From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid a growing separatist movement in Alberta, a recent poll commissioned by the Smith government found that 55 per cent of Albertans would vote to replace the “Canada Pension Plan (CPP) with an Alberta Pension Plan that guaranteed all Alberta seniors the same or better benefits.” That’s a massive surge in support since last year when support for a provincial plan was approximately 22 per cent. And while there are costs and benefits to leaving the CPP, one thing is clear—Albertans could see savings under a provincial pension plan.

First, some context.

From 1981 to 2022 (the latest year of available data) Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments, due mainly to the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and younger population (i.e. fewer retirees).

Over that same period, Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP—the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP payments—was $53.6 billion. That’s more than six times more than British Columbia, the only other province that paid more into the CPP than retirees in the province received in benefits.

Some analysts argue that the surge in support for a provincial pension plan in Alberta is a result of strategic wording by the Smith government, specifying that seniors would be guaranteed the same or better benefits than under the current CPP.

It’s true, the wording of a poll question can impact the results. But according to the federal legislation that governs the CPP, any province that wishes to withdraw from the CPP in favour of a provincial plan must provide comparable benefits.

And in fact, several analyses show that due to Alberta’s demographic and economic factors, Alberta workers would receive the same retirement benefits under a provincial pension plan but pay lower contribution rates compared to what they currently pay, while contributions rates would have to increase for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) to maintain the same benefits under the CPP.

More specifically, according to a report commissioned by the Smith government, Alberta’s contribution rate, which is effectively a tax taken off paycheques, would fall from the base CPP contribution rate (9.9 per cent) to an estimated 5.85 per cent under a provincial pension plan. That would save each Albertan up to $2,850 in 2027 (the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan). Again, this lower contribution rate (i.e. tax) would deliver the same benefit levels in Alberta as the current CPP.

Even under more conservative assumptions, Albertans would still pay a lower contribution rate while receiving the same benefits. According to economist Trevor Tombe’s estimate, Alberta’s contribution rate would drop to 8.2 per cent and save Albertan workers approximately $836 annually.

Support for a separate provincial pension plan is on the rise. And Albertans should know that under an Alberta plan, due to demographic and economic factors, they could pay a lower contribution rate yet receive the same level of benefits.

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a new U.S. policy to deny visas to foreign officials who pressure American tech firms to censor content. The move is the latest in a series of actions aimed at dismantling what the administration calls the “global censorship-industrial complex.”

Key Details:

• Visa bans will apply to foreign officials and their families involved in censorship targeting U.S. citizens, companies, or residents.
• Justice Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil and EU Digital Services Act (DSA) officials could be among those affected.
• The policy follows the shutdown of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and a broader crackdown on foreign speech controls.

Around the world, governments are threatening & censoring US social media platforms for legal speech. Now, @SecRubio @StateDept says it will deny visas to foreign nationals engaged in censorship against Americans, US tech companies, and people posting from inside the US. pic.twitter.com/24g0EdHLyx

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) May 28, 2025

Diving Deeper:

The United States will begin denying entry visas to foreign officials who attempt to censor American citizens or pressure U.S. tech companies to suppress free speech. The policy, unveiled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, marks the most aggressive push yet by the Trump administration to confront what it calls “global censorship collusion.”

The new policy, enabled under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, applies not just to the offending officials but also to their immediate families. It targets those responsible for direct censorship, those who engage in lawfare to silence political dissent, and those who try to export censorship mandates into American digital platforms.

While State Department officials were careful not to name specific individuals, the measure could impact Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—widely criticized for ordering the censorship of political opponents—and senior officials in the European Union overseeing the controversial Digital Services Act. The DSA has drawn backlash from U.S. leaders for its sweeping influence over American-based companies like Google, Meta, and X.

Rubio, who has led a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities since assuming office at Foggy Bottom, previously shut down the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. That office had funneled taxpayer money to NGOs like the UK-based Global Disinformation Index, which was implicated in censorship pressure campaigns linked to U.S. intelligence entities.

Just last week, the State Department hinted at potential Magnitsky Act sanctions against Moraes, whose aggressive speech controls in Brazil have become a global case study in judicial overreach. The Justice Committee in Congress also approved legislation aimed at banning him from entering the United States.

As part of the administration’s strategic realignment, Acting Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie has been tasked with leading efforts to protect American free speech interests abroad. “Obviously, we don’t love the idea of the Europeans censoring their own citizens,” Beattie told The Wall Street Journal, “but the principal concern is these spillover effects affecting content-moderation policies and a variety of free-speech concerns within the United States.”

The administration’s stance is that U.S. free speech is not just a domestic issue but a strategic priority. A recent State Department communication said the U.S. “is committed to shutting down the global censorship-industrial complex.”

Under the new visa policy, sanctions could also apply to officials who threaten arrests or asset seizures against tech companies, or demand that U.S.-based firms alter content moderation policies in line with foreign censorship laws. It further covers foreign actors who try to punish U.S. residents for online speech, or order tech platforms to withhold payments to users in retaliation for political or social commentary.

The announcement is backed by the America First Policy Directive, an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January, which declared that the protection of American citizens and their rights must remain a central objective of U.S. foreign policy.

The administration has made clear that it sees free speech not only as a constitutional right but also as a geopolitical asset. Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February, warned against the rise of censorship regimes in Europe targeting populist movements like that of Marine Le Pen in France.

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, Pool)