We talked about what the federal government has \u2014 and hasn\u2019t \u2014 done to address the country\u2019s ongoing shortage of access to care; policies and practices to improve this response; and the need for the Carney government to invest in healthcare at least as much as it invests in defence and resource extraction.<\/p>\n
This interview took place on Friday, March 6, at the Broadbent Institute\u2019s annual Progress Summit in Ottawa. It has been edited for clarity and length.<\/p>\n
BRISHTI BASU: Tell me about the press conference that you were at yesterday.<\/p>\n
DR. DANYAAL RAZA: We hosted a press conference<\/a> on the Hill \u2014 and by we, I mean Canadian Doctors for Medicare, in collaboration with the Canadian Health Coalition and the Canadian Medical Association \u2014 calling on the federal government, the prime minister and the minister of health, to act on Bill 11, which is legislation that was passed in Alberta that will essentially allow two-tier healthcare or dual practice for physicians.<\/p>\n We\u2019re asking for the federal government to enforce the Canada Health Act to make sure that Danielle Smith\u2019s plan for essentially privatized healthcare doesn\u2019t go through.<\/p>\n And how did that go, what kind of responses did you receive from the federal government and Alberta?<\/p>\n The press conference actually followed a letter that we sent to the prime minister and the minister of health. It was signed by 23 major health and labour organizations.<\/p>\n So we\u2019ve had, including the press conference, two explicit reach-outs to the minister and to the prime minister. We haven\u2019t heard back yet, but the letter and the presser did pick up some media coverage, including in places like the CBC<\/a> and CTV<\/a>. In fact, the question about our concerns with Bill 11 was put to Danielle Smith<\/a>, and she was forced to respond.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n No surprise, she disagreed with the fact that her own legislation is harmful, but it at least has got her attention, and I\u2019m sure has got the attention of the federal minister of health.<\/p>\n Why is Alberta\u2019s Bill 11 such a threat to public healthcare in Canada?<\/p>\n The challenge with introducing a dual-practice system is that we don\u2019t have an unlimited supply of healthcare workers. Every country, every jurisdiction, only has so many doctors or nurses. So when you introduce a private-pay system, you drain and you divert scarce doctors, scarce nurses and other healthcare workers away from the public system to folks who can pay their way to the front of the line ahead of other people in Canada who, frankly, need more urgent care. It\u2019s a really cruel and, I think, regressive way to allocate healthcare workers.<\/p>\n Anyone who\u2019s ever heard the term \u201csocial determinants of health\u201d knows that the communities that have the highest health needs are the lowest-income, and those who tend to be the healthiest are also the wealthiest. When you introduce a dual practice, you\u2019re putting resources not where they\u2019re most needed.<\/p>\n This is not just a theoretical concern. We\u2019ve seen wait lists get longer in places that have instituted dual practice, including places like Australia, the UK and Ireland.<\/p>\n In fact, at the Cambie Surgeries trial \u2014 which was a major legal challenge to medicare in British Columbia \u2014 we had legal experts and healthcare experts come from these countries and warn the courts, saying that if Canada, whether it\u2019s through legal means or legislative means, moves to a two-tier healthcare system, then Canadians will suffer.<\/p>\n Can you expand on that? What was the Cambie trial about?<\/p>\n Before there was Bill 11 in Alberta, there was the Cambie Surgeries trial in British Columbia that was heard at the BC Supreme Court.<\/p>\n It was brought forward by an orthopedic surgeon who owns and runs a private, for-profit surgical centre. He was attempting to make the argument that by not allowing doctors to bill patients for medically necessary care, their Charter rights were being violated.<\/p>\n This trial concluded in 2020, but it took 10 years to get there. It involved lots of parties. There was the attorney general of BC, who was the defendant in the case, but there were also third parties, including Canadian Doctors for Medicare. We were there as interveners. So was the attorney general of Canada.<\/p>\n Healthcare advocates rallied on Parliament Hill on Feb. 10. (photo by John Major \/ Canadian Health Coalition)<\/p>\n When the judge finally did issue his ruling, it was a definitive dismissal of the plaintiff\u2019s case. Not only that, but if you go to the Canadian Doctors for Medicare website, we have a summary<\/a> of the parts of the case that really highlight the international evidence and underpinned the judge\u2019s decision. The judgment was so comprehensive that the plaintiffs lost at the appeals court in BC, and then when they attempted to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada didn\u2019t even entertain the case in court.<\/p>\n We know that there are aspects of Canadian healthcare right now that are already privatized. In addition, there are more and more doctors moving to platforms like telehealth. What kinds of impacts have we seen of, say, diagnostics being privatized and telehealth?<\/p>\n I think that we \u2014 and I mean \u201cwe\u201d broadly, including our political leaders \u2014 have been pretty inattentive to the public healthcare system. When you look at every dollar that\u2019s spent on healthcare in Canada, 70 cents or 70% is public, and 30 cents or 30% is private. But what does that mean?<\/p>\n When you compare Canada to other countries \u2014 and let\u2019s put the US to the side, we\u2019re not looking to the US anymore \u2014 let\u2019s look at the Europeans, countries like the Netherlands, France, Germany, the UK, the Nordic countries. They all spend 80% or more of every dollar from public sources on their healthcare system, compared to our 70%.<\/p>\n When you look at the last five years of data and you look at the growth of spending on healthcare, both public and private, private spending has outpaced public spending for four of the past five years. I bring this up because the narrative that we often hear is that healthcare spending in Canada is out of control and we can\u2019t afford any more public investments.<\/p>\n But if you actually look at the numbers, it\u2019s actually private healthcare spending that is out of control, and \u2014 at least if we are comparing ourselves to Europe and not the United States \u2014 we\u2019re under-investing in our public healthcare system. So we need to change the narrative and the way that we\u2019re talking about care.<\/p>\n The reason I bring this up in response to the question about the rise of things like virtual care \u2014 in particular, private-pay virtual care, or other sorts of private-pay services that are coming up \u2014 is that the inattention to the public healthcare system means that, I think, our shared sense of purpose and our social solidarity is starting to fray.<\/p>\n \u201cSo many of us think about our healthcare system as part of what makes us Canadian \u2014 as, I would argue, one of the highest expressions of us caring for one another.\u201d<\/p>\n Folks who can or will pay to jump the line, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else, will do so, and there will be investors who will give them opportunities to do that. I would argue it\u2019s actually fine for them to pay more for care.<\/p>\n But we have two choices: We can allow the status quo to continue and allow folks to jump the line at the expense of others. Or we can have an adult conversation about increasing funding for the public healthcare system and having the wealthy pay more through things like robust, progressive taxation. The money for the healthcare system has to come from somewhere, and I\u2019m not afraid, and we shouldn\u2019t be afraid, of having that conversation. That includes progressive taxation to support the sort of system that I think we all know we need.<\/p>\n You touched on social determinants of health and this whole conversation about how privatization is the divide between haves and have-nots. There\u2019s another divide that already exists in access to care in Canada, between urban communities and rural and particularly Indigenous communities. In your primary-care philosophy, what are the solutions that you envision for that?<\/p>\n People living in rural Canada have some of the largest challenges to accessing care and accessing services. There are almost 6 million people in our country who don\u2019t have access to a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, and nowhere is this a larger problem than in rural Canada.<\/p>\n I think a big part of the solution to rural healthcare is really doubling down on primary care. And not the old way of doing primary care, where the doctor could open an office with a secretary and provide pretty good care \u2014 that made sense 30 years ago.<\/p>\n But medicine and health is way more complex now. We do so much more chronic-disease management. That model of taking care of people, it doesn\u2019t do the job anymore.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not just about new money, but it\u2019s about investing new money in more creative ways. In primary care, that\u2019s team-based care. That means that when a patient shows up for their appointment, yes, of course, they\u2019ll have a doctor there to quarterback their care, but they\u2019ll have access in that same building, or in that same community, to a social worker if they need it, to a dietitian, to a physiotherapist, and it\u2019s all publicly covered.<\/p>\n That\u2019s something we need everywhere in the country, but I think we need it in rural Canada more, really, than anywhere else.<\/p>\n Kind of like the community-health-clinic model?<\/p>\n Exactly. And that\u2019s the good news.<\/p>\n We have, actually, a model of care everywhere in this country where that\u2019s already happening. Community health centres are a great example. In Ontario, we also have family health teams, which are another model. But even in Ontario, where I practice, only 20% of people in the province have access to team-based care, whether it\u2019s a family health team or a community health centre. I think both are great ways to do this sort of care \u2014 every province, every community, I think may be better served by one model or the other. But the point is that we need more of both.<\/p>\n The fundamental problem of Canada not having enough doctors, I suppose we\u2019re now addressing that by courting doctors that are trying to get out of the US because of that administration and RFK Jr.\u2019s brain worms. But in addition to that, there\u2019s med schools being built across Canada \u2014 I think there\u2019s six new ones. Is that promising as a way to address the shortage?<\/p>\n I\u2019m a doctor. I love being a doctor. But it\u2019s also very obvious to me and my colleagues that just training more doctors is not going to fix the problem, and that recruiting doctors from other countries \u2014 it will help \u2014 but it\u2019s also not going to fix the problem. And frankly, I don\u2019t want to fix the problem in Canada at the expense of people who need healthcare otherwise, whether it\u2019s in the United States or whether it\u2019s in low- and middle-income countries that have far greater healthcare needs than we do. We face serious challenges, but so do other folks, and I don\u2019t want to fix healthcare in Canada on the backs of other folks who are also struggling.<\/p>\n We really need a made-in-Canada solution, and I think the way that we do that is we recognize, again, that healthcare is best delivered not by a single person, but by a team. Healthcare has evolved and changed a lot over the past 40 years since the Canada Health Act was passed.<\/p>\n I am not the only person who is capable of looking after a patient. I work as part of a team, so that if a patient comes and sees me and they have questions about how their medications interact with one another, I could talk to them about it. But I also have an amazing pharmacist whose office is right across the hall from me. It makes a lot of sense for the patient to talk with our team pharmacist.<\/p>\n If a patient comes in, they\u2019re going through a tough time, there\u2019s a diagnosis of depression, I will spend time with them. I will prescribe medication, if it makes sense. But hey, three doors down, we have our social work team. It probably makes sense that they meet with them as well.<\/p>\n I think that is how every single doctor can take care of even more patients, and patients can be matched with the most appropriate person to take care of their needs. Yes, we need more doctors and yes, we need other folks to also work as part of a medical team to take care of patients. That\u2019s, I think, how we can make the biggest progress on filling this care gap.<\/p>\n At a national level in Canada, advocacy in healthcare is a little difficult, because obviously the provision of healthcare is provincial jurisdiction. Can you talk a little bit about where the federal government\u2019s role is, as we head into this year of healthcare experiments<\/a> by the provinces?<\/p>\n We have a federal minister of health and something called the Canada Health Act for a reason, right? Because the federal government has a fundamental role in healthcare in Canada, even though healthcare systems are, by and large \u2014 not for everyone, but by and large \u2014 administered provincially. That\u2019s because the provinces can\u2019t do their jobs without the funding that comes through the Canada Health Transfer from the federal government. It\u2019s the federal government\u2019s responsibility to make sure that in exchange for that funding, provinces uphold the core sets of principles, and right now that\u2019s through the Canada Health Act.<\/p>\n Healthcare advocates rallied on Parliament Hill on Feb. 10. (photo by John Major \/ Canadian Health Coalition)<\/p>\n But the Canada Health Act only applies to two types of services: to doctors and to hospitals. For everything else, we periodically have these health accords that are signed \u2014 but they\u2019re usually time-limited, there\u2019s not really any hard criteria for results or reporting, they lapse and they\u2019re very episodic.<\/p>\n I think we have seen signs of more sustained engagement from the federal government. Most recently, there was the Pharmacare Act that was passed, that was modelled on the same five principles that you can find in the Canada Health Act. Even though the legislation is not the true universal pharmacare program that I think many of us want, it is at least a start for diabetes and contraception.<\/p>\n To the credit of the former minister of health, Mark Holland, he and his team really hustled to get those four deals signed for BC, Manitoba, PEI and Yukon. The premiers of those provinces and of the Yukon really hustled, also, to work with his team to get those done. But we\u2019ve heard nothing since.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve heard nothing since Prime Minister Carney, in his election campaign, committed to protect pharmacare. But I think in many of our eyes, that didn\u2019t mean to also protect inequities that exist within the country. It doesn\u2019t make sense to me.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we not only want to protect the values upon which medicare was built, but use those values to make something better, we have to start playing offence.\u201d<\/p>\n I am extremely happy for folks in BC, who as of March 1st, can access not just contraception and diabetes, but also menopause treatments for free. It\u2019s going to be so exciting when that comes online for people in Manitoba, PEI and Yukon. But it doesn\u2019t make sense that my patients in Ontario also can\u2019t have access to it. Or people in Newfoundland, where the premier, who wants to sign a deal and is ready to do it, can\u2019t do it. Or anywhere else in this country.<\/p>\n So for me, the protection of pharmacare is not just protecting existing deals and being okay with the inequity that that creates in this country. The protection includes actually finishing the job that the last government started. Amongst many other things, I would love to see the federal government do that.<\/p>\n If pharmacare is not the federal government\u2019s priority on healthcare, what is?<\/p>\n I honestly wish that I could tell you, because I do not know.<\/p>\n This government has, I think rightly so, talked about the need for Canada to nation-build. We are in a very precarious time. There\u2019s a lot of anxiety for good reasons. Our traditional relationships with allies like the US are fraying, and so we really need to figure out, \u201cHow do we shore ourselves up as a nation?\u201d<\/p>\n So many of us think about our healthcare system as part of what makes us Canadian \u2014 as, I would argue, one of the highest expressions of us caring for one another. I can think of nothing more worthy of nation-building than that, and I would love it if the prime minister shared that point of view, but I am struggling to see that right now.<\/p>\n I think many of us who are just grinding away in the system, working, taking care of patients, we all have stories of people who can\u2019t access a family doctor, who are waiting longer than they should be for that specialist appointment or that surgical procedure. I would love the prime minister to spend a day with us, so he can recognize that this is part of how we take care of each other, and this is how we build a stronger Canada.<\/p>\n Have you made that ask of the prime minister, to sit down with you?<\/p>\n No, but I think I just did.<\/p>\n Well, listeners heard it here first on Sources.<\/p>\n There is one other thing I want to add.<\/p>\n Because medicare is regularly under attack, I think those of us who believe in universal healthcare sometimes feel the need to circle the wagons and play defence, and that puts us in a scarcity mindset.<\/p>\n I actually think the best defence is a good offence. If we not only want to protect the values upon which medicare was built, but use those values to make something better, then I think we have to start playing offence. Pharmacare is a part of that, but so is primary care. So are even more technocratic things, like ways we can redesign how we do referral systems to make sure that people get more timely access to care. But so is a really adult conversation about how we need to pay for this care.<\/p>\n There are only so many savings we can get from efficiency before new calls for efficiency equal service cuts. Our federal government is committing \u2014 and I\u2019m not saying whether this is a good or bad thing \u2014 but we are committing 5% of our GDP to defence. We are making major investments in the resource sector, and we are also cutting taxes \u2014 the digital services tax, these luxury taxes on yachts and private jets, this corporate super tax deduction<\/a>. So where is all the money going to come from? Where\u2019s the money going to come from, also, for healthcare? So let\u2019s have that conversation, too.<\/p>\n I\u2019m tired of being put in a corner and being asked, \u201cWhere\u2019s the money coming from?\u201d<\/p>\n So yeah, let\u2019s talk about it. Let\u2019s talk about progressive taxation. Let\u2019s talk about a wealth tax. Let\u2019s talk about an estate tax. Let\u2019s talk about other ways we can capture our communal wealth to actually look after each other.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Our journalism is powered by readers like you.<\/p>\n We\u2019re an award-winning non-profit news organization that covers topics like social and economic inequality, big business and labour, and right-wing extremism.<\/p>\n Help us build so we can bring to light stories that don\u2019t get the attention they deserve from Canada\u2019s big corporate media outlets.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Canadian-Health-Coalition-Feb-2026-rally-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Canadian-Health-Coalition-Feb-2026-rally-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n