role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

August 24, 2022

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Aug-24 (PDF)

L009 - Wed 24 Aug 2022 / Mer 24 aoû 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 August 2022 Mercredi 24 août 2022

Orders of the Day

More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour plus de lits et de meilleurs soins

Members’ Statements

Juno Beach Centre Association

Cost of living

Mike Shoreman

43rd Parliament

Events in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell

Student assistance

Gidigaa Migizi (Doug Williams)

Supportive housing

Mid-Autumn Moon Festival

Municipalities

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Long-term care

Ambulance services

Hospital services / Services hospitaliers

Transportation infrastructure

Hospital services

Health care post-secondary education

Special-needs children

Social assistance / Assistance sociale

Skilled trades

Long-term care

Nurses

Mental health services

Workplace safety

Manufacturing jobs / Small business

Employment standards

Community safety / Sécurité communautaire

Petitions

Soins de santé

Health care workers

Emergency services

Economic development

Gestion des appâts

Government’s record

Orders of the Day

More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour plus de lits et de meilleurs soins

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour plus de lits et de meilleurs soins

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 23, 2022, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021 with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and other matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2021 sur le redressement des soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne les patients ayant besoin d’un niveau de soins différent et d’autres questions et apportant une modification corrélative à la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this bill, I understand the members for Burlington and Sault Ste. Marie had made their presentations together, sharing their time. We’re now at the point of questions to the members for Burlington and Sault Ste. Marie, if there are any.

The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Unfortunately, I was not here to be able to hear the members speak to this portion of the debate. But on this side of the House, we have real questions and concerns about this bill. So a question that I asked to the minister yesterday, I will put back to the members who did have the opportunity to speak to this bill yesterday.

We’re greatly concerned about patients being charged when they refuse to leave the hospital and go to long-term care or to be sent home. This is something that I know I’ve heard in my office for years has been happening. This bill will definitely seem to seal the deal to allow hospitals to charge an uninsured amount to patients. Could the member answer what his government is doing to ensure that that does not happen to patients going forward?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Sault Ste. Marie and chief government whip.

Mr. Ross Romano: To the member opposite: We’re starting off a new day, but apparently the same message will continue, as has been going on for several days from the opposition members going into last week, who still are incapable of reading the bill. Apparently, not enough time has yet passed for them to be able to do so. Mr. Speaker, I would really like to think of the words that you used earlier this morning, when you spoke about illusion to reality. Perhaps there’s more delusion than any of it at this point in time.

I’m really, really hoping that the member opposite, and all of the members opposite, will take the time to read the bill and see that there is absolutely no change in policy. There is no situation that is going to arise where their consent would not be obtained first.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I had the benefit of reading comments from the CAO of Windsor Regional Hospital, who reflected positively on this bill.

My question to the member today is about hospital capacity. How would Bill 7 play a role in supporting Ontario’s broader health care system and perhaps even create hospital capacity?

Mr. Ross Romano: I want to thank the great member for that question.

That is really the goal and what we’re trying to accomplish, Mr. Speaker: to ensure we’re increasing that capacity by ensuring that we are making more space for seniors to have proper care where they need it most and the level of care that they need most. That’s freeing up room in our hospitals and ensuring that the individuals who need that level of care within the hospital system are receiving the appropriate level of care. I look forward to being able to speak about this a bit in further questions.

I can just look at my own hometown riding, where I recall a waiting list, when we first got elected in 2018, of over 400 people in my city of Sault Ste. Marie, many of whom were in alternate levels of care within the hospital. With the investments our government has made over the last four years, my community is now looking at having reduced that wait-list by half, with only 204 people now left on a wait-list that was well over 400 back in June 2018, after years of neglect by the opposition parties, the coalition Liberal-NDP government that existed for so long here in the province of Ontario, where a measly 600 beds were created over that entire span of time.

I think it’s absolutely critical and important that the opposition members recognize the outstanding work that our government is doing and that our Minister of Long-Term Care is doing to ensure that we are making more capacity within our hospitals, and that the people of this province—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Once again, the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the member: His response to my last question was really so busy disparaging and taking away from the job of the official opposition instead of actually speaking to what’s before us.

What I said in my question is that, for years, patients have been charged and threatened to be charged—so that is existing legislation. Where in this bill does it protect patients going forward? The hospitals are going to have the ability to move ahead, to push people out of hospital into long-term care, particularly when they’re not wanting to be there. And if they’re refusing to do so, what is going to happen? Did the government think to put a protection in this bill to make sure that patients wouldn’t be charged any further?

I would appreciate a reasonable answer from this member instead of just throwing stones back on this side. Let’s talk—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The member for Sault Ste. Marie to reply.

Mr. Ross Romano: I’m happy to enlighten the member opposite. I know that there was an inability to catch my comments from yesterday, as she noted earlier.

Perhaps I can help, because there are two critical components in terms of the work that we are doing to support the long-term-care sector here in the province of Ontario. The first part of that, as I referenced in my comments yesterday, is that we’re ensuring that we’re improving staff levels and hours of care within our institutions. Specifically, a key pillar of that plan is making sure that we’re hiring more staff.

An additional key pillar to that plan we spoke about yesterday as well is to address the wait-lists, and we’re ensuring that we’re building more modern, safe and comfortable beds for our seniors.

At no point in time is anybody going to see them being moved without their consent and being billed for whatever—I’m not sure I understand the member’s question, because it’s premised on something false.

So it’s going to be important that the member opposite does read the bill so that they can appreciate what it is we’re actually doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It was interesting to hear the member for Niagara Falls talk about reading the bill, colleagues. He started off last week saying that we were going to move people into ward rooms. That was not correct. Then he switched it over to, we’re going to be moving people without their consent. That was incorrect. Then he said that hospitals were going to be discharging people again and moving them hundreds of miles away. That was incorrect.

Now they’ve trotted out a policy that has existed in the province of Ontario since 1979—and one of the previous governments to actually increase that rate was the Bob Rae government, the NDP government. The reason I think the member is having trouble finding that in this bill is because it’s actually not in the bill.

More importantly, I wonder if the member could expand on his earlier comment about how a policy like this, working with patients, actually improves the quality of care, to get the service where it is best for the patient, as opposed to what the NDP thinks.

Mr. Ross Romano: I really want to thank the minister for that question.

I think we all should really thank the minister for the outstanding work that he has been doing on this file. When you look at the work that’s being done in reducing wait-lists and ensuring that patients—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara Falls will come to order. The government House leader and Minister of Long-Term Care will come to order.

Mr. Ross Romano: Again, thank you to the minister for the question.

It really is unfortunate that the members opposite don’t want to listen and they don’t want to read and they don’t want to understand that the work we are doing has helped so many people in our province. One only need look at the makeup of this room after June 2, 2022, and it’s evident that we are helping so many in our communities across all of Ontario, and the people of this province are seeing the results, are appreciating that response and responding in turn.

I look forward to being able to speak a little further in the next opportunity here about the outstanding work that we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I don’t think there’s time for another question.

Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s always an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the people we represent in the communities that brought us here.

To anyone who is watching the proceedings this morning, I just want to provide some context for the debate that is under way today. This is the third government bill that has been brought to this floor in this very rare summer session of the Legislature. As the Speaker will know, typically the Legislature does not sit in the summer. But this government brought MPPs back in August to presumably engage in very important legislative debates about urgent issues that are facing this province.

The first bill that we considered was the budget bill. That was a bill that the government had tabled prior to the election. So that bill was brought to this floor.

The next bill was the strong-mayor bill. That was something of a surprise, because never in the election did we hear the government mention its priority focus on increasing the mayor powers in Ottawa and Toronto. Regardless, that was the bill, that was the second piece of legislation the government brought forward.

That brings us to today and Bill 7, the More Beds, Better Care Act. This is a bill that purports to address the health care crisis we are facing in this province. All of us are seeing in our communities that the health care system is crumbling before our eyes.

There are at least 25 emergency rooms across this province that have either closed or reduced hours over the past many months—and it hasn’t only just been this summer. This is a problem that we have seen in Ontario for quite some time.

As the representative of London West, I want to acknowledge that many of these closures have occurred in some of those small, rural communities in southwestern Ontario that surround London. Some of those closures are under way right now. We know that St. Marys hospital closed overnight hours this very week. This is the second closure of St. Marys hospital in August. Seaforth hospital closed its ER earlier in August. Walkerton and Chesley hospitals closed their overnight emergency services last week.

What this means for London is increased pressure on London Health Sciences Centre because, of course, London Health Sciences Centre is a regional hospital that serves many of the surrounding municipalities. With those closures in those rural communities, there are increased pressures on LHSC, and we have seen that in London with changes in the emergency ward.

There was a story on CBC just recently about a Londoner who was 40 weeks pregnant with her first child, and her midwife had been bracing her for the possibility that she might not get a scheduled induction due to the shortage of support staff, nurses and doctors. That’s one example of the kind of pressures that LHSC is facing in its maternity ward because of some of these increased pressures.

LHSC’s epilepsy monitoring unit also had to reduce services. There is a temporary closure, until September, of the epilepsy monitoring unit, although critical care services will continue to be provided.

We are hearing about an ever-growing list of people in London who are facing incredible challenges accessing a family physician. For many people who don’t have an emergency that requires ER support, that’s the canary in the coal mine. That’s the first indication that something is fundamentally wrong with our health care system—when people cannot find a family doctor in order to get that preventive care that will keep them from having to access critical care in our hospitals.

It’s interesting, Speaker; when you read some of the stories about why our system is experiencing these challenges, it’s pretty unanimous that one of the reasons for these closures is the staffing pressures in our health care system. Those are pressures that have been growing for years, in fact, because of the lack of health human resource planning, but they have certainly been exacerbated by COVID-19. Nurses and health care workers are exhausted. They’re burnt out. They are disrespected by this government, by its ill-considered policy to introduce a cap on any wage increases of 1%.

That has been incredibly demoralizing for health care workers. We’re seeing nurses leave the profession in droves. They are going to the US to find better jobs, better working conditions, better salaries, or they are switching careers altogether. They’re retiring early. We have all heard these things.

As a result of these staffing pressures, what we’re seeing in our system is that hospitals, including those small, rural hospitals I mentioned, are having to spend money on temp agency nurses. There was a story last week in the Toronto Star that revealed that spending on temp agency nurses is up more than 550% since before the pandemic at a Toronto hospital. Speaker, that’s not a unique situation at that hospital. We know that hospitals all over this province are having to spend those dollars on agency nurses in order to deal with the workforce pressures they are facing.

So in light of this crisis in our health care system and in light of the fact that we were brought back here this summer to deal with some urgent issues, one would have thought that the government would have brought forward legislation that would actually deal with the problems we are seeing. One would have thought they would have brought in a bill to repeal Bill 124—because that is what the health care sector, including hospital CEOs, including physicians, certainly including nurses, including a whole gamut of health care workers, have consistently highlighted as a huge factor in the exodus of health care workers from our workforce.

One would have thought that this government might have brought in legislation to require long-term-care homes to make PSW jobs full-time jobs with proper salaries, with benefits, with job security, with paid sick days. That would have gone a long way to improving the quality of care that seniors receive in our long-term-care homes—and also those PSWs working in home and community care, because we know that seniors want to remain independent in their own homes as long as possible and rely on PSW support in order for that to happen. As I said, instead of bringing in legislation that dealt with the real problems, we have before us this bill entitled More Beds, Better Care Act.

I do want to acknowledge that the government has gone some way since we first came back here in August. When we first arrived back, we saw the Premier and the Minister of Health denying—“There’s no crisis in health care. This is all just part of the normal ebbs and flows.” Then we heard the Minister of Health blaming vacationing nurses for the closures of our ERs, which is reprehensible, to make that allegation. Finally, we saw the government realize that they had to do something, and last week they released a five-point plan. This is the signature legislation that accompanies that plan.

It’s clear that they scrambled, because this signature legislation is exactly two and a half pages long. It is very thin on substance but deeply concerning in terms of its content.

I want to start with the title of the bill—as I said, More Beds, Better Care Act. The first half of this title, “More Beds,” clearly reveals this government’s fundamental misunderstanding of the issues that we are experiencing in our health care system. It is not beds that are the problem; it is staff to provide the care to the patients in those beds that is the problem. That’s why, again, I point to the urgency of repealing Bill 124. Unless we do something to increase our health care workforce, we’re not going to have the staff we need.

The second part of the title, “Better Care,” suggests that, somehow, transferring alternate-level-of-care patients from hospital into long-term-care homes is going to automatically ensure they get better care.

Speaker, I have to say that Ontarians don’t have a lot of confidence, frankly, in this government’s ability to ensure that seniors in our long-term-care homes are properly protected. We heard about the iron ring around long-term care during COVID that never materialized. We saw more than 4,000 seniors die in long-term-care homes. We saw the military being called in to pull the curtain on the horrendous conditions that our long-term-care-home residents were facing.

Again, I want to say that the crisis in our long-term-care homes will not be fixed unless the staffing in those homes is improved.

Speaker, now I want to turn to what the government decided to do to deal with this crisis. This bill authorizes a whole range of actions that can be taken by placement coordinators at hospitals without the consent of an alternate-level-of-care patient. It authorizes a placement coordinator to determine eligibility for admission to a long-term-care home. It allows the coordinator to select a long-term-care home. It allows the coordinator to provide information about that patient, including personal health information, without the consent of that patient.

Finally, it authorizes the admission to the home of an ALC patient without their consent. It’s very clear that all of these actions I have just described can be carried out without consent, provided that reasonable effort has been made to obtain consent—without any definition of what constitutes reasonable effort. As my colleague, our immensely capable health critic, pointed out, that leaves it open to the possibility that a patient could be asked, “Ms. Sattler, are you ready to go to a long-term-care home? We need your consent.” If I say no, is that a reasonable effort? Who knows? It’s not defined in this bill.

The only limitation on consent that is listed in this bill is the inability for a placement coordinator to put physical restraints on a patient and to physically transfer that patient to a long-term-care home. Other than that, there are all of those actions I previously described that can be carried out if the patient does not consent.

Speaker, moving an ALC patient, an alternate-level-of-care patient, into a long-term-care home that is not of that person’s choosing is, as critics have pointed out, a fundamental violation of the human rights of that patient.

The only right to appeal that is included in this bill is, if someone is deemed ineligible for a long-term-care-home admission, then they can appeal that. However, there is no appeal whatsoever for an alternate-level-of-care patient who is placed in a long-term-care home that is not of their choosing.

We have heard in the media and we’ve heard the minister talk in this House about the fact that no patient would be transferred out of their community, but that is not in the bill. If you read this bill, it indicates that the geographic restrictions around placement decisions will be outlined in regulations. We don’t see regulations—the regulations are written after a bill is passed.

So this gives the government huge latitude to prescribe whatever geography they decide is appropriate, which means that an ALC patient in London could be discharged without consent from hospital, could be assessed for eligibility to long-term-care without consent, could be admitted to a long-term-care home without consent, and that long-term-care home could be in St.

Catharines; it could be in Hamilton; it could be in Hanover; it could be in any number of communities that would take that person out of their circle of care and away from their family members, away from the support and the love they need in order to live out their final days with dignity and respect.

The bill also indicates that the regulations are going to prescribe what personal health information can be provided without the consent of the patient. That is very troublesome because everyone should have the right to consent to the use of their own personal health information.

What is entirely missing from the bill is any reference to charging alternate-level-of-care patients who do not consent to a physical transfer to a long-term-care home. I want to remind members who were here at question period yesterday that our interim leader asked the Minister of Long-Term Care, “Can the minister guarantee right now that if a senior refuses to go to a care home they don’t want, they will never be billed for their hospital bed?” And the minister responded, quite rightly, “That is not in my bill.” He’s absolutely correct; that is not in this bill.

That is why it is so worrisome that this bill is silent on the question of whether a patient can be charged by the hospital if they refuse to go to a long-term-care home.

We hear this government suggest somehow that it’s the opposition who is fearmongering. But I want to highlight comments that were made by Jane Meadus, who is a lawyer with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, who shares these exact concerns about the possibility of patients being charged if they refuse to move to a long-term-care home. She provided a memo that says if patients “refuse a bed offer for a LTC home they apply to, a determination may be made that they are no longer in need of treatment in the hospital.

A discharge order may then be communicated to them, and the hospital may charge them an unregulated daily rate if they choose to remain in hospital.” So unless this is explicitly prohibited in this bill, you can be sure that it will happen. That just increases the pressure on an alternate-level-of-care patient in a hospital who does not want to move to long-term care because it’s not the long-term care of their choice. It increases the pressure on those family members, those substitute decision-makers, who are having to decide in the face of these medical professionals what can be done with their loved one.

And it makes it ever more likely that people are going to be moved against their will to a long-term-care home where they do not want to be.

Advocates, people who are involved in this sector, have called this bill “morally repugnant.” It is an assault on the fundamental human rights of some of the most vulnerable and frailest people in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Yesterday, the Toronto Star editorial board wrote in support of Bill 7:

“Earlier this year, the Ontario Hospital Association estimated there were 5,800 patients waiting in hospital beds for what is known as ‘alternate levels of care.’

“The consequences of such hospital stays ripple through the system and impact others seeking care. With beds occupied, other patients can’t be admitted and emergency rooms back up.”

“Hospitals are not the ideal location for such patients. They don’t require the intensive medical care hospitals are meant to provide. Nor do they receive the variety of supportive programs offered at long-term-care facilities designed specifically for seniors.”

I’d like to give the member an opportunity to comment on the Toronto Star editorial.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I don’t think there’s any question that hospitals, alternate-level-of-care beds, are not the greatest place for people to be, but neither is a long-term-care home that is not of the patient’s choosing—a long-term-care home that likely has availability because no one wants to go there. We all know of those long-term-care homes that became notorious during COVID-19 because of their abject failure to protect the residents who lived in those homes.

Unless this bill is accompanied by a huge effort to improve PSW wages, to make those jobs good jobs, to improve supports for seniors in long-term-care homes, moving vulnerable people from one situation of crisis in a hospital to another situation of crisis in a long-term-care home will do nothing to solve the problem.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response?

Mr. Wayne Gates: We know that under this Conservative watch, close to 5,000 seniors—parents, grandparents, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law—died in long-term care. Most died in for-profit homes. Forty seniors died just in the last two weeks alone. Knowing this, do you feel it’s okay to give medical information of patients, seniors, to long-term-care providers without consent?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank my colleague from Niagara Falls for that question.

Clearly, I do not think it is okay to allow the provision of personal health information to any entity without the consent of the person whose information is being shared.

I did want to comment on the fact that private sector long-term-care homes are very likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this bill, because many of the long-term-care homes that have the shortest waiting lists, that will be able to accommodate these alternate-level-of-care patients, are those private sector homes that other people don’t want to go to. They are the homes that were exposed as having the worst protections in place for seniors during COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for her address this morning.

I’ve been here for nearly 19 years, and this is probably the most egregious example of NDP fearmongering since I’ve been here.

Since I’ve been here, ALC patients have been a huge problem in this province. We’ve got our vulnerable seniors in a place where they shouldn’t be, but no capacity was built in long-term-care homes to accommodate those seniors who would be best cared for in a long-term-care home.

This government has acted expeditiously and quickly, since the election, to bring in the proper legislation so we can actually move those patients to a home—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain please come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —where they’ll get the kind of care and the kind of help and assistance that has always been designed for.

And now we have the NDP inventing all kinds of voodoo scenarios that do not exist.

So I do ask the member, could you please stick to what the bill actually says? No one will be going to a home that they’re not consenting to. Stop with the fearmongering—

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have to remind the member, as I stated in my comments, that it is not just the opposition who are raising these concerns: it is Jane Meadus, a staff lawyer at the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly; it is Dr. Samir Sinha, the National Institute on Ageing’s director of health policy; it is Dr. Alan Drummond, who is co-chair of public affairs for the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. The concerns that we have raised are shared by many in the sector, and I would ask the government to listen to what those advocates have to say.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’ve been listening to this debate in the House for the last few days. The thing that seniors are most concerned about is that they will be forcibly transferred to long-term-care homes against their will. And the government keeps responding with diversions, with insults to the NDP—“Oh, you haven’t read the bill. There’s nothing in there about consent.”

I’ve read the bill. The bill is right here, and I can see in this bill that it says “certain actions” are “to be carried out without the consent of these patients.... The actions cannot be performed without first making reasonable efforts to obtain the patient’s consent.” There’s a list of 13 actions that can be taken without the patient’s consent. That’s what this bill is about. It also says—and I think this is the most terrifying statement for seniors in the province of Ontario—“The

section does not authorize the use of restraints in order to carry out the actions or the physical transfer of an ALC patient to a long-term-care home without their consent.” In other words, they set the bar at they will not handcuff seniors who are in hospital beds and refuse to be transferred, but they will do everything up to that.

So my question to this speaker is—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That is pathetic.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The member for London West can reply.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciate the comment from my colleague because he is exactly right. What this bill does is allow a long list of actions that can now be taken without the consent of a patient that will coerce or pressure alternate-level-of-care patients to feel that they have to leave the hospital and move to a long-term-care home, and the only restriction is that they cannot be forcibly handcuffed, physically restrained and physically transferred from the hospital to a long-term-care home.

So I understand why seniors are terrified of this bill, and I understand why experts and advocates also have raised those concerns.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for her contributions today.

It’s no secret that the health care system is under immense pressure, and if we do nothing, we could see a shortage of 2,400 hospital beds by the peak of a potential flu or a COVID-19 wave later this year. Our government is seeing this potential wave on the horizon and we’re proposing real steps to address it, to help ensure that our health care system is properly resourced to deliver the care Ontarians need.

Meanwhile, the opposition seems content to sit around and oppose, much like they were content to support the Liberals between 2011 and 2018—propping up that Liberal government when they built only 611 beds for 176,000 new, elderly patients over the age of 75.

My question is really simple: Are you content to sit back, support the status quo and do nothing when action is clearly needed?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The opposition has been sounding the alarm and standing in solidarity with health care workers for the last several years, ever since Bill 124 was introduced by this government, which is the most egregious factor in why we are experiencing these health care workforce shortages. We have been calling for the repeal of Bill 124. That is action that would have really made a difference. We have been calling for protections for health care workers against violence in the workplace. That is something that would have helped to shore up our health care workforce.

Health care workers are leaving. They’re leaving because of this government’s low-wage suppression policies that are driving them to retire early or leave the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s always an honour to rise and participate in the debate—today, on Bill 7 at second reading. For members opposite and for people watching at home: One of the reasons second reading debate happens is so that concerns can be raised and addressed—and amended at committee. Advocates for the elders, seniors, doctors, and health care policy experts have all raised serious concerns about the implications of this bill and the possible unintended consequences.

I understand that we are facing a health care crisis and that that crisis predated the existing government, but it has been made worse by the existing government because of their failure to invest in the people who deliver care. Nurses, front-line health care workers and doctors have all said that wage caps and benefit caps are a significant contributor to the inability to retain nurses and other front-line workers in our health care system. Yet the government—after calls from almost everybody across the province, including the opposition—has failed to say, “Maybe we need to make an adjustment and invest in the people who deliver care.”

One of the concerns that seniors have is the consent provisions in the bill. I’ve heard the argument about, is there consent or is there not consent? Well, I guarantee you, Speaker, that elders deserve clarity around the consent provisions in this bill, because when you combine this bill with legislation that I know has been there since 1979, they could charge elders up to $1,500 a day if they do not consent to being transferred to a long-term-care home they do not want to be in.

One of the reasons they may not consent is that they would be a long distance away from their family, which is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. We already have a home care system and a long-term-care system that’s underinvested, understaffed and overwhelmed. Family members play a key role in providing additional care for elders. It will be incredibly difficult if elders feel forced to consent to agree to move a long distance away from family and lose that additional care, which will then put additional pressure on existing staff.

I would say to the official opposition and to the government: Listen to the concerns that people have and amend this bill at committee, because we know that properly placing alternate-level-of-care patients is important to the health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s great to be able to take

part in debate here today and in questions and comments.

While I do have a great working relationship with the member from Guelph, I do have a few concerns with what he has brought up here today, when we talk about this bill going to committee or some of the different provisions of the bill.

Again, as part of the kinder, gentler Mike Harris that we’re all experiencing here in the 43rd Parliament, I want to give the member an opportunity to share some solutions, rather than just trying to carve up the problems. Let’s hear some solutions. What can we do to get ALC patients out of hospital? How can we move forward with making sure that those people are still looked after in the way they need to be here in Ontario?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member opposite’s question. It gives me an opportunity to put forward a number of the solutions that the Ontario Greens have been talking about for over two years.

First of all, repeal Bill 124 so nurses and front-line health care workers can negotiate fair wages, fair benefits and better working conditions. Speaker, do you know what it’s like to be overworked in understaffed wards and feeling underappreciated and disrespected by government? Do you know what it’s like to not be able to access mental health benefits, for example, because your benefits are capped, let alone being able to have your wages keep up with inflation?

Second, two years ago, we were asking this government to fast-track the accreditation of internationally trained health care professionals. They are now finally starting to do that. According to the RNA, that was 15,000 to 20,000 nurses or other front-line health care workers who could have been part of the system, taking a burden off the system, if the government had acted on that two years ago.

Speaker, I have more solutions I’d like to offer, but I know my time has run out.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin has a question.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’ve always been one to look at legislation—and words are very powerful. I know the member from Guelph talked about consent. If I’m sitting in a long-term-care home or if I’m a family member, I’m looking at this bill and I’m reading the first two sentences—it says, “The bill amends the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021 to add a new provision for patients who occupy a bed in a public hospital and are designated by an attending clinician as requiring an alternate level of care.

This new provision authorizes certain actions to be carried out without the consent of these patients.” What else could that possibly mean? It’s removing the consent of individuals. The outcome is what I’m concerned about. When you look at legislation, there are winners and losers. We see who the losers are going to be here.

Who is going to benefit from this legislation? Who is this for? That’s the question that I’m asking the member.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. I share your concern around the consent provisions in this bill, which is exactly why it absolutely has to be amended at committee—to ensure and clearly define the consent provisions for an elder in this province to not be forced or coerced into consenting to a placement that they do not support, that is untenable for their family. That is why second reading debate is so vitally important.

So I encourage the members opposite: Listen to the advocates, listen to the seniors, listen to the health care policy-makers who are putting forward concerns about this bill and address those concerns, because we know that we need a better process for properly and justly placing seniors who have alternate-level-of-care needs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have time for one quick question.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite.

A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail discussed the government’s five-point Plan to Stay Open. It talked about how acute-care beds are really for acutely ill patients, not those waiting for long-term care. Patients who need long-term care should receive it in a proper setting.

They do something similar in BC, Alberta and Nova Scotia. So, why, when we try to improve the system here so that patients can get into the hospital—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The member for Guelph can reply.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I don’t believe the member opposite has actually been attentively listening to my comments. My comments have acknowledged the need to address alternate-level-of-care patients in hospitals.

What I’m asking the government to do is to listen to the experts and address the concerns that elders have about this bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: It is my privilege to rise in the House to speak to the debate on Bill 7, the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022. This bill, if passed, will make amendments to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, as part of our government’s larger Plan to Stay Open: Health System Stability and Recovery. This five-point plan aims to provide the best care possible to patients and residents while ensuring the necessary resources and supports are in place to keep the province and the economy open. The plan further bolsters the Ontario health care workforce, expands innovative models of care, and ensures hospital beds are there for patients when they need them.

As everyone in the chamber knows, health care systems around the world are facing unprecedented challenges lately, and Ontario is no different. In order to address these pressures, make more progress with the surgical backlog, and be properly prepared for a potential winter surge, we need to do more. If we keep the status quo, we could see a 2,400-hospital-bed shortage by the peak of the potential flu and COVID waves later this year.

Over the last few weeks, our government has been actively engaging with front-line partners, hospitals, long-term care, union leadership and the best experts available to identify concrete, actionable solutions to respond to urgent pressures as well as prepare for any potential surge in the winter months. Our government is looking at every possible option as we look for ways to address the challenges facing our hospital capacity, avoid overstraining the health care system, and establish better models of care.

One of the main ways we help with hospital capacity challenges is to ensure that patients are getting an appropriate level of care in an appropriate setting. Across the province, there are many patients whose care needs could be better met elsewhere. These patients are sometimes referred to as alternate-level-of-care patients, or ALC for short. ALC patients in hospital no longer need to be there, and many would have better quality of life in a long-term-care home. At the same time, moving these ALC patients out of hospital and into long-term care frees up much-needed space in hospitals for patients who require hospital treatment.

Our government’s priority is for people to live and receive care where they have the best quality of life, close to their family and loved ones and their community. With this bill, we would add a new provision to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, to ease the transfer of patients in ALC into long-term care.

ALC pressures are not unique to Ontario. Several provinces, like BC, Alberta and Nova Scotia, have similar policies which encourage the movement of patients into temporary care settings while they wait for their preferred bed.

In Ontario, there are approximately 1,900 ALC patients on a long-term-care wait-list or in need of long-term care. Some patients can spend up to six months or longer in hospital waiting for a space in their preferred home to open up, even though they no longer need hospital services. When they cannot be discharged, these patients continue to receive care, but in the wrong setting. These patients contribute to backlogs in acute-care services in hospitals because they occupy beds that other patients urgently need.

The More Beds, Better Care Act will enable the movement of these patients to a more appropriate care setting that can better support their quality of life and better meet their needs. ALC patients who are placed in a long-term-care home that was not selected by them will be there temporarily, until they can be placed in their preferred home.

As members in this house surely know, the wait-list for long-term care is sizable, thanks in large part to the neglect of the former Liberal government, who, from 2011 to 2018, only managed to build 611 net new beds across the province—611 net new beds while the population of Ontarians aged 75 and older grew by over 176,000. This blatant neglect of the sector left our government with a wait-list of over 40,000 patients.

Speaker, I am sure you know that our government wasted no time in developing new long-term-care beds. Since 2018, we have invested $6.4 billion into the development of new beds and new homes, and we currently have over 30,000 new and more than 28,000 existing beds to be upgraded in the development pipeline. Despite all of that, we still have a long wait-list for long-term care in Ontario, so I am sure everyone is wondering where we are going to place all of these ALC patients.

Well, as we have done since the beginning of the pandemic, we are working on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, and we are taking immediate action to increase bed capacity in long-term-care homes by right-sizing the number of COVID-19 isolation beds, based on community demand and COVID-19 risk levels. By the end of the summer, approximately 300 long-term-care beds that were set aside for COVID-19 isolation will be safely available for the people on wait-lists, with a potential of 1,000 more beds available within six months.

I am sure some members in this House are wondering, if we eliminate isolation beds in homes, are we putting long-term-care residents at risk of contracting COVID-19? That is a very good question. Isolation beds were implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to protect residents from contracting this highly contagious virus. Since that time, long-term-care homes have implemented enhanced infection prevention and control practices, personal protective equipment is more readily available, and a large majority of residents and staff have been vaccinated. Because of these factors, isolation beds are no longer as necessary as they were in the early days of the pandemic.

Over the course of the last couple of days, I have heard some members of the opposition suggest that the homes that ALC patients would be sent to could be in outbreak, or experiencing staffing shortages. However, I would like to remind those members that, as set out in the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, long-term care licensees must approve the applicant’s admission to the home unless the home lacks the physical facilities necessary to meet the applicant’s care requirements, or the staff of the home lack the nursing expertise necessary to meet the applicant’s care requirements.

In the case of an outbreak, homes must follow guidelines and direction from their local public health unit with respect to any additional measures that may be implemented to reduce the risk of transmission in the home. All this to say, if the home does not have the capacity to take on additional residents, they will not be asked to do so. One thing that we should make clear is that this would not apply to all patients in ALC.

It would only apply to ALC patients who have been deemed by a medical professional to no longer need to be in a hospital and who may benefit from receiving care in a long-term-care home instead, but are either waiting for a preferred long-term-care bed or do not consent to apply to a long-term-care home suitable for their needs.

By allowing a placement coordinator to access and authorize an ALC patient admission to a long-term-care home, this amendment, if passed, will allow seniors, their families, caregivers and clinicians to shift the conversation from where a person’s needs can best be met to where a person’s quality of life would be better. The focus should always be on providing the right care in the right place.

Speaker, now I would like to spend a few minutes talking about some of the landmark changes our government has made in long-term care to make sure that seniors receive the care they deserve. When it comes to long-term care, our government saw the status quo that was left behind. We saw a system that had been neglected by the previous Liberal government, with out-of-date homes, understaffing across the sector, and little accountability measures. We knew that we would have to work quickly and that we would need to come up with innovative solutions to accomplish what needed to be done in the sector.

When the Premier promised to build 30,000 net new beds in the province, we acted quickly. In four years, we have had more than 30,000 new beds allocated across the province and another 28,000 existing beds that are being upgraded to modern standards. This means no more four-bed ward rooms with poor ventilation designed to outdated standards.

This includes the brand new 320-bed Lakeridge Gardens home in my riding of Ajax, which was built as part of our accelerated build pilot program. Launched in July 2020, this program uses hospital-owned land and accelerated procurement and construction methods, and aims to deliver new long-term-care beds up to two years quicker than the traditional pilot program. Our government recognized that large urban centres are areas of high service need. The need for additional long-term-care capacity is critical, but it’s often difficult to build due to issues like availability and cost of land.

This program leverages the expertise of Infrastructure Ontario to accelerate construction. In addition to the Lakeridge Health home in Ajax, this program will also see the building of two homes with a total of 632 beds in Mississauga by Trillium Health Partners, and another 320-bed home developed by Humber River Hospital in Toronto. This is just one more example of how our government changed the status quo on building long-term-care homes.

For years, the status quo with the Liberal government was reading reports about the need for more staff to deliver more care to residents, and ignoring those reports. From 2009 to 2018, they only managed to increase direct care to residents by 21 minutes. That is a 12% increase over nine years in government, or slightly more than two additional minutes of direct care per resident per year.

Our plan includes a historic investment of $4.9 billion over four years to increase direct care to an average of four hours per resident per day. This plan will require hiring 27,000 support workers and nurses to work in long-term care. But we all know that these highly skilled workers do not just appear. That is why we invested in programs to train these workers. Partnering with our publicly funded colleges, we invested $121 million to accelerate the training of 9,000 PSWs. We invested another $86 million to train up to an additional 8,600 PSWs through private career colleges and district school boards.

But we weren’t done there. We invested a further $35 million to increase enrolment in publicly assisted colleges and universities to introduce 2,000 nurses to the health care system.

Training and hiring new staff is one thing, but retaining that staff is a completely different thing altogether. That is why we invested $100 million to add an additional 2,000 nurses to the long-term-care sector by 2024-25 by supporting the training of thousands of support workers and nurses who want to advance their careers in long-term care.

The first program we launched is the Bridging Educational Grant In Nursing—or BEGIN—initiative. Partnered with WeRPN, eligible PSWs will receive $6,000 a year to pursue further education to become registered practical nurses, and eligible registered practical nurses will receive $10,000 a year to become registered nurses.

The second program: We partnered with Colleges Ontario to increase access to nursing programs at publicly assisted colleges through:

—the introduction of hybrid online and in-person models in practical nursing and bachelor of science and nursing programs to provide students with greater flexibility and choice;

—the creation of an additional 500 enrolments in bridging programs for the 2022-23 academic year, designed to give applicants the skills and credentials they need to move to the next stage of their careers; and

—providing up to $6,000 a year in financial support to internationally trained nurses to gain the credentials required to work in Ontario.

Speaker, when it comes to ensuring Ontarians receive the care they require, our government continues to go beyond the status quo and find innovative solutions. That is why we are listening to experts and stakeholders from across the health care and long-term-care sectors. That is why we’re listening to seniors, their families and caregivers. We’re listening to nurses, PSWs and front-line health care workers as we move forward with our plan to fix long-term care.

The feedback and insights that we receive from people on the ground in long-term care is invaluable and helps to shape the solutions and direction our government pursues. This will continue to be this government’s approach as we continue to go beyond the status quo to innovate and evolve the long-term-care and health care systems in Ontario.

We all know that this is a critical time for action in Ontario, and I am proud to be part of the government that is taking real steps to fix long-term care and evolve our health care system. With the proposed amendments in the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022, and our five-point Plan to Stay Open: Health System Stability and Recovery, we are taking actions to solve the challenges and alleviate pressures facing the health care system. I am proud to support this bill, and I hope the members opposite will join us as we ensure that every Ontarian has access to care when and where they need it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Amarjot Sandhu): Questions and answers.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Six times in this bill we read “without consent.” Mushkegowuk–James Bay has two communities that don’t have long-term-care beds—or hospitals with ALC, I should say. All the long-term-care homes have a two-to-three-year waiting period; the others closest are Cochrane and Timmins—which are an hour and a half away from Timmins, two and a half hours from Hearst. The other ones, we’re going further out—five, six hours—Thunder Bay, and then we have Sudbury. If they have no room there, guess what? Now we’re going to eight, nine hours away.

My question to you is: Without consent, where are you going to send these people, away from their families, when we’re talking about how the closest don’t have room or may be five hours to six hours away?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you for that question, to the member across the way.

We have committed to providing our seniors with valuable care, and we know there are special needs that need to be considered within the north.

Under the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, our government introduced legislation to ensure that all homes can operate so that residents can live with dignity, security, safety and comfort and have their physical, psychological, social, spiritual and cultural needs adequately met.

Let me be clear that the proposed legislation would not force anyone to be relocated without their consent. Instead, these measures are intended to allow hospitals to open a dialogue with residents about the benefits of moving into long-term care when hospitalization is no longer required. For these residents, temporary long-term care is available to provide a better quality of care in a home-like setting where residents will have longer access to social and recreational programming alongside other residents of similar health.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Amarjot Sandhu): Questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to participate in today’s meeting in this session.

Speaker, you will know that, under the previous Liberal government, propped up by the NDP during the period from 2011 to 2018, only 627 beds were built. How many did the region of Durham get? Absolutely zero during that period—shameful.

Can the member from Ajax, who had a great presentation, speak about how long-term-care homes in the region of Durham have the capacity—yes, they do—to accept ALC patients?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you to the member from Whitby.

I was very proud when we had our Lakeridge Gardens long-term-care built in our region, the 320 beds that were built—and this was done in less than two years. We have really started addressing those needs.

Within your own riding, member, Glen Hill Terrace had 167 beds built.

It’s no secret that the previous Liberal government severely underfunded the long-term-care sector for years, building a meagre 627 beds between 2011 and 2018.

Fixing these long-standing challenges takes time, but our government has made substantial headway over the past four years. We’re making key investments to hire and retain staff, including an $893-million investment this year to make wage increases permanent for publicly funded support workers and direct support workers. We are also investing $37 million this year to improve the range of care that can be offered to long-term-care residents, which will allow supports like behavioural and dialysis.

Additionally, COVID-19 vaccines have changed the game for our long-term-care homes. Thanks to this, the Chief Medical Officer of Health has advised that 300 long-term-care beds set aside for COVID-19 isolation will be safely available for people on long-term-care wait-lists.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Amarjot Sandhu): Thank you so much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Amarjot Sandhu): It looks like we don’t have any time for questions and responses, so we’ll go right to members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Juno Beach Centre Association

Ms. Natalie Pierre: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today and deliver my first members’ statement.

On Friday, August 19, I had the privilege of joining the Juno Beach Centre Association, a non-profit organization that is based in my riding of Burlington. The association owns and operates the Juno Beach Centre in Normandy, France. The JBCA plays a vital role in commemorating Canadians who served during the Second World War.

Last Friday, the Juno Beach Centre Association announced they were the recipient of $119,500 through the Ontario Trillium Foundation’s Resilient Communities Fund. It was an honour to be part of a special funding announcement on the 80th anniversary of Dieppe. This grant has helped the JBCA complete a digital educational resource, Who Tells the Story of Dieppe, focusing on how the soldiers from Ontario and across Canada made the ultimate sacrifice on one of Canada’s darkest days, the Dieppe raid. Congratulations to the Juno Beach Centre Association on receiving this grant, and thank you for educating adults, children and future generations about the role Canada played on the world stage.

Cost of living

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Since being elected, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many community service organizations in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean. The Caldwell Family Centre, Jewish Family Services, the Carlington Community Health Centre, Meals on Wheels, and Britannia Woods Community House are among the many organizations doing amazing work to support seniors, newcomers, people living with disabilities, and low-income communities.

They are all facing a situation where demand for their services is soaring due to the rising cost of living, the challenge of finding affordable housing, and the increasing rate of poverty. The Caldwell Family Centre, for instance, has experienced an almost 200% increase in demand over the past two years. But funding for many of these community organizations has been frozen and is not keeping pace with the demand.

I urge this government to take immediate action to address the affordability crisis, to pass the Rent Stabilization Act, to double Ontario Works and ODSP, to increase the minimum wage, and to support the many community organizations that are providing such vital supports to vulnerable members of our communities.

Mike Shoreman

Mr. Lorne Coe: This past weekend, Whitby resident Mike Shoreman made history when he became the first athlete and Canadian with disabilities to cross all five Great Lakes on a stand-up paddleboard in a single summer. Mike started his journey in May, at Lake Erie, before paddling through Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and finally Lake Ontario this past Saturday. Time and time again, Mike demonstrated his perseverance and resiliency when faced with difficult obstacles. He would simply not be denied.

Mike, you’re an inspiration for us all. Thank you for your efforts in raising funds and awareness for youth mental health. Residents across Ontario and Canada are absolutely so proud of you.

Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mike Shoreman on his historical feat and celebrating this amazing achievement with him, his family and many supporters.

Congratulations, Mike.

43rd Parliament

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I am proud to rise for my first member’s statement since my re-election.

The riding of Humber River–Black Creek is my lifelong home and the place I love the most. I want to once again thank my neighbours, fellow community members, family, friends and all my supporters for putting their trust in me to be their voice in this chamber. Representing my lifelong home is truly my life’s greatest honour.

Speaker, I am joined here today by my wife, Aleksandra, and two sons, four-year-old Aleksandar and one-year-old Ilija. Just as becoming an MPP is my greatest honour, the birth of our two sons is my life’s greatest joy.

My children are here with me every day—maybe not in person, but they are with me in every decision I make here. I ask myself: What kind of a world are we building for them, for all children?

I think of my elderly mother, Aileen, who is watching us from home right now, and ask: Is the system truly there for her when she needs it?

If it is true that this chamber can get heated at times, it is because we are fighting for what matters most: for our own loved ones, our communities, for the future of this province. So despite what it appears at times, we all have a lot in common. We just don’t always agree on the path forward.

To all of my colleagues, regardless of where you sit here: I congratulate you, and I wish you and your loved ones all the best. I look forward to working with you in the years ahead to build an Ontario we can all be proud of.

Events in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate many organizers and volunteers across the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for organizing some nice events that took place over the last few weeks.

I had the pleasure of attending the Glengarry Highland Games in the town of Maxville on July 29. It’s a 74-year-old tradition that is always a success.

The town of Russell’s agricultural fair on August 13 and the town of Vankleek Hill’s agricultural fair on August 19 were also successful in hosting many people from the region.

I am looking forward to attending the Riceville Fair this coming weekend, and I’m sure that it will also be a success.

It is nice to see people gathering at social events again.

I would like to thank the provincial government for their financial assistance through the Reconnect Festival and Event Program from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

I would also like to thank the administration of the Glengarry Memorial Hospital in Alexandria for inviting me to their hospital so they could teach me about their operations and their issues. It was very pleasant to meet with the CEO and the chair of the board of directors.

I would also like to thank all the ministers, parliamentary assistants and provincial government staff for participating in the AMO conference last week. It is very important to have a good relationship with all of our 444 municipalities.

Student assistance

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Since 2015, London West residents Sandy Mikalachki and Nicole Spriet have helped outstanding low-income students attend post-secondary with a Mikalachki Scholarship of $5,000 for up to four years. This government’s changes to OSAP, however, mean that the scholarships they award to some of the most impressive and deserving students in Ontario are clawed back, a policy they view as both merciless and inane.

A recent recipient was a young woman whose single mom was on Ontario Works. She had earned a 92% average while managing to save $6,000 by working two jobs, seven days a week. For these efforts, she was punished with a $2,200 reduction to her OSAP grant—effectively, a 37% tax on her savings—and another $1,100 reduction for each of the four years of her scholarship. Her OSAP loan was also reduced.

Since RESPs are excluded from OSAP calculations—as they should be—Sandy asks: “Are we saying to these impoverished kids, ‘Good that you saved but you should have known at age 13, while your heat was being turned off, to open up an RESP’?”

Sandy’s campaign to end these punitive clawbacks has taken on new urgency with the rising cost of living hitting low-income families the hardest. Sandy says, and I agree, that helping low-income students to break the cycle of poverty should not be a partisan issue.

So I ask today, will this government commit to finally ending its perverse and heartless OSAP clawbacks?

Gidigaa Migizi (Doug Williams)

Mr. Dave Smith: I rise today to pay homage to a true gentleman from my riding. Gidigaa Migiziban has begun his journey to the spirit world. Doug Williams was a much-loved elder, knowledge keeper and former chief of Curve Lake First Nation. In 1972, he was one of the first graduates of Trent University’s newly created Indian and Eskimo studies program. That program would eventually evolve into Trent’s current Indigenous studies.

Doug retained a close relationship with Trent, and would eventually become an associate professor and director of studies in the Indigenous studies PhD program.

But Doug wasn’t just an educator of Indigenous studies; he was also a defender of treaty rights. He was the subject of a court case in the early 1980s that led to a landmark decision on First Nations treaty rights to traditional harvesting. On one particular day, Doug caught more than sixty frogs while waiting for the game warden to come and charge him. When asked why he caught so many, he said that he wanted to make sure it was obvious what he was there to do.

Doug was also an author. His book, Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg: This is Our Territory, published in 2018, tells the story of his people in Curve Lake. If you have the chance to read it, I highly recommend it. As you read the words, you can actually hear his voice speaking them.

Thank you, Gidigaa, for your teachings, and for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with me.

Supportive housing

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise to give my first member’s statement of the 43rd Parliament.

I want to thank Guelphites for trusting me with your vote, and I will continue to work hard to be your voice at Queen’s Park.

I campaigned on a promise that I would push for solutions to the housing affordability crisis and the homelessness, addictions and mental health crisis so many people are facing in our community.

I want to acknowledge and thank Guelph city council, Wellington county, social service agencies, private developers and donors who have all come together to build three vitally important, permanent supportive housing spaces in my riding, with wraparound mental health and addictions support. Housing the most vulnerable will improve people’s quality of life and reduce pressure on our stressed health care system and hospitals. It will also address the many challenges that small businesses in our downtown are facing.

To realize these benefits, we need the province to chip in with some operating funds. Every $10 invested in permanent supportive housing saves the province $21.72 in other costs, so I urge the government to work with us, to respond to Ontario’s Big City Mayors, to partner with the city of Guelph and municipalities across the province who are putting forward solutions to address the homeless crisis, as well as providing mental health and addictions services and supports for the most vulnerable in our community.

Mid-Autumn Moon Festival

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’m happy to rise in the House today for my first member’s statement.

I would like to thank my constituents in Richmond Hill for re-electing me. Thank you for your support and trust in me. I’m committed to serve Ontarians and be a voice of my constituents in Richmond Hill.

I’m thankful that I will continue to serve seniors with Minister Cho, as his parliamentary assistant. We will work tirelessly together to plan and serve our seniors.

I’d like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the upcoming Moon Festival. When the moon is full, mankind is one. This year, the Moon Festival falls on September 10, when families get together at scenic spots or parks for moon appreciation parties and to eat mooncakes. The cities of Richmond Hill and Markham have been celebrating this with their communities for the past 12 years. This year, it will be held at the parking lot at King Square. Come and enjoy the full moon, and share the festive food and cultural performances. Of course, there will be lanterns for kids.

Municipalities

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I’m honoured to rise for the first time to give my member’s statement in the 43rd Parliament.

I would like to thank the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the city of Ottawa for hosting this year’s AMO conference. The AMO conference presents an opportunity for the provincial government to have extremely productive meetings with our municipal partners. These vital discussions are influential in securing the ongoing and future success of our province. Municipal governments get the opportunity to individually meet the various ministries and discuss important, relevant topics specific to their communities.

Through AMO, Ontario’s 444 municipalities work together to achieve shared goals and meet common challenges.

Investing in our local communities remains a top priority for our government, as we know how important it is for the people of Ontario to have investments that will promote their health and safety.

The government is building Ontario’s future by investing in health care, infrastructure, education, community safety, and transportation in municipalities across the province to best serve their individual needs and improve quality of life for residents. Our government, alongside our municipal partners, will continue to get it done for the people of our great province. We will leave no stone unturned to make sure that we will continue to deliver for the people of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to inform the House that we have a former member in our presence this morning: the member for Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st provincial Parliaments, Cheri DiNovo.

Welcome back to Queen’s Park. We’re delighted to see you.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I am so proud to welcome my one-year-old son, Ilija, my four-year-old son, Aleksandar, and my wife, Aleksandra.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’d like to introduce Cole and Christopher Gorham of the city of Windsor in the east members’ gallery today. Cole is a student from Vincent Massey Secondary School in Windsor. I’m delighted to welcome him here today for his first opportunity to see our Legislature in session.

Mr. Stephen Blais: I’d like to welcome Emma Wakelin to the Legislature today. Emma has been a dedicated volunteer and activist with the Ontario Liberal Party for decades.

Welcome back to the Legislature, Emma.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ve got an important introduction today: Annabelle Rayson, from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton, of course. She’s the winner of the Canadian national science fair—also page emeritus here at the Legislature—representing Canada at the international science fair in Sweden, and then on to the Netherlands to further represent Canada. She’s joined today by her family: Eric, Cindy, and her mother, Stephanie.

Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d like to welcome one of my best volunteers, Matthew Sawaya, who is here again in the members’ gallery.

It’s great to see you, Matthew. Thank you so much for being here and for being part of our youth council.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I want to quickly introduce my friend Robert Wan, who is visiting today for the first time.

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s always a pleasure. I got a note this morning to let me know that Miss Barbara was going to be watching us on TV this morning from Kitchener.

It’s great to see you, Barbara.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to announce that I have my new legislative assistant Nick Nowakowski and my EA Jad Haffar here.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I just want to welcome Mrs. Stevens, who is going to be here. She’s a small business owner from my riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Nickel Belt has a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion to allow an emergency debate on the health care crisis this afternoon during orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to allow an emergency debate on the health care crisis this afternoon during orders of the day. Agreed? I heard some noes.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Premier.

Good morning, Premier. A wonderful man in my riding, Jon Suter, had both legs amputated and waited months at St. Joe’s in Hamilton for an appropriate long-term-care bed. While he waited, he was billed $1,034 a day for his hospital bed. He received a bill for $241,956. His family contacted me, desperate and worried. Who can afford a quarter-million-dollar hospital bill?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The changes that we are making in the more beds, more choice act are very clear: We are trying to ensure that people can get into long-term-care homes where the quality of care is better for them, full stop. I don’t think anybody disagrees that when somebody is in hospital and they’ve been discharged from the hospital, the better quality of care for them—where we can give them better services, where they can be closer to their family—is in a long-term-care home.

The member opposite references a tool that has been in the tool box for hospitals since 1979.

Ultimately, what we are trying to do, the changes we are suggesting and, hopefully, that this Legislature will pass will help us deal with the challenges of acute care; will help residents, like the one she is talking about, get a better quality of care in homes and communities close to their homes, while leaving them on the waiting list for their preferred choice. Doctors agree with this; hospital administrators agree with this, and I hope the opposition does—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: The government is giving itself the power to sign people up to long-term-care homes they don’t want to go to. If they refuse, they could be slapped with a huge tab, like Jon Suter and his family.

To prevent seniors from being coerced into long-term-care homes against their will, will this government ban billing for hospital beds?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To answer the member’s question—he highlights the fact that this is something that has been in the tool box for hospitals since 1979. I’m glad he acknowledges that it is not a change in this bill—finally.

What are we actually trying to do? What we’re trying to do is give people who are in acute care in hospitals who are waiting for long-term-care beds more options. We know—experts agree, doctors agree, hospital administrators agree—that the best place for somebody who’s waiting for a long-term-care bed is in a long-term-care home. It is about providing better services, better quality of services for a person waiting for long-term care. That is why we are providing for additional resources so that somebody doesn’t have to be transported back and forth, whether they need kidney dialysis—Behavioural Supports Ontario is getting more resources.

I hope the opposition will join with us, help us. Ontario’s long-term-care system can be part of the solution of the acute-care problem in this province that has existed for decades. Join with us, because it’s better for the patients and it’s better for—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The final supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: We don’t support coercion, period.

Dr. Vivian Stamatopoulos says she’s already hearing from families being threatened with high fees for their hospital stay.

Jane Meadus, a lawyer for the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, says they get hundreds of these calls from families.

The government’s new legislation lets them send your information to a care home without your consent. They can sign you up for that care home without your consent. If you refuse to go, they have the power to use massive bed bills to force Grandma to get in that cab.

I ask again, will this government ban billing for hospital beds?

Hon. Paul Calandra: That question is completely contrary to the question he just asked before.

What he is admitting, and what his party is admitting, is that there has been a tool in the tool box for decades in this province.

But what he doesn’t want to talk about is the fact that, because of the investments that we have made in long-term care, the investments that this Premier and this government and this cabinet and this caucus have made in every part of this province, we are able to be part of a solution to the acute-care bed shortage that has existed in this province for decades. We are talking about making 2,500 additional beds available. We are talking about better quality of care for people who are actually waiting for long-term care.

Experts agree, doctors agree, hospital administrators agree that the best place for you to get the care you need if you’re waiting for a long-term-care bed is in a long-term-care home. That’s why we are providing millions of dollars in support to make the system even better. They voted against all of that. But we will not stop improving the system.

Ambulance services

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Premier.

The Guelph-Wellington Paramedic Service experienced another code red on Saturday, their 25th this year. That means there were no ambulance services available to respond to emergency calls. In July alone, code red was called 11 times.

My question is simple: Will this government increase cost-sharing with municipalities to access emergency services? Yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As part of the delegations at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario meetings last week, I actually met with the Guelph-Wellington organization to talk very specifically about their paramedic service.

There is no doubt that our paramedics are doing exceptional work in community, which is why we have announced, as part of our investments, to expand the community paramedics program, because we see it as an opportunity for, first and foremost, making sure that people get the care they need in their own homes, when it is appropriate. Frankly, it also allows us to ensure that when those paramedics get those emergency calls and need the ambulances, they are available to ensure that they get to the emergency departments quickly and get that service.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question. The member for London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Back to the Premier: This issue is not unique to Guelph. In London, OPSEU 147 reports that 30% of paramedics are looking to leave the field as soon as possible. They face dangerous understaffing and ever-increasing hospital off-load delays, and they run out of ambulances every day.

Communities across Ontario are worried, terrified, about not having access to emergency medical services. ERs are flooded with patients. So why is this government taking resources away from our public hospitals?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Respectfully, the numbers that the member opposite is quoting are simply not happening on the street. I have had many opportunities to speak to paramedics and paramedics chiefs, and what they are telling me is, they love that 911 model of care. They love the opportunity to provide service in community, in homes. They are embracing these new innovations because they know it is better service for the patient and it is better service for the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary. The member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: It’s not just Guelph and London. Ottawa ambulances are spending hours tied up at hospitals instead of being on the road responding to calls. As a result, in the first seven months of this year alone, there have been 1,041 instances of level zero, where no ambulance has been available in the entire city of Ottawa. We are a city of one million people—one million people, zero ambulances available. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Will the Premier address the crisis in our emergency rooms so that when someone in Ottawa calls 911, there is an ambulance available to respond?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: These questions give me an opportunity to talk about some of the innovations that are happening in our communities right now and to give the statistics to prove that they are working.

The hugely successful 911 models of care: Patients are being diverted from emergency departments through these models and receive the care they need 17 times faster. The satisfaction rate is in the 90s. And 94% of the individuals who are served through these models of care are not, in fact, going to emergency.

These innovations are working. These opportunities to work with all partners, again, whether they’re in hospital, long-term care, in community or through our paramedics, are making our system smoother and better.

Hospital services / Services hospitaliers

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Like all hospitals in northern Ontario, the Hearst hospital is struggling to find doctors to keep its emergency department open, and half of its population has no family doctor. Hearst hospital administrators have solutions that would save up to $185,000 per year. With funding for nurse practitioners, this would address the lack of doctors in their emergency department and locum clinics.

Premier, will your government help the Hearst hospital and give them separate funding so that they can hire nurse practitioners to alleviate the lack of doctors and help keep their emergency department and locum clinics open?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We are open to any and all innovations that hospitals and communities give us.

We have, of course, as a government, already added 400 additional physicians who are working in remote and northern communities and ensuring that they have the coverage they need.

We have launched a new provincial emergency department program. It’s a peer-to-peer program that provides additional on-demand, real-time support and coaching from experienced emergency physicians to aid in the management of patients presenting to rural emergency departments.

If the member opposite has an innovation or an idea that he would like to bring forward, I am happy to look at and review those.

Those expansions are exactly what we are looking for and we are funding through historic announcements that we’ve been making at AMO and across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

M. Guy Bourgouin: J’apprécie votre réponse, mais je pense que la prochaine question va démontrer que vous ne l’êtes pas.

Encore au premier ministre : l’hôpital de Hearst a seulement un anesthésiste qui travaille et reçoit des appels 365 jours par année. Il est surmené et a besoin de support. Les administrateurs de l’hôpital de Hearst et de Kapuskasing ont soumis un plan ensemble pour recruter quelques anesthésistes supplémentaires. Après multiples courriels et correspondances, toujours pas de réponse. La soumission de ce plan date de plus d’un an et demi. La santé de la communauté en dépend.

Ma question est simple : allez-vous répondre au plan que l’hôpital de Hearst et de Kapuskasing vous a soumis pour des anesthésistes supplémentaires, oui ou non?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: There are another couple of examples that I would like to share with the member opposite. I have met with the College of Nurses and I have met with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, saying we want to expedite those health human resources that are available in the province of Ontario. If someone has applied to practise medicine, to be a health human resource individual in the province of Ontario, then we want to expedite those licences. We want to ensure that due process is there, but we also want to make sure the people who want to work in the health care system have that opportunity right here in the province of Ontario.

I was working as recently as yesterday with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers to make sure that what we do across Canada is helping everyone.

And we’re going to work with our federal government to make sure that we expedite the process for foreign-trained, professionally educated individuals to practise in the province of Ontario.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Speaker, parts of my riding of Brampton West have been crippled by gridlock for far too long. People are sick and tired of sitting in traffic. This was one of the top issues I heard during the election campaign. But this issue didn’t arise overnight.

Successive Liberal governments in the province failed to build. As a result, they left Ontarians with a massive infrastructure deficit.

We need to get shovels ready on projects like Highway 413 because we simply cannot afford delay. Can the Minister of Transportation inform the House on the progress of this vital project?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I want to thank the member from Brampton West for his question and for his tireless advocacy to improve transportation options for the residents of his riding.

Highway 413 is a key pillar of our government’s plan to build Ontario. As part of that plan, we are fighting gridlock and we’re supporting jobs. Highway 401 is already the most congested corridor in North America, and when you factor in the fact that 200,000 people will be coming to Ontario each year, the need for Highway 413 is even more clear. It will save drivers up to 30 minutes per trip, leaving drivers with five hours back in their week for the things that matter most. Highway 413 will also keep our supply chains strong and help get goods to market faster.

Speaker, our government is filling the infrastructure deficit that we inherited from the previous Liberal government. For 15 years, the Liberals said no to fighting gridlock and to addressing growth; our government is saying yes, and we are going to build Highway 413.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Speaker, there has been resounding support for Highway 413 in my riding of Brampton West, and I am proud to see our government pushing it forward. Despite the support, there are still critics out there who believe that we should be focused only on limited transit solutions. The naysayers believe that transit is a one-and-done solution.

Can the minister tell us how Highway 413 fits within the government’s broader plan to get Ontario moving?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you again to the member from Brampton West for the question.

Too many governments have been short-sighted when it comes to transportation planning. We are the only government with a balanced transportation plan that is both practical and reasonable. Our plan includes building roads and highways, but also public transit, because there is not one main solution to addressing gridlock.

Speaker, in the greater Golden Horseshoe alone, we are building towards two-way, all-day GO service, we are building subways, and we are moving full steam ahead on the Bradford Bypass and on Highway 413.

For every dollar our government spends on building highways, we are spending three more to build transit.

Expanding our highway and transit networks in parallel will create the integrated transportation network that Ontario needs.

There is no way out of gridlock without building Highway 413. And we won’t apologize for being the only government to get it done for Ontarians.

Hospital services

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Premier.

Charles de Lint is a famous writer back in Ottawa. MaryAnn, Charles’s partner, was his first reader, his editor and his business manager. She has always been there offering Charles crucial support. But MaryAnn has been in the hospital since September 6, 2021. She contracted a rare disease and is now intubated, living on a ventilator, and has very limited movement. In order to make a full recovery, MaryAnn will need more therapy and more time in the hospital—more than our system at the moment can provide. So her family and friends have launched a GoFundMe in the hopes of raising money for her long-term medical care.

Can the Premier guarantee that MaryAnn and her family will never be billed for her hospital bed? Or will GoFundMe campaigns become the norm for rare disease patients in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: While I obviously can’t speak to an individual case that is in hospital right now, I want to reassure the people of Ontario and the members of this House that when people are in treatment, when they are in hospital, when they are receiving treatment, they will continue to receive that treatment, and they will receive it through their OHIP card.

We have to make sure that we have the capacity when we need it, as the example opposite was given, within our hospital system, within our long-term-care system, within our community care system to make sure that those people who need services right now are getting them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Premier: That response, sadly, is not going to help MaryAnn, Charles and so many other rare disease patients in this province. It’s also not going to help the talented hospital and health care staff who are right now run off their feet, whose salaries have been arbitrarily capped by the government, and who are unable to provide the care that is necessary to MaryAnn and so many others.

Charles and MaryAnn are incredible artists. Both of them have given this province gift after gift after gift. But they can’t afford the private treatments that MaryAnn needs right now; frankly, in Canada, you shouldn’t have to. Their friends have launched a GoFundMe campaign.

Is that what Ontario has become for patients with rare diseases? Has our Ministry of Health become a ministry of fend-for-yourself?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, I will say that while I cannot speak directly to an individual case, there are a number of programs that I hope the member opposite has assisted their constituents with. Of course, the Exceptional Access Program is one such program. We make sure that individuals who need additional assistance because their income has been implicated or because the cost of the drugs has become cost-prohibitive—we have those access programs available.

I hope and trust that the member opposite has made sure that MaryAnn and her family are aware of those programs, and has been working through them to make sure they have applied.

Health care post-secondary education

Mr. Graham McGregor: This is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Brampton is a growing city that has been neglected for far too long. The people of my riding contribute every day to Ontario’s social and economic prosperity. Our government is taking leadership to support the growing population here, but there is certainly more to be done, particularly on health care.

Throughout the pandemic, Brampton and the region of Peel’s health care were particularly hard hit with high case numbers of COVID-19.

As a part of our plan to stay open, Brampton needs to have a strong local health care network, but a strong health care system starts with a strong post-secondary education system.

Speaker, can the Minister of Colleges and Universities tell the House what our government is doing to support health-care-related post-secondary education in Brampton?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for Brampton North for that question.

Our government is getting it done for the people of Ontario by providing additional supports to health care post-secondary education.

After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement, this government is taking action to increase health human resources in Brampton. We understand that a growing population means a growing need for health care professionals.

Through our historic medical education expansion, we are delivering on the first new medical school not only in Brampton, but the first new medical school in the GTA in over 100 years. That’s right; the last medical school built in the GTA was the University of Toronto, in 1843. We are the government that is building the new Toronto Metropolitan University medical school in Brampton.

We are also creating the new University of Toronto Scarborough Academy of Medicine and Integrated Health in Scarborough, and expanding the Queen’s Lakeridge health campus.

Our government knows that training more doctors will ensure Ontarians can access the health care they need when they need it, wherever they may live.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Graham McGregor: Thank you to the minister for that answer and for her work on behalf of residents in my community, in Brampton North.

For far too long, the Liberals neglected health human resources here in Ontario. Our government needs to make it a priority. In order to stay open in Brampton and across the GTA, we need a strong, robust health care system across the province. That means we need a reliable source of health care workers with the necessary medical training in every part of Ontario, so that no matter where you live, you can get the health care services you need when you need them.

Speaker, will the minister please tell this House what she is doing to ensure all of Ontario can stay open by having high-quality health care post-secondary education across the province?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again for the question.

I am happy to say that our government has taken action on this issue. As the member mentioned, it is important to have high-quality training across Ontario. Not only are we increasing choices for students in the GTA to access post-secondary health education—but across Ontario as well.

Earlier this year, we established the Northern Ontario School of Medicine as the first stand-alone medical school in northern Ontario. This will give students the flexibility to study closer to home and serve remote and underserved communities across Ontario.

I also want to note that our government is adding 160 undergraduate seats and 295 postgraduate positions to six medical schools over the next five years. This is the largest expansion of undergraduate seats in over a decade.

We need to ensure that we have a high-quality and resilient health care system, and that starts with high-quality post-secondary education across the province. At colleges and universities, our government has created hundreds of new opportunities for students to join Ontario’s health care professions.

Special-needs children

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: My question is to the Premier.

Michelle and Tyler Sanders are wonderful parents to Everett, a six-year-old boy from my riding of St. Catharines. With disabilities such as quadriplegia, cerebral palsy and autism, Everett needs to be carried up to his bedroom every night for storytime and carried down again every morning to get ready for his busy day. To support Everett’s independence as he gets older, Michelle and Tyler are hoping to install a stairlift in their home. After spending months securing funding and looking into government programs, the family is still short, so they have resorted to setting up a GoFundMe page with a goal of $20,000.

Premier, why does the quality of life of special-needs children and Ontarians living with disabilities have to depend on how much their parents can afford, and rely on GoFundMe pages?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for that question.

This is an area that our government takes very seriously, and that’s the importance of early intervention supports for children with special needs and their families. That’s why we are investing an additional $240 million over four years to support children and youth with special needs so they can live happier and healthier lives. And we’ve increased funding for special services at home by $132 million over five years.

These investments do make a world of difference for children with special needs, and the funding will ensure that more children and families can have better access to the clinical assessment, the rehabilitation services and other critical early intervention services when they need them.

Speaker, we’re removing barriers. We’re supporting families and children who need it most with our children’s treatment centres. I will point out that the opposition voted against those supports over and over again.

Our government is supporting these children. We will continue to do this important work for the benefit of all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Again to the Premier: Committing to supporting children with disabilities has not been seen by Everett’s parents. Our community, far and wide, banded together to support the Sanders family—not this government. It’s the generosity of total strangers that will make this stairlift a reality for Everett, a six-year-old child.

Premier, Ontarians should not have to resort to GoFundMe pages for financial assistance with basic necessities.

Will you commit to ensuring that every family can get the devices that people living with disabilities need to live a safe and independent life?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Again, I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

We are indeed supporting children and their families, and those children with special needs are getting early intervention. We’re helping caregivers cope with their day-to-day challenges. And we’re coordinating services such that they can have easy access to those services, such as at CHEO in Ottawa, the 1Door4Care integrated treatment centre; in Chatham-Kent, the children’s treatment centre; in Whitby, the Abilities Centre—$4.5 million; in the north, the Health Sciences North children’s treatment centre in Sudbury.

Our government is ensuring that the investments are being made. These are investments never before made in the integration of these services, and, unfortunately, were voted against by the opposition. We will continue to do the important work to support these children and get them the services that they need.

Social assistance / Assistance sociale

Mr. Ted Hsu: My constituent Lori Bark is on ODSP. Her doctor doesn’t like it, but Lori works as much as she can, about half-time, to afford medication related to her cancer—cancer that forced her to stop working at her trade, which earned a comfortable middle-class wage. Now she works just to help to pay for the medicine to help manage the pain and nausea she lives with.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, extra money that Lori earns above $200 a month gets cut in half—a 50% tax called the clawback. Lori should not be paying the same marginal rate of income tax as the Premier of Ontario.

Would the Premier admit that decreasing the clawback is an easy way to immediately address affordability for many people on ODSP? Would the Premier please increase the threshold where the clawback kicks in and decrease the clawback tax rate for our neighbours on ODSP who can work?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thanks to the member opposite. I appreciate the concerns that he has in this area. That’s exactly why our government has made a historic investment in the ODSP program. This is the largest investment since the beginning of this program. It’s aligned with inflation, because we know how hard it is for people. When there are times of high inflation, we know the challenges associated with that.

We are also looking at other mechanisms to support people, whether it’s the discretionary benefits, the LIFT tax credit, the CARE tax credit, and the dental programs for low-income seniors.

We know this is an area that requires our attention, and that’s exactly why we’ve made the reforms that we have.

We know that the ODSP needs to be there when people need it.

Also, looking at how we get more people into the workforce—across Ontario, we see a shortage of workers. There are people who want to work, there are people who can work, and we’re working with the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development to try to make that happen—getting them the skills they need and into the workforce.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

M. Ted Hsu: Cette maigre augmentation de 5 % du taux du POSPH, environ 50 $, proposée par ce gouvernement, commence à peine à compenser l’inflation.

Speaker, try to live on $400 a month after rent, and then try to live on $450 a month after. It’s not much easier, I think you’ll find.

My constituent Lori Bark must continue to work as much as she is physically able to, which is half-time, at minimum wage. About $9,000 a year of what she earns is subject to the 50% clawback tax. As someone on ODSP, she can accept $10,000 a year in gifts, tax-free, for any purpose. Gifts: no tax. Hard work done while being sick with cancer: 50% tax.

Monsieur le Président, ça s’explique comment?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Again, I appreciate the concerns from the member opposite. That’s exactly why we’re creating programs across government to support people—those who cannot work and those who want to get into the workforce—to create the job training programs, the job readiness programs.

We’re also looking at the other ministries, other than the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development—the micro-credentials strategy, as well, through the ministry I just mentioned; improving the mental health and addictions situation for many people, through the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions; looking at the Roadmap to Wellness program, which is historic investments in mental health; and the Ontario Child Benefit, working with the Ministry of Education to understand how we improve child care.

All of these measures are ways to help people be able to be productive in the workforce and have the dignity and purpose that they so deserve, and to help those who could not work before to get the training they need, and to support those who can’t work. This is something that our government takes very seriously, and we’ll continue this important work.

Skilled trades

Mr. Anthony Leardi: In my riding of Essex, many constituents are having a tough time right now just making ends meet. They see job postings every day for meaningful and well-paying careers in the trades, especially in the automotive sector, but they don’t know where to start. Many of them ask if the government will help them upgrade their skills. They want to upgrade their skills so they can get good jobs—like electricians, pipefitters and welders.

Speaker, what is the Minister of Labour doing to help develop the next generation of auto workers right here in Ontario and in my riding of Essex?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to thank the member for this question and for coming to Queen’s Park and finally having a voice here on behalf of the people of Essex. You’re doing a great job.

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking bold and decisive action to prioritize the skilled trades and give people a hand up to better jobs and bigger paycheques.

Recently, Premier Ford, the MPP for Perth–Wellington and I announced $5 million for the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association to train 500 people to unlock the economic potential of Ontario’s automotive sector. Ontario’s auto workers are heroes, and it’s time they were recognized. With this investment, we are helping local manufacturers train the skilled workers they need to grow our economy, and we’re connecting job seekers with meaningful careers where they can proudly earn more for themselves and their families.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ll continue working for our workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: We know that every job that sits unfilled hurts Ontario’s economy. These are paycheques waiting to be collected. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs waiting to be filled in Ontario, but many of those jobs require special skills.

My question, again to the minister: What are we doing to close the gap in the labour shortage, and what is being done to give incentives for training and skills development in these critical sectors?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: In Ontario, there are nearly 100,000 people working in automotive manufacturing, and we need more of them. Working with the team at APMA, we’re giving workers the chance to start rewarding careers in machine operation, assembly, quality control and logistics. Training is tailored to the needs of each participant. When they graduate from the program, workers are prepared for lifelong careers, earning an average of more than $30 an hour, often with a defined pension and benefits.

These actions are one part of our ambitious plan to make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Long-term care

Ms. Lise Vaugeois: 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?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I guess this really highlights exactly what the NDP are. They want me to shut down hundreds of homes across the province of Ontario, putting hundreds of people who rely on those homes, who are making a life for themselves in a home—they want me to put them out on the street, because that is what the NDP is all about. They voted against the staffing increases of 27,000 additional health care workers. They voted against 58,000 new and upgraded beds across the province of Ontario.

I don’t care if it’s for-profit, private or municipal; as long as they are meeting the standards this government has set, then I don’t care who does the service.

They should join with us in celebrating the hard work of all of those people in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Start the clock.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lise Vaugeois: To the Premier: The standards are not being met.

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?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, when we came to office in 2018, we inherited a system that was broken. For many of those years, that party that this member now belongs to supported the Liberals, who made no investment.

This party over here, who now complains about it—as I said in one of my speeches, they like to tear things down after you’ve started to build them up. When we put more pay, more money in the pockets of our hard-working PSWs, they voted against it. When we added 27,000 additional health care workers, they voted against it. Four hours of care for each resident in long-term care—they voted against it.

I don’t care who provides the service, as long as it meets the standard that this government has put in place.

Obviously, the status quo in the province of Ontario isn’t going to work anymore, and that’s why we are making changes to make our hospitals better. We are making changes that have made long-term care better. Long-term care can be part of the solution. And that’s what upsets them.

Nurses

M me Lucille Collard: My question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the recent actions of this government clearly unveil their plan to privatize our health care system.

The Ontario nursing college has proposed much more effective reforms to address the shortage of nurses: temporarily register internationally trained nurses while they go through the process of full registration, to allow almost 6,000 international applicants currently living in Ontario to come and help, and cut red tape to allow Ontario’s 5,300 non-practising nurses to return to the workforce. Because the government has not pursued these common-sense reforms, hospitals across Ontario have had to temporarily close, including Hôpital Montfort in my riding of Ottawa–Vanier, which is essential to providing the Ottawa francophone community with services.

My question is, will the government commit to accepting the reforms proposed by the Ontario nursing college and make sure that francophone rights and needs are taken into consideration?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, through you, can I say thank you for finally joining the conversation?

Doris Grinspun said the “RNAO commends the government’s intention to accelerate the integration of” internationally educated nurses “as one of the urgent actions required to address the nursing crisis.” It is exactly why, over three weeks ago, I met with the College of Nurses. I said, “We must expedite. How can we help you, to make sure you expedite?”

If the member opposite would also assist with actually getting the federal government to the table and increasing the current transfer from 22% to 50%, I’d be happy to join those conversations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

M me Lucille Collard: Mr. Speaker, the importance of keeping Hôpital Montfort open cannot be understated. This is Ottawa’s only francophone hospital, and it was closed for a full 24 hours, meaning francophones in Ottawa were denied their constitutional right to receive essential, life-saving services in their language. This closure brought back painful memories of past Conservative attempts to close Montfort down for good.

Something has to be done about the staffing crisis that Montfort and other hospitals are facing.

Will the government at least commit to making sure health care workers’ wages keep up with inflation by repealing Bill 124?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: This government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, has made historic investments into health care, especially in health human resources.

Let’s compare the record of this government.

Since March 2020, we have hired over 10,900 new health care workers into Ontario. The previous government actually fired nurses—1,600 nurses across the province.

We put forward a plan in the fall economic statement—$342 million to support the upskilling of over 5,000 registered nurses, including 8,000 new personal support workers. The members opposite voted against that.

When we put forward a plan to streamline and increase the speed at which foreign-trained nurses and doctors could get into our health care workforce, the members opposite opposed that.

When we have put forward plans to build new hospitals in cities like Windsor—including Ottawa, as well, one of the largest health care investments in that city—the members opposite have voted against that.

We will continue to ensure that we make these historic investments to our—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

Mental health services

Ms. Natalie Pierre: As we transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts warn of another on the horizon, one that will see increased public need for mental health and addictions services, known as the “echo pandemic.” I worry that our system is less prepared due to inaction by the previous Liberal government.

In 2010, the Liberals oversaw the release of a report by an all-party Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Of the 23 recommendations made, virtually none were adopted by their government.

The NDP has voted against every initiative we put forth to better fund mental health services.

Will the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions tell this House what our government is doing to prepare for the increase of demand for mental health and addictions services?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member from Burlington for that very important question, as it gives me an opportunity to speak a little bit about the many significant investments that we’ve made to improve the access to and quality of mental health services in Ontario.

In February, I was proud to unveil the Addictions Recovery Fund, a three-year, $90-million investment in addictions treatment services and bed-based care across the province of Ontario. These funds are specifically targeted to help individuals with the highest needs. More than half of these beds were provided in the north, in rural areas and Indigenous communities. Overall, these funds will provide 400 new treatment beds, helping to stabilize and care for up to 7,000 individuals in the province. Dozens of communities are going to benefit from an influx of beds, from Windsor to Davenport, Algoma–Manitoulin, Thunder Bay and Sioux Lookout.

As the first Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in the province of Ontario, I am proud of our government and the work we’re doing to help the people.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: No one can deny the value of bed-based programs and one-on-one counselling for those who need it most, but we must address the gaps in care left by previous governments.

Remote communities don’t always have large psychiatric hospitals and well-established non-profits to go to. People without easy access to Internet can’t rely on virtual care supports. Our northern, rural and Indigenous neighbours’ standard of care should not be determined by where they live.

What is the minister doing to provide care for every Ontarian, at all levels of need, no matter where they live?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you again for that question.

The Addictions Recovery Fund supports innovative, new means to deliver proactive and reactive care where it’s most needed. It’s going to create new mobile mental health clinics, lowering barriers of access for patients in remote areas, building upon a successful pilot program led by our partners at Canadian Addictions and Mental Health.

It’s going to open three new mobile crisis response teams to assist police with those suffering from mental health crises and guide them toward more appropriate kinds of care; eight new youth wellness hubs offering primary care services, mental health supports, social services navigation and in-community treatment referrals for those aged 12 to 25; and culturally centred care will be made available for Indigenous Ontarians as well, with an investment of $7 million toward that.

I want to conclude by thanking the mental health care workers in the province of Ontario for the incredible work that they’ve done and continue to do to keep the province healthy, because without—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

Workplace safety

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

The level of violence in our health care system is through the roof. It is a huge contributor to health care workers walking away from their job. One in two health care workers faces violence or harassment at work. Two thirds of nurses facing violence at work are thinking of quitting their job.

What is the government doing to make sure nurses are free from violence and harassment at work?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to begin by thanking all of those health care workers who are working every single day to serve our families and serve our communities right across the province.

The law in Ontario is crystal clear: Racism, violence and harassment in the workplace are illegal.

We’re continuing to work for all workers in this province. That’s why we hired more than 100 new health and safety inspectors to bring that total to the highest number in Ontario history.

Since the start of the pandemic, we’ve done more than 100,000 workplace investigations and inspections, including thousands and thousands in health care facilities across the province.

If any worker is afraid for his or her safety in a workplace, please call the Ministry of Labour at 877-202-0008, and we’ll investigate.

M me France Gélinas: Yesterday, I introduced a bill speaking out about workplace violence and harassment. The bill would protect nurses, health care workers and other workers from an employer’s reprisal if they speak out about violence and harassment in their workplace. It would require hospitals and long-term-care homes to publicly report on workplace violence and harassment on a monthly basis.

Is the government ready to start protecting health care workers and support the solutions presented in my bill?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: We have zero tolerance of any form of harassment, racism or violence in the workplace. The law in Ontario is crystal clear.

Furthermore, apart from hiring more than 100 new health and safety inspectors and doing more than 1