‘Alberta pension’ based on faulty premise

By Lethbridge Herald on September 17, 2025.

David Carpenter
For the Herald

There was no dog, nor was there a pony, there might have been a bearded lady but they didn’t let me close enough to tell for sure. But the carnival entitled “Alberta Next” came to town on Thursday to discuss six topics of concern to the UCP executive. Not being a graduate of the Trump School of Crowd Counting, I cannot say with any certainty but most of the audience seemed to come from outside the actual City of Lethbridge.

Strict rules applied to some of the attendees: no advocacy material of any kind was to be permitted, so I advised the gentleman next to me in the line up that his UCP sweatshirt was in violation, but he checked and apparently security did not think it would incite a riot so he got to keep it.

No other political party material was allowed to my observation. We were advised to expect a visual search but in fact it was quite thorough with removal of all metal objects, wanding and some brief questions. It was overseen by a rather large guy whose nametag identified him as Staff. I asked him if I could speak with Rod, as I did not feel particularly comforted, and he said no.

Then he noticed that I was wearing my Regimental Artillery tie, which was given me by Col. Steinke when I was with the 18 Air Defense Regiment, and he brightened up significantly, explaining that he was ex-military.

The format was that six promotional videos were to be played and after each, questions on that topic were entertained by The One who employed Rod and Staff and felt she required all this security. Members of the audience were allowed 45 seconds to introduce themselves, their topic and ask a question. The moderator would seek direction from The One as to whether or not the question was valid and the question then might be addressed, either by a panel member or by The One herself, at her discretion. The One could respond at length with the most ludicrous, inaccurate, misleading and irrelevant answer and that was the final position, as no follow-up questions were permitted.

The videos themselves were well done, as you would expect with taxpayer dollars, and included any information which could be bent, folded, twisted or mutilated in such a manner to support the pre- existing UCP position.

It was kind of like what an elementary sex-ed manual written by The Fraser Institute might look like if they were not convinced that the only appropriate method for human reproduction was immaculate conception. If there was no way to obfuscate the actual facts to be more agreeable, they were ignored. My question fell into that latter category.

I sat next to a most delightful gentleman from Raymond whose questions concerned treaties and obligations and such. I told him what I knew from my reading and he shared his thoughts, which were informed by research he had done on his telephone.

But when he tried to show it to me, the telephone had changed its mind. I told him I had to get a new computer once because mine kept getting the weather wrong. He was quite supportive. He asked me about my topic, and I explained that I had a question about information which The One had never shared with Albertans in regards to the Alberta Pension Plan proposal.

He was shocked at my assertion that for every $1 that Alberta might access from CPP Albertans, their children and grandchildren must assume a debt of $3, and indicated he had never heard of this debt.

My objective was to have The One admit publicly that for Alberta to establish its own pension plan, it must meet a series of conditions, one of which is to legally assume all of the obligations and liabilities of CPP benefits due to employment or self-employment in the province.

The One has consistently and erroneously insisted that Alberta is entitled to $334 billion or 53 per cent of the CPP assets, which would make that liability in excess of $1 trillion.

The One spoke at length in response to my simple question and said nothing which was relevant to the question or, for the most part, accurate.

She asked Professor Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary to comment, and he eloquently answered a question I did not ask. It could be that my question was unclear, as I have heard Tombe speak before and have been most impressed. I was perplexed that he did not address the issue head-on.

I talked to him after the event and, while I do not want to put words in his mouth, believe that the following statements represent areas where we had some consensus:

1. For different reasons, neither of us can support The One’s position that $334 billion can be accessed from CPP.

2. Alberta’s share of CPP assets in 2025 would be in the range of $120-$150 billion. A median number of $140 billion may be supportable.

3. The liabilities to be assumed by Alberta would be in the range of $400-$500 billion.

I worked independently to get to my conclusions and Tombe advised me that his conclusions are supported by public research in his Canadian Public Policy paper of March 2025 as well as technical breakdowns and his slide decks.

Remember that those liabilities and obligations represent the pensions for which Albertans and former Albertans have paid, and are a fiduciary responsibility of the pension trustee, currently the CPP and, if The One is successful, of the Alberta government.

The UCP has promised to use the funds accessed for reducing premiums, increasing benefits, paying cash bonuses of substantial amounts, hiring new local investment managers, and investing in Alberta resource corporations. The passage of time and the usage of an open group valuation method, along with superior management, might overcome the obvious deficit, but this would be impossible to do if any of those promises were kept.

So why then would they have us pay $400 billion to get $140 billion? The obvious answer is that they get the $140 billion right now to spend, and the pensions will be defaulted at some point in the future after The One leaves office. I gave The One an opportunity to explain, and she took advantage of her position to ignore the question.

As I look back on it, I feel like the guy who attended a time share sales presentation, didn’t get the free breakfast and ended up buying six weeks in PoDunk Ville. Can The One be trusted?

David Carpenter is a retired chartered accountant, business owner and a former mayor of Lethbridge.

Share this story: