Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Enough talk, we need to actually do something about Canadian health care

Published

12 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By J. Edward Les for Inside Policy

Canada spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than almost all other OECD countries, yet we rank behind most of them when it comes to outcomes that matter.

I drove a stretch of road near Calgary’s South Health Campus the other day, a section with a series of three intersections in a span of less than a few hundred metres. That is, IĀ triedĀ to drive it – but spent far more time idling than moving.

At each intersection, after an interminable wait, the light turned green just as the next one flipped to red, grinding traffic to a halt just after it got rolling. It was excruciating; I’m quite sure I spied a snail on crutches racing by – no doubt making a beeline (snail-line?) for the ER a stone’s throw away.

The street’s sluggishness is perhaps reflective of the hospital next to it, given that our once-cherished universal health care system has crumbled into a universal waiting system – a system seemingly crafted (like that road) to obstruct flow rather than enable it. In fact, the pace of medical care delivery in this country has become so glacial that even a parking lot by comparison feels like the Indianapolis Speedway.

TheĀ health care crisisĀ grows more dire by the day.Ā Reforms are long overdue. Canada spendsĀ more on health careĀ as a percentage of GDP than almost all other OECD countries, yet we rank behind most of them when it comes to outcomes that matter.

And we’re paying with our lives: according to theĀ Canadian Institute for Health Information, thousands of Canadians die each and every year because of the inefficiencies of our system.

Yet for all that we are paralyzed by the enormity and complexity of the mushrooming disaster. We talk about solutions – and then we talk and talk some more. But for all the talking, precious little action is taken.

I’m reminded of an Anne Lamotte vignette, related in her bestselling bookĀ Bird By Bird:

Thirty years ago my older brother, who was ten years old at the time, was trying to get a report written on birds that he’d had three months to write, which was due the next day. We were out at our family cabin in Bolinas, and he was at the kitchen table close to tears, surrounded by binder paper and pencils and unopened books about birds, immobilized by the hugeness of the task ahead. Then my father sat down beside him, put his arm around my brother’s shoulder, and said, ā€œBird by bird, buddy. Just take it bird by bird.ā€

So it is with Canadian health care: we’ve wasted years wringing our hands about the woeful state of affairs, while doing precious little about it.

Enough procrastinating. It’s time to tackle the crisis, bird by bird.

One thing we can do is to let doctors be doctors.Ā  A few weeks ago, in a piece titled ā€œShould Doctors Mind Their Own Business?ā€, I questioned the customary habit of doctors hanging out their shingles in small independent community practices. Physicians spend long years of training to master their craft, years during which they receive no training in business methods whatsoever, and then we expect them to master those skills off to the side of their exam rooms. Some do it well, but many do not – and it detracts from their attention to patients.

We don’t install newly minted teachers in classrooms and at the same time task them with the keeping the lights on, managing the supply chain, overseeing staffing and payroll, and all the other mechanics of running schools. Why do we expect that of doctors?

Keeping doctors embedded within large, expensive, inefficient, bureaucracy-choked hospitals isn’t the solution, either.

There’s a better way, I argued in my essay: regional medical centres – centres built and administered in partnership with the private sector.

Such centres would allow practitioners currently practicing in the community to ply their trade unencumbered by the nuts and bolts of running a business; and they would allow us to decant a host of services from hospitals, which should be reserved for what only hospitals can do: emergency services, inpatient care, surgeries, and the like.

In short, we should let doctors be doctors, and hospitals be hospitals.

To garner feedback, I dumped my musings into a couple of online physician forums to which I belong, tagged with the query: ā€œFood for thought, or fodder for the compost bin?ā€

The verdict? Hands down, the compost bin.

I was a bit taken aback, initially. Offended, even – because who among us isn’t in love with their own ideas?

But it quickly became evident from my peers’ comments that I’d been misunderstood. Not because my doctor friends are dim, but because I hadn’t been clear.

When I proposed in my essay that we ā€œleave the administration and day-to-day tasks of running those centres to business folks who know what they’re doing,ā€ my colleagues took that to mean that doctors would be serving at the beck and call of a tranche of ill-informed government-enabled administrators – and they reacted to the notion with anaphylactic derision. And understandably so: too many of us have long and painful experience with thick layers of health care bureaucracy seemingly organized according to theĀ Peter Principle, with people promoted to – and permanently stuck at – the level of their incompetence.

But I didn’t mean to suggest – not for a minute – that doctors shouldn’t be engaged in running these centres. I also wrote: ā€œNone of which is to suggest that doctors shouldn’t be involved, by aptitude and inclination, in influencing the set-up and management of regional centres – of course, they should.ā€

Of course they should. There are plenty of physicians equipped with both the skills and interest needed to administer these centres; and they should absolutely be front and centre in leading them.

But more than that: everyoneĀ should have skin in the game. All workers have the right to share in the success of an enterprise; and when they do,Ā everybody wins.Ā  When everyone is pulling in the same direction because everyone shares in the wins, waste and inefficiencies are rooted out like magic.

Contrast that to how hospitals are run, with scarcely anyone aware of the actual cost of the blood tests or CT scans they order or the packets of suture and gauze they rip open, and with the motivations of administrative staff, nurses, doctors, and other personnel running off in more directions than a flock of headless chickens. The capacity for waste and inefficiencies is almost limitless.

I don’t mean to suggest that the goal of regional medical centres should be to turn a profit; but fiscal prudence and economic accountability are to be celebrated, because money not wasted is money that can be allocated to enhancing patient care.

Nor do I mean to intimate that sensible resource management should be the only parameter tracked; patient outcomes and patient satisfaction are paramount.

What should government’s role be in all this? Initially, to incentivize the creation of these centres via public-private partnerships; and then, crucially, to encourage competition among them and to reward innovation and performance, with optimization of the three key metrics – patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and economic accountability – always in focus.

No one should be mandated to work in non-hospital regional medical centres. It’s a free country (or it should be): doctors should be free to hang out their own community shingles if they wish. But if we build the model correctly, my contention is that most medical professionals will prefer to work collaboratively under one roof with a diverse group of colleagues, unencumbered by the mundanities of running a business, but also free of choking hospital bureaucracy.

I connected a couple weeks ago with the always insightful economist Jack Mintz (who is also a distinguished fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute). Mintz sits on the board of a Toronto-area hospital and sees first-hand ā€œthe problems with the lack of supply, population growth, long wait times between admission and getting a bed, emergency room overuse,ā€ and so on.

ā€œSomething has to give,ā€ he said. ā€œProbably more resources but better managed. We really need major reform.ā€

On that we can all agree. We can’t carry on this way.

So, let’s stop idling; and let’s green-light some fixes.

As Samwise Gamgee said inĀ The Lord of the Rings, ā€œIt’s the job that’s never started as takes longest to finish.ā€


Dr. J. Edward LesĀ is a pediatrician in Calgary who writes on politics, social issues, and other matters.

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

CPP another example of Albertans’ outsized contribution to Canada

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid the economic uncertainty fuelled by Trump’s trade war, its perhaps more important than ever to understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and its outsized contribution to programs such as the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

From 1981 to 2022, Albertan’s net contribution to the CPP—meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP payments—wasĀ $53.6 billion. In 2022 (the latest year of available data), Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP was $3.0 billion.

During that same period (1981 to 2022), British Columbia was the only other province where residents paid more into the CPP than retirees received in benefits—and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than B.C.’s contribution. Put differently, residents in seven out of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP (Quebec has its own plan) receive more back in benefits than they contribute to the program.

Albertans pay anĀ outsizedĀ contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP because of the province’s relatively high rates ofĀ employment, higherĀ average incomesĀ andĀ younger populationĀ (i.e. more workers pay into the CPP and less retirees take from it).

Put simply, Albertan workers have been helping fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and without Alberta, the CPP would look much different.

How different?

If Alberta withdrew from the CPP and established its own standalone provincial pension plan, Alberta workers would receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower CPP contribution rate deducted from our paycheques) than other Canadians, while the contribution rate—essentially the CPP tax rate—to fund the program would likely need to increase for the rest of the country to maintain the same benefits.

And given current demographic projections, immigration patterns and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers willĀ likelyĀ continue to pay more into the CPP than Albertan retirees get back from it.

Therefore, considering Alberta’s crucial role in national programs, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should undo and prevent policies that negatively impact the province and Albertans ability to contribute to Canada. Think of Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other ā€œnet-zeroā€ targets, and so on.

Canada faces serious economic challenges, including a trade war with the United States. In times like this, it’s important to remember Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and the outsized contributions of Alberta workers to the wellbeing of Canadians across the country.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Homebuilding in Canada stalls despite population explosion

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson and Steven Globerman

Between 1972 and 2019, Canada’s population increased by 1.8 residents for every new housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents in 2024. In other words, Canada must now house more than twice as many new residents per new housing unit as it did during the five decades prior to the pandemic

In many parts of Canada, the housing affordability crisis continues with no end in sight. And many Canadians, priced out of the housing market or struggling to afford rent increases, are left wondering how much longer this will continue.

Simply put, too few housing units are being built for the country’s rapidly growing population, which has exploded due to record-high levels of immigration and the federal government’s residency policies.

As noted in a newĀ studyĀ published by the Fraser Institute, the country added an all-time high 1.2 million new residents in 2023—more than double the previous record in 2019—and another 951,000 new residents in 2024. Altogether, Canada’s population has grown by about 3 million people since 2022—roughly matching the total population increase during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, homebuilding isn’t keeping up. In 2024, construction started on roughly 245,000 new housing units nationwide—down from a recent peak of 272,000 in 2021. By contrast, in the 1970s construction started on more than 240,000 housing units (on average) per year—when Canada’s population grew by approximately 280,000 people annually.

In fact, between 1972 and 2019, Canada’s population increased by 1.8 residents for every new housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents in 2024. In other words, Canada must now house more than twice as many new residents per new housing unit as it did during the five decades prior to the pandemic. And of course, housing follows the laws of supply and demand—when a lot more prospective buyers and renters chase a limited supply of new homes, prices increase.

This key insight should guide the policy responses from all levels of government.

For example, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should avoid policies that merely fuel housing demand such asĀ home savings accounts. And provincial governments (including in Ontario and British Columbia) should scrap any policies that discourage new housing supply such as rent controls, which reduce incentives to build rental housing. At the municipal level, governments across the country should ensure that permit approval timelines and building fees do not discourage builders from breaking ground. Increasing housing supply is, however, only part of the solution. The next federal government should craftĀ immigration and residency policiesĀ so population growth doesn’t overwhelm available housing supply, driving up costs for Canadians.

It’s hard to predict how long Canada’s housing affordability crisis will last. But without more homebuilding, slower population growth, or both, there’s little reason to expect affordability woes to subside anytime soon.

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X