FINANCIAL POST: Canadians Crave Normal — Not Bold Plans To Restructure The Economy

Unrecognizable mass of people walking in the city

Does it really need to be said that Canadians are yearning for freedom right now and are ready to be done with all the restrictive measures governments have imposed in the name of fighting COVID-19?

Apparently, that reality is not so clear to our elected class, many of whom are busy focusing on creating new restrictive measures to fight climate change when we eventually come out of our pandemic straitjacket.

For instance, Prime Minister Trudeau has suggested the pandemic presented an “opportunity” to implement an ambitious plan to tackle climate change through restructuring the economy — including a 467 per cent increase in his carbon tax. Perhaps this distraction is why our federal government has fared so poorly at securing vaccines for Canadians in a timely manner?

Similarly, Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has also been distracted. Most recently, he released his own carbon tax plan, which also includes a promise to consider new taxes on luxury vehicles, Canadians’ cottages and frequent flyers. While the federal government’s carbon tax rebate allows Canadians to spend their funds as they please, Mr. O’Toole wants to limit your choice to a list of government-approved products.

Public opinion research done recently for SecondStreet.org suggests the majority of Canadians aren’t in the mood for bold, new overhauls of society. Conducted by Léger, our poll found that 57 per cent of Canadians want governments to focus on fighting COVID-19 and getting things back to normal. Only 34 per cent want governments to be looking to restructure the economy through carbon tax increases, rebates, new regulations and subsidies for alternative energy.

This is not surprising. Many families and businesses are really struggling across the country. They just want things to go back to normal.

But it’s not just federal and provincial politicians looking at large-scale reform. Across Canada, many municipalities have promised over the past year to phase out natural gas for electricity and home heating in the name of climate change.

The public does not appear to support such changes. Fifty-one per cent of Canadians indicated in our poll they would be “disappointed” or “very disappointed” if they lost access to natural gas. Only 20 per cent indicated they would be “pleased” or “very pleased” with such a move. It seems many Canadians appreciate having affordable heating bills in the winter and a convenient source of energy for barbecuing their steaks in the summer.

Despite these findings, we know Canadians still care about climate change and are looking for better ways to fight it than simply raising carbon taxes and imposing more regulations on our life.

For instance, when thinking about Beijing or New Delhi images of smog might come to mind. That’s because China and India are heavily reliant on coal for their electricity — a source of power that not only comes with significant CO2 emissions, but also pollutes the air and contributes to millions of people dying prematurely each year.

If Canada ramped up exports of some of our vast natural gas reserves, we could help India, China and other coal-dependent countries to reduce their reliance on coal, creating jobs here while decreasing carbon dioxide emissions and smog levels there.

No carbon tax or grandiose government restrictions would be required. These projects just need a more sensible and faster approval process from the government. This is the approach Canadians seem to be looking for right now. And these private sector-led projects would free-up politicians to spend more time focusing on COVID.

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

This column was published in Financial Post on April 29th, 2021. To see article click here.

 
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

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.