Alberta
Potential investment manager for an Alberta pension plan—here are the facts
From the Fraser Institute
As discussions around Alberta’s potential withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) continue, commentators have bombarded Albertans (and Canadians more generally) with sometimes misleading rhetoric, which can undermine the public’s understanding of this key issue. Albertans—and Canadians broadly—need facts to make well-informed decisions.
One key issue has been the potential investment manager for an Alberta pension plan. Specifically, commentators have implied that by leaving the CPP, Albertans retirement funds would no longer be managed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) but rather by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo), which manages several public funds and pensions in the province.
This is not necessarily the case. The province has the option to retain the CPPIB as its investment manager, contract with AIMCo, create a new provider, or contract with the private sector. Put simply, an independent Albertan pension plan has options other than contracting with AIMCo.
But for argument’s sake, let’s assume AIMCo was chosen as the investment manager for an Alberta pension plan. There’s quite a bit of confusion regarding AIMCo that should be clarified. Perhaps most commonly, critics of AIMCo emphasize that the CPPIB has averaged 10 per cent annual returns over the past decade, higher than AIMCo’s 7.2 per cent.
While true, the CPPIB rate of return is distinct from the rate of return earned by contributors to the CPP. Put differently, an individual’s rate of return is not the same as the fund’s rate of return because of the way the CPP was originally designed. Some of the commentary written on this issue has implied that the lower rates of return at AIMCo would influence the benefits received by Alberta retirees. In fact, the retirement benefits Canadians receive from the CPP, and from a comparable Alberta pension plan, are based on several unrelated factors including how many years they’ve worked, their annual contributions and the age they retire. This is key since the CPP and a potential Alberta pension plan are largely based on current workers paying for current retirees, or what’s known as a pay-as-you-go system. Estimates suggest Canadian workers born in 1993 or later can expect a real rate of return of just 2.5 per cent from the CPP.
Given the pay-as-you-go nature of the plan, the key for the CPP, and one assumes for an independent Alberta pension plan, is that the fund earns a rate of return that allows for sustainable payments to retirees over time. The current required rate of return for the CPPIB is 6.0 per cent, which both it and AIMCo exceed.
Moreover, AIMCo, unlike the CPPIB, is constrained by the investment policies of each individual pension fund that it manages. Indeed, unlike the CPPIB, AIMCo is responsible for managing the funds of numerous pension plans, each with their own investment objectives, risk tolerances and asset mixes AIMCo must follow.
For instance, the Management Employees Pension Plan, one of AIMCo’s largest pension funds, requires that 20 per cent to 45 per cent of the market value of the plan’s assets be invested in “inflation sensitive” investments, which include real estate, renewable resources and other assets that may have lower returns compared to alternatives such as investments in private equity. These constraints can limit AIMCo’s overall rate of return, while the CPPIB, unencumbered by the investment policies of other pension funds, has the flexibility to invest according to its core objective, which is to maximize returns adjusted for risk. Put differently, Albertans could grant AIMCo the same flexibility—it all depends on the investment policy implemented if an Alberta pension plan were created.
Finally, opponents also argue that the CPPIB fund’s size (more than $575 billion) makes it superior to any potential provincial fund. Yet the evidence suggests that despite its size, the CPP is not a low-cost pension plan. In fact, according to an analysis by Philip Cross, former chief analyst at Statistics Canada, the CPP’s cost at 1.07 per cent of assets was higher than the other analyzed pension plans, which ranged from 0.34 per cent to 1.02 per cent. And the CPP’s costs have skyrocketed from $4 million in 2000 to 4.4. billion annually, largely due to an increase in staff and compensation. For perspective, the CPPIB had only five employees in 2000; by 2020 it employed nearly 2,000 people. And critically, these changes have not increased the fund’s net returns.
Ultimately, it will be up to Albertans to decide if they want to opt out of the CPP for an Alberta pension plan, but to make that decision, they must be armed with facts. That includes clarifying some misunderstanding on two potential investment managers—CPPIB and AIMCo.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
Last Friday, less than a week before Christmas, the Smith government quietly released the final report from its Alberta Next Panel, which assessed Alberta’s role in Canada. Among other things, the panel recommends that the federal government transfer some of its tax revenue to provincial governments so they can assume more control over the delivery of provincial services. Based on Canada’s experience in the 1990s, this plan could deliver real benefits for Albertans and all Canadians.
Federations such as Canada typically work best when governments stick to their constitutional lanes. Indeed, one of the benefits of being a federalist country is that different levels of government assume responsibility for programs they’re best suited to deliver. For example, it’s logical that the federal government handle national defence, while provincial governments are typically best positioned to understand and address the unique health-care and education needs of their citizens.
But there’s currently a mismatch between the share of taxes the provinces collect and the cost of delivering provincial responsibilities (e.g. health care, education, childcare, and social services). As such, Ottawa uses transfers—including the Canada Health Transfer (CHT)—to financially support the provinces in their areas of responsibility. But these funds come with conditions.
Consider health care. To receive CHT payments from Ottawa, provinces must abide by the Canada Health Act, which effectively prevents the provinces from experimenting with new ways of delivering and financing health care—including policies that are successful in other universal health-care countries. Given Canada’s health-care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal systems, yet Canadians face some of the longest wait times for physicians and worst access to medical technology (e.g. MRIs) and hospital beds, these restrictions limit badly needed innovation and hurt patients.
To give the provinces more flexibility, the Alberta Next Panel suggests the federal government shift tax points (and transfer GST) to the provinces to better align provincial revenues with provincial responsibilities while eliminating “strings” attached to such federal transfers. In other words, Ottawa would transfer a portion of its tax revenues from the federal income tax and federal sales tax to the provincial government so they have funds to experiment with what works best for their citizens, without conditions on how that money can be used.
According to the Alberta Next Panel poll, at least in Alberta, a majority of citizens support this type of provincial autonomy in delivering provincial programs—and again, it’s paid off before.
In the 1990s, amid a fiscal crisis (greater in scale, but not dissimilar to the one Ottawa faces today), the federal government reduced welfare and social assistance transfers to the provinces while simultaneously removing most of the “strings” attached to these dollars. These reforms allowed the provinces to introduce work incentives, for example, which would have previously triggered a reduction in federal transfers. The change to federal transfers sparked a wave of reforms as the provinces experimented with new ways to improve their welfare programs, and ultimately led to significant innovation that reduced welfare dependency from a high of 3.1 million in 1994 to a low of 1.6 million in 2008, while also reducing government spending on social assistance.
The Smith government’s Alberta Next Panel wants the federal government to transfer some of its tax revenues to the provinces and reduce restrictions on provincial program delivery. As Canada’s experience in the 1990s shows, this could spur real innovation that ultimately improves services for Albertans and all Canadians.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).
The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.
Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.
As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.
Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).
The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.
Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.
Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.
The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Ottawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
All 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier
Carney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
Canadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits
-
Digital ID2 days ago
Canadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
-
International2 days agoGeorgia county admits illegally certifying 315k ballots in 2020 presidential election
-
Agriculture2 days agoEnd Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers
-
Business2 days agoThe “Disruptor-in-Chief” places Canada in the crosshairs
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoUK Police Pilot AI System to Track “Suspicious” Driver Journeys
-
Energy2 days ago‘The electric story is over’
-
International2 days agoWorld-leading biochemist debunks evolutionary theory