Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

As Ottawa meddles with pension funds, Albertans should consider

Published

6 months ago

8 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie 

Who Should Control Canada’s Pension Wealth?

Ottawa wants to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada, instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors.

Last week, another scandalous and potentially corrupt string of federal activities popped up.

This one has deep implications for pension plans in Canada, including the debate about an Alberta Pension Plan. Mark Carney’s double game of politics and profit enhances the drive to patriate Alberta’s pension wealth.

At issue is a report in the media saying that Brookfield may be looking to raise a $50 billion fund with contributions from Canada’s pension funds and an additional $10 billion from the federal government.

This report has drawn significant attention for several reasons. Toronto-based Brookfield is one of the world’s largest alternative investment management companies, claiming about one trillion in assets under management. Their portfolio spans real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, and private equity, making them a significant player in domestic and international markets. The magnitude of Brookfield’s investments places them at the forefront of global financial movements, giving considerable weight to any fund they propose to establish.

The second reason is that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have voiced their ambitions to boost home-grown investments. One of the government’s strategies includes tapping into Stephen Poloz, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. Poloz succeeded Mark Carney as the head of the bank. The Liberal government has tasked Poloz with leading a working group to identify “incentives” that would “encourage” institutional investors to keep their capital in Canada.

Moreover, Finance Minister Freeland has suggested implementing new regulations to ensure that more of Canada’s substantial pension fund reserves, which amount to an impressive $1.8 trillion, are allocated toward Canadian ventures. This comes when a staggering 73% of Canadian pension funds are invested abroad.

On its face, a plan to invest more Canadian wealth in Canada might sound reasonable. However, the plan avoids the crucial question of why money experts prefer investing outside Canada. Considering that question, one must consider the Trudeau government’s economic record.

Put differently, Ottawa is looking for ways to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors. Those large cash pools typically belong to hard-working Canadians, such as teachers’ pensions. They would be forced to earn less for their pension money.

Forcing such large sums to remain in Canada would mask the continuous slump in productivity in the Canadian economy.

Given current economic policies and layers of taxation that do not exist elsewhere (such as the unpopular carbon taxes), Canadian companies are less competitive. Forcing pools of money to stay in Canada rather than seeking the best return for their clients offers an artificial boost that makes Ottawa policies seem less harmful.

It is, therefore, a politically motivated move. That level of government intervention historically always results in disastrous consequences. Politics directing traffic for the movement of capital rarely achieves good outcomes. The real issue is sagging productivity.

But that is only half the problem. The other significant issue is ethics.

Prime Minister Trudeau has recently named Mark Carney as his special economic advisor. Carney is the Chair of Asset Management and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield.  The Brookfield website shows Carney is responsible for “developing products for investors.”  Carney is also the most mentioned name among people likely to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In short, the man who closely advises the government of Canada on how to compel gargantuan pools of money to be invested in Canada conveniently oversees the development of the “product” for the private Toronto firm, through which that money would be forced to be invested in Canada. Furthermore, the same firm reportedly seeks (read lobbying) from the federal government an infusion of $10 billion for the new fund.

As a Liberal and a potential party leader, given Justin Trudeau’s fortunes, Mark Carney could become prime minister in the immediate future. This means that Carney would benefit from creating new rules forcing investment money to stay in the country in two ways: As a leading man at Brookfield, Carney and the firm stand to make tens of millions from the policy. Second, as a carbon tax enthusiast, once squarely in political office, Carney would benefit from masking the ill, underproductive effects of the radical green agenda and carbon taxes he supports.

When Alberta progressives oppose the desire of many Albertans to patriate Alberta pension funds to the province, they cite concerns that the province might use the funds for political purposes, undermining the maximum return. This is not an outlandish concern, in some respects, given the history of the Alberta Heritage Fund.

However, it is not an exclusive danger inherent to the Alberta government. It does not warrant the presupposition that the federal government is a better steward of Alberta’s pension wealth, as demonstrated by the developments above. All things being equal, and unless human nature is outlawed by federal statute, the risks are the same.

But if something goes wrong with Albertans’ pension wealth, would they rather deal with people in Alberta than people in Ottawa, half a continent away Raising Alberta voices in Ottawa when Ottawa has been bent on doing the opposite of what is good for Albertans has never produced good results or reversed the nefarious effects on Albertans.

Ottawa politicians will do what is best for Laurentians every single time. The history of the Dominion, from the national policy to Crow rates and the National Energy Policy to Carbon Taxes, shows Ottawa policies always favour vote-rich Laurentia first and foremost.

Mark Carney’s product development for Brookfield shows, at worst, that Alberta’s pension wealth is just as much as risk with federal policies driven by political motivations. This one would be doubly bad because it is meant to serve and benefit Carney and his Bay Street friends as much as it is designed to help his future colleagues in Ottawa. And on both counts, Carney would benefit as a financier and politician.

Albertans should take their money and run.

Marco Navarro-Genie is Vice President Research with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 2 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 5 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 8 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X