Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets

Each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.

Despite a new report from Canada’s chief actuary about Alberta’s potential plan to leave the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and start its own separate provincial pension plan, Albertans still don’t have an official estimate from Ottawa about Alberta’s share of CPP assets.

The actuary analyzed how the division of assets might be calculated, but did not provide specific numbers.

Yet according to a report commissioned by the Smith government and released last year, Alberta’s share of CPP assets totalled an estimated $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets. Based on that number, if Alberta left the CPP, Albertans would pay a contribution rate of 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program (a significant reduction from the current 9.9 per cent CPP rate deducted from their paycheques). As a result, each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.

Why would Albertans pay less under a provincial plan?

Because Alberta has a comparatively younger population (i.e. more workers vs. retirees), higher average incomes and higher levels of employment (i.e. higher level of premiums paid into the fund). As such, Albertans collectively pay significantly more into the CPP than retirees in Alberta receive in benefits. Simply put, under a provincial plan, Albertans would pay less and receive the same benefits.

Some critics, however, dispute the estimated share of Alberta’s CPP assets (again, $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets) in the Smith government’s report, and claim the estimate understates the report’s contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan and overestimates the new CPP rate without Alberta.

Which takes us back to the new report from Canada’s chief actuary, which was supposed to provide its own estimate of Alberta’s share of the assets. Unfortunately, it did not.

But there are other rate estimates out there, based on various assumptions. According to a 2019 analysis published by the Fraser Institute, the contribution rate for a new separate CPP-like program in Alberta could be as low as 5.85 per cent, while AIMCo’s 2019 estimate was 7.21 per cent (and possibly as low as 6.85 per cent). And University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe has pegged Alberta’s hypothetical rate at 8.2 per cent.

While the actuary in Ottawa failed to provide any numbers, one thing’s for certain—according to the available estimates, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate in a separate provincial pension plan while CPP contributions for the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) would likely increase.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#AlbertaPensionPlan #FraserInstitute #TeganHill AlbertaShareOfCPPAssets CPP feature

Up Next

Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover

Don't Miss

Globalist elites are trying to ‘protect democracy’ by eliminating right leaning competition

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump designates fentanyl a ‘weapon of mass destruction’

Energy / 8 hours ago

Energy security matters more than political rhetoric

Energy / 8 hours ago

Canada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy

Business

Major tax changes in 2026: Report

Published on December 15, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its annual New Year’s Tax Changes report today to highlight the major tax changes in 2026.

“There’s some good news and bad news for taxpayers in 2026,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The federal government cut income taxes, but it’s hiking payroll taxes. The government cancelled the consumer carbon tax, but it’s hammering Canadian businesses with a higher industrial carbon tax.”

Payroll taxes: The federal government is raising the maximum mandatory Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance contributions in 2026. These payroll tax increases will cost a worker up to an additional $262 next year.

For workers making $85,000 or more, federal payroll taxes (CPP and EI tax) will cost $5,770 in 2026. Their employers will also be forced to pay $6,219.

Income tax: The federal government cut the lowest income tax rate from 15 to 14 per cent. This will save the average taxpayer $190 in 2026, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Carbon taxes: The government cancelled its consumer carbon tax effective April 1, 2025. However, the government still charges carbon taxes through its industrial carbon tax and a hidden carbon tax embedded in fuel regulations.

The industrial carbon tax will increase to $110 per tonne in 2026. While the government hasn’t provided further details on how much the industrial carbon tax will cost Canadians, 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass on most or some of the cost of the tax to consumers, according to a Leger poll.

Alcohol taxes: Federal alcohol taxes are expected to increase by two per cent on April 1, 2026. This alcohol tax hike will cost taxpayers about $41 million in 2026-27, according to industry estimates.

First passed in the 2017 federal budget, the alcohol escalator tax automatically increases excise taxes on beer, wine and spirits every year without a vote in Parliament. Since being imposed, the alcohol escalator tax has cost taxpayers about $1.6 billion, according to industry estimates.

“Canadians pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians are overtaxed and need serious tax cuts to help make life more affordable and our economy more competitive.

“Prime Minister Mark Carney needs to significantly cut spending, provide major tax relief and scrap all carbon taxes.”

You can read the CTF’s New Year’s Tax Changes report here.

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.