Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Fraser Institute

Government meddling contributes to doctor exodus in Quebec

Published

8 months ago

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Bacchus Barua and Yanick Labrie

They have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Quebec’s health minister recently came under fire after reports revealed a record number of physicians left the province’s public system to practise privately. Less discussed are the reasons why physicians made this choice.

Indeed, it turns out that ill-conceived attempts to protect publicly-funded health care by the Trudeau government and successive provincial governments may have contributed to the increasing numbers of physicians opting-out.

To be clear, the 780 physicians in question account for about four per cent of physicians in the province. However, this represents a 22 per cent increase in the number of physicians leaving the public system compared to the previous year—and is part of a growing trend. More importantly, they have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Why?

One reason, is because governments have forced them to do so.

Until recently, physicians in Quebec (including those who practiced in the public sector) were allowed to charge patients so-called “accessory-fees” in certain instances—for example, if the service was either not covered or insufficiently reimbursed by the government’s fee schedule.

However, the federal Canada Health Act (CHA) clearly states that “extra-billing” of this nature, when charged by physicians who also bill the public system, must result in dollar-for-dollar deductions in federal health-care transfer payments to the province. In other words, the CHA encourages provincial efforts to effectively force doctors to choose between the public and private system if any out-of-pocket expenses are involved.

And so, under financial threat by the Trudeau government, Quebec eventually clamped down on such fees charged by physicians who worked in the public system.

Consequently, physicians who relied on these payments to cover a portion of their operating costs faced an unfortunate choice—stay in the public system at the risk of financial ruin or opt-out entirely and practise exclusively in the private sector.

For many, the choice was obvious. One study found that by 2019 “an additional 69 specialist physicians opted out after the 2017 clampdown on double billing [sic] than previous trends would have predicted.” Several clinics offering endoscopy and colonoscopy services simply closed their doors. Quebecers also ended up with a less convenient health-care experience following this clamp down, as evidenced by the reduction in clinic-provided services that followed.

This attitude to extra-billing stands in stark contrast to the situation in other universal health-care countries such as Australia where consultations with specialists are usually only partially (85 per cent) covered by the universal plan. In fact, physicians (family doctors and specialists) can generally set fees above the government’s fee schedule so long as they forgo the convenience of directly billing the government (i.e. patients claim reimbursement after the fact). Notably, Australia’s health-care system costs less than Canada’s in total (including these private payments) yet delivers more rapid access to health-care services with a greater availability of medical professionals, hospital beds, and diagnostic and surgical technologies.

More generally, a recent study found 22 of 28 universal health-care countries require patients to share a portion of the cost of treatment (with generous protections for vulnerable groups). These include deductibles (an amount individuals must pay before insurance coverage kicks in), co-insurance payments (the patient pays a certain percentage of treatment cost) and copayments (the patient pays a fixed amount per treatment). Crucially, many of these countries including Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have shorter wait times than we endure.

In these countries, physicians are also generally allowed to practise both in publicly-funded universal settings and private settings (a policy known as “dual practice”) rather than having their activities restricted to one setting only. In other words, Canada’s federal restrictions on cost-sharing and extra-billing (such as Quebec’s accessory fees) and provincial barriers to dual-practice place our universal system in the minority of a small cohort of countries that are not particularly known for stellar performance.

The looming threat of further reductions in federal cash transfers, under the CHA, has led to provinces such as Quebec imposing increasingly restrictive conditions on physicians in the public system. And in response, physicians—by opting-out—are indicating that they’ve had enough.

It’s ironic that the very groups intent on supposedly “protecting public health care” by forcing physicians to choose between the public and private systems have enforced policies that may very well lead to the public system’s continued demise.

Authors:

Bacchus Barua and Yanick Labrie
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 3 hours ago

Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs

2025 Federal Election / 3 hours ago

‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump says wave of reciprocal tariffs will go into effect at midnight

Alberta

Energy sector will fuel Alberta economy and Canada’s exports for many years to come

Published on April 2, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

By any measure, Alberta is an energy powerhouse—within Canada, but also on a global scale. In 2023, it produced 85 per cent of Canada’s oil and three-fifths of the country’s natural gas. Most of Canada’s oil reserves are in Alberta, along with a majority of natural gas reserves. Alberta is the beating heart of the Canadian energy economy. And energy, in turn, accounts for one-quarter of Canada’s international exports.

Consider some key facts about the province’s energy landscape, as noted in the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) 2023 annual report. Oil and natural gas production continued to rise (on a volume basis) in 2023, on the heels of steady increases over the preceding half decade. However, the dollar value of Alberta’s oil and gas production fell in 2023, as the surging prices recorded in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine retreated. Capital spending in the province’s energy sector reached $30 billion in 2023, making it the leading driver of private-sector investment. And completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has opened new offshore export avenues for Canada’s oil industry and should boost Alberta’s energy production and exports going forward.

In a world striving to address climate change, Alberta’s hydrocarbon-heavy energy sector faces challenges. At some point, the world may start to consume less oil and, later, less natural gas (in absolute terms). But such “peak” consumption hasn’t arrived yet, nor does it appear imminent. While the demand for certain refined petroleum products is trending down in some advanced economies, particularly in Europe, we should take a broader global perspective when assessing energy demand and supply trends.

Looking at the worldwide picture, Goldman Sachs’ 2024 global energy forecast predicts that “oil usage will increase through 2034” thanks to strong demand in emerging markets and growing production of petrochemicals that depend on oil as the principal feedstock. Global demand for natural gas (including LNG) will also continue to increase, particularly since natural gas is the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel and more of it is being traded in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Against this backdrop, there are reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for Alberta’s energy sector, particularly if the federal government dials back some of the economically destructive energy and climate policies adopted by the last government. According to the AER’s “base case” forecast, overall energy output will expand over the next 10 years. Oilsands output is projected to grow modestly; natural gas production will also rise, in part due to greater demand for Alberta’s upstream gas from LNG operators in British Columbia.

The AER’s forecast also points to a positive trajectory for capital spending across the province’s energy sector. The agency sees annual investment rising from almost $30 billion to $40 billion by 2033. Most of this takes place in the oil and gas industry, but “emerging” energy resources and projects aimed at climate mitigation are expected to represent a bigger slice of energy-related capital spending going forward.

Like many other oil and gas producing jurisdictions, Alberta must navigate the bumpy journey to a lower-carbon future. But the world is set to remain dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come. This suggests the energy sector will continue to underpin not only the Alberta economy but also Canada’s export portfolio for the foreseeable future.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X