FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Ottawa has 13% support on its oil and gas policies

Oil pumpjack unit in Saskatchewan, Canada

Over the past decade, many European nations grew dependent on Russia for their oil and natural gas needs. How unwise this was Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine revealed. That is why, since February, many of those same European nations have been knocking desperately on Canada’s door seeking to purchase some of our enormous supplies of oil and gas resources.

A new Leger poll conducted for SecondStreet.org shows Canadians want to help. The poll of 1,535 Canadians found 72 per cent of respondents either “somewhat” or “strongly” supported “developing and exporting more oil and natural gas resources so that the world can reduce how much it purchases from Russia.” Support was widespread across Canada, stretched from coast to coast and included men and women and all age groups.

But support was weakest where it counts the most — in the federal government. The Trudeau government seems to have taken its marching orders from the 13 per cent of Canadians who are either “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to exporting more of our oil and natural gas. As the world scrambles to find resources we have in abundance, the government continues to focus on its climate change and renewables narrative. Reality and public opinion seem not to be part of its decision-making.

How often does it have to be said? The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Wind and solar power are a helpful, welcome addition to the world’s energy mix but they are far from a magic solution. They are quite unreliable and, partly for that reason, remain a very small source of the world’s energy — just two per cent in 2019 according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Their biggest shortcoming is that they require back-up sources when the wind isn’t blowing and clouds block the sun’s rays.

This unreliability is one reason Europe is now firing up coal power plants it had previously closed. Yes, while Canada keeps its natural gas in the ground to “reduce emissions,” Europe’s coal plants will now generate nearly double the emissions that burning Canadian natural gas instead would have produced.

Prime Minister Trudeau recently claimed there has “never been a strong business case” for exporting natural gas from Canada’s east coast to Europe. Within days, 101 business leaders, most of whom either work or have worked in Canada’s energy sector, took out a full-page ad informing the prime minister that in their view there was in fact a business case. The problem is that government-imposed environmental roadblocks have made it nearly impossible to get new oil and gas projects off the ground.

So, who do Canadians believe?

When asked which position best represents their view — Ottawa’s or industry’s — our new poll shows Canadians are more than three times more likely (54 per cent to 16 per cent) to agree with industry. The federal government is clearly on shaky ground, but it doesn’t have to be this way. The prime minister could recognize economic and geopolitical reality and embrace developing our oil and gas resources. If he liked, he could take Ottawa’s share from the billions in tax dollars new oil and gas projects would create and spend it developing new technology to reduce emissions. He might even convince provincial governments to contribute a portion of the revenues they would receive as well. In many people’s view, that would not be the best use of these new tax revenues but if such deal-making got the resources out of the ground and delivered them to people who badly need them, in part to replace coal and reduce emissions, it could be win-win.

Getting new energy projects underway can’t happen overnight. It would take years, even if governments fast-tracked approvals. But Mr. Putin has created what is likely to be a long-term problem. The world can’t get started on easing off Russian energy fast enough.

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

This column appeared in The Financial Post on October 26, 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.