Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta 2025 Budget Review from the Alberta Institute

Published

9 minute read

The government has just tabled its budget in the Legislature.

We were invited to the government’s advance briefing, which gave us a few hours to review the documents, ask questions, and analyze the numbers before the official release.

Now that the embargo has been lifted, we can share our thoughts with you.

However, this is just our preliminary analysis – we’ll have a more in-depth breakdown for you next week.

*****

The 2025/26 Budget is a projection for the next year – what the government expects will happen from April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2026.

It represents the government’s best estimate of future revenue and its plan for expenditures.

In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as a Budget figure.

*****

The actual final figures won’t be known until the 2025/26 Annual Report is released in the middle of next year.

Of course, as we’ve seen in the past, things don’t always go according to plan.

In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as an Actual figure.

Importantly, this means that the 2024/25 Annual Report isn’t ready yet, either.

*****

Therefore, in the meantime, the Q3 2025/26 Fiscal Update, which has figures up to December 31st, 2024, provides a forecast for the 2024/25 year.

The government looks at the actual results three quarters of the way through the previous year, and uses those figures to get the most accurate forecast on what will be the final result in the annual report, to help with estimating the 2025-26 year.

In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as a Forecast figure.

*****

Accurately estimating, and tracking these three types of figures is a key part of good budgeting.

Sometimes, the economy performs better than expected, oil prices could be higher than initially forecast, or more revenue may come in from other sources.

But, other times, there’s a recession or a drop in oil prices, leading to lower-than-expected revenue.

On the spending side, governments sometimes find savings, keeping expenses lower than planned.

Alternatively, unexpected costs, disasters, or just governments being governments can also drive spending higher than budgeted.

The best way to manage this uncertainty is:

  1. Be conservative in estimating revenue.
  2. Only plan to spend what is reasonably expected to come in.
  3. Stick to that spending plan to avoid overspending.

By following these principles, the risk of an unexpected deficit is minimized.

And if revenue exceeds expectations or expenses come in lower, the surplus can be used to pay down debt or be returned to taxpayers.

On these three measures, this year’s budget gets a mixed grade.

*****

On the first point, the government has indeed made some pretty conservative estimates of revenue – including assuming an oil price several dollars below where it currently stands, and well below the previous year’s predictions.

The government has also assumed there will be some significant (though not catastrophic) effects from a potential trade war.

If oil prices end up higher, or Canada avoids a trade war with the US, then revenue could be significantly higher than planned.

Interestingly, this year’s budget looks very different depending on whether you compare it to last year’s budget, or the latest forecast.

This year’s budget revenue is $6.6 billion lower than what actually happened in last year’s forecast revenue.

But, this year’s budget revenue is actually $600 million higher than what was expected to happen in last year’s budget revenue.

In other words, if you compare this year’s budget to what the government expected to happen last year, revenue is up a small amount, but when you compare this year’s budget to what actually happened last year, revenue is down a lot.

*****

On the second point, unfortunately, the government doesn’t score so well.

Expenses are up quite a bit, even though revenue is expected to drop.

According to some measurements, expenditures are increasing slower than the combined rate of population growth and inflation – which is the goal the government set for itself in 2023.

But, when other expenses like contingencies for emergencies are included, or when expenses are measured in other ways, spending is increasing faster than that benchmark.

This year’s budget expenses are $4.4 billion higher than what was actually spent in last year’s forecast expenses.

But, this year’s budget expenses are $6.1 billion higher than what was expected to happen in last year’s budget expenses.

Perhaps the bigger question is why is expenditure increasing at all when revenue is expected to drop?

If there’s less money coming in, the government should really be using this as an opportunity to reduce overall expenditures.

*****

On the third point, we will – of course – have to wait and see what the final accounts look like next year!

*****

Before we wrap up this initial analysis, there’s one aspect of the budget that is likely to receive significant attention, and that is a tax cut.

Originally planned to be phased in over the next few years, a tax cut will now be back-dated to January 1st of this year.

Previously, any income below about $150,000 was subject to a 10% provincial tax, while incomes above $150,000 attract higher and higher tax rates of 12%, 13%, 14%, and 15% as incomes increase.

Under the new tax plan, incomes under $60,000 would only be taxed at 8%, with incomes between $60,000 and $150,000 still paying 10%, and incomes above $150,000 still paying 12%, 13%, 14%, and 15%, as before.

Some commentators are likely to question the wisdom of a tax cut that reduces revenue when the budget is going to be in deficit.

But, the reality is that this tax cut doesn’t actually cost much.

We’ll have the exact figures for you by next week, but suffice to say that it’s a pretty small portion of the overall deficit, and there’s a deficit because spending is up a lot, not because of a small tax cut.

In general, lower taxes are good, but we would have preferred the government work towards a lower, flatter tax instead.

The Alberta Advantage was built on Alberta’s unique flat tax system where everyone paid the same low flat tax (not the same amount, the same percentage!) and so wasn’t punished for succeeding.

Alberta needs a plan to get back to a low flat tax, and we will continue to advocate for this at the Alberta Institute.

Maybe we can do better than just returning to the old 10% flat tax, though?

Maybe we should aim for a flat tax of 8%, instead?

That’s it for today’s quick initial analysis.

In next week’s analysis, we’ll break down the pros and cons of these decisions and outline where we might have taken a different approach.

In the meantime, if you appreciate our work and want to support more of this kind of independent analysis of Alberta’s finances, please consider making a donation here:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Tegan Hill

The Smith government may soon allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, prompting familiar cries from defenders of the status quo. But in reality, this change, which the government plans to propose in the legislature in the coming months, would simply give Albertans an option already available to patients in every other developed country with universal health care.

It’s important for Albertans and indeed all Canadians to understand the unique nature of our health-care system. In every one of the 30 other developed countries with universal health care, patients are free to seek care on their own terms with their own resources when the universal system is unwilling or unable to satisfy their needs. Whether to access care with shorter wait times and a more rapid return to full health, to access more personalized services or meet a personal health need, or to access new advances in medical technology. But not in Canada.

That prohibition has not served Albertans well. Despite being one of the highest-spending provinces in one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the developed world, Albertans endure some of the longest wait times for health care and some of the worst availability of advanced diagnostic and medical technologies including MRI machines and CT scanners.

Introducing new medical technologies is a costly endeavour, which requires money and the actual equipment, but also the proficiency, knowledge and expertise to use it properly. By allowing Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, the Smith government would encourage private providers to make these technologies available and develop the requisite knowledge.

Obviously, these new providers would improve access to these services for all Alberta patients—first for those willing to pay for them, and then for patients in the public system. In other words, adding providers to the health-care system expands the supply of these services, which will reduce wait times for everyone, not just those using private clinics. And relief can’t come soon enough. In Alberta, in 2024 the median wait time for a CT scan was 12 weeks and 24 weeks for an MRI.

Greater access and shorter wait times will also benefit Albertans concerned about their future health or preventative care. When these Albertans can quickly access a private provider, their appointments may lead to the early discovery of medical problems. Early detection can improve health outcomes and reduce the amount of public health-care resources these Albertans may ultimately use in the future. And that means more resources available for all other patients, to the benefit of all Albertans including those unable to access the private option.

Opponents of this approach argue that it’s a move towards two-tier health care, which will drain resources from the public system, or that this is “American-style” health care. But these arguments ignore that private alternatives benefit all patients in universal health-care systems in the rest of the developed world. For example, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia all have higher-performing universal systems that provide more timely care because of—not despite—the private options available to patients.

In reality, the Smith government’s plan to allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services is a small step in the right direction to reduce wait times and improve health-care access in the province. In fact, the proposal doesn’t go far enough—the government should allow Albertans to purchase physician appointments and surgeries privately, too. Hopefully the Smith government continues to reform the province’s health-care system, despite ill-informed objections, with all patients in mind.

Nadeem Esmail

Director, Health Policy, Fraser Institute

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Canada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

“The refining industry wants heavy oil. We are actually in a shortage of heavy oil globally right now, and you can see that in the prices”

Once priced at a steep discount to its lighter, sweeter counterparts, Canadian oil has earned growing admiration—and market share—among new customers in Asia.

Canada’s oil exports are primarily “heavy” oil from the Alberta oil sands, compared to oil from more conventional “light” plays like the Permian Basin in the U.S.

One way to think of it is that heavy oil is thick and does not flow easily, while light oil is thin and flows freely, like fudge compared to apple juice.

“The refining industry wants heavy oil. We are actually in a shortage of heavy oil globally right now, and you can see that in the prices,” said Susan Bell, senior vice-president of downstream research with Rystad Energy.

A narrowing price gap

Alberta’s heavy oil producers generally receive a lower price than light oil producers, partly a result of different crude quality but mainly because of the cost of transportation, according to S&P Global.

The “differential” between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) blew out to nearly US$50 per barrel in 2018 because of pipeline bottlenecks, forcing Alberta to step in and cut production.

So far this year, the differential has narrowed to as little as US$10 per barrel, averaging around US$12, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.

“The differential between WCS and WTI is the narrowest I’ve seen in three decades working in the industry,” Bell said.

Trans Mountain Expansion opens the door to Asia

Oil tanker docked at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, B.C. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

The price boost is thanks to the Trans Mountain expansion, which opened a new gateway to Asia in May 2024 by nearly tripling the pipeline’s capacity.

This helps fill the supply void left by other major regions that export heavy oil – Venezuela and Mexico – where production is declining or unsteady.

Canadian oil exports outside the United States reached a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, the latest month of data available from the Canada Energy Regulator.

China leads Asian buyers since the expansion went into service, along with Japan, Brunei and Singapore, Bloomberg reports

Asian refineries see opportunity in heavy oil

“What we are seeing now is a lot of refineries in the Asian market have been exposed long enough to WCS and now are comfortable with taking on regular shipments,” Bell said.

Kevin Birn, chief analyst for Canadian oil markets at S&P Global, said rising demand for heavier crude in Asia comes from refineries expanding capacity to process it and capture more value from lower-cost feedstocks.

“They’ve invested in capital improvements on the front end to convert heavier oils into more valuable refined products,” said Birn, who also heads S&P’s Center of Emissions Excellence.

Refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest made similar investments over the past 40 years to capitalize on supply from Latin America and the oil sands, he said.

While oil sands output has grown, supplies from Latin America have declined.

Mexico’s state oil company, Pemex, reports it produced roughly 1.6 million barrels per day in the second quarter of 2025, a steep drop from 2.3 million in 2015 and 2.6 million in 2010.

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s oil production, which was nearly 2.9 million barrels per day in 2010, was just 965,000 barrels per day this September, according to OPEC.

The case for more Canadian pipelines

Worker at an oil sands SAGD processing facility in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Strathcona Resources

“The growth in heavy demand, and decline of other sources of heavy supply has contributed to a tighter market for heavy oil and narrower spreads,” Birn said.

Even the International Energy Agency, known for its bearish projections of future oil demand, sees rising global use of extra-heavy oil through 2050.

The chief impediments to Canada building new pipelines to meet the demand are political rather than market-based, said both Bell and Birn.

“There is absolutely a business case for a second pipeline to tidewater,” Bell said.

“The challenge is other hurdles limiting the growth in the industry, including legislation such as the tanker ban or the oil and gas emissions cap.”

A strategic choice for Canada

Because Alberta’s oil sands will continue a steady, reliable and low-cost supply of heavy oil into the future, Birn said policymakers and Canadians have options.

“Canada needs to ask itself whether to continue to expand pipeline capacity south to the United States or to access global markets itself, which would bring more competition for its products.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X