SUN NEWS COLUMN: Many missed opportunities in Canada’s resource sector

Play Video

Think for a moment of all the workers that are needed to build an NHL arena.

Then we’ll explore something that’s really surprising.

Before an arena gets built, people are required to survey and excavate the site. Engineers design site plans and conduct safety checks. Workers drive cement trucks and make the foundation. Crane operators move necessary materials, construction workers build the seating areas, and plumbers, electricians and other tradespeople set up the various bathrooms, food stalls and retail space. Project managers, investors and lawyers help organize the process.

These large arena projects support a lot of good paying jobs.

Now imagine all of the opportunities there would be for Canadian workers if there was an NHL-sized arena being built in Canada every single day for a year.

If the idea sounds like a fantasy, that’s roughly equivalent to what we’re missing out on because of stalled projects in Canada’s mining and oil and gas sectors.

Some of the stalled natural resource projects are so enormous they make NHL arenas look like five cent candies.

Consider the cancelled Petronas liquified natural gas project (B.C.). The cost of this project alone is about 60 times the bill for the new NHL arena that’s currently being discussed in Calgary.

SecondStreet.org made a list of all the major natural resource projects we’ve missed out on over the past five years; projects where government policies caused or contributed to the delays. The total bill was just shy of the cost of building an NHL-sized arena every single day for a year.

Workers in large urban centres may think the stalled projects in rural parts of Canada don’t affect them. But that’s not true.

Consider Andre Williams’ story. He’s a manager at a manufacturing company in Scarborough, Ontario that coats pipeline components before they are laid in the ground. When pipeline orders slowed in the past, Andre’s company had to temporarily cut hours for staff down to four days a week.

Andre told us, “one of my guys, when we went to four-day weeks he was unable to pay his mortgage. He was in financial strain and even though he’s working four days he was unable to provide for his family the way he should and it was really affecting him emotionally.”

When a worker struggles financially, they’re less likely to buy a new car, dine out or buy something from a local store, so a multitude of other industries are affected as well.

And when workers and businesses struggle, they pay less in taxes. Governments often fill these missing revenue gaps by raising taxes.

Andre put it best when we spoke with him about developing natural resources in Canada. He told us, “every time you take two steps forward there’s a government policy that takes you three steps backward and it’s extremely frustrating for workers and for companies in general.”

Evidence of this comes from the massive Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project (Northwest Territories) that was cancelled in 2017. The bill for this project was about the same as building 27 arenas. Incredibly, when this initiative was halted, a spokesman for the company told the CBC they expected it would take two years to get government approval, but the process instead took approximately six and a half years.

For the sake of workers and taxpayers across the country, governments would be wise to review industry’s concerns – and most importantly, to act on them.

 

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a new Canadian think tank

This column was published in Sun newspapers on June 6, 2019

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.