Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she didn’t want to talk about the idea of taking Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan and creating an Alberta pension plan until after the election, and by and large the province’s political commentators have co-operated.
NDP Leader Rachel Notley has promised that if she becomes premier again, she’ll drop the UCP’s plan to pull out of the CPP. Premier Smith “still talks openly about gambling with your Canada Pension Plan,” Ms. Notley told her supporters at her Edmonton rally on Friday.
“Let me be clear. We will never let that happen! We will protect your retirement security because that is what New Democrats do,” Ms. Notley promised.
Still, given the wide unpopularity of the idea, it’s been far from the front burner through most of this election campaign.
In this guest post, respected pension researcher Tom Fuller takes a look at some of the serious questions raised by the UCP’s pension scheme. DJC
Guest Post by Tom Fuller
Do Albertans need or should they want the new Alberta Pension Plan being touted by Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP?
The idea that Alberta should withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and substitute an Alberta pension plan has been around for more than two decades. Its first public appearance was in the “Firewall Letter” of 2001, addressed to then Premier Ralph Klein and signed by significant figures in the province’s right-wing political community. The most prominent was Stephen Harper, who was later Conservative prime minister of Canada.
Premier Klein ignored the proposal.
But when the UCP became Alberta’s government in 2019, one of the Kenney Government’s first actions was to appoint something called a “Fair Deal Panel” to resuscitate many of the same issues, including the plan to leave the CPP and substitute an APP.
Danielle Smith’s government has not yet committed to the project, but there are persuasive reasons to believe that’s where they’re headed. Finance Minister Travis Toews’s office said earlier this year that they were in the process of “tweaking” a consultant’s report, and that the report was “favourable” to the idea of Alberta leaving the CPP.
This suggests the UCP is holding the report in its hip pocket, ready to produce it in the run-up to a referendum on the proposal. They can rely on organizations like the Fraser Institute to chime in with support.
The Fraser Institute, which has never met a social program it didn’t despise, has already published a “case study” arguing that an APP could deliver the same benefits as the CPP with a lower contribution rate.
Pension experts have suggested that the Fraser study is deeply flawed, but it’s fair to ask the question: Could an Alberta Pension Plan deliver these benefits at a lower cost?
First, let’s take a step back. Central to any pension plan is “the pension promise.” That is, the promise that after you’ve contributed to a plan for your entire working life, the benefits you’ve earned will be there when you retire. Anything that puts the pension promise at risk, or that would require unsustainable levels of contributions, is an extremely bad idea.
Second, both the CPP and the APP are basically pay-as-you-go pension plans. That means that each generation of workers pays for the pensions of the preceding one. Albertans paying into the CPP right now are funding the pensions of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. When this generation retires, its benefits will in turn be funded by the next. It’s called an “intergenerational compact.”
In light of that, how would the CPP and an APP stack up?
The CPP has delivered on its promises for almost 60 years. Benefits, including inflation indexing, are completely portable – meaning you can move from one province to another without any impact on your pension.
Contribution rates rose after 1997 not because the plan was poorly run, but because changing demographics (the Baby Boomers were heading for retirement) meant partially funding the plan now would prevent the need for higher contribution rates in the future. CPP contributions are currently 9.9 per cent of earnings, paid half and half by employers and employees.
Could an APP do the same thing more cheaply? Well, it’s easy to cut contribution rates for any pension plan – if you’re prepared to put the benefits of future retirees at risk.
This could be done by not allowing for changing plan demographics, for example, or making risky investments of plan assets in the hopes of getting higher returns. If that’s what the UCP has in mind, Albertans have reason to worry.
A basic principle of the pension business is that size matters.
Larger plans have lower costs for investment and for plan administration. How a much smaller APP could match, much less improve on, the performance record of the CPP is not at all clear.
For example, the government of Alberta simply does not now have the capacity to manage funds of this size.
If the intent is to have these investments taken over by AIMCo (as the Alberta Investment Management Corp. is commonly known), that’s further cause for concern.
AIMCo’s record in investing is spotty at best – the previous administration there left after losing $2 billion speculating on very risky and exotic “volatility trading.”
If AIMCo has to expand its operations to handle new assets of an Alberta pension plan, that would probably increase both costs and risks to the plan.
Finally, it’s worth noting that part of the reason for the success of the CPP is that it has been carefully insulated from political interference. Federal and provincial governments have not been able to meddle in the plan’s workings.
Can we have confidence that the same thing will be true of Danielle Smith’s Alberta pension plan? She did, after all, say in 2019 that “Albertans are looking at having their own Alberta pension plan because they know that there’s a divestment move of all of the pension plans across Canada and internationally, and if CPP starts bailing out of energy resources, we don’t want to be in a position where our money is being used to support solar and wind or other experiments. …”
These are serious questions – we’re talking about the retirement income of Albertans not just now, but in the future.
That shouldn’t be put at risk for the sake of one party’s political agenda.
Tom Fuller has worked as a researcher and advisor on pension governance for Alberta’s public sector unions for more than 20 years. He has held posts on the staffs of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta, and the Alberta Federation of Labour. He was a member of the Public Service Pension Plan Sponsor Board during the plan’s transition to joint governance and in retirement is a member of Public Interest Alberta’s Democracy Task Force. He holds an MBA from the University of Alberta.
I suppose part of the reason pensions are not a big issue in this election is the UCP supposedly took it off the table by saying it would be decided by a referendum.
Of course, Smith has said a lot of things and later back tracked on them or changed her mind. There still seems to be considerable support in the UCP, particularly from the part that supports Smith, for various Alberta autonomy initiatives, including leaving the CPP and setting up an Alberta Pension Plan. So what would stop them from changing their mind after an election, or holding a referendum with a very ambiguous question that might get more support?
One problem those who claim to be real conservatives should seriously consider is how balkanizing pensions in Canada may reduce labour mobility. After all people don’t always stay in one province throughout their lives. Having a different pension plan might make young workers more reluctant to move to Alberta and complicate things for retires who want to move elsewhere in Canada. This could become a big problem if the Alberta Pension Plan was seen elsewhere to be inferior to, less secure or more prone to political interference than the CPP, which all seem to be concerns already expressed by some.
@Dave
Smith has been very close lipped about her flagship bill – the Alberta Sovereignty Act.
In an article published May 15, 2023, (cbc), included:
“The bill hasn’t been mentioned once in the nascent days of this election campaign. It’s never been used. Other UCP autonomy-related musings like ditching the RCMP and leaving the Canada Pension Plan also won’t be put to voters.
So just as kenney made his deals with Australian coal companies in dark back rooms, away from prying eyes – TBAsmith will do the same given the powers under her act.
It’s been established that Danielle Smith/TBA/UCP have every intention of foisting R-Star and its massive $200B + financial commitment by Alberta to the O & G industry’s well clean up strategy, thus sparing the industry having to actually the legal and financial obligations for the mess they made. But how are they going to pay for it without raising taxes?
This is the easy part …
Grant the industry a royalty holiday in perpetuity.
And …
Grab all those sweet, sweet pension funds.
Yep, if you have a stake in a pension, Alberta public employees, CPP, or whatever, the UCP have every intention of taking those funds and, literally, shoving them into a hole in the ground. Of course, not calling a royalty holiday (forever) and commandeering pensions a “tax” is just plain dishonest. Or, as Danielle Smith likes to phrase it, “You misunderstood from the beginning …” And it will be dressed up as an investment in the future, but the return on this investment will be sketchy at best and non-existent in reality. Hey, but all those holes in the ground are cleaned up, right? Don’t you care about the earth?
cppinvestments.com states
Assets: 536 billion at December 31, 2022
10-year annualized rate of return: 10%
5-year annualized rate of return 8.1%
The Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the Canada Pension Plan is sustainable over a 75 year projection period
Will your premier quote these facts should they try to vacate the CPP?
What?! Report actual FACTS?!? Heck no! Smith is too busy accusing Notley of doing things Smith does routinely.
As good free-range capitalists, the UCP must be drooling at the prospect of controlling a nice big bag of pension cash. Who cares if it’s invested in solar farms or space lasers, right, as long as the returns are good! And, as a bonus, another board to stack with unlucky UCP candidates. Thanks to Mr. Fuller for his clarity on this issue.
As has been pointed out by many, the UCP is on record as saying pension money will be used to invest in the oil and gas industry. So, who is going to pay for the UCP’s R-Star program to clean up the mess left by big oil if not pensioners in the cities? The so-called rule of law saying the polluters must pay has been ignored for decades in Alberta.
You reap what you sow. There is not a lot of money and even less intelligence left in rural Alberta so, now it is the cities turn to pay off the oil sector. This means less of everything good, like Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and nice venues like The Citadel. Blow-back can be as unpleasant as manure in a cookie recipe. Stick your nose out the door, you can smell it cooking already. Thank you, Mr. Fuller, for pointing out another UCP scam. It does not have to be this way.
Conservatives are always happy to gamble with other people’s money.
Being a former Royal bank manager I’m not dumb enough to think that 4 million people can provide what 39 million can in funds to run this plan properly. My senior friends and I all know that we have received a lot more than we ever put into the plan and I think these reformers will likely cut us off the system using the excuse that have already received more than what we put in. We don’t trust them not to.
As if we needed any more reasons to vote against Smith and the UCP/ Take Alberta Backward party, Mr. Fuller has given us another. Smith’s claim that Alberta should ditch the CPP because “we don’t want to be in a position where our money is being used to support solar and wind or other experiments.”
(And–who’s “we”? Albertans in general, who are now watching if not welcoming utility-sized wind and solar investments? Or just the UCP and small oil-company owners who feel threatened by actual progress in decarbonization?)
Then there’s “divestment.” Big, scary idea that threatens the future expansion of oil and gas in the Kingdom of Oilberduh. Except it’s not “divestment” driven by idealistic university students that stopped investment. The oil majors mostly dumped their bitumen holdings because 1) they were becoming less profitable after multiple oil-price wars, 2) the rest of the world really has started the transition away from fossil fuels, and the pace is accelerating, and 3) the oil majors know all this—and cut their losses early. That’s why Teck Resources cancelled their plan to build the biggest bitumen strip-mine ever. Global energy economics, not an unfriendly NDP government. (FWIW, Rachel Notley was far more an advocate of Big Oil than an adversary; witness the purchase of TMX by the Trudeau government, and the Notley government leasing a fleet of rail-car tankers because pipelines were full.)
You can count on Danielle Smith; if it gifts money to Oil & Gas, and it hurts ordinary people, Smith will do it. But not because she’s mean, or merely sucking up to money. It’s worse than that.
Smith’s performance in the leaders’ debate showed that she really is both intelligent and a polished public speaker. But she has one terribly important character flaw: Danielle Smith is frighteningly credulous. And she knows this! In a CBC interview, Smith quoted a former Wildrose staffer who told her, “You have no crazy radar.”
https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/Danielle-Smith-Alberta-premier-UCP
I don’t see that Smith has changed in the least. If anything, she’s embraced even more crazy since she dove into conspiracy theories and Republican propaganda. Smith obviously believes that businesses can do no wrong, and governments do nothing right.
Why, oh why, do these Republican-wannabes try so hard to form governments—and promptly prove they can’t do anything right?
“2) the rest of the world really has started the transition away from fossil fuels, and the pace is accelerating” my following of events indicates this to be very far from the truth. What I see as true is Europe and North America on that self destructive path. So, 10% of the world?
China is transitioning to renewables faster than any other country in the world. Saudi Arabia is transitioning to renewables, mostly to be able to continue exporting fossil fuels, but has grand plans to use solar energy and is executing those plans right now. The three largest fossil fuel consuming countries are China, the United States and India. All of them have committed to cutting fossil fuel use to “net zero” sometime in this century. Perhaps you have been following the wrong events? Possibly too much focus on Russia…
As for your “self-destructive” comment, you are either completely ignorant of the facts of continued fossil fuel use or you are currently profiting from spending your children’s future and would never admit to any harm until the money runs out.
Roger, you call the energy transition “self-destructive,” but I don’t agree, and neither do most of the world. Bloomberg News Network, The Energy Mix, The Guardian, BBC; you’ll find other if you just look. Some, like the National Observer, are behind paywalls; they can sometimes be accessed via National Newswatch.
My next reply will be a list of articles from CBC and the Guardian. They’re a selection of ten among dozens of articles on the energy transition. Have fun.
https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/damage-control/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/climate-crisis-miracle-technology-wind-water-solar
https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/the-costs-of-climate-change/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-social-cost-emissions-analysis-wherry-1.6818629
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/25/insanely-cheap-energy-how-solar-power-continues-to-shock-the-world
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/michelin-nova-scotia-electric-vehicle-tires-1.6778217
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2023/just-smart-transition/
https://about.bnef.com/blog/chinas-battery-supply-chain-tops-bnef-ranking-for-third-consecutive-time-with-canada-a-close-second/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-economy-changed-oil-industry-1.6626636
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/13/eu-becomes-first-leading-economy-to-legislate-for-green-tariff-on-imports
Roger you haven’t been travelling much have you ? We have been all over Europe and there are huge changes being made. A cousin spent 14 years in China and 7 years in South Korea and he knows they are a long way ahead of Canada in what they are doing for climate change.
People are concerned about this issue, even though it’s not getting much attention. They’re concerned enough that some are willing to leave the province. For the generation almost at retirement, many came of age as companies were eliminating pension plans for their employees. Employees were told to make their own contributions to an RRSP. Some employers matched part of the funds. Others didn’t.
Recalling that 1981 was the beginning of a prolonged economic downturn in this country, with unemployment in the 18-25 age group at 25 per cent in those years. Alberta was hit hard. Employment for young people didn’t recover instantly. Many were underemployed for the better part of two decades. How does a person save for retirement when they’re the original gig worker?
Danielle Smith and the UCP-TBA keep spinning stories that the CPP money belongs to Alberta. This is a big, fat lie. That money belongs to the workers who made contributions. Their employers contributed to it. Alberta did not. For many people, it’s the only pension income they’ll get. If they trust Danielle Smith and the UCP-TBA to invest it wisely in AIMCO, they’re very stupid indeed.
The TBA folks putting these ideas in Danielle Smith’s head have no skin in the game. They’re farmers, and farmers are self-employed. Maybe they’re jealous that employees have a pension safety net, but this money does not belong to the TBA, the UCP or “Alberta”. They can pound sand.
Abs: As I’ve said before, leaving this province may not be enough to save you if you lived and worked in Alberta before retiring. It might not be enough even if you never legally lived here, for example, if the bulk of your earnings were made in the Alberta tarsands but you legally resided in Newfoundland where your family home was located. These things would have to be negotiated. And, remember, further, this is not just an effort to get the Cons’ grubby hands on your savings, it’s also part of a separatist program backed by Ms. Smith and her Take Back Alberta crowd. So in the event of full separation, Canada might be considerably less inclined to keep what’s left of the Alberta economy afloat by subsidizing oldsters who chose to stay in Albertastan. DJC
I do recall that Jason Kenney reminded the legislature that some people here have the audacity to live past the designated age of death in Alberta, 82. If the UCP were to return to power, best to clear off in any case, and start claiming CPP as soon as possible in order to get something out of it before The privateer-buccaneers take it all away. At least it would hurry their Alberta-only tax base, so that’s something! And take the next generation with us!
And since so many people have lived and worked in Alberta over the years, they can join the rest of us left behind here in putting a stop to the seizure of money that is rightfully ours by these pirates. Ahoy! Sink the ship!
Hi Abs. Your final point is perhaps the most important of all. Payments into the Canada Pension Plan are supposed to be held for the individual who made the contributions. They don’t bother to have individual accounts with a person’s lifetime contributions, separate from everybody else’s; that would be fiendishly difficult to administer and ruinously expensive to maintain. But they may have to start if Danielle Smith and Barry Cooper get their way. I’d be in crowd in front of the Legislature, demanding that Smith hand my money back to me—because I don’t trust her or AIMCo to invest it for me.
Also, I recall that “died-at-82” controversy like this. Kenney opined that Covid fatalities in old-folks’ homes were age 83, on average. That was a year older than the Alberta average age of death, which was 82. So, Kenney said, they’d already outlived the average—and what was your problem? Kenney implied such people were lucky to exceed the average age of death.
This callous stupidity got the response it deserved. So far, Danielle Smith has not graced us with her thoughts (alleged thoughts) on the benefits of dying young. With luck, she never will.
Kenney’s line about how those dying of COVID had lived, on average, a year longer than the average lifespan of Albertans was particularly egregious because he didn’t take age-specific life expectancy into account. An 83-year-old Albertan had, on average, a life expectancy of a further nine years or so.
So not only was he callous and heartless, saying that these folks had had an extra year already, what more did they want, but he was ignorant of basic actuarial statistics. What a surprise.
An Albertan receiving both CPP and OAS what would happen to them if Alberta started their own pension plan?
Mike: Excellent question I personally have not thought to ask up to now. No way would Alberta top up the OAS. A Conservative government in Ottawa might well tell elderly Albertans to pump sand. DJC
Dave
Due to a rather unfortunate life/health my CCP is rather minuscule less than $100. If OAS is able to be lost, then i imagine GIS (also federal) will be too.
Looks like a UCP win is guaranteed poverty and homelessness for some like me in the new Alberta.
If you come across some class action regarding all this please let me know.
A divorce will be messy for sure even with the Cons in power in Ottawa. The only winners will be actuaries, investment folks and relocation advisers. Bad times ahead.
Hi DJC,
Thanks for putting a focus on this issue and for consulting an expert. This is a very important issue for future and present retirees. Although I may dislike the ethics of some CPP investments, I think that operating a pension plan strictly on ideological grounds as the UCP suggests, probably is a not the best choice. The Alberta Retired Teachers’ Fund has, apparently, done well over the years, and it is my understanding that many teachers are unhappy that their pension plan was rolled into Aimco in 2019 by the UCP government.
CPP has a great investment return track record. It is in the top 10 Gov’t pension plans worldwide. And….it is completely separate from Government interference. A totally professionally organization.
The CPP fund, management, and record of investment returns is EVERYTHING that AIMCO is not.
Really…who would prefer the likes of Danielle Smith or some other TBA Government managing their retirement funds? Very scary though!
It would no doubt get depleted by multiple $2Billion dollar investments in projects like Keystone that are down the tubes or in east slope coal mines.
Very a good and thorough analysis. But instead of talking about what a provincial pension plan in Alberta may look like in theory, why not talk about one that’s already in existence? Quebec currently has a provincial pension plan. How’s that pension plan doing?
Talking about something that already exist would give readers much better context of the subject.
Quebec workers pay higher premiums to the QPP than other Canadians pay to the CPP, for the same benefits. I don’t know how much this is due to demographics, economies of scale, use of the fund by Quebec as an economic development tool, or other factors.
Not a relevant comparison. Quebec has Hydro Quebec and and an energy colony in Labrador. You might be surprised to learn that until April/22, Hydro Quebec’s research division held the patent on lithium batteries used in electric phones and cars. Alberta has dirty tar pits and farm land thousands of kilometers from any important export markets.
I’m sold on the economics of scale, but not too surprised that a secessionist Albertan misses the point when the scale, in strategic terms—the whole reason Canada confederated, so far, from 1867 to 1949 (40% of its geography is not yet confederated)—is so blithely ignored. In pension terms it oughta be a no-brainer: stick with CPP.
Yet insofar as the Alberta partisan-right tends to adopt tRumpublican mores, the idea of partisan-political interference in the operating criteria of a public pension plan —in the same way appointing overtly “conservative judges” (or electing them, as one-third of all US states do) who fervently promise to bias their legal decisions— is actually appealing. That is, certain factions of the right think that rigging elections or judicial decisions is just fine so long’s they always get their way, so long’s they always win. That’s probably more important to them than the prudent operation of a public pension plan, perhaps especially if it benefits people they don’t like.
The same kind of exceptionalism (to borrow another tRumpublican trope) is little concerned even if public policy is made so narrowly exclusive— instead of broadly inclusive—that it drives negatively-affected citizens out of the province. ‘Good riddance! Didn’t want them varmints, anyhow…’ —which sentiment again shows an under-appreciation of scale, at very least.
Observers have wondered before what the real rationale of creating an intolerant, far-right, exceptionalist, and, yes, even secessionist jurisdiction is: is the UCP really trying to push moderate citizens out in order to perfect a uniformly industrially libertarian, White, rural-evangelical Christian-dominated society? If so, the already-wobbly APP prospect—with only 11% of the Canadian population—calculates out poorly. And that’s assuming the subtraction will be made up by infill from other provinces under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. How does that cogently fit with notions of independence from the CPP—or, indeed, from Canada? Would interprovincial migration be as attractive if Alberta were to make itself more independent of Canada’s world-envied weal?
I guess the real question is whether the “Alberta Advantage” could weather subtracting advantages of the CPP, the RCMP—or even of the Canadian federation.
With just seven days of campaigning left, one still has to wonder how many Albertans will vote UCP while not taking its pension proposal as seriously as it should be—or even at all.
CPP, OAS? It won’t make any difference if you’re dead. The way things are going in Alberta, if batshit crazy lady gets in, we will all either die of asphyxiation from all the out of control forest fire smoke, delays in ambulance service, waiting months for lab test appointments and results, lack of doctor care, global warming, or my favourite COVID, which by the way is still debilitating and killing people. So, when keeping everything else in perspective, CPP and OAS is the least of our worries. All the above can be avoided if Alberta voters make the right choice. The right choice is to reject extremism, corruption, and incompetence. That means voting for the only sane person on the ballot Rachel Notley. But, hey, I’m only one person and who wants to listen me, no matter how right I am?
Future money is a funny thing. What you want for the future is the resources and services to continue living. However a bank account with x number of cad is not that. What you need is a vibrant economy and society that values your contribution and provides you with the wherewithal to continue your life style. If this is just based on numbers in a bank account that will never happen. You need to have society that allows people to work towards a life and gives them a reason to value previous commitments. Just saying, something to think about. Your dotage is coming.
So, you would have no complaint about having your pension contributions handed over to a demonstrated incompetent outfit like AIMCO?
Bret Larson So why after Lougheed created this perfect financial situation for all of us did Albertans allow a Liberal Ralph Klein destroy it and why did they elect another Liberal Jason Kenney to make it even worse? Ralph Klein always bragged to my family that he was a Liberal yet he was neither he was a right wing extremist who didn’t give a damn about peoples lives, or anyone other than himself and his rich friends. He was a perfect fit as a REFORMER. His daughter Angie and father Phil certainly knew what he was doing to us and tried to help us vote him out yet ignorant Albertan wouldn’t let us and you can bet your Reform Party pals are only making it worse and Danielle Smith will make it a lot worse. Our children will never be able to pay for this financial disaster that’s been created for them, without allowing Notley to increase corporate taxes and royalties back up to the Lougheed levels, but with oil being fazed out I doubt it will work. We have to give Notley our support and try it.
Thats ridiculous, alberta has one of the most upwardly mobile economies in the world, despite its many flaws, and getting rid of cpp contributions does nothing to change this. It’s just another ideological hobby horse for selfish people who can’t stand the thought of folks being cared for, and or has been pointed out here, a popular cudgel of the insane alberta separatists. Pensions USED to be something that working people got for donating most of their working life to stacking capital for someone else, those were done away in the eighties in a fit of corporations eating their own to make the stock price go up ; which getting back to your supposed point is ACTUALLY pretend money not related in any way to real value created by actual workers creating an actual thing. So, once again, you’re projecting the actual circumstances of capitalism on what you suggest is “socialism” (because you’ve never bothered to learn what that actually is) I would be embarrassed to be you.
Bret, this post is so weird I think it’s from AI but I’ll respond anyway.
With all due respect Brett, WTH are you talking about? CADs don’t help provide you with “resources and services to continue living”? Surely you’re joking. A vibrant economy doesn’t do anything for you in retirement when you don’t have any CADs. Isn’t that a fundamental thing about our society – try living without any of those CADs.
I think I understand that you’re saying we need to be allowed to work and earn CADs before we retire, but you’re saying that pension plans are a bad thing and get in the way of us being able to retire? Yes, I think that’s it. You know the CPP can’t be gotten rid of so the plan is to replace the Alberta part of it and then wreck that. A bonus is to use up the funds to line the pockets of fellow travelers and grifters.
CPP is actually a good investment for workers, and replacing the CPP with an Alberta government controlled pension plan isn’t going to save anyone any money although it may make a lot of money for govt friends– Alberta workers retirement money.
Thank you for this post. Might be a good idea to send it to voters in Alberta.
If I lived in Alberta Id certainly not be in favour of an Alberta plan and if B.C. tried to do something similar I’d be furious. CPP has been around for a long time and has provided pension income for Canadians with no interruptions. For many here in B.C. CPP is all they receive in the way of pension money. For many any interruption or reduction would result in having to apply for welfare.
Politcs needs to be kept out of CPP, as it is and if a provincial government took over, such as the UCP things could really, really go off the rails.
If Albertans want to be robbed of their retirement, AIMCo is just the way to do it. They have a very good record of failure.
I saw a funny this morning. The cul de sac where we live is higher end. Lots of retired professionals and oil execs.
There is one UCP sign on the street. Our neighbour. Very much UCP/Conservative folk. The lawn sign has been up since day 1.
This morning I saw him come down the driveway, pull his lawn sign out and place it in the bin! My spouse was astounded at this. We had a bit of a laugh about it.
Change of heart perhaps???
A fellow recently ask me a good question, he was the same age as me 80. We have both lived in Alberta all our lives yet neither one of us has ever heard of a family member being contacted by a pollster to see who they were voting for. Even in the 30 years that I was a card carrying conservative I was never contacted. So who are these 800 people that they brag about contacting ? It would be nice to know.
Being a nihilistic pest? I won’t need a pension because a**holes like Danielle Schmidt will have set the stage for our… yah. I could go on. But, just as their sturm and drang has hoped for? Why would I bother? Oh you fascists gonna lose! That’s why! Would David Climenhaga give me back the last f**k I have to give?
POGO: I am not a dispenser of asterisks. Not mine to give. DJC
Your death bed dry humour has cracked me up on many occasions! You’ve taught me a lot! I appreciate the lessons. I just have to ask. Can you put all your energy in one more this time? I mean this guy did it! https://youtu.be/P68azZzYAHs
I keep wondering about what happens to the CPP/OAS of folks from AB who are now retired out of province. I believe there are hints in the above discussion. I know about 10 couples (most were very pro PC’s when they existed) who retired from the O&G industries who are now in BC. I wonder now if they would like to vote on Monday.