Policymakers in Ottawa and Edmonton maintain broken health-care system

What’s preventing these reforms? In a word, Ottawa.

To say Albertans, and indeed all Canadians, are getting poor value for their health-care dollars is a gross understatement. In reality, Canada remains among the highest spenders on health care in the developed world, in exchange for one of the least accessible universal health-care systems. And while Canadians are increasingly open to meaningful reform, policymakers largely cling to their stale approach of more money, platitudes and little actual change.

In 2021 (the latest year of available data), among high-income universal health-care countries, Canada spent the highest share of its economy on health care (after adjusting for age differences between countries). For that world-class level of spending, Canada ranked 28th in the availability of physicians, 23rd in hospital beds, 25th in MRI scanners and 26th in CT scanners. And we ranked dead last on wait times for specialist care and non-emergency surgeries.

This abysmal performance has been consistent since at least the early 2000s with Canada regularly posting top-ranked spending alongside bottom-ranked performance in access to health-care.

On a provincial basis, Albertans are no better off. Alberta’s health-care system ranks as one of the most expensive in Canada on a per-person basis (after adjusting for population age and sex) while wait times in Alberta were 21 per cent longer than the national average in 2023.

And what are governments doing about our failing health-care system? Not much it seems, other than yet another multi-billion-dollar federal spending commitment (from the Trudeau government) and some bureaucratic shuffling (by the Smith government) paired with grandiose statements of how this will finally solve the health-care crisis.

But people aren’t buying it anymore. Canadians increasingly understand that more money for an already expensive and failing system is not the answer, and are increasingly open to reforms based on higher-performing universal health-care countries where the public system relies more on private firms and entrepreneurs to deliver publicly-funded services. Indeed, according to one recent poll, more than six in 10 Canadians agree that Canada should emulate other countries that allow private management of public hospitals, and more than half of those polled would like increased access to care provided by entrepreneurs.

What’s preventing these reforms?

In a word, Ottawa. The large and expanding federal cash transfers so often applauded by premiers actually prevent provinces from innovating and experimenting with more successful health-care policies. Why? Because to receive federal transfers, provinces must abide by the terms and conditions of the Canada Health Act (CHA), which prescribes often vaguely defined federal preferences for health policy and explicitly disallows certain reforms such as cost-sharing (where patients pay fees for some services, with protections for low-income people).

That threat of financial penalty discourages the provinces from following the examples of countries that provide more timely universal access to quality care such as Germany, Switzerland, Australia and the Netherlands. These countries follow the same blueprint, which includes patient cost-sharing for physician and hospital services (again, with protections for vulnerable populations including low-income individuals), private competition in the delivery of universally accessible services with money following patients to hospitals and surgical clinics, and allowing private purchases of care. Yet if Alberta adopted this blueprint, which has served patients in these other countries so well, it would risk losing billions in health-care transfers from Ottawa.

Finally, provinces have seemingly forgot the lesson from Saskatchewan’s surgical initiative, which ran between 2010 and 2014. That initiative, which included contracting out publicly financed surgeries to private clinics, reduced wait lists in Saskatchewan from among the highest in the country to among the shortest. And when the initiative ended, wait times began to grow again.

The simple reality of health care in every province including Alberta is that the government system is failing despite a world-class price tag. The solutions to this problem are known and increasingly desired by Canadians. Ottawa just needs to get out of the way and allow the provinces to genuinely reform the way we finance and deliver universal health care.

Author:

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#BrokenHealthCareSystem #FraserInstitute #HealthCareAlberta #NadeemEsmail

Up Next

Even Canadian leftists are starting to recognize the ‘dystopian’ nature of MAiD

Don't Miss

Biden Agencies Have Resumed Censorship Collaboration With Big Tech, Dem Senate Intel Chair Says

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

Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump

Freedom Convoy / 7 hours ago

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

Alberta / 12 hours ago

‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on July 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Fraser Institute

Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million from 2016 to 2024

Published on July 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson and Steven Globerman

From 2000 to 2015, annual immigration averaged 617,800 immigrants, compared to a more than doubling to 1.4 million annually from 2016 to
2024 (excluding 2020), according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent non-partisan Canadian think-tank.

“Over the past decade, Canada’s immigration numbers have skyrocketed, most starkly since 2021,” said Jock Finlayson, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000–2024.

The study finds from 2000 to 2015, immigration (including temporary foreign workers and international students) grew on average by 3.5 per cent per year. However, from 2016 to 2024 (excluding 2020) immigration grew annually at 21.3 per cent—more than six times the 2000-2015 pace.

The sharp rise in recent years reflects both planned increases in permanent immigrant inflows as well as unprecedented and largely unplanned growth in the numbers of temporary foreign workers, international students, and asylum seekers. For example, in 2024 alone, 485,600 permanent immigrants entered Canada, along with 518,200 international students and nearly one million (912,900) temporary foreign workers.

However, due to concerns about the impact of unprecedented in-migration on housing affordability, employment opportunities (or lack thereof), access to health care and other issues, late last year the federal government unveiled plans to substantially reduce immigration levels over the 2025-27 period, affecting permanent immigrants, international students, and other temporary visa holders.

The composition of immigration also changed dramatically during this period. From 2000 to 2015, the average share of total immigrants in the permanent category was 42.1 per cent while the non-permanent share (mainly international students and temporary workers) was 57.9 per cent. From 2016 to 2024 (excluding Covid 2020), permanent immigrants averaged 27.7 per cent of total in-migration versus 72.3 per cent for non-permanent.

“We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in Canada, and the unfortunate truth is we lack the necessary infrastructure to accommodate immigration at the 2022-24 rate,” said Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“While the reductions announced late last year have been confirmed by the new government, the levels of immigration over the next two year will still be well above historic benchmarks.”

This study is the first in a series of papers from the authors on immigration.

Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000—2024

Immigration, after 2000 and especially after 2015, is characterized by substantial increases in the absolute number of immigrants admitted, as well the share admitted as temporary foreign workers and international students.
For example, from 2000 to 2015, the total number of immigrants increased at a simple average annual rate of 4% compared to 15% from 2016 to 2024. As well, permanent admissions as a share of total admissions declined by .83 percentage points per year from 2000 to 2015 and by 1.1 percentage points per year from 2016 to 2024.
These recent developments reflect changes in government policy. In particular, the International Mobility Program (IMP) of 2014 enabled Canadian employers to bring in greater numbers of temporary workers from abroad to fill lower-paying jobs.
The Advisory Council on Economic Growth appointed by the Trudeau government in early 2016 recommended substantial increases in permanent immigration, as well as in the number of international students who would become eligible for permanent status after acquiring Canadian educational credentials. The Trudeau government enthusiastically embraced the recommendation.
Recent immigrants to Canada seem better equipped to participate in the labour market than earlier cohorts. For example, over the period from 2011 to 2021, the percentage of established immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased, and the vast majority of admitted immigrants speak at least one of the official languages. Moreover, recent immigrants enjoy higher employment rates than did earlier cohorts.
Nevertheless, public concern about the impact of increased immigration—primarily on the affordability of housing—has led the federal government to reduce planned levels of future immigration substantially.