Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I think it might improve access with nurses practitioners able to have their own clinics but we will see. We have a long time to evaluate how well it works or not.

Are these nurse practitioners providing care somewhere currently? When they leave to replace the doctors fleeing Alberta who will cover the patients and care they are currently providing care for?

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

The Alberta government won’t confirm if it will follow through on its promise to meet with citizens face to face in December to discuss quitting the Canada Pension Plan.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...1ff1cae1a.html

Dinning promised callers on Oct. 16 that there will be in-person meetings in December, calling such face-to-face events critical to narrowing down core concerns.

The NDP began holding in in-person town-hall sessions last week, with close to 500 people at an event in Edmonton. The NDP said the overwhelming consensus from those who came was to leave the CPP alone.

In question period Tuesday, NDP house leader Christina Gray urged Smith and her cabinet ministers to attend the NDP events and talk to Albertans.

In question period Tuesday, NDP house leader Christina Gray urged Smith and her cabinet ministers to attend the NDP events and talk to Albertans.

Horner, in reply, extolled the Dinning panel telephone town halls, but didn’t mention the previously promised in-person events. He also suggested Wednesday’s telephone town hall might be the final formal feedback session of the year.

I think they had a pretty rough ride with the phone-in Forums and simply do not want to do in-person Town Halls. On yesterday's call in Jim Dinning defended the amount that Alberta is entitled to saying the amount is what the "Actuary Scientists' came up with. Very disingenuous - calling them scientists. Everything is Pseudo- Science with the UCP.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Muta

So we paid for something that was already free?

This government is so goddamn inept.

But don't worry, when they get ahold of some of those CPP funds, old Preston is going to get $20million for his thoughts!

[Izzle]

Hilarious that these actuarial scientists are so embarrassed by their with that they couldn't bear to have their name publicly associated with such a bull#### document.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Are these nurse practitioners providing care somewhere currently? When they leave to replace the doctors fleeing Alberta who will cover the patients and care they are currently providing care for?

That’s the flaw in this plan.

[Slava]

Really interesting piece from the CEO of Aimco given the APP discussions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...o-invest-more/

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Slava

Really interesting piece from the CEO of Aimco given the APP discussions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...o-invest-more/

The link was pay walled for me... Just in case -

Evan Siddall is the chief executive officer of Alberta Investment Management Corp.

The Canadian model of pension investment management is seen around the world as the gold standard in safeguarding retirement savings. Despite defining the standard, Canada’s retirement system is under pressure. We should all be concerned.

Our high ratings have fallen, according to the Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2023, primarily because of mounting concerns about the ability of plans to operate in the most efficient manner, unfettered by political influence.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s fall economic statement did not help. It included proposals that would have Canadian plans obfuscate our clear, risk-adjusted return-driven mandate to add a focus on economic development. However, this so-called “dual mandate” would be confusing and would dilute our fiduciary obligation to deliver safe, secure and growing pension investments for the people we serve. Inherently, it asks pensioners to foot the bill for Ottawa’s failure to promote Canadian economic growth and productivity.

Remarkably, this comes at a moment when the business of investing is already tough: Inflation pressures, volatile financial markets and geopolitical tensions make it harder to do our jobs.

The Canadian pension model of long-term investing was built for this: to be resilient in difficult conditions. It rests on three pillars: stand-alone pension investment firms with unambiguous missions; strong, independent governance; and the ability to hire professional resources and highly qualified investing talent. As a result, Canada is the envy of the world and houses some of the best investment firms anywhere.

Ms. Freeland proposes to interfere with two of these three pillars. A dual mandate muddies the waters, the opposite of a “clear mission.” Worse, any hint of political influence over our conduct undermines independent governance, which the World Bank called “the most important element of the Canadian model.”

As the investment manager for several Alberta-based pension plans, AIMCo does not believe we need to increase our investments in Canada. While our public disclosure makes clear we invest nearly half of our clients’ portfolios domestically, AIMCo must be free to seek investment opportunities by achieving the portfolio benefits of global diversification. In short, we will pursue the best investments wherever they exist, consistent with our fiduciary responsibility to maximize risk-adjusted net returns.

Regrettably, the inherent value of diversification is being overlooked by those pressuring Canadian pension funds to increase domestic investments. It is well understood that an investor can reduce risk without reducing returns by avoiding a portfolio of correlated investments whose fortunes rise and fall together, such as having too many assets in any single country – like Canada.

It may seem appealing to encourage pension funds to invest more of our combined funds of over $2-trillion in Canada. Letko Brosseau has launched a lobbying and letter-writing campaign to compel us to buy more of the Canadian equities that they principally invest in. It is not our role to prop up Canadian equity markets. Their self-serving and amateurish critique of Canadian pension plans overlooks our far larger investments in Canadian fixed-income securities, real estate, infrastructure and private debt and equity. Their analysis reflects a profound lack of understanding of investing on behalf of pension funds.

As it is, pension funds are already highly exposed to the Canadian economy, employment levels and wage growth. Rather than doubling down on these risks, AIMCo is unapologetically expanding our global presence in order to increase the potential sources of diversification and higher returns for our pension clients and beneficiaries.
It is wrong to seek to expropriate the savings of hard-working Canadians to achieve policy objectives. Tax measures and economic incentives are more direct means of attracting domestic pension funds’ interest, and other global investors’ attention as well.

Rather than interfering with our clear mandate, there are many levers available to the Canadian federal government to grow our country’s economy. We welcome the potential of lifting the archaic 30-per-cent cap on our ownership of Canadian businesses. A reinstatement of pension-friendly inflation-hedged Real Return Bonds would also result in an immediate increase in our investments in Canada. Making large-scale infrastructure projects currently owned by the Government of Canada available for private investment would be another useful demonstration of Ottawa’s desire to increase pension-fund investments in Canada.

Pressuring pension funds to “make Canada great again” is not the way Canada will grow its economy. Indeed, it will harm the very individuals on whose behalf they are investing. The pension savings of Canadians are not our country’s economic development department.

Canadian plans work on behalf of teachers, nurses, police officers, judges, professors, firefighters and civil servants. Our political leaders owe these hard-working Canadians safe and secure retirement savings. We have already shown the world how: through dedicated pension organizations with clear, undiluted missions and independent governance that is free of any hint of interference.

[belsarius]

This is some first rate UCP propaganda going here.

- Blame Ottawa

Ottawa’s failure to promote Canadian economic growth and productivity.

- Make claims that are only true in limited context -

However, this so-called “dual mandate” would be confusing

No where in the fall update does it suggest the mandate will change, specifically it says

work collaboratively with Canadian pension funds to create an environment that encourages and identifies more opportunities for investments in Canada

- Make use of terminology to incite anger

Pressuring pension funds to “make Canada great again” is not the way Canada will grow its economy

- Make no mention of the real issue you have with the changes -

require large federally-regulated pension plans to disclose the distribution of their investments...will engage with provinces and territories to discuss similar disclosures by Canada’s largest pension plans

Nothing more than a hit piece from a UCP crony and guaranteed DS will try to use this as leverage as a reason to leave the CPP and the mindless UCP dogs will lap it up.

[BlackArcher101]

So basically trying to turn the biggest perceived negative that people have with the APP (will be used to invest in alberta companies), and apply it to the CPP. Therefore driving a dilemma of "would you rather have your money invested in the rest of Canada, or invested in Alberta on Albertans". I can see this as a question in the referendum.

I have zero clue what this dual-mandate thing is that he speaks of, and I'm sure most of the people that will see quotes from this won't either, but believe it to be bad.

AIMCo does not believe we need to increase our investments in Canada. While our public disclosure makes clear we invest nearly half of our clients’ portfolios domestically, AIMCo must be free to seek investment opportunities by achieving the portfolio benefits of global diversification.

This is an interesting comment. While they admit that a large chunk of their portfolio is within Canada, they must not be restricted to be diverse and invest globally..... Well..... Why didn't you? The CPP is at 14% within Canada, you are near 50% and are complaining that you shouldn't be directed (I don't think there is a direction?) to invest within Canada, but clearly you don't have problem with that already.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

So basically trying to turn the biggest perceived negative that people have with the APP (will be used to invest in alberta companies), and apply it to the CPP. Therefore driving a dilemma of "would you rather have your money invested in the rest of Canada, or invested in Alberta on Albertans". I can see this as a question in the referendum.

I have zero clue what this dual-mandate thing is that he speaks of, and I'm sure most of the people that will see quotes from this won't either, but believe it to be bad.



This is an interesting comment. While they admit that a large chunk of their portfolio is within Canada, they must not be restricted to be diverse and invest globally..... Well..... Why didn't you? The CPP is at 14% within Canada, you are near 50% and are complaining that you shouldn't be directed (I don't think there is a direction?) to invest within Canada, but clearly you don't have problem with that already.

Well to me, this just speaks to some of the difficulty in comparing mandates and investment policies. People think that the factors determining a suitable investment for the two are the same, therefore you just look at the returns and properly judge who came out ahead. That's just not the way things work. CPPIB not only has different parameters because of the specifics for CPP as compared to the pensions that Aimco is running, but they have different fund characteristics (such as size) that afford them different opportunities in the first place.

It doesn't mean Aimco is terrible, and it doesn't mean that they don't do their job properly. It's just not as easy to compare as just looking at where they're invested and what the return is to make that decision.

[PsYcNeT]

UCP and Cronyism, name a more iconic duo

https://twitter.com/user/status/1728900251468378366

(It's her daughter)

[Muta]

Geezus ####ing christ, the grift never stops with this imbecile government. Their red meat base will spin doctor this into oblivion of course and downplay it as nothing; but if the NDP did this (hint - they wouldn't), that same base would go absolutely nuclear.

[fotze2]

Yes, that's her daughter. She did some frac modelling for us a while back. My redneck completion engineer used to try to make me laugh in meetings because she has semi crossed eyes. Look at him and he'd momentarily cross his eyes. The dick!

Actually her dad did the modelling, not sure what she did.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Yes, that's her daughter. She did some frac modelling for us a while back. My redneck completion engineer used to try to make me laugh in meetings because she has semi crossed eyes. Look at him and he'd momentarily cross his eyes. The dick!

Actually her dad did the modelling, not sure what she did.

Nepotiisticly grifted?

The UCP is so corrupt.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

So basically trying to turn the biggest perceived negative that people have with the APP (will be used to invest in alberta companies), and apply it to the CPP. Therefore driving a dilemma of "would you rather have your money invested in the rest of Canada, or invested in Alberta on Albertans". I can see this as a question in the referendum.

I have zero clue what this dual-mandate thing is that he speaks of, and I'm sure most of the people that will see quotes from this won't either, but believe it to be bad.

The duel mandate is most certainly a negative. My biggest apprehension behind the APP proposition from the UCP was exactly that, that not only would the fund be stripped away from the CPP that isn't broken but also would be susceptible to greater political interference. Now, Freeland with the fall economic update basically came right out and put political interference in the CPP's mandates right on the table. At the end of the day I want my pension funds managed completely independent of the government in power and managed with the intent towards generating the best risk-adjusted returns possible.

[Torture]

Engineer in Training? Sure, that's qualified to be on the board, why not!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Why do people keep saying UPC? I've seen that countless times on here. Error?

It's code

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It's code

Post of the day!

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Torture

Engineer in Training? Sure, that's qualified to be on the board, why not!

Not to mention that the O&G services companies where she is a "VP of Corporate Development" and "Business Development Manager/VP" are both small companies owned by her dad.

At least it's not just white people benefiting from nepotism and UCP corporate grift for once

[PsYcNeT]

Also worth noting that Rajan (her mom) shat the bed so hard in my riding last cycle, they had to parachute her into a secure Conservative riding where no one was familiar with her being a terrible MLA so she would win.

Of course, the empty suit they ran here instead lost to the NDP.