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.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Three years after taking down a statue of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Regina decides not to change street named after a far more controversial historical figure.

In a sign of the times, the same City of Regina that removed a statue of John A. MacDonald has just preserved the name of former Indian Commissioner Edgar Dewdney.

Dewdney, a Conservative MP under MacDonald, became Indian Commissioner of the North-West Territories in 1879 and was named Lieutenant Governor of the territory in 1881. He served in both positions until 1888. He was, briefly, the Minister of Indian Affairs before being appointed Lieutenant- Governor of British Columbia.

It was Dewdney who decided to move the territorial capital from Battleford to Wascana in 1882, later renamed Regina. He also moved the North-West Mounted Police headquarters to Regina from Fort Walsh: the fact that Dewdney had land nearby was likely not coincidental.

In 1883, Dewdney wrote to MacDonald to back the 1879 Davin Report in support of residential industrial schools, saying they “might be carried on with great advantage to the Indians.” The Davin Report, written by Nicholas Flood Davin, a journalist and politician, was commissioned by the Canadian government to provide recommendations on the establishment of residential schools for Indigenous children.

Despite this enormous contribution to Regina and Canadian history, Regina city councillors Andrew Stevens and Dan LeBlanc made a motion last May to remove Dewdney’s name from a street, park, and public pool.

The prospects seemed good. After all, the city of Regina decided to remove the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald from Victoria Park in 2021, primarily due to his role in the creation of Canada’s residential school system.

Dewdney was neither a father of Confederation nor a prime minister but is often viewed as a more controversial figure in Canadian history. He actively supported the residential school system, believing it to be more effective than day schools in breaking the influence of Indigenous families and communities. His policies were designed to assimilate Indigenous children by separating them from their cultural roots.

He refused to allocate certain lands promised to Indigenous communities under treaty agreements. He also withheld food rations, which were crucial during times of famine, using them as leverage to force Indigenous bands to relocate further north, where the government wanted them to settle. These actions contributed to widespread suffering and are part of his contentious legacy.

Yet on August 21, by a vote of seven to three, Regina city council refused to rename the 12-km Dewdney Avenue. Ward 10 councillor Jason Mancinelli said the change would cause too much hassle for businesses and people on the street.

Mayor Sandra Masters, who is seeking re-election, estimated that renaming Dewdney Avenue could cost around $350,000. She argued that this amount could be better spent on other priorities in the city.

“There are other things we could invest in that wouldn’t be as divisive,” she said.

So, what changed between 2021 and now?

In 2021, the city removed Macdonald’s statue following a brief, one-sided consultation shortly after the Kamloops Residential School mass grave allegations. At the time, ground-penetrating radar suggested potential burial sites, prompting widespread reactions across Canada.

Three years later, the investigation into the allegations, at a cost of $8 million, has yet to uncover any bodies. Some experts suggest that soil disturbances detected by the scans might have been caused by shallow trenches dug for a septic field back in 1924 rather than unmarked graves as initially alleged.

In contrast, Regina introduced the issue of renaming Dewdney Avenue in May and held presentations in June of this year, long after the Kamloops allegations started to unravel. The decision on the name change was delayed long enough for those opposed to speak up. Apparently, the suggested replacement name Tatanka – the Cree word for bison – did not seem to resonate with many of those opposed to the renaming.

The takeaway from these two outcomes is clear: rushed decisions can lead to unintended consequences, while a more thoughtful, measured approach ensures that choices are better informed and more beneficial to the community.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy