Free Online Townhall: How to Fix Health Care in Canada? Thursday, Sept 24 at 7pm ET.

THE HUB: Ottawa should cheer, not impede, Canada’s much-needed health care reform

September 2, 2026

SecondStreet.org's Research Director, Bacchus Barua, comments on the face off between Alberta and Ottawa over health care reform.

Read the Story

Battle lines are being drawn up as health ministers in Ottawa and Alberta begin to square off on health-care reform. The cause? Alberta’s decision to allow doctors to provide care in both public and private settings.

While Adriana LaGrange, Alberta’s minister of hospitals and surgical services, has claimed provincial jurisdiction over the delivery of health-care services, Marjorie Michel, Canada’s federal health minister, has expressed concern about the compatibility of Alberta’s proposal with the reality of the Canada Health Act (CHA).

Lawyers can quibble over who is right, but what Ottawa should be doing is welcoming Alberta’s move and committing to amend the CHA if need be so that the Alberta government can continue to make its health system more like better-performing universal systems in Europe.

Let’s be clear: physicians in Alberta (and indeed most of Canada) are already able to opt out of the public system. However, to do so, they must give up their public role entirely. To continue supporting the public system, few have chosen this path. However, increasing frustration with the government’s approach to health care threatens a potential exodus from public to private settings.

Just ask Quebec, where the increasingly rigid rules to keep physicians stuck in the public system backfired spectacularly and led to physicians applying for jobs in Ontario. Media have previously reported on some Calgary-based physicians travelling to the Caribbean to deliver private care—not to local residents—but to Albertans who fly there with them.

Alberta’s government understands this approach doesn’t make sense, and in fact provincial barriers actually threaten the very system they’re intended to protect by forcing physicians into a binary choice. Enter dual-practice legislation that offers physicians a more flexible option – allowing them to participate in the private sector without abandoning patients in the public queue.

But there’s a catch. Alberta receives billions of dollars in health care funding from Ottawa every year, and therefore needs to play by its rules. The federal Canada Health Act does not explicitly prohibit dual practice, so long as services in public settings continue to adhere to the principles of the CHA. However, there’s enough wiggle-room in the wording that federal politicians, or a special interest group, could politicize the issue, choosing to claim such a change contravenes the principle of Accessibility.

Which is why guardrails are important – restrictions on what can be offered and under which circumstances, safeguards to prevent conflict of interest, commitments to transparency, and guarantees to make sure the public system has enough staff. This is the approach followed by several universal health care systems around the world with dual-practice regulations.

In Germany, physicians must commit to working at least 25 hours for the public system before they can provide private care. In France, it’s five “half-days” per week, with on-site private activity capped at 20% of public-hospital activity. In the United Kingdom, doctors who have contracts with the public National Health Service (NHS) must generally prioritize their duty to the public hospital.

But Alberta understands this, and has already committed to a number of guardrails, with more expected to be announced in the coming weeks. And, one suspects federal Minister Michels understands this as well. In fact, Minister Michel’s statements regarding “ongoing targeted discussions…to mitigate any misalignment with the CHA” may simply be interpreted as a frank assessment of the reality on the ground rather than a warning – though it’s impossible to tell while the specific contents of her letter to the provincial minister remain undisclosed.

Allowing physicians to practice privately without sacrificing their public role is a common-sense approach based on our international peers. If this reform is deemed incompatible with the CHA, it’s not Alberta, but the federal legislation that needs to change.

Bacchus Barua is Research Director at SecondStreet.org

 

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Share this Story

Help spread the message and make real change by sharing this story with your network.

Facebook
X
Email

How You Can Take Action

Whether you donate, speak up, or share our work, every action strengthens the push for better policies in health care, education, and everyday life. When Canadians get involved, leaders pay attention—and real reform becomes possible.

Related Stories

September 25, 2026
A new bulletin from SecondStreet.org dives deeper into the health care crisis in B.C.
September 25, 2026
A new bulletin from SecondStreet.org dives deeper into the health care crisis in B.C.
September 22, 2026
A new SecondStreet.org report shows that charter school students are out-performing their peers at government-run public and Catholic schools.

Join 20,000+ Canadians in our movement for a better Canada.

Name(Required)
Select Your Interests(Required)
Consent(Required)

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.