Connect with us

Alberta

Canada’s equalization program is broken and requires major overhaul

Published

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Nathaniel Li

Due to the “fixed-growth rule” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, the amount spent on equalization increases whether or not the gap between ”have not” and “have” provinces increases or decreases. For example, from 2007/08 to 2020/21, equalization payments increased by nearly 60 per cent despite the gap in fiscal capacities between richer and poorer provinces actually shrinking over that period.

As the Alberta Next Panel, which is tasked with assessing Alberta’s role in Confederation, reconvened last week, Canada’s equalization program remains near the top of the agenda. At the same time, the Alberta government is backing a legal challenge led by Newfoundland and Labrador arguing that the program does not achieve its intended purpose. While individuals may hold differing opinions on the program’s core principle—to ensure reasonably comparable public services delivered at reasonably comparable tax rates across the country—it’s clear that any reasonable assessment would find the current equalization system is broken.

Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country then redistributes money to so-called “have not” provinces through equalization. To determine who gets money, the federal government calculates the “fiscal capacity” of each province—that is, a province’s ability to raise revenue. Basically, the formula applies a tax rate to different sources of income (including personal income, business income, resources, etc.) to determine how much revenue a province could generate. In theory, money from provinces with higher fiscal capacity (i.e. greater ability to raise revenue through taxes) is transferred to provinces with lower fiscal capacity.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $26.2 billion. Seven provinces including Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and all of Atlantic Canada will receive equalization payments. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan will not receive payments. Again, in theory, these three provinces have a greater ability to generate government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

But here’s the problem. Due to the “fixed-growth rule” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, the amount spent on equalization increases whether or not the gap between ”have not” and “have” provinces increases or decreases. For example, from 2007/08 to 2020/21, equalization payments increased by nearly 60 per cent despite the gap in fiscal capacities between richer and poorer provinces actually shrinking over that period.

If equalization is meant to close the gap between provinces, then the amount spent should reflect the gap. But the formula—and thus, the program—is broken.

More broadly, the principle of equalization—again, to ensure that all provinces can deliver reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable tax rates—assumes that provinces with higher incomes (and a greater ability to generate tax revenues) will not receive equalization while provinces with lower incomes will receive equalization. Yet in 2020, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador, which received equalization, had higher income (measured by GDP per person) than B.C., which did not receive equalization. In 2018, Ontario had higher income than B.C., but Ontario was a recipient while B.C. was not. Clearly, there’s a problem with how the formula determines a recipient versus a contributing province.

Another problem is the treatment of subsidized electricity in Quebec and Manitoba. The Quebec government, for example, provides below-market electricity prices to Quebecers—even though charging the market rate would provide more revenues to Hydro Quebec, which manages the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the province. But the equalization formula only accounts for actual resource revenues and doesn’t account for this lower-than-market electricity rate in determining Quebec’s ability to raise revenues. In fact, an increase in Hydro Quebec’s profits of $100 million would result in a decrease in equalization payments of an estimated $70 million. Simply put, the equalization formula underestimates Quebec’s ability to raise revenue from its electricity provision while effectively penalizing provinces that don’t provide subsidies.

Ironically, the formula does not follow that same approach for Alberta, which has no provincial sales tax. Again, the formula accounts for Quebec’s actual resource revenue, not hypothetical resource revenue if Quebec charged market rates for its electricity. Yet the formula includes a hypothetical Alberta provincial sales tax when determining Alberta’s fiscal capacity. So, the formula does not penalize Quebec for foregone hydro revenues, but does penalize Alberta for foregone sales tax revenues. Quebec also bans fracking (as did Nova Scotia until lifting its ban), but the equalization formula does not apply any forgone hypothetical fracking-related resource revenue to Quebec. This inconsistency in the treatment of different types of revenue in different provinces is yet another sign of a fundamentally broken equalization system.

Reasonable people can debate the core principle of Canada’s equalization program, but as the Alberta Next Panel continues discussions, policymakers should recognize that the current system is badly broken and requires a major overhaul.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Nathaniel Li

Nathaniel Li

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

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

Your money isn’t as safe as you think

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Marco Navarro-Genie 

The Emergencies Act proved how quickly bank accounts can be weaponized. Alberta must act now to protect its citizens.

When Eva Chipiuk (the Alberta lawyer who famously confronted former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s assertions at the Emergencies Act inquiry) found out her Royal Bank account was being shut down, it confirmed a chilling truth: those who challenge Ottawa are not safe from retribution.

Chipiuk committed no crime and was not charged with any offence. However, the Montreal-based Royal Bank refused to provide her services, citing an unspecified risk. The message is clear: if you challenge Ottawa, you may risk being treated as an economic non-person. This comes just months before Tamara Lich, an Alberta resident, is expected to be sentenced for standing up against COVID overreach.

The Alberta government cannot ignore these threats against its citizens. There is plenty Ottawa doesn’t like about Alberta and Albertans today. Given that, in a February 2022 Globe and Mail oped—written before he became prime minister—Mark Carney described civil protesters as “seditionists,” one doesn’t need much imagination to see how his government could treat Albertans who push for greater control over their future. The province must prepare now to shield its citizens from financial retaliation.

Albertans who think their money is safe if it’s parked at a credit union or ATB, instead of a chartered bank, are mistaken. It isn’t. Under the Criminal Code, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and the Emergencies Act, Ottawa can force any “financial service provider”—including provincially regulated credit unions—to freeze accounts. For example, when Tamara Lich tried to open an account with ATB—Alberta’s Crown-owned financial institution—she was denied even an appointment.

Events such as these show that it doesn’t take a judge to determine you have run afoul of those laws—only a government that disagrees with you.

Alberta has the tools to defend its citizens, and it should use them. It should start by making ATB and its provincially regulated credit unions fortresses against politically motivated financial punishment. ATB, created in 1938 to shield farmers from the aggressive lending practices of Laurentian bankers, has a distinct status as an arm of the Alberta government.

That status can be leveraged today to keep Ottawa at bay by:

  • Refocusing ATB on serving Albertans, not advancing trendy corporate agendas.
  • Amending the ATB Financial Act to require judicial orders for any account freezes or closures, mandate public reporting of such actions, and enshrine political neutrality to ensure no Albertan is denied service for lawful political activity.
  • Preparing to invoke the Sovereignty Act if Ottawa attempts another Emergencies Act-style move, instructing ATB and its credit unions to disregard unconstitutional federal orders unless validated by Alberta courts.
  • Creating a Québec-style integrated financial regulator to oversee ATB and Alberta’s provincially regulated credit unions, insulating them from Ottawa’s reach.
  • Exploring alternative payment systems to reduce reliance on Ottawa-controlled clearing mechanisms. Payments Canada—which Ottawa controls—could be used as a choke point against Alberta institutions. A provincial or private settlement system would blunt that weapon before it can be deployed.

Finally, Alberta should enact an Alberta Financial Rights Act guaranteeing that no one will be denied financial services and that no account can be frozen or closed without due process in open court.

Ottawa will not take this lying down. It can seek court injunctions, threaten ATB’s and our credit unions’ access to national payment systems, or pass legislation directly targeting provincial Crown corporations. Alberta must anticipate these moves now by drafting constitutional challenges, forging alliances with like-minded provinces, and building backup clearing systems.

When the federal government can freeze your account for giving $50 to the “wrong” cause, you are not a free citizen. You are a subject. The treatment of Tamara Lich and Eva Chipiuk’s debanking is a warning.

Alberta can either wait for the next wave of financial punishments to hit its citizens, or it can act decisively to make ATB and its provincially regulated credit unions fortresses that protect them. Premier Danielle Smith has a unique opportunity to put Alberta first again—and she should take it.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Change at the top: Rob Morgan is the new CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator

Published on

Rob Morgan, CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Photo courtesy AER

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Restructured AER aims a return to its technical roots

Rob Morgan’s introduction to the energy business was a summer job in the Lloydminster region in 1985, when the University of Saskatchewan chemical engineering student got up close and messy with heavy oil production at the wellhead.

“My work boots got very dirty very quickly. That’s the joke about working in heavy oil around Lloydminster. Once it’s on your boots, it never comes off,” says Morgan, a Saskatoon native.

“Working in the field was great because you were hands on with absolutely everything. It was just a fabulous experience.”

Oil stains on his steel-toed boots were not the only thing that stuck with Morgan, who spent the next four decades working in industry before being named CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in February 2025.

Morgan wants to apply some of his hard-earned industry wisdom at the regulator following a 2024 review of the organization by a panel appointed by Premier Danielle Smith.

The panel found a need to return the regulator to its original purpose: resource conservation; orderly but continued economic growth; protection of people, communities, assets and the environment; and regulatory independence.

Returning the regulator to a form closer to its legacy roots will improve Alberta’s reputation as a stable, predictable, internationally competitive and rewarding destination for investment capital, the panel said in its final report.

Photo courtesy AER

“The whole world has changed since 2020,” says David Yager, an industry veteran and special advisor to the Premier who chaired the review panel.

New areas of focus including carbon capture and storage (CCS), emerging resources like lithium, and new opportunities like data centres require a modernized approach, Yager says.

“The question was whether or not the regulator was well suited for where the current government wants to take Alberta, and the answer is no, it wasn’t. But that’s changed,” he says.

“The conclusion everybody involved in the review came to is the AER is an independent regulator that needed more direct industry participation, so here we are.”

Prior to taking on the top job at the AER, Morgan retired as CEO of Strathcona Resources, a growing oil and gas producer in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Along with hiring Morgan, the AER has brought on a reconstituted board of directors as part of implementing the panel’s recommendations.

Chairing the revamped board is Duncan Au, former CEO of CWC Energy Services, a contract drilling and well servicing company operating in Canada and the U.S. that was acquired by Precision Drilling in November 2023.

Just months into their new jobs, Au and Morgan wrote in the AER’s annual report about their new appreciation for the complexity of weighing the various elements of the regulator’s mandate.

“The narrative around energy development has taken on a new sense of urgency not only with a discussion of finding new markets and customers, but also how to grow and diversify Alberta’s role in those markets,” they wrote.

“From oil and gas to emerging opportunities in critical minerals, hydrogen, geothermal, and helium, the AER will be tasked to find the appropriate path among many competing priorities and perspectives.”

Through technological innovation, industry has already reduced environmental impacts, improved worker safety, and boosted economic returns, they wrote.

“It is clear we can continue to modernize our regulations and practices to keep pace with the next wave of technological development and carry out our core regulatory role: translating government legislation into practical regulation that safeguards the environment while ensuring Albertans continue to benefit from the wealth of resources in our province.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X