SUN COLUMN: Canadians On Board With Producing More Oil And Gas To Squeeze Out Putin

Oil SecondStreet.org
Pipeline engineers work on a new oil pipeline in British Columbia (photo: Kinder Morgen)

New public opinion research – commissioned by SecondStreet.org – shows that 78% of Canadians support the idea of our country developing and exporting more oil and natural gas so the world can reduce its purchases from Russia.

Will our Members of Parliament in Ottawa act on this sentiment? Will provincial governments follow suit?

It has been three weeks since Putin’s war machine rolled into Ukraine and began shelling apartment buildings, hospitals and even Europe’s largest nuclear reactor. The images are horrific – particularly ones involving young children, pregnant mothers, and senior citizens.

There were no “Sponsored by Canada” signs on the back of Russia’s tanks, but it has been abundantly clear for weeks that Western nations, including Canada, had unwittingly helped pay for this invasion by buying billions of dollars’ worth of Russian oil and natural gas over the past decade.

Global security requires the world – especially Western nations – to halt these purchases from Russia going forward.

Canada’s abundance of both oil and natural gas resources puts our nation in a good position to produce and export more resources to reduce the world’s reliance on Russia. Our oil and gas industry knows where the deposits are, they have the technology to extract them and investors would line up in a heartbeat. The problem of course is many governments have been rejecting most of these projects for years in the name of “saving the environment.”

The reality is that the world is expected to use both oil and natural gas for decades to come. If Canada doesn’t churn out an extra barrel of oil, then Putin will. So, there is no environmental benefit, all we’re doing by keeping our oil and natural gas in the ground is helping Putin’s war machine. Considering Russia is a neighbour of Canada’s in the Arctic, our nation has a strategic incentive to approve more projects and reduce Russian sales.

The March public opinion research procured by SecondStreet.org was conducted by Leger, one of Canada’s most reputable polling firms. It not only shows a large majority strongly support (53%) or somewhat support (25%) developing more oil and gas, but that a large majority exists across Canada, among all age groups and among both men and women.

When drafting the questions, we thought public support might rise if some kind of environmental stipulation was included. We put forward the option of governments approving more oil and natural gas projects, but committing to use the corporate tax revenues from those new projects to pay for environmental activities that reduce emissions. This option received 68% support and is a middle ground option for politicians – who are looking for a “green” element – to get behind.

One interesting finding was that even in Quebec (a province that announced a ban on developing natural gas late last year), a majority of respondents support developing and exporting more resources.

Former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein used to say that his job was to figure out where the parade was going, so he could jump in front of it. While Klein would sometimes participate in real parades, he was of course referring to public opinion and the opportunity politicians have to advance public policy changes if the public was on board.

In this case, the public is moving in one direction, but it’s missing a parade leader.

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank. You can reach him at colin@secondstreet.org or follow him on Twitter (@colincraig1)

This column was published by Sun Newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Winnipeg Sun) on March 18, 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.