Letter: No government, of any party, should have power to manipulate pension funds

By Letter to the Editor on July 29, 2025.

Prior to the last election Danielle Smith stated that an Alberta Pension Plan was not an election issue. Since then her party has spent millions of our dollars promoting one.

After 63% of respondents rejected it in last year’s survey, the UCP is once again trying to sell the idea. The new sales pitch video, screening online and during the UCP “Alberta Next” meetings, suggests an APP “could” require lower premiums for the same payout or “could” lead to higher benefits.

Given current conditions – Albertans generally being younger than those in other provinces and a successful oil and gas industry – this is a reasonable assessment for the near future (the Quebec Plan had lower premiums compared to the CPP to start, now they pay more).

To this point most Albertans do not feel this potential benefit is worth the associated risks. Keeping their retirement money in an established and stable fund is wiser than handing it over to politicians to do with as they please.

Outside its long-term success and broader population base, the most notable difference between the CPP and an APP is control over its structure. The federal government, nine provinces and three territories have a voice in how the CPP operates.

The federal government is in charge, but there are 12 other bodies watching to ensure the CPP is free of undue political influence. An APP would have one government without meaningful oversight in charge.

That government would be hiring the people running it, and nothing would keep politicians from influencing where pension money would be invested. This would be as true for an NDP government as for a UCP government – anyone not trusting one or the other (or both) would be hard pressed to be convinced that is good idea.

The UCP wants access to Albertans’ CPP pension money. Those who think that is a good idea have more faith in politicians than I do.

Ed Dick

Medicine Hat

11
-10