April 1, 2026

EPOCH TIMES COLUMN: Canada’s Maternal Care Malady

SecondStreet.org Research Director Bacchus Barua writes in the Epoch Times that Canada must attract more maternal care workers and stop driving off those who work here.

Read the Column

We can’t afford to lose people like Heather Gilchrist. Period.

A midwife from Scotland, Gilchrist has over a decade of experience working in the UK, and was actively working in Victoria, B.C., but now faces imminent deportation. The reason? Basically, Immigration Canada (IRCC) thinks she can’t speak English. Setting aside the obvious fact that Gilchrist is a native English speaker, she actually wrote and passed a proficiency test, but delayed uploading the results because the IRCC website never gave her an option to do so.

While B.C. Health Minister Josie Osborne has finally (after months of inaction) contacted the federal immigration minister for assistance, the vacuum already created by Gilchrist’s inability to work highlights a much bigger issue facing our health-care system. Simply put, Canada is facing a significant shortage of maternal care workers—and data suggests mothers and newborns are already paying the price.

The journey through pregnancy and childbirth involves a number of health-care professionals: family doctors, nurses, anesthetists, and emergency care physicians, among others. However, an important measure of any health-care system’s ability to provide maternal care is the availability of midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs).

Midwives like Heather are typically primary-care providers for low-risk pregnancies but may also work in hospitals on the day of delivery. According to data from the OECD, Canada ranks last among 23 countries for licensed midwives per capita.

While troubling, this may not necessarily be a problem as some countries rely to a greater extent on OB-GYNs—i.e., specialist physicians usually involved in higher-risk pregnancies. However, data from the OECD indicate that Canada also ranks nearly last (33rd of 35) for the relative availability of obstetricians and gynecologists combined. In other words, Canada has a relative shortage of both midwives and OB-GYNs.

Worse, many of the OB-GYNs we do have are resigning—sometimes en masse—in protest due to potentially unsafe work conditions that render them “unable to continue with in-hospital care.” One example of the consequences of staffing shortages is the story of Danielle Goward, a first-time mother who was transferred between four hospitals in British Columbia with a span of 12 days.

While few studies have documented the direct connection between the relative availability of maternal care workers and outcomes in Canada specifically, broad measures of mortality related to childbirth are not encouraging.

For example, a study I conducted for the Fraser Institute previously found Canada had significantly higher infant and perinatal mortality compared to the average high-income universal health-care country in 2021. And more recent data indicate that maternal mortality in Canada has worsened significantly over the last 10 years, growing from 5.5 deaths per thousand live births in 2011–13 to 9.6 in 2021–23. By contrast, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are half our nation’s rate and Ireland and Iceland are effectively zero. Of course, a variety of factors may contribute to these mortality rates, including rural settings, environmental factors, genetics, etc., but the trend is disturbing.

Canada’s health-care challenges are of course not restricted to maternal care. There is increasing documentation of inadequate health-care workers system-wide, long wait times for scheduled care, and routine emergency room closures—all this while Canada continues to spend more on health care per person than the average developed country in the OECD.

Clearly, our once-lauded health-care system is collapsing and in need of significant reform. However, the focus so far has been largely on increasing the relative availability of family doctors. While these efforts should continue, other aspects of our health-care system that may be less visible—like maternal care—deserve attention, sometimes with even greater urgency.

Instead of putting up roadblocks for qualified and experienced workers like Heather Gilchrist, the government should be rolling out the red carpet for them.

Bacchus Barua is research director at the think-tank SecondStreet.org.

This column was originally published in The Epoch Times on April 1, 2026.

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!

Share this Story

Help spread the message and make real change by sharing this story with your network.

Facebook
X
Email

Related Stories

April 14, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows that thousands of Albertans are seeing a doctor 100 times or more in a single year.
April 13, 2026
SecondStreet.org is looking to expand our team with a new Communications and Marketing Director.
April 13, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows some Manitoba patients are seeing doctors hundreds of times in a year, while the phenomenon is far less common in Saskatchewan.

Join 20,000+ Canadians in our movement for a better Canada.

Name(Required)
Select Your Interests(Required)
Consent(Required)

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.