From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta government has launched a campaign to inform Canadians about the negative impacts of the federal government’s cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector, which exempts the other three-quarters of the economy that emit including transportation, buildings and heavy industry.

According to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the cap will “kill jobs” and lead to “economic and societal decline” for all Canadians—and she’s right. Any policy that damages Alberta’s economy comes with consequences for all of Canada.

Of course, this isn’t the first Trudeau policy to damage the sector. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48, (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), “clean fuel standard” regulations, numerous “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Again, while these policies disproportionately impact Albertans, they have consequences for all Canadians from coast to coast because of Alberta’s role in the federation. In our current system, Ottawa collects various taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes the money for programs including equalization and employment insurance.

For perspective, from 2007 to 2022 (the latest period of available data), Albertans contributed $244.6 billion more in taxes and other payments to the federal government than they received in federal spending—more than five times as much as British Columbians or Ontarians. The remaining seven provinces received more federal spending than they contributed to federal revenues. In other words, Albertans are by far the largest net contributor to Ottawa’s coffers.

Albertans’ large net contribution reflects the province’s comparatively young population (fewer retirees), higher rates of employment, higher average incomes and relatively strong economy.

Alberta’s relative economic strength isn’t new. From 1981 to 2022, the province had the highest annual average economic growth rate in Canada. In 2022, Alberta accounted for 17.9 per cent of Canada’s total economic growth despite being home to just 11.6 per cent of the country’s population. That same year, Alberta contributed nearly one in every five private-sector jobs created in Canada. In fact, Alberta was one of only two provinces (alongside Nova Scotia) where private-sector employment growth (including self-employment) exceeded government-sector employment growth over the last five years (2019 to 2023).

Alberta’s prosperity, which helps finance other provinces, may help explain why 56,245 more Canadian residents moved to Alberta than left it in 2022—a much higher net inflow than in any other province. For decades, Alberta has provided economic opportunities for Canadians from other provinces willing to relocate.

Albertans continue to contribute more to the federation than Canadians in other provinces due to Alberta’s relatively strong and prosperous economy. And Canadians benefit from the economic opportunities Alberta provides. With this in mind, the Trudeau government should stop imposing economically damaging policies on the province—as it costs not just Albertans but all Canadians.

From the Fraser Institute

By Bacchus Barua and Mackenzie Moir

Australia offers real-world examples of how public/private partnerships can be successfully integrated in a universal health-care framework. Not only does Australia prove it can be done without sacrificing universal coverage for all, Australia spends less money (as a share of its economy) than Canada and enjoys more timely medical care.

Canada’s health-care system is crumbling. Long wait times, hallway health care and burned-out staff are now the norm. Unsurprisingly, a new poll finds that the majority of Canadians (73 per cent) say the system needs major reform.

As noted in a recent editorial in the Globe and Mail, we can learn key lessons from Australia.

There are significant similarities between the two countries with respect to culture, the economy and even geographic characteristics. Both countries also share the goal of ensuring universal health coverage. However, Australia outperforms Canada on several key health-care performance metrics.

After controlling for differences in age (where appropriate) between the two countries, our recent study found that Australia’s health-care system outperformed Canada’s on 33 (of 36) performance measures. For example, Australia had more physicians, hospital beds, CT scanners and MRI machines per person compared to Canada. And among the 30 universal health-care countries studied, Canada ranked in the bottom quartile for the availability of these critical health-care resources.

Australia also outperforms Canada on key measures of wait times. In 2023 (the latest year of available data), 39.5 per cent of patients in Australia were able to make a same or next day appointment when they were sick compared to only 22.3 per cent in Canada. And 9.6 per cent of Canadians reported waiting more than one year to see a specialist compared to only 4.5 per cent of Australians. Similarly, almost one-in-five (19.9 per cent) Canadians reported waiting more than one year for non-emergency surgery compared to only 11.8 per cent of Australians.

So, what does Australia do differently to outperform Canada on these key measures?

Although the Globe and Mail editorial touches on the availability of private insurance in Australia, less attention is given to the private sector’s prominent role in the delivery of health care.

In 2016 (the latest year of available data) almost half of all hospitals in Australia (48.5 per cent) were private. And in 2021/22 (again, the latest year of available data), 41 per cent of all hospital care took place in a private facility. That percentage goes up to 70.3 per cent when only considering hospital admissions for non-emergency surgery.

But it’s not only higher-income patients who can afford private insurance (or those paying out of pocket) who get these surgeries. The Australian government encourages the uptake of private insurance and partially subsidizes private care (at a rate of 75 per cent of the public fee), and governments in Australia also regularly contract out publicly-funded care to private facilities.

In 2021/22, more than 300,000 episodes of publicly-funded care occurred in private facilities in Australia. Private hospitals also delivered 73.5 per cent of care funded by Australia’s Department of Veterans’ Affairs. And in 2019/20, government sources (including the federal government) paid for almost one-third (32.8 per cent) of private hospital expenditures.

Which takes us back to the new opinion poll (by Navigator), which found that 69 per cent of Canadians agree that health-care services should include private-sector involvement. While defenders of the status quo continue to criticize this approach, Australia offers real-world examples of how public/private partnerships can be successfully integrated in a universal health-care framework. Not only does Australia prove it can be done without sacrificing universal coverage for all, Australia spends less money (as a share of its economy) than Canada and enjoys more timely medical care.

While provincial governments remain stubbornly committed to a failed model, Canadians are clearly expressing their desire for health-care reforms that include a prominent role for private partners in the delivery of universal care.

Australia is just one example. Public/private partnerships are the norm in several more successful universal health-care systems (such as Germany and Switzerland). Instead of continuing to remain an outlier, Canada should follow the examples of Australia and other countries and engage with the private sector to fulfill the promise of universal health care.