Canada West Foundation Blog

Western Canada profits from its abundance of natural resources, however, in the changing global landscape, we need to take action to ensure our future prosperity. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation outlines the main contours of the contemporary energy world and takes stock of the trends shaping energy in western Canada.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends, by Senior Economist Michael Holden and Policy Analyst Robbie Rolfe, provides an overview of the provincial energy systems in western Canada, including the current state of energy production, consumption, and other associated activities and impacts. That information is framed in the context of the energy-related policy issues and challenges facing the four western provinces.

“Western Canada is characterized by a profound diversity of resources, consumption patterns, and economic and environmental impacts” said Michael Holden. “The energy picture in each province is unique, but their strengths are complementary. Through a more coordinated approach to energy policy, the western provinces can become more than the sum of their parts.”

Given the extent to which it permeates our daily lives, energy has come to dominate the economic, social, and political agenda in the region. State of the West: Energy provides a one-stop information resource on energy in western Canada, informing the debate surrounding energy policy in the West, and providing context to both where we are today and where we may go in the future.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends is part of the Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future initiative, which facilitates constructive debate on sustainable energy policy solutions for Canada and promotes the vital importance of western Canadian energy systems in the national, continental, and global economy. Click here to download a copy of the report.

By: Michael Holden

“The fiscal restraint that many expected from this budget is more akin to paper cuts than deep wounds.”

The 2012 federal budget was, for all intents and purposes, the first delivered by the Conservative government under majority rule. It was expected to give us our first glimpse at how the Conservatives intend to govern over the next several years. Many assumed that the result would be a fairly dramatic shift toward fiscal conservatism and smaller government. The reality, by contrast, is decidedly middle-of-the-road. The Conservatives have delivered a prudent budget, one that largely fails to live up to the hopes of strong fiscal conservatives, but also largely fails to live up to the fears of their opponents.

To be sure, specific elements of the budget, such as delaying Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits until age 67, are bound to attract controversy and spark debate over the coming weeks and months. There are also deep cuts in some areas, among them foreign aid and the CBC. However, the budget also contains several initiatives that are either welcome or overdue (eliminating the penny leaps to mind). But in the final analysis, while the budget itself is a thick document, filled with a wide range of initiatives, this is, on the whole, a cautious and incremental plan. This is true especially considering initial expectations that the budget would pare back government spending in a big way.

In terms of the priorities outlined in the budget – once again called an “Economic Action Plan” – there is a clear emphasis on measures aimed at promoting economic growth and job creation. In particular there are several programs and initiatives that are recognizable as clear priorities for western Canada. These are discussed further below.

Budget Overview

As expected, the budget established an accelerated timeframe for eliminating the deficit and restoring fiscal balance, primarily focusing on the expenditure side of the equation. In last year’s budget, the deficit for the current year was expected to be $32.2 billion, a figure amended in November to $31 billion. Owing to a combination of resurgent revenue growth at the end of the year, spending restraint and lower-than-expected interest payments on the national debt, the deficit for this year is expected to be $24.9 billion. Moreover, the federal government now plans to balance the books in four years (2015-2016), one year ahead of the schedule laid out in last year’s fiscal plan. In fact, barring an unexpected downturn in economic fortunes, the budget will most likely be balanced within three years.

One of the big items that everyone was waiting for in this budget was news on the extent to which the government would be cutting program spending in the years ahead. This is the part of the budget where, depending on their point of view, people will be either the most disappointed or the most relieved.

Although many of the details still have to be ironed out, the federal government announced that its review of department spending will yield ongoing savings of $5.2 billion per year by 2016-2017. This total represents about 6.9% of the spending that was subject to the review process, but only 2% of overall federal spending. In addition, about 19,200 federal government jobs will be cut, about one third of which will be through attrition.

While these cuts represent real reductions for individual departments and agencies, it’s important to keep in mind that, in the aggregate, they are based on spending levels that have grown dramatically in recent years. Since the first Conservative minority government in 2006, federal spending has increased by 38.7%, while the federal public service expanded by 15.3% (adding more than 60,000 jobs in the process). When viewed in that context, the proposed budget cuts do not exactly suggest a broad-scale withdrawal of the federal government from the public arena.

In addition, other components of federal spending, like transfers to the provinces and to persons, will be rising throughout that period. Old age benefits are the obvious exception, but those changes don’t even begin to kick in until 2023. As a result, the overall effect of the government’s spending restraint will not be a decrease in total program expenditures as much as a slightly lower rate of growth over the forecast period.

Specific Programs and Initiatives

For the most part, the federal government’s fiscal plan delivers on the expectations set out in the Canada West Foundation’s pre-budget commentary. Perhaps most notably, it includes a commitment to modernize the regulatory system for major project reviews with the goal of a “one project, one review” approach. This approach is designed to reduce duplication, the administrative burden on businesses and the timelines for approval. While the specifics are still to be determined, this is a welcome development for western Canada, provided that it does not result in an abdication of government responsibility in the area of environmental stewardship.

The budget also contains measures aimed at job creation and addressing labour shortages in western Canada. These include some modest reforms to the Employment Insurance program, an enhanced youth employment strategy, hiring credits for small businesses and improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The budget also mentions improvements to Canada’s immigration system, focusing on economic migrants that meet the labour needs of specific provinces and territories. However, there are few details on what that might mean.

Perhaps most significant for the West is new money for First Nations infrastructure, education and measures to improve training and incentives for the on-reserve Aboriginal population to enter the labour force. In its various consultations and roundtable discussions, the Canada West Foundation has heard repeatedly from western Canadian business and policy leaders that more needs to be done to improve living conditions on reserves as well as to improve Aboriginal participation in the workforce. In contrast with the aging population generally, the Aboriginal population is young and growing quickly. As such, they represent a significant, relatively untapped resource of labour in the West. On this issue, the measures contained in the 2012 budget represent a step in the right direction.

As we looked for in our pre-budget commentary, the 2012 budget also targeted spending cuts to specific areas and avoided cross-the-board measures that might have penalized effective or valuable programs. To be sure, there were few details, as usual, offered in the budget as to which exact programs would be affected by the plan, and as noted earlier, some will be unhappy about the areas that were targeted relatively heavily. But in general, the spending cuts reflected a gradual reshaping of government priorities and not a thoughtless chopping exercise.

The budget also emphasized measures related to innovation and research. This focus was signalled widely in advance of the budget, but the approach taken differed from the norm of recent years. Productivity improvements in Canada have been much sought-after, but elusive as previous government initiatives like lower corporate taxation and tax credits failed to deliver on that promise. With this budget, the government has signalled that it is changing tack. In a “Back to the Future” kind of way, there appears to be a return to more direct government involvement and incentives for high-risk venture capital and business innovation. While this type of direct involvement was (and still is) derided as the government getting into the game of “picking winners and losers,” the initiatives proposed in the budget echo many of the suggestions that we heard from business and policy leaders during our most recent series of Honourable James A. Richardson Roundtables this past autumn.

Another recurrent theme was a continued focus on trade and accessing new markets. In a sense, the budget offered nothing new on the subject; it mostly just restated the government’s recent accomplishments and highlighted the various trade- and investment-related initiatives currently underway. Although there was no new money for trade (in fact, foreign diplomacy and aid received disproportionately heavy cuts in funding), this budget signals that international trade remains a high priority for this government.

There were also some policy issues on which, in our view, the budget was disappointing or disappointingly silent. As noted above, in spite of the fact that trade and market access are stated priorities of this government, financial support for foreign affairs and diplomacy was cut. In addition, the budget includes no significant new measures or financial support relating to environmental protection, conservation, curbing greenhouse gas emissions or renewable energy. There was also disappointing silence on the subject of a Canadian energy strategy. Finally, there were no significant new funds for urban or trade-related infrastructure. While the federal government has made significant investments in this area in recent years, there remains a large infrastructure deficit in many parts of the West.

As a concluding note, it seems appropriate to devote a final thought to bidding adieu to the much-maligned penny which will cease to be minted in April, and stop being distributed later this year. Over the years we’ve all complained about the space pennies take up, we’ve gotten into trouble in school for flicking them at classmates, we’ve thrown them in fountains, used them for ill-advised science experiments and we’ve refused to pick them up when they lie alone and half-forgotten on the street. And now they will be no more.

Goodnight sweet penny. No longer will you fool me into thinking I’m rich based on the thickness of my wallet. May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

By: Michael Holden, Senior Economist

On March 29^th, the Conservative government will bring forward what effectively amounts to its first budget since it won a majority in the House of Commons last spring. There are several reasons to expect this particular budget to be significant. For one, it will be the first delivered by the Conservatives free from the constraints of a minority Parliament. In addition, the budget is expected to include more specific details on how (and over what time period) the government plans to eliminate the deficit.

Finally, since the current government is early into its mandate, the budget provides an opportunity for it to set its agenda over the next several years and put its stamp on the future direction of the country. Governments in the past have frequently adopted more controversial policies early in their mandates so that voters have as long as possible to forgive and forget before the next election.

In a general sense, the expectations surrounding this budget are pretty clear. The government will take steps toward eliminating the deficit focusing heavily (or exclusively) on the expenditure side of the equation. No new taxes are expected, nor is there expected to be any rollback of previously-announced corporate tax cuts that kicked in this past January. There have also been broad hints about changes to Old Age Security (OAS) eligibility and a renewed focus on international trade and fostering innovation.

What is not known is the nature or the severity of the program spending cuts. We do know that since it was first elected in 2006, the current government has not exactly been “conservative.” Due in large part to its economic stimulus package in 2009, federal program spending has increased by 36.7% since the 2005-2006 fiscal year and the federal civil service has expanded by about 15.3%. Not including federal Crown corporations, there are more federal government employees today than even before the Jean Chretien Liberal government took the reins in the early 1990s.

With that in mind, there are a few things that the Canada West Foundation is anticipating in the budget.

Better-than-Expected Results in 2011-2012

In its last budget, the federal government projected a deficit of $32.3 billion for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. That figure was later amended to $31.0 billion in the government’s annual November fiscal update, as lower-than-expected program spending was more than enough to offset sluggish revenue growth and the addition of a $1.5-billion risk adjustment buffer to guard against the effects of global economic uncertainty on the bottom line.

Barring a major year-end spending spree in March, however, the actual deficit for the current fiscal year will almost certainly be much lower. The deficit was projected to decrease only slightly compared to last year (from $33.4 billion to $31.0 billion) but the government is well ahead of pace. Through the first three quarters of the year (April to December 2011), the federal deficit stands at $17.7 billion, a considerable improvement over the $27.4 billion deficit over the same period last year.

There are two directions the federal government could go with this increased fiscal flexibility. It could accelerate its deficit-elimination schedule and balance its books a year or two earlier than currently planned (in 2016-2017). Alternatively, it could use that flexibility to lessen the severity of anticipated cuts to program spending. Some combination of the two is also possible.

Prudent Economic Forecasts

On a related note, we look for the government to continue making its budget projections based on cautious economic and revenue growth assumptions.

During Jean Chretien’s tenure as Prime Minister, Finance Minister Paul Martin attracted some criticism because his economic- and revenue-growth forecasts were so conservative that the Liberal government regularly posted much better year-end budget balance figures than were initially projected in their budgets. For a few years this was a bit of a novelty as governments historically had tended to over-promise and under-deliver in their deficit-fighting efforts. By the end of the Chretien-Martin era, however, pundits were clamouring for more accurate budget forecasts, because year-end numbers were consistently so much better than budget forecasts.

Returning to this era of under-promising and over-delivering would not be such a bad thing. While worries over sovereign debt crises in Europe and the sluggish US economy have eased somewhat over the past six months, there remains a great deal of global economic uncertainty on the horizon. In this context, small-c conservative growth forecasts would be prudent. 

In addition, understated growth forecasts would allow the current government to capture one of the big advantages enjoyed by the Chretien/Martin approach to budgeting. By regularly underestimating revenue growth, the Liberal government of the time was able to avoid the pressure to increase spending that comes when governments announce that their fiscal situation is actually pretty good. The moment a government announces that it has billions of dollars left over after fulfilling its spending commitments, you can guarantee that there will be a clamour of voices with all sorts of ideas about how that money should be spent. This is not to say that many of those ideas are not worth supporting. Rather, it is extraordinarily difficult for a government to announce that it has excess revenues without at the same time creating enormous political pressure to spend those revenues or to decrease taxes accordingly. This can result in decisions being made on the fly rather than being carefully considered as part of a long-term plan.

Simplification of the Tax System

The Canada West Foundation has long argued in favour of a simpler tax system. The recent trend, at the federal level at least, has been for the addition of boutique tax credits aimed at specific segments of the electorate: tax credits allowing tradespeople to write off their expenses on tools; credits for arts and sports programs for children; employment tax credits and so on. Every year it seems that the forms get longer and more complex. We don’t suggest going to the simplified tax scheme proposed here, but an increase in transparency would be welcome.

A caveat to this statement is that we have no position on whether taxes should be higher or lower. Too often people get swept up in ideological debates which focus entirely on the tax side and ignore the expenditure side completely. It is important to remember that taxes are the means by which governments provide services to their citizens. All else being equal, we get what we pay for: lower taxes means fewer or less comprehensive government services and higher taxes mean the opposite. Now there are all sorts of arguments one could make about how efficiently governments use their revenues and about how much easier it is for government to grow than to contract. But in our view, the appropriate level of taxation is the lowest one possible which provides Canadians with the goods and services they want, while also allowing governments the policy flexibility to pursue appropriate social and economic objectives for the long-term prosperity of the country and also ensuring that Canada is an attractive place in which to do business. In other words, we need the taxes to afford what we want and need, not to blindly raise or lower those taxes without a specific, and compelling, reason for doing so.

Government Program Spending

The federal government has already stated that it will not touch transfers to the provinces as part of its move toward balancing the budget. The size (and growth rate) of federal transfers for health and social services has already been determined for the next decade or more. Similarly, the pool of funds for the equalization program is set to increase each year, tied to the growth of the national economy.  While we have some concerns about the specifics of these programs and some of the interprovincial equity issues that could result from the distribution of those funds, those concerns are not part of the budget discussion itself.

In terms of direct program spending, however, the federal government has already signalled that it intends to find billions of dollars in “savings” under its “deficit reduction action plan savings target.” What this means, exactly, is anyone’s guess at this point, but the specifics of this plan should be included in the forthcoming budget. What is clear, however, is that after years of rapid spending growth and a hiring spree that has seen the creation of more than 60,000 new federal government positions (including in the military) since 2004, there are cuts on the way.

Given the huge increase in federal government spending in recent years, there is certainly some room for modest fiscal retrenchment. There are, however, a few things we would not like to see. First of all, the budget should not take the easy way out and impose across-the-board cuts on departments. Doing so carries the risk of penalizing effective programs by providing them with fewer resources to accomplish their objectives, while allowing less effective or redundant programs to continue on. A more difficult, but ultimately more valuable, exercise would be to use program spending cuts as an opportunity to revisit past government programs and to refocus efforts on initiatives that are demonstrably effective at enhancing economic and social welfare in Canada. Second, the budget needs to walk a fine line between returning to fiscal balance on the one hand, and not undercutting the still-fragile economic recovery on the other. The Canadian economy grew at a relatively modest 2.0% in 2011. A dramatic cut in federal spending could further weaken the economic outlook for the current year.

A better approach would be for the government to back-end-load its spending cut commitments. This means that the government should set out a deficit-reduction plan that sees relatively modest cuts to program spending this year (and possibly next), allowing the economy time to find its footing. When conditions are more robust, the Canadian economy will be in a better position to absorb the impact of more severe cuts to federal spending.  

Environmental Review Process

It has been suggested in the lead up to the budget that the federal government is looking to streamline the environmental assessment process for resource development. While this move is guaranteed to spark outrage in some circles, we are cautiously optimistic. The Canada West Foundation supports the idea of a streamlined review process: one that eases the administrative burden on businesses and reduces the time it takes to get shovels in the ground on approved projects, subject to the condition that the standards to which businesses are held are not compromised as a result.

Many people believe that expediting the review process, or handing the responsibility to the provinces, will result in less due diligence or a patchwork of environmental standards across the country. Some will undoubtedly suggest that a shorter process is, in fact, a backdoor attempt to lower standards, skirt environmental regulations and run roughshod over due diligence.

Without detailed information on the specifics of the federal government proposal, we cannot comment on those anticipated criticisms. We look to the budget to provide some of that information. To be sure, laxer environmental standards are a risk if the spirit of the matter is violated, but we do not accept the view that fixing the review process will necessarily result in lower standards or that it represents an abdication of environmental stewardship on the part of Canadian governments. A longer review process does not make a better review process.

Michael Holden will be in Ottawa on budget day and will prepare a post-budget analysis. Media inquiries can be directed to Rachael Strathern, Communications Team Lead, at communication@cwf.ca or (403) 700-9535.  

By: Michael Holden

The 2008-2009 recession and the still-fragile economic recovery in western Canada have amplified the urban-rural divide in regional labour markets. That large cities have been responsible for the majority of job creation in the West is hardly a recent development—the region’s nine Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) [1]have accounted for nearly 80% of all job growth in western Canada since 1997. However, the gap in employment growth between those nine cities and less populous areas has widened in recent years.

Not only did the West’s largest cities, on average, emerge from the recession relatively unscathed, but they have since posted much stronger job gains as well. From its pre-recession peak (November 2008) to the lowest point of the economic downturn (August 2009), western Canada lost just over 110,000 jobs. Even though our nine CMAs were home to about two thirds of all employment in the region, they accounted for just one third of those losses. Conversely, when the region began to add new jobs, it was mostly in the large cities. Since August 2009, there have been 119,000 positions created in western Canadian CMAs compared to 42,100 elsewhere in the region. In fact, smaller urban centres and rural areas have, on the whole, yet to recover their pre-recession employment levels. Meanwhile, the CMAs collectively did so in August 2010 and have been expanding ever since.

Of course, this is not to suggest that all the region’s big cities have been engines of job creation. Two cities—Vancouver and Edmonton—have been the primary drivers of employment growth, creating more jobs post-recession than all other CMAs combined. Regina and Kelowna have also posted impressive job gains, although their smaller population base means their affect on regional job creation is somewhat muted. At the other end of the spectrum, Calgary, Victoria and Abbotsford-Mission have all seen strong employment growth within the past 12 months, but there are still fewer people working in those cities today than before the recession began. In Saskatoon, there have been only modest job gains in recent months and employment remains well below pre-recession levels.

Even though most new jobs in western Canada are being created in big cities, this does not mean that employment prospects elsewhere in the region are necessarily bleak. In Manitoba, for example, employment growth outside of Winnipeg has been a lot stronger than in the province’s largest city since even before the recession began. Similarly, job creation outside of Alberta’s major urban centres has kept pace with the 4.3% average employment growth rate in Edmonton and Calgary over the past two years.

Moreover, as much as employment in western Canada’s CMAs has been rising, this increase has been counterbalanced by strong population growth; through the combined forces of urbanization, immigration and interprovincial migration, people continue to flock to our cities. Employment gains in our major centres since August 2009 has been just sufficient to absorb the growth in the urban working-age population in western Canada. Meanwhile, while job creation has, broadly speaking, been slower elsewhere in the region, so too has population growth.

These concurrent trends have created a favourable balance in western Canadian labour markets. While there remain pockets of weakness in some areas, the general situation is one where excess labour capacity in the region is moving to our major cities to absorb the growing demand for workers. As a result, the unemployment rate in urban and rural areas in western Canada has been virtually identical for several years.

1. In order of population size, western Canada’s nine Census Metropolitan Areas are: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Victoria, Saskatoon, Regina, Kelowna and Abbotsford-Mission.

By: Michael Holden

As the Canada West Foundation highlighted in a study released earlier this year, western Canadian exporters are gradually shifting their focus away from the United States and are increasingly selling their goods in Asian markets.

Early data for 2011 show this trend continuing. Through the first six months of the year, western Canadian exports to Asia were up 23.3% compared to the same period last year, well above the growth rate for exports to the US (11.2%) or other non-US destinations (18.3%). In total, 18.2% of western Canadian exports from January to June 2011 went to Asian markets.

Leading the charge is BC. Through the first half of 2011, BC’s total exports were 14.0% higher compared to the first half of 2010. Exports to Asia, however, have risen at more than twice that rate, owing in part to strong growth in sales to China, Taiwan and South Korea.

This increase has not only helped to cement BC’s status as Canada’s largest exporting province to Asia, but, if the pattern established through the first six months hold true for the remainder of the year, BC will be the first province to reach a significant new milestone: it will export more to Asia than to the United States. From January to June 2011, BC shipped 43.2% of its merchandise exports to Asia, compared to 42.0% of sales going to the United States.

As we’re looking at just half a year’s worth of data, this feat is mostly symbolic at this point, but if the underlying trend continues, it could represent an important structural shift in how we think about the BC economy. What happens in Asia could be more important to the province’s economic outlook than what happens in the United States.

The other three western provinces are in no danger of crossing that threshold in the foreseeable future, but Asian markets continue to grow in importance for exporters on the prairies as well. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have seen increases of 39.0% and 25.4% in exports to Asia, respectively, through the first half of 2011. Both provinces now sell more than 20% of their total exports to that part of the world.

On the surface, Alberta appears to be something of an exception to this general trend. Not only are Alberta’s exports to Asia growing more slowly than any other province (7.6% through the first half of 2011), but the share of total exports going to Asia (7.5%) remains low as well. Only New Brunswick and Ontario send a smaller share of their exports to Asia.

The weakness in growth through 2011 to date is partly due to reduced sales of primary plastics and canola – two of Alberta’s largest exports to Asia. It remains to be seen if that reduction is a temporary dip or evidence of a longer-term trend.

But in terms of overall market share, Asia is far more important to Alberta than the figures suggest. Oil and gas make up more than half of Alberta’s total exports, but based on the infrastructure in place, Alberta oil and gas companies wishing to sell their products abroad have no real choice in where they can go: all roads – or, in this case, pipes – lead to the US.

Removing oil and gas from the equation gives us a chance to see where Alberta exporters sell their products when they have a choice of customer. When you do so, Alberta’s export mix begins to look a lot more like the other Prairie Provinces. In the first half of 2011, 15.7% of Alberta’s non-oil-and-gas exports went to Asia – not as much as in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, but still much higher than in any province outside western Canada.  

On Thursday, September 8, 2011, The Canada West Foundation and the Asia-Pacific Foundation are co-hosting the Canada-Asia Cooperation Conference and Dinner, which will look at the growing web of energy-related trade, investment, strategic and environmental linkages between Canada and Asia. For more details, click here.

By: Michael Holden, Senior Economist

On February 22nd, the Canada West Foundation released a new research paper examining western Canada’s trade relationship with Asia-Pacific. Through the Gateway: Unlocking Western Canada’s Potential for Economic Diversification by Expanding Trade with Asia-Pacific looks at the importance of Asia-Pacific markets to western Canadian exporters, their impact on economic diversification in the West and some of the policy options for further expanding trade with that region.

One of the challenges in writing on current economic developments and trends is that the timing of major data releases does not always cooperate with research deadlines. Not long after Through the Gateway was launched, new trade data was released for the 2010 calendar year. With a new year’s worth of numbers in hand (along with some minor revisions to previous years’ figures), I thought it might be useful to revisit some of the key trends we highlighted in that paper to see if and how those trends are holding up.

As it turns out, data for 2010 continue to drive home the growing importance of Asia-Pacific market for western Canada. One of the most important trends we noted in Through the Gateway was the growth in western Canadian exports to Asia-Pacific—especially since the early 2000s. From 2001 to 2008, the value of goods shipped to Asia-Pacific markets rose from $14.0 billion to $26.7 billion, before falling to $22.6 billion in 2009 because of the impact of the global financial and economic crisis.

While exports to Asia-Pacific in 2010 did not recover their 2008 peak, they did rebound strongly, reaching $25.9 billion—the second highest value on record. Leading the charge was B.C., where exports were 28.9% higher than in 2009. B.C. now exports almost as much to Asia-Pacific ($12.2 billion) as it does to the United States ($13.7 billion).

Through the Gateway also observed that growth in western Canadian exports to Asia-Pacific was being driven by shipments to the region’s developing markets. In 2009, the total value of exports to wealthy countries like Japan and South Korea was about the same as the value of exports to China and other developing economies, but long-term growth in the latter group vastly exceeded growth in the former; from 1990 to 2009, exports to industrialized countries in Asia-Pacific had grown by about 25%, while those to developing economies had risen by 428%.

Although 2010 was a good year for western Canadian exports to Japan and South Korea, there was no competing with the continued boom in sales to China and other developing markets. Western Canadian exports to developing economies in Asia-Pacific rose by 18.1% compared to 2009 (reaching $13.5 billion), while exports to industrialized economies in the region increased by 11.1% (to $12.3 billion).

A final point worth mentioning is the need to consider trade flows with the United States when assessing the importance of Asia-Pacific markets. We noted in Through the Gateway that, while the share of exports going to Asia-Pacific rose from 12.5% in 2001 to 17.5% in 2009, it was hard to say how much of that increase was because of strong growth in trade with Asia-Pacific and how much was because of weak market conditions in the U.S. Factors such as a high Canadian dollar; new regulatory and security measures; the economic downturn in 2008-2009; and the resulting drop in commodity prices have all weighed on shipments of goods to the U.S. in recent years.

With the economy stabilizing in the U.S. and commodity prices recovering, western Canadian exports to the U.S. rebounded in 2010. From a six-year low of $92.1 billion in 2009, north-south sales increased to $102.4 billion in 2010. While this figure remains well below its historic high ($141.9 billion in 2008), it’s interesting to note that the recovery in exports to the U.S. did not come at the expense of growth in trade with Asia-Pacific. While the share of western Canada’s total exports to the U.S. rose from 71.5% in 2009 to 72.1% in 2010, the share going to Asia-Pacific markets rose by even more¬—from 17.5% to 18.2%.

A new paper released through the Canada West Foundation’s Going for Gold project examines western Canada’s current trade relationship with Asia-Pacific and explains how these markets offer tremendous opportunities for economic growth and prosperity in the West, now, and in the years to come.

Through the Gateway: Unlocking Western Canada’s Potential for Economic Diversification by Expanding Trade with Asia-Pacific by author Michael Holden, Senior Economist provides the background and the numbers that show the importance of this region to western Canada’s economic prosperity. With Asia-Pacific being home to over half the world’s population and exports from the four western provinces to the region accounting for two-thirds of Canada’s total exports (totalling 9.6 Billion in 2009,) Asia-Pacific is second most important, only to the U.S.

“The research shows the importance of Asia-Pacific, not only to western Canada’s economic prosperity, but for Canada.” Canada West Foundation’s President and CEO, Dr. Roger Gibbins explains. “Considerable opportunities exist for western Canada if we take advantage of them and successfully reduce the barriers to trade and investment.”

The report describes two ways in which trade with Asia-Pacific countries promote economic diversification in western Canada 1) export market diversification and 2) export product diversification.

This publication was released at the Through the Gateway event, which was sponsored by the Vancouver Board of Trade on February 22, 2011.

All in attendance received a summary copy of the report. To download the summary report, click here.

To download the full report of Through the Gateway: Unlocking Western Canada’s Potential for Economic Diversification by Expanding Trade with Asia-Pacific, click here.

by Michael Holden, Senior Economist

Resource royalties are a valuable source of revenue for provincial governments in western Canada. In fact, they have been rising steadily in importance since the early 1990s and are nearly as important to provincial government revenues today as they were at the tail end of the 1979 energy crisis . While royalties are a boon to governments’ bottom lines, they present considerable challenges when it comes to long-term planning and fiscal management.

I began examining trends in royalty income as part of my preliminary work on the Canada West Foundation’s "Powering Up" Project. My colleagues and I have been working on creating a detailed and comprehensive snapshot of the existing energy system in the four western provinces, including the impact of resource extraction on government revenues.

In 1981, resource royalties accounted for 23.8% of all provincial government revenues in western Canada. There was a considerable range from province to province: in Alberta, royalties were as high as 43.2% of revenues, while the corresponding figures for Saskatchewan (21.0%), BC (5.6%) and Manitoba (1.4%) were much lower.

After tumbling in the 1980s and early 1990s, a surge in oil and other commodity prices in the mid to late 2000s have meant that royalties are once again a major source of income in the region, particularly in the three western most provinces. For western Canada as a whole, royalties made up 20.6% of government revenues in 2008 (the most recent year for which Statistics Canada data are available). Alberta still leads the pack at 33% of provincial revenues, but Saskatchewan and BC have seen the importance of resource royalties grow considerably since the early 1980s. In Saskatchewan, royalties grew to 24.1% of provincial revenues in 2008, while BC saw the share of income from royalties double to 11.2%.

Is this increasing reliance on royalty revenues a good thing for the western provinces? It really depends on your perspective. On one hand, royalties provide governments with more available funds to spend on goods and services—like health care, education, and infrastructure—or to put towards deficit elimination or debt reduction. This, in turn, eases the burden on provincial taxpayers; the more government revenues that come from resource rents, the less taxpayers have to pay out of our own pockets. By reducing the fiscal burden on taxpayers, royalties also contribute to creating a more competitive tax environment which could help attract businesses, investments and skilled workers to western Canada.

However, overreliance on resource royalties comes with its own set of problems. For one, royalties and royalty rates are closely linked to commodity prices which are notoriously volatile and completely beyond our control. While all government revenue sources are prone to fluctuations, royalty income is far more erratic than most. Responsible fiscal planning is an extraordinary challenge when a major source of revenue can fluctuate so dramatically, and unexpectedly, from one year to the next. How do governments make stable, predicable and long-term spending commitments in such an environment? How do they resist the pressure to increase spending when royalty income rises? And how do they maintain that spending level in the face of a negative price shock?

Additionally, the resources in question are non-renewable. To be sure, some of our resource deposits—like the oil sands—are vast, and some like shale gas are only beginning to be developed, but even these won’t last forever. Moreover, environmental concerns and development of alternative energy sources could change future market conditions in unforeseeable ways.

Should we be concerned about the long-term sustainability of our royalty revenues? Should some of this resource wealth be saved for future generations? Are Albertans missing out on the opportunity to add to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and convert part of their present wealth into a form that could provide interest revenue in perpetuity? Should Saskatchewan re-introduce its Heritage Fund? Should BC consider starting up such a fund? These questions are further explored in the Canada West Foundation’s "Investing Wisely" Project.

These questions all require careful study and debate in the community, but two things are immediately clear. First, as resource royalties grow in importance for provincial governments in western Canada, steps need to be taken to minimize the impact of resource price volatility on government revenues. Secondly, better public policy is needed to ensure that both current and future generations benefit from present-day extraction of non-renewable resources. 

Michael Holden is Senior Economist and is currently working on creating a detailed and comprehensive snapshot of the existing energy system in the West as part of the Powering Up Project.