The shine is off a province that now offers sluggish wages and Canada’s fastest inflation.
“Think I’ll go out to Alberta, weather’s good there in the fall, I got some friends that I can go to workin’ for…”
That’s not just a famous lyric by Ian Tyson. For years it’s been a siren song luring workers from other parts of Canada in search of a better life. From B.C. to Cape Breton, thousands of workers would migrate to Alberta each year in search of better jobs and higher wages.
For a decade, wages have grown more slowly in Alberta than in any other province. And workers’ real pay (adjusted for inflation) has been going backward — fast.
The latest statistics confirm that painful trend continued in 2024. Average hourly wages (for workers paid by the hour) grew 2.2 per cent last year — third worst of any province. (Most recent available wage data covers the first 10 months of 2024.) Across Canada as a whole, hourly wages grew 3.8 per cent.
But sluggish wages didn’t protect Albertans from inflation. To the contrary, Alberta recorded the fastest inflation of any province, with annual average consumer prices rising 2.9 per cent in 2024. Slow wage growth plus faster inflation means bad news for workers. The real value of the hourly wage (adjusted for inflation) declined 0.8 per cent in 2024. That marks the fourth year in a row, and the ninth year in the last 11, that real hourly wages in Alberta went backward. In contrast, real wages in other provinces have been rebounding briskly. On average across Canada, hourly wages (adjusted for inflation) grew 1.3 per cent in 2024.
This blog post series argues for increased transparency and scrutiny of Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo), which manages billions of dollars in public funds, including the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. The author critiques AIMCo’s limited disclosure of investment details, comparing it unfavorably to other major public pension funds that provide more comprehensive information. These posts highlight a lack of justification for the limited disclosure, citing responses from government officials at a public meeting that lacked concrete evidence. The author calls for more public access to AIMCo’s investment strategies and holdings to better understand how public money is being used, and the potential risks involved.
The three-part series titled “Why AIMCo Needs More Scrutiny and Transparency,” published on AB Pol Econ, critically examines the Alberta Investment Management Corporation’s (AIMCo) operations and advocates for increased transparency and oversight.
Part 1 highlights the lack of detailed disclosure regarding AIMCo’s investments, particularly those of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund (AHSTF). The article notes that while a comprehensive list of investments was published in 2011, no such updates have been provided since. This absence of transparency raises concerns about the public’s ability to assess how over $20 billion of public funds are managed. The author emphasizes the importance of public engagement and scrutiny, especially in light of recent changes allowing the reinvestment of the fund’s income. |Read Part 1|
Part 2 delves into AIMCo’s performance, focusing on the Alberta Growth Mandate (AGM) and the 2020 losses from the Volatility Trading Strategy (VOLTs). The AGM, introduced in 2015, aimed to invest a portion of the Heritage Fund in Alberta-based growth-oriented companies. However, the outcomes of these investments, particularly in the energy sector, have been questionable. Additionally, the VOLTs strategy led to significant losses in 2020, further underscoring the need for greater scrutiny of AIMCo’s investment decisions and risk management practices. |Read Part II|
Part 3 discusses the pros and cons of transparency and disclosure within organizations like AIMCo. It argues that while certain proprietary information may need to remain confidential, excessive secrecy can lead to unaccountable power structures. The article suggests that increased transparency, such as appointing representatives of major pension plans to AIMCo’s board, could enhance accountability and align the organization’s interests with those of its clients. The recent dismissal of AIMCo’s board and executives is cited as an opportunity to implement such changes and rebuild public trust. |Read Part III|
Overall, the series calls for AIMCo to adopt a more transparent approach to its investment activities, enabling public oversight and ensuring that the management of public funds aligns with the interests of Albertans.
But the events surrounding the vote cast doubt on both the clarity of the question and the level of public support. And Premier Jason Kenney’s own comments undermine the premise that he is even seeking constitutional reform in the first place.
As he has neither the mandate nor the intent to convene a constitutional conference, the rest of Canada should reject the premier’s invitation. By the Alberta government’s own standards, the results of their equalization referendum fail to meet the criteria necessary to bring premiers and the prime minister to the table.
A campaign worker steams the wrinkles from a large Alberta flag at the venue where Kenney was to address supporters in April 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
Three criteria
Kenney states that the referendum results reflect a “clear majority” on a “clear question” and thus represent a “legitimate attempt by one participant in Confederation to seek an amendment to the Constitution.”
He drew these three criteria from what’s known as the secession reference, a Supreme Court decision that his advisers believe forces the rest of Canada to negotiate with Alberta in good faith.
The wording of the referendum question was direct:
“Should Section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Parliament and the Government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments — be removed from the Constitution?”
In describing the potential outcomes of a “yes” vote, however, the government — and even the provincial election agency — led voters astray.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney answers questions at a news conference about COVID-19 in Sept. 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Todd Korol
Instead, the premier said the referendum was intended to put Albertans’ frustrations with Confederation on the public record and provide him with “leverage” to secure a “fair deal” for Alberta.
The fair deal includes changes to a host of federal laws and policies, none of which have anything to do with the Constitution.
This framing undermines the premier’s contention that the referendum was a “legitimate attempt” to spark constitutional change. First ministers should reject the premise of his gambit.
Clear majority?
“Yes” votes outnumbered “no” votes in this referendum. The overall level of popular support for constitutional change is less certain, however, given a very low level of voter participation.
Most estimate the turnout in the referendum at around 40 per cent. If we multiply turnout by the share of all ballots cast in favour of “yes” — 62 per cent of valid votes — we reach a striking conclusion: fewer than one in four of all eligible Alberta voters turned out in favour of removing equalization from the Constitution.
This is a very low level of popular support, even according to the premier’s own standards.
Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley celebrates her majority victory in the provincial election in Edmonton in May 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mike Ridewood
One in four is also perilously close to the threshold the government recently set for citizens to initiate constitutional referendums of their own accord. According to that legislation, constitutional questions require the signatures of 20 per cent of eligible voters in two-thirds of the provincial constituencies across Alberta to even be considered by the government for a provincial referendum.
Given low levels of turnout and high levels of “no” support in urban areas, it’s unlikely the results of the equalization referendum clear even that low bar.
By the standards of the government itself, this is a weak foundation upon which to build a popular mandate for constitutional reform. But the ultimate decision is not up to them.
Those stakeholders include the prime minister and other premiers, all of whom have good reason to doubt whether the murky messaging, questionable intent and low level of turnout in Alberta are sufficient to convene a constitutional conference on equalization.
In the end, it will be them — not Kenney, pundits, political operatives or academics — who determine whether Alberta has forced them to the table, let alone has the leverage to sell them on a fair deal.
Page called the inquiry a “political stunt that’s not based in reality” and wants it shut down.
Ecojustice argues in its brief that the inquiry was called for an
“improper purpose,” which it says was “targeting, intimidating, and
harming organizations that have raised concerns about the environmental
impacts, including climate change impacts, of oil and gas development in
Alberta.”
Doubts are being raised about the Alberta government’s decision to restore a policy that protects the Rocky Mountains from coal mining.
Energy Minister Sonya Savage on Monday brought back a 1976 policy that keeps open-pit coal mines out of most of the Rockies and foothills. University of Calgary resource law professor Nigel Bankes says the ban doesn’t apply everywhere, despite Savage’s assurances that mountaintop removal mines are prohibited, The Canadian Press reports.
That means Benga Mining’s proposal for such a mine, now before a review panel, could still go ahead.
Bankes also points out exploration already permitted can still go ahead, so hundreds of drill sites and kilometres of roads could still be built despite return of the policy.
Environmentalist Kevin van Tighem calls bringing back the coal policy a “bait and switch.”
He says the energy minister’s letter to the Alberta Energy Regulator still allows for the possibility of open-pit mines.
Last November, APTN News reported concern about the C$800-million project on the part of the Kainai First Nation south of Calgary, also known as the Blood Tribe, despite previous support it received from the mainly Blackfoot bands in southern Alberta that make up Treaty. “This Grassy Mountain Coal Project will cause irreversible damage to our traditional territories, including the mountains, rivers and natural landscapes,” said Kainai member Latasha Calf Robe. “These mountains that our people have occupied since time immemorial will be gone and will never be able to be replaced.”
Calf Robe added that “no community-level consultation has been done on the Blood Tribe, and as far as I know, has not been done with any of the communities in Treaty 7.” So letters of support from Treaty 7 “were issued without community-level consultation in any of these communities.”
Ian Urquhart, conservation director with the Alberta Wilderness Association, said the project “raises important questions about climate change—both for the globe, and also for the federal government to try to meet its commitments under the Paris Accord.”
Coal “is a huge carbon polluter,” he told APTN, and “the steel sector that’s going to use the coal that Benga wants to produce is the largest single industrial source of (carbon and greenhouse) emissions on the planet.”
Benga is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Australian coal developer Riversdale Resources, APTN says.
