Alberta
Alcohol sales in grocery and convenience stores would benefit Albertans
From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen
Earlier this year, the Smith government confirmed that a panel of MLAs has been exploring the idea of allowing grocery and convenience stores to sell alcohol. Since then, there’s been no new developments. But despite misleading claims from some groups resisting the move, greater retail access would benefit consumers.
Alberta’s fully-private retail market for alcohol is unique within Canada. Following privatization of alcohol retail in 1993, consumers in Alberta have benefitted from greater choice and convenience in the absence of government-owned retail outlets. However, the provincial government still controls which private operators can sell alcohol, and generally prohibits the sale in convenience and grocery stores.
But expansion into grocery and convenience stores simply makes sense. Individual retailers should decide where to sell (or not sell) alcohol to cater to consumer preferences rather than have terms dictated by government. As the footprint of government has expanded in Alberta, policymakers should remember what are the core functions of government, and what’s best left to the private sector. And there’s no good reason for government to dictate which stores can sell alcohol.
Again, some groups including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claim that Albertans pay higher prices for alcohol under privatization, yet this claim simply doesn’t add up.
First, these groups typically use average prices across Canada to support this claim. But average prices across Canada—which includes provinces with strict government controls of alcohol sales—are meaningless because the mix of products in Alberta has changed. In post-privatization Alberta, retailers and consumers come together in a market to set prices. Consumers may willingly pay more for alcohol in Alberta because they find higher quality products, more convenient locations and/or better store hours than in other provinces.
Rather, what matters are not “average prices” but minimum prices and the ability to find the product you desire at the lowest available price. One comparison of nearly 2,000 products between Alberta and British Columbia (which maintains a more government-controlled system of retail) using minimum prices estimated that 83 per cent of beer, wine and spirits were available at cheaper prices in Alberta.
Moreover, liquor store locations have also become more convenient for Albertans. In 2018 (the latest year of available data), 64 per cent of Albertans lived within a kilometre of a liquor store—by far the highest percentage of any province in Canada and much higher than the 26 per cent in Ontario, which has government-operated liquor stores. In the United States, three-quarters of Americans are served by a private liquor retailing system, and privatized states have 50 per cent more liquor stores per capita than those where government controls sales.
And Alberta’s liquor product selection has expanded from 2,200 in 1993 to more than 31,000 varieties of beer, wine and spirits today. By comparison, Ontarians have at least 6,000 fewer products available.
Finally, critics claim that privatization leads to increases in social problems that arise from alcohol consumption. However, the leading study of Alberta’s 1993 privatization found no evidence of increased social problems such as impaired driving or other alcohol-related offenses.
Alberta has led the way in promoting consumer choice in what is otherwise a strictly controlled market for alcohol in Canada. To strengthen this advantage, the Smith government should continue to remove unnecessary restrictions for the benefit of Albertans.
Author:
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
In February 2024, the Smith government promised to share a plan to grow the Heritage Fund—Alberta’s long-term resource revenue savings fund—with the public before the end of 2024. But 2025 is upon us, and Albertans are still waiting.
The Lougheed government originally created the Heritage Fund in 1976/77 to save a share of the province’s resource wealth, including oil and gas revenues, for the future. But since its creation, Alberta governments have deposited less than 4 per cent of total resource revenue in the fund.
In other words, for decades successive Alberta governments have missed a golden opportunity. When governments make deposits in the Heritage Fund, they transform onetime (and extremely volatile) resource revenue into a financial asset that can generate more stable earnings over time. Eventually, the government could use annual income from the fund to replace volatile resource revenue in the budget.
Historically, however, rules that would have helped ensure the fund’s growth (for example, a requirement to deposit 30 per cent of resource revenue annually) were “statutory” rather than “constitutional,” which meant Alberta governments could easily disregard, change or eliminate these rules once they were no longer convenient.
And they did. The government changed that 30 per cent requirement to 15 per cent by 1982/83, and after an oil price collapse, eliminated it entirely in 1987/88. Due to a lack of consistent deposits, paired with the real value of the fund eroding over time due to inflation, and nearly all fund earnings being spent, the Heritage Fund is expected to be worth less than $25 billion in 2024/25.
Again, while Premier Smith has promised to grow the fund to between $250 billion to $400 billion by 2050, we’ve yet to see how she plans to do that. Whatever plan the government produces, it should heed lessons from other successful resource revenue savings fund such as Alaska’s Permanent Fund.
The Alaska government created its fund the same year Alberta created the Heritage Fund, but Alaska’s fund is worth roughly US$80 billion (or C$113 billion) today. What has the Alaska government done differently?
First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. This type of “constitutional” rule is much stronger than a “statutory” rule that existed in Alberta. (While Canada does not have separate provincial constitutions, it’s possible to change Canada’s Constitution for province-specific measures.) Second, the Alaska government must set aside a share of the fund’s earnings each year to offset the effects of inflation—in other words, “inflation-proof” the principal of the fund to preserve its real value. And finally, the government must pay a portion of fund earnings to Alaskan citizens in annual dividends.
The logic of the first two rules is simple—the Alaskan government promotes growth in the fund by depositing mineral revenue annually, and inflation-proofing maintains the fund’s purchasing power. But consider the third rule regarding dividends.
The Alaska government created the annual dividend, paid out annually to Alaskans, to create political pressure for future governments to responsibly maintain the fund. Because citizens have an ownership share in the fund, they’re more interested in the state maximizing returns from its resource wealth. This has helped maintain and reinforce robust fiscal rules that make the Permanent Fund successful.
Based on this success, if the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofed the principal, it could pay each Albertan a total dividend between roughly $600 to $1,100 from 2024/25 to 2026/27, or roughly $2,300 to $4,400 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.
Almost one year ago, the Smith government promised a new plan for the Heritage Fund. When the plan is finally released, it should include a constitutional requirement for consistent contributions and inflation-proofing, and annual dividends for Albertans.
From the YouTube page of Kevin O’Leary
Interview with Kyle Reiling, Executive Director of the Greenview Industrial Gateway.
“This is the only place on earth that can do something this scale”
When Kevin O’Leary heard Alberta Premier Danielle Smith reveal just how much energy Alberta has, he knew Alberta has the solution for the coming explosion in energy consumption.
Kevin O’Leary: The demand for AI is skyrocketing—and America is out of power. Enter Alberta, with abundant natural gas and a bold premier. I’m raising $70 billion to create the world’s lowest-cost, highest-efficiency data center. Hyperscalers like Tesla, Microsoft, and Google need it, and we’re making it happen. This is how you lead the AI revolution.
US Senator Rand Paul warns against government emergency powers, cites Trudeau’s crackdown on Freedom Convoy
US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns
Jordan Peterson interviews likely next Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre
Trump’s promises should prompt major rethink of Canadian energy policy
-
Daily Caller2 days agoFreedom Of Speech Versus Preferred Pronouns? It May Go To The Supreme Court
-
espionage1 day agoRetired Army Intelligence Officer says Vegas Cybertruck bomber may be whistleblower on east coast drone invasion
-
Business1 day agoEssential goods shouldn’t be taxed
-
C2C Journal1 day agoA Rush to the Exits: Forget Immigration, Canada has an Emigration crisis
-
C2C Journal1 day agoGwyn Morgan: Natural Gas – Not Nuclear – Is the Key to Powering North America’s Future
-
Brownstone Institute2 hours agoThe Pandemic Planners Come for Hoof and Hen…and Us Again
-
Business8 hours agoWhat an Effective All-of-Government Program Review Might Look Like
-
Internet7 hours agoElon Musk Announces Algorithm Overhaul for X, Focusing on “Unregretted User-Seconds”