A Couple of Book Reviews

Over the past little while I’ve read a couple of interesting books by Canadian authors on public policy.

If you’re interested in this genre, you might find these short reviews of interest:

The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished – Not Cancelled

It has become fashionable among many activists in Canada to assert that our nation is a racist, intolerant country without much in the way of history to be proud of. 

Such claims, of course, conflict with the fact that literally millions of people from all over the world have decided to move to Canada over the past century. (In 2022 alone, over a million people moved to our nation from abroad!)

Either all those people made a huge mistake or perhaps our nation isn’t the ‘breeding ground for hate’ that some claim. The authors behind The 1867 Project argue the latter.

Organized by Canada’s newest think tank, the Aristotle Foundation, The 1867 Project features 20 authors from across the country that examine Canada’s history from a more mature perspective than what you might find in mainstream media. The book recognizes that our nation, like every other country on earth, has a past that is not without its share of blemishes. 

However, their thesis is that Canada is an organic project, a nation that has grown over the past century and a half, with each gain in civil rights building on past gains. Overall, they argue that our nation has trended in the right direction.

An excerpt from the intro articulates this quite well:

“Oddly, extreme revisionists expect Canada’s founders and others to have fully worked out the implications of their laudable liberty-seeking 19th century presumptions as if they lived in our century. But even reformist-minded men and women of previous eras had major battles to win before later generations could build on their successes. Those battles included “persuading” the few white slave-owners that still existed in the early 19th century Canada (or, in the case of some indigenous communities in British Columbia) that such practices were a moral abomination and should be abolished; that males without property, and then women, and then indigenous and minority Canadians were equal and deserved the vote and all rights more generally; that minorities as defined by religion, or colour, or ancestry deserved the chance to immigrate to Canada and the chance to succeed.”

While the book helps present Canada’s history and some of our historical figures in a more favourable light, the authors do have concerns with certain, for lack of a better word, “woke” aspects of Canadian society today. For instance, the book includes multiple chapters that take exception to critical race theory, identity politics and attempts to completely cancel figures from the past based on today’s standards.

Overall, I really appreciated the wide range of topics covered in the book and how the chapters were generally quite short (it was nice to be able to pick it up before bed and gain a quick briefing on topics I often wasn’t too familiar with). 

Two thumbs up to those who contributed to this project.

To buy the book, see this Amazon link – click here.

Pandemic Panic

It’s hard to think of an event that has had more of an impact on Canadians’ lives over the past half century than the pandemic.

Governments racked up mountains of debt, thousands of businesses closed, our health care system faced tremendous strain and young students lost countless hours of class time. Needless to say, the consequences were broad and deep.

Despite this, many governments seem to want to just take everything related to the pandemic and throw it into the “memory hole” – as the authors behind Pandemic Panic note.

But shouldn’t governments want to conduct a wide assessment of what they did right, what they did wrong and what should be done differently? The answer is obviously yes, but the state has been slow to conduct such reviews. 

Thankfully, Pandemic Panic offers a legal review of infringements to our civil liberties that arose during the pandemic. 

Authored by the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn, Pandemic Panic recaps various legal challenges that took place across the country. From vaccine passport challenges in British Columbia to the federal government using The Emergencies Act during the Freedom Convoy, the authors did a great job of explaining the issues, the government’s rationale behind such decisions (or lack thereof) and what the courts ultimately concluded – or didn’t in cases where the courts simply dismissed the cases.

The authors demonstrated that, more often than not, governments failed to restrict our freedoms during the pandemic using sound evidence and with careful precision. Throughout the book I was reminded of the old expression – “do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito.” For instance, if the goal was to prevent the spread of the virus in indoor settings where large numbers of people were present, then why clamp down on kids playing hockey outdoors and churches holding outdoor services?

Regardless of what one thought of provincial vaccine passports, common sense would dictate that if a patient had a serious reaction to their first dose, and their doctor urged against getting a second dose, that provincial policy should accommodate such cases. But as the authors note in chapter seven, such common sense often failed to reach the upper echelons of government, marginalizing select Canadians from participating more fully in society.

As a non-lawyer, I really appreciated how the authors presented the various legal cases in plain English (no need to Google complex legal terms!) I could pick the book up, read a chapter or two and come away with a better understanding of what occurred. 

Throughout the book I found myself concluding that while I believed it was reasonable for governments to impose at least some sensible restrictions on our personal freedoms, time after time they failed to meet that threshold.

While the book was accessible for non-lawyers, as I read it, I kept thinking how it could be an excellent resource for a law school class that wanted to examine legal challenges and issues that arose during the pandemic period. 

As much as we all may want to join governments in throwing the pandemic era into the memory hole, it’s good for citizens to learn more about what transpired and just how weak many of the governments’ arguments actually were.

Two thumbs up for this book too!

You can buy a copy of Pandemic Panic at local bookstores and through Amazon – click here.

-Colin Craig

President – SecondStreet.org

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.