Connect with us

Business

Canada has fewer doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and among longest wait times than other countries with universal health care

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

Among a group of 31 high-income countries that have universally accessible health care, Canada has among the lowest availability of doctors, hospital beds, and most medical technologies—and some of the longest wait times, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“There is a clear imbalance between the high cost of Canada’s health-care system and the value Canadians receive—particularly in terms of availability of medical resources and timely access to care,” said Bacchus Barua, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care
Countries, 2024.

The study compares 31 universal health-care systems in developed countries using over 40 indicators.

In 2022, using the latest year of comparable data and after adjusting for age, Canada ranked among the top third of health care spenders—4th highest for spending as a share of the economy (11.5 per cent) and 9th highest for spending per person.

Despite Canada’s high level of spending, availability and access to medical resources is generally worse than in comparable countries.

For example, Canada ranked 28th (out of 30) for the availability of doctors, 25th for hospital beds, and 25th for psychiatric beds.

That same year, Canada ranked 27th (out of 31) for the number of MRI machines available per million people, and 28th for CT scanners.

Crucially, among the nine comparable universal health-care countries that measure wait times, Canada ranks 8th (second-worst) for patients who waited more than a month to see a specialist (65.2 per cent), and the worst (9th out of 9) for patients who waited two months or more for non-emergency surgery (58.3 per cent).

“Canadians are increasingly aware of the shortcomings of their health-care system,” said Mackenzie Moir, policy analyst and co-author of the report.

“To improve health care for Canadians, policymakers should learn from other countries around the world that do universal health care better.”

  • Among 31 high-income universal healthcare countries, Canada ranks among the top third of spenders but receives average to poor value in return.
  • After adjusting for differences in age between countries, Canada ranked fourth highest for spending as a percentage of GDP and ninth highest for spending per person in 2022 (the most recent year of comparable data).
  • Across over 40 indictors measured, Canada’s performance for availability and timely access to medical resources was generally below that of the average OECD country.
  • In 2022, Canada ranked 28th (of 30) for the relative availability of doctors and 25th (of 30) for hospital beds dedicated to physical care. The same year, Canada ranked 27th (of 31) for the relative availability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines, and 28th (of 31) for CT scanners.
  • Canada ranked last (or close to last) on three of four indicators of timeliness of care; and ranked sixth (of nine) on the indicator measuring the percentage of patients who reported that cost was a barrier to access.
  • Notably, among the nine countries that measure wait times, Canada ranked eighth worst for the percentage of patients who waited more than one month to see a specialist (65%), and reported the highest percentage of patients (58%) who waited two months or more for non-emergency surgery.
  • Canada’s performance for use of resources and quality and clinical performance was mixed.
  • Clearly, there is an imbalance between the value Canadians receive and the relatively high amount of money they spend on their health-care system.

Adobe PDF Read the Full Report

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

Business

Clean energy transition price tag over $150 billion and climbing, with very little to show for it

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari, Karen Graham and Jock Finlayson

Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have spent (or foregone revenues) of at least $158 billion to create at most 68,000 “clean” jobs since 2014

Despite the hype of a “clean” economic transition, governments in Ottawa and in the four largest provinces have spent or foregone revenues of more than $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) on low-carbon initiatives since 2014/15, but have only created, at best, 68,000 clean jobs, according to two new studies published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Governments, activists and special interest groups have been making a lot of claims about the opportunities of a clean economic transition, but after a decade of policy interventions and more than $150 billion in taxpayers’ money, the results are
extremely underwhelming,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies and co-author of The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy.

The study finds that since 2014/15, the federal government and provincial governments in the country’s four largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia) combined have spent and foregone revenues of $158 billion (inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars) trying to create clean jobs, as defined by Statistics Canada’s Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account.

Importantly, that cost estimate is conservative since it does not account for an exhaustive list of direct government spending and it does not measure the costs from Canada’s other six provinces, municipalities, regulatory costs and other economic
costs because of the low-carbon spending and tax credits.

A second study, Sizing Canada’s Clean Economy, finds that there was very little change over the 2014 to 2023 period in terms of the share of the total economy represented by the clean economy. For instance, in 2014, the clean economy represented 3.1 per cent of GDP compared to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

“The evidence is clear—the much-hyped clean economic transition has failed to fundamentally transform Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy,” said study co-author and Fraser Institute senior fellow Jock Finlayson.

State of the Green Economy

  • The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy documents spending initiatives by the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec since 2014 to promote the low-carbon economy, as well as how much revenue they have foregone through offering tax credits.
  • Overall, the combined cost of spending and tax credits supporting a low-carbon economy by the federal government and the four provincial governments is estimated at $143.6 billion from 2014–15 to 2024–25, in nominal terms. When adjusted for inflation, the total reaches $158 billion in 2024 dollars.
  • These estimates are based on very conservative assumptions, and they do not cover every program area or government-controlled expenditure related to the low-carbon economy and/or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Sizing Canada’s Green Economy assesses the composition, growth, share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) output, and employment of Canada’s “clean economy” from 2014 to 2023.
  • Canada’s various environmental and clean technology industries collectively have accounted for between 3.07% and 3.62% of all-industry GDP over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. While it has grown, the sector as a whole has not been expanding at a pace that meaningfully exceeds the growth of the overall Canadian economy, despite significant policy attention and mounting public subsidies.
  • The clean economy represents a respectable and relatively stable share of Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy. However, it remains a small part of Canada’s broader industrial mix, it is not a major source of export earnings, and it is not about to supplant the many other industries that underpin the country’s prosperity and dominate its international exports.

 

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Karen Graham

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Agriculture

Cloned foods are coming to a grocer near you

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Sylvain Charlebois

And you may never find out if Health Canada gets its way

Cloned-animal foods could soon enter Canada’s food supply with no labels identifying them as cloned and no warning to consumers—a move that risks public trust.

According to Health Canada’s own consultation documents, Ottawa intends to remove foods derived from cloned animals from its “novel foods” list, the process that requires a pre-market safety review and public disclosure. Health Canada defines “novel
foods” as products that haven’t been commonly consumed before or that use new production processes requiring extra safety checks.

From a regulatory standpoint, this looks like an efficiency measure. From a consumer-trust standpoint, it’s a miscalculation.

Health Canada argues that cloned animals and their offspring are indistinguishable from conventional ones, so they should be treated the same. The problem isn’t the science—it’s the silence. Canadians are not being told that the rules for a controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.

Cloning in agriculture means producing an exact genetic copy of an animal, usually for breeding purposes. The clones themselves rarely end up on dinner plates, but their offspring do, showing up in everyday products such as beef, milk or pork. The benefits are indirect: steadier production, fewer losses from disease or more uniform quality.

But consumers see no gain at checkout. Cloning is expensive and brings no visible improvement in taste, nutrition or price.
Shoppers could one day buy steak from the offspring of a cloned cow without any way of knowing, and still pay the same, if not more, for it.

Without labels identifying cloned origin, potential efficiencies stay hidden upstream. When products born from new technologies are mixed with conventional ones, consumers lose their ability to differentiate, reward innovation or make an informed choice. In the end, the industry keeps the savings while shoppers see none.

And it isn’t only shoppers left in the dark. Exporters could soon pay the price too. Canada exports billions in beef and pork annually, including to the EU. If cloned origin products enter the supply chain without labelling, Canadian exporters could face additional scrutiny or restrictions in markets where cloning is not accepted. A regulatory shortcut at home could quickly become a market barrier abroad.

This debate comes at a time when public trust in Canada’s food system is already fragile. A 2023 survey by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity found that only 36 per cent of Canadians believe the food industry is “heading in the right direction,” and fewer than half trust government regulators to be transparent.

Inserting cloned foods quietly into the supply without disclosure would only deepen that skepticism.

This is exactly how Canada became trapped in the endless genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Two decades ago, regulators and companies quietly introduced a complex technology without giving consumers the chance to understand it. By denying transparency, they also denied trust. The result was years of confusion, suspicion and polarization that persist today.

Transparency shouldn’t be optional in a democracy that prides itself on science based regulation. Even if the food is safe, and current evidence suggests it is, Canadians deserve to know how what they eat is produced.

The irony is that this change could have been handled responsibly. Small gestures like a brief notice, an explanatory Q&A or a commitment to review labelling once international consensus emerges would have shown respect for the public and preserved confidence in our food system.

Instead, Ottawa risks repeating an old mistake: mistaking regulatory efficiency for good governance. At a time when consumer trust in food pricing, corporate ethics and government oversight is already fragile, the last thing Canada needs is another quiet policy that feels like a secret.

Cloning may not change the look or taste of what’s on your plate, but how it gets there should still matter.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X