FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: How We Helped Pay For Putin’s Invasion Of Ukraine

Russia Ukraine SecondStreet.org
Ukrainian troops bracing for military combat against Russian invasion (photo: Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)

The world is addicted to Russia’s energy and, in turn, the Russian government depends on sales of it to finance its operations.

It’s heartbreaking to see images from Ukraine of children huddled together in bomb shelters, cancer patients fearing for their lives in the basement of a hospital or a young couple taking up arms to defend their country on their wedding day. But it’s also infuriating when you realize many Canadian politicians and environmental groups unwittingly helped pave the way for Putin’s attack. Consider the evidence.

Where is Vladimir Putin getting the money to pay for his invasion? Missiles, tanks, soldiers and other military expenses come at a steep price. We know the bills aren’t being paid from selling vodka to the world. Russia’s cash cow is, of course, its oil and gas sector. The country is the third largest oil producer in the world and the second largest natural gas producer. Europe buys most of its natural gas from Russia while even the United States imports 585,000 barrels of oil per day from Putin’s regime. Even Canada purchases oil from Russia — $3.6 billion in total over the past decade despite our own enormous oil reserves (more on that in a moment).

The United States and many other nations have imposed financial sanctions on Russia but have so far declined to hit Putin where it would hurt him most — by halting the purchase of Russian oil and gas. The world is addicted to Russia’s energy and, in turn, the Russian government depends on sales of it to finance its operations.

Beyond subsidizing Putin by buying Russian oil, the much more important way we have helped his regime has been by choosing to restrict our own oil and gas production, thus ceding market share to Russia. Since Prime Minister Trudeau took office in 2015, we have rejected several pipeline projects, oil extraction projects and natural gas initiatives. As the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers recently tweeted, no fewer than five projects in Eastern Canada have been held back by governments. Had they gone ahead, Canada could be exporting natural gas to Europe right now, helping reduce its dependence on Russia.

As for oil, Eastern Canada buys a lot of it from other countries because we lack pipeline capacity to transport it from Western Canada. Recall, the Trudeau government put up a regulatory wall in front of the Energy East pipeline, which fell through as a result. Its cancellation prevented Canada from exporting more oil in competition with Russia.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in British Columbia would also have allowed us to export our oil abroad, but again, the Trudeau government sided with environmental extremists and rejected the project outright.

Nor should we forget the Keystone XL pipeline. Had the U.S. government approved it, Canada could have exported upwards of 830,000 barrels of oil per day to our neighbours to the south, freeing them from Russia’s oil. It’s reasonable to suppose President Biden’s decision to cancel it on his very first day in office had something to do with our prime minister’s half-hearted support for resource projects.

It has been well documented that many Canadian environmental groups have received millions of dollars from the United States to protest against Canadian oil and gas projects. What has received less attention in Canada is that Russia has been funding environmental groups all over the world to obstruct oil and gas projects in other nations. Two years before she lost the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton argued that a lot of anti-fracking, anti-pipeline money was coming from Russia.

NATO’s former secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told the Guardian in 2014 that Russia, “as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

Russian entities funding environmental radicals to obstruct resource development in other nations is obviously underhanded. But at the heart of Canada’s problem is the fact that our politicians have made very naïve decisions. For years, many observers have warned that keeping Canadian oil and gas in the ground not only hurt our economy, it meant the world would end up buying more oil from unsavoury regimes like Russia’s. Now these decisions are affecting the lives of innocent people in Ukraine.

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

Published by the Financial Post on March 2, 2022.

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.