I believer the Federal Government should be magisterially silent on this made-in-Alberta idiocy. Let Danielle + UCP fill their separtiste diapers and stink the whole place out over this stupid idea. The only thing that counts is the next provincial election to hopefully flush these vandals from office
Sorry Lee, if Trudeau--and all the other provincial premiers, too--refuse to answer, they leave the debate to Smith. That's a sure way to lose. Remember the propaganda tactic called "the big lie." Say something so absurd people tell each other, "Hey, it must be true. The guv'mint couldn't say that if it weren't." Keep repeating the Big Lie till enough chuckleheads believe it. That's what just happened in Australia, where debate about giving Aboriginal people a voice in their Parliament was defeated by a well-organized, well-funded "No" movement.
Mike - you have made a great point here as to perhaps the error ceding the field to Smith et al. Perhaps I am just wearied beyond measure dealing with the UCP (and the PCs before them) with their bogus positioning and appalling record around "listening", "consultation", "taking direction" from Albertans when in reality the policy is set, the legislation is written and the shotcallers are reclining back pouring drinks while the appearance of democratic input is used to deflect and ignore the wishes of the Alberta people.
Absolutely correct, Lee. Jason Kenney only pretended to be a populist. He was really a corporate shill, an ethically-challenged opportunist with an inflated ego and a closet autocrat. Danielle Smith is worse, on all counts. I believe Smith wants political power, but she has no clue what to do with it, and no clue how it works. Result: as with Kenney, Scott Moe and Doug Ford (and, God help us, maybe soon with Poilievre) she can only break things.
I think its high time Albertans start understanding that Smith et al in the UCP are "separtistes", in the classic sense of what that term means in the context of Canadian politics. Or as I prefer to call them (god bless PET for this description) - "Petty Blackmailers". To name a thing is to understand a thing.
Hmm...as a non-expert in high (or even low) finance, I can only guess. Given that, though, I'd say it isn't a good sign. Recent reports have shown that consumers are a lot less confident than economists about the state of the economy. Either the Scotiabank CEO agrees with us, or he's slashing the wage bill to preserve profits. I dunno, but either way it doesn't look good.
Interesting link, thanks, and Australians are so fortunate to have a gem like Albanese, but as soon as we progressives gain some ground the psycho right kicks into gear yet again. This is an even bigger picture:
No, silence hasn't worked, clearly; all those non-participants and/or non-voters who are quite certain, even smug about refusing to engage with petty conflict and/or politics generally are now officially part of the problem in this time of dangerous, life-altering climate change.
Sailing up there beyond the fray is certainly appealing except for the fact that the fray is us, is nature, is our precious eggshell lives, and both our democracy and our society are crumbling at the hands of the political right wing, which has become monstrous, a version of the "banality of evil." Period. Pan out and out to the big picture where you see big oil silencing science in the name of pure corporate greed just like the tobacco companies did but with FAR worse consequences for all of us as a SPECIES. What kind of pure psychopaths deny climate change at this point? Conservatives do; the meme that "conservatives are going to kill us all" isn't just a meme.
The fact that the left seems mostly silent/helpless in the face of this existential threat doesn't make us look much more rational at a basic level; it can in fact be seen as just another form of "denialism." Why we can't quite get this basic survivalist message out does speak to NAMING the enemy or the problem before we can deal with it. They're not just telling us who they really ARE and what they're about, they're screaming it in our faces for gawd's sake! And it's political as hell, it all comes down to politics so we have to answer in the same context.
If you don't want to follow politics because of the mind-numbing tedium, and/or you don't like petty power games, understood, but you should at least know that that's actually part of the current right wing strategy to alienate voters in the democracy who probably won't vote for them anyway; the Republicans have become masters at it.
Truly all you have to do is look at what's going on in the U.S. right now to know where the right wing will take our democracy. It's in living colour right before our eyes.
The Quebec Pension Plan includes a clause the specifically states the plan will be used to boost investment in Quebec.
Last week, Nate Horner told us the Quebec model was "off the table." He must have severely annoyed Rob Anderson*, because this week, the Quebec model is back on the table:
*Almost forgot to add the footnote. I was going to use a much ruder phrase to describe Anderson's reaction, but this is supposed to be a polite discussion.
Mike J Danysh: If Albertans get further hoodwinked and bamboozled into getting an APP, that they do not want, they will not have kind words for Danielle Smith and the UCP. Vulgar language will be used, and even worse may happen. The UCP are doing whatever it takes to ram the APP down our throats. It was never part of the provincial election platform by the UCP, and this was done on purpose. Now, the APP is seen and heard in various ads, which no doubt cost a fortune to produce, and the UCP is glorifying it in these ads. When the UCP produced an online survey about the APP, nothing even stated whether Albertans wanted it or not. Whenever Danielle Smith has been asked about the matter, even on her talk show, that is on the radio, she would avoid answering questions about it, and seemed intent on forcing the APP unto Albertans. No public meetings are allowed. The fear of rebuttal will be there. The APP is a bad gamble to begin with, because the UCP already lost $4 billion in pension money. AIMCo doesn't provide gains, just losses, and this is tied into the very volatile oil and gas markets. This is all rotten to the core.
Everyone reading this substack should read definitions of libertarian and neoliberalism as that what re UCP and Federal Conservative Party are. No unions, privatization of public education, privatization of all public assets, less environmental protection and regulations, lower taxes for the rich, higher incomes and businesses as if the trickle down theory works, eliminating the middle class so we have rich and poor. That's their goal.
David Krieger: Another Krieger, Robbie Krieger, wrote a well known song, Light My Fire, when he was in The Doors. It was a Summer of Love hit, in 1967. It went up to #1. Someone should do a parody of the song for Danielle Smith and the UCP.
Smith blowing hot air, wasting our tax dollars on propoganda and ads. Let’s go directly to a referendum without wasting anymore of our tax dollars or UCP bribes continuing.
Why should the Feds provide a percentage of assets that they think could go to an APP? All of that would be subject to negotiation with the Feds; the remaining 8 provinces; and eventually the Supreme Court in the event of a yes vote and negotiations. I wouldn't touch it.
Rob, I have read the LifeWorks report and I definitely recommend it to everyone. Next up for me is Trevor Tombe's report.
Okay, having said that, LifeWorks themselves admit that the actual number "due to" Alberta could be markedly different than their calculations. The problem is that the formula for what is "due to" Alberta is set forth in the Canada Pension Plan Act and that formula has not been updated since the original Act was passed into law in, I believe, 1965. The original way in which the CPP was organized was incompetent under today's standards and the formula was based on something approximating {but see next paragraph} a competently run pension plan, which CPP was not for over thirty more years.
[Just as an aside, LW makes the point that if the formula in the CPP Act is read literally then 100% of income that has been earned by the fund should be allocated to Alberta, not just Alberta's share. That would, according to LW boost the "due to" to over 700+B, a truly absurd number and is part of why I call the formula incompetent. LW did not use that literal interpretation.]
Okay, the LW report uses the formula in the CPP Act even though, as I say, it is an incompetent piece of legislation. LW recognizes the failure of the formula (they are too polite to use my pejorative) but they also note that there are a number of things that would ordinarily REDUCE the amount "due to" Alberta. LW, very responsibly reduced the "due to" by those items even though those reductions are not required in the Act. LW also noted that there were a number of other potential reductions that were worth considering but advised that a) they had no data to make those calculations; b) only CPP would have that data; and c) CPP declined to provide that data.
My point in all of this is that if CPP doesn't get involved in dealing in numbers, the monstrously large 300+B will stand as the "correct" amount "due to" Alberta.
A word about me as you think about what I have said above. I am possibly, kinda, sorta, perhaps maybe favorably disposed to the idea of an APP but I really do want to understand what CPP thinks. It doesn't have to be a final negotiating figure but how about the information that LW identified as needed.
To date, CPP has said only a few things {I paraphrase]: "Hell, no!" "Your numbers are wrong." and "We don't think that you are consulting properly." The first item is not helpful as it is argumentative with no further argument. The second number is not helpful as it doesn't provide any other numbers by which to get discussion going. The third number is none of CPP's damned business; this is the business of Albertans and we can demand different, better discussion but CPP should not be involved in our intra-family discussion except to provide numerical data to all sides and, where one side makes an error, it should provide unbiased commentary to assist in correcting that error.
Hi Ken. One thing I'd like to know is--why didn't the author of the LifeWorks report allow his name to be published? Didn't (presumably) he want the credit?
Mike, you have to understand that the big accounting firms, big law firms, big consulting firms all operate on the basis that when they give an opinion, it is not the opinion of one individual but it is THE FIRM that issues the opinion and stands behind it with all of their prestige, etc. I am sure that you noted that I capitalized THE FIRM to indicate that it is an institutional opinion that they all - i.e. every partner - stands behind. That is why such an opinion is on firm letterhead and is signed in the firm name, not the name of an individual. [I am a retired accountant who had to deal with lawyers, accounting firms, etc., etc. so this is familiar to me.]
So, there will undoubtedly be a principal author but you can be absolutely certain that this opinion was researched nineteen ways to Sunday. There were legal folks who simply read the CPP Act, there were constitutional specialists who looked at that aspect. You can be absolutely certain that there were many accounting types. And, of course, LifeWorks are themselves well known pension specialists (they used to be known as Morneau Shepell, i.e. Bill Morneau's old company). And there would have been many other specialists. So, yes, there is a principal author but you can be certain that this opinion was drafted, re-drafted, re-re-drafted, polished, re-polished, etc. by many, many, many people.
You can absolutely criticize some elements of their work; I have done so myself in terms of some things. What you cannot do (at least not honestly) is to say that they were sloppy or used foolish assumptions. All of their assumptions have a factual basis for their use; read the report for yourself and you will see what I mean. However, however, however. None of that means that the LW report is "correct" simply because of two things.
First, LW themselves in the report that there are note things for which they sought data but CPP and/or others refused to supply that data and those items may (or may not) have had a noticeable impact on the final number.
Second, I absolutely believe that the "correctness" of the final number is almost secondary as this will ultimately be a deal done by the politicians. I believe that there will be arguments from some Albertans that Alberta should just go to court and wave the CPP Act in the judge's face. The feds would love to say something like, 'Yes, but ....." to delay, obfuscate and so on and so forth. At the end of the day, the possibility of an adverse verdict (adverse for either side) will, I predict, cause the politicians to settle with Alberta getting noticeably less than the indicated 300+B and CPP having to pay out massively more than it currently expects to. Ultimately, perhaps the best of all worlds: both sides sullen but the deal is done.
This will damage pensioners in other provinces. Ultimately, Smith will blame everything on Ottawa no matter the outcome. She is putting Alberta on a path to separation. A critical mass of people will get upset and want to destroy confederation. I’d really like to hear from Pierre Pollievre. There is no way he supports the Alberta position if he wants to get votes on the rest of Canada.
Love the convoy driving around the Alberta legislature comment 😁; however, I understand that the Canada Pension is supposed to be at arm’s length from Government (and that, in itself, is another incentive to stay as far away from Danielle’s APP as possible!) It would be inappropriate for Trudeau to give a number, and it might be nice if someone pointed out to Danielle that her very partial involvement and use of our tax dollars to sway the public is quite questionable!
Actually, Penny, I think Trudeau's involvement is both appropriate and essential! Smith's ploy, the Alberta Pension Scam, affects the entire country. Both CPP management and the Federal government should be openly criticizing Smith's outrageous claims. They should refute Smith's rhetoric as fast and as forcefully as possible.
You hit it right on, the questionnaire is a joke as there is no no option in the whole thing. Plus as I watch Premier Smith go on creating one crisis after another it gets tedious.
Then we have Dave Parker stating his odious remarks of communist to any one who disagrees, but Iike Smith they think they are Superior Thinking and Moral humans. Unfortunately they act like some sort of elite.
It's time to use Danielle Smith's "Tell the Feds" campaign against her. Not only is her "we'll freeze in the dark" campaign complete BS, so is the Alberta Pension Scam. Smith was also beaking off about the carbon tax and "just transition" and what she thinks it should mean (I dunno what she wrote, I don't read ToastMedia papers).
So, if you disagree with Smith, tell your MP! Here's a list of constituency-office email addresses:
Ask 'em to CC your letter to the appropriate Cabinet Minister (e.g. Finance, Energy, Intergovernmental Affairs), and don't forget Jagmeet Singh. They all have to know that Danielle Smith does NOT speak for all Albertans!
Danielle Smith is acting like a lousy salesperson, trying to sell something to people that they do not want. Good for Justin Trudeau to speak out against this absurd APP tripe from Danielle Smith and the UCP. The UCP were too chicken to put this on the provincial election itinerary, because it would have led to their demise. Now, the UCP are trying to ram the APP down the throats of Albertans, in many ways. A very rigged online survey, that doesn't ask whether Albertans want the APP, or don't want it. Unlimited responses can be sent. This should start to raise red flags, but it doesn't end there. We are being bombarded with ads on different platforms, including on the radio, TV, and on YouTube, making it look like the APP is a sound idea. Danielle Smith also will not answer any questions from Albertans who have serious reservations and doubts about the APP. Not on her radio talk show, and not in any other reasonable way. No public discussions are allowed, because the UCP are to chicken to face the public on this very serious issue. We can only do phone in discussions to let the UCP know what we think. The UCP will have a referendum on the matter. It will be as sketchy as their online survey. We will likely see a confusing question, or questions, that are hard to make sense of, and no will mean yes, and yes will mean no. Jim Dinning, a former Ralph Klein era cabinet minister, who originally opposed the APP, is now part of the well paid salesperson team by the UCP to promote the APP. All of the ways the UCP are trying to promote the APP cost a lot of money, that could be better used on important things. On top of all this, the UCP lost $4 billion of pension money, through AIMCo, and this is a good reason why the APP should be ditched. Whomever voted for the UCP should really be ashamed of themselves, because they have done so much harm, in so little time. More problems will be forthcoming with the UCP.
Hey, guess how much that LifeWorks report cost! It’s been on the shelf for three years, and Smith finally trotted it out. $1.8 million! You read that correctly. Here’s the link:
I was wrong about the report being written for Smith’s government. Obviously, it was the Kenney government that paid for this drivel. With the criticisms from real-life experts in economics, pension admin and management, it’s no wonder they hid it for three whole years.
Danielle believes her job as AB Premier is to separate from Canada. No, she didn't campaign on that either - at least not out loud. This whole APP thing is just to poke the current Federal Government. (I think she has a 'thing' forJustin!!?)
This APP push also distracts from all the current mis-steps this government is experiencing. And their upcoming caucus meeting with a whole swack of curious policy items.
It's truly unfortunate that in this time in history that Canada & provinces are not looking to be more competitive globally by removing inter-provincial barriers to just about everything. It's easier to trade internationally than inter provincially. This includes too many Provincial 'associations restricting various professional practice (Dr., Nurses, Engineers, Architects etc) in Canada - even though all have National Associations. If all adopted a practice attitude similar to the Red Seal program for trades, we could start to strengthen the entire country on so many levels. But ... one would need to want a strong country first. Danielle is focussed on Danielle - not a strong country.
I believer the Federal Government should be magisterially silent on this made-in-Alberta idiocy. Let Danielle + UCP fill their separtiste diapers and stink the whole place out over this stupid idea. The only thing that counts is the next provincial election to hopefully flush these vandals from office
Sorry Lee, if Trudeau--and all the other provincial premiers, too--refuse to answer, they leave the debate to Smith. That's a sure way to lose. Remember the propaganda tactic called "the big lie." Say something so absurd people tell each other, "Hey, it must be true. The guv'mint couldn't say that if it weren't." Keep repeating the Big Lie till enough chuckleheads believe it. That's what just happened in Australia, where debate about giving Aboriginal people a voice in their Parliament was defeated by a well-organized, well-funded "No" movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/18/inside-the-voice-campaigns-how-muddled-messages-and-voter-confusion-led-to-a-crushing-defeat
Mike - you have made a great point here as to perhaps the error ceding the field to Smith et al. Perhaps I am just wearied beyond measure dealing with the UCP (and the PCs before them) with their bogus positioning and appalling record around "listening", "consultation", "taking direction" from Albertans when in reality the policy is set, the legislation is written and the shotcallers are reclining back pouring drinks while the appearance of democratic input is used to deflect and ignore the wishes of the Alberta people.
Absolutely correct, Lee. Jason Kenney only pretended to be a populist. He was really a corporate shill, an ethically-challenged opportunist with an inflated ego and a closet autocrat. Danielle Smith is worse, on all counts. I believe Smith wants political power, but she has no clue what to do with it, and no clue how it works. Result: as with Kenney, Scott Moe and Doug Ford (and, God help us, maybe soon with Poilievre) she can only break things.
I think its high time Albertans start understanding that Smith et al in the UCP are "separtistes", in the classic sense of what that term means in the context of Canadian politics. Or as I prefer to call them (god bless PET for this description) - "Petty Blackmailers". To name a thing is to understand a thing.
Mike J Danysh: I just heard that Scotiabank is laying off a lot of people. This is also the start of something bad. What do you think about this?
Hmm...as a non-expert in high (or even low) finance, I can only guess. Given that, though, I'd say it isn't a good sign. Recent reports have shown that consumers are a lot less confident than economists about the state of the economy. Either the Scotiabank CEO agrees with us, or he's slashing the wage bill to preserve profits. I dunno, but either way it doesn't look good.
Interesting link, thanks, and Australians are so fortunate to have a gem like Albanese, but as soon as we progressives gain some ground the psycho right kicks into gear yet again. This is an even bigger picture:
https://www.desmog.com/2023/10/10/a-secretive-network-is-fighting-indigenous-rights-in-australia-and-canada-expert-says/
No, silence hasn't worked, clearly; all those non-participants and/or non-voters who are quite certain, even smug about refusing to engage with petty conflict and/or politics generally are now officially part of the problem in this time of dangerous, life-altering climate change.
Sailing up there beyond the fray is certainly appealing except for the fact that the fray is us, is nature, is our precious eggshell lives, and both our democracy and our society are crumbling at the hands of the political right wing, which has become monstrous, a version of the "banality of evil." Period. Pan out and out to the big picture where you see big oil silencing science in the name of pure corporate greed just like the tobacco companies did but with FAR worse consequences for all of us as a SPECIES. What kind of pure psychopaths deny climate change at this point? Conservatives do; the meme that "conservatives are going to kill us all" isn't just a meme.
The fact that the left seems mostly silent/helpless in the face of this existential threat doesn't make us look much more rational at a basic level; it can in fact be seen as just another form of "denialism." Why we can't quite get this basic survivalist message out does speak to NAMING the enemy or the problem before we can deal with it. They're not just telling us who they really ARE and what they're about, they're screaming it in our faces for gawd's sake! And it's political as hell, it all comes down to politics so we have to answer in the same context.
If you don't want to follow politics because of the mind-numbing tedium, and/or you don't like petty power games, understood, but you should at least know that that's actually part of the current right wing strategy to alienate voters in the democracy who probably won't vote for them anyway; the Republicans have become masters at it.
Truly all you have to do is look at what's going on in the U.S. right now to know where the right wing will take our democracy. It's in living colour right before our eyes.
The Quebec Pension Plan includes a clause the specifically states the plan will be used to boost investment in Quebec.
Last week, Nate Horner told us the Quebec model was "off the table." He must have severely annoyed Rob Anderson*, because this week, the Quebec model is back on the table:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-pension-plan-ucp-ndp-abpoli-1.6999344
Does anyone need further proof that the whole and sole purpose of a shiny new Alberta Pension Plan is to create a slush fund for oil and gas bailouts?
*Almost forgot to add the footnote. I was going to use a much ruder phrase to describe Anderson's reaction, but this is supposed to be a polite discussion.
Mike J Danysh: If Albertans get further hoodwinked and bamboozled into getting an APP, that they do not want, they will not have kind words for Danielle Smith and the UCP. Vulgar language will be used, and even worse may happen. The UCP are doing whatever it takes to ram the APP down our throats. It was never part of the provincial election platform by the UCP, and this was done on purpose. Now, the APP is seen and heard in various ads, which no doubt cost a fortune to produce, and the UCP is glorifying it in these ads. When the UCP produced an online survey about the APP, nothing even stated whether Albertans wanted it or not. Whenever Danielle Smith has been asked about the matter, even on her talk show, that is on the radio, she would avoid answering questions about it, and seemed intent on forcing the APP unto Albertans. No public meetings are allowed. The fear of rebuttal will be there. The APP is a bad gamble to begin with, because the UCP already lost $4 billion in pension money. AIMCo doesn't provide gains, just losses, and this is tied into the very volatile oil and gas markets. This is all rotten to the core.
The marketing for the no side is relatively simple.
KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF MY PENSION
I think you should move the second-last word to third. Otherwise, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
done lol
The tit-for-tat letters have begun. CBC quotes Smith's reply to Trudeau, thus:
"'It is disingenuous and inappropriate for you to stoke fear in the hearts and minds of Canadian retirees on this issue,' Smith wrote to Trudeau."
Absolutely true! Being disingenuous and inappropriate is Smith's job.
Everyone reading this substack should read definitions of libertarian and neoliberalism as that what re UCP and Federal Conservative Party are. No unions, privatization of public education, privatization of all public assets, less environmental protection and regulations, lower taxes for the rich, higher incomes and businesses as if the trickle down theory works, eliminating the middle class so we have rich and poor. That's their goal.
David Krieger: Another Krieger, Robbie Krieger, wrote a well known song, Light My Fire, when he was in The Doors. It was a Summer of Love hit, in 1967. It went up to #1. Someone should do a parody of the song for Danielle Smith and the UCP.
Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire.
You know what you say is untrue
I know that you are a liar
It is so easy to see
When your pants have caught on fire
Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire....
With you now we will only lose
And we won't get any higher
Stuck in the muck and the mire
And it's all because of you
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire....
Smith blowing hot air, wasting our tax dollars on propoganda and ads. Let’s go directly to a referendum without wasting anymore of our tax dollars or UCP bribes continuing.
Why should the Feds provide a percentage of assets that they think could go to an APP? All of that would be subject to negotiation with the Feds; the remaining 8 provinces; and eventually the Supreme Court in the event of a yes vote and negotiations. I wouldn't touch it.
It's not about give me your best offer. We're not buying a car
Rob, I have read the LifeWorks report and I definitely recommend it to everyone. Next up for me is Trevor Tombe's report.
Okay, having said that, LifeWorks themselves admit that the actual number "due to" Alberta could be markedly different than their calculations. The problem is that the formula for what is "due to" Alberta is set forth in the Canada Pension Plan Act and that formula has not been updated since the original Act was passed into law in, I believe, 1965. The original way in which the CPP was organized was incompetent under today's standards and the formula was based on something approximating {but see next paragraph} a competently run pension plan, which CPP was not for over thirty more years.
[Just as an aside, LW makes the point that if the formula in the CPP Act is read literally then 100% of income that has been earned by the fund should be allocated to Alberta, not just Alberta's share. That would, according to LW boost the "due to" to over 700+B, a truly absurd number and is part of why I call the formula incompetent. LW did not use that literal interpretation.]
Okay, the LW report uses the formula in the CPP Act even though, as I say, it is an incompetent piece of legislation. LW recognizes the failure of the formula (they are too polite to use my pejorative) but they also note that there are a number of things that would ordinarily REDUCE the amount "due to" Alberta. LW, very responsibly reduced the "due to" by those items even though those reductions are not required in the Act. LW also noted that there were a number of other potential reductions that were worth considering but advised that a) they had no data to make those calculations; b) only CPP would have that data; and c) CPP declined to provide that data.
My point in all of this is that if CPP doesn't get involved in dealing in numbers, the monstrously large 300+B will stand as the "correct" amount "due to" Alberta.
A word about me as you think about what I have said above. I am possibly, kinda, sorta, perhaps maybe favorably disposed to the idea of an APP but I really do want to understand what CPP thinks. It doesn't have to be a final negotiating figure but how about the information that LW identified as needed.
To date, CPP has said only a few things {I paraphrase]: "Hell, no!" "Your numbers are wrong." and "We don't think that you are consulting properly." The first item is not helpful as it is argumentative with no further argument. The second number is not helpful as it doesn't provide any other numbers by which to get discussion going. The third number is none of CPP's damned business; this is the business of Albertans and we can demand different, better discussion but CPP should not be involved in our intra-family discussion except to provide numerical data to all sides and, where one side makes an error, it should provide unbiased commentary to assist in correcting that error.
Hi Ken. One thing I'd like to know is--why didn't the author of the LifeWorks report allow his name to be published? Didn't (presumably) he want the credit?
Mike, you have to understand that the big accounting firms, big law firms, big consulting firms all operate on the basis that when they give an opinion, it is not the opinion of one individual but it is THE FIRM that issues the opinion and stands behind it with all of their prestige, etc. I am sure that you noted that I capitalized THE FIRM to indicate that it is an institutional opinion that they all - i.e. every partner - stands behind. That is why such an opinion is on firm letterhead and is signed in the firm name, not the name of an individual. [I am a retired accountant who had to deal with lawyers, accounting firms, etc., etc. so this is familiar to me.]
So, there will undoubtedly be a principal author but you can be absolutely certain that this opinion was researched nineteen ways to Sunday. There were legal folks who simply read the CPP Act, there were constitutional specialists who looked at that aspect. You can be absolutely certain that there were many accounting types. And, of course, LifeWorks are themselves well known pension specialists (they used to be known as Morneau Shepell, i.e. Bill Morneau's old company). And there would have been many other specialists. So, yes, there is a principal author but you can be certain that this opinion was drafted, re-drafted, re-re-drafted, polished, re-polished, etc. by many, many, many people.
You can absolutely criticize some elements of their work; I have done so myself in terms of some things. What you cannot do (at least not honestly) is to say that they were sloppy or used foolish assumptions. All of their assumptions have a factual basis for their use; read the report for yourself and you will see what I mean. However, however, however. None of that means that the LW report is "correct" simply because of two things.
First, LW themselves in the report that there are note things for which they sought data but CPP and/or others refused to supply that data and those items may (or may not) have had a noticeable impact on the final number.
Second, I absolutely believe that the "correctness" of the final number is almost secondary as this will ultimately be a deal done by the politicians. I believe that there will be arguments from some Albertans that Alberta should just go to court and wave the CPP Act in the judge's face. The feds would love to say something like, 'Yes, but ....." to delay, obfuscate and so on and so forth. At the end of the day, the possibility of an adverse verdict (adverse for either side) will, I predict, cause the politicians to settle with Alberta getting noticeably less than the indicated 300+B and CPP having to pay out massively more than it currently expects to. Ultimately, perhaps the best of all worlds: both sides sullen but the deal is done.
This will damage pensioners in other provinces. Ultimately, Smith will blame everything on Ottawa no matter the outcome. She is putting Alberta on a path to separation. A critical mass of people will get upset and want to destroy confederation. I’d really like to hear from Pierre Pollievre. There is no way he supports the Alberta position if he wants to get votes on the rest of Canada.
Unfortunately, for Pierre Poilievre, and the CPC, Danielle Smith ensured their defeat. The APP did it.
Love the convoy driving around the Alberta legislature comment 😁; however, I understand that the Canada Pension is supposed to be at arm’s length from Government (and that, in itself, is another incentive to stay as far away from Danielle’s APP as possible!) It would be inappropriate for Trudeau to give a number, and it might be nice if someone pointed out to Danielle that her very partial involvement and use of our tax dollars to sway the public is quite questionable!
Actually, Penny, I think Trudeau's involvement is both appropriate and essential! Smith's ploy, the Alberta Pension Scam, affects the entire country. Both CPP management and the Federal government should be openly criticizing Smith's outrageous claims. They should refute Smith's rhetoric as fast and as forcefully as possible.
You hit it right on, the questionnaire is a joke as there is no no option in the whole thing. Plus as I watch Premier Smith go on creating one crisis after another it gets tedious.
Then we have Dave Parker stating his odious remarks of communist to any one who disagrees, but Iike Smith they think they are Superior Thinking and Moral humans. Unfortunately they act like some sort of elite.
I beg to differ. Smith and Parker act like spoiled brats demanding shiny new toys--and they throw a tantrum when Poppa tells them "no."
Love your last statement. Great analysis.
It's time to use Danielle Smith's "Tell the Feds" campaign against her. Not only is her "we'll freeze in the dark" campaign complete BS, so is the Alberta Pension Scam. Smith was also beaking off about the carbon tax and "just transition" and what she thinks it should mean (I dunno what she wrote, I don't read ToastMedia papers).
So, if you disagree with Smith, tell your MP! Here's a list of constituency-office email addresses:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en
Ask 'em to CC your letter to the appropriate Cabinet Minister (e.g. Finance, Energy, Intergovernmental Affairs), and don't forget Jagmeet Singh. They all have to know that Danielle Smith does NOT speak for all Albertans!
Danielle Smith is acting like a lousy salesperson, trying to sell something to people that they do not want. Good for Justin Trudeau to speak out against this absurd APP tripe from Danielle Smith and the UCP. The UCP were too chicken to put this on the provincial election itinerary, because it would have led to their demise. Now, the UCP are trying to ram the APP down the throats of Albertans, in many ways. A very rigged online survey, that doesn't ask whether Albertans want the APP, or don't want it. Unlimited responses can be sent. This should start to raise red flags, but it doesn't end there. We are being bombarded with ads on different platforms, including on the radio, TV, and on YouTube, making it look like the APP is a sound idea. Danielle Smith also will not answer any questions from Albertans who have serious reservations and doubts about the APP. Not on her radio talk show, and not in any other reasonable way. No public discussions are allowed, because the UCP are to chicken to face the public on this very serious issue. We can only do phone in discussions to let the UCP know what we think. The UCP will have a referendum on the matter. It will be as sketchy as their online survey. We will likely see a confusing question, or questions, that are hard to make sense of, and no will mean yes, and yes will mean no. Jim Dinning, a former Ralph Klein era cabinet minister, who originally opposed the APP, is now part of the well paid salesperson team by the UCP to promote the APP. All of the ways the UCP are trying to promote the APP cost a lot of money, that could be better used on important things. On top of all this, the UCP lost $4 billion of pension money, through AIMCo, and this is a good reason why the APP should be ditched. Whomever voted for the UCP should really be ashamed of themselves, because they have done so much harm, in so little time. More problems will be forthcoming with the UCP.
Hey, guess how much that LifeWorks report cost! It’s been on the shelf for three years, and Smith finally trotted it out. $1.8 million! You read that correctly. Here’s the link:
https://epaper.calgaryherald.com/article/281590950199982
I was wrong about the report being written for Smith’s government. Obviously, it was the Kenney government that paid for this drivel. With the criticisms from real-life experts in economics, pension admin and management, it’s no wonder they hid it for three whole years.
For anyone who's interested, Public Interest Alberta has a web site about the Alberta Pension Scam--I meant "Plan."
https://www.pialberta.org/saveourcpp
Great article as usual!
Danielle believes her job as AB Premier is to separate from Canada. No, she didn't campaign on that either - at least not out loud. This whole APP thing is just to poke the current Federal Government. (I think she has a 'thing' forJustin!!?)
This APP push also distracts from all the current mis-steps this government is experiencing. And their upcoming caucus meeting with a whole swack of curious policy items.
It's truly unfortunate that in this time in history that Canada & provinces are not looking to be more competitive globally by removing inter-provincial barriers to just about everything. It's easier to trade internationally than inter provincially. This includes too many Provincial 'associations restricting various professional practice (Dr., Nurses, Engineers, Architects etc) in Canada - even though all have National Associations. If all adopted a practice attitude similar to the Red Seal program for trades, we could start to strengthen the entire country on so many levels. But ... one would need to want a strong country first. Danielle is focussed on Danielle - not a strong country.