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

Canada’s supply management system is failing consumers

Economy / 10 hours ago

Trump opens door to Iranian oil exports

Canadian Energy Centre / 11 hours ago

Alberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015

Business

Prairie provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador see largest increases in size of government

Published on July 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

A recent study found that Canada has experienced one of the largest increases in the size of government of any advanced country over the last decade. But within Canada, which provinces have led the way?

The size of government refers to the extent to which resources within the economy are controlled and directed by the government, and has important implications for economic growth, living standards, and economic freedom—the degree to which people are allowed to make their own economic choices.

Too much of anything can be harmful, and this is certainly true regarding the size of government. When government grows too large it begins to take on roles and resources that are better left to the private sector. For example, rather than focusing on core functions like maintaining the rule of law or national defence, a government that has grown too large might begin subsidizing certain businesses and industries over others (i.e. corporate welfare) in order to pick winners and losers in the market. As a result, economic growth slows and living standards are lower than they otherwise would be.

One way to measure the size of government is by calculating total general government spending as a share of the economy (GDP). General government spending refers to spending by governments at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal), and by measuring this as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) we can compare across jurisdictions of different sizes.

A recent study compared the size of government in Canada as a whole with that of 39 other advanced economies worldwide, and found that Canada experienced the second-largest increase in the size of government (as a share of the economy) from 2014 to 2024. In other words, since 2014, governments in Canada have expanded their role within the economy faster than governments in virtually every other advanced country worldwide—including all other countries within the Group of Seven (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Moreover, the study showed that Canada as a whole has exceeded the optimal size of government (estimated to fall between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP) at which a country can maximize their economic growth. Beyond that point, growth slows and is lower than it otherwise would be.

However, Canada is a decentralized country and provinces vary as to the extent to which governments direct overall economic activity. Using data from Statistics Canada, the following charts illustrate which provinces in Canada have the largest size of government and which have seen the largest increases since 2014.

The chart above shows total general government spending as a share of GDP for all ten provinces in 2023 (the latest year of available provincial data). The size of government in the provinces varies considerably, ranging from a high of 61.4 per cent in Nova Scotia to a low of 30.0 per cent in Alberta. There are geographical differences, as three Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) have the largest governments while the three western-most provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) have the smallest governments. However, as of 2023, all provinces except Alberta exceeded the optimal size of government—which again, is between 24 and 32 per cent of the economy.

To show which provinces have experienced the greatest increase in the size of government in recent years, the second chart shows the percentage point increase in total general government spending as a share of GDP from 2014 to 2023. It should be noted that this is measuring the expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy—which has been substantial nationwide—as well as growth in the respective provincial and municipal governments.

The increases in the size of government since 2014 are largest in four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (10.82 percentage points), Alberta (7.94 percentage points), Saskatchewan (7.31 percentage points), and Manitoba (7.17 percentage points). These are all dramatic increases—for perspective, in the study referenced above, Estonia’s 6.66 percentage point increase in its size of government was the largest out of 40 advanced countries.

The remaining six provinces experienced far lower increases in the size of government, ranging from a 2.74 percentage point increase in B.C. to a 0.44 percentage point increase in Quebec. However, since 2014, every province in Canada has seen government expand its role within the economy.

Over the last decade, Canada has experienced a substantial increase in the size of total government. Within the country, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Prairie provinces have led the way in growing their respective governments.

Alberta

Alberta government records $8.3 billion surplus—but the good times may soon end

Published on July 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to last week’s fiscal update, the Smith government recorded a $8.3 billion surplus in 2024/25—$8 billion more than what the government projected in its original 2024 budget. But the good times won’t last forever.

Due largely to population growth, personal income tax revenue exceeded budget projections by $500 million. Business tax revenue exceeded budget expectations by $1.1 billion. And critically, thanks to relatively strong oil prices, resource revenue (e.g. oil and gas royalties) saw a $4.7 billion jump.

The large budget surplus is good news, particularly as it will be used to pay down government debt (which taxpayers must ultimately finance) and to invest for the future. But again, the good times could soon be over.

Recall, the Alberta government incurred a $17.0 billion budget deficit just a few years ago in 2020/21. And it wasn’t only due to COVID—until the recent string of surpluses, the government ran deficits almost every year since 2008/09, racking up significant amounts of debt, which still largely persists today. As a result, provincial government debt interest payments cost each Albertan $658 in 2024/25. Moreover, in February’s budget, the Smith government projected more deficits over the next three years.

Generally, Alberta’s fiscal fortunes follow the price of oil. Over the past decade, for example, resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion in 2015/16, while oil prices slumped to $US45.00 per barrel, and as high as $25.2 billion in 2022/23, when oil prices jumped to $US89.69 per barrel.

Put simply, resource revenue volatility fuels Alberta’s boom-and-bust cycle. In 2025/26, the West Texas Intermediate oil price will be a projected $US68.00 per barrel with projected resource revenue falling by $4.9 billion year-over-year.

But oil prices don’t need to dictate Alberta’s fiscal fortune. Indeed, if the Smith government restrains its spending, it can avoid deficits even when resource revenues fall.

There are plenty of ways to rein in spending. For instance, the government spends billions of dollars in subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select industries and businesses in Alberta every year despite a significant body of research that shows these subsidies fail to generate widespread economic benefit. Eliminating these subsidies is a clear first step to deliver significant savings.

The budget surplus is undoubtedly positive for Albertans, but the good times could soon come to an end. To avoid deficits and debt accumulation moving forward, the Smith government should rein in spending.