Honourable senators, this item stands adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Martin, and I ask for leave that it remain adjourned in her name following my intervention.

Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Simons’ important Motion No. 172. This motion calls on the Chief Actuary within the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to study the effect of a possible exit of Alberta from the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP. It’s quite a challenge for our Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, because I find that the current Canada Pension Plan act has some contradictions between sections 95 and 113(2).

I also find that the act as a status circumvents or neglects the recognition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its impact on the interpretation of the CPP act.

First, this is about information. It calls for a study. If Alberta chooses to leave the CPP, it will have large and wide-ranging ramifications that we need to understand. I don’t see any objection to moving forward with this motion.

The Government of Alberta has made claims that are disputed and honestly disputable. I wish to say at the outset that CPP assets are administered and invested via a trust fund, an arm’s‑length entity. The assets within the fund do not belong to the federal government, nor any provinces.

These assets belong to individual workers who have contributed, along with their employer, to the system to provide a basic retirement for them, as well as providing death benefits and survivor and orphan benefits.

In my humble opinion, if withdrawals are made from the fund under section 113(2) of the act, these withdrawals should be from individual workers residing in the withdrawing province — workers who wish to invest these funds in another system, so it’s directed by the workers.

There is no portion of this fund that belongs to anyone else or any government entity. The lack of respect of this premise would probably be a constitutional challenge before the courts.

When the Canada Pension Plan was negotiated in 1965, Canadians had no Charter of Rights. When the Constitution was patriated in 1982 — 17 years later — it wisely included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The important right for Canadian citizens are the mobility rights under section 6, where Canadians have the right to move freely in and out of Canada and within its boundaries. We must also recognize that since 1965, the assumption that a worker resides in the province where he or she works is considerably outdated.

For decades, Canadians have worked in one province and resided in another. It’s even more so today because the internet enables people to work for a business not in his or her province of residence and maybe not even in Canada.

May I highlight here that Canada has retirement contribution agreements for individual workers with over 50 countries, thus reinforcing that the assets generated by these contributions, although administered by the CPP, are directly linked to the individual workers and future benefits, not to a province or a country where the contribution occurred.

I would emphasize the PBO’s study must also differentiate the contribution to the CPP during many decades by Canadian workers, not residents of Alberta; rather, it’s the workers from other provinces, particularly thousands from Atlantic Canada because if not for them, the resource sector of Alberta may not have been that productive.

Contribution to the CPP by both the employer and the employee is part of the benefit package of an employee. The assets belong to the employee and his or her survivors, not to a government.

Let’s take ourselves into consideration. We — senators — reside in different provinces. We work and are paid by the Senate of Canada. An absolute benefit is our contribution and the Senate contribution to the CPP. In fact, since 2016, our retirement benefits are directly linked and inclusive of the CPP. For senators not from Ontario, do you agree that our collective CPP assets belong to the Government of Ontario? I should think not, because these assets have been invested for your individual benefit, not for the future benefit of the Government of Ontario.

The CPP was created to establish a comprehensive pension program for all Canadian workers. If we start dismantling that program, we’ll have different plans across the country with different benefits, contributions and rules. This will potentially create an unreasonable barrier for moving between provinces and how that will affect retirement benefits.

Portability tied to our mobility rights is also a key issue here.

Bob Baldwin from C.D. Howe notes in a recent report that “One CPP beneficial feature is that it facilitates labour mobility.” He goes on to note that a key issue that an Alberta pension plan, or APP, will have is that it will have to negotiate portability arrangements with other provinces and the federal government.

Patrik Marier, a professor of political science at Concordia University explained that “. . . if you end up with a very different set of rules and benefits, then portability becomes quite an issue.”

This brings up at least three big problems that will occur. One, there will need to be a long and complex negotiation to develop portability arrangements. Two, the Alberta pension plan will likely need to be very similar to CPP to facilitate those arrangements.

The third and most important problem to consider is the most probable constitutional challenge based on the Charter mobility rights in the interpretation of the Canada Pension Plan act, where arguments should and would identify the rightful owners of these assets. This will become a considerable problem for Alberta businesses.

Frank McKenna wrote in the Financial Post:

Similarly, the portability of an APP with the CPP is not guaranteed and could hinder Alberta’s ability to attract external workers for its large, labour-intensive resource projects.

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce also commented on its impact on retired workers:

Questions about the portability of the CPP to the APP would run counter to our talent attraction efforts, and while these questions may be resolved in due course, our labour shortage is urgent and we cannot afford to compromise our ability to attract talent to Alberta.

The Canadian Labour Congress correctly noted that “The CPP is fully portable, following workers wherever they work, regardless of how often they change jobs.”

Honourable senators, if this is a political Alberta objective, it could become a nightmare for workers and employers that will cause massive disruption and unintended barriers to Canadian rights to move between provinces, particularly for those workers who have worked in Alberta, who have paid contributions and should, upon retirement, get the benefit of their contribution.

Let’s get more financial and legal information on this before we must deal with a possible chaotic situation for Canada.

Thank you.

Of course.

Thank you for your question, Senator Moncion. It’s hard to talk about data right now, because we don’t have exact amounts. However, the premise that has been put forward, which is that contributions were made for a worker in Alberta regardless of where they reside, is problematic.

Here’s an example based on my own situation. I never worked in Alberta, but I worked in Quebec for years. I currently work in Ontario and have done so for years. I reside in New Brunswick and will retire in New Brunswick. When I retire, even though I worked in Quebec, I will apply to the Canada Pension Plan, not the Quebec Pension Plan. When I apply, the contribution I made in Quebec will go back to the Canada Pension Plan for the years I contributed to the Quebec Pension Plan.

None of that has been discussed so far. There’s this assumption, this claim — which was even made in this very chamber last week — that the Government of Alberta is entitled to billions of dollars in capital that, technically, do not belong to it. That capital belongs to workers for their retirement. I hope I’ve answered your question, Senator Moncion.