Dearth of medical resources harms Canadian patients

The imbalance between high spending and poor access to doctors, hospital beds and vital imaging technology, coupled with untimely access to services, can, and does, have a detrimental impact on patients.

Whether it’s a lack of family physicians or other health-care workers, Canadians know we have a serious health-care labour shortage on our hands. The implications of this shortage aren’t lost on patients (including Ellie O’Brien) who’ve possibly faced delays in accessing organ transplants because potential donors need a regular family doctor to screen them to begin the transplant process.

Given these access issues, coupled with some of the longest recorded wait times for medical procedures on record, is it any wonder that Canadians are dissatisfied with how their provincial governments handle health care?

While one instinct might be to demand governments spend more on health care, it’s not clear we’re getting good value in return for what’s already being spent. In fact, compared to 29 other high-income countries with universal health care, Canada spent the most on health care as a share of the economy at 12.6 per cent in 2021, the latest year of available comparable data (after adjusting for differences in the age structure of each country’s population).

But what do we get in return for this spending?

As far as medical resources go, not a whole lot. In 2021, Canadians had some of the fewest medical resources in the developed world. Out of 30 high-income countries with universal health care, Canada ranked 28th on physician availability at 2.8 per 1,000 people, far behind countries such as seventh-ranked Switzerland (4.5 physicians per 1,000) and tenth-ranked Australia (at 4.3 physicians per 1,000).

But doctors are just one part of the puzzle. Canada also ranked low on available hospital beds (23rd of 29 countries), meaning patients often face delays for hospital care. It can also mean that patients end up being treated for their illness outside a traditional patient room—such as a hospital hallway, a phenomenon that has spread to many provinces.

We also see a low availability of other key medical resources including diagnostic equipment. In 2019, Canada ranked 25th of 29 comparable countries with universal health care on the number of MRIs (10.3 units per million people) compared to top-ranked Japan, which had four times as many MRIs as Canada. And we ranked 26th out of 30 countries on CT scanners (14.9 scanners per million people) compared to second-ranked Australia, which had five times as many CT scanners. It’s also worth noting that a large a portion of Canada’s diagnostic machines are remarkably old.

It’s no accident that countries such as Australia, which actually spend less of its economy on health care compared to Canada, perform better than Canada on measures of resource availability and timeliness of care. Unlike Canada, Australia embraces its private sector as an integral part of its universal health-care system. With 41 per cent of all hospital care in Australia occurring in private hospitals in 2021/22, private hospitals can act as a pressure valve for the entire system, particularly in times of crisis. Indeed, the country outperforms Canada on measures of timely access to family doctor appointments, specialist care and non-emergency surgery, and has done so regularly for years.

The imbalance between high spending and poor access to doctors, hospital beds and vital imaging technology, coupled with untimely access to services, can, and does, have a detrimental impact on patients. For some, this problem can be life threatening. Without genuine reform based on real world lessons from higher performing universal health-care countries including Australia, it’s impossible to reasonably expect our health-care system to improve despite its hefty price tag.

Author:

Mackenzie Moir

Up Next

Fossil fuel consumption rising despite ‘net-zero’ plans worldwide

Don't Miss

US fertility rates drop to historic low as young adults choose against having children

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

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 4 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

National / 5 hours ago

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

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.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

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.