Connect with us

Alberta

Healthcare Innovation Isn’t ‘Scary.’ Canada’s Broken System Is

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

“Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

Why is the Globe and Mail afraid of healthcare reform that works?

The Globe and Mail editorial board seems to find healthcare innovation “scary.”

On Sept. 3, it published an editorial called “Danielle Smith has a scary fix for healthcare,” criticizing the Alberta Premier’s idea to introduce competition in the province’s health system. Premier Smith’s plan involves third-party leasing of underperforming hospitals while the government retains ownership and continues funding.

Let’s be clear: the real problem isn’t Smith’s proposal – it’s the current state of healthcare across Alberta and Canada. Sticking with the status quo of underperformance is what should truly alarm us. Rather than attacking those trying to fix a broken system, we should focus on much-needed reforms.

So, what exactly is Smith proposing? Contrary to what you may have heard, she isn’t dismantling Alberta’s universal healthcare or introducing an American style system. Yet the public sector unions – and certain media outlets – seem to jump into hysterics any time innovation is proposed, particularly when it involves private-sector competition.

Predictably, groups like Friends of Medicare, with their union ties, are quick to raise the alarm. Yet media coverage often fails to disclose this affiliation, leaving readers with the impression that their views are impartial. Take Global News’ recent coverage, for example:

In late August, Global News reporter Jasmine King presented a story on potential changes to Alberta’s healthcare system. She featured a spokesperson from Friends of Medicare, who predicted that the changes would be detrimental to the province. However, the report failed to mention that Friends of Medicare is affiliated with public sector unions and has a history of opposing any private sector involvement in healthcare. The news segment also included a statement from the dean of a medical faculty, who was critical of the proposed changes. Missing from the report were any voices in favour of healthcare innovation.

Here’s the real issue: Canada is an outlier in its resistance to competition in healthcare. Many European countries, which also have universal healthcare systems, allow private and non-profit organizations to operate hospitals. These systems function effectively without the kind of fear-mongering that dominates the Canadian debate.

Instead of fear-based comparisons to the U.S., let’s acknowledge the success stories of countries that have embraced a mixed system of healthcare delivery. But lazy, fear-driven reporting means we keep hearing the same tired arguments against change, with little context or consideration of alternatives that are working elsewhere.

It’s ironic that The Globe and Mail editorial aims to generate fear about a health care policy proposal that could, contrary to the alarmist reaction, potentially improve efficiency and care in Alberta. The only thing we truly have to fear in healthcare is the stagnation and inefficiency of the current system.

Claude Castonguay, the architect of Quebec’s Medicare system, released a report in 2008 on that province’s health system, calling for increased competition and choice in healthcare.

“In almost every other public and private areas, monopolies are simply not accepted,” he wrote. “Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

The fear of competition is misguided, and Canadians are increasingly open to the idea of paying for private treatment when the public system falls short.

Let’s stop demonizing those who propose solutions and start addressing the real issue: a system that is no longer delivering the care Canadians need. The future of healthcare depends on embracing innovation, not clinging to outdated models and misplaced fears.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

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

Alberta

New pipeline from Alberta would benefit all Canadians—despite claims from B.C. premier

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The pending Memorandum of Understanding between the Carney government and the Alberta governments will reportedly support a new oil pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s tidewater. But B.C. Premier David Eby continues his increasingly strident—and factually challenged—opposition to the whole idea.

Eby’s arguments against a new pipeline are simply illogical and technically incorrect.

First, he argues that any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment, but this is wrong for several reasons. The history of oil transport off of Canada’s coasts is one of incredible safety, whether of Canadian or foreign origin, long predating federal Bill C-48’s tanker ban. New pipelines and additional transport of oil from (and along) B.C. coastal waters is likely very low environmental risk. In the meantime, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships have been cruising up and down the B.C. coast between Alaska and U.S. west coast ports for decades with great safety records.

Next, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations people oppose any such pipeline and will torpedo energy projects in B.C. But in reality, based on the history of the recently completed Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline, First Nations opposition is quite contingent. The TMX project had signed 43 mutual benefit/participation agreements with Indigenous groups along its route by 2018, 33 of which were in B.C. As of March 2023, the project had signed agreements with 81 out of 129 Indigenous community groups along the route worth $657 million, and the project had resulted in more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.

Back in 2019, another proposed energy project garnered serious interest among First Nations groups. The First Nations-proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, aimed to connect Alberta’s oilpatch to a port in Kitimat, B.C. (and ultimately overseas markets) had the buy-in of 35 First Nations groups along the proposed corridor, with equity-sharing agreements floated with 400 others. Energy Spirit, unfortunately, died in regulatory strangulation in the Trudeau government’s revised environmental assessment process, and with the passage of the B.C. tanker ban.

Premier Eby is perfectly free to opine and oppose the very thought of oil pipelines crossing B.C. But the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in a case about the TMX pipeline that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance such as pipelines.

And it’s unreasonable and corrosive to public policy in Canada for leading government figures to adopt positions on important elements of public policy that are simply false, in blatant contradiction to recorded history and fact. Fact—if the energy industry is allowed to move oil reserves to markets other than the United States, this would be in the economic interest of all Canadians including those in B.C.

It must be repeated. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact, and should be discounted by the federal government as it plans an agreement that would enable a project of national importance.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Premier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Recent legislation to dial back ‘woke progressivism’ is intended to protect the rights of parents and children despite opposition from the left.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith took a shot at “woke progressivism” and detractors of her recent pro-family laws, noting that because wokeness went “too far,” the “dial” has turned in favor of parental rights and “no one” wants their “kid to transition behind their back.”

“We know that things went a little bit too far with woke progressivism on so many fronts and we’re trying to get back to the center, trying to get them back to the middle,” Smith said in a recent video message posted on the ruling United Conservative Party’s (UCP) official X account.

Smith, who has been battling the leftist opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) attacks on her recent pro-family legislation, noted how “we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways.”

“I think we have moved the dial on protecting children and the right of girls and women to participate in sports without having to face born male athletes,” mentioning that the Olympics just announced gender-confused athletes are not allowed to compete in male or female categories.

“I think we’re moving the dial on parental rights to make sure that they know what’s going on with their kids. No one wants their kid to be transitioned behind their back and not know. I mean, it doesn’t matter what your background is, you want to know what’s going on with your child.”

Smith also highlighted how conservatives have “changed the entire energy conversation in the country, we now have we now have more than 70 percent of Canadians saying they believe we should build pipelines, and that we should be an energy superpower.’

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Smith recently said her government will use a rare constitutional tool, the notwithstanding clause, to ensure three bills passed this year – a ban on transgender surgery for minors, stopping men from competing in women’s sports, and protecting kids from extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda – remain law after legal attacks from extremist activists.

Bill 26 was passed in December 2024, amending the Health Act to “prohibit regulated health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.”

Last year, Smith’s government also passed Bill 27, a law banning schools from hiding a child’s pronoun changes at school that will help protect kids from the extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda.

Bill 29, which became law last December, bans gender-confused men from competing in women’s sports, the first legislation of its kind in Canada.  The law applies to all school boards, universities, and provincial sports organizations.

Alberta’s notwithstanding clause is like all other provinces’ clauses and was a condition Alberta agreed to before it signed onto the nation’s 1982 constitution.

Continue Reading

Trending

X