In the News
Carbon dioxide (C02) is now classified as Toxic. This means the feds can put a Carbon Tax on every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground anytime they need more money to buy votes in Central and Eastern Canada.
So what’s happening under Stephen Harpers watch?
| *Operating costs | $ 54,000 |
| **Media Advertising | $120,000 |
| Total | $174,000 |
In the rising hysteria over the global warming issue, a kind of race against time appears to be developing. The question is: What will happen first?
Will the "global warmists" be able to stop the oilsands projects, wrecking the economy of Alberta and much of Canada in the process?
Or will the growing chorus of skeptics about global warming be able to command enough attention to put the brakes on the warmists before they do the wrecking job?
In the last week, the skeptics scored two goals.
The first was scored by a Canadian. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University in Ottawa, published an article conclusively demonstrating climate change is a permanent condition, that the Earth's climate has never been stable.
Many times in the past the Earth's climate has been far higher than it is today and, occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it averaged two degrees warmer than it does now.
Ten thousand years ago, mean temperatures rose as much as four degrees in a decade. That's 100 times faster than the warming over the past century, which has so alarmed scientists who triggered the current hysteria.
What the sun does, rather than what man does with his carbon dioxide emissions, is what chiefly causes climate change, said Patterson.
He thereby ratified the theory of Russian scientists that global cooling and another ice age is a far greater threat than global warming.
Since carbon dioxide inhibits the escape of heat from the Earth, maybe the most environmentally friendly thing you could do would be to start each day by driving your SUV around the block four or five times to bolster carbon dioxide emissions and thus retard the Earth's heat loss.
The second goal was far more devastating. It came with a book just published by Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun Climate Research at the National Space Centre in Copenhagen. He calls it The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change.
Like Patterson and the Russians, Svensmark contends the sun is a major factor in climate change, but he has been working for eight years to back this up with experimental proof.
He has established a laboratory in which the sun's rays and Earth's atmosphere have been set up in model, and the cosmic effects on the Earth thereby observed.
The results, detailed in the current issue of Discovery, the highly respected magazine of science, are startling. They show solar activity affects cloud formations on Earth, which in turn determine the Earth's climate. Paradoxically, it seems meteorological conditions do not determine the cloud formations; rather, cloud formations determine meteorological conditions.
Since this gravely challenges the significance to the climate of man-made carbon dioxide, Svensmark found himself being assailed and deplored by his fellow-scientists, who accused him of being financed by "oil money."
Almost all his funding, Sevnsmark retorted, comes from Denmark's Carlsberg Foundation, which is funded by Carlsberg brewery, which sells beer, not oil.
If anything, Carlsberg would surely have a vested interest in global warming. It's on the hot days that we drink the most beer.
The chairman of the UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, irate because Svensmark was upsetting the established scientific orthodoxy, condemned his book as "extremely naive and irresponsible."
But the IPCC was itself under attack by then, for not being sufficiently hysterical in depicting the hideous consequences of global warming.
It seems Greenpeace released a study by a German academic who said there will be 200 million climate refugees by 2040.
The IPCC had merely said: "Unless drastic action is taken, millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods and disease."
"And when everybody drowns," scoffed the skeptical Washington Times humorist Wesley Pruden, "it is of course women, minorities and the poor who suffer most."
One thing puzzles me.
If the skeptics should happen to win this race, what will Steve Harper do?
Having already turned one somersault converting his government from near-total skepticism on global warming to passionate belief in it, how will he perform the reverse somersault?
Will he bring Rona Ambrose back to the environment ministry and fire John Baird?
Stay tuned.
Fri, May 18, 2007
By LICIA CORBELLA
A few weeks ago in a column I wrote about David Suzuki's rudeness and hypocrisy I admitted that similar to that green guru, I too love this planet and try to have as small a negative environmental impact as possible but unlike him, I don't believe that human-made CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
I received hundreds of e-mails -- most recounting often hilarious stories of run-ins people had with Suzuki, finding out for themselves that his TV persona is a lot friendlier than his off-camera one.
But it was an e-mail from a fella named Gerald in the Niagara region, that indicates just how good a job the man-made global warming believers have been at selling their message.
"If humans are not the cause of global warming ... who is?" Gerald wrote.
My response was: "Gee, Gerald. Can you really not think of anything? Nothing at all?"
Then I suggested he find the nearest child and ask them what makes the earth warm.
The next day I got a reply. "Do you mean the sun?" he queried, in all sincerity.
"Yes, Gerald. That big, burning yellow ball up in the sky is, not surprisingly, the main driver of global warming."
Yesterday, world renowned paleoclimatologist and geology professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Dr. Tim Patterson, was in Calgary to pass that basic message on. Though his message was rather technical. He brought reams of proof, scientific studies, graphs and the like to back up his claims.
SOLAR CYCLE
Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by about the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 -- the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer.
"This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us." In other words, Canada -- the great bread basket of the world -- just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.
After the Little Ice Age, "things warmed up precipitously with no help from carbon dioxide," pointed out Patterson, in a telephone interview.
Indeed, the world warmed up until about 1940 and then the temperatures started to fall until the late 1970s when scientists started predicting another ice age.
"Post World War II, as the world started cooling, CO2 was going up like crazy. All the evidence shows that warming periods were all solar driven and that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature."
But solar flaring on its own, says Patterson, does not account for most of the warming -- which is an increase of 0.8C since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's only when its coupled with evidence about galactic cosmic rays, do all the historic warming (and cooling) pieces fit together.
Cosmic rays -- caused by the explosion of supernovas -- constantly bombard the Earth.
The more cosmic rays, the more cloud cover and the cooler the earth. However, when the sun is flaring -- as it is now -- it essentially blows away the cosmic rays and the earth warms.
That, however, is expected to come to an end in 2020.
As the saying goes, by then all of the billions of dollars wasted battling CO2 emissions, rather than pollutants, for instance, will be money pumped down the CO2 sink hole.
In 2020 hindsight on the great global warming scare will be 20/20. It won't be a pretty picture.
Wed, February 7, 2007
By LICIA CORBELLA
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
-- Leo Tolstoy (1826-1910)
Clearly, Tolstoy -- the great Russian novelist -- wasn't writing about man-made global warming, since he predated this relatively recent hysteria. Nevertheless, the quote certainly applies to the global warming debate -- or should I say the climate change consensus?
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.
The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts world temperatures will possibly rise 1.8C to 4C (3.25 to 7.2F) from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise 28 to 43 cm (11 to 17 inches).
Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker.
The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).
In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!
At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!
Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected the sun's output may wane, leading to global cooling.
Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well.
In 2001, the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre.
Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.6 watts per square metre.
Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong?
If a large automobile executive got his predictions wrong by up to 50%, he'd be fired. The IPCC, however, continues to fly around at great cost to the UN and the environment and they stay on board this great gig as long as they continue to tout the party line -- that Earth is going to hell, only it's going to be even hotter.
What's most troubling about all of this is the 21-page, much-hyped summary is not referenced at all.
The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.
This is problematic on many fronts, but as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats.
Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained their work has been grossly misrepresented.
In 2001, two scientists complained publicly their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the summary, including MIT physicist Richard Lindzen.
In June 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, wrote with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."
In other words, past IPCC reports have proven to be fraudulent and yet, to paraphrase Tolstoy, they have been woven into the public policy fabric of our lives.
Calgary Sun January 21, 2007
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised during last year’s federal election campaign provincial non-renewable natural resource revenues would not be included in any new calculation of the federal equalization hand-out program.
But now Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are reported to be considering counting 50% of a province’s natural resource revenue in a revamped program.
The apparent change of heart comes from a panel chaired by Al O’Brien, a former deputy minister in our province.
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland taxpayers would be soaked under this formula — while taxpayers in other provinces, particularly Quebec, would be clapping their hands in glee.
Indeed, it is reported Quebec would receive about $1.5 billion more under the new formula.
Currently under the program, ‘have-not’ provinces receive about $6,000 per person to provide public services comparable to the ‘have’ provinces.
We say to Harper and Flaherty: Keep your promises and keep you hands off our natural resources revenues.
If not, you’ll face a backlash reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau’s and Marc Lalonde’s hated National Energy Program (NEP). B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell calls the possible inclusion of resource revenues a “National Energy Program by stealth.”
The Conservatives, who swept Alberta in the Jan. 23 election, might even see a new Alberta First party arise and with it see the loss of any chance of winning a majority government.
In June, then-premier Ralph Klein warned he would fight “tooth and nail” any attempt to include natural resource revenues in any new equalization formula.
Premier Ed Stelmach calls the reports of the 50% cash grab “really troublesome” and Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert’s government charges Harper’s government may be willing to sacrifice Western Canada’s oil and natural gas resources to win seats in Quebec.
Alberta Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier points out our province’s taxpayers already send $31 billion a year to Ottawa, but receive $17 billion back in services. We’re a net contributor of $14 billion to the rest of the nation — isn’t that enough?
Only Alberta and Ontario have traditionally been ‘have’ provinces that do not receive equalization payments, but are expected to support the rest of the provinces to the tune of $14 billion a year in transfer payments. That could rise to $15 billion under the new formula.
Paradoxically, just as Saskatchewan is moving into the ‘have’ province lineup with its energy resources, and likely able to pay its way, this swipe from Ottawa would undercut the move.
Newfoundland, too, could be headed for a similar status with its energy reserves, but its growing resource wealth, too, may be undercut.
Why penalize success?
Campbell describes the rumoured move on revamping equalization as “establishing equalization as an insatiable entitlement program” in which provincial governments will be deterred from attempting to get their house in order.
The madness in the recommendations was no better pointed out by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, whose province will lose $100 million a year in revenues if the recommendations are acted on.
“In one year, we have turned a $5-billion deficit into a surplus. The recommendations would reverse that progress.”
Aside from the unfairness in such a new formula, the proponents have ignored how volatile resource prices are.
Oil has fallen to $52-a-barrel from $78-a-barrel in just a few months, and natural gas is down 40%.
There is no magic long-term panacea for the equalization issue with these kinds of rollercoaster rides.
Harper and Flaherty should also recall the wisdom of Abe Lincoln, who declared you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
Jason Fekete
Calgary Herald
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Calling Alberta "the bad boy" of Confederation, Intergovernmental Relations Minister Guy Boutilier says the province will fight for its own rights as a nation, including control over immigration.
In an interview with the Herald, Boutilier also indicated the Alberta government will stir things up on the national scene over the fiscal imbalance, the interprovincial struggle for a new equalization formula and whether revenues from oil and other non-renewable resources should be factored into the equation.
Boutilier said Alberta is a "powerhouse" very much driving the national economy, but won't brag about it.
Nonetheless, he said, it's not afraid to ruffle some feathers as it fights for what it sees as a fair deal with the other provinces and Ottawa.
"We're kind of the bad boys of Confederation," Boutilier said, adding that Albertans are proud Canadians.
"What Albertans understand is this: they contribute immensely to this country of ours, but also we want to be able to benefit from it."
Boutilier said Alberta and other provinces and territories are owed the same rights associated with the Quebec nation, a distinction recently approved by the House of Commons.
"Each province is a nation within a nation," he said.
What exactly that title means is open for interpretation, he added.
However, for Alberta, it could be more immigration powers to lessen the mounting labour crunch, and a federal solution to a fiscal imbalance that provinces claim sees Ottawa collecting more tax revenue than necessary, he said.
Boutilier's remarks follow new Premier Ed Stelmach's assertion last month that Alberta is a distinct entity and will fight for the same rights as Quebec.
But Paul Boothe, an economics professor at the University of Alberta who recently helped oversee the equalization program for Ottawa, said the province is already reaping the rewards of its place in Canada.
Many of the workers who are driving the Alberta economy come from other provinces and have had their educations partly funded by federal equalization dollars paid to those provinces to fund social programs.
"Confederation is working well for Alberta," Boothe said in an interview. "I'm not interested in Alberta being a bad boy. I'm interested in Alberta being a leader."
Albertans send $29 billion a year to Ottawa in federal taxes but receive back only $17 billion in programs and services, according to the provincial government.
Provinces also are fighting amongst each other and with Ottawa over the makeup of a new federal equalization formula. The program, which is paid for through federal taxation collected across Canada, allocates cash to "have-not" provinces so they can provide comparable levels of services at similar levels of taxation.
A handful of reports have been published recently by the provinces and a federal expert panel on how to calculate the equalization formula. A major sticking point among premiers is whether non-renewable resource revenues should be factored into the formula. Alberta and Saskatchewan are fiercely against it.
With provinces unable to agree on a formula, Boothe said Prime Minister Stephen Harper will likely unveil his own plan for the fiscal imbalance in a federal budget that could be released as soon as next month.
"If they can't reach consensus, what's the federal government to do?," he asked. "They've got to move ahead."
Jason Fekete,
With a file from Michelle Lang, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Premier-designate Ed Stelmach served notice Monday that Alberta will flex its political muscle on the national scene, vowing to fight for the same rights as a Quebec nation and to defend encroachments on the province's wealth.
In his first official press conference since a stunning victory Sunday in the Progressive Conservative leadership race, Stelmach was both emotional and assertive in a nearly 30-minute appearance in front of journalists at the legislature.
The affable 55-year-old -- who will be sworn in as Alberta's 13th premier Dec. 15 -- blinked back tears when he discussed his dedicated volunteers. But he
delivered a firm message to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Quebec and Canada's other political leaders over Alberta's place in the country.
Stelmach said he's concerned about a handful of intergovernmental issues, including the debate about a new equalization formula and the fiscal imbalance, as well as the notion of Quebec as a nation within Canada.
"I'm going to fight for the same rights and privileges that may be assigned to this nation within a nation," the usually low-key Stelmach told reporters, gesturing with his hands to drive home his point.
"I'm going to be very careful. We're watching this."
The unassuming northern Alberta farmer and MLA said he had a "good, long chat" with Harper on Sunday and suggested he'll have a very good working relationship with Ottawa and his provincial colleagues. "I want to work with Stephen Harper and Ottawa to make sure that we build even a stronger Canada," he said.
A meeting between the prime minister and Alberta's next premier is planned for either later this month or early January, Stelmach added.
A more immediate concern is choosing a cabinet -- one he said will be smaller than Premier Ralph Klein's -- which will likely be unveiled next week prior to the swearing-in ceremony. He's also called a caucus meeting for Wednesday in Edmonton.
With massive responsibilities now thrust onto his shoulders, Stelmach and his wife Marie received a "special blessing" Sunday, from a Ukrainian Catholic priest in his hometown of Andrew, that he'll make "the best decisions for the province of Alberta."
Political observers said the bold Stelmach, like all new leaders, is trying to boost his profile, while creating a sense of "action and energy" following his weekend win.
Stelmach also came out firing against new federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who said Sunday he wants to find ways to achieve more sustainable development in the booming oilsands by reviewing "the advantageous tax treatment" offered to oil and gas companies. "I'm going to tell them right off the bat that they have to be careful as to the kind of policies they start articulating," Stelmach said. "Any damage to Alberta's economy is going to severely hurt Ottawa and their treasury as well."
When asked about the federal Grits possibly eyeing Alberta's energy wealth, he tapped his chest and said: "They're going to be dealing with me."
While Stelmach spent much of his time targeting the federal Liberals, it's likely he will -- like Klein -- keep some distance between his government and the Harper Tories as well, said University of Lethbridge political scientist Peter McCormick.
"Stelmach has to show himself as his own guy with his own set of ideas," he said.
The new Tory chief identified labour, housing and infrastructure as key issues that need to be quickly addressed by the new government.
He's also focusing his attention on three campaign promises, including ensuring a more transparent government, strengthening the PC party and discussing with caucus his desire for an Alberta pension plan.
The forcefulness of Stelmach's comments caught the attention of opposition MLAs and already appear to have quashed any perception that his nice-guy image means he's a pushover. "Having a look at Mr. Stelmach today and how he did in his news conference, it just occurred to me that he's not a guy that I'm going to underestimate," said Alberta NDP Leader Brian Mason.
As Stelmach slowly takes the reins from Klein, speculation builds as to who will be named to his cabinet. Flanking him at Monday's news conference were Health Minister Iris Evans and Government Efficiency Minister Luke Ouellette, both Stelmach loyalists.
Calgary-area MLA Ted Morton, Stelmach's other main competitor in the race, said it would make sense if he were offered a cabinet posting in an effort to embrace the tens of thousands of party members who backed his campaign.
"I certainly hope I play a constructive role in the Stelmach government," Morton said.
By Margret Kopala
Calgary Herald
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
"Dunno," one Calgary blogger wrote. "If the **** hits the fan with the Liberals and the Quebec thing, I'm a Morton man."
In a province whose vast and expanding wealth presents an equally vast array of issues, it is no small irony that Alberta's future leadership could be determined in Montreal.
Few in Alberta are paying much attention, but that could change when the Liberal leadership convention is held from Nov. 28 to Dec. 2.
On the same Saturday at the other end of the country, in a one-member, one-vote flurry of membership sales that are permitted even as second-ballot votes are cast, Alberta Tories could also be selecting the leader that will replace Ralph Klein. (The first-ballot vote is to be held Saturday. If no one wins 50 per cent plus one of the votes, the top three candidates will be on a second ballot the following Saturday, Dec. 2, where winner takes all).
The Liberal party hopes to keep a lid on a resolution calling for constitutionalizing Quebec nationhood, but its timing couldn't be less propitious. From Nov. 29, the day the resolution may be debated, there are a full three days for the storm to gather in Alberta, where the idea of special recognition for any province cuts little ice and Quebec fatigue is now palpable.
"Go ahead," says Pat Beauchamp, chairman of the
Alberta Residents League (ARL), "if you are a nation within a nation, just go ahead and leave. Leave completely."
"More Alberta, Less Ottawa" is the motto of the nonpartisan group that also supports the Alberta Agenda. Though the ARL hasn't endorsed anyone, its members -- now with team leaders in 20 of Alberta's 83 constituencies and a full complement expected for the next provincial election -- can hardly fail to support the one-time senator-elect and political scientist Ted Morton, an author of the original Alberta (firewall) agenda that calls for provincial control of the police, Albertans' share of the national pension plans and collection of personal income taxes.
Of course, it's possible the urbane Jim Dinning will win the leadership on the first ballot. He's strong in Calgary, says Beauchamp, but Morton is strong in rural Alberta.
Dinning, a former Alberta treasurer who's made a name for himself in corporate circles, is leading among Alberta voters generally, according to provincial polling. Whether this is true among party members who decide the leadership is another question.
On a second ballot, for instance, the rural vote could prove pivotal. It was on the second ballot that newcomer Klein rallied the rural vote to upset the status quo candidate Nancy Betkowski in 1992.
In 2006, the rural vote could galvanize around the Quebec nationhood issue to catapult Morton -- a constitutional expert trained at the University of Toronto -- into the leadership.
And in an uncharacteristically low-key leadership race with eight candidates, Morton is also the candidate who best represents change. As Preston Manning reminded Globe and Mail readers recently, Alberta is all about "turning points."
The Alberta Liberals (1921), United Farmers (1935) and Social Credit (1971) were turfed from office for their failure to anticipate or address the big
issues of the day, and managing the next one is pivotal if the Progressive Conservative party is to continue in government. But Manning's argument that reconciling the environment and a market-based economy is today's turning point could well prove misplaced come Dec. 2.
"An Alberta strong and free is the foundation of a Canada strong and free," Morton tells his audiences, warily avoiding any references to nationhood. But as a member of the Calgary School that has considered deeply a future where the pressures of post-9/11 continentalism, shifting demographics and Quebec separatism are veering Canada into new political territory, he will not lack for resources for addressing the issue.
One way or another, Beauchamp concedes, Alberta will get the change it needs.
"If Dinning is elected, it's the status quo, but the party will split, whoever wins." In that case, the Alliance Party could be the net beneficiary.
Federally, the Liberals could win power with Quebec nationhood in their platform. In this case, "separation could go through the roof," says Beauchamp. "And if Alberta goes, so will B.C. and Saskatchewan."
Either way, expect Morton to be a major player and the "Quebec thing" to be a major factor.
Margret Kopala writes for the Ottawa Citizen.
By LICIA CORBELLA
Calgary Sun
Wed, November 15, 2006
A young man -- informed and well educated -- was despondent on the phone.
One of this 22-year-old's many woes was everything he paid into the ponzi scheme known as the Canada Pension Plan might be consumed by that enormous demographic group, the baby boomers, leaving him with nothing.
When he called, I was, coincidentally, reading a pamphlet I picked up at a cocktail party called: The Proposal for an Alberta Pension Plan (APP).
The pamphlet was created and given to me by Patrick Beauchamp, chair of the Alberta Residents League, a group with a motto of "More Alberta, Less Ottawa."
"Currently, Albertans pay about $4 billion annually into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and get a little more than $2 billion back annually," said Beauchamp.
"Why are we paying an extra $2 billion annually into the CPP that may not be there for anybody under 40 years old when they retire?" he asked.
It's a good question.
Under Section 94(a) of the Canadian Constitution, any province has the right to opt out of the CPP, so long as it operates its own separate plan, just like Quebec chose to do in 1966, when the CPP was formed.
The outcome?
Quebec's pension plan is far healthier than Canada's.
"The value of the Quebec pension plan is more than $102 billion while Alberta's share of the CPP is about $13.5 billion."
Considering Quebec's population is about three times larger than Alberta's, even when you triple Alberta's share of the CPP, that adds up to just $40.5 billion -- far short of Quebec's plan.
Beauchamp, who hired an actuary to crunch the numbers, said a 20-year-old starting out in the work force in 2011 and working until 60, would possibly receive triple what they could get from the CPP.
Besides a monthly cheque equivalent to, or greater to the CPP, under an APP, a supplementary plan would be established that would give contributors a lump sum of money when they retired at age 65.
For instance, assuming someone in their 20s, who made $40,000 a year, contributed to the APP until age 65 and the fund earn-ed interest at 6%, that worker would receive a lump sum of $453,656 upon retirement.
To find out what you might get, depending on your age or income, log onto www. albertapensionplan.ca
Beauchamp admits he got the idea from Alberta MLA and PC party leadership hopeful, Ted Morton.
Fellow-leadership hopeful Ed Stelmach has recently jumped on the APP bandwagon but said he'd also still force Albertans to pay into the CPP, which doesn't make any sense.
Of course, under Morton's plan, anyone who has already paid into the CPP would still receive their benefits and anyone who pays into the APP would receive their benefits regardless of where they live upon retirement, but only Alberta residents could pay into the plan.
Besides providing a better pension for young people, Morton says the advantages for the province are vast.
"The APP would very quickly become one of the largest pension funds in Canada and that will have two effects," says Morton.
"It will stimulate the banking and financial services sectors in Alberta which will contribute to economic diversification and also it will create a significant capital pool, not just for Alberta but for all of Western Canada, which has historically been something we've always lacked."
The depressed young man listened intently as I read from the pamphlet.
He hung up the phone more cheery than before.
An APP is certainly something Albertans should demand be debated, not just during the current leadership race, but afterwards by whoever wins the Tory leadership.
By LINK BYFIELD
Calgary Herald Editorial Page
Saturday, October 21, 2006
At a campaign rally in Edmonton last week, Conservative leadership candidate Ed Stelmach promised to “fund a secure Alberta pension plan”.
Stelmach joins his leadership competitor, Ted Morton, in committing to an APP.
Of all the Tory promises wafting around Alberta, the APP could do the most good. For young Albertans, a properly structured Alberta pension plan could double the otherwise paltry $10,000 annual payout the can expect from the CPP.
For businesses, the attraction of an APP would speed the arrival of more workers and create a major Alberta-based investment fund. It would also help staunch the annual net $15 billion hemorrhage of Alberta revenues to Ottawa.
Anyone curious about how Alberta’s plan could work will find only vague statements about it on Morton’s and Stelmach’s websites. They’ll learn a lot more at www.AlbertaPensionPlan.ca. The plan proposed on this website is the handiwork of Pat Beauchamp and the Alberta Residents League, along with a committee of interested Albertans (including me). The technical brains behind the APP proposal is Calgarian Gordon Lang, who runs a national firm of consulting actuaries.
Alberta would exercise its constitutional right to opt out of CPP, as Quebec did when CPP started in 1965. Federal law allows any province wishing to establish its own public alternative plan to quit CPP after giving three years’ written notice to the federal minister of Human Resources.
CPP (like QPP) charges contributors premiums of 10 per cent of annual income between $3,500 and $42,000. The 10 per cent premium is split evenly between employee and employer.
The rate of return young people can expect on this investment of up to $4,000 per year when they retire is at best zero, and may even be negative. In other words, they’ll be lucky to get as much back in deflated dollars as they put in.
As for earning interest, forget it. CPP is largely unfunded, meaning it lacks a capital base big enough to pay for the benefits owing to pensioners, present and future. Today’s payouts to seniors are furnished mainly by what is brought in by today’s premiums. Although CPP is now 20 per cent covered by capital investments, Ottawa plans to continue running it mainly as pay as you go.
Because Alberta has a younger workforce than other provinces, a pension plan would need to charge only eight percent to return the same basic benefits CPP provides by charging 10 per cent.
The Alberta plan would continue to charge 10 per cent of the first $42,000 of income, but would consist of two parts. The first would be the basic plan, yielding the same as CPP. This is required by the federal Canada Pension Plan Act.
The remaining two per cent – augmented by a one per cent contribution from the province – would be invested in a supplementary account owned by the contributor and released when he or she retires or leaves the province.
Lang calculates the supplementary account of a young Albertan entering full-time workforce today would compound to $250,000 to $500,000 in extra savings by age 65, depending how much the person earns and on future rates of interest.
And unlike the CPP-equivalent basic plan, the APP supplementary plan would be the property of the contributor, not the government, to spend or bequeath to heirs. True, the Alberta government added to it, but only to make up for the fact that today’s seniors are taking more from CPP than they put in, at great cost to the young. Lang estimates the government’s share would be less that $500 million a year.
I have heard only three objections to this idea, none of which hold water.
Some say (leadership candidate Lyle Oberg) that it will somehow increase the liability Albertans owe for CPP. It will reduce it. For every CPP dollar that comes back to Alberta, Albertans now pay $1.50. Unless Alberta opts out, this penalty will continue.
Some say Alberta’s smaller plan would be more expensive to administer than CPP. Not so. Albertans are losing at least $750 million to CPP every year. By comparison, the cost of setting up and running our own pension plan would be quite small.
CPP was a foolish and needless federal trespass into provincial social jurisdictions that would never be contemplated today. Alberta has a chance to lead Canada toward the kind of regulated private pension alternatives that are proving so superior in countries such as Chile.
Morton and Stelmach have the right idea. An Alberta pension plan would secure the future of our provincial workforce, and encourage a long-overdue redesign of national social entitlements.
Link Byfield is and Alberta Senator-Elect, Chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, and was co-chair of last month’s Calgary Congress.
A
Note to the rest of Canada: Hands Off!
By LICIA CORBELLA
Canada's puppet
police force
By Licia Corbella -- Calgary Sun
Solution More
Alberta...Less Ottawa
By Licia Corbella -- Calgary Sun
Tories mull pension
MLAs ponder 'made-in-Alberta' plan at convention
By Neil Waugh -- Calgary Sun
Equalization. Just say no!
By Ted Morton -- For the Calgary Herald
Is it time for that Alberta constitution?
By Neil Waugh
Quebec EI case advances Alberta Agenda
By Sylvia LeRoy
Firewall
could burn Klein Tories
By Neil Waugh
Albertans
are moving beyond alienation
By Ken Boessenkool
The case for
an Alberta pension plan
By Danielle Smith
A New Manifesto for Alberta
By Ted Morton
Westerners
want change and we want it now
By Allan M.R. MacRae