It is now time for questions.

Questions?

I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for her comments. I’d love to visit her riding in the future. It sounds quite fascinating—to hear of the industry and the different circumstances. So I look forward to visiting your area in the near future.

I know one thing you speak very eloquently about is health care. In 2023, the Red Tape Report Card from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business challenged every province across Canada to act on reducing the burden for physicians across the health care system. Part of this bill includes accepting that challenge and moving forward with efforts to address the physician burden of paperwork. That has involved working closely with the Ontario Medical Association. I want to ask the member opposite if she agrees with the CFIB that this should be a priority.

I’d like to thank my colleague the member from Nickel Belt for her comments.

This bill, Bill 139, includes five schedules that deal specifically with post-secondary education, with five specific universities in Ontario. Those five schedules allow the chairs of the boards at those institutions to sit for a period of up to eight years, instead of six years. This member has very deep knowledge of the challenges that faced Laurentian University in her riding, and I wonder if she would like to comment on whether allowing the chair of the board to sit for up to eight years—what kind of impact and support will that provide to post-secondary institutions in this province?

I’m always glad to listen to and learn from the member from Nickel Belt. However, I will say that I’ve already heard the story about the—not town, but the—

Today, you had the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Associate Minister of Housing and the Minister of Infrastructure here during your remarks. How optimistic are you that one of those three who have received this letter multiple times in three years might stand up to their full height and change this?

There’s lots in this. The first is, does Ontario need a rare disease strategy so that people who live with rare diseases gain access to new technology, new treatment faster? Absolutely, yes. Does the program in place, where CADTH, the federal government, decides if the medication is effective or not, then it gets negotiated—I can tell you that of all of the provinces in the system that we have now, Ontario is the slowest. It takes, on average, 10 months longer for Ontario to add a drug to their formulary than every other province, the three territories and the federal government. Could we do things better? Yes, absolutely. When every other province has added a drug in their formulary, don’t take 10 months to add it to Ontario’s formulary.

Yes, I have hope that, at some point, good sense will prevail.

Further questions?

I think the extension of the chair’s role is important to continuity. In the organization where I came from, we created a past chair role just to be able to maintain that historical knowledge. So I think there’s a lot of common sense to that particular one.

So far, there have been 16,000 different types of red tape reductions. There’s a lot of work to do, and we’re going to continue to do it. I know the minister plans to bring another bill forward in the spring, so the work has just begun. We now have a Ministry of Red Tape Reduction. To your point—we’ll continue to chip away at the thousands of red tapes that we have in this province.

In my previous career, I worked in a multi-sector, multi-funded organization. We’re talking about the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services; the Public Health Agency of Canada—grants from time to time. It would even come to a point where you would have to decide not to accept a grant because the administration burden was higher than the value of the grant. There are so many examples of that that this ministry is directing its efforts to.

We had a round table. We had agriculture; we had our paramedics around the table—and multiple examples. The minister was there and has taken notes, and we’ll see those coming forward in the future.

There are 12 key forms to streamline, through working with the OMA. It results in 95,000 hours back to physicians—that’s not inconsequential, by the way—which is around 50 full-time equivalents. That means the nurse that the physician has—or sometimes the physician just has one staff, so they’re using their nurse for both administration and—they could be doing other things, like preparing the patient to see the physician, doing the blood pressure, instead of doing unnecessary paperwork. It results in 285,000 additional patient visits—not inconsequential.

Questions?

I appreciate the debate.

This is, quite frankly, a dull bill. There are one, two, three, four, five schedules that basically say a university “provides that a member of the board may not serve for more than six consecutive years. The act is amended to permit an exception to that rule in certain circumstances for a member who is serving as chair of the board.” I agree that we need to clean up regulations when appropriate—but the way that I’m hearing it debated, like this is the second coming of Christ, is not factual.

I feel like the Conservative government is out of touch with what’s going on with people. We’ve talked several times here about the need for take-home cancer medication to be covered—you get a pill, you take it at the hospital, it’s covered; you bring it home, you have to pay out of pocket, fill out forms, get reimbursed. That is regulation and red tape that we can get rid of.

This might be necessary, but why can’t we get the common sense stuff done in this House? That’s my question.

I want to thank the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for an excellent presentation on the proposed legislation in front of us.

He mentioned in his remarks that he hosted a round table on red tape removal with the minister. I’d like the member to speak about what he sees to be the effect of this proposed legislation within his riding. I know he’s doing a lot of hard work for the local businesses in that area.

It is just common sense—simply put, if you have a business with $10 of revenue and $12 of expense, what choices do you have? You have to leave, you have to close down, or you have to find ways to make sure it becomes competitive. That’s what this government is doing—making sure, by reducing the red tape, that we’re reducing the cost to the business.

My question to the member is, what exactly has the government done since 2018 to support our businesses so that they become competitive and grow in the province of Ontario?

I would like to thank the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for his comments this morning in the debate on Bill 139.

As the member for London West, I engage frequently with businesses in my riding, with people who are involved in economic development, and one of the things that I hear the most, when we talk about some of the barriers to growing our economy and supporting businesses in London—it is the need for housing; it is the need to make sure that people have access to a family doctor; it is the need to make sure that new employees who are coming to this city can bring their kids and there’s going to be access to good schools that don’t have as many portables on the property as they do in the school; it’s access to child care; it’s access to transit.

So my question is, why are we dealing with a bill that has such inconsequential, meaningless housekeeping amendments instead of dealing with these big challenges that businesses are facing?

I’m glad to ask the member a question on his comments on this red tape reduction bill, Bill 139. His remarks focused a fair bit on small business.

I had a recent conversation, as I know a number of us did, with the doctors from the OMA, and I heard from a young doctor, or a soon-to-be doctor. In her first six weeks of medical school, she told us that she had been nearly dissuaded from going into family practice because everyone was like, “Oh, wow, you’re going into family? There’s so much work to do. The administrative burden is so significant.” They raised the need for the community family health teams to be a priority for this government; they say it would reduce physician burnout—because you have a team that could do a lot of that administrative support. Right now, doctors are spending about 20 hours a week just doing paperwork.

Where there’s an opportunity for a centralized intake that has been piloted and these referral systems—could the government focus on that in another red tape bill since it’s missing from this one?

I agree with you 100% that we have to keep our physicians—have all our health care providers working to full scope and minimize the amount of administration they have to do. Central intake is certainly one of those things. The government is working with the OMA on red tape issues, and that will continue as well. Our Minister of Health has provided funding for interdisciplinary care. There have been proposals received and waiting for approval.

In my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, we’ve seen the expansion of the Ottawa Valley Family Health Team from Almonte; it’s now going to be in Carleton Place as well.

Those are great models of care, because they allow the physicians to really scope on doing doctor work and not running a business, not hiring staff, not worrying about whether the hydro bill got paid. The interdisciplinary model, the CHCs, the family health teams, are great models, and the minister has supported that initiative.

I’d like to talk about something that I believe falls within the bill—but also, because of the words “common sense.”

I received a letter this morning from Unifor Local 4212, and I think it goes to all of us. The seaway, right now, is a very important part for transporting grain, our food—and everything along the St. Lawrence Seaway. They said, “We write to you, as a member of provincial Parliament from Ontario representing a constituency along the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp., operating the Welland Canal. We aim to express our deep solidarity and strongly urge the employer to engage in meaningful—with the workers’ last offer, which unfortunately resulted in a breakdown of negotiations.

“Our collective goal should focus on establishing fair wages and working conditions by negotiating in good faith with Unifor for your workforce along the seaway, both in Niagara and beyond. The Welland Canal and the entire St. Lawrence Seaway is a beacon of pride for Niagara. The nearly 400 Unifor workers and their families that go to work at the Welland Canal deserve nothing less than their full commitment to ensure their rights and livelihoods are met.

“These are more than workers. They are our neighbours, community volunteers, our local leaders, that make contributions to Niagara every day, and they deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.

“In these challenging times, we have seen inflation rise by double digits. It is critical to acknowledge the tenacity of the workers to stand up for fair wages, pushing back about the recent efforts towards contracting-out of skilled workers and good-paying jobs.

“We understand that negotiations are complex, and there are many factors at play. However, the importance of the strike on Niagara workers”—and, I’ll add, right across the province of Ontario—“for our economy cannot be underestimated. It implores the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp. to approach these negotiations with the urgency and the sincerity that it requires.

“Together, we stand with the workers in Niagara fighting for a fair contract. Our combined teams are ready to assist in any way possible to facilitate a fair negotiation and support workers in Niagara and our communities through our difficult times.”

I’m suggesting that all parties write a letter to support getting back to the bargaining table. We have grain that is sitting out on our lake here, Lake Ontario, that’s not getting to our customers to feed people. They’ve got to get back to the table and get a fair collective agreement. And I will say very clearly that I stand with all the workers at Unifor Local 4212.

I know it might be a little off the red tape part, but I thought I’d read that letter because of the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway and those workers to our food sources and other materials for small, medium-sized and large businesses. So I appreciate the time to read that letter. I know you’re probably not happy with that, but I had to get it out. So I appreciate it, and I’ll move on.

Madam Speaker, speaking to this bill is a great opportunity to discuss the details, but also to discuss the real lack of direction from this government. They seem to continue to fail to meet the moment. We have a bill here that does a number of technical amendments and changes, many non-concerning, but it’s also one, again, that misses so many important opportunities.

Let’s really think about what we’ve done in this session so far. Has this government come out and said they are truly going to tackle the major challenges people are facing in their lives today? No, they haven’t. Affordability, health care, housing—they seem to ignore all of them.

The housing file is potentially one of the biggest areas of concern. The new minister spends more time complaining about the federal government than actually doing his job. The minister, who has recently been the poster boy of flip-flopping and backtracking on bad decisions, is not getting housing built and most definitely not getting affordable housing units built in all our ridings. How can the minister even do his job when he has to spend so much time filling in for the Premier in question period? It’s a fair question.

Madam Speaker, government is all about priorities, and this government’s priorities are all over the place. The member for London North Centre put forward thoughtful, pragmatic legislation to get affordable housing built. Guess what this government did? They said no. They voted it down, because we all know they don’t want affordable housing built in this province. They aren’t concerned with the couple in their mid-thirties making a decent living who can’t move out of their parents’ house and will never be able to afford a down payment on a home. Those aren’t their donors, and they don’t create policy to help them.

What this bill tells us right from the beginning—this government continues to fail to meet the moment in this province. I’m going to read that again, because it’s important. This bill tells us, right from the beginning, that the government continues to fail to meet the moment in this province. It’s more status quo, just like we saw with the previous Liberal government.

This government seems to follow in the same direction as the previous Liberals when it comes to underfunding health care, but this time it’s even worse, because you’re going into privatization of our health care—one of the biggest mistakes I think your government will ever make. This legislation and the bill brought forward before it this session have done nothing to address the growing health care crisis in our province.

I can talk to it because I’m from Niagara—as you know, Madam Speaker, from our years of knowing each other. You know I’ve lived in Niagara my entire life.

The story of Fort Erie—it’s a community; it’s a border town. They had a hospital there. There were decisions made to close that hospital, and then it became an urgent care centre. In Fort Erie, we’re growing—in the next few years, we’re going to have over 40,000 residents living in that community. We had an urgent care centre that was 24/7; just recently, they decided to only open it up 10 hours a day.

I’ll give you a couple of examples of what happened in Fort Erie. There was an 11-year-old boy who had an appendix attack, and he went to the hospital in Fort Erie, when it was still 24/7. If he’d had to go to Niagara Falls or to St. Catharines—because they’re the two hospitals that people have to go to after 8 o’clock at night now—he would have died. But, because it was open, those nurses and the doctors who were on shift saved his life. That’s one example.

I have an example of a senior who had a heart attack and, again, because it was 24/7, he went to the Fort Erie hospital. They were able to stabilize him, and then they sent him off to Hamilton, where he had open-heart surgery. Again, do you know what happened, Madam Speaker? Those nurses and doctors in Fort Erie, because it was open 24/7, saved his life. And yet, the decision that’s being made today is that it’s going to be open 10 hours a day.

You say to yourself, why are those decisions being made? We hear from the government all the time—and, Madam Speaker, you know this—that we’re investing record numbers of dollars into health care, even though it’s not completely accurate. But that’s what they’re saying.

So I’m saying to this government—you always say we never come with solutions. Well, I want to give you a solution around the red tape. Why do we continue to fight Bill 124 in the courts and attack our nurses and our health care workers? Why don’t we get rid of Bill 124, reinvest those dollars that you’re paying high-priced lawyers in Toronto, invest in workers and nurses and health care, and make sure that Fort Erie’s hospital is open 24/7 for the residents?

The one thing I want to add to that is that over 25% of all residents who live in Fort Erie are seniors, and there aren’t a lot of transportation options in Fort Erie.

I’ll give you one more example of why it needs to be open. We’re getting close to Christmas. I saw somebody in the elevator yesterday for the PCs who had Christmas cards—

Interjection.

Last Christmas—I think it was December 23; I might be out by a day—we had that terrible ice storm. Does anybody remember that ice storm we had that was down in Niagara—more in the Fort Erie area—where in Buffalo people froze to death in their cars? In Fort Erie, we lost a couple of people who had had heart attacks and couldn’t get out of their rooms. Guess what happened? They closed the highway. The highway was shut down for five days—five days. As a matter of fact—and I think you worked for CHCH at one time, Madam Speaker—the crews couldn’t get to Fort Erie. They got stuck on the highway and ended up in the ditch.

Well, in Fort Erie, now that it’s only open 10 hours a day—meaning it’s closed from 8 at night until 8 in the morning—what do we do in that same situation if it happens this Christmas? Where do they go to get service? More residents are not going to have their health care.

It’s important that we make sure that Fort Erie is taken care of. Our public—

Further debate?

The member from Hamilton Mountain mentioned volunteers, so it’s a great segue.

Communities throughout Ontario are built on the backs of volunteers. We depend on them. These dedicated and passionate individuals donate their time, skills and knowledge in the communities they call home and beyond. They are instrumental in supporting families, patients, students, seniors and children. Without volunteers, many organizations, events and services would not exist.

On Thursday, September 21 and Tuesday, October 17, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism held special Ontario Volunteer Service Award ceremonies in Brockville and Kingston, respectively. Many residents from my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston were recognized for their years of service, like:

—Vivian Buchanan, who has dedicated over 29 years to Perth Seniors Fellowship and 10 years with the Table Good Food Bank;

—Kathryn Mellon, who has given 35 years of her time and talent to the United Way Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington; and

—Edward Wilson, for his 20 years of dedication to the North Lanark Historical Society.

There are many benefits to volunteering. It offers vital help to people in need, worthwhile causes and the community. It also connects you, the volunteer, to new friends, reduces stress and provides a sense of purpose.

To all of the Ontario Volunteer Service Award recipients, a resounding thank you from everyone you have assisted over the years. And if you haven’t done so already, consider volunteering. It’s a great experience.

Bill 139 does talk about less red tape and more common sense, so I’m talking about the common sense part of the bill. That’s the name of the bill. You put it in the title, so in my thinking, these are common sense things that we can do that make life better for the residents of the province of Ontario.

I don’t like the words “common sense,” by the way—I’ll say this just because you raised it. The last time I saw it used in the province of Ontario—do you know who used that as a slogan to get elected? Does anybody remember? You must remember—long before you ran. It was Mike Harris. Remember? He talked about common sense.

Interjection.

That was at a time when he decided, under the Common Sense Revolution, to cut services. I can talk about Walkerton, where we had seven people die from tainted water. Again, “common sense”—they used it. And I can talk about how they closed 26 hospitals and laid off 6,000 nurses.

So when you ask me about common sense, I think these are common sense things that we can do—I’m begging you to put 24/7 back into my hospital in Fort Erie. I think that’s fair. I think it’s reasonable. I think that is common sense. I don’t think any resident, because they live in Fort Erie, should die between 8 at night and 8 in the morning. I’m sorry; I think it is common sense.

I’m going to get on to another health care issue, if that’s okay with you. The closure of health care facilities is another worrisome trend. The loss of essential services can have devastating consequences, especially for vulnerable populations. I just talked about Fort Erie. Many residents rely on this facility for urgent medical attention, and the closure left them in a difficult situation. I’ve been working tirelessly to raise awareness about this issue and push it to reopen 24/7. I’m asking you guys to do that again.

I’m going to talk about another part of my riding, Niagara-on-the-Lake. I know the member, Madam Speaker, has been in Niagara-on-the-Lake a lot. I’ve seen her down there a few times. I’m going to turn your attention to Niagara-on-the-Lake. It’s concerning that there is a lack of primary care service in our town. As you know—maybe you don’t know, but you closed our hospital in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Every resident deserves access to a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, yet many are left without their basic health care needs. I am fully aware of the urgency of the situation and have been actively advocating for a solution. The arrival of a nurse practitioner in Niagara-on-the-Lake would be a positive step, common sense. Nurse practitioners play a critical role in our health care system, providing essential primary care services—