Deserved benefits for Canada’s 99%, mostly struggling
Introduction
Over the past ten years, as a Professor Emeritus who taught The Mathematics of Finance, I have studied the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) on behalf of its 22 million contributors and pensioners. During this time I stumbled on disturbing details that raise serious questions about how the CPP is being managed and how its investment gains are being shared.
The CPP is important. Most Canadians have contributed 10% of their lifetime earnings to the CPP, trillions of dollars in total. However, no one is appropriately overseeing these contributions on their behalf. Moreover, Albertans are considering separation from Canada based on the CPP injustice described below.
For the past 15 years, CPP Investments’ has been the best pension fund investor in the world, averaging a 10% return when only a 6% return is necessary to meet all pension commitments.
Global SWF, a New York-based pension industry specialist ranked CPP Investments as the best investor of 300 pension funds worldwide
CPP Investments’ outstanding performance has created roughly $500 billion in additional wealth beyond earlier projections. Yet millions of Canadians struggling with rising costs of living have seen no benefit from these gains.
If the recommendations below were implemented, millions of floundering Canadians would enjoy a considerable, deserved improvement in their quality of life. However, the overwhelming evidence indicates the selfish interests of Canada’s wealthiest 1% have been favoured over the interests of the other 99%. On this crucial issue, democracy, freedom of press and actuarial science have all been replaced with a deception that is having a profound negative impact on millions of Canadians and our sputtering economy.
The issue goes far beyond pensions. It affects:
the disposable income available to younger Canadians,
the financial security of seniors,
the strength of Canada’s economy.
Albertans’ desire to separate from Canada.
My interest in the CPP is also partly personal. The MacNaughton family has long been connected to the history of the Canada Pension Plan.
Because CPP Investments has been the best pension fund investor in the world for 15 years, our CPP fund now has a $500 billion surplus as shown here. Fifteen years ago, our Chief Actuary specified a 6% return is necessary for fund stability, resulting in a $366 fund value today. Because CPP Investments has averaged a 10% return for 15 years, our comparable CPP Fund’s value is $725 billion. With an ongoing 10% return, which is likely, the CPP fund only needs roughly $245 billion in the fund to meet all pension commitments. This means our CPP fund now has a $500 billion surplus, 200% above what is needed.
My father’s cousin, Charles MacNaughton, served as Treasurer of Ontario from 1958 to 1962. Representing Canada’s largest province at the time, he was substantially involved in the discussions that shaped the framework of the CPP in its early years.
His son, John MacNaughton—my second cousin—later played a major role in transforming how the CPP invests its funds. After the landmark pension reforms of 1997, John became the first President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, now known as CPP Investments. Before those reforms, CPP contributions were invested mainly in fixed-income securities. Under his leadership, CPP Investments began investing globally in public equity, private equity, infrastructure, real estate, and more. Over the past fifteen years, this strategy has produced the strongest investment results of all the pension funds in the world.
The purpose of this website is simple: to present the evidence clearly and allow Canadians to judge for themselves.
A big discrepancy in income
With CPP reform, 99% of Canadians would win but Canada’s financial industry would lose
Canada’s financial industry corners 47% of all corporate profit in Canada but only contributes 7.4% to our GDP. For comparison, the US financial industry only collects 25-30% of all corporate profit. Europe’s average is 20-30%.
The Canadian financial industry is awash in cash. In December 2025, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s big banks distributed $27.3 billion in bonuses. An estimated 15,000 bank employees received $1.8 million each on top of their salaries.
Meanwhile, millions of Canadians are struggling.
A recent study found that 43% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency. On March 9, 2026, The Globe and Mail wrote that “Household debt in Canada as a percentage of GDP is 103 per cent, second-highest among 34 OECD countries.”
Another study indicates “54% of Canadians currently have credit card debt, with 72% of Millennials (ages 29-44) carrying such debt.” The credit card interest rate is roughly 20%.
Food bank usage has doubled since 2019.
In Ontario, for example, mortgage delinquency rates are up by 135.2 per cent.
Canada’s ranking in the World Happiness Report plummeted from sixth place in life-satisfaction standings ten years ago to 25th place today, the worst ever. When only Canadians under 25 were counted, Canada fell to 71st. Notably, Finland is ranked number one. Finland’s financial industry earns 18% of all corporate profit compared to Canada’s 47%.
Mortgage default rates are up roughly 52.3% in the 12 months ending March, 2026.
Young Canadians are struggling with mental health. Greenshield research confirms this.
“TORONTO, Nov. 19, 2025 /CNW/ - A new survey from GreenShield, Canada's only national non-profit health care and insurance organization, conducted in partnership with Mental Health Research Canada (MHRC), reveals that over 80% of Canadian youth are overwhelmed by stress and anxiety about their future. Economic pressures – including job insecurity and the rising cost of living – are key drivers.”
Millions of struggling Canadians could gain huge benefits from the CPP’s surplus and potential. If they were aware that the CPP now has a $500 billion surplus and CPP Investments will likely continue investing with a 10% return, they could benefit in three ways.
Benefit # 1 - Voluntary Contributions to CPP Investments
In 2011, when CPP Investments had averaged roughly 6% annual returns for several years, then–Finance Minister Jim Flaherty examined the possibility of allowing Canadians to make voluntary investments through CPP Investments. Documents obtained through Access to Information requests indicate that the financial industry strongly opposed the idea, arguing that many Canadians might shift their savings into CPP Investments if it offered reliable returns at relatively low cost.
The power of this idea becomes clearer when we consider the effect of compound interest. Albert Einstein once stated, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.” Consider a simple example. Suppose a 25-year-old Canadian voluntarily invested $1,000 per year with CPP Investments. Over forty years, the total contribution would be $40,000.
If CPP Investments continued earning approximately 10% annually, similar to its average performance over the past fifteen years, that investment would grow to roughly $540,000 by age 65.
At an ongoing 10% return after age 65, that $540,000 would generate approximately $54,000 per year, equivalent to roughly $25,000 per year in today’s purchasing power.
If the same individual invested $1,000 per year through conventional financial products earning about 5% annually, that investment would grow to only about $160,000 by age 65.
That amount would only produce an annual retirement income of roughly $3,600 in today’s dollars—14% of what investing with CPP Investments might give him.
Here is another way of illustrating the power of compound interest, when it is combined with CPP investments’ likely 10% return. Presume a 25-year-old wants a $100,000 per year income at age 65, equivalent to a $45,000 income in 2026 dollars. With voluntary contributions, he will need to contribute $1,850 per year. Investing with the financial industry, presuming a typical 5% return, he will need to invest $12,400 per year, almost seven times a much.
Allowing Canadians the option to invest voluntarily with CPP Investments could give struggling Canadians an investment option that benefits from scale, diversification, and professional management of the world’s most successful pension fund investor.
If Canadians were allowed to make voluntary investments through CPP Investments, many would choose this option because of the fund’s long-term investment performance and relatively low operating costs. As a result, considerable savings that currently flow into traditional wealth-management products would shift toward a publicly managed investment vehicle like CPP Investments.
Such a change could have important implications for Canada’s financial sector, particularly for wealth-management businesses that earn substantial revenues from managing individual retirement savings. They could lose billions of dollars per year, in investment fee revenue.
Any voluntary investment program would likely require reasonable limits. CPP Investments is designed to manage the assets of the Canada Pension Plan, and absorbing extremely large additional inflows could make it more difficult to deploy capital efficiently. For that reason, policymakers might consider placing an annual cap on voluntary contributions—for example, allowing Canadians to invest up to $1,000 per year through CPP Investments. Because $1,000 per year is below the TFSA limit, the estimated $54,000 annual income in retirement could be withdrawn tax-free.
This legislation would help neutralize Canada’s growing income inequality.
Overall, allowing voluntary contributions to CPP Investments could provide Canadians with an additional low-cost, long-term investment option while strengthening retirement savings for millions of households. However, the financial industry’s considerable profits would shrink appreciably.
Benefit #2 - Make the CPP a DC pension plan instead of a DB pension plan
The CPP is a Defined Benefit (DB) pension plan. Your pension is defined, regardless of how well CPP Investments invests your contributions. What is wrong with a CPP DB pension plan? For 10 years, 22 million Canadians have not benefitted from the investment prowess of CPP Investments, which has accumulated a $500 billion surplus, roughly a $23,000 surplus, on average, for every CPP member. Based on standard pension practice, Canadians should be receiving some of this giant surplus.
However, our Chief Actuary has, for self-serving reasons, denied the existence of this $500 billion surplus. With the CPP’s DB plan, contributors are receiving roughly a 4.75% return on their contributions while CPP Investments is achieving a 10% return, using their money.
The CPP could become a Defined Contribution (DC) pension plan. With DC plans, the contributor receives the same return on investment that the fund achieves. If CPP Investments achieves its 10% return of the last 15 years, which is likely, a 25-year-old Canadian would receive a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars. With the current DB plan, with the same contribution amounts, he will only receive a $25,000 pension in 2026 dollars.
Almost all private sector pension plans have migrated from a DB to a DC format. This is because DB plans involve risk for the employer. Retirees could live longer than expected. Investments could perform poorly. The plan would need expensive staffing to monitor investments. And the employer would be responsible for all these costs.
With DC plans, the employer simply contributes to the employee’s portfolio, usually matching the employee’s contribution, of, for example, 5% of his salary. The employee bears the entire risk. He is often given several investment options by the employer but no guarantees. If the contributions only achieve a 1% return, it is the employee’s loss. If the contributions receive a 10% return, it is the employee’s gain.
However, these private sector DC plans have high overheads of 0.5% to 2% annually, resulting in a estimated net return to the investor of roughly 4%. Meanwhile, CPP Investments has averaged a 10% net return for 15 years. The difference is profound. For example, investing $100,000 for 20 years at 4% yields $219,000. Investing $100,000 for 20 years at 10% yields $673,000, more than three times as much.
When private sector plans migrated from DB to DC, the contributor’s security regarding retirement was destroyed. With a DB plan, if he worked for a company for 40 years, he could be guaranteed a pension of, for example, $40,000 per year regardless of investment success. With a DC plan he might receive a “pension” ranging from $15,000 to $60,000 per year, depending on investment success.
However, with a CPP DC format, contributors would likely receive a 10% return because CPP Investments has averaged a 10% return for 15 years, and has many advantages over any other investment options in Canada.
Consider the downside versus the upside. If, for example, CPP Investments only averaged a 5% return, contributors would receive roughly the same pension the CPP now promises them.
On the upside, if CPP Investments averaged a 15% return, contributors would deserve approximately a $1 million pension in 2026 dollars. And if CPP Investments matched its return of the last 15 years, which is likely, a typical 25-year-old Canadian could expect a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars.
If the CPP switched from DB to DC format, Canadians would likely enjoy four times the CPP pension. And the risk would be virtually zero.
Broader implications
The impact on Canada’s financial industry and actuarial profession would be profound.
If young Canadians knew that their CPP contributions could probably generate a $100,000 CPP pension in today’s dollars, many would:
Stop investing the recommended 15% of their income towards retirement,
Stop contributing to other pension plans,
Stop purchasing life insurance because the CPP pays a 60% survivor pension—worth ~$60,000 per year in 2026 dollars.
Experience a reduction in their current anxiety regarding a retirement in poverty,
Have as much as 15% more income for expenses today.
The financial industry would then experience a multibillion-dollar reduction in revenue from investment management fees, pension fund products, and life insurance sales. And actuaries, who depend on pension funds and life insurance companies for their income, would experience a considerable decline in employment.
Desperate lobbyists for the financial industry probably argue that reckless young Canadians would stop investing anything towards retirement. Then, if CPP Investments invested poorly, the government would need to support them in retirement with increased OAS and GIS payments.
To avoid such a scenario, young Canadians could be given an annual report of their contribution’s status. For example, they could be told,
“As of December 31, 20??, you had contributed $100,000 to the CPP. Thanks to CPP Investments’ 10% return average, your portfolio is now worth $200,000. If you keep contributing as you have, and CPP Investments continues with a likely 10% return, you will have a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars.”
There are other benefits derived from a CPP DC format. Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) expenses, now totalling $18 billion a year and rising much faster than inflation, would possibly halve. Currently two million of six million seniors receive as much as $13,000 each from the GIS. With a typical Canadian receiving a $100,000 CPP pension, most of these two million low-income seniors, who probably contributed less to the CPP, would “only” receive, for example, a $50,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars. To receive GIS, one’s income must be below $26,000. Changing the CPP to DC format would result in a substantial reduction in Canadians receiving GIS. And the number of low-income seniors existing near the poverty line might decline from two million to one million.
Summary:
If the CPP became a DC pension plan:
Young Canadians can expect a likely $100,000 pension in 2026 dollars,
The number of low-income seniors could halve,
GIS costs could halve
The financial industry would eventually lose billions in profit, per year,
employment for actuaries would plummet.
The evidence is considerable that Canada’s financial industry, actuarial profession and mainstream media have colluded to prevent this possibility by suppressing the news of the CPP’s surplus and potential.
, hearing the news of a likely $100,000 CPP pension, would stop investing
If our government notified young Canadians they will likely be eligible for a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars, the improvement in their mental health might be substantial. They could be annually notified regarding CPP Investments’ recent success and their probable pension based on various investment return scenarios.
If this recommendation were adopted, the CPP would become a Direct Contribution (DC) pension plan instead of a DB plan. It would then become the safest, most profitable pension plan in Canada instead of a DB plan that irresponsibly never distributes its $500 billion surplus.
With a DC plan, the plan member receives the return on his contributions that the investor achieves, not the 4.75% return the CPP now gives Canadians.
With most DC plans, this involves considerable risk because the investor could flounder. However, because of CPP Investments’ history of success and its many advantages over other investors, that risk is near-zero. Meanwhile, the upside of such a policy is the pensioner will likely receive four times the pension.
In the private sector, almost all companies have now phased out their DB plans and switched to a DC plan.
Benefit # 3 - The CPP’s surplus - help for millions of Canadians who need immediate assistance
Recall that 43% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency, 54% have credit card debt and the CPP has a 200% surplus. If our Chief Actuary followed standard pension practice and the principle of generational equity, he could, with no risk to future pensions, distribute some of the CPP’s $500 billion surplus.
For example, a $200 billion distribution from the fund would provide roughly $10,000, on average, to about 20 million Canadians, most struggling.
Such a distribution would have have broad economic effects. Additional income in the hands of millions of households would increase spending throughout the economy, supporting improvements in:
debt relief for 43% of Canadians
income inequality
employment
GDP growth
productivity
business profits
poverty reduction
charitable giving
Canada’s mounting deficit.
Canada’s struggling young need and deserve these benefits
Younger generations face a wide range of challenges: high housing costs, rising rents, growing income inequality, climate concerns, and increasing financial stress.
Demographic trends also highlight the economic challenges facing younger generations. Since the mid-1970s, Canada’s fertility rate has declined significantly—from about 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to sustain population growth, to roughly 1.25 today. Many researchers attribute part of this decline to the rising cost of living, housing affordability challenges, mental health issues, and economic uncertainty for young families.
Policies that strengthen retirement security and improve financial stability could help address many of these pressures. To deprive Canada’s struggling youth of these multi-billion dollar benefits so that the executives in the financial industry can increase their millionaire wealth is criminal. However, legally, the perpetrators of this subtle cover-up probably enjoy complete protection.
Is there a reason against giving these benefits to Canadians? I have emailed these details to hundreds of journalists, economists and politicians. Not one gave a single argument against distributing the CPP’s surplus.
Women, Income Inequality, and the Fight for Financial Fairness in Canada
Women are disproportionately affected by the outcomes of systems that remain largely shaped by male-dominated leadership.
Approximately two-thirds of low-income seniors are women. During their working years, women earn, on average, about 87 cents for every dollar earned by men, resulting in lower lifetime savings and reduced retirement security. When families separate, women most often assume primary responsibility for childcare, frequently bearing the financial strain that follows. In some cases, support payments are inconsistent or absent, leaving mothers to pursue costly legal remedies—or to manage alone.
At the same time, women remain underrepresented in many of the institutions that influence financial outcomes. Only about 25–30% of senior roles in the financial industry are held by women. In the actuarial profession, women represent roughly one-third of practitioners, with fewer at senior levels. In media leadership, women also account for only about one-quarter to one-third of decision-making positions.
The result is a gap not only in income, but in influence—particularly in areas that shape financial policy, retirement systems, and public awareness.
If you are a woman, your voice is essential in addressing these issues and advocating for fairer outcomes. And if you believe in equity and accountability, I encourage you—regardless of gender—to support efforts that seek meaningful change.
The only senior politician willing to combat this cover-up on behalf of her constituents is a woman, Premier Smith.
A summary of the pros and cons of these recommendations
The benefits summarized in the left column would bring a huge improvement to the lives of millions of struggling Canadians and Canada’s anemic economy.
How Canada Could Rise in the Happiness Rankings
In the World Happiness Report, while Canada is plummeted from a ranking of 25 from 6, Finland consistently ranks first. This reflects a society built on:
very low levels of corruption
high trust in government and public institutions
a strong social safety net
low income inequality.
These factors create a sense of stability and security that underpins overall well-being.
If Canada were to adopt the measures described above, it could significantly improve its standing in the rankings. More importantly, it would enhance the day-to-day lives of millions of Canadians, now struggling.
A pathetic defence from Finance Minister Freeland
On Sept. 11, 2024, Finance Minister Freeland defended her inaction on this crucial issue. In an email to me, she stated:
“Consequently, the large build-up in the CPP Fund is necessary to pay for the promised level of benefits, in particular to the large baby boom generation.
In addition, it is important to maintain a certain buffer in the CPP Fund to protect against sudden and unexpected negative shocks to the global economy, such as a collapse of oil prices, a financial crisis or the impact of a global pandemic on the world economy. “
Her response is sadly lacking. Firstly, actuaries have already planned for “our large baby boom generation.” Secondly, the pension fund surplus guideline “to protect against sudden and unexpected negative shocks to the global economy” is a 25% surplus. The CPP now has a 200% surplus.
This overzealous caution is absurd. It is akin to a multi-millionaire saying,
“I am only spending $5 for lunch at McDonald’s because my multimillion-dollar portfolio could plummet in value tomorrow. And my will says that my children and grandchildren, now going to food banks, will receive nothing until ten years after I die.”
Why aren’t these benefits reaching millions of struggling Canadians
Three powerful, influential industries or professions would lose billions of dollars and lucrative employment if the news of the CPP’s surplus becomes known. The evidence, collected over ten years, that they have orchestrated a massive cover-up, can be found by clicking: