Let’s cut right to the chase: What the analysis made public yesterday by the Chief Actuary of Canada shows is that if Alberta were to split from the Canada Pension Plan it would only be entitled to 20 to 25 per cent of the CPP investment fund, or about $120 billion to $150 billion.
In other words, the 2023 report by the Lifeworks consulting firm commissioned and heavily promoted by the United Conservative Party Government that concluded Alberta would be entitled to walk away with 53 per cent of the $575-billion investment fund, about $334 billion, turns out to be just as it appeared, too good to be true.
So the complaint by Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner’s spokesperson that “we received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number” turns out to be not completely accurate.
Yes, the government received the report. And, yes, the report didn’t do the math for readers. Nevertheless, upon reading it, Alberta Finance Department experts should have had no difficulty coming up with the conclusions above.
Now that the Office of Chief Actuary Assia Billig has publicly released the report, Alberta voters can read it for themselves. Its title may not be all that riveting, but the conclusions of Chief Actuary Position Paper – Subsection 113(2) of the Canada Pension Plan are both clear and persuasive.
Section 113(2) of the legislation that created the Canada Pension Plan, by the way, “outlines the calculation that the Minister of Finance shall apply in determining the amount that would be transferred to the Government of Alberta,” the position paper explains. So figuring out what it means, quite literally, is the money question!
A very helpful commentary was posted yesterday afternoon on social media by University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe, who is cited in the report as being one of many experts Ms. Billig’s staff consulted who reached similar conclusions.
In particular, the report pointedly endorses the conclusion published by Dr. Tombe in December 2023, that the LifeWorks estimate of Alberta’s entitlement was wrong, and the right number is in the 20- to 25-per-cent range.
If the same approach were applied to both Alberta and Ontario, Dr. Tombe noted in that 2023 paper, “then it would result in more assets being paid out than actually exist within the CPP.” Needless to say, such an outcome would not just strain Confederation, it would be politically impossible in Canada outside of Quebec, which with its own grandfathered pension has no dog in this fight.
“The Chief Actuary’s position, although independently developed, is consistent with the findings of the IAP and the method presented in Dr. Tombe’s paper,” the position paper states – the IAP being the Independent Advisory Panel of actuaries created by her office to gather independent views.
While it may not seem completely reassuring, it is said here the Finance Minister’s press secretary can probably be forgiven for not properly understanding the position paper, which, while clearly written, requires a certain level of actuarial expertise not typical of political staffers.
Anyway, the Chief Actuary sided with the majority of experts when it came to rejecting the LifeWorks claim the province would be entitled to as much interest as it would have collected if it had set up its own pension plan in 1966.
This does not mean the UCP’s pension scheme is not viable, Dr. Tombe noted in his Bluesky commentary, but it does indicate the much smaller contribution rates claimed by the government are not possible.
Responding to a commenter, Dr. Tombe concluded that “reading carefully the various pieces of analysis now publicly available would lead to the conclusion that the LifeWorks interpretation will not withstand careful judicial review.” This is an opinion, but obviously a well-informed and important one.
Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt weighed in on Bluesky with the opinion that “the Smith government will quietly abandon the APP when there is a change in the federal government. The APP rears its head when there are Liberals in Ottawa, and buries its head when the Conservatives are in office.”
I am not so sure. The UCP brain trust has been singularly focused on the huge sums that could become available to prop up Alberta’s oil and gas sector if it got its paws on CPP assets, so don’t expect this divisive scheme to go away any time soon.
Premier Smith is very out of touch with reality if she believes that Alberta, a province with around 10% of Canada’s population will get over 50% of the CPPs pension assets. Perhaps to paraphrase the US conservative political advisor Kellyanne Conway, she lives in an alternate reality. Conway is fairly good with communications, so perhaps this idea is on to something.
As much as Smith probably wants to get her paws on a big pot of pension money, I feel it will probably not happen for two fundamental reasons. First, a lot of Albertans including many conservative leaning older voters are nervous about how the UCP would handle this money. Second, if there soon is a Conservative Federal government they will probably try to shut this down.
But Smith is often both persistent and most dangerous when she latches on to bad ideas. So we have to remain vigilant and continue to resist and fight this any ways we can.
There is 3rd reason. The CPP Act has an amending formula that applies when a province wants to leave. It’s 66% of national population across 7 provinces – a higher bar than the constitutional amending formula.
So then the UCP can blame everybody else including the Federal Government and probably Quebec just for the h… of it!
Can we create a new Con-Smith Trophy for political spin? I’m sure your readers can come up with some great ideas to get this launched. It’s been a long year. Happy Holidays.
Why isn’t the other aspect of leaving the CPP – approval from several other provinces – ever mentioned in the discussion? I believe it’s seven but I’m still on my first cup of coffee. Can’t they veto this whole cloud of hookah smoke?
The UCP brain trust might be able to hoodwink a lot of people, but not Canada’s chief actuary.
Ontario and B.C. are bigger than Alberta. Surely they would demand more than 53 percent, due to their larger populations. Also, Alberta was much smaller than either province in 1966. If all three provinces demanded 53 percent, that adds up to more than 100 percent, never mind the complicated formulas. Even I understand this.
Perhaps Alberta’s finance minister should have consulted experts, but when has the UCP let numbers and formulas get in their way? This is the government that made $49M disappear in the fake Tylenol scandal of 2022. They’d do the same thing with Albertans’ CPP contributions.
Two points, Abs.
Firstly, as a certain now-departed former Alberta PC Premier once said, “math is hard”.
Secondly, beware of bailiffs bearing court documents if you’re going to talk about “Tylenot” … https://x.com/thebreakdownab/status/1871201598732644466?s=61&t=J5HMElKzoj9LqXXp3sKA4A.
(Side note: does anyone know if Alberta has anti-SLAPP legislation?)
Jerry: As far as I know, it does not. Nevertheless, whatever the demand letter Nate has received says, using the the term “Tylenot” is pretty clearly to my layman’s eye a fair comment based on verifiable facts. I imagine there is more complained for, though, and not having watched Nate’s broadcast, I am unable to comment on that. With or without a anti-SLAPP legislation, Alberta does have a Defamation Act and there is a considerable body of jurisprudence concerning the tort of libel that includes the defences of fair comment, responsible communication, and consent, all of which may apply in this case. DJC
I think what Mr Pike’s concern is, what will it cost him to defend this lawsuit, if that’s indeed what he is facing? As he said in his podcast yesterday, he’s a paramedic working in Calgary, not a professional journalist with the power of a media employer to back him up. And this case smells of a SLAPP action.
Jerry: I have seen the statement of claim and there is more to the complaint than just the use of the term “Tylenot.” So the first important point is that Mr. Pike and The Breakdown are being sued. This is not merely a demand letter, as I had thought was likely. It is in my opinion, with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, quite defensible. I’m confident Mr. Pike will able to find able legal counsel. It will be interesting to see what emerges in the cross examination of the plaintiff. DJC
David J Climenhaga: I think this lawsuit will end up making the UCP look very stupid. Danielle Smith, her UCP MLAs, and Sam Mraiche were in the wrong, and Nate Pike exposed them, with credible evidence. Nate Pike went where the media refused to go, because they support the UCP. Postmedia definitely does that.
jerrymacgp: This is going to cause Danielle Smith, the UCP, and Sam Mraiche to have egg on their faces. They won’t be able to do anything about it. It’s also going to make the media who openly promotes the UCP to look embarrassed. The Postmedia cheerleaders for the UCP, and others will have to realize that they can’t sweep the UCP’s major missteps under the carpet, like they have been doing. Nate Pike has been doing the work that these media outlets were supposed to be doing. Tylenot seems accurate, because it certainly wasn’t Tylenol that was acquired by the UCP, but another off brand medication, Parol. From my understanding, you are a nurse. A doctor, a nurse, or any medical practitioner knew there were problems with using this Parol.
Let’s put all our money with those guys that failed the initial financial assessment calculation. How many people have come thru my life guaranteeing me a million dollars if they could only get the first ten grand of mine? UCP math rules. But Dani is smrt … S-M-R-T … smrt. It is all a conspiracy if your not born rich.
Let’s not forget that the Lifeworks report was so obviously biased that no one would sign their names to it. In other words, not worth the paper it was written on. Marlaina just wanted something to fool the rubes who usually fall for her lies.
Smith will have to find another way to prop up the fossil fuel industry. Maybe she could let them walk away from abandoned wells without cleaning up after themselves. Maybe an absurdly low royalty rate to pad their earnings. Maybe kneecap the renewable energy industry. Oh wait, she’s already doing those things. I guess our pensions will have to be used then. Those Gulfstreams and Learjets don’t pay for themselves you know.
Stephen Harper, the newly appointed board chair of AIMCo, also sits on the advisory board of a Toronto-based Israeli-founded cybersecurity investment firm Awz Ventures.
Are Alberta’s public funds and pensions going to be invested in profiting off genocide in Gaza, bombing Syria, and other adventures in far right wing war mongering to destabilize the middle east even more than it is now?
I would say ‘likely’.
What do the The Alberta Teachers’ Association and Alberta Teachers have to say about this?
https://www.awzventures.com/
Perhaps there’s something more. Alberta’s new border patrol will need drones, cameras and facial recognition software to safeguard the 2-km strip of land abutting the U.S. Do you think anyone has a lead on where to buy it?
I don’t suppose they’d be able to cross-reference the data with provincial drivers’ licences. Remember, your driver’s licence photo wasn’t always sent to Ottawa electronically to be entered in a facial recognition database. (Where do you think those police-issued photos of bad guys in the news come from, even if they don’t have a criminal record?)
Kind of ironic that the “freedom” crowd supports the oxymorons.
I’m not sure about the calculus that our Alberta Gal would relent the UCP/TBA APP demand, in fullest algal bloom, if PP’s CPC gets the nod from the GG. Danielle Smith has often claimed to be part of this team or that, but has she ever been a team player?—really, on any of them?
Trustee Smith’s charging and boarding at the Calgary Board of Education arena, school boards not especially designed to be partisan fora, got a whole season whistled down by, if I recall rightly, a provincial government with the word “Conservative” on its jersey. As leader of the Wildrose Official Opposition party she couldn’t or wouldn’t whistle down an impolitic social media “Lake of Fire” comment by one of her candidates, costing the whole WR team the 2012 election that they were, until then, predicted to win. Nevertheless, she’d won herself a seat on the front benches of the Legislative Assembly, whistle still “dans la poche.” But, ever-the-less, Smith suddenly switched teams in 2014 and took half her first line over to the long-reining champs, the ProgCon party, apparently misjudging the ouster of the person of its own general manager, Alison Redford, as an opportunity to particularly advance the person of herself, not the WR rump she’d just dumped. The subsequent demise of both parties questions whether Smith was such a wise acquisition after all: she was herself subsequently cut from the ProgCon team after Rachel Notley’s Redmonton Dippers, a team that hardly ever made the playoffs, swooped in to win the 2015 cup. Teamwork on the partisan right declined after Klein, but was markedly stiffed after Smith entered the arena.
Perhaps it’s well to compare teamworks. The Lougheed-Getty-coached ProgCons were exemplary; then came Ralph Klein who could fairly be likened to the Pat Quinn of Alberta politics—popular despite his generally unlikeable persona, hubristic to the end and, in retrospect, divisive. Post-Ralph-World, the ProgCons under Ed Stelmach (whence Wildrose entered the fray) through to Redford looked like they were skating on their ankles and, compared to the Calgary-Edmonton hockey rivalry, Albertans seemed as schizophrenic about rooting for WR from Cowtown or ProgCon from increasingly derided Redtorytown; the signal of pending partisan climate change probably accounts for the many parties of the right which appeared and disappeared like NHL expansion teams in the US South which never experienced natural ice or attracted a critical mass of fans. In contrast, Notley’s NDP, although not victorious in defending its single cup win, appears exemplary as a team that hangs together nonetheless, not only a convincing second-place in 2019, but a consistent and effective challenger through to the 2023 playoffs when it very nearly retook the coveted cup. Note, too, that the NDP’s new leader was approved by 86% of members—a pretty solid demonstration that they are virtually all on the same team.
Taking the 1992-2023 period when the partisan right’s style of play in Alberta arguably changed from longtime traditionalism (naturally) to more recent radicalism, it seems just as arguable that traditional Tory voters retain a certain affection for teamwork and sportsmanship which started becoming apparent sometime in the Klein era, but certainly since the WR expansion, and increasingly proved in each of 2015, 2019, and 2023 electoral seasons as team NDP continues to grow on Alberta fans. Cups notwithstanding, you can’t say it hasn’t been entertaining—or revealing.
Put another way, traditional communitarian conservatives had immediate teamwork questions after the upset loss to the NDP, questions that had been quietly nagging for over 20years, but quickly turned to open resentment of former HarperCon cabinet minister Jason Kenney’s hostile takeover of their iconic ProgCon team in order to force a merger with Wildrose. There was enough hostility to share between both victims, the residue of which remains evident in the plainly misnamed “United” Conservative Party of Alberta today. Although the present bifurcation of the UCP between the radicalized Take-Back-Alberta faction and whoever centre-right moderates remain in the party is celebrated by the former, and begrudgingly tolerated by the latter. If K-boy’s ouster is any indication, the division was almost perfect, his support under review only partway through the first term of the party he himself created and led to victory was 51% and, perhaps understanding that any team so evenly-divided, presumably and publicly because of himself, is really just all hat and only cats in its herd, the leadership was forfeited to Danielle Smith—the perennial bad-penny pseudo-politician with a shotgun-wedding train of two extinguished parties of the right behind her—with a paltry couple percent more support than he got. Speculation ended on election day, 2023, when 2nd-place team NDP very nearly won the cup, which is evident today as the largest Loyal Opposition in Alberta history.
premier Smith’s subsequent political intemperance and apparent psephological gormlessness aside, the question whether she would temper the UCP-TBA’s Alberta Pension Plan proposal/demand if Pierre Poilievre’s CPC becomes federal government is really one of teamwork. Any contest involves partisanship and her’s with the TBA faction which she’d ginned, knife-in-hand behind Kenney’s back, before his review even came up is not exceptional per se. However, straining the ties that bind her own party together by openly cow-towing to TBA and secessionist Wexiteer ideologues in her inner circle, to the discomfiture of the shrinking moderate faction of the UCP —which, btw, is absolutely vital for her government’s continuance—suggests she might not have yet learned what a team really is, might not have taken any lessons from her dubious political past that she’s pruned off like K-Boy or any other inconvenient theogony. Her first year and a half in office featured open threats and partisan revenge on anybody from gender-challenged kids (she recently let a hater back into the UCP) to city councils (she said she’d take civic advise from a “council” UCP candidates who ran in and of course lost in deep-orange Redmonton instead of actual elected city councillors and, most of all, NDP MLAs who were elected in all Edmonton ridings) and, of course against anything the NDP ever did and anyone who ever did it. These are Albertans all.
And Danielle Smith makes it obvious she’s not a player on team Canada, either, immediately shoehorning herself into the international tariff tiff between tRump and Trudeau when —or probably because it was— the PM who requested it from her and the other premiers to read from the same page on this vital issue. What kind of team player will she be under a namesake friend and Alberta-raised (which, as we’ve seen, doesn’t matter much to her) Pierre Poilievre if he wins the next federal election?
With such a reputation, a curious mashup of gormless arrogance and ridiculous hubris, how does Smith’s signature ignorance of or outright hostility to team-building or effort, and blatant poor sportsmanship compare to that of Poilievre, another scion of Western Reform. First, I would discount that PP is gormless. Anyway, the two parties have much in common circumstantially in addition to name and regional power base. Circumstances have background and theirs took root in the Harper/George W Bush era which ruthlessly expunged political decorum and partisan cooperation, inuring electorates to their knee-to-groin expressions of right-wing frustration and self-justified revenge which were whetted by the victories of the Adonis scion of bird-flipping Pierre Trudeau and, especially in especially racist America, Barrack Obama, and now manifest in Donald F tRump and Pierre Poilievre (and, I think, in every nominal “conservative” party). Neither UCP nor CPC can convincingly redact the fact of their respective—and, to great extent, related—bastardy, both arisen from veteran, progressive right-wing parties that were torn apart and reassembled bad, bolstering their shared insecurities with blowhard bravado and mean-spiritedness, redoubling at every perceived setback (like Obama, Biden, Trudeau and who-knows-who-next) until moderate Tories repelled are compensated by inviting in radical extremists who amplify their repellent ethoi by commandeering—by default or design—their conservative hosts, turning their already demeaned parties away from community, thence turning them into parties of far-right libertarianism in which many, probably most compatriots are not invited.
There is no reason to expect political sense from Danielle Smith, therefore it wouldn’t be surprising if the treatment of would-be PM PP would be more along the lines of: without the support of Alberta voters, PP, y’all got nuthin’. Wanna be PM? Fork over the 53%. Naturally PP would have palpable popularity problems at whatever percent was demanded. But does Smith really care about that kinda stuff? He’s already promised to “axe the tax,” but will that sate the Wildrose semi-independent state? Neither do I expect she knows anything about the difference between Western and Eastern Tories, the latter being veteran Blue as well as Red, and which PP also depends on, absolutely —but the way she treats the few remaining—but critical—Tories in her own party, does that even matter?
Ah, but ‘t is a great and interesting time for punditry, here on the night of the return of the sun, nearly the Holy Day of Christmas when hopefully partisan opinions can take a break—at least while feasting (I know in my family the wheels usually came off after consumption of dinner wine turned back to brandy and stronger)—and the promise of Chanukah which—almost as a plea for inter-sectarian peace and love—begins on Christmas Day.
To all of you, Happy Solstice!
Happy Solstice to you too, Scotty. One of your best. Personally, I live in hope of another Pish off, Vashy moment for Ms. Smith. DJC
And to you, David—and all the best for all the rest. It’s good to live in hope.
Smith spells team Me me me. She never played on a team in her life. Ostracized as the welfare kid, she never got picked so always hated teams.
If I understand correctly, a change to the Canada Pension Plan requires the consent of the federal government, plus seven provinces. Somehow I don’t see Doug Ford or David Eby agreeing to this. Scott Moe may be dumb enough to say yes (thinking he’ll be next). About the Atlantic provinces, I can’t say. Quebec? (Insert emoji for Gallic shrug.)
Who are the premiers most likely to say “NO!”? Any ideas?
Since Quebec has its own pension, I’m not sure it would get a vote. But that would just make getting the six provinces/66% all that more difficult.
I looked up the CPP act, and the bar for leaving is indeed very high.
Exiting province must give 3 years notice, then exiting province must present detailed plan for their alternative pension 2 years after giving notice.
After that, approval from 2/3’s of population in 7 provinces & federal government.
I can’t see Smith’s government a) surviving long enough, b) being competent enough to develop alternative, c) getting amending formula approval, d) federal approval.
What I expect is a bit more mildly outraged performance from Smith, and then she will pretend the whole lead balloon was never even prepped for launch.
Mike J Danysh: A provincial pension plan for Alberta is fraught with problems, but Danielle Smith and the UCP don’t care.
Three different commenters have made mention of the need for consent of seven other provinces, which I had never heard of before. Assuming this is true (I heard once that not everything on the internet is), it strikes me this is a bigger threshold than any kind of percentage the Chief Actuary might determine. If Danielle Smith is truly determined to pull Alberta out of the CPP, she would have to perform some serious negotiating with the other provinces in order to get them to go along with it, to the point of agreeing to a percentage lower than that presented by the Chief Actuary.
Alberta Pension Plan advocates point to Alberta’s younger population and suggest that because of our younger population, an APP could require lower contributions from working people, or provide higher payments to retirees. If that did, in fact happen, I would expect a consequence would be the remaining CPP provinces would have to pay higher contributions and/or receive lower pension payments. What premier would agree to hurting their own population so Albertans can enjoy another advantage?
Alberta does not enjoy its advantages. The Alberta advantages, like highest utility rates, highest insurance rates, lowest government transparency, dirty water, polluted air and so on are forced on Albertans.
Danielle Smith is intent on pursuing this bad idea, and won’t let it die. If she had said this was her provincial election agenda, the last time around, it would have been game over for the UCP. Sensible Albertans don’t want their CPP touched.
It should be noted that the Western Canada Bank was recently purchased by Banque Nationale.
Alberta’s constant whining about equalization being so unfair to Alberta can rest easy, because La Belle Province will soon own Alberta…all of it.
Alberta becoming a vassal state of Quebec? Be still my heart.
It’s not just the money for Smith. The attack on the CPP and the refusal to handover 53% is a preliminary to incite the rubes prior to calling an Alberta sovereignty referendum.
This was never about common sense, good financial management,etc.
From Day One it was all about one the the things that the Take Back Alberta folks were demanding of the Premier in order for her to retain the confidence of the UCP. And picking yet another fight with Alberta to move the eyes of Alberta voters away from the dismal mess in health care and k-12 edu.
In never made financial sense, Albertans never wanted it. But really….what did this have to do with Danielle Smith’s decision to float it. Nothing whatsoever. As per.
I have no idea how Albertans voted in Danielle smith to begin with…she’s never been honest or particularly bright, is it because she uses terminology or vocabulary that impresses them or her fake wars with Ottawa?