investments that this government has made since coming to office in 2018.

So, again, the honourable gentleman is wrong. I’d be more than happy to send a copy of the bill over to him so that he can take a look at it for himself.

But the member’s tune has changed a little bit since Thursday, right? Because Thursday, colleagues, he was saying that people would be forcibly removed from hospital against their will, without their consent. He said that they would be moved into ward rooms across the province and hundreds of miles away from their family and friends.

Because of the investments that we have made in long-term care, that is not going to happen, and the member knows this. He knows that we will not move people without their consent. But it allows us to have a conversation. What homes might be available to a patient in a hospital who has been discharged in and around their homes of choice while they wait for their home of choice to become available? I think that’s responsible. It is part of the solution to the acute care challenge that we faced for decades, and I’m happy that long-term care can play a role.

Here is the thing: Long-term care—we can be part of the solution. It has been decades that long-term care has placed a challenge on the health care system, but because of the investments that we have made, that they have voted against, we can be part of the solution, and we will be.

Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise that it’s an either/or proposition. This Progressive Conservative government is going to give support to parents while increasing investments in public education. We can do both in this province, and we owe it to parents to do both. It’s so critical at a time of rising national inflation, the cost-of-living challenge—I find it a bit bizarre for New Democrats and Liberals to oppose measures even if they incrementally provide $50, $100, $200, $400, as we’ve done in the past year over the pandemic. That makes a difference, and parents in this province want more of it, not less. We’re going to increase investments for public education, as announced by the Minister of Finance, by 615 million more dollars for this September—a learning recovery plan that leads the nation with $175 million in tutoring supports for the publicly funded schools the member opposite rightfully speaks about.

We agree it is important these kids get back on track, and the most important thing we can do, in addition to the dollars, is to have a resolute commitment to keep the kids in class, and our government will deliver that for the kids of this province.

I will remind the member opposite and all parliamentarians here that we have actually added 400 physician residents to support the workforce in northern and rural Ontario. We’re launching a new provincial emergency department peer-to-peer program to provide additional, on-demand, real-time support and coaching from experienced emergency physicians and—

Interjections.

“Strengthening collaboration with government, doctors and other health care stakeholders is critical to resolving the unprecedented pressures on Ontario’s health-care system.

“‘No one group can do this alone, we must work together.’”

This question is for the Minister of Education. Speaker, unfortunately, our public health care system isn’t the only sector that is being targeted for privatization by this government. Two weeks ago, the finance minister announced a new scheme that would give payouts to parents for tutoring outside of school. It’s a plan that sucks $225 million out of our public schools, far surpassing whatever this government is contributing to in-school supports for kids and giving them what I can only guess is about 50 bucks per family for tutoring services outside of school.

Speaker, through you, to the Minister of Education: How does taking money away from our in-school supports and public education, and forcing families to find help for their kids at 50 bucks a year, actually help our struggling students?

How much is the government spending on this massive advertising program to promote a plan that doesn’t even exist yet?

Member for Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

Minister of Health can continue.

Supplementary question.

It’s not lost on families watching that when the details were unveiled for the $200 investment we provide to every child—or the $400, when we doubled it—the New Democrats opposed it then, just like they will do now. They have stood up against the incremental savings our government has been able to provide for families.

Ideologically, it is consistent. After all, in the child care deal we’re now saving, on average, $4,000 this year and $12,000 by next year.

The New Democrats wanted us to omit for-profit child care because they don’t believe in choice, they don’t believe in respecting parents and they don’t believe in delivering affordability for the taxpayers of this province.

Our government and our Premier have a mandate to do that, to work with our publicly funded school boards to improve education quality, to invest more and to expect more. That’s exactly what we’re going to do by investing in a landmark tutoring expansion plan and a 420% increase in mental health. All of this is going to make a difference as we get kids in normal, stable, more enjoyable schools this September.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: One year ago this week, downtown Wheatley exploded, likely as a result of an old abandoned gas well that had leaked.

According to the Globe and Mail, months after the explosion the Chatham-Kent fire chief warned the provincial government of gas leaks and repeatedly begged for help, but the province evidently decided this was the municipality’s problem, not the province’s. There are an estimated 15,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in rural southwestern Ontario. Experts say another Wheatley is just a matter of time.

Will the provincial government take action to prevent another explosion, or will the Premier abandon rural communities to deal with this danger on their own?

The government is keenly aware of the problem with the homeowners and tenants in Wheatley. Obviously, we were on the ground very early, both the Premier and Minister Rickford. On March 4, 2022, the province extended the Wheatley Residents Assistance Program to the end of the year. Wheatley residents who have not been able to return home can receive assistance costs until December 31, 2022.

So far, the honourable member should know that we’ve paid over $823,000 to help evacuated households, and additional payments are being made on an ongoing basis.

To the Premier: The explosion in Wheatley flattened the downtown core and many people were hospitalized. About a year before the Wheatley explosion, there was another explosion just 10 kilometres away near Leamington. That explosion took the lives of a retired couple. Experts believe that a leaky oil and gas well may have been the cause of that explosion as well. People have died, and yet when Chatham-Kent detected a gas leak in downtown Wheatley and begged the province for help, the province dithered.

Past provincial governments have allowed oil and gas companies to walk away from their responsibilities when they abandon these wells. When will your government take action to prevent another deadly explosion like we are seeing in the province of Ontario?

In an answer to one of my colleagues earlier in question period, the Minister of Long-Term Care confirmed that no patient in hospital will be discharged into a long-term-care home against their will, and that he understands the importance of keeping someone in long-term care close to family and friends. However, the opposition are suggesting that as part of the solution to the decades-long challenges in acute care, seniors are being forced back into four-bed ward rooms. These ward rooms were singled out by the long-term-care commission as being a serious part of the problem in the initial waves of COVID-19.

Can the minister confirm if he is considering this as part of the solution, and if so, what evidence does he have that they are now safer?

The minister has stated that long-term care is able to be part of the solution. Can the minister explain what additional resources are provided to improve residents’ quality of care?

My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. Last Thursday, the minister introduced legislation in this House that critics have suggested will see seniors discharged from hospitals and moved into long-term-care homes in communities far from their family and friends, and against their will.

We all know how difficult it was during the initial waves of COVID-19 when family could not visit or participate in caring for their loved one in a long-term-care home.

Is the minister doing this, as critics have suggested, and ignoring the lessons of the pandemic and forcing seniors to live alone, isolated from family?

Very specifically, who will the minister be consulting in advance of establishing a regulation? How long will Ontario families wait before the minister delivers the regulations implementing the legislation?

I would like to thank the member for Whitby for the question and the obvious passion which he brings to the file. I can assure the member that, of course, no such action will be taken. Consent will still be required.

Ultimately, we do understand how important it is that loved ones—family, friends, spouses, partners—are close to their loved ones in long-term care, not only because they provide assistance with day-to-day activities but because of the emotional support that comes with having a loved one nearby.

But it also reflects that the best care for somebody who has been discharged from a hospital is not in a hospital. It is in a long-term-care home. As the parliamentary assistant said, we want to turn people from patients into residents. We have the ability to do so. I’m very proud of the fact that long-term care can be part of the solution.

Specific to the question, assuming that this Legislature passes this bill, we will quickly present regulations no later than one week following the passage of the bill.

Frankly, we are working with our partners at all levels—municipal and the federal government—to not only identify these wells but to cap them. As I said, funding has been put in place to ensure that happens. At the same time, through the good work of the member for Chatham-Kent and, of course, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, local businesses that were impacted by that are being supported.

More work needs to be done, but we’re well on our way to ensuring all communities are safe.

But very specific to her question, despite what the opposition critic is tweeting out and press releases, four-bedroom ward rooms will not be used as part of this solution.

Ma question est pour le Premier Ministre. The Northern Health Travel Grant has not been revised in years. With the rate of inflation this program does not even cover the cost of gas, let alone a hotel room to travel, for residents in northern Ontario. Patients are left paying out of pocket for their expenses or racking up credit card bills. Sadly, some people must cancel their appointments because they simply cannot afford it. What is this government going to do to help offset the costs of important medical travel and ease the financial burden for residents of northern Ontario?

These medical appointments are booked because they’re necessary. How are seniors and low-income patients supposed to cover these costs? Will the government stop dragging their feet and implement a new, revised reimbursement formula for this program?

Minister of Long-Term Care.

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

I thank the member opposite for his question and was pleased to join him with members of Ottawa city council to discuss climate change and the commitments that this government is taking to address and improve adaptation and resiliency through the province’s first-ever climate change impact assessment. I know my colleague will address some specifics in the supplemental, but I’d like to lead by saying that this is the first-ever climate change impact assessment this province has ever undertaken. It was welcome news by the city of Ottawa and will help build our resiliency.

To add to that, Speaker, we’ve made critical investments in stormwater and waste water infrastructure upgrades after years of neglect by the previous government, where we saw sewage spills leeching into Lake Ontario, where infrastructure was crumbling and not able to meet extreme weather events. Under this government, we’ve increased OCIF, a critical funding instrument for rural municipalities. We’ve increased funding for sewage and water to address overflow issues. We’ve launched the first-ever climate change impact assessment and we’ll continue to work with municipal partners to address this.

I’d like to thank the incredible staff at Hydro One for the work that they’ve done to address these outages—

Interjections.

You know, we recognize that the residents in northern Ontario face some unique challenges because of the distances between accessing health care, particularly specialty services. The Northern Health Travel Grant is continuously upgrading quality improvement opportunities. In fact, in the 2021-22 allocation, it was $48.2 million. And most importantly for me, 96.2% of those applications were approved.

We have done things like making sure that people who have to use the northern Ontario health travel grant have the opportunity, if they so choose, to be able to have direct deposit. So if you are using the service on a regular basis, you have the ability to receive that payment back sooner as opposed to waiting for a cheque. It is an optional program, but I think it speaks to how we always want to see where there are opportunities for improvement, and we will act as a government.