Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Canadians want major health-care reform now

Published

3 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Tragic stories of multiyear waits for patients are now a Canadian news staple. Is it any wonder, therefore, that a new Navigator poll found almost two-thirds of Canadians experienced (either themselves or a family member) unreasonably long for access to health care. The poll also found that 73 per cent of respondents agree the system needs major reform.

This situation shouldn’t surprise anyone. Last year Canadians could expect a 27.7-week delay for non-emergency treatment. Nearly half this time (13.1 weeks) was spent waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist—that’s more than one month longer than what physicians considered reasonable.

And it’s not as though these unreasonable waits are simple inconveniences for patients; they can have serious consequences including continued pain, psychological distress and disability. For many, there are also economic consequences for waiting due to lost productivity or wages (due to difficulty or inability to work) or for Canadians who pay for care in another country.

Canadians are also experiencing longer delays than their European and Australian universal health-care peers. In 2020, Canadians were the least likely (62 per cent) to report receiving non-emergency surgical treatment in under four weeks compared to Germans (99 per cent) and Australians (72 per cent).

What do they do differently? Put simply, they approach universal care in a different way than we do.

In particular, these countries all have a sizeable and well-integrated private sector that helps deliver universal care including surgical care. For example, in 2021, 45 per cent of hospitals in Germany (a plurality) were private for-profit. And 99 per cent of German hospital beds are accessible to those covered under the country’s mandatory insurance scheme. In Australia, governments regularly contract with private hospitals to provide surgical care, with private facilities handling 41 per cent of all hospital services in 2021/22.

These universal health-care countries also tend to fund their hospitals differently.

Governments in Canada primarily fund hospitals through “global budgets.” With a fixed budget set at the beginning of the year, this funding method is unconnected to the level of services provided. Consequently, patients are treated as costs to be minimized.

In contrast, hospitals in most European countries and Australia are funded on the basis of their activity. As a result, because they are paid for services they actually deliver, hospitals are incentivized to provide higher volumes of care.

The data are clear. Canadian patients are frustrated with their health-care system and have an appetite for change. We stand to learn from other countries who maintain their universal coverage while delivering health care faster than in Canada.

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

Education

Too many bad ideas imposed on classroom teachers

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

The Waterloo Region District School Board recently announced it would remove garbage bins from classrooms, before suddenly reversing itself.

Strange as it sounds, the school board planned to replace classroom waste bins with larger bins in common areas outside of classrooms, ostensibly to reduce the amount of waste produced by schools. Apparently, the facilities superintendent and senior facilities manager (the people behind this idea) think garbage magically appears when garbage bins are in classrooms and disappears once you get rid of these bins.

Of course, reality is quite different. Students still must dispose of dirty Kleenex tissues, empty pens and used candy wrappers. The aborted plan gave students a ready-made excuse for extra hallway trips. To prevent this from happening, teachers would have to provide makeshift garbage bins of their own.

This is a prime example of administrators trying to impose impractical directives on teachers for the sake of virtue signalling. No doubt Waterloo school board officials wanted to be recognized as environmental leaders. Getting rid of garbage bins in classrooms is an easy and effortless way to look like you’re doing something good for the environment.

Indeed, teachers typically bear the brunt of bad ideas imposed on them from above. As another example, British Columbia K-9 teachers must now issue report cards with confusing descriptors such as “emerging” and “extending” rather than more easily understood letter grades such as A, B and C. A recent survey revealed that most parents find the new B.C. report cards hard to understand. While most had no trouble interpreting letter grades such as A, less than one-third could correctly identify what “emerging” and “extending” mean about a student’s progress.

While the B.C. Ministry of Education claims these new report cards are built on the expertise of classroom teachers, its own surveys found that 77 per cent of teachers were unhappy with the grading overhaul. Of course, their feedback was ignored by education bureaucrats, which means teachers must implement something most disagree with, and then bear the brunt of parental frustration.

And one can never forget the nonsensical “no-zero” policies imposed on teachers in every province, which prohibit teachers from giving a mark of zero when students fail to hand in assignments or docking marks for late assignments. The reasoning behind no-zero policies is that zeroes have too negative an impact on student grades.

Fortunately, no-zero policies have become less popular in Canadian schools, particularly after Edmonton physics teacher Lynden Dorval was fired for refusing to comply with his principal’s no-zeroes edict. Not only did the public overwhelmingly support Dorval at the time, but the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that Dorval’s firing was unjust. In the end, taxpayers were on the hook for paying Dorval two years of salary, along with topping up his pension. But this doesn’t mean no-zero policies have disappeared entirely. Plenty of assessment gurus hired by school boards still push them on gullible administrators and unsuspecting teachers.

Finally, there are the never-ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training sessions—possibly the worst fads ever imposed on Canadian teachers. In an obvious desire to justify their jobs, DEI consultants provide many hours of professional development to hapless teachers who have no choice but to attend.

When teachers push back, as Toronto principal Richard Bilkszto did during a DEI session a couple years ago, they’re subjected to harassment and derision. In this case, the social impact on Bilkszto was so negative he eventually and tragically took his own life.

The Bilkszto case had a chilling effect—teachers should go along with whatever they’re told to do by their employer, even when a directive doesn’t make sense. This is not healthy for any profession, and it certainly doesn’t benefit students.

Classroom teachers have far too many bad ideas imposed on them. Instead of making teachers implement useless fads, we should just let them teach. That is, after all, why they became teachers in the first place.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Ottawa may soon pass ‘supply management’ law to effectively maintain inflated dairy prices

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jerome Gessaroli

Many Canadians today face an unsettling reality. While Canada has long been known as a land of plenty, rising living costs and food insecurity are becoming increasingly common concerns. And a piece of federal legislation—which may soon become law—threatens to make the situation even worse.

According to Statistics Canada, rising prices are now “greatly affecting” nearly half of Canadians who are subsequently struggling to cover basic living costs. Even more alarming, 53 per cent are worried about feeding their families. For policymakers, few national priorities are more pressing than the ability of Canadians to feed themselves.

Between 2020 and 2023, food prices surged by 24 per cent, outpacing the overall inflation rate of 15 per cent. Over the past year, more than one million people visited Ontario food banks—a 25 per cent increase from the previous year.

Amid this crisis, a recent academic report highlighted an unforgivable waste. Since 2012, Canada’s dairy system has discarded 6.8 billion litres of milk—worth about $15 billion. This is not just mismanagement, it’s a policy failure. And inexcusably, the federal government knows how to address rising prices on key food staples but instead turns a blind eye.

Canada’s dairy sector operates under a “supply management” system that controls production through quotas and restricts imports via tariffs. Marketing boards work within this system to manage distribution and set the prices farmers receive. Together, these mechanisms effectively limit competition from both domestic and foreign producers.

This rigid regulated system suppresses competition and efficiency—both are essential for lower prices. Hardest hit are low-income Canadians as they spend a greater share of their income on essentials such as groceries. One estimate ranks Canada as having the sixth-highest milk prices worldwide.

The price gap between the United States and Canada for one litre of milk is around C$1.57. A simple calculation shows that if we could reduce the price gap by half, to $0.79, Canadians would save nearly $1.9 billion annually. And eliminating the price gap would save a family of four $360 a year. There would be further savings if the government also liberalized markets for other dairy products such as cheese, butter and yogurt. These lower costs would make a real difference for millions of Canadians.

Which brings us back to the legislation pending on Parliament Hill. Instead of addressing the high food costs, Ottawa is moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois, has passed the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. If enacted, it would stop Canadian trade negotiators from letting other countries sell more supply-managed products in Canada as part of any future trade deal, effectively increasing protection for Canadian industries and creating another legal barrier to reform. While the governing Liberals hold ultimate responsibility for this bill, all parties to some degree support it.

Supply management is already causing trade friction. The U.S. and New Zealand have filed disputes (under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) accusing Canada of failing to meet its commitments on dairy products. If Canada is found in violation, it could face tariffs or other trade restrictions in unrelated sectors. Dairy was also a sticking point in negotiations with the United Kingdom, leading the British to suspend talks on a free trade deal. The costs of defending supply management could ripple farther than agriculture, hurting other Canadian businesses and driving up consumer costs.

Dairy farmers, of course, have invested heavily in the system, and change could be financially painful. Industry groups including the Dairy Farmers of Canada carry significant political influence, especially in Ontario and Quebec, making it politically costly for any party to propose reforms. The concerns of farmers are valid and must be addressed—but they should not stand in the way of opening up these heavily regulated agricultural sectors. With reasonable financial assistance, a gradual transition could ease the burden. After all, New Zealand, with just 5 million people, managed to deregulate its dairy sector and now exports 95 per cent of its milk to 130 countries. There’s no reason Canada could not do something similar.

Bill C-282 is a flawed piece of legislation. Supply management already hurts the most vulnerable Canadians and is the root cause of two trade disputes that threaten harm to other Canadian industries. If passed, this law will further tie the government’s hands in negotiating future free trade agreements. So, who benefits from it? Certainly not Canadians struggling with food insecurity. The government’s refusal to modernize an outdated inefficient system forces Canadians to pay more for basic food staples. If we continue down this path, the economic damage could spread to other sectors, leaving Canadians to bear an ever-increasing financial burden.

Continue Reading

Trending

X