Two-tier healthcare for Quebec
June 10, 2005 · By Hugo Chesshire
The Supreme Court has ruled that Quebec can have private healthcare. The article talks about judicial activism, but this is one case where the Supreme Court has done something that no major political party has the nerve to advocate, and has actually ruled in favour of liberty and economic freedom for once rather than sitting idly by as laws to muzzle freedom of speech are passed.
For those who think that Canada will now have a two-tier healthcare system, with better care for the rich, wake up! We’ve been there for a long time now. Our second tier is called “The USA”, which is where all the rich Canadians go when they need urgent healthcare. The difference now is that Quebec clinics will be able to compete with the American ones. As a free-trade advocate, I’m not arguing for protectionism and “keeping jobs in Canada” (which, when made into political policy, destroys jobs in Canada). Healthcare was only outsourced to the USA because political interference artificially destroyed all Canadian competition. Now, Quebec and the USA can compete with each other to offer the best healthcare for the least cost. The consumer wins.
The other provinces probably won’t follow this Quebec lead any time soon. The only other province that I think would even contemplate such a move is Alberta, and Ralph Klein’s heady talk of violating the Health Act has turned out to be hot air. In this case, Quebec can probably look forward to a booming industry of healthcare tourism, where Canadians from provinces that have outlawed private healthcare will flock to Quebec clinics. This will probably provide a shot in the arm for the Quebec economy, especially as healthcare in the rest of Canada is certain to continue an ever-downward slide in quality and ever-upward growth in cost.
Quebec’s “special deal” is the main reason why other provinces won’t try the same gambit. Paul Martin claims to be committed to public healthcare above all else (although as we’ve seen, Paul Martin’s only true commitment is continued power, and he’ll throw practically anything aside to get it). The other premiers and governments are unlikely to endanger the stream of Ottawa pork coming their way, so it makes more sense for them to just toe Ottawa’s line on healthcare. Of course, Quebec can get away with a lot more, with the threat of separation always hanging in the air. Albertan separatism will probably gather steam in a similar fashion in the coming years, and after it reaches a critical mass, Alberta too may be able to get a “special deal”. However, the other provinces and territories are far too dependent on Ottawa, except for Ontario, which is Ottawa.
Again, we’re underlining how different Quebec is from the rest of Canada and underscoring the point made countless times on this blog that Canada shouldn’t really be one nation. As Quebec gets more and more sovereignty in such a piecemeal fashion as the Supreme Court has just handed down, thoughts of true independence are likely to grow.
Update: The National Post has a good story on all of this. It notes that Canada is the only developed nation that makes it a crime for citizens and doctors to contract for health services independently of the government, and is also the only developed nation where people who advocate such a system are systematically branded as dangerous extremists. The opinion of Justice Deschamps is worthy of note, she states that there is no evidence that two-tier healthcare cannot exist in Canada as it does in Europe and finds that arguments against it are based in fear and dogma.
The Toronto Sun also mentioned a point that’s been made by AIMS (and myself, in the past): in a market where the price is artifically reduced to zero, demand will always exceed supply, and so supply will have to be rationed. Queueing is just a method of rationing.
I think that it is important to realize exactly what the Supreme Court did here. Yes it is true that a majority of the court (4 of 7 judges) found that the prohibition of private insurance for services covered under the public insurance regime was illegal (3 judges found it unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter, 1 judge found it illegal under Quebec Charter).
However, the more important thing that the majority did was recognize a Charter right to timely access to health care. Think about what this means for a moment. Firstly, the courts are now the determiner of what is “timely access” and what is not. This was never a role for the courts before (read the minority’s dissent - they explcitly critize the majority for being too activist on this exact point). So for those who lament the activist court…..here is some more lemon juice in the eye.
Secondly, Canadians can now claim a Charter right to timely access to health care. This has implications far beyond the issue of private health care insurance. Take a situation in which a person cannot recieve timely access because of the cost of medical treatment. They can now make a Charter claim against the government directly or against any government health legislation that allows private medical services. The government is now constitutionally obliged to ensure that people get timely medical service, and that there are no barriers (be it due to a lack of opportunity or a lack of money) to health services.
Now, for those interested in Charter law, this can be taken even farther. Section 15 of the Charter guarantees all Canadians equality. If Section 7 of the Charter provides the right to timely access health care, and the government has an obligation to ensure this access, then Section 15 of the Charter could require the government to provide this access equally to all Canadians. This may put extreme contraints on private health care insurance and services in Canada.
In the end, the only thing that may have changed is that the five principles of the Canada Health Act becomes enshrined in the Constitution through the back door of the Charter and by an activist court. In my mind, just where we should be.
Good website. im glad to see there are other Canadians that are infavor of a pulic/private healthcare system. Keep it up!
[...] virtually all of these ideas would look quite at home on the Liberal website. The recent Quebec ruling on healthcare represented a real opportunity for the [...]
Thanks for this article, it was very useful for me.
[...] This guy is so divorced from reality he probably pays alimony. For decades now “progressives” have been regaling us with tales of Europe. It used to be that pointing to “Europe” was the default position whenever Canadian socialist utopians got backed into a corner. “In England you know, they … ,” was the response whenever unions, over-taxation and above all, healthcare, were debated. Sometimes you’d think Swedes or Dutch were little blond angels sent down from NDP heaven just to show the rest of us in Canuckland how it’s supposed to be done. Ah, the good’ol days. Our corporate taxes are three times higher than Ireland, which has been experiencing double digit expansion.–Conservative candidate Rick Fuschi The National Post has a good story on all of this. It notes that Canada is the only developed nation that makes it a crime for citizens and doctors to contract for health services independently of the government, and is also the only developed nation where people who advocate such a system are systematically branded as dangerous extremists. The opinion of Justice Deschamps is worthy of note, she states that there is no evidence that two-tier healthcare cannot exist in Canada as it does in Europe and finds that arguments against it are based in fear and dogma.–The Politic.com [...]