In general, there is nothing wrong with a government looking for ways to save money. In fact, I am typically in favour of this! As I noted in my last column, the Ford government, despite having “conservative” in the name, hassure ramped up spending, both on the premier’s office staff and on the overall provincial budget. Ontarians can rightly wonder what the point of conservative governments is if Ford seems to think high spending is a goal. Ontarians also can and should look around and ask themselves whether they’re getting value for the money they’re spending.
That’s because, as I said last week, it would be good if the government were focused on the right things — both in terms of what to spend on and what to stop spending on. It’s not just about the total amount spent, but also, critically, what it’s being spent on. And that’s always a matter of choices: what the priorities are, what the priorities won’t be, and, also, what former priorities now need to be de-emphasized in order to free up precious resources for other things.
And that brings us to today’s topic: trying to save money by reducing access to public health services is, uh, an interesting choice.
I am aware and amused by the fact that I am citing Cottage Life magazine for the second time in recent weeks. In anews story published there, the magazine noted that Ontario was considering phasing out free testing of well water. It has long been the case that Ontarians who get their household water from wells can send a sample to a provincial public-health laboratory, which will test it and confirm (or otherwise) that it is fit for drinking. A quick test by a laboratory for biological or chemical contaminants is a routine part of life for many people, who may then drink, cook with, and bathe in their well water without fear of illness or harm. Now Ontario is considering introducing some kind of fee for that service.
It’s not clear whether it would be a nominal fee or a large one. And I want to stress that this is just something that’s being considered. There’s no word yet that the province has chosen to do this, as Cottage Life notes in a quote from a provincial spokesperson.
Okay. Duly noted.
But still. Really?
To be clear, I don’t have a moral issue with the proposal, even though much of the pushback will no doubt be couched in soaring rhetoric about basic access to the necessities of life, water being the most precious natural resource and all that. That’s not my issue. There is nothing morally or pragmatically wrong about nominal fees for even necessary services. I pay a municipal water bill every quarter, and it’s probably the best money I spend. So the problem here isn’t that I have some fundamental objection on the grounds of high principle.
It’s more like ... really, guys? This is what you’re looking at?
As I noted the last time I referenced Cottage Life in a column, those wealthy enough to enjoy second residences, including residences remote enough to lack access to municipal water infrastructure, are not particularly sympathetic individuals — particularly during a cost-of-living crisis. Yes, yes, I know. But cottagers aren’t the only people using wells. There are many people of modest means at best who live in rural areas where well water is the only source of drinking water. Reducing their access to a service that confirms they aren’t poisoning themselves with every sip and shower is one hell of a political choice for the Ford government. You really think that’s gonna look good on you?
(There’s also the issue that Ford probably doesn’t want to alienate those cottagers who are his friends and neighbours, but we can leave that to the side.)
The other baffling issue is that Ontario is apparently looking at consolidating its overall public-health services. The magazine notes that the province is considering going from 11 to five labs. Again, this would save money.
You know, I’m old enough to remember a time not too long ago when you probably didn’t have many people in this province texting each other from their lockdown locations and saying, “You know what we have too much of? That we’re just blowing way too much money on? Public-health laboratory capacity and infrastructure. We should definitely have less of that.”
It’s a good thing when governments look to find efficiencies and save money. It really is. And I’m well aware of the plight of the politician: there is not a single program or line item in any budget that isn’t near and dear to at least one voter, and you can be certain that a voter — perhaps voters! — will raise hell if anything happens to their budgetary darling.
So, hey. Ford government? If getting rid of free water testing for cottagers and the rural poor and overall chopping down on public-health laboratory capacity strike you guys as the best possible ways to slim down the government, go for it. Knock yourselves out. But, just as a friendly warning: You know how you guys are often forced into humiliating and politically ruinous reversals because you committed to doing a thing without having spent even a moment considering the likely political backlash?
Take that moment, friends. Stop and think about this proposal for 30 seconds. And then proceed as you see fit.
Donate