FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Remove Ottawa’s Free Pass for Foreign Oil

Should Canada’s federal government make it easier for Canadians to buy foreign than Canadian oil? It’s obvious how sensible Canadians would answer that question. But documents obtained by SecondStreet.org show that the federal government continues to give foreign oil a free pass while roadblocking Canadian projects. This not only costs Canadians jobs and business opportunities, it’s also worse for the environment.

Ten years ago, TransCanada (now known as “TC”) proposed a $16-billion “Energy East” pipeline that would have transported oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. For perspective, it would have cost the equivalent of building about 20 new NHL arenas. The industry’s supply chain involves manufacturers and services providers from coast to coast so the economic benefits would have been considerable right across Canada.

Once constructed, the pipeline would have allowed Eastern Canadians to purchase more Canadian and less foreign oil and it would have enabled Canada to export more oil beyond North America, instead of just to our primary purchaser, the United States.

The Quebec government opposed the project, but it’s doubtful the federal government even attempted to convince them it was in both the national interest and Quebec’s interest. Ottawa could have reminded Quebecers that projects like this help pay for social programs and that when the west does well economically, it pays significantly more to Ottawa than it receives back in funding — which means Quebec and other provinces receive more in equalization payments.

But this pipeline was not meant to be. Halfway through the National Energy Board’s expensive and exhaustive approval process, the federal government’s board changed the rules. In 2017, it famously announced that the pipeline would also have to go through an “upstream and downstream” emissions review. “Upstream” is the point in the supply chain that involves discovering, extracting and processing the resources while “downstream” presumably would have looked at emissions from end-users.

Proponents of the project could see the writing on the wall – who changes the rules of the game at halftime? The project was abandoned two months later. TC had to write down over $1 billion it had sunk into the project. Most of us would be disappointed if we lost a couple of hours working on a job application that didn’t result in an interview — never mind losing $1 billion.

At the time, while working for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I filed Access to Information requests with several federal departments to investigate what kind of “upstream and downstream” emissions reviews Ottawa was conducting for foreign oil imports. Every department responded that there were no such reviews. I asked about similar reviews of Ford and Bombardier before Ottawa handed them millions of dollars in subsidies and loans. The two firms literally create vehicles that burn oil and gas products, but Ottawa was not concerned about their emissions.

That was six years ago. More recently, SecondStreet.org filed new requests with Ottawa to see if anything had changed in terms of upstream and downstream emissions reviews for foreign oil and gas. The answer from Ottawa was still “no.” They have no such records. Foreign oil continues to receive a free pass.

A different and wiser approach for Ottawa would be to build more pipelines, not only because they’re more environmentally friendly than rail, but because selling our natural gas to coal-dependent countries helps them reduce their emissions; generating power with natural gas produces about half the emissions that using coal does.

Ottawa could even devote some of the billions in tax dollars these projects would raise to reducing emissions. Entrepreneurs have found ways to take captured CO2 and turn it into useful products, such as diamonds, vodka, plastics and carbon fibre. The federal government could assist these budding industries, not through subsidies, which are notoriously ineffective, but by paying companies based on the CO2 they reduce. No one would complain if the government hired a company to remove litter from a city park; the same approach could be used for the atmosphere. The government could tender contracts for CO2 removal, paying firms that were most effective at reducing emissions.

But that’s a big, bold plan. Let’s start by removing Ottawa’s free pass for foreign oil.

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

This column was published in The Financial Post on May 19, 2023.

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.