Bill Maher is right about Canadian health care

Recently, popular American comedian and talk show host, Bill Maher, took aim at some of Canada’s public policy failings in one of his monologues. In entertaining fashion, Maher highlighted our high housing costs, unemployment rates and “vaunted” health-care system.

Indeed, citing work published by the Fraser Institute, he explained that after adjusting for age, Canada spends 13.3 per cent of our economy on health care (2020), the highest level of spending by a developed country with universal coverage that year. And that Canada has some of the poorest access to timely appointments with family doctors when compared to our peers.

Unfortunately, while that’s where his segment on health care ended, the bad news for the Canadian system doesn’t stop there.

On top of Canada continuing to be one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the world, we get little in return when it comes to both available medical resources and wait times. For example, among high-income countries with universal health care, Canada has some of the lowest numbers of physicians, hospital beds, MRI machines and CT scanners.

And in Canada, only 38 per cent of patients report seeing a specialist within four weeks (compared to 69 per cent in the Netherlands) and only 62 per cent report receiving non-emergency surgery within four months (compared to 99 per cent in Germany).

Unfortunately, wait times in Canada aren’t simply long compared to other countries, they’re the longest they’ve ever been. Last year the median wait for a Canadian patient seeking non-emergency care reached 27.7 weeks—nearly three times longer than the 9.3 week-wait Canadians experienced three decades ago.

This raises the obvious question. How do other countries outperform Canada’s health-care system while also often spending less as a share of their economies? In short, their approach to universal health care, and in particular their relationship with the private sector, departs drastically from the approach here at home.

Australia, for example, partners with private hospitals to deliver the majority (58.6 per cent) of all non-emergency surgeries within its universal health-care system. Australia also spends less of its total economy (i.e. GDP) on health care but outperforms Canada on every measure of timely care.

Even with restrictions on the private sector, Canada has some limited experience that should encourage policymakers to embrace greater private-sector involvement. Saskatchewan, for example, contracted with private surgical clinics starting in 2010 to deliver publicly-funded services as part of a four-year initiative to reduce wait times, which were among the longest in the country. Between 2010 and 2014, wait times in the province fell from 26.5 weeks to 14.2 weeks. After the initiative ended, the province’s wait times began to grow.

More recently, Quebec, which has some of the shortest wait times for medical services in the country, contracts out one out of every six day-surgeries to private clinics within the publicly-funded health-care system.

Maher’s monologue, which was viewed by millions online, highlighted the key failings of Canada’s health-care system. If policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces want to fix Canadian health care, they must learn from other countries that deliver universal health-care at the same or even lower cost, often with better access and results for patients.

Author:

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Don’t be fooled by high-speed rail

Don't Miss

Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?

Todayville

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

Canada’s Missing Intelligence Command: Convoy Review Takes on New Relevance After FBI Warnings

International / 10 hours ago

Work underway – Trump’s Golden Dome defense shield to be done within four years

Banks / 10 hours ago

Legal group releases report warning Canadians about central bank digital currencies

Economy

Canada as an energy superpower would empower thousands of families for generations

Published on May 20, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

What does the future hold if Canada can become an energy superpower?

For the past 40 years, the fortunes of countless Canadian communities have risen and fallen with the strength of our energy sector. Oil booms in Alberta generated enormous prosperity and created hundreds of thousands of jobs, invigorating resource towns and rural Canada more generally. The existence of nuclear energy in Ontario requires thousands of workers, and its future expansion will generate thousands more. Energy is the economic lifeline for thousands of young and maturing families, but they are not invulnerable.

Global market swings have buffeted these jobs, as have changing provincial and federal policies, as well as international political shifts.

In the middle of the 1980s, oil prices collapsed and shocked Alberta and employment rose from four to 10 per cent as oil and gas jobs disappeared overnight. This was echoed in 2008 and 2014 when lurches in oil prices hit communities in places like Fort McMurray in Alberta, Fort St. John in northern British Columbia, and Estevan, Saskatchewan.

Every cycle of boom and bust was accompanied by hardship, but the people in these communities proved their resilience by rallying and holding onto their livelihoods.

Today, the Canadian energy sector still supports about 200,000 workers with direct employment and up to 400,000 more indirectly. However, as in years past, these workers and their families are subject to global tides, and none has been dictating those flows more than President Donald Trump and his wielding of tariffs to reshape the world economy.

The correct response is for Canada to diversify its trade and expand its energy infrastructure to grow the reach of Canadian energy, our most valuable and important export, and one of the most plentiful job creators in our arsenal. Fortunately, both of Canada’s two major parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, have reached a strong measure of agreement on this matter.

Our rookie prime minister, Mark Carney, has put forward a plan to transform Canada into an “Energy Superpower”. His plan is intended to ensure Canada’s economic security through new trade partnerships around the world and make all forms of Canadian energy competitive.

Some provinces are already charging ahead, with Ontario’s provincial government announcing plans to build Canada’s first small modular reactor (SMR) by 2030, which is projected to power over 300,000 homes and create up to 18,000 jobs. The existing Bruce Power facility in Kincardine already supports 4,200 jobs, and is a pillar of the province’s energy grid.

Crucial to Carney’s plan are faster, streamlined project reviews paired with true Indigenous partnerships, along with plans for a national energy corridor. This could have a transformative impact on the security and health of energy-centric communities. Moving beyond the debate about questioning the obvious need for new projects towards focusing on execution is a welcome breath of fresh air.

There are concerns in some communities about how shortcutting the consultation process and existing oversights may impact local communities, especially Indigenous groups. Resolving these in an equitable and permanent manner will be part of this positive transformation, setting new precedents for economic development in Canada that includes meaningful considerations and involvement for the growing Indigenous economies in BC and across the country.

When it comes to people, however, the mounting job losses over the uncertain economic climate make it imperative to protect jobs and clear the way for new ones. The impact of resource projects on communities like Hope have demonstrated how a reliable industry empowers families. Over 5,400 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent in the oil and gas sector.

The route of the Trans Mountain pipeline ran through Hope, and it revitalized the local economy with job creation and renewal. Pipeline workers not only brought money into Hope, but sprang into action to assist in local firefighting and flood repairs, revealing how the energy sector brings far more to communities than money.

Emulating this across the board is a complicated but essential task. The tightrope between environmental protections and resource development is a delicate one, but Canada has no choice but to walk it with purpose.

Prime Minister Carney’s pledge to make Canada an “Energy Superpower” will mean making choices about economic power, job creation, and locking Canada into its seat at the global energy table.

That means collaboration with people, respecting Indigenous rights, and anchoring policy in the experiences of workers and their families. Trump’s shakeup of the global economy is fraught with peril, but for Canada, it should bring opportunity for a fresh start.

Most importantly, however, it would ensure that hundreds of thousands more Canadians and their families, as well as their communities, can look forward to a bright future.

Business

Carney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate

Published on May 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Prime Minister Carney recently unveiled his new cabinet, and he made some changes in some key policy areas including Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Transport and Internal Trade. What do these cabinet picks tell us about the potential policy focus of Carney’s government moving forward?

At the helm of the Energy and Natural Resource portfolio, Carney appointed Timothy Hodgson, a former banker and chair of Ontario’s massive Hydro One electricity utility. A quick search of Hodgson’s previous experience and opinions on matters of energy and natural resource policy comes up rather dry—he is something of a cypher. Acquaintances are quoted in several articles suggesting he has a pragmatic, pro-business orientation, but that is about all we can glean.

Still, what we do know is that Hodgson is replacing Jonathan Wilkinson, previously a supporter of highly aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions, and aggressive regulation in the energy and natural resource policy spaces when part of Trudeau’s cabinet. So, with a mostly blank slate to stand on, and an ostensibly pragmatic “banker” mentality, we can expect (hope?) that Minister Hodgson blazes a less extreme path forward on energy and natural resource issues, balancing in a more even-handed fashion protection of the environment and natural resources with Canada’s need for economic productivity.

Hodgson’s partner on the energy, natural resource environmental policy front will be Julie Dabrusin, new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, replacing Uber-environmentalist Steven Guilbeault. Dabrusin was previously Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources in the Trudeau government. The most logical expectation would be to expect she will continue to champion Trudeau-esque policies, tempering any hopes we might have for the potentially more moderate Minister Hodgson as bellwether of Canada’s energy, natural resource and environmental policies.

Finally, Carney appointed Chrystia Freeland as Minister of Transport and Internal Trade. Freeland is a strong believer in the climate crisis, an intense regulator thereof, and seems to believe that transportation must be electrified, pedalized and mass-transificated (okay, I made that last term up) to save the planet. So, anyone hoping for a move away from the green-transportation agenda, away from an all electric-car, mass-transit oriented future, and back to something favouring (or at least not-demonizing) an automobile-centric lifestyle might want to rein in their expectations.

Unfortunately, in Carney’s cavalcade of cabinet officials, he did not create a new Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing (again, my term). One of Canada’s biggest public policy illnesses is its plague of regulations. Canada is drowning under a mountain of regulatory red-tape and badly needs a minister with scissors. Canada wants no part of a U.S.-style Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but a Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing, akin to what British Columbia had briefly in 2001, would be a policy tonic Canada needs badly.

Little is known about exactly where the bulk of Prime Minister Carney’s new cabinet will take us, but the safe betting—in areas of environment, natural resources, climate change and transportation—is that we’re likely to see a continuance of Trudeau-era policies, though promulgated by somewhat more bland less-obviously-zealous eco-warriors. Time will tell.