My question today is for the Minister of Infrastructure. In 1969, the Premier of Ontario at the time, the Honourable John Robarts, spoke at the opening of the Ontario Science Centre and shared the following statement: “I am confident that during the next 100 years, it will have an impact on far more people than any other single centennial project.” One hundred years, and that’s from a Progressive Conservative Premier.

How emblematic of this government’s general approach to doing things that they are choosing to demolish it in less than half that time. First, they take apart health care, then the greenbelt, then the science centre. There’s clearly a theme here.

Yesterday, I was joined by OPSEU and community members to reject the government’s decision to demolish and relocate the science centre, a decision, I want to remind everyone, made without any public consultation. My question is, when will this government commit to genuine consultation with the public on the science centre before making community-destroying decisions like this one?

Instead, as we just heard, what we’re hearing is a series of nonsensical justifications for this decision. For example, while this government argues that the new location will attract more visitors, the new centre will be 50% smaller in size. Many Ontarians won’t be able to afford visiting the new centre, and are only able to visit the one we have now because it is centrally located. Not to mention, the current site is situated at the intersection of the Eglinton Crosstown and Ontario Line, which will open up the science centre to even more of the public.

To the Minister of Infrastructure again: Given this public outcry and these arguments, will they re-evaluate the decision to demolish the science centre?

For the Premier: Bill 60 is reckless, incomplete and poorly conceived. It ignores the root causes of the problems in our health care system and fails to prioritize patient health over private wealth. Bill 60 could have been salvaged, but of 45 amendments I proposed, all were thrown out. When the government was asked to ensure that the bill allow Indigenous consultation, they said no. When they were asked to establish conflict-of-interest rules for directors who issue licences, they said no. They said no to protections against upselling, up-charging, profiteering and cycling of health workers out of the public hospitals.

Ontarians are outraged. I know this. I know government members are hearing it from their constituents, because when their constituents don’t hear back from them, they reach out to me instead.

So to every government member: Who will have the courage to listen to the people of Ontario and vote against Bill 60?

And to the Premier: Since this government isn’t serving the interests of Ontarians, whose interest is it actually serving?

I sincerely appreciate the question from the minister, and I’ll begin by saying as a physician that every member has a right to patient-physician confidentiality. I admire you for acknowledging me publicly, but it is my pleasure to serve both in a political capacity and, of course, if my services are ever required, in a clinical capacity as well.

One of the things that I hope to bring forward as a physician in this Legislature is the fact that I have a unique privilege: When serving in the emergency department, my patients tell me things that they don’t necessarily feel comfortable sharing with other people, because of stigma, because of things that have happened to them in the past. I hope that when I rise in this chamber, I can amplify those voices and tell those stories, and I would humbly ask if you would join me in listening, in helping me to amplify those voices as well, so that we can fight for every single person in this province, not just the ones who can be the most vocal. For me, that is one thing I would hope for.

A close friend of mine shared with me an account just last week of a young woman who had passed out, and so she came to the emergency department. It costs hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars just to register someone in the emergency department, to ensure that it’s adequately staffed and to pay for the services that are provided. Ultimately, after the consultation was complete, the reason that she had passed out was because she hadn’t been able to eat that morning. She couldn’t afford to do it.

Stories like this remind me that up-front investment in things like—sir, you spoke about food insecurity earlier. Investments in things like housing, in food, in making sure that disabled people can access the services that they need, can have profound and massive impacts on their long-term quality of—