Majority of Albertans rejected provincial pension in 2023 survey
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the Alberta government's pension engagement survey did not want to dump the Canada Pension Plan and switch to a plan run by the province.
Numbers provided by the government showed 63 per cent of people who responded to the survey were opposed to an Alberta pension, 10 per cent were in favour and 12 per cent were undecided or unsure.
The remaining 15 per cent was made up of people whose responses were incomplete, or contained questions or suggestions for "other alternatives."
The survey results were released to the Edmonton Journal this week after a 21-month battle. The newspaper reported that it asked the province for the responses on multiple occasions only to be met with refusal or documents full of redactions.
The data was finally posted to the government's open data site this week after the privacy and information commissioner became involved.
In its response, the government cited two 2025 polls which suggested public opinion was shifting in favour of a provincial pension plan
"While recent surveys on an APP show public opinion may be shifting, we will continue to engage with Albertans on this topic through the Alberta Next panel," Marisa Breeze, press secretary to finance minister Nate Horner, wrote.
"The Alberta Pension Protection Act guarantees we won't replace the CPP with an Alberta Pension Plan unless Albertans approve it in a referendum."
Responses in the document called the idea "reckless" and the survey "a farce."
"I do not support this idea. I will move out of Alberta if this happens," one respondent said. "I am Canadian first and fully support the Canada Pension Plan.
"Withdrawal from the CPP would be a horrendous miscalculation that will impact our province for generations to come," said another.
WATCH | Why Alberta says it's entitled to half of the Canada Pension Plan:
One respondent characterized the government's pension ambitions as "political posturing."
"Stop playing games with my retirement to spite the rest of the country," another wrote.
Supporters of a provincial pension said they wanted Alberta to be independent from Ottawa.
"Alberta has paid dearly since Confederation," one respondent wrote. "We deserve independence financially."
Edmonton-Decore MLA Sharif Haji, the NDP opposition critic for affordability and utilities, said the results prove that Albertans do not want a provincial pension. He criticized the government for trying to hide the survey answers.
"It took close to two years," Haji said. "What it tells me is that they never wanted to share because the result was not the one that they wanted."
Haji said an Alberta pension plan is part of Premier Danielle Smith's separation agenda, which includes the push for an Alberta provincial police service.
In 2023, the province released a report from an independent third party called Lifeworks, that claimed Alberta would be entitled to 53 per cent or $344 billion of the CPP if it withdrew from the national plan in 2027.
But Canada's chief actuary determined late last year that the amount was between 20 and 25 per cent of the $575 billion plan.
Smith has said Albertans would have to approve an exit from the CPP via a referendum before her government made any move.
An engagement panel led by former provincial treasurer Jim Dinning held town halls on the pension issue in the fall of 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Buying a new car? Why you might want to abide by the 20% rule
Buying an automobile is one of the biggest purchases many Americans will make in their lives. New car prices have hit record highs, creeping up to an average price of nearly $50,000 in 2025, according to Kelley Blue Book. If you're buying a new car in 2025, choosing the right financing strategy can make a huge impact on your ownership experience and monthly payments. What is the "20% rule," and how can you use it to your advantage when purchasing the car, truck, or SUV of your dreams? Thousands of drivers will finance new cars in 2025. The way you structure your financing plan affects how much equity you have in your new vehicle as well as your monthly, annual, and total payments including interest. A minimum down payment of 20% can make financing deals less expensive in the long run for car buyers. The down payment "reduces the principal loan amount and the interest you're likely to pay" according to Chase Bank. Suppose you're financing a new 2025 Toyota RAV4. If you secure a 60-month (five-year) financing loan with an interest rate of 4.99%, your monthly payments could be as low as $440 a month with 20% down (before taxes, fees, and interest). A 20% down payment on the 2025 RAV4 ($29,2590 before taxes and fees) works out to $5,850. This leaves a principal amount of 80% of the SUV's MSRP ($23,400 plus taxes, fees, and interest). Your monthly payment is your principal loan amount divided by your loan term (60 months in the example above) plus the fluctuating monthly cost of interest on the principal (4.99% annually in the example above). Drivers can save thousands in interest payments by putting at least 20% of a car's total cost as a down payment due to the cost of interest over time. If you want to save even more money on your car loan and are able to manage your monthly payments after a 20% down payment, there are methods to pay the full cost of your car's financing before the end of your loan term. That said, there could be costs associated with paying off your car loan early and it could negatively impact your credit score. If you pay your monthly loan amount and make additional payments on the principal, you can pay off your vehicle before the end of your loan term. This ensures that you will reduce the amount of total interest you pay through financing, but it can have unintended consequences depending on your lender. Ultimately, the best way to insure that you save money on interest when financing a vehicle is to make the largest down payment possible and gain more equity in your car. The "20% rule" is a strategy implemented to reduce the total cost of financing a vehicle, but you can tailor your financing agreement to your individual financial needs and goals. The average auto loan payment was "$675 as of Q1 2025", according to consumer credit reporting company Experian. NerdWallet says the average annual percentage interest rate for new cars is 6.70% for individuals with a credit score between 661-780. Interest rates increase significantly for drivers with lower credit scores (13.22% for 501-600 score). Between rising new car prices and high interest rates, financing a new car is more expensive than ever before. Before purchasing a new car, truck or SUV, drivers should: Assess how much the new vehicle's true cost could be including taxes, fees, and interest Calculate the precise monthly auto loan payment and see if it fits within your budget Consider how a high-percentage down payment could reduce your total financing expenditure Brand-new cars may be fun to own and drive, but they are seldom needed, as used cars car provide sufficient value for more affordable prices. Thanks to depreciation, American drivers can find great deals on used car models that cost thousands less than new car models. So, if you're in the market for a new car in 2025, be sure to triple-check your numbers before making any financial commitment. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What is the 20% rule for car buying, why do drivers follow it?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LexisNexis rolls out commercial property risk assessment tool
LexisNexis Risk Solutions has launched LexisNexis Location Intelligence for Commercial, a new commercial property risk assessment solution in the US. The solution aims to enhance underwriting and renewal processes by providing predictive modelling capabilities to evaluate property risks. The tool combines industry loss data, weather forensics and property characteristics into predictive modelling risk scores. It also includes proprietary claims information and neural network-driven models to deliver insights to insurers for assessing commercial property risk. The predictive model offers 20-times lift, helping insurers identify 10% of properties driving 34% of weather-related losses, the company's press release said. The solution integrates with existing underwriting and renewal workflows and supports risk control strategies. LexisNexis Risk Solutions commercial insurance senior vice-president David Zona said: "As opposed to conventional sources of information from basic weather data, roof age and aerial imagery, LexisNexis Location Intelligence represents a new standard for commercial property risk assessment that helps give insurers the actionable intelligence they need for a fuller and more granular view of risk coupled with workflow automation they can actually leverage. 'With Location Intelligence, they can better assess risk, such as which 10% of the properties in their book could generate a third of their property losses. This can put them in a unique position to be a customer service leader, proactively working with their customers on risk mitigation and resilience efforts.' In February, LexisNexis released an AI-powered property survey solution for insurance carriers. "LexisNexis rolls out commercial property risk assessment tool " was originally created and published by Life Insurance International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
The case against ‘conscious leadership'
'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.' – Ralph Waldo Emerson There's a new orthodoxy quietly sweeping through executive leadership circles. It goes by many names—embodied awareness, whole-self management, conscious leadership—but the core message is the same: intuition and spiritual presence are the foundations of strategic leadership. At first glance, this seems like progress. Who wouldn't prefer a leader who's self-aware and emotionally attuned. In a business world riddled with brittle egos and performative hustle, a little more reflection is a breath of fresh air. But beneath its soothing language, the practice of Conscious Leadership has more insidious effects on business culture. Pioneered by groups like The Conscious Leadership Group, it has evolved into a sprawling, self-affirming ideology—one that displaces competence with charisma, rigor with resonance, and accountability with affirmation. The result? A growing class of business leaders who mistake internal coherence for external effectiveness—who believe that if they feel right, they must be right. It's not just anti-rational; it's anti-leadership. From Competence to Vibes At the heart of the formal Conscious Leadership framework is the '15 Commitments'—a framework designed to promote self-awareness, integrity, and responsibility. The commitments are trite and self-evident to anyone with a modicum of social or emotional intelligence. But it's not the principles that are the problem, it's their embodiment – conscious leadership heuristics have become popular shorthand in corporate and entrepreneurial leadership circles where Conscious Leadership has taken on its own ideological life. Take the idea of the 'whole-body yes.' It sounds poetic, even profound. But in functional terms, it's an epistemic disaster. The whole-body yes tells you that if something doesn't feel right—in your gut—it's probably wrong. Not just wrong for you, but wrong period. And therefore, you shouldn't do it. Or worse, you shouldn't have to do it. On its face, this confuses intuition with truth. But more dangerously, it provides a prospective license to avoid the hard work of intellectual and moral analysis. Every hesitance becomes an omen to be heeded. Every discomfort becomes a signal to say 'no.' Every debate becomes an attack on your 'authentic self.' In other words: if you don't want to do something, your subconscious probably knows it's ethically compromised or strategically unsound. Therefore, resistance becomes virtue. An undergraduate ethics major could tell you why this notion is so intoxicatingly fallacious: it is the embodiment of confirmation bias. It tells us that whatever feels right is, in fact, right. It's confusing righteousness with rightness, and it's a cloaking device for all of our basest instincts. Sociopaths exhibit this same kind of circular self-assurance. Like Luigi Mangione and the Unabomber, they are able to dress-up their prejudices in a pseudo-ethical manifesto to rationalize the overt violation of ethical norms. Modern neuropsychology has taught us that our brain is quite good at confabulating—retroactively fabricating a reason for unreasonable behavior. That's the essence of the whole-body yes; license for confabulation. Business Leadership Without Skin in the Game You can tell a lot about a framework by who evangelizes it. Conscious leadership tends to take root squarely among venture capitalists, consultants, HR departments, and coaching circles—those stakeholders that are structurally insulated from the consequences of strategic execution. These are not, generally speaking, people with direct exposure to existential business risks. They don't carry payroll. They don't answer to shareholders. They don't navigate hostile markets. They're not in the line of fire. And because of that, they can afford to substitute internal validation for external results. They can afford to confuse feeling good with doing good. In that vacuum of real-world feedback, Conscious Leadership thrives. It spreads through offsites and retreats. It drips into executive workshops and middle-management Slack channels. It cloaks itself in the language of growth while quietly eroding the foundation of competency-based leadership. The Reactionary Core: Anti-Rationality in a Pseudo-Spiritual Shell Despite proselytization among progressive business leaders, Conscious Leadership is a deeply reactionary movement. It doesn't evolve leadership—it regresses to a kind of anti-rational romanticism. It seeks not to integrate intuition with reason, but to replace rational deliberation entirely with internal 'knowing.' In ancient traditions—from Buddhist mindfulness to Greek Stoicism—true wisdom arises from tension: between emotion and restraint, instinct and inquiry, desire and discipline. The project of modernity was about striking this balance. In philosophy, the Enlightenment forced the end of insular thinking and the birth of objective bases for decision-making. In healthcare, we have evidence-based medicine rather than bedside impressions. In law, we have procedural justice instead of the will of the monarch. In finance, we have quantitative models instead of gut instinct. Intuitions may point to the source of what's most fundamentally valuable in human life. But one also needs to recognize that we only get to play the game of modern society if we are able to temper our emotional, gut instincts. Conscious Leadership indulgently short-circuits that developmental arc. You no longer need to sit in discomfort, wrestle with ambiguity, or act in spite of your fear. You simply check in with your 'truth,' and act accordingly. This kind of psychospiritual narcissism used to be the birth right of false gurus and religious fundamentalists, but executives are now importing it into the boardroom. 'Conscious Leadership Isn't for Everyone': The Narcissism of Framing Dissent as Deficiency Perhaps the most telling artifact of this movement's epistemic regression is represented in an article from the formal Conscious Leadership group entitled ' Conscious Leadership Isn't for Everyone.' I felt a wave of relief when I stumbled upon this piece—finally, some humility to balance their ideological self-assurance. Surely, I thought, they'll acknowledge the limits of their framework. Something like: 'Maybe Conscious Leadership doesn't apply so well in a military context, where you can't pause to check in with your body before rushing to save a wounded soldier.' Or: 'Maybe your 'whole-body yes' should be informed by real analysis and empirical evidence.' But no. Instead of setting boundaries (the sign of a real discipline), the article castigates the un-initiated for their small-mindedness. For those not quite ready to 'do the work.' Here's the tone: If you don't resonate with the Conscious Leadership framework, it's not because the framework might be flawed. It's because you aren't ready. You haven't evolved enough. You're still trapped in your fear, your ego, your unconscious patterns. This is the hallmark of every narrow-minded epistemology, from religious cults to multilevel marketing: disagreement is pathologized. Non-belief is recast as immaturity. Critique is rebranded as resistance. What could have been a useful framework becomes a totalizing worldview and a litmus test for identity. It's a circular self-help theology wrapped in the garb of a professional services business model. Perhaps the most dangerous part of Conscious Leadership isn't its spread in coaching circles—but its growing adoption in boardrooms. As performance management becomes politicized and teams crave psychological safety, frameworks like these offer a tempting escape hatch: a way to appear ethical and evolved without committing to the hard metrics of performance or the messy realities of leadership. This trend is more than aesthetic. It's structural. We are watching as companies quietly substitute felt authenticity for functional accountability. Leaders are now praised for their vulnerability, but rarely challenged on the outcomes of their teams. Difficult conversations are avoided in the name of 'staying above the line.' Strategy becomes an exercise in inner alignment. Disagreement becomes a trauma response. But in this context, consciousness is the unique privilege of people who have, in some sense, already 'made it'. Being at the top, they have the material wealth and security to dedicate themselves to introspection and exploration. They exhort this new way of thinking, and discourage the exact model – ambition, competency-building, and hard-work – that allowed them to rise to such a position in the first place. In this way, Conscious Leadership is more rehabilitative than it is strategic; it is a framework that allows the executive caste to recapture some sense of humanity after years of grinding away in corporate gears. For the underlings, aware of the path it took leaders to become leaders, these platitudes ring false. Those being consciously 'led' are happy to pay lip-service to their leader's fluffy worldview as long as it protects their position in the organization. All the while, they feel the necessity to continue delivering tangible results – The only realistic, quantifiable source of security within the organization. The disconnect—between leadership speech and the results-oriented nature of business—simply breeds cognitive dissonance among employees. They need to confabulate a consciousness-based story to explain their strategic decisions, or worse, they actually use the Conscious Leadership Commitments to make those decisions. What Leadership Actually Requires Real leadership doesn't require denial of intuition, but it does require tempering it. It requires navigating the productive tension between feeling and thinking. It means honoring discomfort, not avoiding it. It means acting ethically even when your nervous system is screaming ' run'. And above all, it means holding power not as self-expression—but as responsibility. Leadership isn't about being your most authentic self in the boardroom. It's about making decisions under uncertainty, absorbing pressure so others can thrive, and balancing the needs of the self with the needs of the system. That kind of leadership may not feel as righteous. But it works, particularly in a business context where employees actually care about whether their organization succeeds. Here's another unsexy fact of life and business—the best way to grow spiritually is to find a base of stability. And in many cases, this means having enough material wealth to pay medical bills, repair your car, and care for your family members—and that means that the business must thrive in real financial terms. That's why Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is still a useful framework: we need material security and basic social cohesion before we can work towards self-transcendence. But so-called 'conscious leaders' don't realize that transcendence is path-dependent; they haven't reflected enough to see that rightful leadership is earned through competency, merit, and sacrifice, rather than verbal appeals to higher ideals. Most employees are happy to find enlightenment on their own time and in their own way. They don't want group therapy funded through the HR budget and proselytized by their boss. They'd prefer their leader to lead the way by making sound strategic decisions, and if that is at odds with being an empathetic and ethical human, then yes, you're in a crappy business situation. This isn't a revelation worthy of a book. Conscious Leadership isn't wrong. It's just incomplete. And after all that critique, frankly, the 15 formal Conscious Leadership Commitments are pretty much right. They are general enough to be unchallengeable, but they are represented (and treated) as a comprehensive leadership model. Principles, rules, and commitments are a protection against chaos. They give us something to latch onto in complex situations, like executive leadership. But the truth is, a leader who truly embodies morality, humanism, and empathy has no need for a formal principle. The people who are most ensnared by moral principles and ideologies are those people who most need them—the type of people for whom integrity is unnatural and hard-won. After all, the deeper essence of the 15 Commitments—individual responsibility, curiosity, integrity—ought to be ingrained early in life. These qualities should be nurtured through sound parenting, quality education, and lived experience. When foundational virtues like individual responsibility and empathy haven't been deeply internalized, frameworks like these can feel revelatory—not because they unlock new wisdom, but because they compensate for what should have already been there. Those who most loudly profess their principles often do so to paper over their fragility. Moral status, when secure, doesn't need to be declared—it's lived. So, live consciously and lead consciously, but if you ever hear someone start a sentence with 'in the spirit of conscious leadership', then I suggest you turn tail and run.
