From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Canadians continue to endure long wait times for health care. And while waiting for care can obviously be detrimental to your health and wellbeing, it can also hurt your pocketbook.

In 2024, the latest year of available data, the median wait—from referral by a family doctor to treatment by a specialist—was 30 weeks (including 15 weeks waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist). And last year, an estimated 1.5 million Canadians were waiting for care.

It’s no wonder Canadians are frustrated with the current state of health care.

Again, long waits for care adversely impact patients in many different ways including physical pain, psychological distress and worsened treatment outcomes as lengthy waits can make the treatment of some problems more difficult. There’s also a less-talked about consequence—the impact of health-care waits on the ability of patients to participate in day-to-day life, work and earn a living.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, wait times for non-emergency surgery cost Canadian patients $5.2 billion in lost wages in 2024. That’s about $3,300 for each of the 1.5 million patients waiting for care. Crucially, this estimate only considers time at work. After also accounting for free time outside of work, the cost increases to $15.9 billion or more than $10,200 per person.

Of course, some advocates of the health-care status quo argue that long waits for care remain a necessary trade-off to ensure all Canadians receive universal health-care coverage. But the experience of many high-income countries with universal health care shows the opposite.

Despite Canada ranking among the highest spenders (4th of 31 countries) on health care (as a percentage of its economy) among other developed countries with universal health care, we consistently rank among the bottom for the number of doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and CT scanners. Canada also has one of the worst records on access to timely health care.

So what do these other countries do differently than Canada? In short, they embrace the private sector as a partner in providing universal care.

Australia, for instance, spends less on health care (again, as a percentage of its economy) than Canada, yet the percentage of patients in Australia (33.1 per cent) who report waiting more than two months for non-emergency surgery was much higher in Canada (58.3 per cent). Unlike in Canada, Australian patients can choose to receive non-emergency surgery in either a private or public hospital. In 2021/22, 58.6 per cent of non-emergency surgeries in Australia were performed in private hospitals.

But we don’t need to look abroad for evidence that the private sector can help reduce wait times by delivering publicly-funded care. From 2010 to 2014, the Saskatchewan government, among other policies, contracted out publicly-funded surgeries to private clinics and lowered the province’s median wait time from one of the longest in the country (26.5 weeks in 2010) to one of the shortest (14.2 weeks in 2014). The initiative also reduced the average cost of procedures by 26 per cent.

Canadians are waiting longer than ever for health care, and the economic costs of these waits have never been higher. Until policymakers have the courage to enact genuine reform, based in part on more successful universal health-care systems, this status quo will continue to cost Canadian patients.

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Bill Whitelaw

And pretending otherwise is a fool’s game

Canada is not an energy superpower. Not even close.

The term has become a convenient political crutch, used as a slogan to signal ambition without doing the hard work of building a unified national strategy. It’s a hollow label, unsupported by clarity, coherence, or consensus.

But what does an energy superpower actually mean?

An energy superpower is a nation that not only exploits vast energy resources but also possesses the infrastructure, political unity, and global influence to shape international energy markets.

Right now, Canada has none of these. Instead, we are mired in political disarray, inconsistent energy policies, and missed opportunities.

This misleading label is further complicated by Canada’s political fragmentation. Provincial policies are often at odds with one another, preventing any coherent national energy strategy. Alberta’s economy remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, yet its policies clash with those of Ottawa, which is pushing for a green transition. Meanwhile, Quebec has imposed a complete ban on new oil and gas development, deepening the divide.

This disunity makes it impossible to speak of Canada as an energy superpower.

How can we be a superpower when we can’t even agree on our own energy future? The result is a country torn between expanding fossil fuel production and pivoting to renewable energy, but with no clear path forward on either front.

Moreover, the term energy superpower is also misleading because it suggests that Canada is already a leader in the global energy market. But we are not. We lack the internal coherence and strategic focus necessary to claim this title.

Rather than being based on a solid, coherent energy strategy, the superpower narrative is little more than wishful thinking—a convenient narrative used by politicians to appeal to certain voter bases, but without addressing the hard realities that true energy leadership requires.

These political rifts and contradictions translate directly into real-world consequences.

Canada has failed to build the infrastructure needed to efficiently move resources. Take, for example, the Trans Mountain pipeline, which has faced years of delays and massive cost overruns, and the stalled East Coast LNG projects.

These serve as prime examples of our inability to capitalize on our energy potential.

The Trans Mountain expansion was initially pegged at $7.4 billion, but it ballooned to over $34 billion by 2023, with no guarantee that the government will recoup that investment. Meanwhile, critical LNG export projects in Eastern Canada remain stuck in regulatory limbo, with no consensus between provinces or between the provinces and the federal government. These delays and cost overruns show that, despite having some of the world’s largest oil reserves, Canada has been unable to turn its potential into action.

Even the energy sector itself is deeply fragmented. Industry groups such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Clean Energy Canada, and the Transition Accelerator all propose vastly different roadmaps for the country’s energy future. Some are focused on expanding oil sands and pipelines, while others push for a transition to clean energy. But there is no unified national strategy, and this lack of coordination, coupled with the failure to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints, undermines any claim that Canada is on track to become an energy superpower.

If we continue down this path, the superpower narrative will not unite the country. It will fracture it further, reinforcing existing polarization and distracting us from the real work that needs to be done.

Instead of embracing a vague label of “superpower,” Canada needs to prioritize real, substantive action: infrastructure development, clear policy frameworks, and consensus-building among provinces and stakeholders.

For Canada to become a true energy superpower, we need to invest in projects that support long-term energy security, environmental sustainability, and economic growth. This means not just exploiting resources, but doing so with the necessary infrastructure to transport and refine them efficiently.

We also need to build a national consensus that recognizes the importance of all energy sources—fossil fuels, renewables, and critical minerals—and how they can work together to support both domestic needs and international export markets.

Canada must stop using the energy superpower label until we’ve demonstrated the political coherence and infrastructure needed to back it up. Until then, we need to focus on building consensus and strategy for the future, so that when we do claim the title, it will be earned, not merely wished for.

Bill Whitelaw is a director and advisor to many industry boards, including the Canadian Society for Evolving Energy, which he chairs. He speaks and comments frequently on the subjects of social licence, innovation and technology, and energy supply networks. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country