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

April 26, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Apr-26 vol. A (PDF)

L071A - Wed 26 Apr 2023 / Mer 26 avr 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 April 2023 Mercredi 26 avril 2023

Orders of the Day

Your Health Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 concernant votre santé

Members’ Statements

Yom Ha’atzmaut

Replacement workers

Women as Career Coaches event

Ontario Place

Khalsa Aid

Community support services

Services pour l’autisme

Doctor shortage

Sandra Clancy

Association of Chinese Canadian Entrepreneurs awards

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

First Nations consultation

Public transit

First Nations consultation

Automotive industry

Infrastructure renewal

Indigenous economic development

Hospital services

Government’s record

School safety

Hospital services

Northern health services

Animal protection

Homelessness

Agri-food industry

Member’s birthday

Flag-raising ceremony

Petitions

Land use planning

Taxation

Public transit

School boards

Education funding

Taxation

Soins de santé

Police services

Visitors

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur le renforcement de la sécurité et la modernisation de la justice

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Your Health Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 concernant votre santé

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend and enact various Acts with respect to the health system / Projet de loi 60, Loi visant à modifier et à édicter diverses lois en ce qui concerne le système de santé.

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

M me France Gélinas: I must say that I stand in front of you, Speaker, with very mixed emotions this morning. Part of me is really angry that this bill is going through. Part of me is really anxious; I have anxiety about this bill going through.

You see, Speaker, Bill 60 is laser-focused, very powerful, and it serves one purpose. The purpose is to bring in investor-owned corporations to provide what forever has been provided by our not-for-profit hospitals. Why am I so anxious and angry about this? Because we are being witness, all 124 of us, to the destruction of medicare, a program that defines us as Canadians, as Ontarians, where we know that the care we need will be based on our needs, not on our ability to pay. Once Bill 60 becomes reality in Ontario, all of this will change, Speaker, and it will change for the worse.

You see, health care is a relationship that happens between somebody who needs care and the health care providers who provide that care. There is a very strong trust relationship that needs to take place between those two human beings in order for quality care to take place. Often, your health care providers—your nurses, your physician, your physiotherapist—will ask you to do things that you don’t really want to do, will ask you to do things that could be painful in the short term but are aimed at improving your health in the long term. All of this can take place because there’s trust.

This trust relationship will change forever once there is a for-profit motive in there. You see, Speaker, what we have right now in Ontario are publicly owned facilities. If you think of a community health centre or a public health unit, those are publicly owned facilities. They provide care; they are not-for-profit.

We have privately owned, not-for-profit facilities. Most hospitals in Ontario are set out under this model.

Then, a lot of people know the physician-owned small business. Most physicians are a small business. They provide care, but because you have this caring relationship between the owner of the small business—the physician—and its patients, the system works.

What we don’t have very much of at all in Ontario, but what Bill 60 will bring us, is what we call investor-owned corporations. So, a corporation will invest to build a surgical suite. Those are not cheap, Speaker. We are talking investing millions of dollars to build a surgical suite so that hip and knee surgeries can take place in that surgical suite. The only reason those investors are investing those millions of dollars in surgical suites is not because they want your knee pain to go away; it’s because they want to make money. And this changes everything.

We are all human beings. When you will be asked to do something by an investor-owned corporation that owns the surgical suite, you will start to double-guess yourself: “Are they asking me to do this because they’ll make more money? Or are they asking me to do this because it’s good for me?” And the minute this doubt comes into our minds—because we are all human beings, when we don’t know, we always imagine the worst; this is the way human beings think—then the opportunity to have top-quality care goes out the window, not to mention everything else that could go wrong.

So, am I against community-based surgical suites? Absolutely not. I mean, look at what Sunnybrook has done. They have built in the community an OR suite that provides hip and knee surgeries. They are able to do those surgeries 30% faster and 40% cheaper than in their hospital. They provide outpatient care, that is, you come in in the morning, you have your surgery, you go out at night—no need for a hospital admission. They do the same type of surgery in the hospitals. It’s more expensive and a little bit more timely, but I’ll come back to that.

The difference here is that it is owned by a not-for-profit hospital. It is staffed by physicians who work not only in the community-based surgical suite; they also work in the hospital. Because sometimes, although you will try to select, and there are selection criteria that we use—most hospitals use a set of four. They are new criteria. You can divide them in nine, but I won’t go into the details. You select patients who you think are able to have the surgery done in the morning or afternoon and go home at night.

But for anybody who has worked in health care, there’s the theory and then there’s the practice. Somebody who you thought would do really, really good suddenly codes on the OR table and needs to be admitted into the hospital.

At Sunnybrook, there’s no issue. The surgeon who was there when things went wrong will follow you back into the hospital. You will be transferred to the hospital, admitted and looked after. Everything goes smoothly.

The people who work in the community-based surgical suites run by the hospital are the same OR nurses and technicians who work in the hospital also. They see not only the cases that are deemed lower-risk that can be done on an outpatient basis; they also work in the hospital and see people with complex, multiple co-morbidity factors who still need the surgery but it becomes a whole lot more complicated because of their health status.

Not all of us have the same health status. Many people have multiple chronic diseases that make it harder to provide what would be qualified as a simple surgery. It’s not that simple, depending on who you’re providing that to.

This model I fully support. You can look at what London has done. My colleague right here could tell you a whole lot more about it, being from London himself. London bought a building across the street from the hospital, set it up as a community-based outpatient surgical centre and operates it pretty much the same way. They operate it where if it’s somebody that they feel can have their surgery and be discharged the same day, they will be cared for in the outpatient surgical suite that it owns. But again, it is owned by a not-for-profit hospital.

It is staffed by people who handle both: the people who are healthy enough to be seen and discharged the same day as well as the people with the multiple co-morbidities, who need to be seen in the hospital.

If something goes wrong—we always hope it doesn’t; I don’t wish harm upon anybody, but it happens—the continuity of care is there. The same surgeon who looked after you when things went wrong will continue to look after you to make sure that you get back to health and back to the outcomes that were expected out of that surgery—same thing with the rest of the surgical team that provided you with that care. That makes a whole lot of difference.

You all know that many hospitals right now have hundreds of vacancies on their websites. Go on the Ottawa Hospital: The last thing I counted was over 575 vacancies. Go on any hospital in Toronto, London, Sudbury—it doesn’t matter where you go, there are multiple vacancies.

When you have those investor-owned corporations investing millions of dollars to build those surgical suites because they want to make money, then there’s a good chance that they will take even more of those exhausted, overworked, overstressed hospital workers and bring them into those investor-owned surgical suites.

Why, Speaker? Well when you work in a hospital, a hospital runs 24/7. They run on evening shifts and on night shifts. They run on the weekends. They run on the statutory holidays. It doesn’t matter that it is Christmas and it’s your son’s—none of that matters. You work in a hospital, you will be scheduled and you will have to work shift work: weekends, night shifts, statutory holidays.

You go work in an investor-owned surgical suite that exists to make money, you don’t have to provide care 24/7. You will get a Monday-to-Friday job, 9 to 5.

Think about it, Speaker. You have a choice to work in a hospital, where the cases are more complex, require a whole lot more thinking and care, and things don’t always go well. You have to work day shifts, afternoon shifts, night shifts. You have to work Saturday, Sunday, statutory holidays. Or you can work Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, looking after the healthy and the wealthy in an investor-owned corporate surgical suite.

We’re all human beings. People like to be home with their kids at night. People like to have the weekends off to enjoy their lives and their friends. People like to be home on Christmas morning or Eid or whatever other holidays that you celebrate with your families and friends. It is a whole lot more difficult to do this when you work in a hospital than when you work in an investor-owned corporation whose sole, number one priority is to make money.

This is what is about to change in Ontario. Ontario has over 700 independent health facilities. That’s how we call them right now; they’ll be changing the name apparently. Most of the independent health facilities that we have are X-ray—quite a few sleep labs. You will remember the audit that the Auditor General has done that showed that the sleep labs in our hospitals work pretty good. You have sleep apnea or something, you will be tested in the sleep lab in the hospital and be treated.

But the ones that are owned and run in the community, the ones that are privately owned—the Auditor General showed us that a physician who owned a sleep lab referred every single one of his patients to the sleep lab and most of them twice. There were no valid medical reasons for every single patient of a physician to be sent to a sleep lab, except that he owned it and makes more money when there are more patients coming through. I could go on about the oversight of the private clinics, and I will in a few minutes, but it’s pretty weak, Speaker.

We already know that in the 700 or so independent health facilities that exist in Ontario, the great majority, 98% of them, are for-profit, that whenever there is an opportunity to make more money, they take it.

When we look at who is waiting to build those surgical suites, I could name a few. Clearpoint Health Network certainly cannot wait for Bill 60 to pass. They already have spotted out a few places in Toronto where they want to set up those for-profit surgical suites, because they know that they will make money.

But I want you to look at some of the side-effects of this. The first one is the draining of staff away from our not-for-profit hospitals who look after everyone, no matter your complexity, no matter how many co-morbidities you have. Some of those staff will go to the for-profit surgical suites.

I’ve already said why: We are human beings. They’re offering you a Monday-to-Friday, 9-to-5 job, probably will pay more, and you don’t have to do night shifts anymore. You don’t have to look after the complex cases anymore. It’s a money-making proposition that very many people will be interested in.

You have to look at what that will mean. Does that mean that the 575 vacancies in the Ottawa Hospital will stay there or grow? Does that mean that the vacancies in London Health Sciences or UHN—University Health Network—or Health Sciences North, or in Sault Ste. Marie, will grow bigger?

Many of those specialists—the anaesthetists, the orthopaedic surgeons etc.—who will be needed to do those surgeries right now volunteer to do locums in northern Ontario. That is, all hip and knee surgeries are based on a quota. It’s called paid-per-procedure—whatever; it doesn’t matter—every hospital gets allocated a certain number of hips and knees. So the surgeons divide them amongst themselves—I’ll make this up: “You are given 230 hip and knee surgeries for the year.” Once the 230 surgeries are done, there is no more money to do hip and knee surgeries. You’re done.

Many of those surgeons then volunteer to come to northern Ontario. They do what we call locum. I can tell you right now that in Sault Ste. Marie, the Sault Area Hospital has lost their anaesthetist, the locum that used to come up. Why? Because they are working with some companies down south who are getting ready to set up those for-profit surgical suites.

Once the private surgical suites are there and the government is giving them plenty of cases to keep them busy, then the surgeons, the anaesthetists who used to come to northern Ontario to do locum, because their share had been used, won’t be coming to northern Ontario. Every single hospital in northern Ontario works really hard—time, effort and energy—to recruit and retain health specialists to staff our hospitals. All of this will become really hard, Speaker.

All of this will become harder, because once they have used their—I made up the 230; some of them have 500, some of them have 100; it all varies—paper procedure number of cases in their hospital, they don’t need to come to northern Ontario anymore. They can just go to the investor-owned corporations that operate the surgical suites and they can do all of the surgeries that they want because the government is very generous.

We have seen what has just happened with cataract surgeries, where the three for-profit corporations were given thousands more payments for cataract surgery. But I can tell you that in Sudbury the hospital does very few cataract surgeries in March because the payments go from April 1 to March 31. They don’t follow January 1. They go April 1 to March 31. So once the money is gone, then nothing happens until April 1, till the money starts to flow again. But not for the for-profit.

They were given thousands of cataract surgery money to do the exact same thing that could have been done in our hospital, but that money was not available to our hospital. It was only available to the for-profit corporations.

Those are decisions that this government is making because they are laser-focused on bringing forward private investor-owned corporations to Ontario. Don’t get me wrong, there are many, many wealthy corporations that just can’t wait, but I’m trying to explain to all of us the impact it will have.

We have First Nations people from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and all through Treaty 7 that are at Queen’s Park right now. Bringing health care services to fly-in, remote First Nations is not easy. Recruitment of staff is something that is really, really demanding, difficult but important.

We are just making that job 10 times more difficult than it was before, because the pool of locums—that is the term that we use for people who work in Ontario, usually in southern Ontario, and come to northern Ontario. They will come for a week at a time or two weeks at a time. Some nurses come for months at a time. They come and work in northern Ontario and then they go back to their day job in southern Ontario.

We call those locums. They are paid to do locum services. But once the demand comes from the investor-owned corporations for those same people with the same skills to stay down south, then we know that there will be an impact on all of the good people who have flown in from Treaty 7 right now who are at Queen’s Park and who want equity of access to health care services.

Will we be doing double lung transplants at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug? No. But do they deserve to have access to primary care? Do they deserve to have equitable access to our health care system? Yes, absolutely. But none of that is possible if there are no health care workers, if there are no physicians, if there are no nurses, if there are no physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, audiologists. The list goes on. This worries me.

Then, we have to talk about—I’ll stick with my example: The Ministry of Health allocated 150,000 cataract surgeries to the for-profit cataract provider. They are paying them $605 per surgery. I’m strong in math; that’s a $90-million industry just for cataract surgery that has been done. You can all see that if the government just created a $90-million industry just for the cataract surgeries that they have recently allocated to the for-profit, it could motivate people to go into this industry. Speaker, $90 million is a fair chunk of change, if you ask me—a whole lot of money that the government is willing to spend.

The government doesn’t spend that amount of money when the cataract surgery is done in a hospital. A hospital that wants to build a surgical suite will have to raise money, so they will have to collect donations from a ton of people. The good people of Ontario have always supported our hospitals, so they were able to put in place infrastructure to do cataract surgery or hip and knee surgery or buy a new MRI. In my community, a PET scanner took a very long time to raise the money. Thank you so much to Sam Brumo’s family for leading that money-raising adventure, I will call it. It was tough.

But the for-profits don’t have to do any of that. The for-profits get paid by the government what is called a fee for using their infrastructure. The hospital doesn’t get that. The hospital has to fundraise. The hospital has to find donations. But if you are a for-profit, you get paid. You get reimbursed for the infrastructure that we are using.

You see the difference, Speaker? The hospital has to fundraise to purchase a new MRI. The for-profit puts the money upfront, and then the government pays them back a facility fee every single time somebody uses that infrastructure. That infrastructure will be paid for by taxpayers many times over, because this is where a lot of their profit will come from. But a hospital doesn’t have access to any of this. A hospital—a not-for-profit hospital—has to fundraise to do the same thing.

The same goes on for any other surgery. A hip surgery costs, in general in Ontario, $12,223. Try to find a corporate, investor-owned corporation that will do a hip surgery for $12,000. It is impossible. You are looking at double that; $25,000 at the minimum. Why, Speaker? Why is it that we don’t give our hospitals the money they need to do more hips and knees?

I can tell you that at Health Sciences North, the hospital in Sudbury, the hospital built 17 brand new ORs when the new tower was built, but it’s only funded for 14 of them. So you have state-of-the-art technology sitting there that has never opened, never been used. Do we need the for-profit corporations to build more infrastructure, to build more surgical suites? Absolutely not. We have them sitting empty in every single one of our hospitals. Every hospital that provides surgery in Ontario has downtime.

The Auditor General went through and did her analysis and showed that the vast majority of them do surgeries from 7 until 4. They don’t do surgeries at night. There are days that they don’t do surgeries at all. There are weekends where they don’t do surgeries at all; that it sits empty. Why? Because they don’t have the money. Remember, paid per procedure. Once the number of procedures that the government has paid for ends, it ends. Yet the for-profits got more. Why weren’t those surgeries sent?

I would say, within the health care sector, everybody agrees that if you—you as in the government—were to pay to keep existing OR infrastructure that we already own, that we’ve already paid for, that are in our hospitals, operating an average of two hours more a day, the wait-lists would go away. Let that sink in. We have 200,000 people right now in Ontario waiting for surgery. They’re waiting in pain; sometimes they’re waiting a really long time to get the surgeries they need. If the government were to fund the existing infrastructure to stay open two hours a day more, we would get rid of the wait times.

Do we really need those investor-owned corporations? The answer is clear: We do not. We have the infrastructure that is needed to provide the surgical, the diagnostic imaging that needs to happen. What we haven’t got is a government willing to fund the not-for-profit hospitals. The number of companies lining up to make a profit is kind of sickening. But that’s not all. They’re not only there to make money. Not only do they make money on the infrastructure fees that they’re allowed to charge, that hospitals are not allowed to charge, but most of them make money because there’s a greater risk to patient safety.

Why? Because they will hire people—first of all, a lower number of staff to do the same procedures than what you would see in a hospital, and second, the qualifications of those staff won’t be the same.

First, they only take the healthy and the wealthy. If you have diabetes, if you have a heart condition, or God forbid, you have a mental health or an addiction problem? Forget it. The investor-owned surgical suites, those corporations don’t want to have anything to do with you because you may actually require care: “Go to the hospital; they will look after you.” They want the healthy and the wealthy.

If you are fortunate enough to have passed the bar of being healthy and wealthy enough to go in the for-profits, the risks are real. The risk to patient safety is real; it has been well documented. We can look—not only the risk of harm—that is, the surgery does not turn out—but the risk of death is also very real. Why? Because the number of staff and the people who are there do not have the skills.

This brings me to

schedule 2 of the bill, which will allow physicians and nurses who are not members of the college of nurses and who are not members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to call themselves physicians or call themselves nurses. Right now in Ontario, if somebody calls themself a nurse, you know for a fact that she is registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario. She has the training, the skills and the ongoing ability to be able to provide nursing care. But with

schedule 2, Ontario will allow people who are not registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario—who have not been checked for the education they received, the training they know or the skills they know—to call themselves nurses. I will go out on a limb but I feel pretty secure that not too many hospitals will hire those, but the investor-owned corporations, who run those surgical suites, will be more than happy to hire them. Why? Because they will pay them less. Why? Because they will make more money off the back of paying their employees less. This is part of how they make money.

But how they make most of their money is by upselling, that is, to offer people a service that is “not covered by OHIP.” I put it in quotes because there is sometimes a very, very narrow definition as to what is covered by OHIP and what is not.

Again, remember, Speaker, I opened up talking about trust. In order for you to receive quality care, you need to have trust in the providers in front of you. When the provider in front of you, who is about to put a laser to your eye, tells you that he prefers to use this lens and this lens is not covered by OHIP, and this lens costs sometimes $500, sometimes $1,200, sometimes $2,000, who are you to argue? He prefers to use that lens. He’s about to put a laser to my eye. Do I really want to argue and say, “I would prefer you use the one that’s covered by OHIP”? Who the hell would have a conversation like that?

It does not happen. The power imbalance between the health professional, who knows what they are doing, and the patient who needs care makes that kind of conversation absolutely impossible. But it happens; it happens every day.

I am sure all of us have had conversations with some of our constituents who come to see us with bills and say, “You know, it cost me $2,500 to have my cataract surgery. I don’t really have the money to pay for that $2,500, but there must be a government program to help with this. It’s a surgery. Surgeries are covered in Ontario.” Then you have to explain to them that, no, they don’t.

In my neck of the woods, cataract surgery can be done in a hospital or in the ophthalmologist’s private clinic. The wait-list at the hospital is very long. Remember, those 1,500 cataract procedures that went to the for-profit company? None of them came up north. None of them came to Health Sciences North, so the number of cataract surgeries is very limited. There’s a long wait-list. But you can go to the ophthalmologist and have the same surgery done, except that in his office, he only does certain procedures that are not covered by OHIP. So now you have a choice.

You can be given a fixed date to have your cataract surgery done. You will have to pay for a lens that is not covered by OHIP, for a measurement that is not covered by OHIP, but you’ll get it done within a couple of weeks. Or you can be put on the hospital wait-list, where you have a good chance of having your surgical date bumped down the road and not knowing when it will happen for months and months.

I live in northern Ontario. There is no public transit where I live. You need to have a driver’s licence and you need to drive, or you need to have somebody to drive you.

So you have an opportunity to keep your driver’s licence and have the surgery done on a fixed time frame if you buy a service that is not covered by OHIP. Or you can lose your driver’s licence because your vision has deteriorated and have a date in the future at a hospital to have a surgery covered by OHIP, and we don’t really know when that surgery is going to take place. What do you figure people will do?

I had a lady who shared this exact story that I just told you. Here is where it gets interesting: “If I had it performed in the office, I would be scheduled for a committed date and time frame. My other option was in the hospital, but I had to be aware that my appointment could be rescheduled due to hospital surgical rooms becoming unavailable. As we would be travelling, we would have no idea of rescheduling until we travelled the three hours”—because in northern Ontario the distances are long—“plus the cost of a stay overnight, unable to cancel our room because it is no longer needed.

Having to take time off work was also a factor in considering. We were offered ... lenses at an increased price of $2,300 per eye, a firm date and a set operation time versus a soft hospital date and a government-supplied lens that had to be replaced within a shorter period of time. Any time you have a surgery that is a risk to failure, so everything had to be factored in.”

Then she went on to share with me the choices that she had to make regarding the lens that she wanted, and one part that was interesting was the method of payments. She could pay with cash, debit, bank draft, Visa or Mastercard. If she chose to pay with the first three methods—cash, debit or bank draft—it was free, but if she used her Visa or Mastercard, because she didn’t happen to have $2,300 hanging around, then she was charged an extra $25 for using a credit card.

All of this is happening right here, right now in Ontario, and all of this is about to increase exponentially.

I wanted to share some of those examples regarding cataract surgery because this is where most of the private surgical suites exist right now, but under Bill 60, expect many, many more. Those are not going to be available for people in northern and rural Ontario. Those are going to be in big centres where there is a lot of money to be made.

I want to share the story of a woman in Ottawa diagnosed with breast cancer and needing to have surgery done. She went to the Ottawa Hospital and was told of the long, long wait-list to have cancer surgery done. The Ottawa Hospital does not meet the deadline set for quality care—it only meets the deadline set for quality care in 13% of the cases, and 87% of these women do not get their breast cancer surgery done in a time that is safe for them to do so. So she decided to have the same procedure done at a private clinic, paying $50,000 to have that done.

But you see, Speaker, there were other hospitals within Ottawa, within the same radius of driving from Ottawa to Montreal, where she had the surgery done, or driving from Ottawa to Kingston or to other hospitals, that had much shorter wait-lists, well within the recommended guidelines, that would have been completely free. But she didn’t know about that. She did not know about that because Ontario does not have a common wait-time strategy.

We do measure. We know the wait times for each and every one of the surgeons, for each and every one of the surgeries. It is being measured, but it is not being shared. So her family physician—he or she, I have no idea—did what he or she does: He referred her to an oncologist who he knew was a good surgical oncologist to follow her for her breast cancer, not knowing that this oncologist’s wait time is way beyond what is recommended and not knowing that at another hospital, there was another surgical oncologist who could have done the same procedures, paid for by OHIP, in an acceptable amount of time.

There are still women in Ottawa right now who have seen the long wait-lists, who have seen that if you go to the Montreal investor-owned clinic, you can have the procedures done in the right amount of time. I don’t blame them. You are faced with a cancer diagnosis. You are told that you need to have the surgery done. You are told that, to maximize your health and life, you need to have it done within a certain amount of time, but that the surgeon that you’ve been referred to has no hope of seeing you, so they look elsewhere.

Why is it that Ontario has not put a centralized wait time so everybody can go online and see this? British Columbia did it. Other provinces have done it. We have the information. We don’t make that information available or accessible. Why not? Why not? These women in Ottawa who are being diagnosed with sometimes stage 3 or stage 4 breast cancer, who need surgery in a very short period of time, would like to know that there is another surgeon who provides this service not far from where they live.

In British Columbia, the statistics are clear: Of all of the surgeries—because they have them all public; you can go on their website right now and see how long you would wait for this surgeon or that surgeon, for the same surgery—50% of the people selected surgeons that they knew and that they liked, 23% of the people selected the first available surgeon, and the rest of them selected the surgeon that was closest to their home. There’s nothing wrong with that. It certainly did not hurt the health care system in any way, shape or form, but it sure helped redistribute the workload among specialists who could provide that surgery.

I can tell the women in Ottawa that there are hospitals and there are surgeons that have way shorter wait-lists. Unfortunately, the government of Ontario won’t make that information available to you, but we should. Right now you will have to pick up the phone and wait on the line—because doctors’ offices always take a long time to pick up—to ask every single surgeon who is qualified to do that surgery how long their wait-list is. Really, Speaker? This is 2023?

We would rather have a woman worried about her life paying $50,000 for a private surgery than make that information that we already collect available to her? What kind of government does that? Who does that? This is part of the anger and anxiety that I talked about when I started my speech. I don’t understand the decisions that are made.

A single wait-list would go a long way. In British Columbia, you click on the surgery you need, you say the geographical area you’re interested in, and you see how long it is. I can just about guarantee you that this woman in Ottawa, had she had this information available to her—she didn’t choose to go to Montreal because she wanted to support the private, for-profit corporations there; she went to Montreal because she wanted care in a timely basis. Care in a timely basis was available to her in Ontario, but she had no way to access that information. All of this could change.

I see that I only have 14 minutes left.

You can see that this bill is really focused. It really targets one thing: make it easier for investor-owned corporations to make money off the backs of sick people.

When Bill 60 came to committee, we had many, many people who wanted to present. The opportunity to present was quite limited, but some people managed to come and talk to us. Many more sent us comments in writing. They all wanted change, from the Ontario Health Coalition, who made very good comments that they wanted that gone, to Dr. Agarwal—I hope I pronounced his name properly—who made it clear that if we’re going to go down this path, it has to be physician-owned, because a physician is bound by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which will look at what the physicians are doing to make sure that they always put the good of their patients at the forefront.

We had the Health Profession Regulators of Ontario who came to us. The Health Profession Regulators of Ontario are 27 colleges for health professionals existing in Ontario. Everybody who wants to practise in Ontario has to belong to a college. This has been there for one reason. Every college, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Nurses, the College of Physiotherapists—they exist for one reason: It’s to protect the public.

The Health Profession Regulators of Ontario, which represents all 27 colleges, came to do a deputation and made it clear that they don’t agree with

schedule 2, where people who are not registered with their college would be allowed to work in Ontario. They said if we’re going to allow a nurse from Alberta or British Columbia to come and work in Ontario, give them a time frame where they have to register with the college in Ontario so that the college in Ontario can check that they are in good standing. They came and they gave us how long it takes for a nurse, a dental surgeon, a pharmacist, a massage therapist—they went through the whole line. The longest it takes if you come to Ontario—we’ll say you’re a physician.

You’re a physician or a nurse in British Columbia or Alberta. You want to come and work in Ontario. If you give the college in Ontario the permission to connect with the college in the province where you are registered now, the longest it would take them is less than two weeks to do. Where it takes longer is when the person does not grant the permission to connect with the college where they are registered now.

The Health Profession Regulators of Ontario made it really clear that they are worried that the people who do not give the college in Ontario the right to connect with the college in the province where they are working right now—it’s because they’re in trouble with their college. They have done something that is being investigated by the college. They’re in trouble. They are at risk of losing their licence in their province of origin, and they are coming to Ontario because in Ontario you won’t have to be a member of the college of physicians, surgeons, nurses, physiotherapists—you name it.

You will be allowed to call yourself a physician, to call yourself a nurse and not be a member of the college.

They are really worried. I tried—our entire team tried—really hard to make amendments to that part of the bill. First, I put in, “Let’s give them four weeks.” Then I put in another amendment: “Let’s give them two months.” Then another amendment: “Let’s give them three months to register.” The government voted all of that down. So right now, we have no deadline for those nurses, physicians, physios, OTs, speech pathologists—you name it—who come from other provinces to work in Ontario before they need to join the college. You will remember, the health colleges exist for one reason: to protect the public. And they do a good job of it. They are worried, and so am I.

Many others came to present. Kevin Smith, the president and chief executive officer of University Health Network, came and talked to us. The Ontario Nurses’ Association came and talked to us. The Ontario Association of Clinic Endoscopists came and talked to us—many more; the Toronto Centre for Medical Imaging.

Kevin Smith is the president of the University Health Network, a not-for-profit hospital. I can tell you that anybody from hospitals who came to talk to us all said the same thing: There has to be a strong link between the community outpatient surgery that everybody supports and the local hospital, because we all know that some patients will need care. Not every surgery goes according to plan. Some of them will need to be admitted into a hospital. You have to make sure that it is a surgeon who has working privileges in a hospital. Otherwise, who will admit that patient?

You will send him in the middle of a surgery through EMS into the waiting room of an emergency room? This is a recipe for disaster. It’s a nightmare.

The physicians who will work in community clinics need to have privileges in a hospital. Hospital CEO after hospital CEO came and told us that, how important it is. They talked about the model that already exists, the model that they would love to have if only the money was available for an amount of time that makes it feasible. To be told in January that you could open up a surgical centre and the money will run out on March 31 is not a recipe for success. We don’t put those tight deadlines on the for-profit health care providers, but we put them on our hospitals. This is the narrative of this government, who wants investor-owned corporations to own hospital suites, to own surgical suites.

The list went on. We had the Toronto Centre for Medical Imaging that came. Not only will we have investor-owned corporations to do surgeries, they will also do medical imaging. The same thing is there: They need to be connected to our hospitals. You don’t go have an MRI done or a CAT scan or a PET scan done because all is well. Your physician sends you for diagnostic imaging because something is not right with you and follow-up will need to be there, and they need to be connected.

The NDP put forward 74 recommendations. Those 74 recommendations were all based on a body of evidence that was either presented to us or that was submitted to us—as in, all of us, because through Bill 60, we all got a chance to see them. All 74 of those recommendations were voted down, but I thought that I would share some of them with you.

From the Indigenous Primary Health Care Council that came to see us, they talked very clearly about how the danger of the poor access to care for Indigenous people right here, right now in Ontario is going to get worse once those investor-owned private clinics are up and running. They know full well that none of them are going to set up shop in a remote First Nation. Their access to care will diminish.

The definition of what they call an integrated community health service, which is a private, for-profit, investor-owned surgical suite—well, I can tell you that the Association of Family Health Teams, the association of family physicians, the Alliance for Healthier Communities, the Indigenous Primary Health Care Council, the Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic Association and a long list of other ones asked that they be not-for-profit and that they be linked to an existing not-for-profit hospital.

The Canadian Doctors for Medicare; the Canadian Federation of University Women of Ontario; the OMA, the Ontario Medical Association, all talked about the importance of having physician-owned—if you’re going to go down the private, don’t let the investor-owned corporations own those facilities, because we all know—the body of evidence from across the world is very clear—there will be extra fees, which means barriers to care for a lot of people. There will be more mortality and poor care, and there will be more people waiting in our not-for-profit system because of it.

The system will be licensed through a person within the ministry, so if there is a request or proposal, the association of family physicians, the Alliance for Healthier Communities, the Indigenous Primary Health Care Council, the Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic Association all want to have quality advisers. If we are going to have community-based surgical suites, you need to develop a program to make sure that there’s accountability for the quality of the care that is provided.

I see that I’ve run out of time.

I want each and every one of you to realize that medicare is a program that you, your family, your neighbours, your friends have counted on for—most of us, for our entire lives. It was brought forward in the early 1960s. Medicare guarantees that the care you receive is based on needs, not on ability to pay. Bill 60 will change all of this for the worse, and forever. Once investor-owned corporations start to do outpatient surgeries, we will never be able to go back. They will charge extra fees. They all do. There are a ton of loopholes that allow them to do this. These extra fees will mean that some people will decide not to have their surgery because they can’t afford the extra fees.

Those clinics will mean that a lot of health care professionals who will be working there won’t be working in our hospitals. The crisis we have at Sault Area Hospital right now, who cannot have an anaesthetist, you will see it throughout. Sault Ste. Marie is not the only one; Manitoulin Health Centre has the same, every hospital in the north. All of those recruitment issues in northern and rural Ontario will get worse. The wait time for each and every one of us who needs care based on needs, not on ability to pay, will get worse.

Vote down Bill 60. You have an opportunity to save medicare. Don’t let it go by.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you to the member from Nickel Belt for her presentation. However, through Bill 60, the integrated community health services centres will now be connected with local hospitals and Ontario Health. They will also have to post any uninsured charges both online and in person. Contrary to what the member from Nickel Belt was saying, if there were any extra charges, they would be posted and mentioned in person. This being the case, patients cannot be denied access to treatment if they don’t purchase uninsured services.

My question is to the member. We’ve heard from Ontarians. They want care closer to home. They want a better quality of life. I have to ask the member, will you support expanding access to care closer to home?

M me France Gélinas: We already have. I have the Kensington Eye Institute not-for-profit. I have Dr. Sorgini. They already post their charges, and the charges vary quite a bit from one to the next. What costs $200 at Kensington costs $250 with Dr. Sorgini, and the list goes on.

It’s not because the extra fees are being posted that the relationship between the person who provides the care and the person who receives the care changes. The health providers have all the power. If, in order to have the surgery done on a fixed date, you need to buy one of those products, you will, because you don’t want to lose your driver’s licence. You don’t want to have to travel three times to Sudbury to have your surgery cancelled.

No, I will never support extra fees. Hospitals don’t charge extra fees. Care is based on need, not ability to pay.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her excellent presentation about how it is wise and fiscally prudent to invest in community-based surgical centres. Not only did she highlight the safety and the continuity of care but also the better health outcomes. I would also like to thank the member for recognizing the great work of Dr. Abdel-Rahman Lawendy, the chief medical director of the Nazem Kadri Surgical Centre at London Health Sciences Centre.

Standard operating rooms are required for complex care, where there are six staff per room. They require a full set of sterilized instruments. It costs on average $469 per day,

whereas these other ambulatory centres cost $172 per day. It’s 36% of the cost.

This government’s ideological adherence to the for-profit model—I wanted to ask the member, who is this government listening to, if it’s not listening to patients?

M me France Gélinas: You can go to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and see who is lobbying right now. I’ve named some of them. Certainly, Clearpoint Health Network is really interested in opening up investor-owned corporations, but there are many, basically, big health care providers in the States who are biting at the bits to come to Ontario. They’re already scoping out where they would like their clinic to be. They’re already starting to look at purchasing real estate in Ontario, because there’s a ton of money to be made.

Those people—you go on the website; they are here to lobby the government. They are lobbying me also, so I have no doubt that they are lobbying the government, and the government is listening. There are a lot of people closely tied to the Conservative government who stand to benefit by millions of dollars once Bill 60 goes forward, on the backs of sick people.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have to ask the member: When I talk to people in my riding—I talk to people all across the province. What they tell me is that what we have a huge problem in Ontario with is access to care, access to surgeries. We are making unprecedented investments in nurses, a higher number of people into the system than ever before, building new medical schools. Everything we do in Bill 60 is about ensuring that there is more access to these surgeries, all paid for by your OHIP card.

I would ask the member—and I understand it’s difficult for her to retreat from her own philosophy and theology when it comes to public versus private. But can you not at least admit that what we’re doing in Bill 60 is going to lead to reduced wait times for surgeries here in the province of Ontario?

M me France Gélinas: The body of evidence throughout the world is very strong and solid. I would encourage the member to read from Canadian physicians for medicare. They have a four-page—so it’s very easy to read. I can guarantee you that bringing in for-profit does not decrease wait times. It’s the opposite, because the for-profit only can make profit out of the healthy and the wealthy. As soon as you have a comorbidity—remember when we debated about chronic diseases? Most people over 45 have a chronic condition, which means that they will not qualify for healthy and wealthy, where you make a lot of money.

They will still be on the wait-list for a hospital, and those wait-lists will grow exponentially. Do you think that 200,000 Ontarians waiting for care is long? Wait to see what happens once the for-profits come in. Go have a look at what happened in Australia. Go have a look at what happened in the UK when the Conservative government did the exact same thing you’re doing now. Their wait-lists grew. Many of them are backtracking right now.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Nickel Belt for your comments today and for being, like all of the members of the NDP, a true champion of public health care in Canada.

I have a friend from the United States. She used to practise medicine in Boston. Now, she’s practising in Toronto. She says that Americans pay twice as much per capita for health care, and yet 50 million do not have access to health insurance. She says it’s because they’ve got a private, for-profit delivery system and private insurance.

You are describing this Bill 60 as the death knell for public health care in Canada. Why would this government kill such a great program that provides access to health care for everyone in Canada?

M me France Gélinas: The question is very simple. There is a lot of money to be made in health care. When somebody is sick, nothing else matters. You heard the story of the woman in Ottawa being diagnosed with breast cancer who spent $50,000. Not too many people have $50,000 hanging around, but when your life is in the balance, you will go into debt, and you will do whatever you can to try to get the care you need.

There are a ton of investor-owned corporations who know that there are enough loopholes to be able to make millions, hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars off the backs of sick people in Ontario. They are the ones lobbying for Bill 60 to go through. They are the ones who will benefit from Bill 60, and they are the ones that have the ears of this Conservative government. They are willing to listen to them at the expense of destroying a program that defines us, where care is based on need, not ability to pay.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Ross Romano: I listened to the member opposite. I had the opportunity to sit on that side of the floor for one year after I was elected in 2017. I sat on the same side of the floor as that member opposite, and I remember for that year her speaking about the Liberal government and their cuts to health care. We remember that there were eight consecutive years under the Liberal reign of not a single increase to budgets, 0% across the board, for eight years in a row, and that member opposite still voted with the Liberals’ budget year after year after year when she had the opportunity to shut them down.

So my question is, why did you support the Liberals when they were going after health care?

M me France Gélinas: The member is partly correct: The base budgets for hospital services were frozen by the Liberal governments for eight years in a row, and that brought us to where we are now. Were there long wait-lists before this government came into power? Yes, there were. But under their leadership, the wait has skyrocketed; it went up exponentially.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Yom Ha’atzmaut

Mrs. Robin Martin: Today is Yom Ha’atzmaut, also known as Israeli Independence Day. A national holiday in Israel, Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrates the country’s declaration of independence on May 14, 1948.

The origin of Yom Ha’atzmaut can be traced to the early 20th century, when Jewish leaders advocated for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Today, Israelis and members of the Jewish community in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence and across Ontario celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut with various activities, including parades, barbecues, concerts and dancing. Some of these events include the Schwartz/Reisman Centre JCC’s Blue and White party, which will feature delicious catering, cocktails and music performers.

Families can also attend the Beth Tzedec Congregation’s Israel Creativity Fair to celebrate Israel’s ingenuity and engage in hands-on, family-friendly activities. For young adults, Hillel Ontario and StandWithUs Canada are hosting Israel at 75 club night, complete with pizza and disco music.

In the 75 years since its founding, Israel has accomplished many notable achievements in science, technology, culture and other areas. It’s home to a thriving technology sector and several innovative start-ups. As a leader in Jewish education, Israel has also strengthened Jewish identity and continues to improve Jews’ connection to Israel throughout the world.

On this day of celebration for the Jewish people and the state of Israel, I wish all Israeli Ontarians and members of the Jewish community joy, security and peace.

Replacement workers

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Some 28,000 members of ACTRA have been unlawfully locked out for a year now by the Institute of Canadian Agencies—advertising agencies who, instead of bargaining in good faith under the National Commercial Agreement, made unacceptable demands such as a 60% cut to wages and an end to retirement contributions and benefits. The NCA used to represent a gold standard for gig workers. Now, there are performers who have not worked for a year. They have lost tens of thousands of dollars in wages. Some cannot manage their health care needs because their health insurance is gone. Some have been forced to leave their field altogether.

At a time when precarious gig work is on the rise, with limited, if any, employment protections, advertising agencies, with the support of their corporate clients and this Conservative government, are undermining workers by using scab replacement workers. Using scab labour prolongs strikes and lockouts instead of encouraging bargaining and allowing for faster resolution of disputes. It pits workers against each other. And we’re seeing this happen across Ontario, such as with the salt workers at Windsor Unifor Local 240—workers on strike being undermined through the use of scab labour.

Speaker, workers have a constitutional right to a fair bargaining process, but that can’t happen when scab replacement workers are hired. The NDP has tabled the Anti-Scab Labour Act to end the use of scab replacement workers. I call on this government to pass the bill.

Women as Career Coaches event

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Recently in my riding of Burlington, I had the pleasure of attending Halton Industry Education Council’s 19th annual Women as Career Coaches mentorship event. This is an annual event that brings together young people and adult mentors for an impactful, inspiring and uplifting evening. Over dinner, youth have the opportunity to engage in informal conversations with mentors and career coaches, as well as listening to a lineup of inspiring speakers.

This year’s event featured a panel of successful women sharing their career journeys and advice. Coming from diverse industries, speakers included a film and TV event specialist, a deputy fire chief, a board-certified lactation specialist and one of the only female boilermakers in Ontario. As a career coach, mentors shared their experiences and advice with a group of young women who are contemplating their future careers and their next moves. These conversations help young people to think about their future differently.

That evening, I met a young apprentice electrician named Allie, who had just landed an interview for her dream job. Over the next couple of days, Allie and I worked together to help her prepare. Allie informed me that the interview went very well and thanked me for the help.

Women as Career Coaches is a valuable resource for young women, providing them with the opportunity to make connections, ask questions and learn from other women who helped to pave the way.

Ontario Place

Ms. Jessica Bell: Not once in my entire time in office has a resident called me up and said Toronto is in desperate need of an expensive and exclusive spa. Yet this government is moving ahead with signing a secret 95-year deal with an Austrian company to turn Ontario Place into an expensive mega-spa with a massive underground carpark that taxpayers are paying for.

Now, I hear the minister opposite say that no one is going there: “I drive by it frequently, and it’s not enjoyed.” The million people who visit Ontario Place do not see it that way, Minister.

Ontario Place is a park where people can go outside, visit friends, feel the breeze of Lake Ontario, play with kids, walk our dogs, enjoy the sunset for free in a part of the city where most people don’t have a backyard. They live in condos and apartments, and Ontario Place has become their oasis.

I see people being so angry about this issue because it touches this larger core, which is that this government is making sweetheart backroom deals with foreign companies that leave Ontarians worse off, and that is a real issue here. I believe Ontario Place should be a place for everyone to enjoy, a revitalized public park that families, young people, seniors and residents can enjoy.

I want to say thank you to all the residents who are organizing on this issue, including Ontario Place for All. We are on your side.

Khalsa Aid

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Khalsa Aid is a non-profit, humanitarian organization that provides support for individuals in need all over the world. Khalsa Aid is built on a strong belief in Sikh principles, and their work is by no means restricted to the Sikh community. Khalsa Aid became the first-ever cross-border international humanitarian aid organization based on Sikh principles.

Khalsa Aid has done amazing work with a number of communities to help those in need. Recently, Khalsa Aid Canada held a food drive and they were able to raise over 35,000 meals that were distributed to local food banks within the GTA.

Speaker, this is an immense contribution, and I would like to appreciate and recognize Khalsa Aid Canada’s sizable impact within the community. I would also like to recognize all of those who participated in the food drive and contributed to making a difference within their community, whether it be through donating food, volunteering or raising awareness. Your commitment and devotion to helping those in need is truly inspiring.

Community support services

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Sometimes when MPPs talk about health care and long-term care, they miss the great work being done in the community support services sector.

People want to age at home, and community support services help meet that need. Caregivers risk burnout and financial burden without these services. Some may even feel pressure to quit their job to look after a loved one. No one should feel forced to make this choice.

Community support services are cost-effective, personalized and help free up beds in hospitals and long-term care. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with the Alzheimer Society, Cheshire Independent Living Services, St. Joe’s hospice and many more. Users of these services see a 43% decrease in avoidable ER visits. In addition, when community support services are available, hospital stay lengths are decreased more than 30%. Care at home costs $42 a day while long-term care is $126; in hospitals, at least $842. Saving $800 per day is pretty cost-effective. It’s literally 5% of the cost.

However, like other parts of our health care system, lack of funding means service reductions and staff are continually asked to do more with less. This sector, primarily made up of women, faces a variety of struggles, including the inability to hire and retain staff.

Ontarians want to be supported at home. I call upon this government to make the necessary investments in community support services so that people can stay where their heart is: at home with loved ones.

Services pour l’autisme

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Le mois d’avril, qui est le mois de l’autisme, tire à sa fin. J’aimerais reconnaître quelques organismes et personnes de ma circonscription pour leur dévouement à améliorer la vie de plusieurs personnes qui vivent avec le spectre de l’autisme.

Merci au Regroupement Autisme Prescott-Russell et à ses membres pour leur travail incroyable. Non seulement ils organisent de super activités pour les jeunes; ils sensibilisent les gens et nous aident tous à en apprendre plus au sujet des personnes aux prises avec le spectre de l’autisme. J’aimerais aussi remercier tout le personnel des classes de TSA de toutes les écoles de ma circonscription. Ma conjointe a eu la chance de travailler avec certains d’entre eux et avec les élèves. Elle me mentionnait souvent comment ces gens font une différence dans la vie de ces enfants.

Je salue aussi un jeune homme âgé de 31 ans, Marc-Antoine Gagnier, considéré comme une personnalité publique pour la communauté de ces personnes atteintes du spectre de l’autisme. Marc-Antoine est également bien connu au village d’Embrun pour son implication à la littérature et la radio. Il s’est même présenté comme candidat en politique à trois reprises. Il fait du bénévolat à la radio communautaire bilingue de CJRO Radio. Il a sa propre émission de radio, style talk-show, qui s’appelle Gagnier aime se jaser, où j’ai eu la chance moi-même de passer en entrevue.

Je tiens à féliciter toutes ces personnes pour leur excellent travail.

Doctor shortage

M me Lucille Collard: Speaker, it is estimated that approximately 1.8 million Ontarians do not have a family doctor—that means 1.8 million Ontarians without access to a primary care physician who has built a relationship with them, who understands their needs, and who can provide the consistent care that helps catch illnesses early and avoid serious illnesses. This unacceptable situation leads to inadequate health care for all Ontarians.

We need more family doctors, but attracting medical students to family medicine is becoming increasingly difficult. Family doctors are heavily overworked, burdened with way too many patients and out-of-date systems that result in mountains of paperwork.

Dr. Alykhan Abdulla is a local doctor in the Ottawa area. He works tirelessly to serve the thousands of patients he is responsible for. He says the administrative burden on him and his team is huge, occupying a third of his time. That’s 33% fewer patients with access to care every day.

By taking measures to reduce the administrative burden on our family physicians, this government can dramatically increase the time available for doctors to do what they were trained to do: provide care to patients. This would reduce the burden on family physicians, help attract and retain more family doctors, and allow more Ontarians to access the care they deserve.

Sandra Clancy

Mr. Dave Smith: Today I’m bringing some bittersweet news from Peterborough. A good friend of mine has decided to hang up the laces, so to speak. She has been an exemplary public servant in Peterborough for close to 40 years. This Friday, April 28, will be the final day at city hall for Peterborough’s chief administrative officer, Sandra Clancy.

As a resident of the city, I had worked with Sandra on a number of different initiatives long before I was the MPP. I suppose with almost 40 years devoted to Peterborough, there are a lot of people she has worked with.

Sandra was born and raised in Peterborough and started working for the city in 1985. Some might say she wasn’t able to hang on to a job, because throughout her time, she has been the chief accountant, financial manager, treasurer, corporate services director and CAO.

She worked during a few challenging times: the great flood of 2004 and, of course, COVID-19. Although she has faced her challenges, she has remained dedicated to the people of Peterborough.

Speaker, for me, she has been a great resource. All throughout my time as the MPP, I’ve been able to reach out and discuss whatever the issue of the day was and know that Sandra was working with me to resolve it.

Sandra, I’m going to miss you, but I know that you’re only a phone call away. You’ve told me that you’re looking forward to spending more time with your kids during your retirement. So please enjoy your retirement.

Association of Chinese Canadian Entrepreneurs awards

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I believe that the success of our local entrepreneurs is crucial to strengthening the competitiveness of Ontario’s businesses in the global market and will promote economic growth and prosperity for all Ontarians.

That is why I rise to support the Association of Chinese Canadian Entrepreneurs, ACCE, and their mission in recognizing the successes and contributions of Chinese Canadian entrepreneurs. The 26th awards gala was held last week, when nine businesses were recognized.

Over the years, many of Ontario’s celebrities, including Adrienne Clarkson, Vivienne Poy, Michael Lee-Chin and Jean Lumb, received awards for their lifetime achievements. I had the honour to receive their Best Community Service Award in 2003.

Speaker, I believe that community service is an essential part of being an entrepreneur, and I’m committed to working with ACCE to promote corporate social responsibility and encourage community and environmental stewardship in Ontario’s business community.

Once again, congratulations to all the award recipients and nominees, and thank you to ACCE for their important work.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I have the honour today to introduce chiefs and community members: from Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Chief June Black; from Constance Lake First Nation, Chief Ramona Sutherland; from Aroland First Nation, Councillor Mark Bell; from Attawapiskat First Nation, Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin and her community members; and the legal team for Treaty 9 First Nations, Kate Kempton and Tara McDonald of Woodward and Co.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I have the honour today to introduce today’s page captain Claire Cross, from my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence’s Blessed Sacrament school. Her family is also here: her parents, Annamaria and David, and their son Andrew, who will likely be a page in the future, because the other son, William, was a page in 2016. I’m looking forward to having a nice chat with them.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome again our friend Michau Van Speyk, who is here today at Queen’s Park to join us again.

Ms. Laura Smith: I am so honoured that my constituency assistant, Timothy Boudoumit, is attending here with us. Timothy has been with us for quite a while, and he’s such a smart and engaged individual. He’s going to be leaving us to do research studies at the American University in Lebanon. I’m proud to say that I’ve known him since he was 10 years old on the soccer field.

Thank you and welcome, Timothy Boudoumit.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors: the member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Speaker. It was good to see you this morning at the University of Waterloo breakfast reception. I just wanted to thank all my colleagues for attending. Vivek Goel was here with his research team, and they were highlighting the importance of commercializing research for our economy and our health care system. It was an amazing event.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker. Remarks in Anishininiimowin . Good morning.

We would like to welcome the leadership and community members of Treaty 9, who are visiting here today: from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Chief Donny Morris and Jacob Ostaman; from Eabametoong First Nation, Chief Solomon Atlookan, Councillor Charlie O’Keese and their staff; from Neskantaga First Nation, former Chief Peter Moonias, former Chief Wayne Moonias, Councillor Kelvin Moonias and Dayna Scott; from the traditional territories of these lands, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Chief Stacey Laforme—meegwetch for joining us; from Mushkegowuk Council, Grand Chief Alison Linklater and her staff; and from Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Deputy Grand Chief Victor Linklater.

Welcome to our House. Meegwetch.

Question Period

First Nations consultation

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. We understand clearly that Ontario is working to push mining processes, mining access roads through the Ring of Fire area, and has done much of this work while First Nations have been struggling through the pandemic and weren’t even able to even host meetings to understand how to participate.

My question is, is Ontario prepared to agree that all proposed mines in the Ring of Fire region will be designated to need provincial comprehensive EAs, and actually involve the nations who will be impacted?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond for the government, Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the honourable member for his question and welcome his guests to this place today.

Mr. Speaker, that’s precisely what we’re doing. We take our responsibilities through

section 35 of the charter very seriously. They’re affirmed, and they necessarily involve consultation and engagement with Indigenous communities across all of Ontario, in fact. That’s why, for example, with the Far North Act, we heard the communities loud and clear, through one of the most extensive consultations for the Far North Act. That was modernized with my colleague at the time, Minister Yakabuski as he was, and reflected a consensus-based model on all aspects and any aspects of development in the Treaty 9 area consumed or subsumed by the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. We will continue to act in that fashion.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Last week, this same minister said, when he answered one of my questions, that duty to consult First Nations in Ontario is not law.

Despite the pro-mining posturing, this government hasn’t actually set up any real progress in the Ring of Fire. First Nations and mining companies know that nothing is happening there until real partnerships occur.

Will Ontario recognize that it has abused the treaty promises, and that continued efforts by the Premier to bulldoze the north will lead to conflict and stall any real partnerships?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Real partnerships are defined—and some of the leaders are here today, if not all—on various projects across the region, not just in Treaty 9, but in Treaty 5, the part that’s in Ontario. These are major legacy infrastructure projects, and they reflect a new opportunity—an opportunity for the government to work closely with Indigenous leaders through their economic development corporations, through their political leadership, to ensure that they have the kind of infrastructure they need, the tools that their young people need and want; things like road access, other forms of energy.

There are leaders here who represent communities that are still deriving their electricity from diesel. I can’t help but think that the honourable member stands against that. The Watay Power connection and other legacy pieces of infrastructure, including companies owned and operated by Indigenous people, stand ready to supply good, clean energy to those northern communities, roads to improve their health, social and economic access to programming. That’s what this government does best and that’s what we’ll continue to work on.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: This government abandoned the dialogue on shared decision-making that was under way years ago and that is at the heart of the treaty promise to work together and share the land. Right now, that is not happening.

Will Ontario commit to negotiating in good faith with the First Nations and Canada to develop a new decision-making regime for the north that can actually encourage some development by ensuring First Nations have real authority to say yes or no to major developments in their homelands?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The members will please take their seats.

Minister.

Hon. Greg Rickford: The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that’s actually what’s happening on the ground. As I mentioned earlier, some of the leaders that are here today and some of the projects that we’ve been working on, some of the major milestones in child welfare—I see my long-standing friend and the leader of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug here today. These reflect the willingness of this government, the desire to work together on legacy pieces of infrastructure, economic development opportunities and social and health programming that improve the fortunes of these communities.

With respect to any development, the Minister of the Environment, for example, the Minister of Mines—we’ve all gathered together to ensure that the government’s priorities are to support the priorities of the Indigenous communities in and around major resource projects and that the legacy requirements to support them are really about the enhancements to those communities: new forms of energy, no to diesel, yes to clean energy supply, yes to better access to health and social programs in some of our isolated communities who still don’t have access to those kinds—

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

The next question.

Public transit

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Premier. The Eglinton LRT has been under construction for 12 years. It has also spiralled beyond its estimated cost, from the original $5 billion to nearly $13 billion, and it’s likely to rise as well. While the consultants building this project keep racking up the bill, we get faulty LRT platforms—in fact, stations that are broken up and taken away in dump trucks.

Taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars are funding this project, long-suffering residents and businesses that actually went bankrupt and had to close down are all looking for answers. They want transparency.

My question to the Premier is, how much more money, how much more of people’s hard-earned dollars, will your government waste?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Stan Cho: This government shares the frustrations of those residents and businesses that have been affected by this project, which was, of course, started by the Liberals. We’re going to do it better. We’re going to make sure we finish the job and learn from their mistakes. In fact, Speaker, that’s the very first thing we did in 2018 by introducing the Building Transit Faster Act, which said, “Let’s simplify the process.”

I’ll give you one example, Speaker. The reason there’s years of delay into this process is that every time you wanted to break ground on a station, you needed to get a different permit for every station down the line. We streamlined that so that one permit would actually clear the process and get it done faster. That’s how the Eglinton West extension is more than 50% dug, a month ahead of schedule, on the record transit expansion this government is introducing.

We wish we could turn back time and fix the Liberals’ mistakes from the beginning, but we can’t do that. What we can do is learn from them and make sure we do it better moving forward. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. Record transit is coming to the great people of Toronto and this province.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the minister: After over a decade of construction, with numerous delays and billions of dollars overbudget, this government said that the Crosstown was finally going to open in 2023—this year. Now, when the project is supposed to be near completion, it is troubling to see newly built, never-used stations being ripped out with absolutely no information.

Minister, people across Toronto are wondering, what is going on with the Eglinton Crosstown LRT project? Will it ever open?

Hon. Stan Cho: The member asked for information. We’re happy to provide that.

This government is not only building record transit; we want to make sure that we open it safely. We all see what happens when you rush transit projects to open, like in the case of the Ottawa LRT. I’m sure the member from Orléans would have a lot to say about that and how not to actually open transit. That’s why we’re taking our time.

The Sloane platform was made out of a

section of concrete that was identified through a strict and rigorous process as not up to the standard that was ready to introduce transit for people to make it safe to ride.

Speaker, this government is not only going to build that record transit, we’re going to make sure we do it right so that it’s safe and it’s enjoyed by generations to come. We know hundreds of thousands of people are moving here every year. We’re increasing the subway grid by 50%, investing more dollars than any government has ever done. That includes the opposition, who supported the Liberals while for decades they simply did nothing to build transit or connect the grid. We’re getting it done for commuters in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary? The member for Ottawa South.

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Premier: We’ve talked to the neighbours around the Sloane station of the Eglinton LRT. Do you know what they tell us, Speaker? There’s a smell coming from that station, and it’s not construction dust. The smell is corruption. So what about some specific questions?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Joel Harden: Withdraw.

What about some specific questions? What about Brian Guest, the disgraced consultant who helped build the Ottawa LRT, who this government fired in January? The Minister of Transportation promised this House there would be an investigation into Mr. Guest? Well, I’ve FOI-ed it, Speaker. There has been no investigation into Brian Guest.

The costs keep getting racked up, so the question we need to have answered in this House is, how many more consultants like Mr. Guest are going to get rich while Crosstown costs go through the roof? How many more deficient projects are they going to build? And more importantly, Speaker, will this government today, as it did when we demanded it from Ottawa, declare a public inquiry into this mess? Simple answer to the question: yes or no?

Hon. Stan Cho: Wow, the irony from the fiscally conservative New Democrats of Ontario this morning, standing up when the cameras are on and pretending to be the defenders of transit when, for decades, they supported the Liberals when they did absolutely nothing to expand the grid or to improve rider experience.

In fact, when the cameras were off—not only did they say that they supported transit when they were on, they actually voted against the Building Transit Faster Act. They said no to the Eglinton West extension. They said no to the Yonge North extension. They said no to the fine people of Scarborough and the Sheppard East extension. And, Speaker, they said no to the Ontario Line. They said no to transit that runs through their own ridings, and now they say no to modernizing transit and to expanding the grid. They say no to more fare options. Speaker, this is a party of no when it comes to transit. This government is getting it done for commuters in Ontario.

First Nations consultation

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Today, several Treaty 9 First Nations and their law firm are here to announce their legal case to end unilateral crown decisions. For years they have been ignored, denied their decision-making rights, and they’ve had enough. It is imperative for this government to respect Treaty 9 and start working with and alongside First Nations to ensure growth and prosperity like the rest of the province.

To the Premier: Will this government ensure pre-informed consent for equal opportunity and collaboration at the decision-making level going forward with all First Nations?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I won’t talk to matters that are before the courts, but I will discuss Kenogamisis’s economic development corporation, the Wabun Tribal Council, Five Nations Energy, Taykwa Tagamou Nation Economic Development. These are just a few of the examples of communities that work in the Treaty 9 area.

They’re economic development companies owned and operated in whole or in part by Indigenous business leaders who are transforming and see the opportunity to ensure that Indigenous communities, particularly those most remote and isolated, have access to the kind of infrastructure many people across Ontario have taken for granted. They’re interested in consensus and economic opportunity to improve the economic prosperity of the members of their communities and to grow their businesses, Mr. Speaker. That’s what we can rally behind all day.

I know that the Indigenous leaders support that kind of growth and development, and we’re going to continue to work together, Mr. Speaker, with common interests and consensus at the heart and soul—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Wake up, Premier. These First Nations are suing your government. The First Nations are here and they are saying this government is not collaborating. We’ve seen it time and time again: Attawapiskat extension to full reserve: The community cannot expand because they’re landlocked—think about this—on their traditional territories; boil-water advisories for 30 years, and it’s still happening; Kashechewan relocation: Not even the road built, and nothing has moved forward, and yet again they’re being evacuated; and not to mention: the opioid crisis, the lack of health services, housing, and much more that First Nations are facing.

I ask again, will this government respect First Nations rights and get consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Had that question flowed a little more smoothly, Mr. Speaker, it would be easier to unpack.

First of all, let’s just talk about the relocation of Kashechewan, Mr. Speaker. We were pleased, obviously, to sign an agreement a couple of years ago to move forward on that. Unfortunately, it has faced some delays, and we’re hopeful that two communities that have a vested interest in that—Kashechewan, in moving, and Fort Albany, its neighbour—will come to some consensus around how and when that will take place so that we can do the appropriate assessments and move that forward.

But otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to continue to focus on the economic development projects that we hear from community members and Indigenous business leaders who want to transform the region to ensure that their communities, and ensure that their businesses, thrive, that young people have a job and a line of sight. We’re going to support the training. We’re doing that all across northern Ontario, and I look forward to the opportunity to work with those communities on specific projects—

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

Automotive industry

Mr. Rob Flack: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Take a seat.

We can’t tolerate outbursts from the galleries.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Restart the clock.

The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London had the floor.

Mr. Rob Flack: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Thanks to this government’s efforts, Ontario is ushering in the next boom of its auto manufacturing sector, which will be a continued catalyst for economic growth and development for decades and decades to come. Ontario auto is back, Speaker, and the latest Volkswagen investment is set to revitalize an entire region.

Speaker, in addition to the local benefits, will the minister please tell us what this means for businesses and workers across the entire supply chain?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Volkswagen’s $7-billion investment will solidify a brighter future for tens of thousands of auto workers. Over 3,000 direct and 30,000 indirect jobs will be created in total. Major suppliers will be required to produce products that we’re unfamiliar with in Ontario: cathode, anode, separators, copper foil, lithium hydroxide. These are all billion-dollar companies that will land in Ontario.

We’re headed back to Germany to plan a series of supplier days, where we’re going to match Volkswagen with other Ontario companies. This will solidify Ontario’s position not only as the EV centre, but also as the best place in the world to do business, to invest, to live and to grow.

Speaker, we are building an EV sector that will continue to create good-paying jobs for generations.

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

Mr. Rob Flack: Thank you to the minister for his detailed response. Investments like Volkswagen’s follow on the government’s success in attracting a string of landmark auto manufacturing investments. Much like how Volkswagen will transform Elgin County, St. Thomas and London for years and years to come, Ford, Honda, GM, NextStar, Umicore, Stellantis and Magna will do very much the same.

Speaker, will the minister explain why in the last two and a half years, we’ve been able to see these transformative investments pouring into our province, culminating in the Volkswagen investment?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Since taking office in 2018, we have reduced the cost of doing business in Ontario by $8 billion annually. With our 2019 Driving Prosperity plan, we committed to building the cars of the future here. Our plan outlined an entire EV value chain from critical minerals in the north to the manufacturing might in the south, a future where we produce clean steel, batteries, parts, connected and autonomous engineering, cars of the future and recycling of the finished batteries. That was our plan.

That future, Speaker, is now: $25 billion in auto investments in just 2.5 years. That’s the story of Ontario. That story will continue with Ontario as the global leader in the EV supply chain.

Infrastructure renewal

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. This Premier and Minister of Infrastructure are painting the Ontario Science Centre as a teardown, but it isn’t. They’ve seen record attendance. I encourage folks and families to visit them and explore and enjoy their brilliant exhibits.

What is true is that capital repairs and building renewal are years behind. And, fun fact: According to the Ontario Science Centre’s 2022-23 business plan, Infrastructure Ontario is technically the science centre’s landlord. The minister says the science centre is falling apart. However, the business plans say nothing of the sort. What the Ontario Science Centre needs is for the government to cough up the needed funds and make the repairs.

My question to this minister is, will she keep withholding the funding needed or pay up?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

To reply, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: Thanks for my mild support around me at the table here.

It’s a great question. I appreciate it because I also know you understand the tourism piece when we’re talking about Ontario Place and specifically the science centre—but a broader picture of what’s going to happen.

A good analogy may be an old car that still runs and does awfully well. Gas mileage is not great, but after a while, you have to find a new one. You’ve had great memories, it can still work, but you have an opportunity to get a newer model, something special, something that is more efficient, something that will carry more people.

When we talk about the movement of the science centre, we talk about an opportunity and, I paraphrase our Premier, a world-class destination. We’re talking about tourism. We want people to come into Ontario, because as they’re coming in, they stop and buy gas, they buy lunch. They’ll spend longer and greater periods of time in the city around what’s going to be built because it will be world-class, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again, hopefully to the Premier: According to the science centre’s 2019-20 business plan, the 10-year deferred maintenance costs were $147.5 million—$147.5 million is real money, but it is far less than the cost of the Premier’s proposed parking garage at Ontario Place.

The minister no doubt realizes that being a better landlord and doing the necessary repairs would be far less costly than building a whole new science centre. Unless the minister is planning to shrink the science centre, the minister knows she can’t rebuild a new one for less than the cost of repairs and knows that there isn’t money in the budget for this.

So my question is, what is the Premier’s actual plan for the Ontario Science Centre and what is it going to cost Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, we’re going to revitalize Ontario Place. We’re going to have a world-class destination. We’re going to have the science centre, state of the art, worldwide.

The students up there have never experienced Ontario Place because the Liberals and the NDP—you closed it for what, 12 years now? There’s weeds growing up; it’s decrepit. We’re going to build a great Live Nation amphitheatre. We’re going to make sure that the science centre is there—world-class, 300,000 square feet with exhibits. We’re going make sure that Therme—wouldn’t you love to go to a water park at Ontario Place, have fun? There’s going to be public space; there’s going to be green space all throughout there. We’re a government that gets it done. You guys talk; we make it happen. That’s the difference.

Interjections.

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

I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. We have a member who is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to ask a question. Order.

Start the clock. The member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Indigenous economic development

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs. The previous Liberal government drove jobs out of our province and failed to unlock Ontario’s full economic potential. The negative results of their destructive economic policies left many behind, including those particularly in rural, remote and Indigenous communities across northern Ontario.

In contrast, our government must be focused on solutions so that Ontarians have an opportunity to participate in our growing economy. Many Indigenous businesses are already operating across the north, and there are many more opportunities to create and expand businesses. It’s vital that our government continues to work with Indigenous partners to make targeted investments that will help Indigenous entrepreneurs and businesses to thrive. Speaker, can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to increase economic prosperity in partnership with Indigenous communities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’ve already cited a few examples of some economic development corporations acting on behalf of the collective interests of partner First Nations, Mr. Speaker, but it’s, in fact, not limited to northern Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade last week, with the Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada, highlighted a world-scale, world-class announcement that’s going to involve the participation of a treaty council in that corridor that’s excited about the opportunity to participate, whether it’s developing energy infrastructure or corridor infrastructure in general—other businesses in the supply chain.

My colleague the Minister of Energy and I had participated in an exercise with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corp. on battery storage. These are all examples of large-scale infrastructure projects that go to the heart and soul of Ontario’s capacity for economic development, and they’re partly or wholly owned—

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

Supplementary question?

Mr. Dave Smith: Speaker, through you, thank you to the minister for his response. It demonstrates just a few examples of our government’s commitment to reconciliation and creating opportunities to strengthen relationships with Indigenous partners.

Businesses are only one part of a vibrant economy, though. There are many other ways to amplify prosperity and build a stronger Ontario. Individuals, families, businesses and communities can all succeed when they have the tools, training and supports they need. Investments that help build capacity will go a long way in promoting long-term economic growth. Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is supporting growth and prosperity for Indigenous communities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Under the leadership of our Premier, we sat down with Chiefs of Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare and his economic development team, and we accepted at face value their amazing proposal to do supply chain mapping, to provide loan and grant combinations for Indigenous-owned and -operated businesses to move forward on a host of exciting proposals that cover the province of Ontario.

Last week, coming closer to home, out in Kenora–Rainy River, the Niiwin Wendaanimok corporation, largely responsible for most of the work that’s going on to twin the Trans-Canada Highway, had the full support of this government as we move forward on training 50 more young people to build our highways.

The same opportunity exists into the corridor to prosperity: An opportunity in the central part of northern Ontario to ensure that they have road access to better programming and services, good-paying jobs for Indigenous young people. That’s what we hear on the ground, and that’s what we’re responding to in consensus and full partnership with Indigenous business leaders and political leaders.

Hospital services

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is to the Premier. My best friend lives in Minden, Ontario. In February, he was in a head-on collision and the worst injuries were suffered by his wife. She had many broken bones and whiplash. My friend, his wife and his mother were all rushed to Minden emergency room in separate ambulances. They said the first responders and the hospital staff were fantastic, but last week they found out that this government is closing Minden’s emergency room on June 1. Haliburton, the next nearest hospital, would have been 45 minutes away.

Will this government stop the closure of the Minden ER so that the people of Minden have access to life-saving emergency services?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m glad the member opposite’s best friend and his family members had excellent service. It is a story, frankly, that I hear regularly when people have to access health care services in the province of Ontario.

Ontario Health has been—we have been in discussions with them and I have been assured that the Haliburton Highlands Health Services board has approached this decision in the best interests of community. This is a decision made by the hospital with the support of the hospital board. It is independent of any decisions we make at the ministry level.

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

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t know how closing down an emergency room can be in the best interests of a community.

Again to the Premier: Haliburton Highlands Health Services said that the Minden ER closure was due to a shortage of nursing and medical staff. For the past five years, this government has been fuelling the staffing shortage and creating a crisis in Ontario’s public health system in order to privatize it. They could address the staffing shortage by repealing Bill 124. They could stop promoting private, for-profit clinics that are draining health care staff from public hospitals, and they could support public, not-for-profit hospitals like the one in Minden.

Will this government admit that the Minden emergency room and the people of Minden are victims of its quest to create a crisis and privatize public health care in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Absolutely not. The Haliburton Highlands Health Services budget has actually increased by over 11% since 2018.

But I want to remind the member opposite that these are decisions made by a volunteer community member board that lives in the community and is looking out for the best interests of those communities. For the member opposite to suggest that he knows better than the volunteer-based board, than the CEO, than the individuals who work in that facility, is patently false.

I want to remind the member that the actual member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has been in close contact with the board and the CEO through this entire process, and I remind the member that this is a local decision they have made in the best interests to serve their community in the long term.

Government’s record

Mr. Ted Hsu: Yesterday, this government announced free tuition at the Ontario Police College. That’s great, but what about all the other jobs in the economy where we lack skilled workers? Why isn’t there a plan?

The collapse of Laurentian University warned us about the fragile finances of colleges and universities. Now, Guelph is suddenly pausing 16 programs. A student who was expecting to study medical physics in the fall cannot—medical physics, the people who run the big machines in hospitals.

Why isn’t there a plan for education? Is there no plan even in the secret mandate letters? Look at our electricity system: years lost because this government cut conservation, renewable energy and delayed investing in storage, all while we knew since 2017 that demand was going to increase. Their natural gas plant idea will collide with the federal government’s plan to fight climate change with clean electricity incentives and regulations. Why isn’t there a real climate plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I actually appreciate the question from the honourable member because it was literally a calling card for every single failed policy that brought this province to its knees under the previous Liberal government. Every single thing he talked about, actually, we had to reverse so that we could bring back thousands of jobs. The policies of the previous Liberal government created an energy crisis in the province that cost manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars and cost homeowners. They had to make a decision between heating and eating.

We saw students fleeing the province of Ontario; we saw opportunity fleeing the province of Ontario. They did literally nothing to combat our—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the government House leader. The member for Ottawa South must come to order. I can’t hear the government House leader.

The government House leader has the floor.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I’d almost like to seek unanimous consent of the entire House so that he could ask that question again so that the people of the province of Ontario can remember why, after two elections, they are still only at eight people over there.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: Speaker, does this government really plan? Last night, the Norwich township council passed motions having the effect of banning Progress Pride flags on municipal property and rejecting Pride Month. Is it discrimination? Well, this government has allowed a backlog of two years to accumulate at the Human Rights Tribunal.

It waited for a crisis and waited for thousands of small landlords and tenants to be hurt before putting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I apologize now to the member for Kingston and the Islands, who I can’t hear. I would ask the government side to come to order.

Restart the clock. The member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.

Mr. Ted Hsu: It waited for a crisis and waited for thousands of small landlords and tenants to be hurt before putting adequate resources into the Landlord and Tenant Board. Is there a plan for the justice system?

The government has said it was triple-checking the business case for tearing down and moving the Science Centre. Then it said there was no business case to release. Then it said the site could be used for other purposes.

This government is shooting from the hip. With the help of a developer, they have a plan for Ontario Place, but there’s no plan for Ontario. Who’s in charge?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ll tell you who’s in charge, Mr. Speaker. I’ll tell you who’s in charge. It’s the Premier of the province of Ontario who has brought back thousands of jobs to the province of Ontario. That’s who’s in charge. It was this Premier who finally put the Liberals out of their misery and restored hope and opportunity to the province of Ontario.

You remember. You tried to build transit but couldn’t get it done. This Premier was in office for a couple of months and built the biggest transit infrastructure program in the history of the country.

You also remember, you tried to build long-term care and you didn’t get it done, but it was this Premier who said, “We have to end hallway health care; we’re going to build 60,000 new and upgraded long-term-care beds.”

You also remember that manufacturers were leaving in droves. It was this Premier, with this economic development minister, who brought back $25 billion worth of investments in the auto sector when you were saying we had to transition to a service economy.

It was this Premier who brought back the energy sector—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The government side come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

I think there’s a point that needs to be clarified. For a supplementary question to be valid, it has to have some relationship to the original question—the same subject—and follow and flow from the original question and the original response from the government. But the Speaker has to be able to hear the member who is asking the question to ascertain whether or not it does follow and flow. So I would ask the indulgence of the House to assist me in this regard.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a member who is awaiting the opportunity to ask a question.

We’ll start the clock. The member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

School safety

Mr. Trevor Jones: My question is to the Minister of Education. The classroom must always be a safe place for students to focus on the necessary life, job and critical thinking skills that they need to succeed. Students and staff in Ontario’s schools need to know that when they go to school, they will be free from physical harm. Students and staff should never be afraid to go to school, and parents much be assured that their children are safe and secure in our schools. In order to do this, our province needs to invest in schools and partner closely with community organizations that will support our young people in their everyday lives.

Can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to protect the safety and well-being of both our students and our staff?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for his service as an officer and someone who wore the uniform, keeping families safe in this province. And while we stand with the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, we stand with all law enforcement, ensuring children and communities are safe from the rise of violent crime in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we just announced on Monday an additional $23-million investment specifically to combat crime as well as violence and bullying happening within our school system. Part of that is a partnership with the Pinball Clemons Foundation extended to many school boards across Ontario, designed specifically to offer counselling, leadership and career development for kids at risk.

We announced a 38% expansion of the Focus on Youth program: 28,000 kids are benefiting. This is an investment across school boards to encourage them to get access to jobs and mentorship development.

We have also announced a partnership with Sheldon Kennedy’s Respect Group to help counter bullying in schools—and, most importantly, anchored by a $100-million investment in mental health, a 500% increase from the former Liberals. This is going to help keep kids safe right across Ontario.

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

Mr. Trevor Jones: It’s very encouraging that our government is taking decisive measures to promote safety in our schools. Each generation of students faces their own challenges, inside and outside the classroom. Physical and online bullying affects students in every part of our province, and the negative effects of bullying can impact students for a lifetime. Students must be protected and supported beyond their classrooms and school property. Our government must take action to address these serious issues that many children will, sadly, encounter. Ontario must have a plan to combat this severe issue and keep our students safe.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to ensure the safety of students inside the classroom and beyond it?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you very much to the member for this important question. The first is a zero-tolerance approach we took in the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, where we, through legislation, ensure that any educator that is convicted of a crime—a very serious crime—with respect to sexual exploitation of a child receives a lifetime ban. They will never be able to teach in the province of Ontario.

We have also required every educator to have fulfilled sexual abuse prevention training this past September. That extended to all teachers and all early childhood educators—the first province to do so.

We were the first province to mandate that every school has an anti-sex-trafficking plan to counter the rise of trafficking, particularly in the province up the 400-series highways. It’s so prevalent in our communities.

We’re the first province to have mandated within the curriculum learning specific to cyber bullying, to privacy, to healthy relationships and to consent. This is important as we build a young generation of kids who understand how they, themselves, can be part of the solution of deterring crime.

We’re all in this together. We are committed to working with everyone—the College of Teachers, the faculties, unions and boards—to make sure schools are safe for kids in Ontario.

Hospital services

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. We heard what happened at Minden hospital. Now let’s go to Carleton Place hospital, where the local hospital was forced to close its emergency department overnight because there weren’t enough staff to keep it open. A week before, it was its sister hospital that was closed overnight due to staff shortages—its third closure in as many months.

Ontario had exactly one—one—unplanned emergency room closure in the last 15 years, but in the last year alone we’ve now had 160—160—emergency room closures in a single year. This isn’t normal, Speaker, and we should not pretend that it is. What new measure will the Premier take today to stop the closure of emergency rooms across our province?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: One of the really important measures that is embedded in Bill 60 and the Your Health document, which I hope the member will seriously consider supporting, because it is an as-of-right program that ensures individual clinicians who are practising in any other Canadian jurisdiction can come to Ontario and immediately start working here in Ontario, in communities. That is one very specific example where we have been able to work with the College of Nurses of Ontario to make sure that people who have trained in other jurisdictions are able to quickly get their qualifications assessed and approved if appropriate.

Another important initiative: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has really been a true leader in the learn-and-stay program, where we are able to provide tuition and cover books for students who want to practise as nurses and other critical care health care providers. We’ve had a historic number of students apply for those programs, because they want to participate.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: A hundred and sixty emergency room closures in one year under this minister’s watch.

Let’s go to Chesley. In Chesley right now, if a child requires care on a Saturday, they are out of luck. Their local emergency room is now closed evenings and weekends due to staff shortages. People there are worried that this is a sign that the end is near for this hospital. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound said that he wants Chesley hospital to return to full service. But after 10 years on the job, it does not look good, Speaker. Would the Premier agree the people of Chesley deserve a full-time emergency room? What will the government do to keep the emergency rooms open in our province?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: When the member highlights the challenges of making sure that we have sufficient HHR, health human resources, she doesn’t also acknowledge the important work and the ability to support those changes, whether it is the as-of-right, ensuring individuals who want to come to Ontario can start practising immediately; whether it is the expansion of the undergraduate and postgraduate positions in post-secondary, an expansion that—frankly, if I could turn back time, we wouldn’t have had the Liberals or the NDP, when they were in government, actually tightening up and removing those residency spots and those post-graduate positions.

We are making the investments, whether it is in education, whether it is in capital builds, whether it is ensuring that we have as many people as possible who wish to practise in the province of Ontario with have right and ability to do so.

Northern health services

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Health. People across Algoma–Manitoulin are struggling to access health care. My office is often hearing from individuals and families who are having to wait two, three, four or more years to be matched with a family doctor through Health Care Connect. The Ontario college of physicians reported in February that 2.2-million Ontarians are currently without a family doctor. Rural and northern communities are especially struggling to ensure residents have access to a physician and primary care.

In pre-budget consultations this year, Dr. Stephen Cooper from Manitoulin Island told this government that northern Ontario is facing a shortfall of 350 family doctors and specialists. Dr. Cooper said in his submission, “It is hard to overstate the consequences for access to care if this trend continues.”

Speaker, what is this government’s plan to stop the growing shortage of health care professionals in the north?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite raises a very important question.

I was so pleased earlier this year, through the investments of the Ministry of Finance, to be able to announce the Blind River Huron Shores Family Health Team in the northeast—of an additional $1.1 million. This will ensure that they have the ability to hire two new full-time nurse practitioners, two service workers, two new registered nurses, one RPN, one full-time physiotherapist, a system navigator—all that will support over 5,000 orphaned, unattached patients along the North Shore corridor.

These are the investments that our government is making to ensure that communities across Ontario have access to health care close to home.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Back to the Minister of Health: In order to recruit and retain doctors in rural and northern communities, this government needs to ensure that a full continuum of care continues and exists across the north.

Dr. Chantelle Wilson from Manitoulin Island reached out to my office recently about the struggles she is facing practising in small communities on western Manitoulin. She said, “My area has not had access to a home care nurse for two weeks. Dressing changes, etc., are coming to my office, adding to my already overflowing plate. I feel that providing care to western Manitoulin, including 45 in-patients at the local nursing home, will not be sustainable in the not-so-distant future.”

Speaker, physicians are trying their best to service their communities, but without help from this government, they are burning out and are being left no choice but to close their practices.

Will this minister and this government immediately introduce measures to recruit and retain health care professionals in northern Ontario before more physicians are forced to leave?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Something that would be of particular interest to this member is an investment that the Minister of Colleges and Universities and health have made. At the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, we will in fact have an additional 14 undergraduate positions and 22 postgraduate positions. Those are some of the concrete examples of how we are ensuring that people have community and access. The other, of course, is the as-of-right, so that individuals who wish to practise and live in a beautiful part of Ontario have that ability if they are currently in another Canadian jurisdiction.

They can come immediately with a job offer and start working, without having to wait for those long licensure pieces. It’s important work, and it’s work that we’re very proud to be able to do as we continue to expand and shore up our health human resources.

Animal protection

Mr. Brian Riddell: My question is for the Solicitor General.

People in my riding and in the province are very concerned about the safety and welfare of animals. Through media reports, we hear about situations of neglect and cruelty, such as inhumane conditions where animals are kept in cramped enclosures, and animals that are in distress because they don’t have the basics like food and water. Other circumstances where animals can be abused include the mistreatment of wildlife, and animals that are used for entertainment purposes.

Abuse, neglect and cruelty towards any animal cannot be tolerated. The people of our province expect our government to ensure that Ontario animals are protected and treated in a humane manner.

Can the Solicitor General please explain how our government is keeping animals safe in our province?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my great friend, our colleague from Cambridge.

Many of us here in this chamber and in the galleries have pets that are part of our families. In our family, we have Hal the rabbit, who’s 10.

After years of neglect from the previous government, our government passed the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, or the PAWS Act. I want to give a special shout-out to our great member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who is a great champion and advocate for this. A first of its kind, the PAWS Act has established a robust, transparent and accountable organization staffed by over 100 qualified and passionate inspectors. Our animal welfare legislation has one of the most severe punishments in the country.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, our inspectors have rescued thousands of animals and levied thousands of orders and charges against abusers because people in Ontario care. With your help, we will always make Ontario a better place for our pets.

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

Mr. Brian Riddell: It is reassuring and encouraging to hear about the additional powers that have come from provincial animal welfare legislation that will ensure that animals and wildlife are protected. However, the residents of Cambridge, like many others across the province, are interested in what additional measures our government will undertake to provide even greater protection for animals. It is important that our government continues to evaluate the effectiveness of current legislation and takes action to strengthen laws that will increase compliance and enforcement.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please elaborate on how our government is ensuring animal welfare protection is enforced?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Again, I thank the member from Cambridge for this important question. Mr. Speaker, I’m very happy to share the good news that in our Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act that I just introduced yesterday, our legislation is moving forward in proposing amendments to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act that will address additional compliance and enforcement.

We’ve consulted with the College of Veterinarians of Ontario and other experts in the field to make sure that we provide strong protection for our animals. This includes enhancing inspector powers and permitting them to immediately remove an animal if it is in critical condition or distress. We’re continuing to strengthen compliance and enforcement. We will always keep our animals safe.

Homelessness

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. Residents yesterday were shocked to learn that Ottawa is receiving only $845,100 of the $200 million Ontario is giving municipalities to tackle the homelessness crisis. Ontario’s second-largest city, home to a million people, facing one of the biggest homelessness crises it has ever faced, is receiving only enough money to build two affordable homes.

Curiously, at the same time, the minister’s own riding received triple what Ottawa got, with less than a fifth of the population. Something seems off. Minister, can you provide a full account of where your government’s affordable housing funding is going and why?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: I’d be happy to, Speaker. It’s interesting that this member asked the question when the person who sits beside her, when he was a regional councillor, asked the same thing that the Auditor General asked, and that was to fix the broken formula from the previous government.

In a 2021 value-for-money audit—you can read it right here—it talks about the inequity of that program. We had