The Alberta Government has launched a four-week "consultation" blitz on the future of the $11.8 billion Heritage Fund, by mailing out a survey with four questions. For those who want to "vote early and vote often," the questions can be answered over and over and over again at www.albertaheritagefund.com.

Three of the four questions suggest that the Heritage Fund should be spent by politicians and bureaucrats. 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 at the end of the day it boils down to the same thing.

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."

What a helpful reminder: that schools and hospitals "provide economic and social benefits for Albertans now and in the future."

But spending a portion of the Heritage Fund on capital projects shouldn't worry you, says the survey, because "the value of the Fund would be replenished when resource revenues are higher than expected and the debt is paid off."

Unfortunately, the track record of politicians in general - and Alberta Tories in particular - is that "higher than expected" resource revenues are simply spent, period. 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?

Question #4 suggests spending some of the Heritage Fund on debt repayment, with the same reassurance that "the value of the Fund would be replenished" some day in the future.

Of the three questions which suggest spending the Heritage Fund, one dresses up spending in very attractive language.

The other two questions assure the reader that any of the Fund's assets, once spent by politicians and bureaucrats, will be "replenished." None of these three pro-spending questions mention "spending" by name.

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 be merely one of several goals - not 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.

For example, the Alaska Permanent Fund has been built up to over $27 billion (U.S.) and pays an annual dividend of $2,000 (U.S.) to every man, woman and child in Alaska.

Would Albertans want an annual dividend? Or would they prefer a substantial and permanent tax cut, like the elimination of personal income tax?

Those are questions which Albertans should discuss and debate, but this "consultation" doesn't even present those options.

This is sad, considering 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.

The Government's 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, Albertans are now being consulted about the future of education by the Alberta's commission on learning.
The commission has released a 32-page booklet with helpful information about Alberta's schools, students, teachers, curriculum, standards, governance and education funding.

Important issues - such as the future of the Heritage Fund - deserve meaningful debate that is grounded in 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?