February 19, 2026

More Transparency Could Save Patients’ Lives

New SecondStreet.org research shows that more transparency on waitlists for life-saving surgery could save lives.

  • Honesty about estimated wait times in Canada could alert some patients to dangerous situations and pursue lifesaving treatment abroad 

 

CALGARY, AB: Think tank SecondStreet.org released a new report today that shows provincial governments are lacking when it comes to providing information to patients who are waiting for lifesaving treatment. Almost all provinces do not require patients to be told their estimated wait time and maximum recommended wait time, putting lives at risk. 

“We’ve seen cases in Canada where health staff helped save a life by being honest about the unsafe surgical wait times as well as a case where a patient’s life was taken because the system wasn’t transparent,” said SecondStreet.org Research Director Bacchus Barua. “Passing Debbie’s Law in Canada would increase transparency and save lives – all parties should be able to support it.”

This research was inspired by Manitoba patient Debbie Fewster’s story. She was told she required surgery within three weeks, but died after waiting more than two months. Her family noted they would have sought treatment outside the province had they known their mother’s life was at risk on a waiting list. SecondStreet.org, along with Debbie’s family, proposed Debbie’s Law in 2025 to require transparency around wait times for life-saving treatment.

After filing Freedom of Information requests nationwide, and reviewing guidelines identified by provinces, findings from this research include:

  • No province has proper transparency rules in place to ensure patients know if long waiting lists are putting their lives at risk. Most provinces have no requirements at all.
  • British Columbia has some requirements in place to notify patients of their estimated wait time within two weeks of joining a waiting list. However, this long period can rob patients of valuable time if they need surgery urgently.
  • Saskatchewan does not require providers to inform patients about the estimated wait but suggests “long-waiting” patients should be contacted every three months by the booking office (although there is no explicit requirement).
  • Manitoba does not appear to have made any changes almost a year after Debbie Fewster’s story was brought to light, despite promises to implement a directive.

SecondStreet.org previously shared B.C. patient Melanie Leeson’s story to highlight the life-saving power of medical transparency. Facing an aggressive cancer diagnosis, and a backlogged provincial system, Leeson was told by four different medical professionals that her best hope lay outside of Canada – she is a survivor, but had to leave home to become one. 

“I appreciate that the medical staff I spoke with were brave enough to be honest with me, even when the system discouraged it,” said Leeson. “Their private advice to seek treatment abroad is the reason I am alive today. We need a system where transparency is the standard, not a secret whispered in a hallway.” 

To view SecondStreet.org’s new report – click here.

To view the Freedom of Information responses from each province – see below.

British Columbia – click here and here

Alberta – click here and here

Saskatchewan – click here

Manitoba – click here and  here

Ontario – click here and here

Quebec – click here

Nova Scotia – click here

New Brunswick – click here and here

Prince Edward Island – click here, here, and here

Newfoundland and Labrador – click here and here

Share this Story

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

Facebook
X
Email

Related Stories

February 19, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research examines transparency around waitlists for life-saving surgery.
February 19, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows that more transparency on waitlists for life-saving surgery could save lives.
February 12, 2026
SecondStreet.org is rebutting untrue attacks on Bill 11, a positive step Alberta is taking towards health reform.

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.