I know; it’s shocking.

And yet, here’s yet another chance for this government to step up and do the right thing. Will they finally show true leadership and pass this motion? Will the members of this government caucus stand up for transparency, for accountability, for integrity? Will they have the guts to stand up to the Premier and stop cowering before him?

Really, I’ve got to tell you, he’s not so scary. We stand up to him every day; you should be able to as well.

It’s time to stand up and do what your Premier won’t: Bring things out into the open, shed some light, clear your good names and pass this motion.

Thanks to the member for your comments on this home care bill.

He is quite right; we’ve been debating the model of home care in the province of Ontario since I came here 11 years ago. The Liberals, before the Conservatives, were dead set on regarding home care as a business.

There is a commercial quality to the services. It is not an extension of the health care system. And the people who are working within that broken home care system are continually disenfranchised, and they are mostly women. And they are mostly—in Waterloo region and across the province—racialized women. And they do not have a voice, even when they’re fighting for more hours so that their clients can get a bath or be fed with some dignity, or so that they can just sit in a moment of compassion with their senior.

My question to the member is, what do you think is actually driving another piece of legislation which doesn’t solve the home care problem in the province of Ontario?

The member spoke about culturally competent care, so I just want to remind the member that this is the government that, for the first time in the history of Ontario, is building culturally sensitive homes. We have the Canadian Coptic Centre developing a home in Mississauga. We have the Muslim Welfare Centre, who are building a Muslim long-term-care home—Guru Nanak Long-Term Care Centre in Brampton. And I could go on probably for an hour listing all the culturally sensitive homes that we are building.

Further to that, we have trained over 16,000 PSWs through the accelerated program—that we have invested in their education. So PSWs are a respected part of our health care system.

Why does the member opposite keep voting no for all the investments that we are making into long-term care, into home care and into educating more PSWs in our health care system?

I’m happy to ask a question of my colleague on his thoughtful remarks.

I’ve got an email here from Cindy, a PSW in my community. Some of what she said is, “I make top wage of 22.50 after 10 years and we are struggling. With inflation we are having to go to food banks or get second jobs.... We actually hold people’s lives in our hands and enable people to live and die in their own homes but can’t afford to eat or live in our own home.... We deserve to be treated with respect for the jobs we do because without us how” do “your parents, grandparents or even yourselves live alone if they need care. Something needs to be done now!! We need a living wage to continue in this profession and to be treated with respect period.”

She also flagged for me that she sees that there is “a waiting list for PSW service in home care in our area of 491 people. That is only going to get worse as we are treated as second-class health care workers.”

I was wondering, where in this bill is there something for me to share with Cindy that is positive about her circumstances and her future in this profession?

I take what my friend has said to heart. I think people do want to live at home. They want to be at home. They don’t want to be in hospitals. A number of persons with disabilities and seniors I’ve spoken to don’t want to be admitted into long-term care. That is a personal choice they’ve made.

But what you’ve said and what the government has introduced to date has not done anything about the fact that we are losing 30% on the dollar of every—there’s a billion dollars contemplated with this bill, as I understand it. We are losing a third of every dollar we’re spending because we’re lining the pockets of the for-profit companies. So all the good work that you’re going to do to take those thousand people and bring them back home into the community—if they can’t get a care worker to show up on time, if those care workers are double-booked, if their travel isn’t covered, if they’re not making decent salaries, if they have no pensions and no benefits, then I believe your bill is set up to fail.

What I’m going to do just to punctuate the point for my friend from Oshawa is to say this: Can you imagine an Ontario where there was an agreed-upon minimum standard of compensation for all PSWs? The government, through Ontario Health, could do it right now. That is what Denmark does. There is one standard of pay, one standard of benefits, one standard of travel being covered. Can you imagine that?

I can tell you, for any lawyer working for this government right now—you better believe there’s a minimum standard that they expect to be paid. Any deputy minister? Oh, there’s a minimum standard of what they expect to be paid. And they work hard. Why can’t we do the same for PSWs? Why do we have to watch them be gouged by greedy companies that have been ripping off the public purse for too long? That, I believe, my friend, is what’s hurting Cindy, and we need a government that’s going to stop that and stop it right now.

What I would say to all of those homes that are being built that are culturally appropriate homes—I want the workers who are going to work in those buildings to know that they have the right to join a union. We had SEIU Healthcare in this building not long ago. They should sign up to SEIU Healthcare, because right now there’s no government that’s willing to guarantee a standard of living and wages.

The member is a nurse, and I respect the work that she has done in the province of Ontario. The member benefited from that work done by the associations representing her profession.

I want to see PSWs valued more and paid more. That is the missing piece, honestly. Back to my friend: We can build homes. Homes and beds are great infrastructure. But what makes them come alive are the people who work in them. So that is the thing we need a government to do. And if this government isn’t prepared to do it, believe me, in 2026, there will be a government prepared to pass laws to ensure PSWs are paid appropriately, their travel is covered, they have pensions and benefits just like all of us in this building.

Questions?

Thank you to the member opposite for your remarks.

I do have a point I want to speak to. Ontario Health, as you may or you may not know, launched the Let’s Go Home program across all 15 OHTs in the west region, and this is to support the avoidance of ALC. This program coordinates seamless discharge from the hospital and emergency department diversion for those who are at greatest risk. Since this program launched, in fact, in the fourth quarter, more than 1,000 people have been supported. So my question to the member is, can you see how programs such as this are being supported through Bill 135 and would be welcomed in your community?

I say distinctly to my friend over there that I will vote against any bill this government brings before the House that puts the interests of CarePartners executives, Bayshore executives and ParaMed executives over the interest of seniors and workers. They are all going to be voted against, because we know on this side who we work for. We don’t work for the executives who come into this building and put on open bar receptions and try to cozy up to politicians so they can line their pockets. We work for the seniors, we work for the persons with disabilities, we work for the PSWs, and we won’t apologize for it. That’s who we are. That’s who the NDP is.

Questions?

Thank you.

Questions?

I’m so proud to be part of the government that, since day one, when we were elected back in 2018, started the hard work that takes vision and leadership to transform our health care system. We started with The People’s Health Care Act, Bill 74, in 2019, and I don’t think there’s been a single session that we have not debated and passed a health care-related bill. Probably if we were to check the record, the opposition voted no to every single one of our health care bills. Talk is cheap and real action and real leadership need bills to be debated and put forward.

I know that the member has done some incredible work in putting forward a private member’s bill talking to seniors to recognize June as Seniors Month in Ontario. What have the seniors told us in those tables that you’ve had? What do they want to see from this government on home care?

I listened intently to the member opposite. I was glad that she was talking about some challenges that we have in Durham region and glad that the government, with seven members in this House that connect to Durham region—I’m glad we’re having conversations about that.

I will share with her something that a PSW named Cindy wrote to me. She said a number of things about what it’s like to not be appropriately compensated, the challenges. I’ve read that on the record before, but I want to highlight this part: She said, “I saw that there’s a waiting list for PSW service in home care in our area of 491 people. That is only going to get worse as we are treated as second-class health care workers.” I will note that this number is likely to have increased based on when she sent this letter.

My question is, if this is someone who is working the front lines, loves her job, wants to be respected, does not see that from this government and is concerned about the growing waiting lists for PSW service, how does this bill in front of us address that? What would this member say to folks like Cindy doing the work, doing the care and left—

I’m going to be referencing the latest report that came out from Seniors for Social Action Ontario; it just came out on October 2. I want thank Margaret Coleman, Marcia Smellie and Rick Chambers for sharing that. This is an organization that surveyed seniors about home care.

What they found was shocking, Madam Speaker. They found that, in Ontario, six times as much funding has been invested in institutional care versus home care. That’s a problem. If you want to address home care then you have to resource it. They also found out that because of this funding inequity, seniors feel that they’re being forced into institutions instead of home care due to a lack of choice. They also said that the underfunding and under-resourcing by the provincial government, as well as the clumsy hand-over responsibilities from CCACs and LHINs to the HCCSS, has proven to be very problematic.

Bill 135 does not solve these core issues. How is the government going to address the crucial need for reinvestment for a stronger home care system in Ontario?

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The whole “why” and purpose of this bill is that we know that the demand for home care is increasing, and that’s due to our demographic changes as well as an aging population. We also have limited capacity in long-term-care homes, and the COVID-19 pandemic has really exacerbated these capacity pressures.

Now, why this bill is so important: Currently, there are 14 ministry-funded HCCSS organizations. What this bill will do is amalgamate these 14 into a single entity to gain more efficiencies.

This will be necessary in order to support the amalgamation of the 26 bargaining units currently under HCCSS and create a labour management structure that can support the transition of care coordination to the OHTs.

To your question, the member from Essex, in fact, the Ontario health at-home care coordinators are going to be playing a great part of the connection. This is going to help improve this entire system. They will work within the Ontario health teams. They’re going to work in other front-line settings. They will also work alongside the care providers, the doctors, the nurses and directly with patients while they’re in the hospital and working with the families so that they can ensure that they set up settings to facilitate a seamless transition from the hospital to the home.

I want to congratulate the member from Newmarket–Aurora for obviously having excellent mastery of the subject matter. My question for her is, in the riding of Essex sometimes we get telephone calls from people who are trying to set up home care for their family members and sometimes they find it difficult to navigate the system. So we have to help them navigate the system. My question to the member from Newmarket–Aurora is, how is this proposed legislation and Ontario Health atHome going to make it easier for people in Essex county and across the province of Ontario to access the home care services they need?

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As I spoke to in my speech, part of what we’re doing is to ensure that we have that consistency across the province.

Right now, there has been 14 separate different home care community providers. What’s going to happen now is that this will all be connected under one central base with one back office system. That’s going to be critical to this entire process, as well as the OHTs, to ensure that home care service is provided and is consistent across this province.

Questions?

Ça me fait toujours plaisir de me lever pour parler du projet de loi 135, the Convenient Care at Home Act.

I like the question my colleague just asked, because this bill will not address the lack of service. It does nothing. In fact, you heard the colleague across say, “Oh, it’s to make sure it unifies the services.” They have no idea of the lack of services First Nations—or the north compared to the south.

En français, on dit : « Prends une paye puis sors. » Venez voir, dans le Nord. Venez faire un tour. Come and take a trip. Go up north. You will see what type of service we have or First Nations have. There’s such a lack of service this bill will never address.

I’ll give you just one example. And I’m going off cue, but we had in Moose Factory, I think my colleague will know—it used to be called Billy Bayou. It was in Moose Factory. It was for young adults and family members that had autism that also had other issues. That was a place they could bring their family members to have their services. There’s no other services up north. Don’t forget, that was the only service that these families had where they could have some relief and bring their family members to that little centre. It was a small, small building. It was a small house, but there was all kinds of services they were offering to give relief to the families.

Do you know what this government did? They cut all financing. They killed it. Do you know where one of the individuals—he was a young adult. Now, he’s waiting at home to go to long-term care, and I think there’s—I can’t remember how many long-term-care beds—six or seven, very little. It takes how many years? Somebody has to die. But he’s a young adult. He shouldn’t be going to long-term care. So you cancel Billy Bayou, which was a service to the family—the little help they were getting, and you killed it.

Et pour ça, vous vous pétez les bretelles. Vous dites, hé, on va unifier les services.

Il n’y aura pas d’unification des services dans le Nord. Il n’y en aura pas, parce que les services n’existent pas. The services don’t exist. My colleague from Kiiwetinoong has said it many times in this House. I’ve said it many times in this House. So yes, if you want to talk services, come up north. You’ll get a true reality check, a real reality check, because the services don’t exist. If you leave and go up Highway 11 and go up north—ha. C’est une vraie farce. Et quand on vous entend parler, vous dites que tout va bien en Ontario. “Everything is good in Ontario.” Ça va bien. Tu sais la chanson « Ça va bien! »? Sacrifice. Réveillez-vous, puisque la réalité n’est pas là.

Il y a du monde qui est obligé—je vais te donner un autre exemple. J’en ai parlé dans la période de questions. Il y a un monsieur qui est obligé de—comment ça s’appelle? Il était à l’hôpital dans le sud de l’Ontario. Il a été obligé d’avoir un transfert. He asked for a transfer because he found out he was having cancer, and because of the lack of service we have for flying with Ornge—he knows he’s going to die, but because the service is so bad, because of the transfer just to get the treatments, he said no to the treatment. He wants to go home and die and refused the treatments that may make him live. Because the services are so terrible, he says, “I won’t take the services because I want to see my family more.”

That’s the reality. They go up to Kingston. That’s where: Kingston. They live for months in hotel rooms, just because they have diabetes. The services are not there.

So now we’re talking “convenient care at home.” Well, you don’t have the same definition of convenient care at home as what we see up north.

Le projet de loi 135—ce n’est pas compliqué—c’est une extension de la privatisation du système de santé. On va arrêter de se dire de belles affaires, là. Ils peuvent vous monter des beaux bateaux, ils peuvent vous dire toutes sortes de belles affaires de comment le système va bien; s’il va bien dans le Sud, il ne va pas bien dans le Nord.

La réalité c’est que, quand Mike Harris était au pouvoir—il était l’ancien premier ministre d’un gouvernement conservateur—il avait dit qu’on va privatiser le système, que ça va mettre un système beaucoup plus vite, beaucoup plus efficace et beaucoup moins cher. Beaucoup moins cher? Il y un autre dicton qu’on dit en français : « Allume, légume. » Tu sais ce que je veux dire? Ce n’est pas vrai. Notre système nous coûte plus cher qu’il ne nous a jamais coûté. Puis je vais vous donner un exemple.

Dans un foyer de soins de longue durée chez nous, dans ma région, une « PSW » qui est syndiquée—bonjour, Mr. Speaker. Ça va bien?

Une « PSW » qui est syndiquée se fait payer 22 piastres et 59—$22.59 for a PSW in a unionized environment. This is from a long-term care in my riding. An RN? I’ll give you, first of all, for an agency worker: $65. Cheaper? You don’t have the same definition of “cheaper” as me. It’s a lot higher.

An RPN, unionized: $22.59. Again, it’s in the same long-term care. An RPN in that same long-term care, because it’s an agency: $95. They’re using two agencies; one is $95 and one is $85, a $10 difference, for all the numbers I’m giving—but not for the unionized. But it’s cheaper? Ce n’est pas la même définition que pour moi.

RNs: on parle de 115 $ et 125 $ pour l’autre agence. So $115 and $125 for different agencies in the same place, and then RNs in the unionized environment, $34.34. Where is the definition of cheaper when it came to private care?

Now, these homes and hospitals are saying, “We’re having a hard time paying for this.” They’re having a hard time making payroll. And I heard the minister today speak in question period: “Well, we can’t eliminate them; they’re being a great service.” Yes, at a higher cost. So what does that mean when we go to convenient care? How much is that going to cost?

Let me bring you to another reality up at home: You’re talking about a shortage of manpower down south? Come up north. PSWs are being paid peanuts. They have to travel—and you have no understanding of the distance we travel. So the same PSWs—and I’m going off track—

Meegwetch to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for the presentation. I know that in the north when you travel down to a hospital and then you have to get antibiotics intravenously, sometimes, you know, some of the patients are there away from home because you have to fly in to access that service. You’re there for six weeks, eight weeks, to get the home care—because there’s no home care in the north. You have to get the IV service or the antibiotics intravenously on a daily basis and you have to be away from home. I have a hard time on how this legislation will help those people so they can be at home to get home care.