Debate continues over an Alberta pension plan—but here’s a key fact

According to documents recently obtained by Postmedia, bureaucrats in Ontario’s Ministry of Finance believe the Smith government’s report released last year on an Alberta pension plan overstates what Alberta could withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) to start its own plan. The report estimates that the province’s share of CPP assets is worth $334 billion, which is equal to 53 per cent of the CPP.

It’s not surprising that Ontario civil servants are debating this issue. If Alberta leaves the CPP and creates a provincial pension plan, the savings for Albertans would essentially cost workers in the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec, which already has its own standalone provincial pension). Given that Ontario is the second-largest net contributor to the CPP (behind only Alberta), those costs would fall heavily on Ontarians.

Albertans, like all workers outside Quebec, pay a basic mandatory CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent, typically every payday. According to the Smith government’s report, that rate would fall to 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program for Albertans, which means each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027 (the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan). Critically, this lower contribution rate (i.e. tax) delivers the same benefit levels as the CPP.

Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) would increase to 10.36 per cent. In other words, smaller take-home paycheques for workers in the rest of Canada.

Currently, Albertans contribute disproportionately to the CPP and other national programs because the province has more workers (and less retirees) as a share of its population, higher employment rates and higher average earnings compared to the rest of Canada. In 2020, the latest year of available data, Albertans contributed about 16 per cent of total CPP contributions but received only 12 per cent of total CPP benefits.

And the federal legislation (Section 113(2) of the CPP Act), which governs the withdrawal of any province from the CPP and the asset distribution calculation, focuses on the amount paid into the fund by Albertans and the benefits paid out (taking into account investment returns and administrative costs).

Bureaucrats in Ontario, however, argue there are issues with the report’s interpretation of the formula. They claim, for example, that the asset distribution calculation fails to account for individuals who worked in Alberta but retired elsewhere. And regardless, they feel the formula should be updated. The Smith government has asked the federal government and investment board to respond to the report with its own interpretation and calculations.

While the debate about Alberta’s share of the CPP assets is sure to continue, it should not distract from the key fact that any reasonable split of CPP assets would result in lower contribution rates for Albertans and likely higher rates for the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec). If Alberta’s share of assets were less than half of what the government report estimates ($150 billion) in 2025, the contribution rate in Alberta would drop to 7.8 per cent, equal to an estimated $1,086 in savings annually per Albertan. Even if Alberta’s share of assets were just $120 billion in 2025, Alberta’s contribution rate would drop to 8.2 per cent and save approximately $836 annually per Albertan.

Clearly, Alberta’s withdrawal from the CPP would come with big savings in the province and increased costs in the rest of Canada.

Author:

Tegan Hill

Related Topics:#AlbertaPensionPlan #FraserInstitute #TeganHill CPP

Up Next

Statistics Canada admits to not identifying euthanasia as cause of death in official reports

Don't Miss

Trudeau’s former justice minister resigns from Parliament days after Emergencies Act ruling

Todayville

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

“Freedom of Expression Should Win Every Time”: In Conversation with Freedom Convoy Trial Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon

Business / 7 hours ago

It Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances

Alberta

Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid the tariff war, the price of West Texas Intermediate oil—a common benchmark—recently dropped below US$60 per barrel. Given every $1 drop in oil prices is an estimated $750 million hit to provincial revenues, if oil prices remain low for long, there could be big implications for Alberta’s budget.

The Smith government already projects a $5.2 billion budget deficit in 2025/26 with continued deficits over the following two years. This year’s deficit is based on oil prices averaging US$68.00 per barrel. While the budget does include a $4 billion “contingency” for unforeseen events, given the economic and fiscal impact of Trump’s tariffs, it could quickly be eaten up.

Budget deficits come with costs for Albertans, who will already pay a projected $600 each in provincial government debt interest in 2025/26. That’s money that could have gone towards health care and education, or even tax relief.

Unfortunately, this is all part of the resource revenue rollercoaster that’s are all too familiar to Albertans.

Resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is inherently volatile. In the last 10 years alone, it has been as high as $25.2 billion in 2022/23 and as low as $2.8 billion in 2015/16. The provincial government typically enjoys budget surpluses—and increases government spending—when oil prices and resource revenue is relatively high, but is thrown into deficits when resource revenues inevitably fall.

Fortunately, the Smith government can mitigate this volatility.

The key is limiting the level of resource revenue included in the budget to a set stable amount. Any resource revenue above that stable amount is automatically saved in a rainy-day fund to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in the budget during years of relatively low resource revenue. The logic is simple: save during the good times so you can weather the storm during bad times.

Indeed, if the Smith government had created a rainy-day account in 2023, for example, it could have already built up a sizeable fund to help stabilize the budget when resource revenue declines. While the Smith government has deposited some money in the Heritage Fund in recent years, it has not created a dedicated rainy-day account or introduced a similar mechanism to help stabilize provincial finances.

Limiting the amount of resource revenue in the budget, particularly during times of relatively high resource revenue, also tempers demand for higher spending, which is only fiscally sustainable with permanently high resource revenues. In other words, if the government creates a rainy-day account, spending would become more closely align with stable ongoing levels of revenue.

And it’s not too late. To end the boom-bust cycle and finally help stabilize provincial finances, the Smith government should create a rainy-day account.

Alberta

Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.

Alberta has long been viewed as an oasis in Canada’s overheated housing market—a refuge for Canadians priced out of high-cost centres such as Vancouver and Toronto. But the oasis is starting to dry up. House prices and rents in the province have spiked by about one-third since the start of the pandemic. According to a recent Maru poll, more than 70 per cent of Calgarians and Edmontonians doubt they will ever be able to afford a home in their city. Which raises the question: how much longer can this go on?

Alberta’s housing affordability problem reflects a simple reality—not enough homes have been built to accommodate the province’s growing population. The result? More Albertans competing for the same homes and rental units, pushing prices higher.

Population growth has always been volatile in Alberta, but the recent surge, fuelled by record levels of immigration, is unprecedented. Alberta has set new population growth records every year since 2022, culminating in the largest-ever increase of 186,704 new residents in 2024—nearly 70 per cent more than the largest pre-pandemic increase in 2013.

Homebuilding has increased, but not enough to keep pace with the rise in population. In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.

Moreover, from 1972 to 2019, Alberta added 2.1 new residents (on average) for every housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents for every housing unit started in 2024. Put differently, today nearly twice as many new residents are potentially competing for each new home compared to historical norms.

While Alberta attracts more Canadians from other provinces than any other province, federal immigration and residency policies drive Alberta’s population growth. So while the provincial government has little control over its population growth, provincial and municipal governments can affect the pace of homebuilding.

For example, recent provincial amendments to the city charters in Calgary and Edmonton have helped standardize building codes, which should minimize cost and complexity for builders who operate across different jurisdictions. Municipal zoning reforms in Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer have made it easier to build higher-density housing, and Lethbridge and Medicine Hat may soon follow suit. These changes should make it easier and faster to build homes, helping Alberta maintain some of the least restrictive building rules and quickest approval timelines in Canada.

There is, however, room for improvement. Policymakers at both the provincial and municipal level should streamline rules for building, reduce regulatory uncertainty and development costs, and shorten timelines for permit approvals. Calgary, for instance, imposes fees on developers to fund a wide array of public infrastructure—including roads, sewers, libraries, even buses—while Edmonton currently only imposes fees to fund the construction of new firehalls.

It’s difficult to say how long Alberta’s housing affordability woes will endure, but the situation is unlikely to improve unless homebuilding increases, spurred by government policies that facilitate more development.