If women are to leave their abusers, we need investment in shelters, and safe, non-ghettoized housing, and we need to double social assistance rates. When women don’t have access to enough money to live on, or safe places to go, they can’t escape their abusers.

Will this government increase funding to shelters, increase safe, affordable housing? Here I’ll digress a little bit, because the kind of housing that’s available right now is ghettoized. That means that women in those places are targeted by gangs and their places are taken over. They are not safe spaces. They might be affordable, but they’re not safe.

To continue, we need that safe housing, and we need to double social assistance rates. Will the government commit to increasing funding?

When I was a young woman in the 1970s, there were no women’s shelters and there were no rape crisis centres, but because of the growing second wave of the women’s movement, women were gathering together and creating safe spaces from the ground up. But if you read the newspapers of the time, you would have seen these community builders—these feminists—described as half-crazed man-haters out to destroy the world as we knew it.

Well, we did want to change the world as we knew it because domestic violence was commonplace, though never spoken of at the time, and victims of sexual assault had no supports and were blamed for the behaviour of their attackers.

Thank goodness those activist women persisted, and others have come along since to keep these safe places going in spite of perpetual underfunding, because today we are still struggling with violence against women and gender-nonconforming folks, femicides and rapes that are still routinely blamed on the victims. And if those victims are racialized, especially those who are Indigenous or Black, then they will be doubly blamed—particularly in our court systems—because being racialized is often reason enough to be beaten down and cast aside.

We call these things sexism and racism and say that we want to celebrate diversity, but talking about diversity doesn’t acknowledge the root of the problem. Sexism and racism aren’t here because people look or act a bit differently from ourselves. They are tools to take what would not otherwise be freely given. They are here because of beliefs in entitlement—beliefs that some people have the right to dominate others, that some have the right to punish those who deviate from gender-based norms or the right to punish those who don’t go along with what someone has decided they should be doing.

I’m thinking at this particular moment, actually, of the Indigenous communities that are being told, “We know best,” even if it takes being run over by a bulldozer to get their agreement.

I want to turn now towards those people and organizations in northwestern Ontario who put themselves on the line every day to provide safe spaces and name the residential shelters of northwestern Ontario. These are Beendigen and Faye Peterson House in Thunder Bay, First Step Women’s Shelter in Sioux Lookout, the Geraldton women’s shelter in Greenstone, Hoshizaki House in Dryden, Marjorie House in Marathon, New Starts in Red—

We know we don’t want the men and women who work in mines to wind up living in mining camps long-term. We want them to be building communities in neighbouring municipalities or creating new communities, but in order for people to have confidence that they can build their lives in these communities that are very close to where the mines are, and raise families there, they also need to be confident that the remediation that follows has already been planned and financed, that those financial guarantees are there. Otherwise, you’re looking at very precarious—you don’t know whether you can really trust those places as places to live for the long term.

That’s my concern, and I wonder if you can speak to that.

I did have a question written down here, but I think I’m going to change it, based on what the member opposite said.

Do you have a sense that there’s a risk of a divide-and-conquer strategy taking place, where Indigenous communities are pitted against each other in order to get what the government wants without actually genuinely consulting with all communities who are affected?

I’m very much in support of mining when done with all the necessary checks and balances. But the Ford government, including the member from Durham, talks about the Ring of Fire as if it were a done deal. But every time the Conservative government makes one of these announcements, we hear from First Nations that they have not been consulted and that the province has not obtained their free, prior and informed consent. Premier Ford has talked about bulldozing his way into the Ring of Fire, and I worry that that also includes bulldozing over the legal and moral responsibilities that we have as Canadians to respect Indigenous rights.

Given that this bill skips over sureties for land remediation and gives the impression that haste is more important than careful negotiations, can you tell me how free, prior and informed consent is protected in this bill?

Some 60,000 older Canadians are the victims of neglect, financial, psychological, physical and institutional abuse. Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario works very hard to help older Canadians escape abuse. However, they have not received a funding increase in the 20 years of their existence, so they’re working on a shoestring. They’ve got a lot of volunteers. They are so burnt out.

Will the Premier ensure that the Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario organization receives an increase in their annual grant to at least match the rate of inflation?

Will the government live up to its obligations to older Ontarians and increase funding for the important work of preventing elder abuse?

Not only does this government need to be supporting the work of community mental health organizations; it needs to address the stressors that are causing mental health breakdowns across the population in the first place. Let’s take the mental health of hospital staff—people we call heroes—on the one hand, while choking the physical and mental-health life out of them through repressive legislation; or our schools, where teachers and EAs are understaffed and under-resourced, paying for school supplies for their students out of their own pockets; or the university and college students mired in debt, working several part-time jobs because tuition fees are absurdly high; or children with disabilities and their parents desperately trying to navigate a hostile system that keeps children on wait-lists years after year with no communication, no guidance and no help in sight. And let’s not forget the adults with disabilities thrown under the bus, those abandoned by the WSIB along with others, forced to give up almost every asset so that they can access the few crumbs of ODSP the government throws out to them.

These are social and economic determinants of health, and they are also the determinants of mental health. When it is easier to get MAID than to find the supports to live, people get a very strong message that no, actually they are not worth it. That is the message they are given, and that is a very significant part of people’s suffering.

Individuals trying their best to provide support services are also breaking down themselves, as they are forced to reapply for funding every year, never knowing whether they will actually even have a practice.

And then, I want to say, Indigenous children and families who are that much geographically removed from municipalities—well, they don’t have access to water; they don’t have access to health care. What is the message to them? The message again is, “You’re not worth it.”

I want to give my support to this motion. I’m happy that there is a conversation going on across the aisle. We may not always agree in our analysis of what is contributing to so much mental health distress, but I think we can agree on the need for support.

I would like to welcome Sara Kitlar-Pothier and Alina Cameron, both northern representatives from the Ontario Autism Coalition. Alina lives in Slate River Valley, which is just outside of Thunder Bay, and she’s watching this online this morning. Welcome, both of you.

I would like to welcome members from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, and in particular, Sarah Lynne Myllyaho, Tanis Banovsky and Duncan McWaters, who travelled here from Thunder Bay. I appreciate so much the effort you took to come. Thank you and welcome.

Thank you to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her presentation.

During the pandemic, the conservation areas in my region, in Thunder Bay–Superior North, were the mental and physical lifelines that helped people get through the pandemic. They are beloved spaces, and I can’t see anybody wanting to give them up.

Is it your sense that the incredibly beautiful conservation areas in your region—I’m thinking of Webster Falls, for example, a stunning place. Do you believe that people in your region would be happy to see these conservation areas turned into housing developments without any consultation from local organizations?

We heard a lot of promises coming out of a relatively small bill, which I find quite remarkable, but my sense is that this bill has the potential to actually increase red tape, and I’ll explain why.

Each of us here, if we’re from out of town, have access to an apartment to live here. We pay. It has to be approved, but we look after our own hiring, cleaners, food, whatever it is, to take care of our place because it’s direct, and yet what we heard earlier was that this idea of hiring contractors and so on will be so far removed from where things are actually taking place. It’s actually more red tape for the people to deal with their situations.

My question: Is it possible for us to see the consultations with those organizations? I understand many of them to be arms-length. For example, the Ontario Arts Council is independent and arms-length. So I’m wondering if—

I have here a long list of people who have already been extra-billed substantial amounts of money for various surgeries in for-profit clinics: $8,435, plus $150 for a checkup, for cataract surgery, upsold; in Lindsay, $5,300, private cataract clinic, upsold—this already happened in 2019—a private eye clinic, another one, $58,000.

I wonder if the member from Ancaster—

Interjection.

As much as I would like to [inaudible] the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke about the difference between hearing “yes, yes, yes” and turning that into “no, no, no,” or his misapprehensions about the values and plans of the NDP, my question is to the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London. I know you’re from the area, so I’m sure you will be able to answer this question well. I understand that Central Elgin, at one point, wanted a different piece of property to be used and wanted to protect farmland, and I think the property that’s being used may have some element of farmland on it. I’m just wondering if you can explain to us—because I’m an outsider to this project—why that particular piece of land is the one that was chosen. I’m sure you’ve got a good reason for it.

The Ford government is opening the doors to for-profit corporations that are, first and foremost, in the business of making money for their shareholders. They will do this by encouraging people to pay extra to jump the queue. They will generate profits by trying to convince people they should pay for unnecessary tests.

I’d like to take a moment to revisit when long-term care was turned into a profit-driven business. When the Harris Conservative government sold off long-term care, they promised that all would be well for seniors and people with disabilities living in these homes, but that was far from reality, and it is still far from reality. Profits in long-term care are made by skimping on staffing, supplies, the quality of food, and poor hygiene standards. We saw the results during the pandemic, when members of the Armed Forces reported the appalling conditions that led to so many deaths. And the profits are scooped up through a particular packet of taxpayer funding that does not have to be accounted for. Will wonders never cease? Guess what? Instant profits at the expense of care for residents of long-term care, provided by our government out of taxpayer dollars—immediately go into the profits of long-term-care corporations and doesn’t have to be accounted for. It doesn’t have to be returned if it’s not spent on care.

Let me be clear: There’s no problem with grouping certain kinds of surgeries together for efficiencies within the public system. But there’s nothing in Bill 60 that requires the regulation of private clinics. The shiny new clinics will look nice on the outside, but like American health corporations, their singular goal will be to make money quickly. Frankly, that is never a good situation for the well-being of any society—when profits are more important than care.

As the government shifts surgeries to for-profit clinics, health care workers tell us public operating rooms are under capacity and sit empty largely due to underfunding and lack of staff. We know why there’s a lack of staff: Bill 124. What is now being recognized as “nurse abuse syndrome,” a form of PTSD, is the result of nurses being disrespected, underpaid, overworked and burnt out—the effects of Bill 124.

New nursing graduates are leaving after two years and some are even quitting after their very first placements, when they see the extreme workload first-hand along with how badly nurses are treated. Many nurses are also leaving to work for private agencies because they can work fewer hours and be better paid. It makes sense. In fact, I heard this past week from our local rehabilitation hospital that, regretfully, they are completely dependent on nursing agencies now, even though they cost three to four times as much as staff nurses, because so many nurses have left the field in frustration and despair. There would be no market for these nursing agencies if nurses weren’t being pushed out of the profession by this government’s unconstitutional wage repression bill.

Speaker, our motion today calls for the government to stop the dangerous road they are going down and to utilize our existing operating rooms by paying staff properly and bringing staff back so that Ontarians can receive the universally accessible, safe, quality care they need and deserve.

I’d like to begin by thanking Dr. Sally Palmer, who has continued to keep up awareness about the conditions for people living on ODSP.

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent budget increase of 5% for ODSP, with nothing for OW, could be experienced as an insult to recipients, who have been living since 2018 with frozen social assistance rates and a Canadian inflation rate that reached 12%;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and give it to Adam.

In the Thunder Bay regional hospital, because of Bill 124, the wages of people who sterilize medical equipment have fallen so far below inflation that these workers have to take on additional part-time jobs just to survive. In their words, “We sure went from heroes to zeros in a hurry.”

Will the government ensure that these workers earn a wage that reflects their important contributions to our public health care?

I am having a great deal of difficulty hearing the minister of housing and the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan make claims about supporting more homes for everybody—including supports for non-profit housing—since you know very well that the two shovel-ready projects I’ve been talking about for the last six months in Thunder Bay have not been able to access any support or funding from this government. There doesn’t appear to be a funding stream available for not-for-profit housing projects. These projects would bring 100 new living units to Thunder Bay.

I’m wondering when the government will be creating the appropriate revenue stream so that these projects can be supported and go ahead.

We have a profound staffing shortage in health care, and we know that for-profit health corporations will poach those health care workers from the public system. We also know that large corporate interests will set up shop where they can make the most money, where there is a critical mass of people, like in Toronto, London, or perhaps Ottawa.

We already have a drastic shortage of health care workers in northwestern Ontario, and I’m hearing from these workers daily about how burnt out they are from overwork and that their wages are not enough to keep up with the cost of living. I really wonder where the members opposite think we will be finding nurses and health care workers for remote regions. Yes, you’re offering some scholarships; that’s great. That will help for a while. But basically those nurses are going to be drawn to the easier places in southern Ontario where they have an easier workload. They are not going to be staying in remote communities.

So my question is, where do you think those health care workers are going to come from after they’ve been poached from the public system?

I would like to welcome Emma Ouellette and Paula Ocampo who are here from the Western University Women In House program. It’s a pleasure to meet you and have you here.

I would like to welcome OPSEU’s mental health and addiction workers who are watching Queen’s Park from north Toronto, where they are meeting today.

We can’t see you here in front of us right now, but I want you to know that we do see you. We see the work that you do, and we appreciate it very much. We know how valuable it is.