SUN NEWS COLUMN: Carbon taxes should give pause for workers

Midsection of businesswoman calculating tax at office desk

In many aspects of life, the phrase “the straw that broke the camel’s back” rings true. Eventually, something has to give.

When employers keep layering excessive demands on their employees, some workers will eventually throw up their hands and quit. Similarly, when consumers decide to make a large purchase like a home or car, and a salesperson keeps layering on additional fees, some buyers will eventually walk away.

The same is true for businesses when it comes to government policies. If governments continuously pile on expensive charges and regulations, some businesses will close up shop and find a place to locate without all the headaches and costs or, decide to pursue activities aside from running a business.

With that in mind, SecondStreet.org decided to look into whether or not new carbon taxes are the proverbial straw that is breaking the backs of businesses. The evidence we found suggests carbon taxes will indeed cause back problems.

Peter Gossmann, vice-president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, told us: “In our coalition we have about 220 businesses that, as a result of pressures like the carbon tax, are seriously looking at expanding in the U.S. I would say of our 220 members, about a third are seriously considering it and 10% are actually doing it and we are one of those.”

Peter described to us how the new tax, and other government policy changes (e.g. rising electricity costs due to government policies) affect workers.

“The more burden there is on their employer obviously the less they can put out for bonuses, for wage increases. It just puts a downward pressure on an employee’s ability to move forward. That’s probably the best case scenario. The worst case is that they lose their employment all together because businesses simply can’t afford that extra push on their costs from carbon tax.”

2019 survey of Canadian Federation of Independent Business members affected by the new federal carbon tax indicated that 68% are opposed. Somewhat ironically, a slightly higher percentage indicated the new tax makes it harder for them to spend money on new technology and other initiatives to become more environmentally-friendly.

We hired Nanos Research to do some polling for us on this issue. We asked Canadians if they thought carbon taxes would make our country’s business climate more competitive, less competitive or have no impact?

Twice as many (39%) said the tax would make Canada less competitive versus those who said more competitive (18%). Further, 58% of Canadians indicated that they believed carbon taxes would make it at least a little harder for businesses to employ workers or hire new ones. Conversely, only 34% believed there would be no impact.

While many Canadians have concerns about the current carbon tax, what’s interesting is that two federal government reports have indicated the new federal carbon tax will need to rise by five times the current rate to meet emission targets.

If China, the United States and other countries – which make up the bulk of the world’s emissions – don’t curtail their emissions, it seems all Canada will have done is broken some backs without any environmental gain.

 

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a new Canadian think tank.
This column was published in Sun newspapers on July 21, 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.