I want to talk about the ethics of where the funding is going and where the funding is not going. The intentional underfunding of health care in Ontario is unethical, and we have proof of that.

I often say that a budget is a moral document and when you follow the money you follow the real priorities.

The FAO has predicted that over the next three years, there will be a $5-billion shortfall in health care funding. This is based on your expectations, as well. The government allocated $3.5 billion in contingency funds. Contingency funds are not transparent. They are not assigned to anything. This is very different than a surplus. This government of Ontario has the money to address the surgical backlog. They have it in hand, and they are choosing not to use it.

The FAO projects improving budget surpluses over the next four years, growing to $7.6 billion. You are growing your surpluses off the pain of the people of this province. It is deeply disturbing when the government has a significant amount of money that they are choosing not to invest.

The FAO has said that the government’s increased use of contingency funds is not a transparent way to budget, as it makes it more difficult for the public to know what the plans are and where the money is going—which is exactly the direction that the government is going in. They want these dollars to go to the very shareholders who have come to various events that this government has hosted. They have pitched it, and this government has said, “Do you know what? We’re going to choose you, the corporate interest in health care, over the people we serve.” This is intentional. It is a strategy that this government is using—but if we only had those mandate letters, where it will clearly, I’m sure, articulate what is happening in the province of Ontario. Has this government released those mandate letters? No. In fact, they have lost in court four times. They’re wasting your money to hide their own intentions as a government.

One of the other things that is happening in Ontario is that of the $1 billion promised for community care, only $130 million has been spent. Communities in all of our ridings are going to be cutting Meals on Wheels, community-based programs. These programs keep people out of hospital. That is the smart investment in health care—people staying healthy.

So this government’s pattern is very clear, and I think that’s why it’s so heartbreaking for some of us who have fought these battles for public health care.

I’ll leave you with this quote from economist Armine Yalnizyan. She said, “We don’t need an action plan for corporate profit and control, using public money. We need to improve the public system.”

That’s what this motion is about today, and that’s why this government should be supporting it.

The Ford government is opening the doors to for-profit corporations that are, first and foremost, in the business of making money for their shareholders. They will do this by encouraging people to pay extra to jump the queue. They will generate profits by trying to convince people they should pay for unnecessary tests.

I’d like to take a moment to revisit when long-term care was turned into a profit-driven business. When the Harris Conservative government sold off long-term care, they promised that all would be well for seniors and people with disabilities living in these homes, but that was far from reality, and it is still far from reality. Profits in long-term care are made by skimping on staffing, supplies, the quality of food, and poor hygiene standards. We saw the results during the pandemic, when members of the Armed Forces reported the appalling conditions that led to so many deaths. And the profits are scooped up through a particular packet of taxpayer funding that does not have to be accounted for. Will wonders never cease? Guess what? Instant profits at the expense of care for residents of long-term care, provided by our government out of taxpayer dollars—immediately go into the profits of long-term-care corporations and doesn’t have to be accounted for. It doesn’t have to be returned if it’s not spent on care.

Let me be clear: There’s no problem with grouping certain kinds of surgeries together for efficiencies within the public system. But there’s nothing in Bill 60 that requires the regulation of private clinics. The shiny new clinics will look nice on the outside, but like American health corporations, their singular goal will be to make money quickly. Frankly, that is never a good situation for the well-being of any society—when profits are more important than care.

As the government shifts surgeries to for-profit clinics, health care workers tell us public operating rooms are under capacity and sit empty largely due to underfunding and lack of staff. We know why there’s a lack of staff: Bill 124. What is now being recognized as “nurse abuse syndrome,” a form of PTSD, is the result of nurses being disrespected, underpaid, overworked and burnt out—the effects of Bill 124.

New nursing graduates are leaving after two years and some are even quitting after their very first placements, when they see the extreme workload first-hand along with how badly nurses are treated. Many nurses are also leaving to work for private agencies because they can work fewer hours and be better paid. It makes sense. In fact, I heard this past week from our local rehabilitation hospital that, regretfully, they are completely dependent on nursing agencies now, even though they cost three to four times as much as staff nurses, because so many nurses have left the field in frustration and despair. There would be no market for these nursing agencies if nurses weren’t being pushed out of the profession by this government’s unconstitutional wage repression bill.

Speaker, our motion today calls for the government to stop the dangerous road they are going down and to utilize our existing operating rooms by paying staff properly and bringing staff back so that Ontarians can receive the universally accessible, safe, quality care they need and deserve.