This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lennie Kaplan

Alberta has the leverage and the responsibility to push for serious reform of Canada’s equalization system

Albertans are projected to send $252.5 billion more to Ottawa than they get back over the next 15 years —a staggering imbalance that underscores the
urgent need to overhaul federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

That figure represents Alberta’s net fiscal contribution—the difference between what Alberta sends to Ottawa in taxes and what they get back in
return. Alberta, like all provincial governments, does not directly contribute to federal revenues.

These projections are based on fiscal estimates I’ve prepared using the same framework as Statistics Canada’s annual fiscal reports. Between 2025 and 2039, federal revenues raised in Alberta are expected to total nearly $1.42 trillion, while spending in the province will reach only $1.17 trillion. That leaves a gap of $252.5 billion.

This gap isn’t static. On an annual basis, Alberta’s contribution is projected to grow significantly over time. It’s forecast to rise from $12.7 billion in 2025, or $2,538 per person, to nearly $20.6 billion, or $3,459 per person, by 2039.

This isn’t new. Alberta has long been a major net contributor to Confederation. Between 2007 and 2023, Albertans paid $267.4 billion more to
Ottawa than they received in return, according to Statistics Canada. The only exception came in 2020 and 2021, years heavily impacted by COVID-19.

Albertans face the same federal tax rates as other Canadians but pay far more per person due to higher average incomes and a strong corporate tax base. This higher contribution translates into billions collected annually by Ottawa.

In 2025, the federal government is projected to collect $68.8 billion from Alberta, about $13,743 per person. By 2039, that will grow to $127.2 billion, or $21,380 per person. More than half will come from personal income taxes.

Meanwhile, federal spending in Alberta lags behind. In 2025, it’s expected to be $56.1 billion, or $11,205 per person—rising to $106.6 billion, or $17,831 per person, by 2039.

This includes transfers to individuals—about $17.5 billion in 2025, and $28.8 billion in 2039—and federal transfers to the provincial government, which are projected to grow from $12.9 billion to $20.9 billion. These include the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer, which help fund health care, education and social services.

Alberta does not receive equalization payments, which are meant to help less wealthy provinces provide comparable public services. Equalization is funded through general federal revenues, including taxes paid by Albertans. That imbalance is more than a budget line—it speaks to a deeper fairness issue at the heart of federal-provincial relations. Alberta pays more, gets less and continues to shoulder a disproportionate share of the federal burden.

That’s why Alberta must take the lead in pushing for reform. The Alberta Next Panel process—a provincial initiative to gather public input and expert advice on Alberta’s role in Confederation—gives the government an opportunity to consult with Albertans and bring forward proposals to fix the tangled mess of federal transfer programs.

These proposals should be advanced by Premier Danielle Smith’s government in discussions with Ottawa and other provinces. Alberta’s fiscal strength demands a stronger voice at the national table.

Some may argue for separation, but that’s not a viable path. The better solution is to demand fairness—starting with a more rigorous, transparent process for renewing major federal transfer programs.

Right now, Ottawa often renews key programs, like equalization, without proper consultation. That’s unacceptable. Provinces like Alberta deserve a seat at the table when billions of dollars are at stake.

If Alberta is expected to keep footing the bill, it must be treated as a full partner —not just a source of cash. Fixing the imbalance isn’t just about Alberta. A more open, co-operative approach to fiscal policy will strengthen national unity and ensure all provinces are treated fairly within Confederation.

Lennie Kaplan is a former senior manager in the Fiscal and Economic Policy Division of Alberta’s Ministry of Treasury Board and Finance. During his tenure, he focused, among other duties, on developing meaningful options to reform federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. 

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.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

With U.S. trade risks rising, Manitoba has a fleeting shot to turn Churchill into a year-round Arctic shipping hub. Without bold investment, the North’s economic and strategic promise will slip away.

The window to turn Manitoba’s northern coast into a year-round shipping hub is closing fast

Rising trade tensions with the United States have given Manitoba a rare second chance to develop its northern ports. But if the province doesn’t act decisively, it will miss a historic opportunity to gain a permanent place in global trade—and reinforce Canadian sovereignty.

Manitoba exports billions in agricultural, mineral and manufactured goods to the U.S., so any disruption in that relationship has ripple effects across the province’s economy. Diversifying trade routes isn’t just smart policy: it’s an economic necessity.

Churchill, a small town on the western shore of Hudson Bay in northern Manitoba, is Canada’s only deepwater port connected to the Arctic. Churchill requires regular dredging in an ecologically sensitive area at the mouth of the Churchill River. While most attention has focused on Churchill, its potential will remain limited without serious investment to make it a year-round operation. Right now, it’s only usable during the summer months.

Premier Wab Kinew recently highlighted Churchill as a strategic asset for asserting Canada’s northern sovereignty. That may be true, but symbolic importance alone won’t sustain it. Economic value and operational reliability will. The port’s rail accessibility gives it an advantage if it can handle the volume and meet international trade demands year-round. However, the railway to Churchill is challenged because of unstable permafrost, affecting long-term reliability.

Feiyue Wang, a University of Manitoba professor and Canada Research Chair, sees Churchill as a potential game-changer. As climate predictions see a reduction in sea ice in the Canadian Arctic, shipping lanes that were once blocked for most of the year could become viable trade routes. That’s already happening.

The Arctic Gateway Group has shipped zinc concentrate through Churchill. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and others have promoted sending oil through it. These aren’t just theoretical opportunities: they’re early evidence of what’s possible. But for Churchill to become a true supply chain hub, it needs infrastructure, investment and long-term political commitment.

Governments have already put money into the port and its rail link. But they must finish the job. That means building the capacity for four-season shipping, attracting private investment, and showing that the port will be viable over time. Manitoba should also press Ottawa to maintain a military presence in the region and use the port to reinforce northern sovereignty.

But if Manitoba is serious about developing northern trade infrastructure, it should also consider a second, ambitious alternative.

The Neestanan utility corridor, an Indigenous-led initiative, proposes a new infrastructure route—rail, roads and energy pipelines—across northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The corridor would terminate at a year-round, multi-modal port on Hudson Bay, north of the Nelson River. Led by First Nations and Métis communities, Neestanan offers a broader vision for economic reconciliation and northern opportunity. Port Nelson is a deeper water port and its railway line is not in a permafrost zone, making it more feasible for year-round operations.

A century ago, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier’s government debated whether Churchill or Port Nelson should serve as the main northern terminal. Ottawa initially backed Port Nelson but later abandoned it due to silt accumulation. Churchill became the chosen site.

Today, both locations deserve a fresh look. With modern engineering, sediment shifts and Indigenous-led proposals, what wasn’t feasible in 1910 may now be not only possible, but necessary.

Churchill was originally built to ship Prairie grain to global markets. But its future lies in more than grain. With the right investment, it could handle a much wider range of goods and help secure Canada’s place in the evolving Arctic economy.

In short, the opportunity lies in developing both ports based on their practical and feasible characteristics, aiming to attract private investment.

This is Manitoba’s moment. But the window of opportunity won’t stay open forever. Other jurisdictions are moving faster. Manitoba must act swiftly—before the opportunity is lost.

This is a revised version of an earlier commentary published here