Fraser Institute
Canada’s median health-care wait time hits 30 weeks—longest ever recorded
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/82aa1/82aa15ac4028a47967fd2668d2b4bbbf37e6e89f" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua
Canadian patients in 2024 waited longer than ever for medical treatment, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“While most Canadians understand that wait times are a major problem, we’ve now reached an unprecedented and unfortunate milestone for delayed access to care,” said Bacchus Barua, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2024.
The annual study, based on a survey of physicians across Canada, this year reports a median wait time of 30 weeks from referral by a general practitioner (i.e. family doctor) to consultation with a specialist to treatment, for procedures across 12 medical specialties including several types of surgery.
This year’s median wait (30 weeks) is the longest ever recorded—longer than the 27.7 weeks in 2023 and the 20.9 weeks in 2019 (before the pandemic), and 222 per cent longer than the 9.3 weeks in 1993 when the Fraser Institute began tracking wait times. Among the provinces, Ontario recorded the shortest median wait time (23.6 weeks, up from 21.6 weeks in 2023) while Prince Edward Island recorded the longest (77.4 weeks—although data for P.E.I. should be interpreted with caution due to fewer survey responses compared to other provinces).
Among the various specialties, national median wait times were longest for orthopedic surgery (57.5 weeks) and neurosurgery (46.2 weeks), and shortest for radiation (4.5 weeks) and medical oncology treatments (4.7 weeks). For diagnostic technologies, wait times were longest for CT scans (8.1 weeks), MRIs (16.2 weeks) and ultrasounds (5.2 weeks).
“Long wait times can result in increased suffering for patients, lost productivity at work, a decreased quality of life, and in the worst cases, disability or death,” said Mackenzie Moir, senior policy analyst at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.
Median wait times by province (in weeks)
- In 2024, physicians across Canada reported a median wait time of 30.0 weeks between a referral from a GP and receipt of treatment. Up from 27.7 in 2023.
- This is 222% longer than the 9.3 week wait Canadian patients could expect in 1993.
- Ontario reported the shortest total wait (23.6 weeks), followed by Quebec (28.9 weeks) and British Columbia (29.5 weeks).
- Patients waited longest in Prince Edward Island (77.4 weeks), New Brunswick (69.4 weeks) and Newfoundland and Labrador (43.2 weeks).
- Patients waited the longest for Orthopaedic Surgery (57.5 weeks) and Neurosurgery (46.2 weeks).
- By contrast, patients faced shorter waits for Radiation Oncology (4.5 weeks) and Medical Oncology (4.7 weeks).
- The national 30 week total wait is comprised of two segments. Referral by a GP to consultation with a specialist: 15.0 weeks. Consultation with a specialist to receipt of treatment: 15.0 weeks.
- More than 1900 responses were received across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
- After seeing a specialist, Canadian patients waited 6.3 weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically reasonable (8.6 weeks).
- Across 10 provinces, the study estimated that patients in Canada were waiting for 1.5 million procedures in 2024.
- Patients also suffered considerable delays for diagnostic technology: 8.1 weeks for CT scans, 16.2 weeks for MRI scans, and 5.2 weeks for Ultrasound.
Mackenzie Moir
Business
Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/661d8/661d8347ce124bd4e2ba9a676adefda3c7652af5" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.
According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.
Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.
While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.
The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.
Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.
Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.
Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.
Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.
Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.
Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.
With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.
Business
New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08a85/08a85df540f3969fde0b42da8ac083ab0d7efb10" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
Mark Carney, who wants to be your next prime minister, recently released his plan for Canada’s climate policies through 2035. It’s a sprawling plan (climate plans always are), encompassing industrial and manufacturing emissions, vehicle emissions, building emissions, appliance emissions, cross-border emissions, more “green” energy, more “heat pumps” replacing HVAC, more electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, more subsidies to consumers, more subsidies to companies, and more charging stations for the EV revolution that does not seem to be happening. And while the plan seeks to eliminate the “consumer carbon tax” on “fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, diesel, home heating oil, etc.” it’s basically Trudeau’s climate plans on steroids.
Consider this. Instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly, under the Carney plan Canadians will pay more—but less visibly. The plan would “tighten” (i.e. raise) the carbon tax on “large industrial emitters” (you know, the people who make the stuff you buy) who will undoubtedly pass some or all of that cost to consumers. Second, the plan wants to force those same large emitters to somehow fund subsidy programs for consumer purchases to offset the losses to Canadians currently profiting from consumer carbon tax rebates. No doubt the costs of those subsidy programs will also be folded into the costs of the products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters,” but the cause of rising prices will be less visible to the general public. And the plan wants more consumer home energy audits and retrofit programs, some of the most notoriously wasteful climate policies ever developed.
But the ironic icing on this plan’s climate cake is the desire to implement tariffs (excuse me, a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”) on U.S. products in association with “key stakeholders and international partners to ensure fairness for Canadian industries.” Yes, you read that right, the plan seeks to kick off a carbon-emission tariff war with the United States, not only for Canada’s trade, but to bring in European allies to pile on. And this, all while posturing in high dudgeon over Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canadian products based on perceived injustices in the U.S./Canada trade relationship.
To recap, while grudgingly admitting that the “consumer carbon tax” is wildly unpopular, poorly designed and easily dispensable in Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the Carney plan intends to double down on all of the economically damaging climate policies of the last 10 years.
But that doubling down will be more out of sight and out of mind to Canadians. Instead of directly seeing how they pay for Canada’s climate crusade, Canadians will see prices rise for goods and services as government stamps climate mandates on Canada’s largest manufacturers and producers, and those costs trickle down onto consumer pocketbooks.
In this regard, the plan is truly old school—historically, governments and bureaucrats preferred to hide their taxes inside of obscure regulations and programs invisible to the public. Canadians will also see prices rise as tariffs imposed on imported American goods (and potentially services) force American businesses to raise prices on goods that Canadians purchase.
The Carney climate plan is a return to the hidden European-style technocratic/bureaucratic/administrative mindset that has led Canada’s economy into record underperformance. Hopefully, whether Carney becomes our next prime minister or not, this plan becomes another dead letter pack of political promises.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business2 days ago
New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
-
Business1 day ago
Argentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
Business2 days ago
Government debt burden increasing across Canada
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
International1 day ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Energy9 hours ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
Alberta1 day ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor