Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean–Carleton): I’m proud to have this opportunity today to stand up on behalf of my residents in Nepean–Carleton on Bill 140.

I wanted to commend our PC health critic Elizabeth Witmer, who provided a very rational critique of this bill. I’d just like to go back and use some of her words when she first spoke to this legislation. She said:

“Let’s go back to 2003, when the minister said he was going to start a revolution in long-term care. This bill”—she says—“is anything but a revolution. The minister talked today about the fact that we have these homes. Well, if the minister had taken a look—we started talking about homes and home-like settings in 1998. Eight years later, he’s promising that there will be homes, there will be home-like settings. He has totally missed the fact that this all happened eight years ago. The unfortunate reality is that he has not moved forward one iota to make sure that half of the people who live in long-term-care homes today are going to be the beneficiaries of the same design standards that we introduced in 1998.”

Bill 140 is yet more evidence of another broken Liberal promise from the 2003 election and the fact that they continue to demonstrate that they are prepared to do anything and say anything just to get elected, even if it means breaking promises to Ontario’s most vulnerable.

In 2003, three long years ago and over 200 broken promises ago, the Liberals made a commitment to the people of Ontario that they would provide $6,000 in additional care for long-term-care residents and that they would ensure an additional 20 minutes of care for every long-term-care resident. Surprise, surprise, yet another broken promise from the McGuinty Liberals. On a day when more ad scam questions have arisen and, according to the CBC French-language service, more charges are expected to be laid against Liberal friendly ad firms, it seems no one should be surprised by another broken McGuinty Liberal promise—not surprised but disappointed.

John Tory and the Progressive Conservative caucus recognize the importance of constructive and substantial updates to long-term care in this province. Unfortunately, this bill did not reach that goal. In my city of Ottawa, which I referenced earlier today, we are short at least 850 long-term-care beds. That’s the size of a community hospital. Beds people need today, not some undetermined date in the next few years after the next election. What the people of Ottawa and the people of Ontario need is real, well-thought-out, long-term-care legislation, not just another Liberal “pat on the back” bill that contains catchphrases and little substance.

When I stood up in this House and asked the health minister about the long-term-care bed shortage and crisis in the National Capital Region, I was mocked and laughed at, and I was heckled. This is not a laughing matter to me and it’s not a laughing matter to the people of Ottawa or the people of Ontario. The Minister of Health and his associate Minister of Health Promotion are more concerned with who called whom than with solving the real problem at hand. To that I say who called whom is a lot less important than what got done. Unfortunately, nothing got done at all. But Ontario needs something to be done and so does the city of Ottawa.A mere week after my question, in the Ottawa Citizen Andrew Duffy wrote a compelling piece that backs up the issue I highlighted during question period. He called it “bed blocking,” which I spoke about earlier. In fact, the Ottawa Citizen cited the following, and I’m going to quote from the article:

“Ottawa seniors face some of the province’s longest wait times for a bed in a long-term-care facility. All of the city’s 28 long-term-care facilities have wait lists.

“In fact, the occupancy rates among the city’s long-term-care facilities are the highest in the province, which leaves few beds available to relieve the pressure on hospitals.

“With so many acute care beds occupied by elderly patients, surgeries—sometimes as many as five a week—are cancelled because hospitals do not have beds available for surgical patients to recover. Emergency wards can become overcrowded, with patients on stretchers, waiting to be admitted to other wards, and ambulatory patients, instead of being transported to the nearest hospital, can be sent to one with available emergency beds.

“The inappropriate use of acute care hospital beds is one of the primary reasons that Ottawa has not the been able to meet provincial targets for cancer surgery, heart procedures, cataract surgeries, diagnostic scans, and hip and knee replacements. Although surgical queues in the Ottawa region have improved slightly during the last two years, the region still has wait times that are higher than the provincial average for four or five targeted health services. The wait time for a diagnostic scan is the lone exception.”

The article goes on to cite other areas of particular concern:

—prostate and other genitourinary cancer surgery: 49 days in Ottawa, versus the provincial average of 25 days;

—heart bypass surgery: 31 days in Ottawa, versus the provincial average of 16 days;

—hip replacement surgery: 154 days in Ottawa, versus the provincial average of 99 days elsewhere;

—knee replacement surgery: 194 days, versus the provincial average of 146 days.Get the point? We’re underserviced in Ottawa. You see, we are in real trouble there, and this legislation will not make it better.

Just today, I received a letter from Councillor Jan Harder, who represents Bell–South Nepean in my riding of Nepean–Carleton. She’s one of my mentors. I spent several years working for her at Ottawa city hall. A great supporter of mine, she also is the chair of the home advisory council at Carleton Lodge.

I told Councillor Harder I would bring this issue to the Legislature for her, and I’m going to quote a direct email from her today:

“Bill 140 does not address the real needs of our very vulnerable long-term care home residents. It adds a burden of administration, compliance and documentation that will bleed dollars from front-line care without a significant increase in funding. For municipalities, it represents another download of legislative requirements without the dollars to support them.”

That’s very important, and I just want to move outside the quote for a second to reiterate this: For municipalities, a city councillor is telling us, it represents another download of legislative requirements without the dollars to support them.

She goes on: “I strongly support the spirit of the bill that outlines resident rights and safeguards. However, it is unfortunate that Bill 140 is punitive in tone and content. It assumes all homes need close monitoring and does not reward consistent strong compliance. A more productive alternative would be to integrate accreditation and compliance, thereby eliminating redundant processes and reducing costs. As it is now framed, Bill 140 moves us in the opposite direction.”

She continues. This is a direct quote from my colleague across. “We have caring and competent front-line staff in place, and we do not need to take them away from their primary mission with an excessive regulatory regime. Despite the quality of care they give, there are not enough of them to meet the residents’ needs.

“Our staff are frustrated by the gaps they see between residents’ needs and their ability to meet them. Adequate funding is needed to ensure the needs of our residents are met.

“This government’s commitment to increase operating funding to $6,000 per resident has yet to be achieved. To date, it has reached less than $2,000 per resident.”

She says, “I have other concerns with Bill 140, including section 133, pertaining to orders for renovation; section 156, pertaining to compliance and enforcement; and section 67, that implies that municipal officials could be found guilty of an offence for infraction of administrative requirements that have no connection to the well-being of residents.”

She says, “But I am most concerned about what Bill 140 will do for resident quality of life. As a frequent visitor to Carleton Lodge, I have seen first-hand the impact of a caring touch, a shared laugh and a warm, homey atmosphere.

“I want to be sure Bill 140 supports residents and their families. This is important legislation, and there is too little time for consultation.”

She makes a valid point here: “Municipalities are involved in municipal elections, and councils do not have adequate time to respond before final reading of this bill.” She says, “I urge the minister to slow down to allow for full discussion of Bill 140. Our common goal is long-term care homes for all Ontarians that we can be proud of.”

She makes the point, but not to worry; I’ve already warned Ms. Harder to expect a harsh phone call or email from the Minister of Health Promotion or the Minister of Health or their staff, because she dared to stand up and speak on behalf of the residents and the people of Nepean–Carleton and Carleton Lodge, and the people of Ottawa as well.

I think it’s high time that the two health ministers find out that not everybody can be bullied, not everyone will bow down before them and accept their edicts without question.

Many long-term-care facilities in this province have caring and competent front-line staff in place. And I, as well as many others, are wondering why the Minister of Health feels it is necessary to take those front-line workers away from their primary mission and impose an excessive regulatory regime. Adequate funding is what is needed in our long-term-care facilities. They need it to ensure that the needs of the residents are met.

Where are the $6,000 promised by the McGuinty Liberals? To date, less than $2,000 has come through. That’s what Councillor Jan Harder is telling us. Where are the 20 additional minutes of care? Where are the promised beds? They’re probably in the same place as the scores of other broken promises: lost in a sea of election readiness. But in December 2003, the health minister vowed to take immediate action, saying he wanted to start a revolution, as I said earlier. Three years later, that same minister has put forward what he calls a major piece of legislation that does little more than consolidate three existing acts.

One of the biggest surprises has been the fact that there is very little new in this highly anticipated piece of legislation. The bill is a long time coming. Ontario was told in 2004 that this long-term-care bill would be introduced in early 2005. I’m thinking right now we’re at the end of 2006, and Ontarians are in need of long-term care, and their families have been left waiting two long years since that commitment. I’m not sure about the member from Toronto Centre–Rosedale or his assistants, but the calendar in my office says it’s October 24, 2006. It’s not 2005. I said it before and I’ll say it again: He is either responsible for his department or he is not.

Despite this massive delay in having this bill come forward, it contains little that was not already legislated in this province. With so much lead time on this bill, the people of Ontario should be able to expect, even demand, a revolution the animated health minister promised. I guess he has been too busy working as Ontario co-chair for Bob Rae or writing press releases about my leader.

We need a bill that addresses the real problems in Ontario’s long-term-care facilities, not a bill that pats Liberals on the back, a bill that is little more than electioneering.

Once again, I would like to refer to some comments by Jan Harder, chair of the home advisory board for Carleton Lodge: “I am most concerned about what Bill 140 will do for the resident’s quality of life. As a frequent visitor to Carleton Lodge, I have seen first-hand the impact of a caring touch, a shared laugh and a warm, homey atmosphere. I want to make sure Bill 140 supports the residents and families.”

I want to go back to the words of my colleague Elizabeth Witmer, who is a tried, trusted and true health-care-related expert in this province as a former minister. And I’m very proud of her. She says:

“This bill does not speak to improving the dignity and the comfort for half of the residents in this province who require a change in their accommodation and should be given the support in order to make sure that we can continue with the capital renewal plan that we put in place in order that they can live in homes that meet the new 1998 standards.

“There is nothing” she says, “in this bill—very little—that wasn’t there before. I think that was the biggest surprise. You take a look at the newspaper articles, at any of the editorials, at what the health care professionals, the providers, the associations are saying about the legislation—there’s nothing here. Most of it was already part of other pieces of legislation.”

So I would like to close with this: Long-term care is too important an issue to rush through. The municipalities that this bill is being pushed upon are in the middle of elections and they have little time to respond properly to this bill. Everyone’s common goal should be a bill we can all be proud of, not a bill that Liberals are proud to rush through just to get time for the books of the next election.

Before I conclude, let me go back to April 1998, when the provincial Conservatives announced they would invest $2.1 billion into long-term care. They were opening new homes, investing in community-based programs, and announced 20,000 new beds. In that year, they released mandatory design requirements that came into affect on April 1,1998. That “superseded all prior structural standards and guidelines, which meant that all residents—and that is about half of the residents in the province of Ontario—would now actually be able to live in the dignity and the comfort that they deserved.”  This is according to Elizabeth Witmer.

She goes on, “We provided the capital funding for the new beds. Then we announced that the D beds also were going to be renewed, and we had a plan in order to ensure that this was going to happen. Unfortunately, this Liberal government has not continued with the plan for capital renewal, so we now have half of the beds, about 35,000 to 36,000, that are still only meeting the design standards of 1972.” It’s 2006. I was born in 1974, and the hospital beds that our seniors are living in today, half of them are living in 1972 standards. They’re older than me. That’s not what I would call dignity. I wouldn’t call it respectful, even. This bill fails to even mention that.

The fact that we’ve got our seniors in Ottawa being called bed blockers because there’s no place for them, the fact that there aren’t the appropriate programs in place that we need to give them so that they can live independently in their own homes, this is a critical issue that we have to address. This bill doesn’t do that. You know, it’s a start, I’ll admit that, but it’s only combining three pieces of legislation and it’s three years too late.

I want to go back to the Conference Board of Canada. When I say, “43% of provincial health expenditures in Ontario were accounted for by services for seniors,” expenditures for people 75 years of age or more will double over the next 10 years, unless we change our approach to seniors’ health. “Appropriate geriatric care results in better outcomes for seniors and major reductions in the use of hospital services.”

Our health-care system needs a cash injection for these seniors. It needs new spaces and it needs new programs for Ontario seniors. So I welcome in debate all of the ideas from my colleagues across the floor but, in closing and in parting, I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of this Legislature to listen to the people like Councillor Jan Harder. Slow down so that we’re not rushing something through that key stakeholders in this province, such as our city councillors, right across from Toronto to Ottawa to Hamilton, right across this province, they want to have their say. You’re download without giving them the monies that they’re going to need to carry this out. They need to be at the table. You’re rushing this through.

I’d be happy to address any of the comments from my colleagues. I’d like to conclude my time.