2023 UCP Alberta election
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,728
- Points
- 1,160
I had never really thought of myself as a senior before, though I have made self-deprecating remarks about being an "old fart". In my minds eye, I'm still that young officer . . .okay, okay, I was never a "young officer" in comparison to the typical age of a subbie of my generation. But senior I am and heartily embrace this opinion in the Calgary Herald. Especially in Canadian voting patterns, don't feck with the seniors.
calgaryherald.com
Many seniors often look back to what life was like ‘before’ – such as ‘before the Internet’ or ‘before smartphones.’ While few Canadians remember what being retired was like before the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), getting older was more nerve-racking before there was a public pension plan to rely on.
Before the CPP, and other social security reforms like Old Age Security, poverty among seniors was prevalent, running as high as 30 per cent. A lifetime of hard work would often be rewarded with a desperate worry about how to make ends meet. Things were, quite simply, much tougher for retired Canadians.
The CPP provides a foundational retirement income for most working Canadians. It is one of our country’s most important and most invaluable public policy achievements. It speaks to our shared values, provides vital support to our seniors and is envied around the world. Not only has the CPP served us well, but repeated reviews have found it is sustainable for generations to come.
Alberta members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN) stand firmly against any proposal to weaken the CPP. And make no mistake: Premier Danielle Smith’s suggestion that Alberta should consider abandoning the CPP and gamble our pensions on a ‘go-it-alone’ scheme will weaken the retirement system for all Canadians. Everyone in this province should oppose it loudly.
Our organizations have three principal objections to the Premier’s plan to break up the CPP.
First, it is a dangerous risk. The premier argues that Alberta is ‘owed’ more than 50 per cent of the CPP’s value – an enormous amount that she wants to use to fund a pension plan of her own. But how would that plan work? Will the rest of the country agree with Premier Smith’s math, or will she kick off years of squabbling and uncertainty? How can we be sure such a plan would remain well managed, that our premiums would stay stable, and that our pensions would be guaranteed and portable? There are no hard answers to these questions. Just political promises. And when it comes to our pensions, political promises simply aren’t good enough.
Someone growing up in Alberta might move to British Columbia or Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador and work for years before coming back. Albertans may decide to retire in another province. Their pension, as an Albertan, is protected. Even when you’ve moved around, your premiums and pensions follow you. Will that remain the case for Premier Smith’s Alberta-only scheme? Or will it stop at the border? There are no honest answers. Only doubts.
Third, it is an invitation to political interference. In the 1990s, with CARP leading the call on behalf of Canadian seniors, all governments, including Alberta, agreed to have the CPP run at arms-length by a professional investment manager. Not only has that meant explosive growth in the fund’s value. It means the fund supporting our pensions is free from political meddling. We don’t want to roll back the clock and have elected representatives deciding to bet all our pensions on a stock of their choosing or some project of their picking. Pensions are for the people who paid into them, not for politicians to use as they see fit.
The bottom line is very simple. For more than half a century, we’ve nurtured a pension system that works, that is studied and copied by other countries around the world. It’s reliable. It’s sustainable for generations. The CPP isn’t broken, and we shouldn’t take the risk of pulling it apart.
What Premier Smith is proposing is a risky, untested scheme that would paint a huge question mark over the future of pensions in Alberta. Pensioners who have paid into the CPP their entire working lives don’t want their contributions gambled away for political purposes. It makes no sense to move away from a system that works.
Our organizations believe the majority of Alberta’s seniors (including the thousands of Alberta CARP and SUN members) don’t want to return to the way things were before. Not if that means before there was a CPP and a level of basic retirement income that was there for all of Alberta’s seniors.
Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN).
Opinion: Seniors' groups steadfast in opposition to Alberta pension plan
CARP writes about Alberta's proposed pension plan
calgaryherald.com
Opinion: Seniors' groups steadfast in opposition to Alberta pension plan
By Doug Martin, Paul Taylor and Linda OsborneMany seniors often look back to what life was like ‘before’ – such as ‘before the Internet’ or ‘before smartphones.’ While few Canadians remember what being retired was like before the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), getting older was more nerve-racking before there was a public pension plan to rely on.
Before the CPP, and other social security reforms like Old Age Security, poverty among seniors was prevalent, running as high as 30 per cent. A lifetime of hard work would often be rewarded with a desperate worry about how to make ends meet. Things were, quite simply, much tougher for retired Canadians.
The CPP provides a foundational retirement income for most working Canadians. It is one of our country’s most important and most invaluable public policy achievements. It speaks to our shared values, provides vital support to our seniors and is envied around the world. Not only has the CPP served us well, but repeated reviews have found it is sustainable for generations to come.
Alberta members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN) stand firmly against any proposal to weaken the CPP. And make no mistake: Premier Danielle Smith’s suggestion that Alberta should consider abandoning the CPP and gamble our pensions on a ‘go-it-alone’ scheme will weaken the retirement system for all Canadians. Everyone in this province should oppose it loudly.
Our organizations have three principal objections to the Premier’s plan to break up the CPP.
First, it is a dangerous risk. The premier argues that Alberta is ‘owed’ more than 50 per cent of the CPP’s value – an enormous amount that she wants to use to fund a pension plan of her own. But how would that plan work? Will the rest of the country agree with Premier Smith’s math, or will she kick off years of squabbling and uncertainty? How can we be sure such a plan would remain well managed, that our premiums would stay stable, and that our pensions would be guaranteed and portable? There are no hard answers to these questions. Just political promises. And when it comes to our pensions, political promises simply aren’t good enough.
Someone growing up in Alberta might move to British Columbia or Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador and work for years before coming back. Albertans may decide to retire in another province. Their pension, as an Albertan, is protected. Even when you’ve moved around, your premiums and pensions follow you. Will that remain the case for Premier Smith’s Alberta-only scheme? Or will it stop at the border? There are no honest answers. Only doubts.
Third, it is an invitation to political interference. In the 1990s, with CARP leading the call on behalf of Canadian seniors, all governments, including Alberta, agreed to have the CPP run at arms-length by a professional investment manager. Not only has that meant explosive growth in the fund’s value. It means the fund supporting our pensions is free from political meddling. We don’t want to roll back the clock and have elected representatives deciding to bet all our pensions on a stock of their choosing or some project of their picking. Pensions are for the people who paid into them, not for politicians to use as they see fit.
The bottom line is very simple. For more than half a century, we’ve nurtured a pension system that works, that is studied and copied by other countries around the world. It’s reliable. It’s sustainable for generations. The CPP isn’t broken, and we shouldn’t take the risk of pulling it apart.
What Premier Smith is proposing is a risky, untested scheme that would paint a huge question mark over the future of pensions in Alberta. Pensioners who have paid into the CPP their entire working lives don’t want their contributions gambled away for political purposes. It makes no sense to move away from a system that works.
Our organizations believe the majority of Alberta’s seniors (including the thousands of Alberta CARP and SUN members) don’t want to return to the way things were before. Not if that means before there was a CPP and a level of basic retirement income that was there for all of Alberta’s seniors.
Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN).
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,132
- Points
- 1,260
Its pretty much the reason the country is in the state its in now.
I had never really thought of myself as a senior before, though I have made self-deprecating remarks about being an "old fart". In my minds eye, I'm still that young officer . . .okay, okay, I was never a "young officer" in comparison to the typical age of a subbie of my generation. But senior I am and heartily embrace this opinion in the Calgary Herald. Especially in Canadian voting patterns, don't feck with the seniors.
Opinion: Seniors' groups steadfast in opposition to Alberta pension plan
CARP writes about Alberta's proposed pension planOpinion: Seniors' groups steadfast in opposition to Alberta pension plan
By Doug Martin, Paul Taylor and Linda Osborne
Many seniors often look back to what life was like ‘before’ – such as ‘before the Internet’ or ‘before smartphones.’ While few Canadians remember what being retired was like before the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), getting older was more nerve-racking before there was a public pension plan to rely on.
Before the CPP, and other social security reforms like Old Age Security, poverty among seniors was prevalent, running as high as 30 per cent. A lifetime of hard work would often be rewarded with a desperate worry about how to make ends meet. Things were, quite simply, much tougher for retired Canadians.
The CPP provides a foundational retirement income for most working Canadians. It is one of our country’s most important and most invaluable public policy achievements. It speaks to our shared values, provides vital support to our seniors and is envied around the world. Not only has the CPP served us well, but repeated reviews have found it is sustainable for generations to come.
Alberta members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN) stand firmly against any proposal to weaken the CPP. And make no mistake: Premier Danielle Smith’s suggestion that Alberta should consider abandoning the CPP and gamble our pensions on a ‘go-it-alone’ scheme will weaken the retirement system for all Canadians. Everyone in this province should oppose it loudly.
Our organizations have three principal objections to the Premier’s plan to break up the CPP.
First, it is a dangerous risk. The premier argues that Alberta is ‘owed’ more than 50 per cent of the CPP’s value – an enormous amount that she wants to use to fund a pension plan of her own. But how would that plan work? Will the rest of the country agree with Premier Smith’s math, or will she kick off years of squabbling and uncertainty? How can we be sure such a plan would remain well managed, that our premiums would stay stable, and that our pensions would be guaranteed and portable? There are no hard answers to these questions. Just political promises. And when it comes to our pensions, political promises simply aren’t good enough.
Someone growing up in Alberta might move to British Columbia or Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador and work for years before coming back. Albertans may decide to retire in another province. Their pension, as an Albertan, is protected. Even when you’ve moved around, your premiums and pensions follow you. Will that remain the case for Premier Smith’s Alberta-only scheme? Or will it stop at the border? There are no honest answers. Only doubts.
Third, it is an invitation to political interference. In the 1990s, with CARP leading the call on behalf of Canadian seniors, all governments, including Alberta, agreed to have the CPP run at arms-length by a professional investment manager. Not only has that meant explosive growth in the fund’s value. It means the fund supporting our pensions is free from political meddling. We don’t want to roll back the clock and have elected representatives deciding to bet all our pensions on a stock of their choosing or some project of their picking. Pensions are for the people who paid into them, not for politicians to use as they see fit.
The bottom line is very simple. For more than half a century, we’ve nurtured a pension system that works, that is studied and copied by other countries around the world. It’s reliable. It’s sustainable for generations. The CPP isn’t broken, and we shouldn’t take the risk of pulling it apart.
What Premier Smith is proposing is a risky, untested scheme that would paint a huge question mark over the future of pensions in Alberta. Pensioners who have paid into the CPP their entire working lives don’t want their contributions gambled away for political purposes. It makes no sense to move away from a system that works.
Our organizations believe the majority of Alberta’s seniors (including the thousands of Alberta CARP and SUN members) don’t want to return to the way things were before. Not if that means before there was a CPP and a level of basic retirement income that was there for all of Alberta’s seniors.
Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) and Seniors United Now (SUN).
There will be a referendum on the topic. I like these, let the people decide.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,592
- Points
- 1,260
If only we can apply the same logic to things like climate change, carbon tax, social programs etc.
- Reaction score
- 1,481
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting article.
Read it out of curiosity because I have family members who live there. Either by posting, or birth.
I'm not eligible to vote in their elections. Good luck to them whoever gets in.
Read it out of curiosity because I have family members who live there. Either by posting, or birth.
I'm not eligible to vote in their elections. Good luck to them whoever gets in.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,162
- Points
- 990
Interesting tidbit from that Tombe's article to Globe & Mail, estimates that even at a Smith Fairy Tale level of asset transfer the premium increase for the remainder of Canada would only be ~1%. At a reasonable asset transfer number that would be much much less.
Realistically, Albertans have much more at stake than anyone else in this, the rest of the country will carry on. The added pension complexity in a job-mobile 21st century is likely to be the biggest impact to the country.
Realistically, Albertans have much more at stake than anyone else in this, the rest of the country will carry on. The added pension complexity in a job-mobile 21st century is likely to be the biggest impact to the country.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,635
- Points
- 1,040
Seniors haven't exactly earned a reputation for fiscal rectitude and paying their way.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
Colby Cosh agrees - recce.
The law sez....
The law sez....
Colby Cosh: CPP shell game exposes system rigged against Alberta
The true goal of the Alberta pension plan project is not to leave the CPP, but to remind us of how the game is played
Author of the article:
Colby Cosh
Published Sep 30, 2023 • Last updated 7 hours ago • 5 minute read
163 Comments
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, centre, Finance Minister Nate Horner, right, and Jim Dinning, chair of the Alberta Pension Plan Report Engagement Panel, release an independent report on a potential Alberta pension plan, in Calgary on Sept. 20. PHOTO BY DARREN MAKOWICHUK/POSTMEDIA
Article content
EDMONTON — You’ve probably already read enough about Alberta’s threat to secede from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), take a share of the existing fund and establish an Albertan one, which would hoist a young working-age population out of the CPP and make the plan more expensive for the older, less productive remaining provinces.
Last week, the Alberta government released a report on the mathematics of CPP secession, an act whose legality is unquestioned and expressly provided for in the Canada Pension Plan Act. The mere whisper of such a move created wild consternation in the remainder of Canada, and not everybody in Alberta likes the idea. I’m not here now to argue in favour of it, as an Albertan, but …
… well, there’s an interesting little shell game going on here in the details of the argument. The Alberta government’s report on the basics of the scheme was prepared by LifeWorks, a human resources consultancy that used to be Morneau Shepell and is now Telus Health. In spite of the fast-changing branding, those at Lifeworks are pension experts if anyone is.
An important actuarial question they had to address is: how much money would an Alberta pension plan (APP) be entitled to start out with if Alberta left the CPP? That amount, the initial post-secession entitlement, is crucial for predicting the APP’s future contribution and benefit rates.
Well, there’s an explicit legal formula for this in the CPP Act, at Section 113(2) if you’re curious or simply insane. It was put in the legislation at the behest of the Ontario government and its premier, John Robarts, who wanted to protect the ultimate constitutional authority of the provinces over pensions.
Robarts told the Ontario legislature in 1965 that the purpose of the section was to provide “that we should be able, at any future time, to leave the CPP and to be placed in precisely the same financial position as if this province had operated an identical but separate plan from the outset.”
This is the right Alberta is threatening to invoke now, but the language in Sec. 113(2) is somewhat ambiguous — as the LifeWorks report acknowledges. The law says that Alberta can require the CPP to hand over all contributions ever made by people employed in Alberta, plus the “net investment return” derived from those contributions by the activities of the CPP Investment Board (founded in 1997) and its predecessors.
All the benefits ever paid to Albertans are then subtracted, along with a proportionate share of historic administration costs. There’s no explicit requirement that the subtracted benefits are subjected to the same compounding as the contributions, so under the plainest reading of the law, Alberta would be owed an estimated $747 billion upon secession in 2027. This is a sum that, most inconveniently, would represent an expected 118 per cent of all base CPP assets.
That’s not really a fair way to calculate things, mind you, and even LifeWorks doesn’t see $747 billion as a reasonable demand, but that does seem to be how the law is written. LifeWorks proposes that a more suitable formula is “to apply investment returns (on CPP funds) to the net cash flows of (Alberta) contributions less (Alberta) benefits payments and CPP administration costs.”
This seems like the most natural way to provide the Robarts counterfactual: how much would Alberta be entitled to if it had never entered the CPP, and had gotten CPP-like returns on its own Quebec-style plan?
Unfortunately, Albertans have always been disproportionate contributors to the CPP, so the median LifeWorks estimate of the province’s specified share is still $334 billion, or 53 per cent of what is now in the CPP kitty. This is the proposition, or one of them, that has had everybody outside Alberta howling with indignation.
Enter the University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, who had his own independent analysis of an Alberta pension plan ready for coincidental release. Tombe largely concurs with the LifeWorks math: if you follow its algorithm, which already grants a mathematical concession not found explicitly in the text of the law, Alberta would be entitled to “approximately $300 billion.”
Prof. Tombe’s goal is to model an APP realistically, and he concludes, for undisguisedly political reasons, that this demand is simply impossible, not gonna happen. After all, a lot has changed since 1965, and you can’t really expect a camphor-scented old statute to be followed even approximately.
You know the outcome: within a matter of days, the Globe and Mail’s centralist titan Andrew Coyne is raving at us that Morneau Shepell/LifeWorks/Telus Health pension math is a hallucination; that Prof. Tombe’s politically adjusted model is an expression of Euler-level genius; and that Alberta’s legal claim on $300 billion or thereabouts is a demented act of insolence to Confederation.
Everybody agrees, mind you, that $300 billion is roughly the net amount Alberta really has made available to its provincial brethren within the CPP. And everybody agrees that Alberta has the right to leave the CPP and take some amount out. It’s really just that the text of the law, and the Robarts “interpretation” of a law Robarts helped craft, are unbearable in 2023. Tombe handwaves these things away, and Coyne shows almost no sign at all that we are talking about a statute of the Dominion.
He does observe that the courts would surely find some creative way to minimize Alberta’s allocation, and no doubt he’s right about that. When Alberta complains about an electoral system that is openly rigged against it, in Senate and Commons alike, the Constitution and the statutes that are as inflexible as the Koran. Surely we must honour the founding pacts of our state at the expense of political equality itself. But the moment the devious sheiks and cowpunchers discover a law that works to their advantage, history and statutory texts vaporize.
Nobody in Alberta is unfamiliar with this game, and I’m pretty sure the true goal of the Alberta pension plan project is not to leave the CPP, but just to remind us how it’s played.
National Post
Twitter.com/colbycosh
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
In fairness the best that can be said is that the CPP administrator failed.
They failed to administer the plan in such a fashion that it would meet all the obligations of the original, and unamended, contract of 1965.
They failed to administer the plan in such a fashion that it would meet all the obligations of the original, and unamended, contract of 1965.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,728
- Points
- 1,160
That has changed over the years depending on who was in government and who sat (and is currently sitting) in these chairs - Minister of National Revenue (Part I) and Minister of Employment and Social Development (Part III). But if you are referring to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, that's a different matter since there was an over 30 year gap between that "original contract of 1965" and a professional investment fund managed by an arms length Crown Corporation. Prior to 1998, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund was mostly bonds issued to federal and provincial governments.
The performance of the CPPIB since incorporation has been better than average.
Our story | CPP Investments
We are a professional investment management organization with a critical purpose to help provide the foundation upon which Canadians build financial security in their retirement.
www.cppinvestments.com
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
That has changed over the years depending on who was in government and who sat (and is currently sitting) in these chairs - Minister of National Revenue (Part I) and Minister of Employment and Social Development (Part III). But if you are referring to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, that's a different matter since there was an over 30 year gap between that "original contract of 1965" and a professional investment fund managed by an arms length Crown Corporation. Prior to 1998, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund was mostly bonds issued to federal and provincial governments.
The performance of the CPPIB since incorporation was been better than average.
Our story | CPP Investments
We are a professional investment management organization with a critical purpose to help provide the foundation upon which Canadians build financial security in their retirement.
I'm not criticizing their performance in terms of yield. That's fine as it goes.
But it seems to me that their game plan should have incorporated the terms of the contract to the extent that it considered the possibility of one or all of the participants wanting to exercise their rights and withdraw from the programme.
What were their plans for divvying up the fund if it had to fold? It was a voluntary association of 9 separate groups plus the Federal government. Everybody was accorded the right to adopt the Quebec solution at a time of their choosing.
At very least their might have been a running tally of assets and liabilities by province from day one.
- Reaction score
- 16,879
- Points
- 1,010
There was/is no plan…
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,069
- Points
- 1,160
Although, one of his sources says Colby misinterpreted the info.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
So Tombe's saying: It's negotiable.
His rationale is that the formulae aren't clear. The interpretations are variable.
Which goes to the point.
58 years on the books and there isn't clarity on how to execute one of the rights of the signatories under the contract.
The Feds assumed a central pot. The provinces seem to have assumed something more like a mutual fund with 9 shareholders paying dividends?
Subject to interpretation -
Spector on Cosh on Tombe and Coyne....
This game is going to run a long time.
His rationale is that the formulae aren't clear. The interpretations are variable.
Which goes to the point.
58 years on the books and there isn't clarity on how to execute one of the rights of the signatories under the contract.
The Feds assumed a central pot. The provinces seem to have assumed something more like a mutual fund with 9 shareholders paying dividends?
Subject to interpretation -
Spector on Cosh on Tombe and Coyne....
This game is going to run a long time.
- Reaction score
- 16,879
- Points
- 1,010
Unfortunately for Tombe, what he believes if “fair and reasonable” is entirely beside the point.
That is not the CPP Act says.
Nowhere does it say in the Act that a withdrawal by a Province is limited by the available pool of funds in the the CPP on the date of withdrawal. In fact, that would be counter-intuitive.
I highlight my reasoning with a (ridiculous) example:
Let say a province wants to withdraw, but the feds treated CPP like a slush fund and on the date of withdrawal there was $1.00 in actual assests. Under Tombe’s logic, the Province would only get (literal) pennies. I am near certain the Supreme Court would say that actually, the Government of Canada should be on the hook for what should have been in the fund.
This whole exercise is less about CPP and a hypothetical APP than it is about proving there is one set of rules for certain provinces and another set for other provinces…
That is not the CPP Act says.
Nowhere does it say in the Act that a withdrawal by a Province is limited by the available pool of funds in the the CPP on the date of withdrawal. In fact, that would be counter-intuitive.
I highlight my reasoning with a (ridiculous) example:
Let say a province wants to withdraw, but the feds treated CPP like a slush fund and on the date of withdrawal there was $1.00 in actual assests. Under Tombe’s logic, the Province would only get (literal) pennies. I am near certain the Supreme Court would say that actually, the Government of Canada should be on the hook for what should have been in the fund.
This whole exercise is less about CPP and a hypothetical APP than it is about proving there is one set of rules for certain provinces and another set for other provinces…
- Reaction score
- 21,727
- Points
- 1,360
SKT, I don’t disagree. I take Tombes’ assessment to be a responsible, not unreasonable take on what an honest effort to reasonably leave the CPP for a provincial-managed pension plan. I don’t have any doubt that the federal government would try some disingenuous skullduggery to frick around with an otherwise honest effort of a province to look after its own citizens, and given the messing around the reds have done previously with various plans yo help balance/reduce operational budget deficits, it would be in keeping with the feds to try to exercise as much control/corrosion as they could to maintain provinces under the thumb…
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,221
- Points
- 1,010
As you all know anyway, the single fundamental problem is that provinces never contributed one penny to the CPP. Individual Canadians did and it is their personal / individual pensions that are in the CPP funds. If the provinces wanted funds to be accounted for by province, all they had to do was to create their own provincial pension fund from the start - like Quebec did.
Now, I'm going to hit 65 in a few months so the QPP sent me a nice statement of my retirement options. It includes a table of all my annual contribution to date, together with what it will generate for me when I take my retirement, which means that have also calculated how much revenue my contribution have generated. They also have a calculation (in their books) of the overall value of my fund so, should I and my wife pass away, they can provide my succession with the residual value.
The CPP must have exactly the same information on all individual Canadians who have contributed to the fund. Since the Federal government also has all the current tax returns of the current residents of Alberta, the only proper and fair way of splitting is to add the value of every current resident of Alberta's retirement fund and transfer it to Alberta's PP, all calculated at a set date. There are actuaries out there that do these types of calculations all the time. How much money would transfer to an Alberta fund is not a political matter for negotiation, it is a technical one for specialists to refine the calculations to be done in an agreed fashion.
As for SKT's view of the exercise, I would like to know which province has a different set of rules than Alberta within the CPP. The QPP doesn't count because Quebec exercised its right not to participate - a right that every province had - at the appropriate juncture, which was before implementation - right off the bat.
If it is Quebec that SKT has in mind, I must say that after a while, the constant bashing of Quebec by other provinces because we, in Quebec, have plans and programs and organizations that provide us with services that, in the rest of Canada, are provided by the Federal government even though they are in fields of provincial powers, gets tiring after a while. The reason Quebec has those distinct plans/programs/organizations is because, whenever the Federal government has been attempting to introduce such programs in what are basically provincial fields, we have always elected from the start (first one was income tax right after WWII - most recent one is day care and soon dental care insurance- note to other provinces: now's the time to put your own up if you wish to retain independence of action in those fields) to have our own instead and refused to participate in the Federal ones. It costs us extra in many cases, but we retain the freedom of action in those fields. The right to opt out like that exists equally for every province, but if you get in and later don't like where the Federal government is going with it, don't come blaming or bashing Quebec for having decided to stay independent.
Now, I'm going to hit 65 in a few months so the QPP sent me a nice statement of my retirement options. It includes a table of all my annual contribution to date, together with what it will generate for me when I take my retirement, which means that have also calculated how much revenue my contribution have generated. They also have a calculation (in their books) of the overall value of my fund so, should I and my wife pass away, they can provide my succession with the residual value.
The CPP must have exactly the same information on all individual Canadians who have contributed to the fund. Since the Federal government also has all the current tax returns of the current residents of Alberta, the only proper and fair way of splitting is to add the value of every current resident of Alberta's retirement fund and transfer it to Alberta's PP, all calculated at a set date. There are actuaries out there that do these types of calculations all the time. How much money would transfer to an Alberta fund is not a political matter for negotiation, it is a technical one for specialists to refine the calculations to be done in an agreed fashion.
As for SKT's view of the exercise, I would like to know which province has a different set of rules than Alberta within the CPP. The QPP doesn't count because Quebec exercised its right not to participate - a right that every province had - at the appropriate juncture, which was before implementation - right off the bat.
If it is Quebec that SKT has in mind, I must say that after a while, the constant bashing of Quebec by other provinces because we, in Quebec, have plans and programs and organizations that provide us with services that, in the rest of Canada, are provided by the Federal government even though they are in fields of provincial powers, gets tiring after a while. The reason Quebec has those distinct plans/programs/organizations is because, whenever the Federal government has been attempting to introduce such programs in what are basically provincial fields, we have always elected from the start (first one was income tax right after WWII - most recent one is day care and soon dental care insurance- note to other provinces: now's the time to put your own up if you wish to retain independence of action in those fields) to have our own instead and refused to participate in the Federal ones. It costs us extra in many cases, but we retain the freedom of action in those fields. The right to opt out like that exists equally for every province, but if you get in and later don't like where the Federal government is going with it, don't come blaming or bashing Quebec for having decided to stay independent.
- Reaction score
- 21,727
- Points
- 1,360
OGBD, in the purest sense, you are exactly right. Not some estimate/approximation/guess, but an actuarial reconciliation of the AB-specific citizens’ contributions to the CPP over the years.
I suspect that earlier records are less practically able to be assessed, in the sense of an individual basis.
As for QPP, I say good on Quebec for taking the road less-travelled back in 1965 and being master of its own destiny looking after people’s real money/contributions.
Similar threads
