Connect with us

Alberta

Risk or Reward: The Alberta Pension Plan according to the UCP and the NDP

Published

8 minute read

Submitted by The Free Alberta Strategy Team

A Positive Pension Plan

There’s been a lot of misinformation swirling around Alberta politics in the last few months, and with the election now underway, it’s only ramped up even further.

Perhaps no issue, though, has been as misrepresented as the idea of an Alberta Pension Plan.

 

As of right now, the UCP says they are still studying the issue, and that any actual implementation of an Alberta Pensions Plan would be conditional on the holding of a referendum after all the research has been done and the reports that have been commissioned have been received and publicised.

The NDP, meanwhile, has completely dismissed the idea entirely, before the research has even been finished, and has spread some pretty crazy ideas around about what a provincial pension plan would mean.

We’ve heard that the provincial government is trying to “steal” Albertans’ pensions.

We’ve heard that the government would gamble all our pensions away.

We’ve heard that they’d take the money and give it to their friends.

We’ve also heard a bizarre theory that if you had an Alberta Pension Plan, you wouldn’t then be able to go and work or retire in any other province.

And all of that is, of course, simply nonsense.

No one is suggesting doing any of those things.

No one has ever suggested doing any of those things.

And, perhaps clearest of all, none of those things happen in Quebec – who already have their own pension plan, remember!

Instead, the plan is actually quite simple.

Right now, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is administered by an arm’s-length agency of the federal government.

The idea would be to replace that arm’s-length agency of the federal government with an arm’s-length agency of the Alberta government.

But, if the idea isn’t to bring the money back to Alberta in order for the Alberta government to “steal” your pension, why exactly would we want to do it?

The main reason to switch to an Alberta Pension Plan is actually fairness for Albertans.

The fact is that the Canada Pension Plan, as it is currently structured, is essentially just another massive wealth transfer from Alberta to the rest of Canada.

Remember, the “Canada Pension Plan” isn’t actually a personalized pension with your name on it.

The federal government doesn’t keep each Canadian’s money in an individual account and then pay you back with your own money when you retire.

Rather, it’s just another tax that you pay, all the money gets lumped in together, and then when you retire you get a maximum of about $15,000 back each year.

So, Alberta’s young, talented, and hard-working population ends up subsidizing the pensions of workers in the rest of the country.

And it isn’t a small subsidy either – the total subsidy between 2008 and 2017 adds up to $27.9 billion.

As of 2017, Albertans were contributing 16.5% of all pension contributions, while our retirees only accounted for 10.8% of pension payments.

And remember, that was in the middle of Alberta’s biggest economic downturn in a generation.

When we get more updated figures, the subsidy is likely to be even more significant.

Albertans are paying not only for their own pension, but also for a large share of the pensions of everyone in the rest of the country.

Creating an Alberta Pension Plan would instantly remove this subsidy, and Albertans would only pay for their own pensions, instead of for everyone else’s.

And with the subsidy gone, the Alberta government could immediately reduce pension contributions while retaining the exact same benefits retirees receive right now.

Or, they could keep the same contribution levels, while increasing the benefit payments retirees receive, or do something in between the two.

All without the Alberta government interfering in the administration of the pension plan itself.

Certainly, the concept of an Alberta Pension Plan needs much more detailed research before it can be implemented.

A significant amount of work will need to be done to ensure proper risk management and governance practices will be implemented.

And this is all work that the UCP has committed to do before making any final decisions.

But given the significant financial benefits, the fact that the NDP is willing to completely rule out the idea before even seeing the details is incredibly short-sighted.

Their opposition seems entirely based on the idea that the Alberta government would somehow “take over” and “steal” people’s pensions – without any explanation of why that would be possible with an arm’s-length provincial organization in a way that isn’t currently possible with an arm’s-length federal organization managing the money.

It’s also incredibly ironic given that, when the NDP were in power in Alberta, their government did interfere in the administration of the various government employee pensions that are currently managed by AIMCO.

(That’s a whole other story for a whole other email, but the short version is that they took away the requirement for AIMCO directors to be experienced investors, they appointed a bunch of NDP allies to the board, and then set about forcing those directors to invest the money in a bunch of environmental projects that the NDP favoured, until the UCP reversed those changes and restored the independence of AIMCO.)

An Alberta Pension Plan is one of the many proposals in the Free Alberta Strategy that can be used to protect the financial future of Albertans.

But, like any policy proposal, it requires robust research to ensure it is implemented properly.

We have a small team of researchers, funded entirely by grassroots donors like yourself, and we need your help to continue developing and promoting detailed solutions.

If you’re in a position to do so, please consider making a donation:

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

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X