NATIONAL POST COLUMN: Canadians want to keep temporary cuts to red tape

After COVID-19 hit Canada, governments across the country started to allow restaurants and pubs to sell alcohol with delivery and takeout orders. Many provinces also started to allow doctors to videoconference with patients.

And perhaps most shockingly, some governments even started to allow court participants to submit their documents – wait for it – electronically.

Such newfound freedoms pale in comparison to what we have lost during the pandemic – who would have thought sitting on a park bench in Ottawa could lead to an $880 fine?

But nonetheless, we have seen many positive examples of governments of all political stripes helping people and businesses by loosening restrictions and simplifying their own service provision. In other words, getting out of the way and not complicating matters with bureaucratic morass.

SecondStreet.org has been tracking these changes on our website since the start of the pandemic and we’ve compiled a list of approximately thirty different examples. Earlier this month we commissioned public opinion firm Leger to survey the public about ten of those examples. The study found a majority of Canadians support relaxing all ten of the regulations on a permanent basis.

In terms of letting restaurants continue to sell alcohol with delivery and takeout orders, 64 per cent of Canadians support keeping this option. One can imagine how the convenience could be a hit with consumers. Now you can order a bottle of wine and a plate of spaghetti from your favourite Italian restaurant rather than having to order the products from two separate businesses.

We spoke with Brett Hogan, a pub owner from Prince Edward Island (PEI), just after his province allowed pubs and restaurants to sell alcohol with takeout orders this past April:

“Our sales were up 30 per cent this weekend … and we were able to hire one more person on.”

Just like that the government helped create a job – not by writing a cheque to the business, but by untying one of its hands.

Health care measures were particularly popular with the public. 91 per cent of Canadians like the idea of continuing to allow pharmacies to continue to deliver prescription medicine (controlled drugs and substances) and 87 per cent of Canadians want to keep the option of being able to videoconference with their doctor.

Facebook user Rachel Lapinid’s online comment about her experience is telling: “All in the comfort of my home and safety of my toddler who I would have taken with me to the clinic otherwise. Saved me time, fuel and stress. I feel like they should continue phone and virtual appointments unless it’s really necessary after this pandemic is over.”

One can see how videoconferencing would also be a hit with Canadians living in rural communities. Instead of driving, say, for an hour to visit a doctor or specialist in a nearby city, a patient might be able to videoconference instead – saving time, money and even reducing their emissions.

Our study also found that 64 per cent of Canadians support being able to buy products with labels that are only written in one official language – quelle surprise! 64 per cent also believe that victims should be able to continue to provide victim impact statements to parole board hearings by telephone, instead of having to be present physically.

As governments consider what to do about the regulations they have “temporarily” relaxed, they would be wise to not just consider our public opinion research, but also to ponder – what else can be done? And – how did our regulations get so antiquated in the first place?

One option to ensure government regulations stay up-to-date and are responsive to the public’s needs would be to establish permanent red tape review committees. Such committees could meet regularly with the public and constantly work towards updating regulations.

It’s common for governments to establish such committees right now, but they tend to be temporary processes and years often pass between such reviews. For example, the City of Winnipeg struck a temporary red tape review committee in 2004, but didn’t conduct a formal review again until 2019.

Needless to say, when such committees wrap up, governments have a way of once again tightening their control.

Just ask Quebec grocery stores which, until recently, couldn’t have more than four staff working after 8:00PM on the weekend.

 


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

A version of this column was originally published in the Calgary Herald and the National Post on May 25, 2020.

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.