Alberta
Debate continues over an Alberta pension plan—but here’s a key fact
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
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:
Alberta
New pipeline from Alberta would benefit all Canadians—despite claims from B.C. premier
From the Fraser Institute
The pending Memorandum of Understanding between the Carney government and the Alberta governments will reportedly support a new oil pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s tidewater. But B.C. Premier David Eby continues his increasingly strident—and factually challenged—opposition to the whole idea.
Eby’s arguments against a new pipeline are simply illogical and technically incorrect.
First, he argues that any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment, but this is wrong for several reasons. The history of oil transport off of Canada’s coasts is one of incredible safety, whether of Canadian or foreign origin, long predating federal Bill C-48’s tanker ban. New pipelines and additional transport of oil from (and along) B.C. coastal waters is likely very low environmental risk. In the meantime, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships have been cruising up and down the B.C. coast between Alaska and U.S. west coast ports for decades with great safety records.
Next, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations people oppose any such pipeline and will torpedo energy projects in B.C. But in reality, based on the history of the recently completed Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline, First Nations opposition is quite contingent. The TMX project had signed 43 mutual benefit/participation agreements with Indigenous groups along its route by 2018, 33 of which were in B.C. As of March 2023, the project had signed agreements with 81 out of 129 Indigenous community groups along the route worth $657 million, and the project had resulted in more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.
Back in 2019, another proposed energy project garnered serious interest among First Nations groups. The First Nations-proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, aimed to connect Alberta’s oilpatch to a port in Kitimat, B.C. (and ultimately overseas markets) had the buy-in of 35 First Nations groups along the proposed corridor, with equity-sharing agreements floated with 400 others. Energy Spirit, unfortunately, died in regulatory strangulation in the Trudeau government’s revised environmental assessment process, and with the passage of the B.C. tanker ban.
Premier Eby is perfectly free to opine and oppose the very thought of oil pipelines crossing B.C. But the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in a case about the TMX pipeline that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance such as pipelines.
And it’s unreasonable and corrosive to public policy in Canada for leading government figures to adopt positions on important elements of public policy that are simply false, in blatant contradiction to recorded history and fact. Fact—if the energy industry is allowed to move oil reserves to markets other than the United States, this would be in the economic interest of all Canadians including those in B.C.
It must be repeated. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact, and should be discounted by the federal government as it plans an agreement that would enable a project of national importance.
Alberta
Premier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’
From LifeSiteNews
Recent legislation to dial back ‘woke progressivism’ is intended to protect the rights of parents and children despite opposition from the left.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith took a shot at “woke progressivism” and detractors of her recent pro-family laws, noting that because wokeness went “too far,” the “dial” has turned in favor of parental rights and “no one” wants their “kid to transition behind their back.”
“We know that things went a little bit too far with woke progressivism on so many fronts and we’re trying to get back to the center, trying to get them back to the middle,” Smith said in a recent video message posted on the ruling United Conservative Party’s (UCP) official X account.
Smith, who has been battling the leftist opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) attacks on her recent pro-family legislation, noted how “we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways.”
“I think we have moved the dial on protecting children and the right of girls and women to participate in sports without having to face born male athletes,” mentioning that the Olympics just announced gender-confused athletes are not allowed to compete in male or female categories.
“I think we’re moving the dial on parental rights to make sure that they know what’s going on with their kids. No one wants their kid to be transitioned behind their back and not know. I mean, it doesn’t matter what your background is, you want to know what’s going on with your child.”
Smith also highlighted how conservatives have “changed the entire energy conversation in the country, we now have we now have more than 70 percent of Canadians saying they believe we should build pipelines, and that we should be an energy superpower.’
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Smith recently said her government will use a rare constitutional tool, the notwithstanding clause, to ensure three bills passed this year – a ban on transgender surgery for minors, stopping men from competing in women’s sports, and protecting kids from extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda – remain law after legal attacks from extremist activists.
Bill 26 was passed in December 2024, amending the Health Act to “prohibit regulated health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.”
Last year, Smith’s government also passed Bill 27, a law banning schools from hiding a child’s pronoun changes at school that will help protect kids from the extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda.
Bill 27 will also empower the education minister to, in effect, stop the spread of extreme forms of pro-LGBT ideology or anything else allowed to be taught in schools via third parties.
Bill 29, which became law last December, bans gender-confused men from competing in women’s sports, the first legislation of its kind in Canada. The law applies to all school boards, universities, and provincial sports organizations.
Alberta’s notwithstanding clause is like all other provinces’ clauses and was a condition Alberta agreed to before it signed onto the nation’s 1982 constitution.
-
International1 day agoBoris Johnson Urges Ukraine to Continue War
-
Great Reset1 day agoRCMP veterans’ group promotes euthanasia presentation to members
-
Business13 hours agoFederal major projects list raises questions
-
International1 day agoTrump closes in on peace in Ukraine
-
Daily Caller1 day agoEXCLUSIVE: Here’s An Inside Look At The UN’s Disastrous Climate Conference
-
Health1 day agoOrgan donation industry’s redefinitions of death threaten living people
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day agoGoogle denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software
-
Business2 days agoTaxpayers paying wages and benefits for 30% of all jobs created over the last 10 years


