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

Fraser Institute: Time to fix health care in Alberta

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bacchus Barua and Tegan Hill

Shortly after Danielle Smith was sworn in as premier, she warned Albertans that it would “be a bit bumpy for the next 90 days” on the road to health-care reform. Now, more than two years into her premiership, the province’s health-care system remains in shambles.

According to a new report, this year patients in Alberta faced a median wait of 38.4 weeks between seeing a general practitioner and receiving medically necessary treatment. That’s more than eight weeks longer than the Canadian average (30.0 weeks) and more than triple the 10.5 weeks Albertans waited in 1993 when the Fraser Institute first published nationwide estimates.

In fact, since Premier Smith took office in 2022, wait times have actually increased 15.3 per cent.

To be fair, Premier Smith has made good on her commitment to expand collaboration with the private sector for the delivery of some public surgeries, and focused spending in critical areas such as emergency services and increased staffing. She also divided Alberta Health Services, arguing it currently operates as a monopoly and monopolies don’t face the consequences when delivering poor service.

While the impact of these reforms remain largely unknown, one thing is clear: the province requires immediate and bold health-care reforms based on proven lessons from other countries (e.g. Australia and the Netherlands) and other provinces (e.g. Saskatchewan and Quebec).

These reforms include a rapid expansion of contracts with private clinics to deliver more publicly funded services. The premier should also consider a central referral system to connect patients to physicians with the shortest wait time in their area in public or private clinics (while patients retain the right to wait longer for the physician of their choice). This could be integrated into the province’s Connect Care system for electronic patient records.

Saskatchewan did just this in the early 2010s and moved from the longest wait times in Canada to the second shortest in just four years. (Since then, wait times have crept back up with little to no expansion in the contracts with private clinics, which was so successful in the past. This highlights a key lesson for Alberta—these reforms are only a first step.)

Premier Smith should also change the way hospitals are paid to encourage more care and a more patient-focused approach. Why?

Because Alberta still generally follows an outdated approach to hospital funding where hospitals receive a pre-set budget annually. As a result, patients are seen as “costs” that eat into the hospital budget, and hospitals are not financially incentivized to treat more patients or provide more rapid access to care (in fact, doing so drains the budget more rapidly). By contrast, more successful universal health-care countries around the world pay hospitals for the services they provide. In other words, by making treatment the source of hospital revenue, hospitals provide more care more rapidly to patients and improve the quality of services overall. Quebec is already moving in this direction, with other provinces also experimenting.

The promise of a “new day” for health care in Alberta is increasingly looking like a pipe dream, but there’s still time to meaningfully improve health care for Albertans. To finally provide relief for patients and their families, Premier Smith should increase private-sector collaboration, create a central referral system, and change the way hospitals are funded.

Bacchus Barua

Director, Health Policy Studies, Fraser Institute

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X