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.

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Canada’s bread price-fixing scandal is one of the most damaging breaches of corporate trust in the history of Canadian food retail. The recent approval
of a $500-million class-action settlement by an Ontario court is a significant—though partial—step toward accountability. But the story isn’t over.

For over a decade, grocery giants secretly rigged the price of the country’s most basic food item, and most Canadians had no idea.

From 2001 to 2015, retailers and suppliers deliberately coordinated to raise the price of packaged bread, a basic household staple. This kind of illegal arrangement, known as price-fixing, occurs when supposed competitors agree to set prices rather than compete, driving up costs for consumers. Companies named in the lawsuit include Loblaw, its parent company George Weston Ltd., Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Giant Tiger.

The impact on consumers was steep. Estimates suggest Canadians were overcharged by more than $5 billion over 14 years. The added cost was hidden in weekly grocery bills, largely unnoticed, but cumulatively devastating, especially for lower-income households that spend a greater share of their income on food.

The Competition Bureau, Canada’s competition watchdog, launched its investigation in 2015 after Loblaw came forward as a whistleblower under its Immunity and Leniency Program. In exchange for cooperating, Loblaw and George Weston were granted immunity from criminal prosecution. Their disclosure triggered years of scrutiny. In 2017, the companies attempted to contain the public backlash by offering $25 gift cards to 3.8 million Canadians, a gesture that cost $96 million and was widely seen as inadequate.

More recently, in 2023, Canada Bread pleaded guilty and paid a record $50-million fine for its role in the scheme. Although the violations occurred while it was owned by Maple Leaf Foods, it was Grupo Bimbo—which acquired Canada Bread in 2014—that took responsibility and cooperated with regulators. It was a rare show of accountability in a case otherwise marked by corporate silence.

Despite multiple companies being implicated, only Loblaw, George Weston and Canada Bread have admitted wrongdoing. No fines or sanctions have been imposed on the others. Walmart, Metro, Sobeys and Giant Tiger—all named by Loblaw—deny the allegations. Yet the investigation drags on nearly a decade later.

This imbalance in accountability has deepened public frustration. Many Canadians believe only those who stepped forward have faced consequences,
while others remain untouched. Or perhaps Loblaw threw its competitors under the bus in a calculated effort to save its own reputation?

The $500-million settlement—$404 million of it from Loblaw and George Weston —was approved by an Ontario judge earlier this month as “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.” The other $96 million reflects the earlier gift card program. What’s left to be paid amounts to about $13 per Canadian adult. After legal fees and administrative costs, 78 per cent of that will go to eligible Canadians outside Quebec, with the remaining 22 per cent reserved for Quebecers, pending a June 16 court hearing.

But for many, the money and the apologies do little to restore trust. If companies can quietly collude on something as essential as bread, it raises questions about what else might be going unnoticed in our grocery bills. The scandal exposed major weaknesses in Canada’s food retail system: toothless competition laws, limited pricing transparency and weak deterrents against collusion. These investigations take too long, and the damage to public confidence lingers long after the cheques are cashed.

Bread is not just a commodity. It symbolizes nourishment, affordability and stability. Manipulating its price isn’t just a legal violation; it’s a betrayal of public trust.

If this case is to be a turning point, it must lead to more than payouts. Canada needs stronger enforcement, faster investigations and real transparency in pricing. Without systemic reform, Canadians will remain vulnerable to the next coordinated “market adjustment,” hiding in plain sight on store shelves.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country