Prior to 2015, there were clear rules forbidding governments from using taxpayer dollars for self-promotion; however, in 2015, the Liberals changed the law so that the definition of “partisan advertising” was so watered down as to be useless, and in 2017 the Liberals got away with spending $17.4 million to promote themselves on the taxpayers’ dime—shameful.

In 2018, while in opposition, the current Minister of Health introduced a bill entitled End the Public Funding of Partisan Government Advertising Act, which is what we are reintroducing today.

Here we are now in 2024, and I’m getting furious phone calls from people watching the Super Bowl, asking me why they are being subjected to partisan political ads promoting the Ford Conservative government. That was just the beginning. When my constituents found out that $25 million of our taxpayer dollars were paying for these partisan ads, their fury changed to rage. What we are seeing is partisan and self-congratulatory government advertising.

What these ads tell me is that the Conservatives are so worried about the damage their government has done to public education and public health care; the fact that food banks can’t keep up with the demand; the fact that low-wage, precarious workers make up the majority of people teaching at universities and colleges; that arts institutions are crumbling; that the wages of forest firefighters, highway inspectors and conservation officers are so low they can’t attract and retain staff; that private, for-profit health care is popping up everywhere; and that schools are so underfunded, special needs kids are left by the wayside—what this tells me is that the only way the Conservatives can overcome their dreadful record is to use our money to convince us of the opposite.

You have a chance to rediscover integrity as a concept and a reality. Support our bill to end partisanship in taxpayer-funded advertising.

I was listening to the member from Durham earlier, and a lot of talk about transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I wanted to look at that a little bit and where money is being spent by this government. It really puts that into question, the transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I’d like to make a tally here.

I’m thinking here of the mandate letters that have been in court now for five years, and still the government is too frightened, I assume, of what the public will think to reveal what ministers have been directed to do. We all hear every day in this Legislature what the government wants people to believe—they’ve got a narrative—but wouldn’t it be enlightening to compare these creative narratives to what has actually been laid out in the mandate letters? Unfortunately, it’s clear the government would rather spend our tax dollars on lawyers rather than on public transparency. So I ask, is that an example of fiscal prudence?

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that Bill 124 is unconstitutional wage repression, and the repression of the right to collective bargaining is what Bill 124 does. But is the government prepared to stop fighting nurses, educators and other public-sector workers? No. They would prefer to keep spending taxpayer dollars on lawyers and court costs.

Now, we know that if they lose their appeal of Bill 124, they will be forced to pay back wages, probably in the billions, that will be owed to those workers. And these are the workers who did so much for people during the pandemic, who have been treated very poorly by this government. In the end, if they lose that case—first of all, the case is costing a lot of money—then they’re going to have to pay out a lot of money. So why keep fighting and spending tax dollars on a court appeal?

I like to think in terms of strategy, and again, I’m asking myself: What is in those mandate letters? Let’s put this together with another massive health care expense, so that people can see that the wage repression represented by Bill 124 is actually part of a larger strategy to collapse the public health care system so that well-connected people can come in and make hefty profits on the backs of people who are ill.

Bill 124 has effectively pushed health care workers out of hospitals, and hospitals have been forced to spend an incredible amount of money on agency nurses. The fact that people close to the Conservative government own some of these agencies is one piece of the puzzle, but it’s only one. Agencies are costing the public 550% more than it would cost to pay staff nurses. So then you can see that the repression represented by Bill 124 is actually not about saving money; it’s about creating a permanent state of crisis in public health care so that there are opportunities created for private shareholder profits.

Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if we could see the mandate letters for the Ministry of Health and the rationales for imposing Bill 124, which has led to an increase of 550% in health care costs for nursing staff? I find that incredible. Well, let me see: a massive transfer of public dollars into for-profit hands at the expense of health care workers, the ones who actually work on staff and are committed to their communities.

But there are other court cases. There’s the court case around Treaty 9 and undoubtedly there will be more with the imposition of Bill 71. We heard from the Chiefs of Ontario, representing 131 First Nations. The first letter came from the Matawa group, nine First Nations, all in the area of the Ring of Fire and where a lot of the mining the government hopes will take place. Treaty 9—really a very, very serious court case—and then Whitesand, all sending letters in opposition to Bill 71 and effectively saying, “Cease and desist. You do not have the right to be on our property. You do not have the right to be digging and exploring without our consent, without our agreement.”

I just want to say, as we’ve made very clear on this side of the House, that talking about First Nations’ rights is not saying we don’t want mining, but that we want mining done responsibly and we want those relationships built properly, with justice at their core. Right now, that’s not what’s happening.

To me, this is the same old, same old story, and it can be spun any way you like. The latest spin from the Minister of Indigenous Affairs is legacy infrastructure. I think we’re going to hear those two words again and again as the latest spin. It sounds nice, but when you shove things down people’s throats with a father-knows-best attitude, you are showing yourselves to have exactly the same approach as the architects of the residential school system. Surely we should be past that, and we should be capable of recognizing when we are bringing that kind of arrogance: “We know best what’s good for you. We’re going to do it anyway, whether you like it or not.”

The result is actually uncertainty for business. It’s uncertainty for business because there will be court challenges, and if it comes to it, do we really want to see Ipperwash happening here in northern Ontario? Surely not, but that is exactly what’s being invited right now. We had 80 people from the Far North of Ontario here, and chiefs, saying very directly, “The Ring of Fire will not happen without our consent.” Well, the Premier was not willing to even meet with them. What kind of consent is that?

The first letter I received, going back to April 3, was from Matawa—and by the way, Matawa includes Marten Falls and Webequie. Those are the two First Nations that agreed to have the road. I find it perplexing to hear the Premier say that those two First Nations—that it’s going to be their job to convince everybody else that this is a good deal. First of all, it’s not their responsibility to do that. Secondly, they signed the original letter in opposition to Bill 71. Matawa and Marten Falls signed the letter in opposition, so you cannot expect them to do the work that was asked for, which was to set up—let’s see if I can remember the correct words—a process—I’m sorry, I’ve lost the words now, but a process for negotiating so that companies and First Nations—

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.