Column

CALGARY HERALD COLUMN: Cost of cancelled projects is equal to building a new arena every day for a year

We have seen many news stories in the past few years about major oil, gas, and mining projects being cancelled in
our country.

SecondStreet.org recently tallied up the total for those projects and it’s a staggering number, a loss that has resulted in economic consequences right across the country. However, Canadians should take note this massive economic sacrifice is for negligible environmental gain.

The list of cancelled projects we compiled stretches from coast to coast and involves everything from a copper mine in British Columbia to a natural gas project in New Brunswick. Since 2014, we identified $213 billion worth of cancelled or stalled projects.

The figure is so large it’s almost impossible to comprehend.

What it works out to is more than the cost of building an NHL-sized arena in Canada every single day for a year.

And just like NHL arenas, natural resource projects require a small army of workers, spanning a wide range of occupations to bring the initiatives to fruition. Of course, these projects require oil industry workers and miners, but there are also people who run the work camps, organize employee travel and payroll, accountants, lawyers and people who help sell the commodities. These projects also have environmental officers who make sure the equipment is running smoothly and the environment is protected.

That brings us to the second point Canadians should consider — the environmental gain from cancelling these projects is negligible.

When Canada cancels an oil and gas or mining project, does the world go without those resources? No, other countries simply increase their production. To confirm this, try visiting your local Walmart and see if the stock shelves are bare. Hint: they won’t be. The metals and plastics that make up the TVs, bicycles, tools and toys on the shelves just end up coming from other countries.

By cancelling oil, gas and mining projects in Canada, all we’ve done is shift production of these resources to other countries — countries that don’t take the same care as our nation does with the environment.

We spoke with Dennis Giesbrecht about how Canada’s environmental policies stack up with other countries. Dennis is from Kamloops, B.C., and has worked on oil and gas projects around the world.

He told us he’s routinely surprised at how strict our policies are compared with other countries. For instance, Dennis told us that while he was stationed at a worksite in Chile, a diesel truck had a large spill and no one was tasked with cleaning it up. In Canada, such spills are required to be cleaned up and reported immediately. Great precautions are taken to ensure they don’t happen in the first place.

The U.S. oil and gas and mining sectors are firing on all cylinders right now. Russia is actually moving ahead with an oil project in the Arctic that is eight times larger than the enormous Teck oilsands mine that just pulled the plug in Canada. We’ve also seen stories about Canadian companies moving their drilling rigs to the United States.

Canadians should also take note that the current natural gas pipeline project in British Columbia, the one that some environmentalists are protesting, will actually help the planet. The natural gas from B.C. will be shipped to China where it will help reduce China’s dependence on coal, a fuel source that not only has significant greenhouse gases, it’s a key contributor to China’s smog problem.

Without a doubt, Canada is committing economic suicide right now when it comes to natural resource development. The United States, Russia and other countries may be thankful for the extra business they’re receiving, but it’s hard to find the upside for our nation.

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

This article originally appeared in the March 9 edition of the Calgary Herald.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Other Canadians Share Similar Experiences:

Play Video

Don and Jackie, Winnipeg

Play Video

Jerry and Becky, Calgary

Play Video

Troy and Erika, Victoria

Play Video

Jim Jones, Toronto

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation
or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

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.