While I don't agree either of these priorities are "vastly over funded", the schools one is tough to estimate on funding alone. There's a lot of structural differences between provinces, and I doubt most would say the education quality in MB is much better than AB. Alberta performs very well in standardized testing, and I know some will say that's not an accurate measure, but then what should we measure? I don't think it makes sense to say more funding = better education quality and ignore any type of efficiency gains.
On healthcare, the only thing I wanted to mention is that percentage of GDP is a very bad measure for AB. Just like how stats showing we have the highest GDP per capita in the country is also misleading, same with charts showing the same for North Dakota and other natural resource extracting areas. I'd be interested to see these spend figures in a couple years time, as this government has committed to a level of spending that they would criticize if the NDP did the same. Health spending across Canada needs some fundamental reworking. We spend amongst the highest per capita in the world without the access/performance of such. The Canada Health Act was mostly written decades ago, and most health experts would say it's a "fair" but very imperfect system, and there's far better models if we were to rebuild from scratch.
My rebuttal was only that Alberta’s health and education are not “vastly overfunded”.
Your point about Alberta’s students performing well, despite receiving the lowest or amongst the lowest funding in the country (and below the OECD average) further reinforces my argument that Alberta does not “vastly overfund” education. That actually sounds like a good value proposition. The goal should be the best education for the lowest cost.
However, Alberta’s public systems aren’t currently struggling because they’re overfunded — the data shows they’re straining under years of investment that hasn’t kept pace with population growth, inflation, or demand. In education, Alberta’s K–12 enrollment has grown over 20% in the past decade, one of the fastest rates in Canada, while real per‑student funding has declined once inflation and enrollment are accounted for. Alberta now spends below the national average per student, yet it has some of the largest class sizes in the country, especially in early grades where investment has the highest long‑term payoff. Strong test scores don’t necessarily prove adequate funding; they may show the system is performing well despite chronic underinvestment. My concern is that test scores can be a lagging indicator of funding, and that underfunding can take time to erode educational quality (it wasn’t that long ago that Alberta spent the most per student).
On healthcare, I can concede that Alberta, and Canada as a whole, lag behind its OECD peers on a ppp basis, so maybe it’s a structural issue more than a spending issue. Anecdotally, I think Canada’s elevated costs are at least in part a product of a geographically dispersed population and high administrative overhead stemming from decentralized provincial systems.
I could also concede that Alberta’s age-adjusted health spending is probably amongst the highest in Canada, because it has a young population.
I still don’t agree with the statement that health is “vastly overfunded” in Alberta. Healthcare tells a similar story to education. Alberta’s population growth is double the national average, but health‑system capacity hasn’t scaled with demand. Alberta has fewer physicians per capita than the Canadian average and ER wait times are trending higher — indicators of a system operating beyond its funded capacity. Per‑capita spending comparisons with slower‑growing provinces miss the core issue: Alberta’s demand curve is steeper, and its investment hasn’t matched that reality. When population grows rapidly but infrastructure, staffing, and service availability do not, the result is predictable strain.
The broader fiscal picture reinforces the point. Alberta has the highest GDP per capita in Canada and the lowest overall tax burden, meaning it has more fiscal capacity than any other province to invest in public systems. Yet its education and health spending, once adjusted for growth and inflation, has been effectively stagnant. A wealthy province delivering systems that are overcrowded, understaffed, and falling behind population needs is not a sign of overspending — it’s a sign of systematic underinvestment. Alberta’s outcomes are slipping not because it spends too much, but because it spends less than what its population and economic capacity require.
Alberta should aim to have the highest test scores and the lowest wait times in the country. That doesn’t mean it should just throw money at the issue and not look to be efficient. But to pretend like these types of outcomes won’t cost money and that prolonged underfunding won’t result in further declines is naive.
