Potential investment manager for an Alberta pension plan—here are the facts

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.

Related Topics:#AIMCo #AlbertaPensionPlan #CanadaPensionPlan #CanadianPensionPlanInvestmentBoard #CPPIB #FraserInstitute feature

Up Next

Forget identity politics — growth and investment must be Canada’s top priorities: Jack Mintz

Don't Miss

Alberta’s Covid-19 Report clearly shows the way

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 Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Daily Caller / 5 hours ago

MTG Says She’s Resigning From Office

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman convicted at retrial even after original trial judge deemed him a “peacemaker”

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on November 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Alberta

‘Weird and wonderful’ wells are boosting oil production in Alberta and Saskatchewan

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Multilateral designs lift more energy with a smaller environmental footprint

A “weird and wonderful” drilling innovation in Alberta is helping producers tap more oil and gas at lower cost and with less environmental impact.

With names like fishbone, fan, comb-over and stingray, “multilateral” wells turn a single wellbore from the surface into multiple horizontal legs underground.

“They do look spectacular, and they are making quite a bit of money for small companies, so there’s a lot of interest from investors,” said Calin Dragoie, vice-president of geoscience with Calgary-based Chinook Consulting Services.

Dragoie, who has extensively studied the use of multilateral wells, said the technology takes horizontal drilling — which itself revolutionized oil and gas production — to the next level.

“It’s something that was not invented in Canada, but was perfected here. And it’s something that I think in the next few years will be exported as a technology to other parts of the world,” he said.

Dragoie’s research found that in 2015 less than 10 per cent of metres drilled in Western Canada came from multilateral wells. By last year, that share had climbed to nearly 60 per cent.

Royalty incentives in Alberta have accelerated the trend, and Saskatchewan has introduced similar policy.

Multilaterals first emerged alongside horizontal drilling in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Dragoie said. But today’s multilaterals are longer, more complex and more productive.

The main play is in Alberta’s Marten Hills region, where producers are using multilaterals to produce shallow heavy oil.

Today’s average multilateral has about 7.5 horizontal legs from a single surface location, up from four or six just a few years ago, Dragoie said.

One record-setting well in Alberta drilled by Tamarack Valley Energy in 2023 features 11 legs stretching two miles each, for a total subsurface reach of 33 kilometres — the longest well in Canada.

By accessing large volumes of oil and gas from a single surface pad, multilaterals reduce land impact by a factor of five to ten compared to conventional wells, he said.

The designs save money by skipping casing strings and cement in each leg, and production is amplified as a result of increased reservoir contact.

Here are examples of multilateral well design. Images courtesy Chinook Consulting Services.

Parallel