For perspective, $224 billion is equivalent to $2.24 trillion in the US.

Based on standard pension protocol, $170 billion of this surplus should be distributed, with no risk to future pensions. The evidence is overwhelming that Bell and Rogers’ publication practices are depriving Canadians and Canada of the following:

• 17 million Canadians receiving $10,000 each, on average,

• Our GDP increasing by 4%,

• A creation of 150,000 jobs,

• An increase in all business profits of 20%, on average,

• A multibillion-dollar reduction in poverty,

• An estimated 10% increase in one year’s charitable donations,

• Adjustments to CPP policy that would make, for example, almost all 25-year-olds $1.2 million wealthier by age 65. Income inequality could be markedly reduced.

Moreover, with such a surplus distribution, our troubling deficit would be reduced by roughly $50 billion through increased income tax, increased HST and reduced social programs.

Here are my specific findings:

1. In 2010 our CPP fund was in perfect balance, capable of fulfilling all pension commitments for 75 years, if CPP Investments maintained a 6% return.

2. CPP Investments has averaged an 11% return since 2010, resulting in a $224 billion, 72%, surplus. For example, consider a 65-year-old who had $100,000 in his CPP account in 2010. At 6%, his $100,000 would become $200,000. At 11%, his $100,000 became roughly $300,000. The CPP owes him that extra $100,000 although, for complex reasons, he is now owed closer to $25,000. It belongs to him, not the government.

3. Pension experts recommend forecasting using the most likely future return. CPP Investments will likely continue with an 11% return. This is because they have many investment advantages over the average investor. For example, recently, the private equity portion of their portfolio, 1/3 of the total, had an unheard-of 33% return. Forecasting using a reasonable 11% return means the CPP’s surplus is now closer to 400%.

4. When a pension fund has a mere 25% surplus, it should be distributed. That is why my colleagues and I received as much as $20,000 each in 2000 when our Ryerson University Pension Fund had an 18% surplus. The CRA ordered it. Please compare 18% to 400%. A $170 billion surplus distribution now would still leave our CPP fund very capable of funding our grandchildren’s pensions.

5. Actuaries are probably complicit in this cover-up. The ten top actuaries who I have corresponded with have denied the surplus with vacuous arguments. This is because CPP Investments’ success could lead to a large decline in the need for other pension funds, and hence actuaries. For example, with likely ongoing investment success, a 25-year-old could have a $100,000 CPP pension, in 2023 dollars. Many other pension funds, and their accompanying actuaries, would then become unnecessary.

6. The financial industry fears legislators allowing voluntary contributions to CPP Investments, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty investigated in 2011. Billions of investment dollars would then transfer from Bay Street to CPP Investments because investors would likely earn three times the profit over ten years. The financial industry now monopolizes 47% of all corporate profits but only contributes 7.5% to our GDP. They selfishly want to keep it that way. (As a compromise, if the CPP invested the first $2,000 of contributions per year directly with CPP Investments, I would advise against voluntary contributions because almost all 25-year-olds would be $1.2 million wealthier by age 65, anyway.)

7. Any political party could have won a majority by promising the benefits described above. All 338 MPs have received the above information, twice. Experts on democracy in Canada claim bribery is rampant in Canadian politics. If the financial industry “donated” a mere 0.1% of its annual profits, political parties would receive a total of $125 million. This is double what they receive as legal campaign contributions. Only Mr. Poilievre has responded with thanks and encouragement. Hopefully, he is impervious to bribes and his platform will soon include CPP reform.  My MP, Jane Philpott, responded to me in person, blaming “Disgraceful lobbyists”. My other two MPs salivated, thinking how they would be a shoo-in in the next election if their party proposed such CPP reform. They submitted details to “Ottawa” but I never received a return response.

8. Several experts on Canadian media claim our entire media has sacrificed journalistic integrity for profit. Bell and Rogers control the lion’s share of the Canadian media. What a disgrace when only a respected international publication, The Economist, will write about such wonderful news for Canadians. In January 2019, The Economist wrote: “The CPP fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”

   And since this article was published, our CPP fund has increased by another $176 billion to $536 billion.

   I understand unprofitable media companies like The Toronto Star taking funds from mysterious sources in exchange for a veto on covering certain topics like the CPP. However, Bell and Rogers are very profitable. Why would they let Canadians down like this, especially when probably over ten million Canadians are their loyal customers, paying them substantially for the most expensive cell service in the world?

9. Ms. Freeland (PLUTOCRATS) and Mr. Carney (VALUES) have both written books that claim our capitalist system is disgustedly rigged to favour the super-rich. In 1960, the US and Canada’s top marginal tax rate was over 80%. Now it is roughly 53%, with plenty of loopholes. The super-rich have a track record of getting their way. It appears Bell and Rogers are on the side of the 1%, not the 99%.

10. Almost all Canadians own a cell phone. The profit margin on cell phone customers is likely almost 100%. Roughly 89% of cell phone service is provided by Rogers, Bell, and Telus. The three providers deliver essentially the same service for the same price. Because of incentives, switching providers can be lucrative for the consumer but not the provider.

11. For over six years, I have sought answers. No economist, politician, actuary, or journalist has provided ONE reason against bringing these deserved benefits to Canadians and Canada. Thousands have been consulted. There seems to be a nudge/nudge/wink/wink philosophy in Canadian business circles of “The CPP’s surplus is not to be mentioned. Big business, and their deep pockets, says so. Standing up for this cause can be dangerous to your career.” (I suspect two journalists have been fired because they became overly outspoken regarding their employer’s failure to cover the CPP.) Ms. Freeland and Mr. Carney’s books have also helped confirm these suspicions.

As a concerned retired Canadian, I cannot, in good conscience, abandon this project, as I enjoy my substantial professor’s pension, half paid for by all Canadians. I have become a poverty activist seeking justice for the less fortunate. I have played thousands of hours of sports where a referee kept the game fair. There is no fairness for the 99% as the 1% are driving the bus and succeeding at suppressing the CPP’s news. Bell and Rogers are complicit and, as you will see below, they are the most vulnerable target for the millions of oppressed Canadians to confront in retaliation.

For example, consider those two million of six million seniors who now live near the poverty line of roughly $21,000 per year. Two thirds are women. A CPP surplus payment of $10,000 could ten-tuple their discretionary income remaining after rent and day-to-day expenses. They could then, for example, play golf, play tennis, visit grandchildren, travel, take more taxis, dine out, pay for uncovered healthcare, etc., etc. Bell and Rogers’ publication veto means two million low-income senior Canadians are experiencing a much lower quality of life and decreased longevity.

Millions of struggling younger Canadians also deserve a substantial CPP surplus payment.

It appears Bell and Rogers have decided to play “hardball” by not publishing such a newsworthy story that could help bring these needed, deserved benefits to Canadians and Canada. Such a story by the Canadian media would lead to politicians having no choice but to distribute a CPP surplus.

It is time for consumers to play “hardball” in return. Using the above details and  more, I will now encourage Canadians to punish Bell and Rogers for their complicit failure to publish the truth about the CPP. The title of the email will be:

Why Bell and Rogers have cost you a deserved $10,000

Here is how to punish them

The following is why you may want to be concerned.

Advocacy experience and success     

It was my lobbying to CARP that led to low-income seniors now receiving $440 million more per year in GIS payments, as legislated in the 2019 Budget. My first two emails to CARP advocates were ignored but my third achieved success. It showed me that persistent, repeated emails can get results. Details of this advocacy and legislative change are here. 

All non-financial industry businesses are losing 20% in profit

A recommended $170 billion CPP surplus distribution could lead to a 20% profit increase for all non-financial businesses in Canada. I have already notified 200 Chambers of Commerce chapters, all Board of Trade offices, and Business Council offices of this potential. I encouraged Chamber chapters to forward the email to their thousands of business members. Most presidents spend their time trying to uncover, for example, a 1% profit increase. They will be very interested in a 20% profit increase.

Because their employees also have much to gain, including $10,000 each, presidents will be encouraged to, in turn, forward the email to their millions of employees. Bell and Rogers were not mentioned in my previous email. My next email will identify Bell and Rogers as complicit culprits, responsible for depriving all employees of a deserved $10,000 each and their employer of a deserved 20% increase in profit.

Mr. Poilievre and the complicit CBC

Mr. Poilievre wants to “Fire the gatekeepers” and “Defund the CBC”. Because the CBC will not cover the CPP’s surplus, Ms. Tait, CBC President, is a gatekeeper who should be fired. I have emailed roughly 200 CBC email addresses that can be found online. The email suggested to CBC employees that, to avoid defunding and hence being laid off, they could encourage (demand?) that Ms. Tait covers the CPP’s surplus and bring the above benefits to Canadians and Canada. The 200 recipients were encouraged to forward the email to their 8,000 CBC colleagues.

Bell and Rogers may want to publish news of the CPP’s surplus before the CBC does. Bell and Rogers’ failure will be the mainstay of my next email to CBC employees.

CARP seniors, like the French, may become aggressive

CARP has 27 chapters across Canada, overseeing 330,000 members who all deserve $10,000 each from the CPP. Without revised CPP policy, many will soon die never seeing their deserved surplus payment, which is mushrooming every year. I will email all CARP chapters, encouraging their volunteer chapter directors to forward the email to all 330,000 members. Bell and Rogers’ failure will be the mainstay of my next email. You may recall seniors’ outrage at the Sears pension debacle. It is sometimes best to let sleeping dogs lie.

MPs may become disgusted, and risk losing the next election

I have already emailed all 338 MPs twice regarding the CPP’s surplus, requesting action. My next email to MPs will explain how Bell and Rogers’ publishing practices are keeping the above benefits from Canadians and Canada. Canada has the highest cell phone rates in the world. When MPs discover you are irresponsibly publishing only those stories that are advantageous to the wealthiest 1%, they may become much less sympathetic to granting you the right to charge such high cell phone rates. 

I am recommending to all Canadians that they ask their MP why their party has not proposed CPP reform. I am further recommending that, when no reasonable response is forthcoming, voters will vote for “Anyone but the incumbent.” Party leaders need those incumbents to win the next election, and may take note.

Your failure at Social responsibility

Canadian corporations are now expected to address ESG concepts. If they are larger companies, ESG expectations are higher. And if they are profitable companies, ESG expectations are even higher. As we pay large amounts for the most expensive cell phone service in the world, it appears Bell and Rogers are extremely profitable. Probably more than any other companies in Canada, Canadians expect that Bell and Rogers will lead in addressing ESG concepts.

Bell and Rogers are not manufacturers or resource-based, meaning they can do little to address our Environmental concerns. Because they are both public companies, their Governance is probably appropriate. That means Social responsibility is the only factor within ESG that Bell and Rogers can substantially address.

Probably the most Socially Irresponsible act that any company has ever done in Canada is to put a veto on covering the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus. Because of your irresponsible coverage, all the benefits listed above are not reaching Canadians and Canada.

A class action lawsuit against Bell and Rogers may be forthcoming.

What law firm would not want to boast “We brought these benefits (See above) to Canadians and Canada.” With such a lawsuit, the publicity for Bell and Rogers could be devastating when the truth about your selfish coverage policies reaches millions of Canadians. Moreover, a sympathetic judge might charge Bell and Rogers billions of dollars in compensation.

It is the optics that matter

It probably does not matter what you think, or I think, regarding this cover-up. It is the optics, what Canadians will think, that matters. I think I can present Canadians with a very good case that you are guilty, especially if I include the details above and the considerable confirming links that you can find throughout my website.

We Canadians are helpless in this insidious cover-up which borders on illegal. We have no way of punishing the CBC or, for example, The Toronto Star, for their coverage failure. However, we still have freedom of choice. We can easily switch our cell phone provider to Telus.

(As I peruse the Telus website, there are many reasons, aside from the CPP, to switch. It looks like big savings, which I will convey to potential switchers. Ironically, Telus is campaigning against “Bullying”. Who is a bigger bully in Canada than Bell and Rogers, with their selective publishing policies which are depriving millions of Canadians of $170 billion and much more.) Most Canadians sorely need an additional $10,000. Bell and Rogers are preventing it.

The consequences could be devastating

You may want to consider publishing news of the CPP’s surplus now, for the following reasons:

1. Thousands or more Canadians will soon be aware of your failure in coverage. They may be disgusted and want to punish you. The evidence regarding your complicity is overwhelming.

2. My associates and I will continue spreading our suspicions and the accompanying evidence (see my website) throughout Canada using the examples above and much more. Gradually, more and more Canadians will become aware. Some may join the fight with vicious anger, substantial resources, and extreme determination. Social media will be involved. The story could “go viral”.

3. The only response to this email that Canadians want to hear from you is “We are so sorry. This is an oversight. We will publish CPP surplus details tomorrow.” Any other response is suspicious. And if you don’t respond, it will be even more suspicious.

4. The CPP surplus is mushrooming. If CPP Investments has their 11% return in 2023, they will achieve a $59 billion return when the Chief Actuary has specified that a $20 billion return is enough. This means the CPP surplus will probably grow by another $39 billion this year. Next year will likely be even more because of compounding. It will become increasingly difficult for the Canadian media to ignore the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus.

5. When the CPP’s surplus and potential details are finally published, that publisher will be a hero. The others will be villains who never published the story. Which one will you be?

6. Your image and profits may plummet because you are frauds. You exude a “We are a Canadian corporate citizen, and we care deeply about Canada.” philosophy. Meanwhile, you have vetoed a story that would lead to huge benefits for Canadians. No one likes deceptive hypocrites who makes billions of dollars of profits from us.  

7. Bell, your Letstalk website is dedicated to improving the mental health state of Canadians. The website boasts of a $15 million donation towards mental health.  If the CPP declared a surplus distribution of $170 billion, perhaps 1%, $1.7 billion, might reach charities. This is 113 time your $15 million. Moreover, if every Canadian received an unexpected payment of $10,000 each, it would help many of those suffering from mental health. And it would help the unemployed find work.  It is generally accepted that unemployment leads to mental health problems.

8. You have a responsibility to your shareholders. Most, although eager to see profits, would be disgusted with your selective publishing behaviour. Will they soon be saying “How could you let these details reach millions of Canadians, many who have now switched to Telus, resulting in my shares experiencing a plummeting stock price?”   

During the recent US election, FOX News executives, in a meeting, agreed to deceive the American public by endorsing false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Now they are in deep trouble. Experts claim their viewership may soon plummet.

Consider Canada’s media. Rogers and Bell executives, in a meeting, obviously agreed to never cover the CPP’s surplus thereby deceiving the Canadian public as FOX did in the US. Your coverage failure is basically saying to Canadians “There is nothing newsworthy related to the CPP” when possibly the most read story in decades might be

“The CPP has such a large surplus that 17 million Canadians now deserve $10,000 each, on average. This would increase our GDP by 4%, create 150,000 jobs, reduce poverty, increase charitable donations, increase business profits by 20%, all while reducing our troubling deficit by $50 billion. And the CPP could somewhat solve our income inequality problem. There would be no risk to future pensions.”

Who has had the larger impact on their citizens because of their flawed coverage – FOX News or Bell and Rogers? I suspect most Canadians would agree that it is Bell and Rogers.

Many Canadians will agree with the following.

1. It is an accepted fact that less income leads to an earlier death.

2. By not publishing CPP details, Bell and Rogers have deprived two million low-income seniors of a deserved $10,000 each, which could ten-tuple their income remaining after rent and day-to-day expenses. Roughly 100,000 will die this year, never receiving their deserved $10,000.

3. If someone knowingly shortens a person’s life for selfish reasons, it is called murder.

4. Are Bell and Rogers therefore guilty of not just one murder, but 100,000 murders, per year, in addition to depriving Canadians and Canada of the other benefits described above.

You are safe in a court of justice but in the court of public opinion, you may not be so safe.

Politically, unpredictable actions from Mr. Poilievre may also soon reveal your complicity in this cover-up. Finally, the NDP is not satisfied with their Liberal alliance and may soon reveal the CPP’s surplus, which could likely win them a majority in the next election.

Massive protests have taken place in France because the government reasonably wants to raise the pension age from 62 to 64 when, for most other OECD countries, it is at least 65. Unlike the CPP, the French pension system is in a large deficit. Please compare France’s supposed pension injustice to this CPP pension injustice. Will Canadians, who are being much more abused than the French, soon protest against Bell and Rogers, like the French? 

If you can explain to me why you have not covered the CPP’s surplus, I will stop encouraging Canadians to switch to Telus to punish Bell and Rogers' media failure. I await your response, for one week.

Sincerely,

Ross Macnaughton

Professor emeritus

Ryerson University aka TMU

P.S.

This email is also available, with your (lack of) response, here.

Don’t even think about a libel lawsuit. Here is why:

1. Because you obviously control the mainstream media, freedom of speech for normal Canadians like me is even more sacrosanct.

2. My claims are backed up with experts’ opinions and convincing data.

3. David, not Goliath, usually gets the benefit of the doubt.

4. The non-mainstream media coverage of such a lawsuit would be devastating for you as more Canadians learn the truth, possibly virally.

5. Initiating such a lawsuit might generate a stampede of sympathetic switchers to Telus.

6. If a poverty activist cannot speak out, Canada’s “democracy” is in a very bad state.

7. You have been given an opportunity to respond.

8. SLAPP legislation is in my favour.

   If you still want to consider a lawsuit, bring it on.