My question is to the Premier.

My constituent Bill is an 87-year-old who reached out to my office in March. With failing vision, he urgently needed cataract surgery. But Bill was told he would have to wait 19 months for his surgery in a public clinic—over a year and a half wait. The underfunded public system forced Bill into a private clinic.

To the Premier: What is normal about this government making seniors go to private clinics for their vital health care?

Bill couldn’t wait. He’s a lifeline for his partner because he drives. In Conservative Ontario, an 87-year-old senior was burdened with $4,510 to pay. It is unconscionable, and it’s on this government. I highly doubt this government has any clue what the private clinic is pulling from the public purse on top of this ridiculous amount. This clinic actually nickel-and-dimed Bill for COVID-19, adding a $10 charge on his invoice.

Again to the Premier: What is normal about an 87-year-old getting gouged for their essential health care?

I’d like to thank the members for their comments about Bill 69.

I want to return to the Auditor General’s report, where it was pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was deemed ineffective—that there were no standards of performance, no timelines, and even that there were invoices that were non-specific to the location as well as the services that were provided.

Is it good business to continually reward organizations that do not have performance standards, that do not have timelines, and that are unspecific on invoices?

I would like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for her excellent presentation showing how Bill 69 is actually creating a loophole that undermines or even negates the Environmental Bill of Rights.

It seems that this government is a government of backroom deals and escape hatches when you look at Bill 28—the bill that never was but never was—the “notwithstanding” clause, MZOs, Bill 124, and now Bill 69.

You talked about the Auditor General’s 2017 report, and you pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was ineffective, with no standards of performance, and that there were no timelines. It has even been pointed out that invoices were non-specific and did not have proper addresses on them—so it wasn’t necessarily as though these invoices were even related to the properties that were being managed.

My question: Is it fiscally prudent or socially responsible to give further contracts to Infrastructure Ontario?