Very clearly, Ontario Health atHome fails to assume the same responsibilities that the local health integration networks previously assumed. The minister implied during public hearings that she expects the hospitals to take on all the responsibilities, even through they’re not capable of doing that. What will she do to ensure that hospitals get the support that they need?

As much as we try to help people in our constituency office, I am always in awe of how much members of our community help each other. A local hospital serving Don Valley East, Michael Garron Hospital, has earned its reputation as the “Heart of the East.” It has been there during our community’s toughest times—serving the most marginalized, leading with clinical excellence and being present when needed the most. It led the way in setting national records by vaccinating 10,000—and later 30,000—people with COVID vaccinations in a single day.

I am proud of our community and we’re proud of our hospital. We’ve stepped up to support MGH in every way that we can—by volunteering and contributing as generously as we can. But the hospital needs more help. Making a difference cannot just be up to individuals.

I walked through our emergency department last week. I’ve spoken about this before and I will say it again: My colleagues are struggling, as the needs of the community have outgrown the emergency room. Doctors and nurses are working out of a portable in the ambulance bay. Admission wards are old and in dire condition.

While the area around our hospital is budding with development, and there will soon be an influx of people into our community, Michael Garron Hospital needs an influx of funding to fulfill its plan to expand and renew its facilities. It is my hope to work with this government to see that this funding comes through sooner rather than later for health care workers, for patients and for future generations in Don Valley East.

I present a petition similarly related to the closure of the Chesley hospital.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Chesley and District Memorial Hospital, originally donated to the town with funds provided by the local Kinsmen Club, was dedicated as a tribute to those local residents injured or killed during the Second World War. This hospital has served the needs of the community of Arran-Elderslie for 79 years with strong support at all times from the residents of the town and other communities in the area as well as from the county and local municipal government;

“Whereas three times—in 1976, 1978 and 1992—provincial governments have attempted to close the doors of this hospital. In each case, local residents protested these moves and each time through their efforts the government backed down and the hospital was saved. Now, with the current cancellation and/or reduction of ER services, there is yet another threat to the continued existence of our hospital;

“Whereas the ER in Chesley hospital serves an area with a total population of 6,900 people. It delivers emergency medical care for the whole constituency of Arran-Elderslie township including the towns of Chesley, Tara, Paisley and Dobbinton. It also provides services for those living in the nearby villages of Desboro and Elmwood and in the former townships of Brant, Sullivan and Bentinck. A large number of the residents are seniors and the area also includes a large population of Amish and Mennonite families. Many of these residents do not have access to a private automobile and are disadvantaged in the effort to reach health centres in large communities by the long distance and lack of a public transportation system. They require close proximity to ER and hospital services and that proximity is best served by the Chesley hospital;

“Whereas the physician recruitment committee has advised that without a fully functioning ER, it is difficult to recruit and retain doctors and nurses who are interested in maintaining and increasing their skills and who are dependent upon ER duties to support or supplement their income;

“Whereas Arran-Elderslie council sent a letter addressed to the Premier and the Minister of Health dated October 31, 2022, requesting action to address this situation, and that letter remains unacknowledged and unanswered at this time;

“Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Arran-Elderslie and surrounding community, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep our emergency department at the Chesley hospital open 24/7 by ensuring sufficient funding and fair compensation for nurses and physicians and to address the ongoing operational and labour issues that are impacting our vital emergency department service.”

I agree with this petition, affix my signature and hand it to page Sophie.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health, who, in three days, plans to cut health care funding to the most vulnerable people in Ontario. In doing so, the minister is sending the message that those without OHIP do not deserve the same care as the rest of us. But this is Ontario. This is Canada. Everyone deserves care.

The reality is, most uninsured people actually are entitled to health insurance, but they face social and physical barriers that prevent them from getting an OHIP card. This government is singling out the people who need their help the most and telling them they would rather save a buck than fund their health care. Uninsured people will still get care once they are sick enough, and it is downright sad and not the least bit surprising that the minister is perfectly fine pushing the financial burden onto our already strained health care budgets.

Why does the minister think it’s a good idea to financially drain our public hospitals further, and why must she do it by draining the dignity of our patients?

In the week of March 12 to 18, there were almost 4,000 COVID cases in Ontario and 213 hospitalizations. What happens when that number begins to rise again next fall and all of this funding is cut and none of these programs are in place—no paid sick days, no hospital funding, no coverage for uninsured people? Who will pay for the minister’s cruelty and recklessness then?

This week, the government released their legislation to bring surgeries and diagnostic services out of hospitals. While there could be merit in such a strategy if implemented in a not-for-profit manner with credible guardrails, it alone cannot be a solution to all the challenges in our health care system.

The bedrock of our health care system is its people, and that bedrock has been eroded by Bill 124. This wage-constraining, unconstitutional legislation has pushed health care workers out of the public system. Meanwhile, temporary, for-profit nursing agencies, operating with limited oversight, have been pulling them out. As this has happened, we have learned how some temporary, for-profit nursing agencies exemplify some of the most corrosive elements when profit is mixed with health care.

That is why today I will be tabling a private member’s bill that, if passed, will license and regulate temporary nursing agencies. It takes aim at the most outrageous and predatory practices in a fair and reasonable way. For the first time, nursing agencies will be required to obtain a licence that can be suspended or revoked. They will be forbidden from unethical recruiting practices, unfair negotiation tactics and price-gouging. There will be transparency and accountability achieved through inspections, along with a prohibition against unconscionable pricing.

The bill is fair. It is not onerous. It borrows from accepted practices by this very government, and it won’t destabilize our health care. What it will do is level the playing field and prevent siphoning of health care workers from our public system, and it will stop runaway profiteering.

My question today is for the Minister of Health—

Interjection.

We’ve heard this government crow about restarting the CPSO’s practice-ready assessment program—the same program they cancelled in 2018. We’ve seen them pat each other on the back for asking hospitals to make surge plans—the same surge plans all hospitals make every year, whether a minister asks them to or not. We’ve heard them celebrate being in a position so dire that they have to ask SickKids staff to train nurses in community hospitals outside of their scope of practice. And we’ve heard them claim they’re keeping students in school, even though tens of thousands of them miss class every day because of respiratory illnesses. All the while, ER wait times get worse and worse.

Will the Minister of Health admit that this crisis has slipped out of the government’s hands, and instead present a real plan?

Next, I’d like to remark to the Minister of Health that—

Interjections.

Interjections.

I’m still struggling to understand how this government continues to cherry-pick their stats to defend the state of our health care system. They brag about starting two new medical schools, even though they haven’t moved beyond the planning stages for either. Why should we believe they can deliver on those when they can’t even deliver on licence plates? They also talk about their—

Let’s get something out of the way: I don’t want ALC patients to languish in acute care hospitals. It’s not fair to them and it’s certainly not fair to the patients of Ontario. Our seniors deserve to age with dignity in supportive environments of their choosing, but this bill does not accomplish that.

The number of ALC patients in this province has ballooned over the last four years, and now this government is trying to rush things through without addressing the root causes. They could treat health care workers with respect and repeal Bill 124, but they won’t. They could reduce the massive wage differentials between long-term care, home care and acute care hospitals, but they won’t. They could improve conditions in long-term-care homes, implement the recommendations from the long-term-care commission, but they won’t. I guess you’re seeing a trend here, eh? They could prioritize primary care, but they won’t. Instead, they have chosen to make patients victims by forcing them to leave their families and move to distant long-term-care homes.

So, to be clear, I want as many seniors to age with dignity in the place of their choosing as possible, and I want our acute care hospitals to focus on what they do best, which is providing acute and critical care. But this bill is not the way to do it. This bill violates patient autonomy and is coercive.

True patient consent must pass three tests, as I mentioned this morning: The patient must be capable, they must be fully informed and they must give their consent voluntarily and freely. When it comes to the management of personal health information and authorizing admission to long-term care, this bill fails all three tests. Consent is simply not required. It also fails when it comes to transferring patients to long-term care. Again, consent is about enabling patients to make an informed decision that is voluntary and free. It’s not about getting a yes from a patient. It’s not about getting a signature from a patient or their family. And it’s definitely not about holding a gun to a patient’s head and saying, “You don’t have to go to this long-term-care home, but you will have to pay $1,500 a day if you don’t.”

And don’t let references about past bills from 1979 fool anyone into thinking this bill is about the same thing. That one and this one are completely different.

The definition of coercion is “the practice of persuading someone to do things by using force or threats.” The threat of a $1,500-per-day bill sure sounds like coercion to me, especially when it comes to vulnerable patients and their families, especially when there is already a power differential that exists between patients and their health care teams.

With that in mind, it’s actually amusing to think that Bill 7’s short-form rhetorical title is the More Beds, Better Care Act. It should probably be the more people, better care act, because at least that would start solving some of the fundamental staffing issues in long-term-care homes. But this bill has nothing to do with that. The long-form title is actually along the lines of amending the Fixing Long-Term Care Act with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and “to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act.” The change is consequential, and the major purpose is all about circumventing consent.

The sponsors of this bill know that. That’s why the bill actually says, “Despite subsection 3(2), this section ... shall not be interpreted or construed as being inconsistent with the residents’ bill of rights.” But it is a violation, and it is inconsistent with that bill of rights. And just saying that it isn’t doesn’t make that true.

This bill does not protect confidential patient information, and it fails to pass the three tests of informed patient consent. The worst part is that we couldn’t even invite any lawyers or medical ethicists to explain this to the members across, because they opted to circumvent going to committee—for shame.

There are other major issues with this bill. It can send patients hundreds of kilometres away from their homes, without consideration for their choices or their cultural or social needs. There is no reassurance to patients that their long-term-care homes will be adequately staffed or that they will remain adequately staffed—

Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 is flawed at its core because it violates patient rights. True patient consent must pass three tests: (1) The patient must be capable; (2) they must be fully informed; and (3) they must give their consent voluntarily and freely.

When it comes to transmitting confidential health information and authorizing admission to a long-term-care home, Bill 7 doesn’t even pretend to ask for patient consent. It’s not required. And after all that, if a patient is given space in a faraway, culturally inappropriate long-term-care home, although patients don’t have to say yes, there’s a steep cost to saying no.

To quote the Minister of Long-Term Care on August 24, “Are there instances where the hospital will be charging? Absolutely, if someone refuses to move into a home.”

Will the Minister of Long-Term Care explain why he is choosing to entirely circumvent informed patient consent and instead violate patient autonomy?

Additionally, while I agree that patients need and deserve to be in long-term-care homes, it should be under their own terms and under their own circumstances, not by violating their rights in the process.

You know, this bill is actually so bad, so unethical and so immoral that it actually apologizes for itself. It says, “Despite subsection 3(2), this section ... shall not be interpreted or construed as being inconsistent with the residents’ bill of rights,” even though it does. It fails to pass the three tests of patient consent, it fails to protect patients’ confidential health information and it fails to respect patients’ express wishes.

So I ask again: Will the minister withdraw his bill and instead focus on the root causes of our ALC crisis, such as the mass exodus of health care workers created by Bill 124 in the last four years?

Interjection.

My question is for the Minister of Health. This summer, we have seen unprecedented levels of pressure placed on our hospitals like nothing I’ve seen in my career. Emergency departments, intensive care units and other critical services are closed due to severe staffing shortages. Nothing on this scale has ever been seen before in our province.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, that you or someone you love had a heart attack or a stroke. Imagine that you are a mother and your newborn child suddenly seizes before you. And if that isn’t bad enough, imagine now that all of this happens in a community that just lost its emergency department. This is the reality for too many Ontarians this summer, and yet we’ve all heard the minister’s comments.

Speaker, through you, I ask: Can the Minister of Health please finally provide her assessment and explain why she doesn’t think that the current situation in our hospitals is a crisis?