Less than three weeks are left before the Alberta Government concludes its quick "consultation" blitz on the future of the $11.8 billion Heritage Fund. You have probably received this survey in the mail, with four questions and very little background information.

Three of the four questions suggest that politicians and bureaucrats should start spending part of the Heritage Fund. But you won't find the words "spend" or "spending" in the questions.

For example, question #2 states that "a portion of the Heritage Fund's assets could be held as a reserve for sustainable funding for priority programs." That sounds a lot nicer than "spent by politicians and bureaucrats." But in fact, "funding" is spending. "Sustainable" is a nice adjective which complements whatever it describes. "Programs" means the government takes your money and spends it on your behalf rather than leaving it in your wallet for you to decide what to do with it. "Priority" is whatever politicians and bureaucrats decide is important, like giving $2 million of our money to the Vertigo Mystery Theatre of Calgary towards building a new cinema and playhouse.

Question #3 suggests spending the Heritage Fund on capital projects, which "provide economic and social benefits for Albertans now and in the future." The survey reassures us that spending a portion of the Heritage Fund on capital projects is OK because "the value of the Fund would be replenished when resource revenues are higher than expected and the debt is paid off." Question #4 suggests spending some of the Heritage Fund on debt repayment, with the same reassurance.

If Alberta's politicians spend $2 billion of the Heritage Fund's assets, do you really believe they would ever return that $2 billion in future

Only one of the four questions considers the possibility of not spending the Heritage Fund. Question #1 asks: "Should the Fund be primarily an endowment fund or should it be combined with other potential uses " This is the only opportunity a person has to say that the Heritage Fund should be saved for the future. But even this question suggests that saving should not be the only goal.

Missing entirely from this survey is the idea that the Heritage Fund can be built up and increased for the benefit of future generations, and for the day when Alberta has sold off all of its oil and gas. This survey ignores the fact that Albertans could start enjoying income tax freedom as early as 2015. According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and conducted by University of Calgary economist Dr. Jean-Francois Wen, the Heritage Fund can be built up to the point where it produces enough income each year to replace what government takes from Albertans in personal income tax.

Worst of all, this "consultation" provides Albertans with very little information about the Heritage Fund's history, goals and potential, or about alternative models such as the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Norwegian Government Petroleum Fund. In contrast, Alberta's Commission on Learning has published a 32-page booklet with helpful information about Alberta's schools, students, teachers, curriculum, and education funding.

Important issues - like the future of the Heritage Fund - deserve meaningful debate that is grounded on adequate information. The government's short, simple survey begs a sad question: is this biased and inadequate consultation better, or worse, than having no consultation at all