TRUE NORTH COLUMN: Canada Could Take Away Half of Putin’s Energy Sales

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DEC 23, 2016: The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with eyes closed at the annual press conference in Center of international trade

This past April, 11-year-old Yana Stepanenko was standing with her mother and brother at a train station in Kramatorsk, Ukraine when a Russian rocket hit.

The blast took out both of the young girl’s legs and one of her mother’s. Yana told local media, “I opened my eyes. I felt my legs were burning hot. I didn’t know what had happened to them.”

At least 52 people were killed and over 100 people were injured. A month later, Yana lost her father when he died defending his country. The young Ukrainian girl has been robbed of her childhood innocence – these emotional and physical scars will last a lifetime.

In order to stop Putin’s regime from committing more atrocities like this we need to reflect on the old saying “follow the money.” If we do, new research by SecondStreet.org suggests Canada could play a significant role in defunding Putin’s military.

According to the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), roughly half of Russia’s budget comes from selling oil and gas. As Shuv Majumder, an expert with the Ottawa-based MacDonald-Laurier Institute told SecondStreet.org, Russia is essentially “a big gas station.” This is how Putin is paying for his military’s rockets, tanks and other equipment.

Many observers have noted that Canada has significant oil and natural gas resources and that if we exported more, particularly to Europe, we could help the world get off of Russian energy and reduce the funds Putin has for his military.

SecondStreet.org wanted to investigate just how much Russian oil and natural gas our country could displace. Is it 10%? 50%? More?

We asked eight experts in the oil and gas industry to estimate how much we could increase our exports in the short term (one year), medium term (three to five years) and long term (seven to ten years). We then averaged their responses and compared them with estimates for future Russian exports.

A key assumption we asked survey participants to consider was that Canada made it a national priority to develop and export our resources. This would mean applications for new oil and gas projects would be handled quickly rather than taking years to examine. At the same time, police would act swiftly to remove any protestors who try to obstruct these projects. 

As you might imagine, there isn’t much Canada can do in the short-term. Experts estimated Canada could only displace about 4-6% of Russian oil and gas exports

However, by the end of the decade, Canada could displace upwards of 59% of annual Russian natural gas exports and 46% of their oil exports. Simply put, we could deliver a significant blow to Putin’s cash cow. 

Yes, it will take a while to do so, but we can’t forget that the world is facing a long-term problem with Russia. Even if Putin pulled his troops out of Ukraine today, would you want to buy oil and gas from his regime five years from now? Ten? The answer is obvious.

So how did the Germans do it? Private sector companies worked on the project non-stop while the government passed legislation to expedite approvals. As a result, the German people can stay warm this winter while their nation stops propping up Putin’s military. 

Canada could also employ this expedited approach and help the world get off Russian energy sooner rather than later. Will we rise to the occasion? For the sake of victims like Yana, the answer should be “yes.”

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 in True North on December 13, 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.