When a service you provide may be the only thing standing between life and death for someone, you have a lot of responsibility.
Unfortunately, provincial governments who run the Canadian health-care system don’t take a lot of responsibility for their actions. But that’s changing for our neighbours in Manitoba and, if the Saskatchewan government wants to save lives, it should immediately follow suit.
We’ll get into how Manitoba improved its health-care system, but, first, a short story.
Debbie Fewster was an energetic, loving mother and grandmother who was just starting to enjoy retirement. But at age 70, she was diagnosed with a heart issue and was told she needed a triple bypass within three weeks, or she likely wouldn’t make it.
She actually managed to hold out for over two months … without receiving a call from the Manitoba health system to even schedule her (likely) life-saving surgery. Then, after Thanksgiving dinner last year, she died.
Fast-forward a few months to March of 2025. Along with SecondStreet.org, Debbie’s family held a press conference to bring her story to light and put forward a solution for the Manitoba government — Debbie’s Law.
In short, it would require the system to inform patients if they wouldn’t get life-saving surgery on time. This allows patients to learn if the system is putting their life at risk.
Had Debbie been told she wouldn’t get surgery on time, her family would have done anything to get her the surgery elsewhere — taking out loans, etc., to leave Manitoba and save her life.
It’s an extremely basic step towards accountability and, thankfully, the Manitoba government will be adopting a limited version of Debbie’s Law, in response to the family’s calls for change.
But the Saskatchewan government shouldn’t wait until another family comes forward publicly with a similar story to follow Manitoba’s lead.
We know for a fact that Saskatchewan patients are dying on medical waitlists. In data provided for SecondStreet.org’s annual Died on a Waiting List report, the Ministry of Health revealed that 385 patients died waiting for surgery in 2023-24. (It’s worth mentioning that they did not report the number of patients who died on diagnostic waitlists, so the true total is likely much higher.)
While most of those deaths were for important quality-of-life surgeries like hip replacements, three patients died waiting well over the recommended wait time for brain or spinal surgery, with another patient dying on a cardiac waitlist.
While the province can and should work to bring major reform to the health system, this simple step of just telling patients they won’t get care in time could save lives. Just as with Debbie’s family, those three patients waiting for brain surgery may have gone to Europe, the U.S. or even another Canadian province for care.
Think about it this way: Debbie’s Law actually holds governments to the same standard to which they hold private businesses. If a car company discovers an unsafe part in one of its vehicles, or a food company discovers e-coli on its lettuce, they have to tell people.
Debbie’s Law simply makes hospitals do the same thing.
Adopting Debbie’s Law is an easy, quick way to improve the situation and cut deaths on waitlists. To be extremely clear, it will not fix the system ‒ but it is damage control to ease the worst of what Canada’s health care monopoly can cause.
So, next time you’re talking with your neighbour, your co-workers or even your MLA, bring up Debbie Fewster and the very basic, common-sense idea that would have saved her life.
It might sound a bit strange rolling off of the tongue, but, for once, we should do things as they do in Manitoba.
Dom Lucyk is the communications director for SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.
This column was originally published in the Regina Leader-Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix on May 6, 2025.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
