This morning, in response to questions about the failure of government to share information with the public about the Eglinton Crosstown line, the minister argued basically that haste makes waste. Yet in this bill, in Bill 69, the government can’t wait to override due process, especially in regard to environmental assessments. Now, we know that the government has repeatedly cut short debate and discussion on environmental issues.

So my question is—really, 30 days is a blink in time. What is the problem with leaving that open for public input?

I appreciate your comments very much, and I’m wondering whether you see an advantage to perhaps having a public education campaign. For example, there could be a hotline; there could be a mail-out that goes to all tenants that spells out the rules and their rights because, for the most part, they don’t know what their rights are. I wonder if you could perhaps make a recommendation to the government about how to further support tenants.

My question is to the Premier.

During the Mike Harris Conservative government, a major transfer of public assets into private hands took place in the privatization of many long-term-care homes—a transfer of public funds that continues to benefit associates of the Conservative Party.

During COVID, members of the military reported horrendous conditions that directly contributed to the high number of deaths in these same for-profit homes. Sadly, I am hearing exactly the same concerns today.

I was recently contacted by a PSW I will name Susan, who told me she is often the only staff member looking after residents. No nurses, no other PSWs, no cleaners, no one at the front desk screening visitors—and not even paper towels at the handwashing stations.

Can the Premier tell me why, after learning of the dreadful conditions in for-profit homes during COVID, he has not shut down homes that do not meet even the most basic standard of care?

Susan, the PSW, made a formal complaint to an inspector, who called her back, saying there were no problems at the home. Clearly, the inspector did not attend the home in person. The personal support worker subsequently experienced reprisals from the home’s manager for calling an inspector. This is an example of a for-profit home clearly placing profits over care.

Can the minister tell me why they sold more bed licences to the same long-term-care homes already identified as not providing good care, and why inspectors are not shutting down non-compliant homes?