Thank you to my colleague from Sudbury, who used to be my wingman here on the other side. I think that your insight to the people of Ontario in trying to really explain how we can make life more affordable from this side is really, really a good way of putting it. And considering the high level of performative and talkative pieces in the Get It Done Act or the latest attempt from the Conservative government to bring forward a bill that maybe should be called “trying to get it right for once,” what alternative measures would you propose to effectively tackle the pressing issues of real affordability, like housing affordability, health care accessibility and the cost of living for all Ontarians? How would we really tackle that?

I want to thank my friend from Sudbury for those remarks. As I ask the member a question, I just want to acknowledge that the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario are in the building today. I see Doris Grinspun there; I see other friends I had the privilege to have breakfast with this morning. Thank you for being here. You are inspiring me to ask my friend about what this this bill could do.

This bill we have in front of us could be called the “retread act” because we’ve spent 72 hours in this place debating legislation which later gets withdrawn while our hospitals are suffering, while our practices are suffering. Unfortunately, we had at lot of great proposals for primary care that came out of Ottawa. We’ve had one funded for a terrific bunch of nurse practitioners, Hoda and Joanna and that team. But we have 150,000 people in our city, in our larger Ottawa region, without access to primary care, Speaker, and there is absolutely nothing in the “retread act” to help those folks. There’s gimmicks and bobbles.

So I’m wondering if the member from Sudbury has the same experience. Should we have action on primary care instead of hot air on retread?

Thank you to the member from Sudbury for his comments today.

We all know that this House and the comments made in this House are often replete with some rhetoric and intentions. Sometimes, as the previous question just indicated, they go off in a direction of what could be, should be, possibly might be in some future bill, certainly.

But I want to give the member an opportunity to correct something. At the beginning of his speech, he said that he was arguing in favour of supporting the wildfire forest firefighters getting defined. He said that this government was silent on it, but if I may read directly from Hansard, Speaker. His seatmate asked the question, “With wildfire season anticipated to start early this year, will the government finally do the right thing and classify forest rangers as firefighters?” That was the question from your own member. The answer from Minister Piccini was, “A short answer to the member opposite: Yes.” So I guess this government isn’t silent on these matters.

I apologize to the member from Sudbury.

I recognize the Minister of Long-Term Care.

It is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.