Alberta
With spending restraint, Alberta can re-introduce a rainy-day fund worth $9.8 billion by 2025/26
From the Fraser Institute
It’s Time to Get Off the Resource Revenue Rollercoaster: Re-establishing the Alberta Sustainability Fund
With spending restraint, Alberta can re-introduce a rainy-day fund worth $9.8 billion by 2025/26 that could help insulate the province’s budget from swings in resource revenue, finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Alberta has an ongoing fiscal problem fueled by volatile resource revenues, but reintroducing a rainy-day fund, based on the previously successful Alberta Sustainability Fund, would help get Alberta off this resource revenue rollercoaster and stabilize provincial finances for the long-term,” said Tegan Hill, associate director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of There’s time to get off the resource revenue rollercoaster: Re-establishing the Alberta Sustainability Fund.
Alberta governments typically include all resource revenue in the budget, meaning that during periods of relatively high resource revenue, the province enjoys budget surpluses but faces pressure to increase spending, and when resource revenues decline, with comparatively high levels of spending, the province’s finances turn to deficits.
Consider that amid the windfall in resource revenue, in Budget 2023, the Alberta government increased cumulative spending by $10.1 billion from 2022/23 through 2024/25 compared to the 2022 Mid-Year Fiscal update just three months earlier.
Rather than continue to spend relatively high one-time resource revenue, the Alberta government can use this opportunity to stabilize provincial finances over the long-term.
By limiting resource revenue included the budget to a stable amount, it will thereby limit the amount of money available for annual spending. Any resource revenue above the set stable amount would be automatically saved in a rainy-day fund to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in years with relatively low resource revenue, thus, helping to avoid budget deficits.
The study calculates that with spending restraint Alberta can fund a rainy-day fund worth $9.8 billion by 2025/26.
“The rainy-day fund could be implemented all while still maintaining a balanced budget for Alberta,” Hill said.
Summary
- Alberta’s volatile resource revenues are fueling its ongoing fiscal problem. The provincial government typically includes all resource revenue in its budget. When resource revenue is relatively high, the province enjoys budget surpluses but faces pressure to increase spending; when resource revenues drop, spending remains high and the province turns to deficits.
- Despite efforts to better manage Alberta’s finances, the Smith government is largely repeating past mistakes by increasing spending during a period of relatively high resource revenue.
- In the 2022 mid-year update, the Smith government increased the plan for nominal program spending from Budget 2022 every year from 2022/23 through 2024/25 for a cumulative increase of $5.9 billion. In Budget 2023, the Smith government increased the plan further with a cumulative increase of $10.1 billion from 2022/23 through 2024/25 compared to the 2022 mid-year update.
- Rather than spend all of the resource revenue in years when it is relatively high, the Alberta government should use this opportunity to stabilize provincial finances over the long-term by re-introducing a rainy-day account based on the earlier Alberta Sustainability Fund (ASF).
- To do so, it would limit the resource revenue included the budget to a stable amount, thereby limiting the amount of money available for annual spending. Any resource revenue above the set stable amount would be automatically saved in the ASF to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in years with relatively low resource revenue. The government could implement the ASF while maintaining a balanced budget and without an annual reduction in nominal spending.
- Based on 2023 budget projections, with spending restraint, the provincial government could re-introduce an ASF worth $9.8 billion by 2025/26.
Authors:
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.
First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.
The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.
For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.
Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.
Consider these federally-subsidized projects.
A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.
When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.
As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.
Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.
Author:
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.
Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.
Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”
On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”
One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”
Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.
Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
Hawley: Whistleblowers say Trump’s security detail was unprepared, inexperienced
Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says
Claims about ‘safer supply’ diversion aren’t disinformation
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
-
National1 day agoLiberals offer no response as Conservative MP calls Trudeau a ‘liar’ for an hour straight
-
COVID-191 day agoLeaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good
-
Business1 day agoFederal government seems committed to killing investment in Canada
-
International1 day agoSwitzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’
-
Business1 day agoEstonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth
-
Economy1 day agoKamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers