Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Fraser Institute says Albertans should get annual dividend to promote Heritage Fund

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

If the government of Alberta wants to build the Heritage Fund over the longer term, it should start paying dividends to Albertans, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent non-partisan Canadian think-tank.

“The Alberta government has promised to ‘re-build’ the Heritage Fund, but it will require a consistent commitment over the long term,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta Policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of An Alberta Dividend: The Key to Growing the Heritage Fund.

In 1976, the province established the Alberta’s Heritage Savings Trust Fund to save a share of the province’s resource revenues to provide ongoing benefits to Albertans. Since its creation, however, resource revenue contributions have only been made in 11 of 48 years of the fund’s existence and just 3.9 per cent of total resource revenue has been deposited to the fund over its lifetime.

Learning from Alaska’s success with its resource revenue savings fund—the Alaska Permanent Fund—the study proposes that Alberta should introduce a dividend to provincial residents to create public buy-in that generates political pressure to adhere to fiscal rules around the Heritage Fund’s operation—such as consistent resource
revenue contributions and inflation-proofing of the fund’s principal—to ensure its growth over time.

For perspective, the Permanent Fund was started the same year as Alberta’s Heritage Fund but has grown to US$78.0 billion in 2022/23—or C$88.6 billion—compared to a balance of just C$19.0 billion in Alberta’s Heritage Fund.

Using two alternatives based on Alaska, which includes mandatory 25 per cent resource revenue contributions and consistent inflation proofing of the fund’s principal, the Heritage Fund has the potential to pay each Albertan a total of $571 to $1,108 in dividends over the next three years—equivalent to $2,284 to $4,430 per family of four.

Under these rules, the Heritage Fund would be worth between $35.8 billion and $38.7 billion by 2026/27, while paying out between $2.9 billion to $5.5 billion in dividends to Albertans.

“As demonstrated in Alaska, by giving citizens an ownership share in the state’s resource fund, they demand that sound rules regarding the governance of the fund be adhered to.” said Hill.

  • The Smith government has promised to “re-build” the Heritage Fund so that eventually its earnings are significant enough to replace volatile resource revenue in the budget. While this is a worthy goal, it will require a long-term commitment.
  • Building on work from Hill, Emes, and Clemens (2021), this bulletin uses Alaska’s success with its resource revenue savings fund—the Alaska Permanent Fund—to demonstrate how the Smith government can introduce new fiscal rules to ensure growth in the Heritage Fund with a focus on the annual dividend.
  • As demonstrated in Alaska, by giving citizens ownership shares in the state resources, they recognize their vested interest and demand that the state maximizes returns from such resources. Put simply, by creating public buy-in, the dividend generates political pressure to enforce robust fiscal rules around the fund’s operation to ensure its growth.
  • Using two illustrative models based on the Alaska Permanent Fund, which includes mandatory 25 percent resource revenue contributions and consistent inflation proofing of the fund’s principal, each Albertan could be paid an estimated $148 to $297 in dividends in 2024/25, equivalent to $594 to $1,187 per family of four. From 2024/25 to 2026/27, each Albertan could receive a total of $571 to $1,108 in dividends, equivalent to $2,284 to $4,430 per family of four.
  • Under these rules, the Heritage Fund would be worth between $35.8 billion and $38.7 billion by 2026/27, while paying out between $2.9 billion to $5.5 billion in dividends to Albertans.

Alberta

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Published on

Oh, Canada

We find it endlessly fascinating that most Canadians believe they live in a representative democracy, where aspiring candidates engage in authentic politicking to earn their place in office. So accustomed are Canada’s power brokers to getting their way, they rarely bother to cover their tracks. A careful reading of the notoriously pliant Canadian press makes anticipating future events in the country surprisingly straightforward.

Back in December, when Pierre Poilievre was given better than 90% odds of replacing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—and Mark Carney was still just an uncharismatic banker few had heard of—we engaged in some not-so-speculative dot-connecting and correctly predicted Carney’s rise to the top spot. Our interest was driven by the notoriously rocky relationship between Ottawa and the Province of Alberta, home to one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves, and how Carney’s rise might be a catalyst for resetting Canada’s energy trajectory. In a follow-up article titled “The Fix Is In,” we laid out a few more predictions:

Here’s how the play is likely to unfold in the weeks and months ahead: Carney will be elected Prime Minister on April 28 by a comfortable margin; [Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith will trigger a constitutional crisis, providing cover for Carney to strike a grand bargain that finally resolves longstanding tensions between the provinces and Ottawa; and large infrastructure permitting reform will fall into place. Protests against these developments will be surprisingly muted, and those who do take to the streets will be largely ignored by the media. The entire effort will be wrapped in a thicket of patriotism, with Trump portrayed as a threat even greater than climate change itself. References to carbon emissions will slowly fade…

In parallel, we expect Trump and Carney to swiftly strike a favorable deal on tariffs, padding the latter’s bona fides just as his political capital will be most needed.

The votes have barely been counted, yet the next moves are already unfolding

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she’ll make it easier for citizens to initiate a referendum on the province’s future in Canada, after warning that a Liberal win in Monday’s election could spur a groundswell of support for Alberta separatism. Smith said on Tuesday that a newly tabled elections bill will give everyday Albertans a bigger say in the province’s affairs.

‘(We’re giving) Albertans more ways to be directly involved in democracy, and to have their say on issues that matter to them,’ Smith told reporters in Edmonton.

If passed, the new law would dramatically lower the number of signatures needed to put a citizen-proposed constitutional referendum question on the ballot, setting a new threshold of 10 per cent of general election turnout — or just over 175,000, based on Alberta’s last provincial election in 2023.

exactly to plan:

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is looking to make a trade deal and will visit the White House within the next week. Trump said he congratulated Carney on his election victory when the Canadian leader called on Tuesday.

‘He called me up yesterday – he said let’s make a deal,’ Trump told reporters at the White House after a televised Cabinet meeting.

Remember where you read it first.

Tens of thousands of paid subscribers
A lateral-thinking approach to energy, finance, and geopolitics.
Subscribe below for free previews of new articles.
Click through to our About page for pricing and FAQ.
Continue Reading

Alberta

Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A Canada West Assembly would investigate why

The election of a minority Liberal government on Monday, and the strong showing of the Conservative party under Pierre Poilievre, cannot mask the fact that Canada remains seriously fractured on many fronts. Thus, one of the primary tasks of the Carney government will be to unite us for the sake of our own national well-being — not simply for the sake of presenting a strong front in future dealings with the United States.

But how is that to be done? When parliament meets as scheduled on May 26, will the government’s throne speech acknowledge the main sources of national disunity and propose the immediate adoption of remedial measures? Or will it ignore the problem entirely, which will serve to further alienate Quebec and the West from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, and weaken Canada’s bargaining position vis a vis the United States?

The principal tactic employed by the Liberal party to unite Canadians behind it in the recent election was to employ the politics of fear — fear of U.S. President Donald Trump trying to “break us so that America can own us,” as Liberal Leader Mark Carney has repeatedly said.

But if the only way to unite Canadians is through the promotion of anti-Americanism fostered by fear of some alleged American takeover — if reaction to the erratic musings of an American president is the only way to motivate more Canadians to vote in a federal election — then not only national unity, but Canadian democracy itself, is in critical condition.

We need to pinpoint what actually is fracturing the country, because if we can clearly define that, we can begin the process of removing those divisive elements to the largest extent possible. Carney and the Liberals will of course declare that it is separatist agitations in Quebec and now the West that is dividing us, but these are simply symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

Here, then, is a partial list of what underpins the division and disunity in this country and, more importantly, of some positive, achievable actions we can take to reduce or eliminate them.

First and foremost is the failure to recognize and accommodate the regional character of this country. Canada is the second-largest country by area on the planet and is characterized by huge geographic regions — the Atlantic, Central Canada, the Prairies, the Pacific Coast and the Northern territories.

Each of these regions — not just Quebec — has its own “distinctive” concerns and aspirations, which must be officially recognized and addressed by the federal government if the country is to be truly united. The previous Liberal government consistently failed to do this, particularly with respect to the Prairies, Pacific and Northern regions, which is the root of much of the alienation that even stimulates talk of western separation.

Second is Ottawa’s failure to recognize and treat the natural resources sector as a fundamental building block of our national economy — not as a relic from the past or an environmental liability, as it was regarded by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Will the throne speech announce another 180-degree turn for the Liberal government: the explicit recognition that the great engine of the Canadian economy and our economic recovery is not the federal government, as Carney has implied, but Canada’s agricultural, energy, mining, forestry and fishery sectors, with all the processing, servicing, manufacturing and knowledge sectors that are built upon them?

A third issue we’ve been plagued with is the division of Canadian society based on race, gender, sexual preferences and other identity traits, rather than focusing on the things that unite us as a nation, such as the equality of all under the law. Many private-sector entities are beginning to see the folly of pursuing identity initiatives such as diversity, equity and inclusion that divide rather than unite, but will the Liberal government follow suit and will that intention be made crystal clear in the upcoming throne speech?

A final issue is the federal government’s intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction — such as natural resources, health, municipal governance, along with property and civil rights — which is the principal cause of tension and conflict between the federal and provincial governments.

The solution is to pass a federal “act respecting provincial jurisdiction” to repeal or amend the statutes that authorize federal intrusions, so as to eliminate, or at least reduce, their intrusiveness. Coincidentally, this would be a legislative measure that both the Conservatives and the Bloc could unite behind if such a statute were to be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Carney government.

Polling is currently being done to ascertain whether the election of yet another Liberal government has increased the growing estrangement of western Canada from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, notwithstanding Carney’s assurances that his minority government will change its policies on climate change, pipelines, immigration, deficit spending and other distinguishing characteristics of the discredited Trudeau government.

The first test of the truthfulness of those assurances will come via the speech from the throne and the follow-up actions of the federal government.

Meanwhile, consultations are being held on the merits and means of organizing a “Canada West Assembly” to provide a democratic forum for the presentation, analysis and debate of the options facing western Canada (not just Alberta) — from acceptance of a fairer and stronger position within the federation based on guarantees from the federal government, to various independence-oriented proposals, with votes to be taken on the various options and recommendations to be made to the affected provincial governments.

Only time will tell whether the newly elected Carney government chooses to address the root causes of national disunity. But whether it does so or not will influence the direction in which the western provinces and the proposed Canada West Assembly will point.

Preston’s Substack is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Preston’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

Trending

X