NDP MP McPherson, Alberta NDP criticize feds’ slow response to province’s plan to increase private surgeries

As Health Minister Marjorie Michel continues to review Alberta’s plan to increase the availability of privately funded surgeries, elected provincial and federal NDP politicians say Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government is breaking federal law, and that Ottawa must take action. 

Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney (Nepean, Ont.) on June 19—following the publication of regulations for Alberta’s Bill 11 the previous day—asking him to intervene, to ensure that Michel (Papineau, Que.) “immediately” reviews the province’s plan, and that safeguards are put in place to protect public health care. 

Nenshi told The Hill Times that he wrote to Carney and not Michel because his party has been “concerned” about the “slowness” coming from Health Canada in discussing Bill 11, which received royal assent on Dec. 11, 2025. 

Nenshi said it is “important that the prime minister understand what a big deal this is” especially given the attention on Alberta-federal relations amid the potential for a formal referendum on separation. 

NDP MP Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, Alta.) said she is “very angry” about the Alberta plan and the federal government’s lack of action. 

Smith's government “is breaking the law, the federal government is not standing up and defending the law, and so that's giving them the ability to do this," McPherson said. 

"My biggest concerns? This is the beginning of the end of medicare. This is the beginning of the end of the health-care system that Canadians are so rightfully proud of. This is an Alberta-made, two-tiered, American-style health-care system that is going to get put in place," she said.

Bill 11, which amends several pieces of legislation, introduces a “dual-practice” model for physicians who perform elective surgeries like those for hips and knees. Emergency surgeries and those for life-threatening conditions would not be done in the private system, according to the Alberta government. Physicians would be allowed to work in both the public and private systems, which public health care advocates say is unprecedented in this country. 

While private surgeries do occur in other provinces, those doctors can only provide care through the private system, said Steven Staples, national policy and advocacy director at the Canadian Health Coalition. They cannot also work in public hospitals and clinics.

The coalition commissioned a legal opinion from Goldblatt Partners LLP which states that the move contravenes three of the Canada Health Act’s five official principles: comprehensiveness, accessibility, and universality. (The other two principles are portability and public administration). 

The law requires that provinces and territories publicly fund health-care services in hospitals and from physicians in order to receive their full share of the federal Canada Health Transfer.  

Alberta’s United Conservative Party government, led by Smith, has defended its plan, saying it would reduce wait times for surgeries in the public health-care system by removing those who choose to pay from waiting lists. It has also promised to set a minimum number of hours that participating physicians must work in the public system. 

But when Alberta Minister of Hospital and Surgical Health Services Adriana LaGrange held a press conference on June 18 to discuss the bill’s regulations, she acknowledged that the government has not yet set a benchmark.

Saying that the plan would be in place this fall, LaGrange said her government is looking to first see physician interest, and that benchmarks would be personalized to the doctor based on their specialty and the region in which they practise medicine. 

LaGrange said oversight of the new model would be “strong,” and responded to criticism that dual practice contravenes the Canada Health Act. 

“If adjustments are needed, we will make them. We will continue to fully comply with the Canada Health Act. Health care will still be publicly funded. No one will be denied access to the services they need because of an inability to pay,” she said. 

Federal Health Minister Michel told the National Post in an April 2026 interview that she is the “guardian of the Canada Health Act,” and that she had a very “open” conversation with LaGrange about Bill 11. She said they agreed their departments would communicate with each other as Alberta developed regulations.  

Other than that, public statements issued by Michel's office have repeatedly emphasized that Health Canada is reviewing the plan. 

When The Hill Times asked her office this past April about Bill 11, a spokesperson said, “Health Canada officials are continuing to engage with their Alberta counterparts to better understand the various components and implications of Alberta’s Bill 11.” 

A similar statement was issued to CBC News this past February, and again on LinkedIn earlier this month following the regulations' release. Michel said in the most recent statement that Health Canada has received the regulations and an implementation plan, and the department “is taking the time to review them carefully and engage with Alberta officials to better understand their components and potential impacts before they are implemented.” 

McPherson said Michel’s response is “insufficient.”

“The minister has not spoken out, and putting a statement out on LinkedIn is frankly not protecting the Canada Health Act. … I mean, this is two-tiered health care, this is breaking the law of Canada, and she is not stepping up and doing her job,” McPherson told The Hill Times.

The NDP MP said she's already seeing insurance companies in her home province advertise additional coverage for workplace plans to cover the eligible elective surgeries. 

Staples said Michel must declare that Alberta’s plan contravenes the Canada Health Act, and that her government should be prepared to withhold funding from the Canada Health Transfer and possibly existing health bilateral agreements.

Alberta is “now opening a conversation with physicians that want to start charging privately for medically necessary care, and so time is up. Now, the minister must act. She can't keep waiting,” Staples said. 

He argued that the dual-practice model will only shorten wait times for people who can pay for surgeries as doctors working in the public health-care system can offer surgeries within days if patients agree to pay. 

“That is not fair under the Canada Health Act where everybody in the province should have access under the same terms,” Staples said. 

McPherson also agreed that wait times in the public system will not decrease with implementation. The health-care system still has a limited number of doctors, hospital beds, and MRI machines, she said. 

Also concerning to McPherson, she said, is the possibility that physicians under a dual-practice model will choose less complex cases for their private practice, leaving the challenging surgeries in the public system, and that post-surgical care for out-of-pocket procedures will still land in the public system. 

Nenshi said he believes that the Alberta government would allow privately-funded surgeries to occur in public hospitals, and if that were to happen, his understanding is that it would be the first time that occurs in Canada. 

LaGrange touched on this issue during her press conference, saying that while there is flexibility to allow for these private operations in hospitals, the government is focusing on using existing private chartered surgical facilities.

In response,  Nenshi said, “This is extraordinary garbage … I don’t believe a word of what they're saying because, frankly, this government has been making this up as they go along.” 

Nenshi said he written to Carney asking to ensure safeguards—such as minimum hours—are put in place because, as he understands it, the Canada Health Act doesn’t forbid any province from doing anything. Nenshi also said Ottawa has the option of health transfer deductions. 

McPherson said the health-care system is not working for Canadians right now and that the federal government can help fix this by paying its "fair share" of costs.

As Alberta prepares for an Oct. 19 referendum including a question about the possibility of holding another referendum on separating from Canada, Staples acknowledged the sensitivity of federal relations with Alberta. He said that during a February lobby day for his group, the secession movement was “on the minds of parliamentarians in Ottawa, and not wanting to wave red flags in front of that.”

But his stance—and that of McPherson and Nenshi—is that the government can prove the value of staying in the federation by defending public health care. 

Staples said he told Michel during a June 1 meeting that her government should make a “strong case” for staying in Canada by emphasizing the benefits of doing so, which includes public health care, for which Alberta receives billions of dollars every year. 

McPherson said Carney can prove the benefit of staying in Canada by protecting federal programs such as the Canada Pension Plan and public health care. 

“You want to show Albertans the value of being part of Canada? Protect our health care system. Ensure that the Alberta government doesn't break the Canada Health Act. That's fundamental,” she said. 

Nenshi said that Ottawa may be “nervous” about doing anything that could look like it’s fighting Alberta ahead of the initial referendum, but he argues that defending public health care is "a good thing for the pro-Canada forces."

“Far more people in Alberta support public health care than support separatism. Far more people in Alberta support public health care than support Danielle Smith,” Nenshi said. 

And McPherson has a warning for the Liberal government: whatever starts in Alberta is bound to move across borders. 

“If you don't think that [Ontario Premier] Doug Ford and [Saskatchewan Premier] Scott Moe and other conservative premiers are looking at this and thinking, ‘Great,’” she said.

“This doesn't just impact Albertans. All of these things that we are seeing happen in Alberta—the referendum, the separation, the attacks on health care, the attacks on trans kids, the attacks on workers' rights— all of that stuff will move across this country. And if the federal government isn't going to stand up for the law of this land, why do they even exist? What's the point?” 

tsanci@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times