Skip to main content

On Thursday afternoon, on the eve of a long weekend, the Ontario government convened public-health officials in the province to let them know that a) the number of public-health units would be reduced to 10 from 35 and b) a new funding formula would result in savings/cuts of $200-million annually.

Toronto, as always, took the brunt of the hit from Doug Ford’s government. Toronto Public Health, which is currently funded 75/25 provincially/municipally, will see its $255-million budget slashed by $86-million immediately, by $107-million next year, and so on, as the formula shifts to 50/50. (Other health units in the province will be funded 70/30 or 60/40, depending on their size.)

Joe Cressy, chair of the Toronto Board of Health, did not mince words in his response to the news: “I say this without an ounce of exaggeration – because of today’s announced cuts, people will die. That’s not rhetoric, it’s a fact. This announcement is callous, it is cruel and it is short-sighted.”

Story continues below advertisement

Toronto Public Health, which has operated since 1883, has a sweeping mandate, from preventing the spread of disease to promoting conditions that improve population health.

Local public-health officials do everything from water-quality testing to sexual-health promotion; daycare inspections to school breakfast programs; immunization monitoring to prenatal support; restaurant inspections to monitoring for infectious diseases; ensuring homeless people don’t freeze to death to advocating for harm-reduction measures such as supervised drug-use sites; measures to prevent suicide from bridges through to reducing the impact of pollution from motor-vehicle traffic.

Yet, public health is always an easy target for cost-cutting politicians.

The paradox of public health is that when it works, its benefits are largely invisible. Counting the number of children contracting measles is easy; counting those who didn’t get measles because they were vaccinated is a lot more difficult.

It’s telling that, in the same budget where the government cut public-health funding by $200-million annually, it announced $2.7-billion a year in hospital-infrastructure funding.

“Our budget protects what matters most to Ontarians,” Health Minister Christine Elliott said. “That’s why we’re investing $27-billion over the next 10 years in essential hospital-infrastructure projects so the people of Ontario can receive the quality care they expect and deserve.”

Meanwhile, $2-billion in cuts to public health didn’t merit mention.

Story continues below advertisement

Governments, regardless of their political stripes, like spending on what’s visible and lends itself well to ribbon-cutting and credit-taking. Our four-year political cycle encourages and rewards short-sightedness.

When you invest in public health, the benefits lie in the future; they go largely unnoticed, even by those who benefit.

That helps explain why we spend so much on sickness care, and so little on illness prevention.

Medicine, where we spend about 95 per cent of our health dollars, “matters most” because it deals with identifiable people. Voters. Public health deals with abstract statistical lives.

If we invest in preventing climate change, for example, thousands of people may avoid developing conditions such as asthma and COPD, but those who benefit will be unknown and unseen.

When you cut public health, as the Ford government has done, it also reflects a philosophical outlook that individuals matter more than the collectivity.

Story continues below advertisement

Public health favours public good over private good, and public-health measures invariably benefit the less fortunate more than the privileged. That’s because the poor and marginalized face infinitely more health risks.

Public-health officials are profoundly pragmatic. You see that reflected in their response to the overdose crisis: Provide safe places for people to inject drugs rather than moralistic abstinence messages.

This approach puts political noses, particularly conservative ones, out of joint.

Improving population health requires societal change and that imposes a cost – a need to change – on the elite and special-interest groups.

It’s no coincidence that the most powerful lobbies in society are those whose actions cause the most harm to health: Tobacco, alcohol, processed food, automobiles, oil, firearms and so on. Public health is David battling countless Goliaths.

That’s why every report examining every public-health crisis – from Walkerton, Ont.’s tainted water to SARS – says the same thing: Public health needs to be well-funded and independent of political influence.

Story continues below advertisement

Public-health officials need to have the power to speak uncomfortable truths to power, to protect them (and all of us) from petty, partisan near-sightedness.

And no doubt the next report will say the same, because we have just put out the welcome mat to as-yet-unknown public-health disasters.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter