Alberta
Here’s why the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill Associate Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Provincial and territorial finance ministers recently met with federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to discuss a hot topic—Alberta’s potential withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). According to Nova Scotia Finance Minister Allan MacMaster, “there was real consensus” from his peers that they want Alberta to stay in the CPP. This is unsurprising; while an Alberta pension plan would benefit Albertans, it would come at great cost to the rest of Canada.
Why might Albertans want to leave the CPP?
Albertans pay a basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent, typically deducted from their paycheques. According to a report commissioned by the Smith government, that rate would fall to 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program for Albertans, which means each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027 (the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan) while maintaining the same retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, to keep the CPP afloat without Alberta, the basic contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent. In other words, smaller paycheques for the rest of Canada.
The report’s calculation is based on several assumptions, which some analysts have criticized, arguing that Alberta’s estimated share of CPP assets—$334 billion—is not fair or realistic. To be clear, this share (equal to 53 per cent of the CPP) is based on specific legislation that governs the withdrawal of any province from the CPP. But, even if the share of assets to Alberta were much lower, the province would benefit from reduced contribution rates with an Alberta pension plan.
For instance, if Alberta left the CPP and received merely 25 per cent of the CPP’s assets in 2025 ($150 billion), the contribution rate in Alberta would fall from 9.9 per cent to 7.8 per cent, which would mean $1,086 in savings annually per Albertan. Meanwhile, the contribution rate for the rest of Canada would have to increase. If you dropped Alberta’s share to 20 per cent ($120 billion in 2025), Alberta’s contribution rate would fall to 8.2 per cent, equivalent to approximately $836 in savings annually per Albertan.
Put differently, even if Alberta’s share of assets were less than half the report’s estimate, Albertans would benefit from lower contribution rates for the exact same benefits while the rest of Canada may pay higher contributions to maintain current benefits. Why does Alberta mean so much to the CPP? Because Alberta generally has higher employment rates and a comparatively younger population, which means more workers pay into the fund and less retirees take from it. Albertans also have higher average incomes, which means there’s a higher level of premiums paid into the fund. As such, Albertans have paid significantly more into the CPP than its retirees have received in return.
It’s not surprising that the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP for an equivalent provincial plan because—even if Alberta’s share is less than $334 billion, Alberta’s withdrawal would come with big costs for other Canadians across the country.
Author:
Alberta
Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

From the Fraser Institute
After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.
First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.
Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.
In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.
For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.
Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.
Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.
And what of those theoretical drawbacks?
Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.
Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.
And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.
Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.
2025 Federal Election
Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

From LifeSiteNews
The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.
A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.
The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.
In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.
The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”
-
International2 days ago
Ice Surprises – Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets Are Stabilizing and Growing
-
Alberta2 days ago
Energy projects occupy less than three per cent of Alberta’s oil sands region, report says
-
Energy2 days ago
Carney’s energy superpower rhetoric falls flat without policy certainty
-
Energy2 days ago
Oil tankers in Vancouver are loading plenty, but they can load even more
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again
-
Alberta2 days ago
Charges laid in record cocaine seizure
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Carney says Liberals won’t make voting pact with NDP
-
conflict2 days ago
WATCH: U.S. ending bombing campaign on Yemeni militant group