Government meddling contributes to doctor exodus in Quebec

They have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Quebec’s health minister recently came under fire after reports revealed a record number of physicians left the province’s public system to practise privately. Less discussed are the reasons why physicians made this choice.

Indeed, it turns out that ill-conceived attempts to protect publicly-funded health care by the Trudeau government and successive provincial governments may have contributed to the increasing numbers of physicians opting-out.

To be clear, the 780 physicians in question account for about four per cent of physicians in the province. However, this represents a 22 per cent increase in the number of physicians leaving the public system compared to the previous year—and is part of a growing trend. More importantly, they have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Why?

One reason, is because governments have forced them to do so.

Until recently, physicians in Quebec (including those who practiced in the public sector) were allowed to charge patients so-called “accessory-fees” in certain instances—for example, if the service was either not covered or insufficiently reimbursed by the government’s fee schedule.

However, the federal Canada Health Act (CHA) clearly states that “extra-billing” of this nature, when charged by physicians who also bill the public system, must result in dollar-for-dollar deductions in federal health-care transfer payments to the province. In other words, the CHA encourages provincial efforts to effectively force doctors to choose between the public and private system if any out-of-pocket expenses are involved.

And so, under financial threat by the Trudeau government, Quebec eventually clamped down on such fees charged by physicians who worked in the public system.

Consequently, physicians who relied on these payments to cover a portion of their operating costs faced an unfortunate choice—stay in the public system at the risk of financial ruin or opt-out entirely and practise exclusively in the private sector.

For many, the choice was obvious. One study found that by 2019 “an additional 69 specialist physicians opted out after the 2017 clampdown on double billing [sic] than previous trends would have predicted.” Several clinics offering endoscopy and colonoscopy services simply closed their doors. Quebecers also ended up with a less convenient health-care experience following this clamp down, as evidenced by the reduction in clinic-provided services that followed.

This attitude to extra-billing stands in stark contrast to the situation in other universal health-care countries such as Australia where consultations with specialists are usually only partially (85 per cent) covered by the universal plan. In fact, physicians (family doctors and specialists) can generally set fees above the government’s fee schedule so long as they forgo the convenience of directly billing the government (i.e. patients claim reimbursement after the fact). Notably, Australia’s health-care system costs less than Canada’s in total (including these private payments) yet delivers more rapid access to health-care services with a greater availability of medical professionals, hospital beds, and diagnostic and surgical technologies.

More generally, a recent study found 22 of 28 universal health-care countries require patients to share a portion of the cost of treatment (with generous protections for vulnerable groups). These include deductibles (an amount individuals must pay before insurance coverage kicks in), co-insurance payments (the patient pays a certain percentage of treatment cost) and copayments (the patient pays a fixed amount per treatment). Crucially, many of these countries including Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have shorter wait times than we endure.

In these countries, physicians are also generally allowed to practise both in publicly-funded universal settings and private settings (a policy known as “dual practice”) rather than having their activities restricted to one setting only. In other words, Canada’s federal restrictions on cost-sharing and extra-billing (such as Quebec’s accessory fees) and provincial barriers to dual-practice place our universal system in the minority of a small cohort of countries that are not particularly known for stellar performance.

The looming threat of further reductions in federal cash transfers, under the CHA, has led to provinces such as Quebec imposing increasingly restrictive conditions on physicians in the public system. And in response, physicians—by opting-out—are indicating that they’ve had enough.

It’s ironic that the very groups intent on supposedly “protecting public health care” by forcing physicians to choose between the public and private systems have enforced policies that may very well lead to the public system’s continued demise.

Authors:

Bacchus Barua and Yanick Labrie

Related Topics:#BacchusBarua #FraserInstitute #YanickLabrie PublicVSPrivateHealthCare QuebecDoctorExodus QuebecHealthCare

Up Next

Court strikes secret police recording from trial and dismisses all charges against protestor

Don't Miss

1,000 UK doctors condemn medical association’s push to lift puberty blocker ban for minors

Todayville

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

Blind to the Left: Canada’s Counter-Extremism Failure Leaves Neo-Marxist and Islamist Threats Unchecked

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Top COVID doctor given one of Canada’s highest honors

Crime / 9 hours ago

Bryan Kohberger avoids death penalty in brutal killing of four Idaho students

Business

Latest shakedown attempt by Canada Post underscores need for privatization

Published on July 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

For the second time in just six months, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) is threatening strike action. As Canadians know all too well, postal strikes can be highly disruptive given the federal government provides Canada Post with a near-monopoly on letter mail across the country. CUPW is well aware of this and uses it to their advantage in negotiations. While CUPW has the right to ask for whatever they like, Canadians should finally be freed from this albatross.

In January, the Trudeau government loaned Canada Post a whopping $1.034 billion to help “maintain its solvency and continue operating.” Since 2018, Canada Post has lost more than $4.6 billion, and according to its latest financial update, lost more than $100 million in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Canadians are on the hook for these losses because the federal government owns Canada Post.

Salaries and other employee costs comprise more than 66 per cent of Canada Post’s expenses, and CUPW and Canada Post management both know they can simply pass any losses on to Canadians. Consequently, there’s less incentive for management to control the bottom line or make reasonable budget requests when negotiating with the government. But if the government privatizes Canada Post, it would impose a proper constraint on costs that doesn’t currently exist. This is only fair given there’s no compelling reason why Canadians should underwrite the inflation of salaries in a money-losing Crown corporation.

Of course, government ownership of Canada Post is archaic. When the organization was founded more than 250 years ago, the world was quite different. In today’s age of Amazon, a plethora of delivery services exist coast-to-coast that serve Canadian consumers. Other countries including the Netherlands, Austria and Germany long ago privatized their postal services. The result was increased competition, which in turn reduced prices and improved quality.

Alongside privatization, the federal government should also eliminate Canada Post’s near-monopoly status on letter mail. This policy is purportedly meant to ensure universal service. But in reality, it prohibits other potential service providers from entering the letter-delivery market (including in remote areas that may experience less Canada Post service post-privatization), deprives Canadians of choice, and crucially, reduces the incentive for Canada Post to improve its service.

Simply put, the federal government should focus on its core responsibilities, and delivering mail is clearly not one of them. Given Canada Post’s latest attempted shakedown of Canadians, it’s never been clearer that it’s time for Canada Post to go the way of Air Canada, de Havilland and CN Rail. Once upon a time, the federal government owned all three of these entities until it became clear there was no reason for the government to own an airline, build planes or deliver goods by train. Why is letter mail any different? Canadians deserve better.

Business

Municipal government per-person spending in Canada hit near record levels

Published on July 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson

Municipal government spending in Canada hit near record levels in recent years, finds a new study by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“In light of record-high spending in municipalities across Canada, residents should consider whether or not crime, homelessness, public transit and other services have actually improved,” said Austin Thompson, senior policy analyst at the Fraser Institute and author of The Expanding Finances of Local Governments in Canada.

From 2000 to 2023, per-person spending (inflation-adjusted) increased by 25.2 per cent, reaching a record-high $5,974 per person in 2021 before declining slightly to $5,851 in 2023, the latest year of available data.

During that same period, municipal government revenue—generated from property taxes and transfers from other levels of government—increased by 33.7 per cent per person (inflation-adjusted).

And yet, among all three levels of government including federal and provincial, municipal government spending (adjusted for inflation) has actually experienced the slowest rate of growth over the last 10 years, underscoring the large spikes in spending at all government levels across Canada.

“Despite claims from municipal policymakers about their dire financial positions, Canadians should understand the true state of finances at city hall so they can decide whether they’re getting good value for their money,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

The Expanding Finances of Local Governments in Canada, 1990–2023

Canada’s local governments have experienced substantial fiscal growth in recent decades.
Revenue and expenditure by local governments—including municipal governments, school boards, and Indigenous governments—have increased faster than population growth and inflation combined. From 1990 to 2023, real per-capita revenue rose by 32.7%, and expenditure by 30.0%.
Local governments represent a significant component of Canada’s broader public sector. In 2023, net of inter-governmental transfers, municipal governments and school boards accounted for 18.6% of total government expenditure and 11.1% of revenue.
Despite this growth, local governments’ share of overall government revenue and expenditure has declined over time—especially since the COVID-19 pandemic—as federal and provincial budgets have expanded even more rapidly.
Nevertheless, between 2008 and 2023 the inflation-adjusted per-capita revenue of municipal governments in-creased by 10.1% and their expenditure by 12.4% , on average across the provinces.
Over the same period, municipal governments recorded above-inflation increases in their combined annual operating surpluses, which contributed to an 88.1% inflation-adjusted rise in their net worth—raising important questions about the allocation of accumulated resources.
In 2023, Ontario recorded the highest per-capita municipal revenue among the provinces ($4,156), while Alberta had the highest per-capita expenditure ($3,750). Prince Edward Island reported the lowest per-capita municipal revenue ($1,635) and expenditure ($1,186).
Wide variation in per-capita municipal revenue and expenditure across the provinces reflects differences in the responsibilities provinces assign to municipalities, as well as possible disparities in the efficiency of service delivery—issues that warrant further scrutiny.