Alberta
Alberta government should reform hospital funding to help shorten wait times
From the Fraser Institute
By Mackenzie Moir and Alicia Kardos
Other high-performing countries with universal health care (Australia, Germany, Switzerland) use “activity-based funding.” Under this model, hospitals receive funding based on the amount of care they provide.
Earlier this year, the Alberta Medical Association sounded the alarm on “rolling surgical outages,” patients diverted to other treatment sites, and the potential capping of services at major provincial hospitals. Unfortunately, the delays these problems create aren’t new to Albertans, as patients continue to face lengthy wait times.
According to the latest data, Albertan patients faced a median wait time of 33.5 weeks in 2022 for non-emergency medical treatment, a delay that was nearly six weeks longer than the national average, and three times longer than what patients in the province experienced in 1993 (when national estimates were first published).
When broken down, the wait in Alberta includes the first 16.4 weeks it takes for a patient to see a specialist after referral from their family doctor—then a second wait of 17.2 weeks to receive treatment after seeing that specialist. And these figures don’t account for the wait to see a GP in the first place, which is a significant issue in a rapidly growing province where remain without a family doctor.
Of course, we hear the predicable calls for more money. But in reality, spending more won’t get Albertans out of this problem. In a recent comparison of high-income countries with universal coverage, Canada (in 2021) was already one of the highest spenders on health care (as a share of their economy) while having some of the fewest doctors and hospital beds (after accounting for differences in population age among countries).
And when compared to nine other high-income countries in 2020, Canadians were found to have the longest waits for medical care. Specifically, Canadians were the least likely to report waiting under four months for non-emergency surgery (at 62 per cent) compared to higher-performing countries such as Australia (72 per cent), Switzerland (94 per cent) and Germany (99 per cent).
So what’s the solution?
In a word, reform. For example, Alberta could change the way it funds hospitals. Canada’s predominant approach is to provide hospitals a set amount of money each year, regardless of the level of services provided. This means that the money hospitals receive isn’t tied to the actual number of services they provide. This discourages hospitals from providing more care because each patient represents a drain on their budget rather than an opportunity.
In contrast, many other high-performing countries with universal health care (Australia, Germany, Switzerland) use “activity-based funding.” Under this model, hospitals receive funding based on the amount of care they provide. This creates a powerful incentive for hospitals to treat more patients, because each patient represents an opportunity for the hospital to earn more money.
Quebec decided in last year to fund all of its surgical procedures using this model, and now plans to expand the model to all hospital care by 2027/28. The Smith government has also taken some steps that lay the foundation for these types of reforms. This is good news for Albertans, if reform is actually on the way.
Across Canada, despite the availability of solutions, the status quo of long waits persists. Breaking from the past can be hard, but there may be hope on the horizon for patients in Alberta’s beleaguered and poorly performing health-care system.
Authors:
Alberta
Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).
The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.
Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.
As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.
Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).
The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.
Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.
Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.
The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.
Alberta
Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years
Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.
Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.
Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.
“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.
Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.
“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.
BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.
The long-term picture looks different south of the border.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.
Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.
This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.
The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.
According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .
BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.
“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Energy1 day agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Business2 days agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
armed forces2 days agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Business1 day agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Indigenous1 day agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Daily Caller1 day agoParis Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster


