Menu Close

Preserving Public Health: Ontario’s Battle – Privatization vs. Public Care

Student

By Amandeep Anu

In the ongoing debate surrounding the future of healthcare in Ontario, the pivotal choice between privatization and public care assumes a central role in shaping the well-being of the province’s residents. While compelling arguments emerge from both sides, the necessity of advancing public healthcare is the definitive path forward for Ontario. This assertion is grounded in exploring the principles underpinning the Canadian health system, examining the current state of Ontario’s public healthcare infrastructure, and critically evaluating the pros and cons associated with privatization.

The Foundation of Public Healthcare

The Canadian health system stands on principles designed to prioritize the welfare of its citizens. Universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility, and public administration form the bedrock, ensuring that healthcare is not merely a privilege but a right accessible to all Canadians. These principles resonate with the foundational values of a just and compassionate society.

Challenges Facing Healthcare in Ontario

A comprehensive 2022 survey highlighted significant concerns within Canada’s healthcare system. Foremost among them were inadequacies in staffing, issues related to access to treatment, and prolonged waiting times, spotlighting systemic challenges that demand targeted attention. The imperative to address these underlying issues takes precedence over contemplating a shift toward privatization.

The 2022 survey highlighting concerns within Canada’s healthcare system depicted various significant issues reported by respondents. Notably, 63% of individuals identified insufficient staff as a primary challenge, while 47% expressed concerns regarding access to treatment and long waiting times. Additionally, the aging population was recognized as a significant factor by 29% of respondents. Bureaucracy, lack of investment in preventive health, and general lack of investment followed, with percentages of 20%, 18%, and 16%, respectively, pointing to systemic issues requiring attention.

Further concerns included the cost of treatment accessibility, poor safety, and inadequate treatment quality, each noted by 12%, 7%, and 7% of respondents, respectively. Less frequently cited issues encompassed the lack of choice, low standards of cleanliness, and other unspecified concerns, ranging from 4% to 3% of those surveyed.

Ontario’s Current Public Healthcare System

An intricate network, centered around the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), defines Ontario’s healthcare system. Oversight by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) and coordination by Ontario Health set the framework within which healthcare providers operate. Accountability to the MOHLTC and/or Ontario Health ensures adherence to standards (Ontario’s Healthcare System). The regional intricacies managed through Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) further customize healthcare delivery to address local needs.

Privatization Argument

Proponents of privatization advocate for shorter wait times, increased choices, and more autonomy over treatment decisions. However, the associated flaws, including inequalities in access, prioritization of profits over patient care, potential cost escalation, and the strain on public healthcare due to resource diversion, pose severe threats to the fundamental principles of the Canadian health system.

Public vs. Private Healthcare

The advantages of public healthcare in Ontario, anchored by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) and coordinated efforts through agencies like Ontario Health, include publicly funded insurance ensuring access for all, progress in reducing wait times, a focus on public health outcomes, and the elimination of a profit motive, facilitating efficient resource allocation. However, challenges such as a shortage of healthcare providers and a fragmented system persist.

On the other hand, private healthcare, while potentially offering enhanced efficiency, increased patient choice, and treatment control, raises concerns about limited accessibility and a focus on profit over care. The choice between public and private healthcare hinges on aligning with the core principles of the Canadian health system and ensuring that the selected model prioritizes equitable access, quality care, and the well-being of the entire population.

How to Improve Public Healthcare

Acknowledging challenges within the public healthcare system, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), representing 43,000 physicians, has proposed comprehensive recommendations to address existing gaps. These encompass reducing service backlogs, expanding mental health programs, enhancing home and community care, fortifying public health, and fostering digital connectivity between healthcare providers and patients.

The trajectory for Ontario’s healthcare system necessitates a commitment to strengthening its public care infrastructure. Addressing challenges inherent in the existing system and implementing recommendations from authoritative bodies, such as the OMA, will foster a healthcare system that authentically reflects the values of its citizens. Public healthcare, anchored in principles of accessibility, equity, and the pursuit of public health outcomes, remains the unwavering guardian of the well-being of Ontarians. As the province perseveres to preserve public health, collective advocacy for a system aligned with the principles that define the Canadian ethos becomes imperative.

Finding new pathways to home ownership

Anthony Piscitelli

The following article was published in the Hamilton Spectator.

Canadian society is built on the idea that homeownership is the route to a prosperous middle-class lifestyle. Today with many young Canadians wondering how they will purchase their first home, it is time to re-examine the typical pathways to homeownership. 

For those with intergenerational wealth, homeownership remains quite accessible. A 2021 report by CIBC found that 30% of buyers received gifts of on average $82,000 from family to help with their first home purchase. This was a dramatic increase from 2015 when 20% of first-time buyers received on average $52,000 in support. Unfortunately, those seeking to purchase a home without family assistance face daunting timelines. National Bank of Canada recently found that even with recent price declines, an average family would require close to 25 years to save enough for a downpayment on a home in Toronto. Despite these obstacles, based on survey research I conducted with Conestoga College Professor Domenica De Pasquale and University of Waterloo Assistant Professor Sean Geobey, in partnership with the shared equity organization – Ourboro – we found that interest in homeownership remains high among renters. Using a sample of 2,086 Ontarians contacted in early February 2023, we found that 20% of renters planned to purchase their first home in the next year and half expected to purchase a home within the next five years. Many of these individuals will likely face disappointment as Statistics Canada research suggests that only 5% of renters become homeowners each year.

To continue reading please visit the Hamilton Spectator.

Uncovering the Truth About the First-Past-The-Post Electoral System

Student

By Jason Kalbfleisch

The Current System in Canada

Since its conception, Canada has modelled its electoral system after the British system of governance. Even though Canada’s system has deep historical roots, its blatant disregard for Canadian voters means that it needs to change.

Canada uses a first-past-the-post electoral system that sees candidates with the highest number of votes win an election. The system of ridings ensures that candidates are elected from across Canada and considers the wide variety within Canada’s unique political landscape. But the current electoral system encourages the creation of one ruling party and one opposition party by suppressing its citizens’ diversity of thought and diminishing the value of our vote.

Diminishing the Value of our Vote

By its nature, the first-past-the-post system encourages two-party dominance and suppresses smaller parties’ success. Through a phenomenon known as tactical voting, voters are often discouraged from voting with their true political beliefs and give their votes to a larger party with views most similar to theirs to prevent opposition parties’ from being elected.

Alarmingly, studies suggest that 42% of Ontarians’ votes cast in the 2018 Provincial Election were not cast to elect the candidate of their choice but to prevent a less desirable candidate’s election. Those who cast these “strategic” votes discard their political expression to compensate for the electoral system’s deficiencies.

Looking at Alternatives- Proportional Representation

To ensure accurate electoral representation and expression, Canada should look for an alternative electoral system. One proposed solution is Proportional Representation. Under a system of Proportional Representation, the proportion of the votes cast for a party in an election would directly translate into the representation of those parties in the House’s composition. An election that resulted in 30% of votes being cast for the Liberals would result in the Liberals making up 30% of the House.

Additionally, Proportional Representation would result in creating more political parties that would allow voters to vote according to their beliefs without the fear of having their vote wasted.

A System that Fits Canada’s Needs

Any alternative system needs to consider the unique factors that define Canada’s political system. For example, one of the challenges that Proportional Representation would need to overcome is how it would address Canada’s immense geography, political differences, and riding system.

The model that works best for Canada is the Single-Transferable Vote. Under a Single-Transferable Vote, voters would elect their representatives under a preferential ballot. In this system, voters would vote for multiple members from multiple ridings, under a preferential system, voting for as many or as few candidates they would like. Candidates must receive a predetermined number of votes to get elected, and votes cast for a candidate after going over this number will be given to the second choice listed on the ballot. This process continues until the required number of candidates is elected.

This way, every vote would impact an election, and Canada’s political differences would be accurately represented. This transition would provide an incentive for all voters to vote for candidates who genuinely represent their political opinions.

Weaknesses as Opportunities

Critics of Proportional Representation often note that the system’s biggest weakness is its creation of relatively unstable coalition governments. By enabling voters to vote for what they believe in, rather than the largest parties, there will inevitably be fewer majority governments, and more political parties will have a seat at the table.

Instead, this perceived weakness could provide Canada with a new opportunity. Coalition governments could become the new normal, and there could be increased collaboration between political parties. With the House truly representing an election’s outcome, policy coming out of these collaborative governments would consider multiple parties’ agendas, creating more conclusive and effective policy. Under this system, environmental concerns, social concerns, and economic concerns would have to meet and work towards Canada’s future.

What is the Next Step?

The topic of electoral reform is not new in Canada. Justin Trudeau ran an election with the promise of it being the last under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Yet when electoral reform is proposed with a formal vote, it fails. The next step for Canadians is to educate themselves on Proportional Representation to remove any fears that come with this change. The next time it comes to a referendum, Canadians need to take the opportunity to embrace an electoral system that restores their votes’ value.