UCP's Alberta Pension Plan proposal builds on separatist strategies of national division

Being optimistic, or even pessimistic, is not necessarily a bad thing; unless it blinds the vision to all possible outcomes.

I exist in a weird space of taking any thought to an immediate worst-case scenario yet (somehow) remain an optimist. That optimism, near as I can tell, helps keep me from being swallowed up by debilitating existential angst.

Being inside of my head is like watching two people who fundamentally disagree constantly poking holes in the other’s argument until one of them wins — except each of them only make good faith arguments based on facts (or at least the fact that each truly believes the facts are in their favour).

With that in mind, let’s move on to the provincial pension proposal.

History is a many-splendored thing

The Alberta Pension Plan proposal started with a mix of Quebec envy and a belief that Ottawa “hates” Alberta.

Quebec, having been settled by the French, and the majority of the rest of the country being settled either by the British or by those of whom representatives of the British government favoured for settlement, has always been exceptional — at least insofar as having a distinctly separate culture, religion, and language from everyone else on the continent.

The mistrust of Ottawa in Alberta specifically comes from the fact that the former Northwest Territory, which then became the province of Alberta, was settled by more Americans than any other geographical area in Canada. They, like settlers in Quebec held a deep mistrust of, and animosity toward, the British government and, therefore, those who were chosen by the British government to represent their interests in Ottawa.

Not being a descendant of British nobility myself, I get it.

Canada, not entirely unlike America, was a land of new opportunities that held the potential for social and economic mobility in a way the class system of Great Britain never would.

Some people just can’t get over ancestral sleights and in the case of Alberta proposing to do everything the federal government does, but by itself, it’s just settling old scores.

When then-Premier Jason Kenney set up his “Fair Deal Panel” to tour the province and collect grievances about Ottawa in person, it was based on the now-infamous “firewall letter” that was written to then-Premier Ralph Klein in 2001, which took some of its recommendations from an old separatist group, the Western Canada Concept.

The firewall letter, formally christened the “Alberta Agenda”, was written in response to the outcome of the federal election but, according to one of its authors, Ken Boessenkool, the letter created a real problem for Alberta’s government as we were headed for an election as well.

Klein responded to the letter in February of 2001, just before the general election saying that “(t)he existence of tension in a federal system, however, is not a sign of irreconcilable differences -- it is inevitable and exists in all federations. The sense of defeatism that underlies the notion of building a ‘firewall’ around this province is unnecessary.”

The letter, though, was already out and as Boessenkool said “dominated headlines for weeks”. It was no surprise that some of Klein’s newly elected MLAs would be champing at the bit to look into some of the recommendations in more detail.

One of those MLAs was a rookie named Doug Griffiths. He said Klein had an “open door” policy for his caucus and Griffiths asked the Premier if their government, which elected 74 out of 83 possible members to the Legislature that year, would consider some of the recommendations.

Klein offered Griffiths the opportunity to be part of a committee to evaluate the proposals.

In 2003, then premier Ralph Klein created a “Committee on strengthening Alberta’s role in confederation,” when the long-gun registry, Kyoto protocol and the Canadian Wheat Board were top of mind concerns.

Former Progressive Conservative MLA Doug Griffiths was on the committee and said none of the ideas hold up to scrutiny.

“Pretty much all of it was non-starters, I realized that a lot of the rhetoric that comes with it comes from anger,” he said. “That is the first time that I learned that your anger is a liar.”

The committee came at the start of Griffiths 13-year-run as an MLA. He said he had long thought the province was getting an unfair deal and should adopt all of the ideas, but close study showed they’re all flawed.

Critics see flaws with Jason Kenney's proposal for 'fair deal' panel, National Post, November 12, 2019

In 2020, I invited Doug to talk about that experience on a podcast, along with Melanee Thomas who was currently working on the CBC’s Road Ahead series, and Herb Emery, a former University of Calgary professor who had been researching the efficacy of an Alberta Pension Plan, police force, and collecting our own taxes, for two decades.

While Griffiths and Emery sought detailed cost/benefit analyses of the proposals, Thomas’s work with the CBC was dealing with public opinion.

Making a case to increase costs for services that already exist was a difficult proposition for fiscal conservatives and that’s why one has never been proposed by them.

Danielle Smith may lean toward fiscal conservatism but her ideology is rooted (like a 4x4 stuck in the mud) in the principle of an idyllic form of libertarianism — that is, she believes people will pay more if they value principle over their pocket book.

What we already know: it costs more

Based on research that has been done time and again, we know that duplicating services comes with increased cost.

Like the day I discovered my uncle had signed up for Netflix on my cable account, while I had already been paying Netflix directly for years. Had I ever bothered to look at what I was being charged for, I like to think I would have cancelled one of the payments. Who voluntarily wants to pay more for the same thing?

People who value a principle more than they value the cost to others.

That’s what it comes down to; Kenney knew a provincial police force would cost rural Alberta more than what those municipalities (and let’s face it, their money comes from people paying tax in rural Alberta) currently contribute to policing.

Kenney said that his government would not increase costs for rural Alberta specifically but would cover the additional costs out of the province’s general revenue to appease the separatist/firewall letter mindset who both donates and votes UCP without a second (or in some cases “first”) thought.

Talk about equalization in an attempt to appease the reliable voter base.

Creating our own tax collection system will cost Alberta more.

Creating our own provincial pension plan might save us a few dollars up front but the liabilities are extensive — especially in a province where the government displays more responsibility to a few people in the boardrooms of oil and gas than the citizenry of this province.

The fallout isn’t worth it — unless the fallout is the goal

I wish I could say that money wasn’t everything in Alberta but it definitely seems to be very high on the priority list for those who somehow manage to survive without knowing what is paid by their tax dollars.

And yes, some Albertans have higher incomes and pay more tax because of it, but most people in this province don’t have higher incomes and if they would face their reality instead of hoping they will one day benefit from the inequity, we would be far better off. But I digress.

Therefore, when the UCP dangles the possibility that it could obtain $300 billion from the feds (ahem, actually Canadian pension dollars), I imagine more than a few people in this province begin to salivate — or worse.

The real problem I can’t talk myself out of is that this proposal — this supposition that Alberta deserves more than half of the Canadian Pension Plan funds — seems designed to pit Canadians against Albertans.

Because, in return, that will pit Albertans against their fellow Canadians.

I would be surprised to find that anyone who reads this has not come into contact with someone who is so abrasive and, dare I say, uncharitable and ignorant, that they have not just thrown up their hands and said “to hell with trying”.

That attitude, unfortunately, can lead people to actually lean into the idea that they didn’t agree with in the first place.

That’s why I am most concerned about this proposal from the Alberta government. Psychologically, it is the Trump for president all over again. People don’t like or respect the guy but the opponents are so morally superior and tiresome that those they were attacking realize the only way to “get back at” their attackers is to do the one thing they didn’t actually want to do before the attack — vote for that really, really bad deal.

That’s not all, folks

One of the things I despise about the pension plan narrative is that “Alberta” puts in less than it receives.

First of all, it’s not “Alberta’s” contributions. We contribute individually and through our employers for our pension benefit — the province has no place in this equation at all and neither is it their place to be involved.

Can you imagine the outrage if the UCP floated the possibility that they would take over your pension plans through CIBC or Investors?

This is the provincial government demanding control over your pension and I don’t care who you’re currently investing with, it’s not their money.

Most arguments I see talk about individual contributions as a provincial matter for Alberta but it’s not; this is one of those benefits that solely affects individuals.

If our provincial population is the youngest in the country, it tells you people generally prefer to retire outside of the province. Everyone of working age contributes to the CPP — they collect their pension upon, or reasonably close to, their retirement. The fact that Albertans (not “Alberta”) receive less CPP than Canadians in other jurisdictions speaks to that.

The CPP isn’t about Alberta — this time, it really is personal.