Connect with us

Alberta

Here’s why the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill Associate Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Provincial and territorial finance ministers recently met with federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to discuss a hot topic—Alberta’s potential withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). According to Nova Scotia Finance Minister Allan MacMaster, “there was real consensus” from his peers that they want Alberta to stay in the CPP. This is unsurprising; while an Alberta pension plan would benefit Albertans, it would come at great cost to the rest of Canada.

Why might Albertans want to leave the CPP?

Albertans pay a basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent, typically deducted from their paycheques. According to a report commissioned by the Smith government, 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) while maintaining the same retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, to keep the CPP afloat without Alberta, the basic contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent. In other words, smaller paycheques for the rest of Canada.

The report’s calculation is based on several assumptions, which some analysts have criticized, arguing that Alberta’s estimated share of CPP assets—$334 billion—is not fair or realistic. To be clear, this share (equal to 53 per cent of the CPP) is based on specific legislation that governs the withdrawal of any province from the CPP. But, even if the share of assets to Alberta were much lower, the province would benefit from reduced contribution rates with an Alberta pension plan.

For instance, if Alberta left the CPP and received merely 25 per cent of the CPP’s assets in 2025 ($150 billion), the contribution rate in Alberta would fall from 9.9 per cent to 7.8 per cent, which would mean $1,086 in savings annually per Albertan. Meanwhile, the contribution rate for the rest of Canada would have to increase. If you dropped Alberta’s share to 20 per cent ($120 billion in 2025), Alberta’s contribution rate would fall to 8.2 per cent, equivalent to approximately $836 in savings annually per Albertan.

Put differently, even if Alberta’s share of assets were less than half the report’s estimate, Albertans would benefit from lower contribution rates for the exact same benefits while the rest of Canada may pay higher contributions to maintain current benefits. Why does Alberta mean so much to the CPP? Because Alberta generally has higher employment rates and a comparatively younger population, which means more workers pay into the fund and less retirees take from it. Albertans also have higher average incomes, which means there’s a higher level of premiums paid into the fund. As such, Albertans have paid significantly more into the CPP than its retirees have received in return.

It’s not surprising that the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP for an equivalent provincial plan because—even if Alberta’s share is less than $334 billion, Alberta’s withdrawal would come with big costs for other Canadians across the country.

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

Alberta

New pipeline from Alberta would benefit all Canadians—despite claims from B.C. premier

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

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.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Premier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

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 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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X