As the federal election campaign draws near, part of the focus from political parties will inevitably revolve around health care.
In all of the pre-election debates that Canadians have been exposed to in this century, there has been an opportunity for opposition party leaders to criticize incumbents, and for prime ministers to defend what they are doing on this file.
Under current guidelines, the federal government is responsible for funding the health-care system, while the management, organization and delivery of services is a provincial and territorial responsibility. This means that most of the discussions about health care during federal elections focus on money, while the provision of medical services is typically reserved for provincial campaigns.
Research Co.asked Canadians this month about their views on the health-care system, including their confidence in receiving timely assistance, what issues must be addressed and whether the private sector would be better positioned to deal with the medical needs of the country’s residents.
For starters, most Canadians hold a middle-of-the-road opinion: three in five respondents (60%) think there are some good things in the country’s health-care system, but many changes are required. And while 25% believe the system is running smoothly and only minor changes are required, significantly fewer residents (13%) think health care in Canada should be completely rebuilt.
When asked about specific problems facing the health-care system, the federal government emerges almost unscathed. Only 5% of Canadians point to “inadequate resources and facilities.” The main hitches are, for the most part, under the purview of provincial administrations: “long wait times” (33%), “bureaucracy and poor management” (24%) and “shortage of doctors and nurses” (18%).
In spite of their ability to identify their sources of dissatisfaction, Canadians are decidedly optimistic. Four in five respondents (79%) are “very confident” or “moderately confident” that Canada’s health-care system will be there to provide the help they would need were they to face an unexpected medical condition or disease.
British Columbia is ahead of all other regions on the health-care user confidence question (82%), followed by Manitoba and Saskatchewan (81%), Ontario (80%) Alberta (78%), Atlantic Canada (76%) and Quebec (74%).
In the weeks and months ahead, voters will be treated to Conservative Party of Canada politicians and People’s Party of Canada candidates criticizing the existence of a federal deficit. Canadians are clear that any solution should not come at the expense of their medical services. A whopping 74% of respondents to the survey disagree with reducing government debt by making cuts to health-care funding.
The role of the private sector in Canada’s health-care system will also be debated during the federal election campaign. How to address this matter can make or break a candidacy. In 2000, the mere whiff of “two-tier health care” was enough to place Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Dayon the defensive.
A majority of Canadians (57%) disagree with the notion that health care in Canada would be better than it is now if it were run by the private sector, but two in five (39%) are in agreement. The proportion of private-clinic fans comes primarily from Quebec, where 66% of respondents believe they would have better health care if the private sector were in charge.
On a regional basis, the survey provides good news for some provinces. British Columbia has the most residents who assume that medical services will be there when they need them and the fewest who say a shortage of physicians is the main problem with Canada’s health-care system.
In Ontario, years after the eHealth misfortune, fewer than one in 10 residents believe the system needs to be completely rebuilt. Atlantic Canadians are dead set against any efforts to lower the deficit by reducing health-care expenditures.
In two provinces – Alberta and Quebec – there is a more negative theme developing. They boast the highest proportion of residents who both cite red tape as a major snag in health-care delivery and would radically change the system.
The regional variations suggest that the way in which health care will be discussed in specific campaign appearances and speeches will fluctuate. On other topics, such as the environment or job creation, the message from campaigns will be the same. On health care, every audience will be different.