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 Rashid Husain Syed

Carney vows action but Alberta wants to see results and the repeal of Trudeau-era regulations

Ottawa is promising speed, Alberta is demanding proof, and the future of Canada’s energy industry hangs in the balance. A change in government hasn’t changed the tone—mistrust still defines the relationship between Ottawa and the oil-rich West. That tension is far from resolved, and any reconciliation may still be weeks or months away.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to “build big, build bold, and build now.” In recent days, new federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson has been repeating the prime minister’s campaign promise to fast-track projects of national interest, including major energy projects. “Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery,” Hodgson underlined in a speech at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last Friday, pledging to see through the prime minister’s vision to transform “Canada into a conventional and clean energy and natural resources superpower.”

Hodgson made it clear Ottawa is in a hurry. “No more five-year reviews. Decisions will come in two years for all projects. This is not a time for half measures or slow steps,” he said.

In a post-address interview with chamber CEO Deborah Yedlin, Hodgson emphasized his focus on “quick wins” in the energy sector. He reiterated support for the proposed new West to East pipeline, a crosscountry project intended to move Alberta oil and gas to refineries and ports in Eastern Canada, and promised new infrastructure to get Canadian energy “to trusted allies” outside the U.S.

But while pursuing energy infrastructure at speed, Hodgson asserted that limiting greenhouse gas emissions remains a priority. The Carney government sees crude and natural gas exports as complementary to climate goals, not in conflict. This dual-track approach—clean and conventional energy moving forward in tandem—reflects the government’s broader energy vision.

Many in the Calgary business community responded with cautious optimism. Some were encouraged that Calgary was Hodgson’s first major stop. Others were skeptical. “There is some repair and trust-building that has to happen given the challenges of the last 10 years, I would argue,” Yedlin later told reporters, emphasizing that the real test will be reducing regulatory burdens on major projects.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, building pressure on Ottawa, was quoted in media reports as saying it’s “go time” for Mark Carney.

“Enough with the foot-dragging. Enough with trying to maintain the same failed policies of the last 10 years. Let’s get going,” says Smith. “Look. I was told to give this guy a chance. I’m giving him a chance. Now I’m telling him: Don’t blow it.”

Her demands are clear: scrap the Liberal No More Pipelines law—formally known as the Impact Assessment Act—along with the cap on oil and gas emissions, the net-zero electricity regulations and the tanker ban off the west coast.

That’s just part of the list. But as Smith puts it, “So far I’m not seeing anything to suggest there’s been a true change of heart.”

“I’ve got a mandate to develop our economy and exercise our constitutional rights, and I’m going to do that, one way or the other,” she emphasized, almost threateningly.

For Canadians, what’s at stake is more than pipeline routes. The outcome of this standoff could shape national energy prices, affect investor confidence in Canadian infrastructure and resource sectors, influence emissions targets and test the limits of federal-provincial cooperation.

Carney and Hodgson face more than infrastructure challenges—they must bridge a widening political divide. The clock is ticking.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters

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.