Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson wants the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to adopt her private member’s bill, which would require the consent of at least two-thirds of the provinces enrolled in the Canada Pension Plan before a province could withdraw from the fund, as government legislation.
The New Democratic Party Member of Parliament introduced the bill last April, but she clearly hopes the release of the report Friday by the office of the Chief Actuary of Canada estimating the value of the asset transfer needed to meet Alberta’s share of the CPP fund will give the proposed legislation new life – or more life than a private member’s bill can usually expect.
In a statement yesterday, Ms. McPherson urged the Liberal government in Ottawa to adopt Bill C-387 as a government bill “before it is too late.”
In normal times – even like last spring – the chances of a bill like C-387 passing would be infinitesimal. Little time is allotted for discussion of private members’ bills, and most “die on the order paper” – that is, they are dropped without ever being voted on.
With Mr. Trudeau and his government on the ropes, the finance minister having just quit, and provincial Liberal organizations demanding that the PM step down, though, it’s harder to predict what might happen.
The Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan would certainly now be popular with large swathes of the Canadian public both inside and beyond Alberta. It might even drive a wedge between the federal Conservative Opposition led by Pierre Poilievre and the United Conservative Party Government of Alberta led by Premier Danielle Smith, which has been persistent in its determination to get its paws on CPP funds.
And it might nip in the bud the ability of a Conservative federal government in the near future to stand back and let Alberta start the process of dismantling the national pension plan.
Assailing Alberta’s UCP Government and Premier Smith for the effort to take control of CPP pension funds, Ms. McPherson’s statement yesterday described the scheme as “founded in delusion and deception.”
“The Chief Actuary’s estimate of 20-25 percent of CPP assets, contradicts Smith’s and the UCP’s unrealistic estimate (53 per cent of CPP assets), and exposes the disinformation that the UCP government has spent millions of dollars spreading in Alberta,” it said.
“Despite the UCP’s disinformation campaign, most Albertans reject Smith’s plans to take control of their pension and have been very clear that they want Danielle Smith, Stephen Harper, and the UCP to keep their hands off Albertans’ pensions,” the statement continued. (On Nov. 20, former Conservative PM Harper was named chair of the Alberta Investment Management Corp., the company the UCP wants to manage all Alberta pension funds.)
“We know that the report will not stop Smith and her plot to seize control of Albertans’ pensions,” Ms. McPherson stated. “That is why I have tabled Bill C-387.”
The proposed legislation would extend the two-thirds rule that now covers all changes to the CPP except for the withdrawal of a province. As it stands, section 3 of the CCP legislation requires that for a province to pull out, it would have to create an “equivalent” plan, which is not defined in the act, and get approval of the federal minister – who may soon be a Conservative sympathetic to the idea of wrecking the CPP and delighted to find a way to do it without wearing the blame.
As University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe pointed out in an article a year ago for the Canadian National Bar Association, that lack of a definition of “equivalent” was controversial, even termed “outrageous” in Parliament, when the CPP was created by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1965.
“My bill brings section 3 of the act into alignment with the rest of the pension act,” Ms. McPherson said yesterday. “It’s an easy change that would make it more difficult for one province to leave the CPP.”
Also, she added, “it makes sense because all Canadians would be impacted so all Canadians should have a say.”
In other words, she explained, it would “take power from a federal minister and give it to provinces and all Canadians.”
In yesterday’s statement, Ms. McPherson described Premier Smith’s plan as threatening the financial security of almost all Albertans and Canadians. “Many of the assets held by the CPP are not liquid and removing even 20 per cent from the fund could undermine the CPP for decades to come.”
“If Danielle Smith is successful in removing Alberta from one of the top ranked public pension plans in the world, other provinces with Conservative Premiers will follow suit,” she predicted. “Scott Moe and Doug Ford could take similar steps to dismantle the CPP leaving not just Albertans, but all Canadians without the pensions they earned and deserve.”
“It’s a fundamental right for us – to have that security, to know that we will not have to live out our retirement years in poverty. The Canada Pension Plan, one of the best performing public pension plans in the world, is a critical part of that security.”
Friday’s analysis by the office of Chief Actuary Assia Billig established clearly, if not beyond all debate, that if Alberta were to split from the Canada Pension Plan it would be entitled to no more than 20 to 25 per cent of the CPP investment fund, or about $120 billion to $150 billion, not 53 per cent or $334 billion the UCP has been claiming on the basis of a study by a private consulting firm that it commissioned.
Merry Christmas, everyone! DJC
Thanks for writing this, David. When the ‘consent of two thirds of the provinces’ issue came up in the comments of your last blog, I thought it was odd that this was the first I was hearing about it. Personally I think gaining support from two thirds of the provinces is a bigger hurdle than even what the Chief Actuary’s estimate of a province’s fair share is; really it would only be a starting point in the negotiations between the departing province and the others.
I hope Ms. McPherson’s Bill will go through. If it does, it will stop all but the most determined defectors, since the only way a remaining province would vote to support a departing province’s bid to leave would be if its premier could show his/her constituents that they are benefitting from the other province’s departure, in the form of lower contributions and/or higher pension payments. In order for this to happen, then, the departing province would have to leave with a share small enough that it would result in its constituents having to make higher contributions, or accept smaller payments. You would really wonder what kind of motivation would be necessary in order for this to happen.
I also love the mental image of Pierre Poilievre squirming on this issue.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
This is such a good idea that Marlaina will instinctively reject it, but if enough voters get behind it maybe we can prevent her from getting her grubby paws on our pensions.
Well, of course Ms. Smith will be opposed to this idea, because she wants the money and the bill would make the grift impossible. That said, she has no control over what is done in the chambers of Parliament, just like the rest of us. DJC
Sounds like an excellent idea. I will be writing Ms. McPherson, the PM’s office and Mr. LeBlanc later this afternoon to tell them to accept the bill. Maybe I’ll send Smith a letter to and tell her that this whole CPP debacle is a ridiculous mess and to stay in her lane because the people of Alberta don’t want her interfering with our retirements.
I happen to live in Ms McPherson’s riding and have met her on a couple of occasions. My wife is also quite acquainted with her. She does come across as very genuine and caring and I wish her all the best with her private members bill. That said, I do feel very conflicted about the federal NDP as of late. If Mr Singh goes through with his no confidence bit of theatre, and there’s no indication that he’s bluffing, he will be directly responsible for handing the keys of Sussex Drive to PeePee in some form of demented late Christmas present. If that becomes reality then I daresay I will not be voting NDP in the foreseeable future, especially as long as Singh holds the leadership role.
Firth of Fifth:
I wrote a letter to Ms. McPherson, expressing my concerns regarding this vote of non confidence. All the work done and the excellent results it produced under the Confidence and Supply agreement would be gone should Pierre Poilievre get to the PM’s office. I too live in Strathcona riding and would vote for Heather again, but if this vote of non confidence, as threatened by Jagmeet Singh, goes through, I made it abundantly clear that I will no longer donate to Federal NDP, as I have for years.
Other than that, I support Heather McPherson’s private member’s bill to make it harder for provinces to withdraw or even threaten to withdraw from the CPP.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Excellent Idea! Having one province make a decision which impacts all provinces does not a democracy make. Quebec made their decision at the beginning and that is fine. Smith’s demand for the money, is so over the top it makes me wonder what she had in her breakfast. CPP works because we are all in it. The pension fund has a bit of clout. Being in receipt of CPP I’m not interested in losing any of it.
Dismantling CPP could/would increase poverty in Canada and that is never a good thing. For people like Smith, she’ll be fine. She’ll receive her political pension but the majority of Canadians won’t.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY NEW YEAR, HAPPY HANAKKUH
e.a.f.: Just one clarification, if you don’t mind. Thanks to Ralph Klein, members of the Alberta Legislature, including Ms. Smith, do not receive a pension. This is not a good thing, in my opinion. Democracy is important work and MLAs like everyone else deserve a fair retirement in addition to a fair salary. Moreover, having a decent defined benefits pension, as Alberta MLAs once did, significantly reduces the temptation to grift. It was a bit of cheap political theatre that was both irresistible and irresponsible at the time and now, I’m afraid, we’re stuck with it. I point this out because, if I don’t, one of the self-righteous MAGA hall monitors we see here on occasion is bound to do so. Of course, Ms. Smith and other UCP ministers do have a retirement plan, it’s just not in the form of a pension. It is paid instead as directors’ fees on the boards of various corporations for rubber stamping management decisions, no matter how harmful or ridiculous, and similar emoluments. The recent board appointments bestowed upon our former premier, Jason Kenney, is a good example of this phenomenon in action. DJC
Ontario MPPs once had a pension. When the Mike Harris crew took over pensions were eliminated. People who give up productive working years for public service should be fairly compensated when they retire. And as David says, now that MPP/MLA pensions are off the table, they are unlikely to return. It was indeed cheap political theatre in both provinces to eliminate them.
Oh man DJC, thx for this info. I didn’t know or think that could be the case in AB. True North strong and free right? Citizens like to rail about MP/MLA pensions but they are absolutely fair considering the disruption to a full-time politician’s life/career. People should think about disrupting their career path to run for office, then getting kicked out and go back to employers who say “Are your work skills up to date”?
This is all good for a lawyer or a corporate executive who will cite his/her public service, but what about an oil rig worker or a nurse? The political field is tilted for the elite and this is one small thing to even things out, it’s unfortunate that AB has removed even that.
Oh yes, Merry Xmas to all and All the Best in the New Year to everyone…
David Climenhaga: I remember Ralph Klein campaigning on that. It was trickery for him to get elected premier in 1993. Pensions for MLAs were masqueraded with severance packages. MLAs in Alberta who served for a considerable length of time, weren’t going to walk away empty handed. Not a chance.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/premier-speaker-in-line-for-1m-payouts-1.734513 DJC
@anonymous & djc
For me, it was never the existence of a pension plan, or even severance packages; it was always the mla’s setting the remuneration themselves that frosted me.
The mlas serve us, the citizens, therefore it should be the citizens who decide. Strike a non-partisan committee of human resource professionals, send their recommendation to legislature, requiring a 2/3 majority to refuse it, in which case committee tries again.
Thank you very much for the information. I did not know that. I thought all provinces provided pensions for their politicians if they qualified for them. Not having a pension is never a good thing.
If some one devotes their working years to representing others in the provincial assembly there ought to be a pension. Being an MLA is a job. It is not just for the wealthy who do not have to think about pensions. I’ve always been of the opinion it is a good idea to pay politicians a decent salary, along with some other occupations. it reduces the chance of some one taking money when they ought not to.
Not for nothing an EXTREMELY depressing piece in the Star this past week detailed exactly this, but in Ontario. Former Toronto City Councillor and MPP sleeps rough in a city Shelter scraping by on his $800/mo Government of Canada Pension.
The graft angle I hadn’t thought of, I’m young enough that politicians have always been that way.
https://archive.ph/2024.12.26-193920/https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/i-may-end-up-in-tears-telling-my-story-how-a-former-mpp-and-toronto/article_eba3406c-b5c7-11ef-a0db-f3304969008b.html
I suppose there is some merit to this strategy, if the current Federal government can even survive a month or two to pass this. It will of course give Smith something more to be angry at Trudeau for, but leaving the CPP is not a winning issue for her, so maybe she will tone it down, if that is possible.
The NDP does still have some bargaining power, if the Liberals do not want an election right away, so this could be something the NDP could insist on and if it did, the Liberals might just do it. Actually, over the Christmas holidays, the NDP might want to go through their list and find some more things, but not totally ridiculous ones what like the Bloc put forward in the fall.
Of course the Liberal leadership is something for Liberals still to resolve, so who knows maybe the NDP will be dealing with a new PM in early January or Parliament will be taking a break while the Liberals replace a leader who almost everyone (including many Liberals) seems to feel has become too toxic.
Many are keen to have an election or get rid of Trudeau, but really folks. If he is gone or there is an election there is a very good chance the Cons and PP will be running the show. That is not a good thing. PP goes on about he is going to do this or that, but he doesn’t say how he is going to accomplish any of that. My take, he doesn’t have a plan and he most likely doesn’t know how to formulate one.
People in other provinces might want to have a look at some of the ideas the Alberta Cons have come up with. How would you like that to go national? The Conservatives of today are not the Conservatives of a few decades ago. There are quite a number of people within the Conservative Party today who are more into inflicting their personal views upon other Canadians. When PP was part of Harper’s crew, Harper passed 9 pieces of Legislation he was advised would violate the Canadian constitution. He passed them anyhow. Various groups and individuals took it to court and won. We don’t need or want a P.M. and party who ignores the Constituion. Its part of what makes us a democracy. Yes, as I recall the Conservatives were not what I’d call female friendly. First thing Harper did was defund all the women’s groups the feds had been funding once he took office. Wonder what else the Cons want to do which will negatively impact women?
I saw this bill in the news some time ago, and tried to track it on the public access to bills before Parliament. It looked to me as if it was not going anywhere, but this update gives me some small glimmer of hope. The problem is that PM Trudeau’s policies are hard at work against senior citizens, for example: the proposed $250 cheques was for hard working Canadians, not for retired seniors and those that didn’t work last year, a direct no on increasing OAS for those aged 65 to 74, even though the Federal NDP proposed that. As much as I agree with what Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson is trying to do, given the resistance of the Trudeau government to do anything for seniors, I have little faith it will go anywhere and I believe Trudeau will not listen to this MP, especially when he won’t listen to his own caucus and step down.
Merry Christmas to DJC and all those that read and participate in this forum!
Good on Heather McPherson to do this. If there is a pending federal election, the pension issue will definitely strike a nerve with more people and Pierre Poilievre and the CPC will get obliterated. Something can get caught in the spokes of a bicycle, and cause it to crash. It was practically two decades ago when Ralph Klein was mouthing off about healthcare reforms, and privatization of healthcare was a possibility, knowing how he operated (no pun intended). Coincidentally, this transpired before a federal election, and the CPC were defeated. I remember a political cartoon that showed Stephen Harper holding a T-shirt that said I’m With Stupid, with an arrow on it that pointed to Ralph Klein, who was standing next to him. Ralph Klein asked Stephen Harper, why would Paul Martin buy you a T-shirt? Peter MacKay had not so kind words for Ralph Klein, and said his mouth should be duct taped shut. Given already how Pierre Poilievre was part of the CPC when the Halloween massacre happened, pertaining to income trusts, and $35 billion of people’s retirement savings went the way of the dodo bird, this will not look good for the CPC. If something serious triggers Canadians, they will not take it lightly. Once the CPC get defeated by the voters, Danielle Smith will get dumped by her party. Like Ralph Klein was, Danielle Smith has a chronic case of foot in mouth disease, and that can’t continue, because it’s a liability for the party as a whole. Ralph Klein’s foot in mouth problems, and his wild behavior caused by alcohol (throwing money at the homeless, at a shelter in Edmonton, when he was drunk), caused his PC party members to give him a poor 55% approval rating, because had he kept going like that, the Alberta PCs would have been finished. Once Danielle Smith makes Pierre Poilievre and the CPC lose in the next federal election, the UCP party members will want a leadership review for her, and she’s gone. The UCP will then implode.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
All best wishes to everyone for the holidays.
While this idea is laudable, it’s not going to go anywhere because PMJT doesn’t believe in it.
One thing that should be known about Trudeau’s leadership style by now is that he invites crises, rather than show any interest in mechanisms that could prevent them. Seems he’s a huge believer in Churchill’s maxim, “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.
And it’s fair to say that Trudeau’s approach has been all about letting the crises pile up until it looks like he’s the only one who’s aware of them. Of course, he created them.
And there’s another saying, “Getting hung on your own petard.” Trudeau is learning what this one means right now.
JM: At the risk of pedantry, the phrase, from Hamlet, is “hoist with his own petard,” a petard being a bomb and hoist, presumably, being self-explanatory. I would be interested in discovering which of the crises faced by the Canadian government in the past decade were invited by Mr. Trudeau. The housing crisis, which is serious and real, has its origins in 40 years of neoliberal policy that no Canadian political party is willing to change. So while Mr. Trudeau could be said to be inviting it, the policies offered by both the Conservatives and the NDP are for all intents and purposes the same, and will fix nothing. The immigration crisis is largely ginned up hysteria derived from the Trump campaign in the United States. Mr. Trudeau has certainly been on the receiving end of a well organized campaign of vilification and outright hatred, generously financed in significant art from outside the country, to which his response has been strangely passive. So I guess that’s a form of invitation. His main problem, I am inclined to think, is that Canadian governments have a natural lifetime similar to that of a large dog, about 10 years. Our problem, as Canadians, is that the obvious alternative, is considerably worse and likely to do considerably more harm. DJC
Doesn’t Quebec have its own pension plan? I understand that Quebec opted out of the CPP.
ER: Quebec opted out in 1965. I guess I have to say this in every single piece I write on the topic, eh? Swell, duly noted. DJC
I started making CPP contributions as a teenager it seemed safe to do so and clearly fiduciary management was taking place. Now I have recently retired and I need my CPP pension funds. At this point I see a number of fiduciary failures by the UCP . The terms misfeasance and malfeasance pertain.I expect a fair return on my CPP contributions. Also the CPP investment board provides world class money manage outcomes. Why would Why should I or any ALBERTAN ACCEPT less or second or third class money money management outcomes? Do not take my hard earned CPP !contributions and misuse them
Thanks to Heather, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. A wise older man advised that we should keep putting sand in the cogs of the UCP MACHINE.