Connect with us

Alberta

Healthcare Innovation Isn’t ‘Scary.’ Canada’s Broken System Is

Published

6 months ago

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

“Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

Why is the Globe and Mail afraid of healthcare reform that works?

The Globe and Mail editorial board seems to find healthcare innovation “scary.”

On Sept. 3, it published an editorial called “Danielle Smith has a scary fix for healthcare,” criticizing the Alberta Premier’s idea to introduce competition in the province’s health system. Premier Smith’s plan involves third-party leasing of underperforming hospitals while the government retains ownership and continues funding.

Let’s be clear: the real problem isn’t Smith’s proposal – it’s the current state of healthcare across Alberta and Canada. Sticking with the status quo of underperformance is what should truly alarm us. Rather than attacking those trying to fix a broken system, we should focus on much-needed reforms.

So, what exactly is Smith proposing? Contrary to what you may have heard, she isn’t dismantling Alberta’s universal healthcare or introducing an American style system. Yet the public sector unions – and certain media outlets – seem to jump into hysterics any time innovation is proposed, particularly when it involves private-sector competition.

Predictably, groups like Friends of Medicare, with their union ties, are quick to raise the alarm. Yet media coverage often fails to disclose this affiliation, leaving readers with the impression that their views are impartial. Take Global News’ recent coverage, for example:

In late August, Global News reporter Jasmine King presented a story on potential changes to Alberta’s healthcare system. She featured a spokesperson from Friends of Medicare, who predicted that the changes would be detrimental to the province. However, the report failed to mention that Friends of Medicare is affiliated with public sector unions and has a history of opposing any private sector involvement in healthcare. The news segment also included a statement from the dean of a medical faculty, who was critical of the proposed changes. Missing from the report were any voices in favour of healthcare innovation.

Here’s the real issue: Canada is an outlier in its resistance to competition in healthcare. Many European countries, which also have universal healthcare systems, allow private and non-profit organizations to operate hospitals. These systems function effectively without the kind of fear-mongering that dominates the Canadian debate.

Instead of fear-based comparisons to the U.S., let’s acknowledge the success stories of countries that have embraced a mixed system of healthcare delivery. But lazy, fear-driven reporting means we keep hearing the same tired arguments against change, with little context or consideration of alternatives that are working elsewhere.

It’s ironic that The Globe and Mail editorial aims to generate fear about a health care policy proposal that could, contrary to the alarmist reaction, potentially improve efficiency and care in Alberta. The only thing we truly have to fear in healthcare is the stagnation and inefficiency of the current system.

Claude Castonguay, the architect of Quebec’s Medicare system, released a report in 2008 on that province’s health system, calling for increased competition and choice in healthcare.

“In almost every other public and private areas, monopolies are simply not accepted,” he wrote. “Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

The fear of competition is misguided, and Canadians are increasingly open to the idea of paying for private treatment when the public system falls short.

Let’s stop demonizing those who propose solutions and start addressing the real issue: a system that is no longer delivering the care Canadians need. The future of healthcare depends on embracing innovation, not clinging to outdated models and misplaced fears.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 3 hours ago

Kennedy to cut 10,000 HHS employees to reduce ‘bureaucratic sprawl’

Business / 3 hours ago

Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000, Musk Says

Energy / 8 hours ago

Poll: Majority says energy independence more important than fighting climate change

Alberta

Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces

Published on March 27, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Nathaniel Li

Albertans contributed $53.6 billion more to CPP then retirees in Alberta received from it from 1981 to 2022

Albertans’ net contribution to the Canada Pension Plan —meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta
received in CPP payments—was more than six times as much as any other province at $53.6 billion from 1981 to 2022, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Albertan workers have been helping to fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and Canadians ought to know that without Alberta, the Canada Pension Plan would look much different,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan.

From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid—Canada’s compulsory, government- operated retirement pension plan—while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Alberta’s net contribution over that period was $53.6 billion.

Crucially, only residents in two provinces—Alberta and British Columbia—paid more into the CPP than retirees in those provinces received in benefits, and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than BC’s.

The reason Albertans have paid such an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP, in recent years is because of the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population.

As such, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could expect to receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians, while the payroll tax would likely have to increase for the rest of the country (excluding Quebec) to maintain the same benefits.

“Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into it than Albertan retirees get back from it,” Hill said.

Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan

  • Understanding Alberta’s role in national income transfers and other important programs is crucial to informing the broader debate around Alberta’s possible withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
  • Due to Alberta’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues than they receive back in federal spending.
  • From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 percent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid while retirees in the province received only 10.0 percent of the payments. Albertans net contribution was $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than British Columbia’s net contribution (the only other net contributor).
  • Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth and income levels, Alberta’s central role in funding national programs is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
  • Due to Albertans’ disproportionate net contribution to the CPP, the current base CPP contribution rate would likely have to increase to remain sustainable if Alberta withdrew from the plan. Similarly, Alberta’s stand-alone rate would be lower than the current CPP rate.

 

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Nathaniel Li

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax

Published on March 27, 2025

By

From the Alberta Institute

Axe Alberta’s Industrial Carbon Tax

Aside from tariffs, carbon taxes have been the key topic of the election campaign so far, with Mark Carney announcing that the Liberals would copy the Conservatives’ long-standing policy to axe the tax – but with a big caveat.

You see, it’s misleading to talk about the carbon tax as if it were a single policy.

In fact, that’s what the Liberals would like you to think because it helps them hide all the other carbon taxes they’ve forced on Canadians and on the Provinces.

Broadly speaking, there are actually four types of carbon taxes in place in Canada:

  1. A federal consumer carbon tax
  2. A federal industrial carbon tax
  3. Various provincial consumer carbon taxes
  4. Various provincial industrial carbon taxes

Alberta was actually the first jurisdiction anywhere in North America to introduce a carbon tax in 2007, when Premier Ed Stelmach introduced a provincial industrial carbon tax.

Then, as we all know, the Alberta NDP introduced a provincial consumer carbon tax in 2017.

The provincial consumer carbon tax was short-lived, as the UCP repealed it in 2019.

But, unfortunately, the UCP failed to repeal the provincial industrial carbon tax at the same time.

Worse, by then, the federal Liberals had introduced a federal consumer carbon tax and a federal industrial carbon tax as well!

Flash forward to 2025, and the political calculus has changed dramatically.

Mark Carney might only be promising to get rid of the federal consumer carbon tax, but Pierre Poilievre is promising to get rid of both the federal consumer carbon tax and the federal industrial carbon tax.

This is a clear opportunity, and yesterday, Scott Moe jumped on it.

He announced that Saskatchewan will also be repealing its provincial industrial carbon tax.

Saskatchewan never had a provincial consumer carbon tax, which means that, within just a few weeks, people in Saskatchewan could be paying ZERO carbon tax of ANY kind.

Alberta needs to follow Saskatchewan’s lead.

The Alberta government should immediately repeal Alberta’s provincial industrial carbon tax.

There’s no excuse for our provincial government to continue burdening our industries with unnecessary costs that hurt competitiveness and deter investment.

These taxes make it harder for businesses to thrive, grow, and create jobs, especially when other provinces are taking action to eliminate similar policies.

Premier Danielle Smith must act now and eliminate the provincial industrial carbon tax in Alberta.

If you agree, please sign our petition calling on the Alberta government to Axe Alberta’s Industrial Carbon Tax today:

 

 

After you’ve signed, please send the petition to your friends, family, and wider network, so that every Albertan can have their voice heard!

– The Alberta Institute Team

Continue Reading

Trending

X