From Energy Now 

By Jim Warren

During the Cold War, Western journalists and political analysts were typically unable to penetrate the secrecy surrounding the machinations of upper level Soviet politics. They would  struggle to discern who the top contenders were in the contest to replace the current party leader and what a new leader might mean for geopolitics.

The lack of trustworthy official information prompted Kremlin watchers to adopt some rather desperate and sometimes absurd methods for divining the twists and turns of internal Communist Party intrigues.

For instance, they would look at photos of the party leadership on the reviewing stand for the annual May Day military parade. They would identify how close or far each member of the official party on the dais was sitting from the party leader. The proximity rankings were then compared with where people were positioned in relation to the leader at last year’s parade. Those who stood or sat closer to the leader than they did the previous year were presumed to be on their way up. Those who stood further away might be on their way to Siberia.

After one month in office it looks like the Carney government will require observers to go to similarly ridiculous lengths to figure out what cabinet ministers really mean when making public statements. Last week, a column by Calgary Sun’s Rick Bell discussed Danielle Smith’s demand that the Liberals quit talking in riddles. Bell suggested the Liberals would rather “stick handle” their way through questions about their policy positions than clearly indicate what those positions are.

Supporters of the oil, gas and pipeline sectors in the West remain uncertain and unconvinced when it comes to the Liberal government’s commitment to getting new pipelines built. This week’s Speech from the Throne certainly didn’t clarify the government’s plans for conventional energy production and exports.

The prime minister’s flip flopping has been particularly unhelpful. He has distanced himself from the comments he made at Kelowna early in the election campaign. While speaking there, Carney temporarily impressed supporters of new export pipelines by indicating he would use the emergency powers of the federal government to ensure oil pipelines are built to connect the prairies with the East and West coasts. Several days later he indicated he wouldn’t use those powers to override the objections of Quebec.

Currently, the prime minister says he is taking a wait and see approach. Last week he said a new pipeline extending from the prairies to a Canadian coastline is one of many possibilities depending on what sort of consensus develops around energy policy. When fumbling to explain his consensus approach, he produced the sort of word salad Danielle Smith could justifiably refer to as “talking in riddles.”

During the new government’s first Question Period on May 28, Andrew Scheer asked Carney what he intended to do about Bill C-69, the infamous No More Pipelines Bill. True to form Carney avoided providing a clear answer to the question. He responded with irrelevant canned talking points that failed to mention either the noxious Bill or increasing oil export opportunities.

Last week, Tim Hodgson, Canada’s new Energy Minister told people at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce event some of the of things they hoped to hear. According to a National Post report on the event Hodgson said he “promised to deliver new infrastructure to get Canadian energy to the coast and ultimately ‘to trusted allies’ outside the U.S.”

Hodgson also had comforting words for those concerned that Canada’s cumbersome project approval process could stymie new pipeline approval and construction. He said “Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery.”

Talk is cheap. It is difficult to imagine how costly pipeline construction delays and cancellations can be prevented without first getting rid of Bill C-69. If Hodgson was truly being sincere you’d think he would have announced plans are in the works to overturn C-69 or to at least make serious revisions to it. Since he never went that far in his remarks, the presentation fell far short of announcing that a credible plan is currently being considered.

The week prior to Hodgson’s Calgary speech, his cabinet colleague Steven Guilbeault announced that Canada did not need any new pipelines because the Trans Mountain was not operating at full capacity. Guilbeault also said that by the time a new pipeline could be built the global demand for oil and gas will have declined so much it wouldn’t be needed. Unfortunately, if a new pipeline project isn’t approved and completed within the next 15 years, Gulibeault’s second point will be on its way to becoming a self-fulfilled Liberal prophecy.

So who really speaks for the government on conventional energy policy? We’ve been presented with three different versions from three of the people who sit around the cabinet table, one of whom is supposed to be the boss. Apparently it is no longer the case that ministers are duty bound to refrain from criticizing or deviating from government policy. Yet, as far as we know, nobody has been reprimanded for announcing an incorrect version of the Liberals’ conventional energy policy.

We have been left to guess at the answers to critical questions. Has the government initiated a plan for making policy changes that deal with the concerns of the conventional energy sector and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan? If so, could someone please tell us what it is?

Transparency and clarity on the conventional energy file seem especially important at a time when Alberta is posed to hold a referendum on separation. Perhaps the Liberals don’t appreciate how much the lack of a coherent position in favour of building one or more new pipelines threatens national unity. Maybe their standard election winning formula of “screw the West, we’ll take the rest,” reflects what they have adopted as their long-term approach to the legitimate demands of alienated Westerners.

Barring the appearance of a clearly articulated official policy statement we might need to adopt a Canadian version of Kremlinology. That’s about the only means we would have to determine who, if anyone, is running the government—more specifically its conventional energy policy. Knowing which ministers speak for official government policy and which don’t could be useful.

We might need to ask questions like the following:

• Which cabinet ministers get to sit at the cool kids’ table at the parliamentary cafeteria?
• Which minister’s favourite companies and environmental groups have received the biggest grants and contracts since Carney became prime minister?
• Which minister enjoys the most taxpayer funded flights and luxury hotel room stays to attend international gabfests like The World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland or this year’s COP 30 conference in Brazil, etc.?
• According to Parliament Hill gossip, who is most likely bound for Siberia—Steven Guilbeault or Tim Hodgson? And, when, if ever, will Jonathan Wilkinson be released from the backbench gulag and allowed back into cabinet? And why was he sent there in the first place—not green enough, or too green?

From the Fraser Institute

By Yanick Labrie

Switzerland’s universal health-care system delivers significantly better results than Canada’s in terms of wait times, access to health professionals like doctors and nurses, and patient satisfaction finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian policy think-tank.

“Despite its massive price tag, Canada’s health-care system lags behind many other countries with universal health care,” said Yanick Labrie, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Building Responsive and Adaptive Health-Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland.

The study highlights how Switzerland’s universal health-care system consistently outperforms Canada on most metrics tracked by the OECD.

In 2022, the latest year of available data, despite Canada (11.5 per cent of GDP) and Switzerland (11.9 per cent) spending close to the same amount on health care, Switzerland had 4.6 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.8 in Canada. In other words, Switzerland had 64.3 per cent more doctors than Canada (on a per-thousand people basis).

Switzerland also had 4.4 hospital beds per thousand people compared to 2.5 for Canada—Switzerland (8th) outranked Canada (36th) on this metric out of 38 OECD countries with universal health care.

Likewise, 85.3 per cent of Swiss people surveyed by the CWF (Commonwealth Fund) reported being able to obtain a consultation with a specialist within 2 months. By comparison, only 48.3 per cent of Canadians experienced a similar wait time. Beyond medical resources and workforce, patient satisfaction diverges sharply between the two countries, as 94 per cent of Swiss patients report being satisfied with their health-care system compared to just 56 per cent in Canada.

“Switzerland shows that a universal health care system can reconcile efficiency and equity – all while being more accessible and responsive to patients’ needs and preferences,” Labrie said.

“Policymakers in Canada who hope to improve Canada’s broken health-care system should look to more successful universal health-care countries like Switzerland.”

Building Responsive and Adaptive Health Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland

• Canada’s health-care system is increasingly unable to meet patient needs, with wait times reaching record lengths—over 30 weeks for planned care in 2024—despite significantly rising public spending and growing dissatisfaction among patients and providers nationwide.
• Swiss health care outperforms Canada in nearly all OECD performance indicators: more doctors and nurses per capita, better access to care, shorter wait times, lower unmet needs, and higher patient satisfaction (94% vs. Canada’s 56%).
• Switzerland ensures universal coverage through 44 competing private, not-for-profit insurers. Citizens are required to enroll but have the freedom to choose insurers and tailor coverage to their needs and preferences, promoting both access and autonomy.
• Swiss basic insurance coverage is broader than Canada’s, including outpatient care, mental health, prescribed medications, home care, and long-term care—with modest, capped cost-sharing, and exemptions for vulnerable groups, including children, low-income individuals, and the chronically ill.
• Patient cost participation (deductibles/co-payments) exists, but the system includes robust financial protection: 27.5% of the population receives direct subsidies, ensuring affordability and equity.
• Risk equalization mechanisms prevent risk selection and guarantee insurer fairness, promoting solidarity across demographic and health groups.
• Decentralized governance enhances responsiveness; cantons manage service planning, ensuring care adapts to local realities and population needs.
• Managed competition drives innovation and efficiency: over 75% of the Swiss now choose alternative models (e.g., HMOs, telemedicine, gatekeeping).
• The Swiss model proves that a universal, pluralistic, and competitive system can reconcile efficiency, equity, access, and patient satisfaction—offering powerful insights for Canada’s stalled health reform agenda.

Yanick Labrie

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute