Given the wide unpopularity of the idea of taking Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan, it’s simply astounding that Alberta voters, the province’s professional commentators, and an Opposition party that had a shot at forming government allowed Premier Danielle Smith to get away with saying she just didn’t want to talk about it until after the election.
Throughout the campaign, one of the worst policy ideas ever to be advocated by the United Conservative Party was just allowed to simmer quietly on the back burner with barely an acknowledgement, let alone a peep of complaint.
This has to be one of the greatest lost opportunities in Alberta political history!
Well, the election is over, the UCP is still the government, and Ms. Smith talking about it again – in a formal way that indicates she intends to move ahead with the scheme – so if you’re a pensioner, or if you’d just like to retire someday, brace yourself!
On Thursday, the government published Ms. Smith’s mandate letter to Finance Minister Nate Horner, and there it is, just as any sensible person who has paid attention to Ms. Smith and the UCP would have expected it to be.
Among the duties assigned to the latest scion of the Horner political dynasty to hold high office in this province: “Releasing the Alberta Pension Plan report and consulting with Albertans on its findings to determine whether a referendum should be held to establish an Alberta Pension Plan that will increase pension benefits for seniors, reduce premiums for workers and protect the pension interests and benefits of all Albertans.”
Months ago, then finance minister Travis Toews was said to be “tweaking” the consultant’s report and government supporters were dropping hints it was favourable to the idea of Alberta quitting the CPP.
While we haven’t seen the report yet, we can be reasonably confident the plan proposed by the UCP will not increase pension benefits for seniors or reduce premiums for workers, at least not for long, nor will it protect Albertans’ pension interests and benefits.
The flaws with this scheme are well known and understood.
Notwithstanding the tendentious wording of Mr. Horner’s mandate letter, the CPP is robust and secure – and in pensions, as in some other things, size matters.
As pension governance expert Tom Fuller pointed out in this space a week before the May 29 election, the CPP has delivered on its promise for almost 60 years.
Moreover, the Chief Actuary of Canada says it’s sustainable as now structured over the next 75 years, which gives some comfort to old geezers like your blogger, not to mention the generations that have followed us.
“Could an APP do the same thing more cheaply?” Mr. Fuller asked. “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,” Mr. Fuller said. “If that’s what the UCP has in mind, Albertans have reason to worry.” And, of course that’s exactly what they have in mind – in addition to propping up the unsustainable fossil fuel industry for a few more years.
Likewise, he warned, one of the great things about the CPP is that it’s insulated from political interference. Could the same be said of a UCP-run Alberta plan? Not a chance!
As Ms. Smith said in 2019 – and, count on it, still believes – “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. …”
Anthony Pizzino, CEO of the National Association of Federal Retirees, said in the Globe and Mail the day after the election, “an Alberta pension plan could change at the whim of one government – maybe even the government that chose to enact it. Politicians, when seeking re-election, aren’t always looking at the long-term best interests of their constituents.”
That, of course, is a considerable understatement. A government that would seriously consider ending the polluter-pays principle with the RStar boondoggle that Ms. Smith once lobbied for isn’t going to be able to keep its paws off the provincial pension kitty either.
As for the government’s argument that Alberta’s young population means workers can pay less for a secure pension, Mr. Pizzino pointed out, “Albertans could actually find themselves making higher contributions.”
“Quebec’s plan, which is separate from CPP, is now challenged by the province’s changing demographics,” he explained. “When it decided not to join the national plan, it was a young province. Now, the average age of its residents is significantly higher. Being in a national plan can hedge against that kind of demographic change.”
Friends of the UCP – like the Fraser Institute, which has already published a deeply-flawed “case study” claiming an Alberta pension could deliver the same benefits as the CPP for a lower contribution rate – stand ready to join the propaganda effort to sell the scheme. Of course, as the likely manager of an Alberta pension, the Alberta Investment Management Corp., better known as AIMCo, will pitch in to support the scheme as well.
“AIMCo’s record in investing is spotty at best,” Mr. Fuller observed. “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.”
The Alberta pension scheme had its beginnings in the 2001 separatist musings of Stephen Harper and a small group of far-right cronies. It was sensibly tossed out by premier Ralph Klein, who was not exactly a Marxist radical, along with the rest of the group’s notorious Firewall Letter. It was later forgotten by Mr. Harper too, at least temporarily, when he became prime minister.
The scheme was revived by Jason Kenney. Sneaky as Mr. Kenney was, though, it was quite possible he intended to use it as a bargaining chip to annoy Ottawa in the event of opportunities to slow down federal responses to the climate crisis. In other words, as a cheap chance to own the Libs from time to time.
Ms. Smith, however, has latched onto it with enthusiasm and every indication she will push it forward as if it were a sensible policy.
This should surprise no one. She is a former oil and gas industry lobbyist not known for having many ideas of her own.
The denizens of the corporate boardrooms of Calgary and Houston must be salivating at the prospect of a captured provincial government accessing millions of Albertans’ pension funds to keep fossil fuel companies afloat.
Is it the case that the organ grinder’s autocratic monkey having two university degrees is somehow apparently unaware of the cognitive biases [e.g. anchoring bias, confirmation bias, egocentric bias, illusion of explanatory depth, objectivity illusion, ect., ect.} that guide her decision making/lobbying? Perhaps it is merely the “invisible hand” and the “fair share” siren song of the organ grinder that is doing the guiding for a sleep walking automaton (One that is apparently seeking a long term, self interested, personal pay off in the sense of “in group” reciprocity and the accommodation of favors.) [“Leo de Bever, who retired from Alberta Investment Management Corp. or AIMCo in 2015, says the threatened move by the Alberta government to pull out of the national plan is really about asserting the province’s place in the country in the face of opposition to pipelines for its vital oil and gas industry.”]
Then again, a fledgling kleptocracy has to begin somewhere and it has to built from the ground up, noting carefully that it is a virtual certainty no individual will be either responsible , or accountable for any unintended catastrophic consequences.
That is,
“There are many unknowns to such a monumental change. Once done, it cannot be undone. The potential disadvantages and risks to Albertans of establishing an Alberta Pension Plan are significant, while the case for the move (excluding any purely partisan political considerations) seems to hinge mainly on capturing a short-term advantage and possibly using investments for riskier assets in the service of “province building”. Albertans could lose a lot. It’s not clear what they would gain.”
https://abpolecon.ca/2021/09/29/what-would-withdrawing-from-the-canada-pension-plan-mean-to-albertans/
See also, https://www.federalretirees.ca/en/news-views/news-listing/april/what-is-going-on-with-albertas-pensions
There is little content in anything I’ve read outlining how this plan could be implemented, so I have no idea how nervous to feel. If the UCP can abscond anything at all, it would be the premiums workers presently pay for future benefits, by having them agree to the Alberta plan using a great deal of hype, otherwise how could this be legal.
The caveat for seniors now collecting, is terrifying. I can’t imagine many wanting to transfer. And if APP want any of us draining the pool, that would be business rationale as witless or worse, than selling coal leases for pennies.
An Elon type twitter hellscape.
Al: This is a fair point, but will the CPP want us either if we’re a drain on the plan? DJC
A vote for the UCP was a vote to take my Canada Pension Plan away from me. It doesn’t belong to politicians. No oil company ever contributed to my plan. That’s why I voted against Danielle Smith, the UCP, oil companies and their billionaire owners. Their infinite greed knows no boundaries. They won’t be content until they impoverish every last one of us serfs. Make Albertans Poor Again! The final nail in our coffins will be the privatization of health care.
To those who supported Danielle Smith and the UCP, I have some choice words that would not be published here. Let me say succinctly that I hope you reap what you have sown. You’d never ask for my forgiveness for your selfishness and greed. I wouldn’t grant it anyways.
Ms Smith and her O&G cronies fail to grasp that the purpose of any pension fund is to invest the pension assets in a manner to protect those assets and to produce results so the owners of the plan will have stable long term payments when they retire.
Investing in any product for any other reason is at best irresponsible.
When I was with AUPE I had many good pension/investment mentors such as Tom Fuller and investors with the then ‘5th largest bank in Canada’ who were very clear that all investment decisions need to be made with the goal to protect the assets and then to help them grow.
I saw too many people who did not have a pension plan and relied on often sketchy investment advisors who were within a couple of years of retirement who lost most of their life savings/investments and then had to work for many years as they could no longer retire after a stock market downturn.
Ms Smith seems to be willing to play games with money that was collected to provide a safe and comfortable retirement for people who will not be able to recover any lost money. Ms Smith’s likely response will be ‘whoops, things didn’t work out as planned as I got bad advice so it just goes to show you shouldn’t trust my irresponsible government. I promise we will do better next time’.
LOL cry more. There is nothing about the CPP that actually protects it from political interference.
“Being in a national plan can hedge against that kind of demographic change.”
Thanks, I’m not interested in being ‘hedged’. I’d like to take advantage of the demographics we have now. Your weak af argument is actually a case for Alberta to separate from CPP ASAP. Ideally, we’d just go to the logical end point and let everyone be their own pension plan.
The arrogance of your tone belies the ignorance of your understanding. You understand that retirees will at some point outweigh workers, as the birth rate has fallen in this country for I dunno what 40 years? How is this an advantage ? Fewer workers paying for more pensions is an advantage how? Do reactionary conservatives know anything about economics at all or do you just like to try and bully folks who you don’t understand or disagree with ?
The hubris is mind boggling, but the cowardice when you folks are challenged in person is enraging. You literally only engage with folks you feel like you can bully, and there’s a lot more people who are sick of this behaviour than you imagine.
Tread carefully. You’ll find out eventually.
Cytotoxic: Just once I will pay you the minimum respect of assuming you are simply ill-informed. The CPP is not solely dependent on remittances from workers. It also gains much of its income from dividend producing investments in various companies. So, the moral panic pushed by the right that the CPP is insolvent and will not be there in the future is bogus. For much the same reason the argument that the CPP is doomed because fewer workers are supporting more pensioners is also misleading at best. Because of technology and capital investments each worker produces much more value than workers in the past did.
Finally, there are many lessons to be drawn from this story out of Ontario about the unintended consequences of taking people’s retirement savings away from them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/investor-lost-money-among-5-men-charged-kidnapping-ontario-crypto-king-1.6907548
Cyto, since you are so confident in an APP, I am sure you will have no problem accepting personal liability and responsibility for any failure of the plan. In future posts, please provide contact information to be noted so I and others can recover any pension loss from you.
The whole point of a pension plan is to secure retirement income. Beneficiaries pay premiums for a long time and benefits often must do for as long—meaning eventual beneficiaries need to trust the plan is managed prudently, sustainably and with minimum risk. Aside from wise oversight, pensions could, in principle, be managed by artificial intelligence—it doesn’t really take a lot of intelligence to do it safely and sustainably. In theory, the bigger the base, the easier it is to smooth out the vicissitudes of local and temporal economies. In other words, political tomfoolery ain’t allowed.
But a government which is guided by tomfoolery, even ethically inappropriate or actually illegal tomfoolery, is as likely to imagine managing a pension in some newfangled way—or even in as many ways as politics can be predicated by in-the-moment partisanship—is as easy-peasy as convincing Crown prosecutors to favour the premier’s favourites when they get themselves into legal hot water, or substituting the elected MLAs of whole regions with co-partisans who didn’t get elected, or ignoring federal laws of the very federation it belongs to if it doesn’t fit with whatever is its reactionary ideology of the day is. Because Freedumb, right?
Well, of course a government like that would assume that managing a smaller-based pension is a total cakewalk. Heck, it could, in a pinch, rob Peter to pay Paul —maybe even if Peter hailed from a riding which didn’t happen to elect a UCP MLA. After all, Danielle Smith mused out loud about treating Alberta citizens living in NDP ridings differently—presumably with less favour—than those who elected MLAs of her own party. Now, how much easier can it get?
Lower premiums and higher benefits are a promising election campaign promise, too: it can always be rescinded after the election if it works to that end. Likewise premiums and benefits could be used to bash the feds—as in, ‘ours will be better because everybody knows Justin Trudeau charges a JT premium on CPP premiums to pay for his luxurious tropical holidays and fancy duds.’ And there’s always the constant need to emphasize capitalist ideology and freedom to devote a goodly part of the portfolio to big-payoff investments, even if a bit risky—like it is for eggs come omelette season.
It’s a good question: why did the NDP spend so much of its recent, unsuccessful election bid using the Alberta pension proposal to illustrate what an incompetent, unethical dope Danielle Smith is instead of detailing the actual costs and risks of the feral pension idea poses for the average voter —that is, instead of focusing on the crazy costs and risks of Smith’s native gormlessness and stunted ethical scruple? Certainly it must be relatively simpler to explain the principles of prudent pension plans than account for the arrangement of peanuts and pretzels of Smith’s brittle psyche. Indeed, almost every money issue—taxes, services, and pensions—broached in the NDP campaign was used instead to exemplify Smith’s personal faults. Oh, well: there’s always next time—with a hope and a prayer the UCP won’t perform a crash dive to implement the titanic risk of an Alberta pension before then.
Doesn’t the UCP ever wonder if its high-risk policies are more apt to drive its citizens away to other Canadian jurisdictions? Well, I guess if it reckons hectoring doctors and nurses to the point that they look for easily-gotten and better-paid positions in another jurisdiction is a good, ideological thing to do, then it’s always alright—even during a deadly pandemic. And if it’s good for those particular geese, what about the general ganders and geese who will eventually all join the V-formation come their autumn years. I assume any Albertan who’s worried about the riskiness of an Alberta pension can simply migrate to a CPP-friendly jurisdiction (heck, maybe even a QPP one!). My question is: how convertible or transferable are APP contributions to CPP jurisdictions? Like, if the thing looked about to crash, can the would-be beneficiary get out in time to be covered by CPP in some other province—like mine where expat Albertans are easily the most common Canadians to migrate and retire here?
And that’s just one more reason why I figure whatever support there used to be in BC for secession or confederation with the aspirational “Cascadia” must be getting smaller and smaller all the time (I suppose there must be a converse equation for federates where support for secession gets bigger and bigger all the time).
I have to confess that my outlook is biased by the fact that I bought in to BC a long time ago when it was much more affordable. But having myself resorted to employment opportunities in Alberta whenever things were slow here in “free enterprise BC” of the Socred/BC Liberal era, I do appreciate that high wages—for those fortunate enough to be paid large in Alberta—are both a necessary thing to bring to BC if one wants to buy a house nowadays, but also a significantly contributing factor to astronomical house prices here.
Still, once you’re in—whenever you do it—it’s nice to have a good, solid Canadian Pension Plan.
So remember, my Alberta friends: you are always welcome out here on the Left Coast—especially if you’re a plumber or cardiologist. Worried about steep housing prices? Never mind: teenagers are making 30 bucks an hour mowing lawns. You’ll be fine until your safe in the bosom of the sacred CPP.
“Doesn’t the UCP ever wonder if its high-risk policies are more apt to drive its citizens away to other Canadian jurisdictions?”
Scotty, I think the one thing you’ve overlooked is that chasing out progressives is the neofascists’ end game. The only ones that will be left in this province will be those too poor to move and the UCP true believers that are completely pliant with all the harebrained schemes. Then with what will amount to zero resistance, the UPC can rule perpetually and the raping and pillaging of this province can continue entirely unopposed.
Will aged out pensioners have a choice? Can I move 2 years after implementation and still get back on CCP? Am I exempt from UCP contempt by being born in BC?
The dark side is strong and the resistance is in shambles help us Obi Dave. Lead the resistance. Your our only hope.
I feel betrayed by the NDP and the UCP both.
Lungta: These are excellent questions that have not been clearly answered anywhere by anyone. What about people who earned the bulk of their career earnings in Alberta but always maintained an address back home and return to, say, Nova Scotia when they retired? CPP or APP? Does B.C. have a right of return? DJC
Alberta could likely invest in the Tarsands!
What could go wrong?
Albertans; please stop trying to infect the reasonable desires of your BC neighbours with here today gone tomorrow ideas.
Once you reach the age of 21 you really should have grown up!
TB
During the recent election campaign the UCP downplayed its previous talk of an Alberta pension plan, no doubt aware it made a number of voters nervous. Now it seems to back.
I suppose one way to win an election is to mislead voters. Kenney did much the same in the previous election when he said their would be no health care cuts. Those of us who doubted the UCPs reassurances may be proven correct yet again.
I didn’t expect the more reasonable sounding version of Smith would last much past the election, so this is no surprise to me. However, this may be more of a surprise to many of those habitually conservative voting older voters who took her at her word.
Just because it is a party you have voted for, with perhaps not much thought for while, does not mean it actually has your best interests at heart. I also very much doubt the UCP will do much to improve health care either in larger urban or more rural communities.
To bad in May they have been fooled again.
About the only way the UCP can sell this harebrained scheme to the usually unsuspecting Alberta voters is to declare the CPP “Trudeau’s Pension Plan”. In other words, completely worthless. Of course, given the Alberta Uber Alles mindset of UCP/TBA, they will likely make some demented argument that an Alberta pension fund will invest exclusively in Alberta, so there! And then there’s the whole matter of R-Star and that $200 B + well clean-up … is are the UCP going to fund that. Invest in the future; invest in Alberta’s environment; throw your pension contributions into a hole in the ground. (Literally)
There is the claim that this nut job pension scheme will not be until there’s an approval by referendum. Of course, there’s no point in letting lofty notions like democracy get in the way of another fat transfer to the O & G industry. Besides, the UCP won the election, so everything is all good with Alberta. There’s also that not so small matter of the liability of owing the current or due pensions, but that’ll be Ottawa’s problem — go complain to them.
The nonsense is coming fast and furious and Alberta voted for it … the Stupidest People Alive.
The UCP, under no circumstances, can be trusted to have a provincial pension plan for Albertans. The UCP already lost $4 billion of pension money, via AIMCo. Seniors, who are very easily fooled, and also others, took the UCP’s bait, hook, line and sinker, and re-elected them. When they can’t have a proper retirement, because the UCP frittered their pensions away, they will look even more foolish. There are Albertans who tried to warn people about how bad the UCP are, but they didn’t listen. It won’t get any easier, within the next four years, under the UCP government. These phoney Conservatives and Reformers never help anyone retire. Under the CPC, there was the $35 billion income trust fund affair, and people instantly had their life savings gone.
Just don’t know how this is going to work. Paying less and getting more, sounds like some sort of scam. O.K. if Albertans want to buy into it, they can’t say they weren’t warned.
Can just see all the ways this could go sideways. Investing in non return schemes. Things are a tad hot these days: 380 forest fires in B.C. , tornados in Ottawa, flooding in other parts. Flooding in the U.S.A. Heat waves worse than Canada’s. South Korea has climate problems as does Europe. Insurance companies for homes have pulled out of Florida, insurance companies no longer taking new clients in California. Ask a B.C,. Farmer how much fun they had trying to get a new policy because their old company isn’t renewing them–even if you haven’t flooded since 1948. Climate change is starting to have a financial impact and corporations may see the light or some governments and oil consumption maybe reduced. What will Alberta do then for their pension fund?
If the “plan” does not work there will be a lot of retirees with no money. Guess they could apply for welfare then, but you can bet the UPC will figure a way out of that also.
So, imo , one thing that DS and co. obviously hasn’t taken into consideration is the Canadian military personnel, and how they plan to get around that spoke in their wheel. As an ex-military wife, I’m sure that there are going to be some very interesting conversations going on in past and present military households over this latest piece of UCP folly.
If PP’s blather about cutting taxes is to be understood;he seems to be saying that “his” government will cut how much you contribute to the CPP **, so you can bring home more powerful paycheques .
However, to his ardent followers, what he is not saying is how this will benefit the employers. But I suppose that this is more of that trickle down effect, no pun intended.
Given that the search engine is suffering from plugged air filter, I’m having a hard time getting to where i want to go, but I seem to remember that the whole idea of the RRSPs was going to be– getting people to contribute to their own retirement plans– thus saving the government all that money. Personal responsibility and all you know, with even more trickle down economics, as you will be keeping all those nice caring hedge fund operators, and financial advisers employed looking out for your future. It’s always struck me as ironic, that no one has noticed that they call themselves “personal” wealth advisors .
(**he has not come out and said this publicly, yet , but as SHarper said at the CPC conference in March, PP’s job as opposition leader is to hold the government to account and not give out any plans until an election is called. Fun fact,for those who missed it, DS was there also. So I’m guessing that they were both getting advice from papa and grandpa ?)
If this doesn’t wake up at least some of her supporters from whatever cloud they have slumbering on, I think they are going to be in for a rude awakening soon. And as much as the “we want it all now ” crowd goes, I don’t believe that they are a majority, just the most vocal and in need of attention—look at me, I’m on TV & Tiktock .
But then I could be wrong, and or overly optimistic because I do have sensible young family members, for the most part, and they do care about the future.
Ironically, Danielle has also just pulled a very ‘t’rumpian’ move with this announcement. It helps to deflect people’s attention away from: what is it now, 3 UCP Justice Ministers have been ‘sited’ ? No, there’s nothing to see here folks, please just move along, you’ll be missing the last day of Stampede, and if you’ll excuse me, I have some pictures to take. After all lime green goes so well with my coloring and you can’t see what the actual backdrop is.
Isn’t that how it works on TV ?
When Jason Kenney was premier he did promise that a referendum would be held before Alberta went the APP route. Sadly, though, Danielle Smith isn’t bound by the same promise. It isn’t hard to imagine her claiming her election victory gave her the mandate she needs to implement an APP, her refusal to even discuss it during the campaign notwithstanding.
Given that Ms. Smith only won 52% of the popular vote, I can’t see a referendum being successful, especially since all the seniors in the UCP won’t be swayed by the promise of lower contributions – they don’t make any.
I return over and over to your first paragraph. Whether the issue under the microscope is a provincial pension plan, a provincial police force, R-Star or left turns on red, it all boils down to the same conclusion: the NDP blew it on May 29th.
So, as a first step, can we clearly identify the responsible inner circle and give them a warm Ralph Klein send off back to their homes? Then, call a policy convention within 12 months followed by a leadership race. There, you’re welcome!
It was the voters that blew it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.
CX: I’m pretty sure what Dorothy Parker actually said, in a contest to get a laugh out of the word “horticulture,” was “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.” DJC
I’m reminded of what Lewis Sutton said when someone asked him why he robbed banks. His answer was, “because that’s where they keep the money.” That answer explains why the UCP fascists want to take over our CPP. Just think, stupid Albertans voted for this party of thieves. Welcome to lawless Alberta where not one but three Ministers of Justice have been investigated by the Bar Association. Enjoy the next 4 years.
60% if Albertans have a non-defined pension. Provincial governments can go broke, The Federal government can never go broke. Hence, a federal plan will always be able to meet its pension obligations. The CPP plan doesn’t even have to be based on the PAYGO model. As that great ‘socialist’ Alan Greenspan said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU
In addition to the accurate assessments mentioned above:
1. Without fail, everyone Smith consults on the report will whole
heartedly support an Alberta pension plan.
2. Without fail, the consulted will all say that there is absolutely no need for
a referendum.
3. The NDP will be ineffectual in mounting any opposition to this pending
horrifying debacle.
Wow! I hope SK isn’t next. It seems Moe always copies whatever the UCP leader does.
Mat: With Saskatchewan’s population, that would be an even worse idea. So, right, that’s probably what he’ll do. DJC
Perhaps Saskatchewan and Alberta will combine their respective provincial pension plans. There’s that.
JE: Saskatchewan’s population is too small to provide a very significant advantage to Alberta. The problems with an Alsask pension are pretty much the same as with an Alberta-alone pension. DJC
…..with Brian Higgs in NB in close second, if he hasn’t actually started making plans already behind closed doors .*
Maybe the twin brother is working on another project for him.
footnote: I suppose the people of Manitoba will be kept in suspense & on tenterhooks until after the October election, unless someone decides to bring it up as an election issue.
Laughing my literal ass off at the people lauding how much not paying CPP would save Albertans. Gee I dunno I think housing and energy are far and away the biggest expenses of living here, haven’t heard how the UCP is planning to save us money on any of that.
This is quite obviously a fantastically corrupt and arrogant government trying as hard as they can to secure untold billions to shore up the oil and gas industry/ orphan wells in this province.
Had anyone read Reagan Boychuck’s very excellent history of how the Rockefeller’s captured both albertas energy and politics because it’s one of the most illuminating things I’ve read in a long time.
These people are all criminals, and they should be in stocks, while the rest of us pelt them with rotten vegetables
A little bird : I 100% agree about the article. I think that every Albertan should read it. IMO, its just another example of exploitation by the industry with the axiom that what people don’t know won’t hurt them, or us. You can fool some of the people, some of the time, and some of the people, all of the time. Which brings us right back to feudal times and why reading and writing was kept to the select few; because if the masses were to become educated, they might start getting ideas about their % discomfiture and start rebelling against their constraints. It seems to be an ongoing battle with our neighbors down south, and by looks of it, Kenny and his UCP education strategists are trying the same thing in Alberta; with a continuation by DS, and certainly advocated for by the TBA. It’s alot easier to control the ‘ignorant sheep ‘, or in these days of social media strategy, the attention span of gnat–oh look– shiny thing, oh look, another one.
Distract, deflect, dismantle (devise)— 3d glasses so that the picture we are showing you looks just like it’s real.
The idea of the stocks is quite appealing in some ways, but unfortunately for enlightened Albertans, as DS so blightly proclaimed*– we just had an election, and I/we won by a majority, so that’s the end of that—
So if you elect the fox, to be in charge of the henhouse…….
*paraphrasing from a TV interview; re- confict of interest.
I’m very very close to retirement. I’ve only ever worked on Alberta. Now I’m panicked. Do I need to buy property in another province? Do I need to quit my job here (that I love) and work one more year in another province? If I quit before this would be implemented, am I safe then? It’s too late for me to start over in another province unless I work to 100.
To me it’s tantamount to theft to take money from a plan I’ve paid into my whole life and move it to their own plan. You want an APP? Let each individual decide whether to join or not. Start it now so all new payments go to it. If not, this is a fight. You will NOT steal my contributions to the CPP. And I hope a whole bunch of people join me in this challenge if it becomes necessary.
I really like the idea of each individual having to decide. Very libertarian. Just think of the freedom! Might just work with the TBA/USP voter. Perhaps the anti APP folks can play this up as pension plans are collectivist therefore socialist. BTW just based on the rate of return of the CPP who the heck would want to leave it?
Keep your filthy, fascist paws off MY pension, Danielle Smith. Attempts to steal CPP from Albertans who have worked their ENTIRE lives for their pensions will not be successful. Your treasonous actions and those of your self-servative cabinet will be met with fierce protest and legal action.
Want self servative stupidity? You got it! https://youtu.be/XZGYYDvZnpg?t=2
They already stole the teachers pension plan, without consultation. They’re coming for the rest of us next.
So the G&M publishes a critique of Ms. Smith’s plan to pull out of the CPP the day AFTER the election. Isn’t that useful – not. As DJC pointed out in the first paragraph, everyone, including the AB NDP, gave DS a pass on this – exactly what she wanted.
For the hard-core conservatives and Conservatives the objective of pulling out of the CPP is not to increase pension benefits for seniors, reduce premiums for workers or protect pension interests. It’s not mainly to get control of the funds to manipulate and give to the O&G industry, to give over-paid jobs to their cronies, or even to bash the federal Liberals with, although all those are nice side benefits. The main objective for the neo-cons is ideological – to destroy pension plans entirely and with that the hopes and finances of workers. They hate pension plans for workers, especially defined-benefit plans like the CPP. They hate that companies have to contribute to them and they hate that workers contribute to them. They want us all to put our money and our future on the stock market, this is also the main reason for RRSP’s to exist.
We can thank Cytotoxic for explaining this well in his/her comment “Ideally, we’d just go to the logical end point and let everyone be their own pension plan.” If controlled by the neo-cons the AB pension scheme will fail and the bonus would be if it damages the Canada Pension Plan too.
I haven’t read the propaganda from the likes of the Fraser Institute but I can foresee the argument being made with dubious facts & figures that a younger, more-employed demographic could pay less into an AB pension plan and of course the employers would contribute less also, maybe nothing. Who is stupidly short-sighted enough to believe this BS? Well Cytotoxic believes it and the UCP just got elected didn’t they?
I’ve said it before, essentially the neo-cons hate us and want to stomp and steal anything we have…
DJC , so has anyone heard anything about how many former politicians are on board with this idea. I mean we all know about the double-dipping already; is this why Preston was taking a slice of the pie, and getting in beforehand so to speak?
Just another conundrum for the talk first, walk back later party. The slightly murky crystal ball foresees more imprecise language in the near future.
Of all the ideas in the “firewall letter” — ditch the RCMP in favour of an Alberta provincial police force … collect our provincial income taxes independently of CRA, the way Québec does … simply ignores the Canada Health Act & suck up the loss of federal contributions to health care … once again resurrect the political zombie of Senate reform — none poses such an existential threat to everyone living & working in Alberta. What we need is a civil disobedience campaign the likes of which has never been seen in this country.
Look at what’s been happening in France over the government’s proposal to raise the age of retirement… that’s what needs to happen here, although preferably without the vehicular arson.
Funny how the UCP keep bringing back old ideas that didn’t fly back then but keep trying to ram down our throats. Slightly more than 10 years ago the idea of an Alberta Pension popped up. Being recently retired, I sent a scathing e-mail to the Premier at that time to keep your hands off my pension. Maybe they are praying on people having real short memories? I have absolutely no trust in this government to look after people as they only care about big corporations. Having tracked my pension, the Alberta Public Service one went up just less than 5% in 8 years and CPP went up by 8% in less than 5 years. So who is a better performer for retirees? The other point is the Federal Government does not have much say in the CPP, where an Alberta Pension would have constant political interference. This idea mentions CPP, so what about OAS? Would that be absorbed or would one still get OAS from Ottawa?