Alberta
APP Update: Chief Actuary of Canada to provide opinion on Alberta’s share of CPP assets
Alberta Pension Plan engagement
The Alberta Pension Plan Engagement Panel is giving the office of the chief actuary of Canada some time to release findings before scheduling new public sessions.
This fall, the Alberta Pension Plan Engagement Panel, led by former provincial treasurer Jim Dinning, invited Albertans to discuss the findings of an independent report on a potential provincial pension plan. The panel has been collecting feedback from Albertans since then, with more than 76,000 Albertans participating in five telephone town hall sessions and more than 94,000 Albertans completing the online survey. The first phase of the engagement is now complete, and the panel will now analyze what it has heard from Albertans so far.
“Albertans can rest assured that their voices have been heard and that’s why I tabled the Alberta Pension Protection Act, which provides Albertans with certainty that their pension contributions are safe and that we will not proceed with a provincial plan without their say through a referendum. This is a complex process and one that we do not take lightly.”
During this first phase of engagement, it quickly became clear that Albertans wanted more precise information on the value of the asset transfer Alberta would be entitled to receive if it were to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. While the LifeWorks report was able to provide a reasonable asset transfer value by relying on publicly available data, determining a more precise number requires analysis from the federal government.
Following discussions between Canada’s finance ministers, the federal finance minister has committed to asking the chief actuary of Canada to provide an opinion on Alberta’s share of the CPP assets. Alberta’s government is hopeful that this work can be completed promptly so that Albertans can have as much information as possible as they consider the possibility of a new plan. To that end, the panel has decided to give the chief actuary of Canada some time to release their findings before scheduling new public engagement sessions.
Albertans continue to have the opportunity to participate in the conversation by reading the information on AlbertaPensionPlan.ca and completing the online workbook.
“We are pleased with how many Albertans we have reached with our consultations to date. The LifeWorks report presents an opportunity worth exploring and Albertans have answered that call, but what we’ve heard loud and clear is that they want to hear how the federal government calculates the asset transfer number. We will start the next round of public meetings when we have more clarity on that number, but in the meantime, we encourage everyone to have a look at our workbook and provide feedback there.”
Throughout this entire process Alberta’s government committed to ensuring the most-up-to-date information is provided to Albertans.
Related information
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.
First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.
The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.
For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.
Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.
Consider these federally-subsidized projects.
A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.
When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.
As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.
Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.
Author:
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.
Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.
Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”
On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”
One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”
Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.
Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
Hawley: Whistleblowers say Trump’s security detail was unprepared, inexperienced
Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says
Claims about ‘safer supply’ diversion aren’t disinformation
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
-
National1 day agoLiberals offer no response as Conservative MP calls Trudeau a ‘liar’ for an hour straight
-
COVID-191 day agoLeaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good
-
Business1 day agoFederal government seems committed to killing investment in Canada
-
International1 day agoSwitzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’
-
Business1 day agoEstonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth
-
Economy1 day agoKamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers