Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Alberta and B.C. budgets represent two different approaches to government finances

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Grady Munro and Tegan Hill

” for every $1 of additional revenue enjoyed by both provinces, the Eby government increased spending by more than $6 compared to 79 cents for the Smith government. “

In its recent budget, the Alberta government promised a new approach to provincial finances, with spending restraint and limited debt accumulation. While there’s still work to do, this is a far better approach than the reckless spending and massive debt accumulation of the British Columbia government.

The Smith government projects a $367 million surplus in 2024/25, followed by two more surpluses of $1.4 billion in 2025/26 and $2.6 billion in 2026/27. The government plans to use these surpluses largely to pay down debt, so although provincial net debt (financial assets minus liabilities) is expected to rise slightly in 2024/25 due to increased long-term capital spending (e.g. schools and highways), the debt is projected to decrease 4.1 per cent ($1.7 billion) from 2023/24 to 2026/27.

Alberta’s strong fiscal outlook is largely driven by historically high resource revenues. But while the government plans to increase program spending (total spending minus debt interest costs) nominally over the next three years, spending will grow at a slower rate than population growth and inflation—meaning spending will decline on an inflation-adjusted per-person basis.

The Smith government still must better align spending with stable revenues, but this is an important step in the right direction.

By contrast, B.C.’s 2024 budget projects a $7.9 billion deficit in 2024/25 followed by deficits of $7.8 billion in 2025/26 and $6.3 billion in 2026/27. These deficits, combined with borrowing for capital projects, will drive a projected $55.1 billion (74.7 per cent) increase in provincial net debt from 2023/24 to 2026/27. As a result, the level of net debt projected in 2026/27 ($128.8 billion) is nearly triple the level recorded in 2019/20 ($46.9 billion).

These deficits are due to a substantial increase in provincial spending by the Eby government. Indeed, similar to Alberta, B.C. has recently enjoyed an unexpected surge in revenues, but unlike the Smith government, the Eby government has shown no spending restraint.

From 2023/24 to 2025/26, revenues in B.C. will be a projected $2.0 billion higher than the government projected in last year’s budget, yet the plan for spending over that same period increased by $13.2 billion. For comparison, the Smith government also increased spending in these years relative to its 2023 budget, but did so by $2.1 billion less than the  increase in revenues.

In other words, for every $1 of additional revenue enjoyed by both provinces, the Eby government increased spending by more than $6 compared to 79 cents for the Smith government.

The consequences of B.C.’s approach are clear. By spending far outside its means, the Eby government will saddle future generations of British Columbians with tens of billions more in debt that must be financed through taxes. For perspective, debt interest payments will nearly cost a projected $1,000 per British Columbian by 2026/27—that’s taxpayer money no longer available for programs or services. Moreover, continued deficits weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges (such as an economic downturn) without taking on more debt and driving up interest costs.

The Alberta and B.C. budgets provide examples of two different approaches to government finances. While there’s more to be done, Alberta is moving in the right direction to help prevent debt accumulation. On the other hand, B.C. is massively increasing spending and debt, to the detriment of British Columbians now and in the future.

Before Post

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

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:

“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.

“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.

“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.

“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.

“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.

“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X