Unlike Alberta, Norway is not forced to subsidize lower-productivity European nations
Gerald Butts recently repeated a common but misguided refrain when he posted a photo of the growth in Norway’s pension fund with the comment that, “Every time I’m in Norway I think this could have been Alberta.” Albertans who are used to such outbursts call this “Norwailing.”
You’d think someone who spent so many years as a senior adviser to the prime minister would understand the three large differences between these two oil-rich jurisdictions.
First, Alberta’s lack of pipeline access to tidewater discounts the price our oil, which means less money going to the government compared with other places; second, Alberta has chosen to be a low-tax jurisdiction; and third, Albertans pay the majority of their taxes to Ottawa, where $15-$20 billion is used yearly to subsidize federal spending across Canada.
Norway’s oil is drilled from the sea, so getting global prices is a given. Alberta’s oilsands saw major investments starting roughly 25 years ago, but Canada has been unable to build enough pipeline capacity to the coast (although the long-delayed and overpriced Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is finally close).
For the rest of this column: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/alberta-could-have-a-wealth-fund-like-norways-if-ottawa-stopped-picking-its-pockets