Alberta, like the United Arab Emirates, has considerable oil wealth. The politicians in Alberta, like the Shieks of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, et al., want to stay in power, and believe that sharing the oil wealth with the citizens will help them stay there.
And both places face a similar problem: how to share the wealth without creating serious distortions of incentives. Taxes can be eliminated, and doing that will probably promote efficiency. But after that what? "Free" education and "free" health care? Both will be overused if prices are not allowed to play a rationing role. Free utilities? Same thing.
John Chilton, The Emirates Economist, has more:
The UAE is a very rich country and it is only natural that the wealth owned by the government/rulers is shared with the citizens. Where economists begin to worry is when the size of the transfers creates adverse incentives. For example, suppose you get more from the government if you earn less. This cuts your incentive to work. Or suppose the underpriced utilities causes you to waste water and electricity — there are more efficient ways to make transfers. Or suppose that government jobs are not demanding and pay much more than the private sector — where's the incentive to choose the private sector rather than engaging in rent seeking activities (wasta) to get a government job? Or suppose you a guaranteed a government job as long as you have any college degree — where is the incentive to excel in college?
It's not the size of the transfers. It's their design.
For more on this topic, see this, which I wrote earlier.