I think—the member puts it quite succinctly—what’s happening right now is just the beginning; it’s just the start. It’s just the low-hanging fruit—deliveries, taxis. It’s going to go through our economy, and it’s going to be our sons and daughters and our grandsons and granddaughters who are going to have to work in a situation where there are two classes of workers. That’s just going to expand. One class of worker will have more rights than another. That’s what’s happening right now.

I just think that we have to be looking at what’s going to happen 10 years from now, 20 years from now. How are we going to address that? How are we going to make sure that there’s a proper balance between employers and employees? I know that’s important to people in here. We all want to make sure that our families, our neighbours, our friends are treated fairly. I just think that we’ve got to address it, and we haven’t done that so far.

Here’s what I’m trying to say: There are people—wildland firefighters, PSWs, DSWs—who aren’t covered by WSIB. There are 13% or 14% of WSIB cases that are extremely difficult and challenging, and people are waiting and they’re suffering. Maybe, instead of super-indexing, we should be investing in that. That’s what I’m trying to say. It’s about the people.

The super-indexing? I understand why we’re doing it: because there’s a dispute, and it gives the government flexibility. But it’s not like it’s going to be something that’s a bonus to workers. What the bonus should be is more people being covered.

Oh, by the way, on Bill 115: I think I did a large mea culpa on that last year. I’ll do it again. But that was a mistake and—

Interjection.

My point in this whole debate is, there needs to be more coverage of people, more people being covered with WSIB. We need to address people who are suffering because their cases are complex. There are people who, pre-1988 or -1985, are stuck getting only so much money. It’s not a huge amount of people. Collectively, together, we have to address those things. I think that it’s really important for us to do that.

It’s an honour today to rise to pay tribute to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Canada’s 18th Prime Minister.

Brian Mulroney’s impact on Canada and the world was significant: the fight against apartheid in South Africa, the GST, fighting acid rain and championing free trade. It was free trade, John Turner and Brian Mulroney that got me off the couch in 1998 to go and knock doors in Ottawa South, and that was the spark that led me here some 25 years later.

Since then, I’ve come closer to his position on free trade. That’s the thing about political legacies: Our victories, our mistakes, our missed opportunities are always looked at through the lens of the present. They’re subject to debate. There is a legacy that is more important, and that is the mark that you leave on people’s hearts.

Our colleague the President of the Treasury Board introduced me to her father at the tribute to another great leader, former Premier Bill Davis. And I don’t remember his words as much as I remember how he made me feel—warm words of encouragement, a genuine interest. After that conversation, I thought to myself, I understand why Brian Mulroney is so special, but it wasn’t until reading the tributes that poured in after his death that I realized his lasting legacy. There was a recurring theme: He was always the first to call a colleague or a political rival who had suffered a defeat, a victory, a personal loss or was just having a hard time. He took time with them. He left an impression on everyone he met. Not only was he a friend to many, most importantly, he was a dad, a grandad, a husband and a son.

In closing, I’d like to use some of Brian Mulroney’s own words to pay tribute to him. Late one night, he asked Arthur Milnes, who helped him write his memoirs, to review a passage he wrote about the death of his father, Ben. I’ll try to get through this. “In the evenings I would take him in my arms like a child—he was losing weight very quickly—and carry him downstairs to the living room so he could watch TV and tune in to the CBC ... news. In those days the lead announcer was Earl Cameron, who always concluded his newscast with the words, ‘This is Earl Cameron saying good night from Toronto,’ and my dad unfailingly replied with a smile, ‘Good night, Earl.’ He continued to do this right to the end.”

To the Mulroney family: I’m sure that your father is in his dad’s arms right now.

Thank you, Speaker, welcome to the chair. It’s good to see you there.

I just simply want to say to the member: You know that the delegation of power to override people’s basic rights by having them moved without their consent, because it says that specifically in the second line of the explanatory note. We can all imagine conversations that go like this:

“Mrs. Smith, we have to move your mom.”

“Why are you moving my mom that far away? I’m not going to be able to get to her as often. We won’t be able to see her.”

“Mrs. Smith, I’m sorry, but that’s the law. I have no choice.”

How do you think those conversations would go in the case of your family?

My question is to the Premier. For months now, long-term-care homes across Ontario have been pleading with this government for help, and Bill 124 has done more damage to them than any other piece of legislation I can remember. Now the government is proposing Bill 7. Bill 7 is going to violate patients’ basic rights by changing the law to allow them, among other things, to be moved without their consent. That’s cruel.

Imagine this conversation, Speaker: “Mrs. Smith, we’re going to have to move your mom.” “But you can’t move her. We won’t be able to see her. That’s too far.” “I’m sorry, Mrs. Smith, that’s the law. I have no choice.”

Bill 7 is not going to work for patients, their families or the people who care for them. Will this government withdraw Bill 7?

Instead of creating greater pressure in our long-term-care homes, this government should be repealing Bill 124 and withdrawing Bill 7. Will this government commit to do that?