More evidence of a cover-up involving hundreds of billions
The following questions need to be answered if Canadians are to receive true justice regarding their contributions to the CPP. For most Canadians, their contributions to the CPP represent 10% of their lifetime earnings.
One question actuaries may be posing to you.
“How can a non-actuary like Professor Macnaughton critique our Chief Actuary’s analysis when actuarial science is so complex?”
Roughly 90% of actuarial science related to pension funds predicts Net Cash Flow - Contributions from working Canadians minus Pensions paid to retired Canadians. Since 2010, when the fund was in perfect balance, our Chief Actuary has been roughly 5% inaccurate on these predictions.
Meanwhile, his 6% prediction for return on investment has been 67% understated per year for 15 years, resulting in a 200% surplus, thanks to the power of compound interest. As a professor who taught The Mathematics of Finance, I am only critiquing our Chief Actuary’s financial analysis of the CPP.
If it becomes known that the CPP can likely provide a 25-year-old with a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars, young Canadians will:
Stop investing as much as 15% of their income with the financial industry,
Stop buying life insurance because the CPP gives a 60% survivor’s pension,
Stop contributing to other pension funds,
Demand voluntary contributions to CPP Investments.
These actions would lead to a considerable decrease in the profits of the financial industry. Additionally, because an estimated 75% of actuarial employment is derived from monitoring pension funds and life insurance funds, employment for actuaries would plummet.
Some critics suggest such an extensive cover-up involving hundreds of Canadians could never happen. However, The Charbonneau Commission found that hundreds of politicians, public officials, and contractors profited from schemes that inflated infrastructure costs by 20–30% for several years. Some participants, including politicians, went to jail?
It should be noted that, while it is highly immoral and highly unethical, there is nothing illegal about never mentioning the CPP’s surplus. Those agreeing to collude in this cover-up can simply say, “Our Chief Actuary and our politicians never mentioned it so I never investigated it.”
Recall that just 1% of the financial industry’s annual profit is $1.6 billion, equivalent to 160 “packets’ of $10 million each. The following questions can only be answered with one answer- the financial industry has used its billions in profit to suppress the most newsworthy, helpful story in Canada in years.
Please contact me if you can arrive at any other answer for any of the questions below.
The impact of this cover-up:
The CPP can, with no risk to future pensions, give $10,000, on average, to 20 million Canadians, thereby substantially increasing our anemic GDP, increasing productivity, creating jobs, reducing poverty, somewhat solving income inequality, and reducing our mushrooming deficit by roughly $50 billion. When probably 90% of Canadians would vote for these recommendations, why has no political party promised these benefits over the last three elections, when doing so would likely give them a majority?
When a pension fund has a mere 25% surplus, it should be distributed. Since 2016, one million low-income seniors have died, earlier than they should with a lower quality of life. Another 100,000 will die this year, earlier than they should. A no-risk CPP surplus distribution could have prevented this. Why did politicians allow this catastrophe?
Why the financial industry would lose:
In December 2025, roughly 15,000 banking executives received an average bonus of $1.8 million each. Meanwhile, in 2016, when Finance Minister Morneau legislated more-of-the-same CPP changes, Janet Ecker, President of the Toronto Financial Services Alliance (TFSA), expressed relief. She publicly admitted that CPP reforms like voluntary contributions could "Undermine a lot of successful, legitimate, (retirement savings) products in the investment industry." After her admission, the TFSA disappeared. Was it because the financial industry does not want the public to know about their fear of CPP reform?
Increasing GIS payments to low-income seniors would have no impact on the profits of the financial industry. However, distributing a CPP surplus could result in annual multibillion dollar losses for the financial industry. Why was achieving GIS justice accomplished with just a few hours of research and three emails to CARP, but CPP justice has not been accomplished after eight years of advocacy and thousands of emails?
The think tank, C.D. Howe Institute received a 2 out of 5 from Transparency International on revealing who funds them. The suspiciously boast of holding meetings where no record-keeping is allowed. Why would they publish a paper packed with falsehoods that imply Canadians’ CPP pensions may be in jeopardy?
The financial industry has likely funded generous ongoing “donations” with conditions to numerous individuals and organizations. From a cost/benefit viewpoint, why would they not spend, for example, $1 billion now to prevent estimated future losses in the tens of billions?
Why the media industry is failing us
Why is the most newsworthy, impactful, helpful story in Canada in years not being published in any mainstream media publication when it could lead to their increased profit and increased credibility?
Why does one media expert claim “the public service aspect of journalism has taken a back seat to profit?”
While our media accurately reporting, with little bias, on all topics that would have little impact on the profits of the financial industry, they are vetoing reporting on an issue that could lead to huge benefits for Canada’s 99% but billions of dollars in losses for the financial industry?
In the first quarter of 2020, The Toronto Star lost $24 million. Why did members of the financial industry pay $56 million to buy it later in 2020, and then change it from public ownership to private ownership, which avoids scrutiny? How can they survive unless the are receiving funding from the wealthy financial industry in exchange for vetoing the publication of the CPP’s surplus.
Knowing that journalists who have championed this cause have been fired, why would any journalist champion this cause?
Why has even “our” CBC refused to report on arguably the most newsworthy, impactful, helpful story in Canada in years, claiming the story is not newsworthy enough.
How can there be no story and no surplus if the respected international publication, The Economist, stated that:
“The fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”
And since those words were published in January 2019, the fund has increased by another $400 billion.
There was a brief window before Mr. Carney arrived when the Conservatives had a double-digit lead over the Liberals but the Liberals were still in power. After my eight years of submissions, why did The Fifth Estate then contact me regarding a story on the CPP’s surplus during that window. Then, when Mr. Carney gave the Liberals a huge lead in the polls, The Fifth Estate withdrew their interest. Why did their interest in a such an important story vanish after the Liberals under Mr. Carney gained a large lead?
Why the actuarial profession has failed us:
Why would the actuarial profession announce the CPP’s $500 billion surplus if revealing it could lead to employment for actuaries declining by an estimated 75%? They know their profession is so complex that it is unlikely they will be challenged.
Why did one senior actuary state:
“Our Chief Actuary has done what pension actuaries frequently do - invent measures that are easily manipulated so that actuaries can control the narrative and hide things at will...I must remain anonymous because I am not allowed to criticize my fellow actuaries.”
In 2010, our Chief Actuary stated the fund was 100% funded and would remain 100% funded if CPP Investments averaged a 6% return. Why did our Chief Actuary state in an email, “The CPP is not in surplus. No further comment.” when CPP Investments has averaged a 10% return for the last 15 years?
Why did ten senior actuaries all deny the CPP’s $500 billion surplus with vacuous arguments?
Top Canadian pension expert, Malcolm Hamilton, probably bills $1,000 per hour and is associated with the financial-industry-funded C.D. Howe Institute. Why did he spend 40 hours in person and via email desperately trying to convince me there is no surplus?
Why did Lifeworks, Canada’s largest actuarial firm, ridiculously claim Alberta deserves 53% of our CPP fund when their proper share is roughly 16%?
Why did the media then attribute the 53% claim to Premier Smith, portraying Canada’s most honest politician as unhinged, uncooperative and un-Canadian?
Premier Smith received these CPP surplus details from me four years ago. How can she, through her proposed Alberta Pension Plan, promise to, match all CPP pensions, give all Albertans as much as $10,000 each, invest billions to stimulate Alberta’s economy, and leave the best pension fund investor in the world, if Alberta’s fair share of the fund does not include a huge surplus?
When pension experts all recommend every pension fund must have a Board of Governors mainly composed of contributors and pensioners, why does the CPP have no Board of Governors, no audit by our Auditor General and no review by our CRA? A representative Board of Governors, composed of contributors and pensioners, would have followed standard pension practice, addressed generational equity and distributed the surplus years ago. Only a self-serving fox is guarding a henhouse that holds 10% of most Canadians’ hard-earned income.
When the Ryerson University (TMU) Pension Plan, HOOPP and PSAC all gave or will give surplus payments to their members, when their funds had a 25% surplus, why is the CPP, with a 200% surplus, not even mentioning their surplus?
Why is CPP Investments, obviously aware of the surplus, not recommending a surplus distribution, thereby receiving huge praise from millions of struggling Canadians receiving a deserved $10,000 each?
Why would the actuarial profession announce the CPP’s $500 billion surplus if revealing it could lead to employment for actuaries declining by 75%? They know their profession is so complex that it is unlikely they will be charged.
CPP Investments has averaged a 10% return for 14 years. Because they have many advantages over the average investor, their 10% return will likely be ongoing. Pension experts state actuaries must forecast using the most likely investment return or devastating generational inequity will occur. And it has. Since 2016, one million seniors living near the poverty line have died earlier than they should with a lower quality of life because they never received their deserved $10,000 CPP surplus payment. Why did our Chief Actuary, in six actuarial reports since 2010, estimate future returns for 75 years at roughly 6%. One possible reason: The 6% estimate helped bury the CPP’s $500 billion surplus.
Why politicians have failed us:
Roughly 43% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency. Why is Prime Minister Carney not proposing a no-risk, deserved $200 billion CPP surplus distribution, thereby giving needed financial relief and reduced anxiety to millions of struggling Canadians?
Because the Alberta Pension Plan (APP) website states the APP will give all Albertans as much as $10,000 each, and Ottawa is not cooperating, many Albertans want to separate. If Prime Minister Carney followed standard pension practice and gave all Canadians a no-risk $10,000 each, he could probably eliminate this move to separate. Why is he not proposing this simple solution to looming separation.
Why, in 2020, did Pierre Poilievre thank me for this “new and innovative idea to rescue our economy” and then remain silent since then regarding the CPP’s surplus?
Why did Finance Minister Freeland email me a pathetic attempt to justify her inaction on such a crucial topic? The email claimed many baby boomers retiring will require the bigger fund. Actuaries have already accounted for this. It also claimed the surplus is needed in case CPP Investments fails. Failing investment performance explains why the standard before a surplus should be distributed is 25%. The CPP’s surplus is now 200%. Ms. Freeland resigned from politics shortly after sending this email. Because two thirds of low-income Canadians are women, she probably could no longer stomach being forced to betray them and almost all other Canadians.
Why did our Minister for Seniors email me a similar email with a pathetic defence of her inaction? A no-risk $200 billion surplus distribution would give $60 billion to millions of struggling seniors and finally address grotesque generational inequity, the alleged goal of all pension fund managers. One million seniors have already died earlier than they should, with a lower quality of life, because of our Chief Actuary.
Mr. Carney wrote (VALUE[S]) and Ms. Freeland wrote (PLUTOCRATS). They are both books claiming our capitalist system is rigged to favour the super-rich. Why have they refused to even mention a policy that could combat this obvious rigging to favour the super-rich?
The Liberals and NDP formed a coalition that credited both parties for giving low-income Canadians dental care and Pharmacare. Why did the Liberals not propose the legislation alone and receive all the credit? The NDP would never vote against it. Did the NDP threaten to reveal the CPP’s surplus and receive partial credit for dental care and Pharmacare in exchange for their silence regarding the CPP’s surplus?
Outside Quebec with their QPP, probably 99% of Canadians would vote for the CPP legislation suggested at this website. Citizens in each MP’s riding would receive $760 million with a $200 billion surplus distribution. Why is not one party leader even mentioning this policy that would bring huge benefits to millions of struggling Canadians and bring any party a majority in an election?
In Stouffville, my mayor is Iain Lovatt. He received a presentation from me regarding the CPP’s surplus in May 2025. He agreed that the CPP has a large surplus that could benefit his community and all of Canada. He asked for a one-page summary that he agreed to send to a consortium or mayors in the region, our MP, our MPP and his friend, “Peter”, referring to Ontario’s Minister of Finance, Peter Bethlenfalvy. The summary indicated Stouffville residents and other community residents would receive $500 million, citizens of every federal riding would receive $760 million and residents of Ontario would receive almost $100 billion from a no-risk $200 billion CPP surplus distribution. Any politician truly fighting for his citizens would not ignore such a logical policy suggestion that could bring such enormous benefits to his citizens. Yet not one contacted me for clarification or took any action. Is the most obvious conclusion regarding this inaction that the tentacles of the financial industry are enormous?
With a declining number of Canadians trusting politicians and our media, many argue that a referendum is the only method of government that gives citizens true democracy. Premier Smith is the only Canadian politician who wants her citizens to have true democracy on major issues through a referendum. She is also the only politician who refuses to join this CPP surplus cover-up because an estimated 95% of her citizens would vote for a CPP surplus distribution. Is it a coincidence or relevant that the only senior politician who wants democratic CPP justice also wants democratic justice by referendum on separation and other crucial issues?
Provincially, every MPP has received these details regarding the CPP’s enormous surplus and potential. With these emails, Premier Smith’s demand for Alberta’s share of the fund, her promise of as much as $10,000 to each Albertan, Lifeworks’ ridiculous estimate that Alberta deserves 53% of the fund, the media portraying Premier Smith, not Lifeworks, as uncooperative and unhinged, why would premiers and finance ministers from other provinces not investigate and then demand CPP justice for citizens in their province?
Corporate influence-buying is rampant and blatant in the US. Even before Trump, President Obama and President Biden accepted millions in donations in exchange for, hopefully, beneficial legislation. Canada’s campaign donation rules are more stringent than the US but initiative and resources could probably easily circumvent them. If Canada’s financial industry would benefit in the billions with no legislation regarding the CPP’s surplus, is it naive to presume they would not use their billions to maintain their 47% share of all corporate profit?
Consider Canada’s highly profitable real estate industry. It typically collects a 5% commission when a house is sold. In the UK, the comparable commission is 1.18%. In Canada, realtors, brokerages, boards, developers, mortgage brokers, lawyers, lenders, and advertisers all benefit from high transaction values. They are organized, politically connected, and active locally. Even though an estimated 85% of Canadians would vote for the British model in Canada, democracy has taken a backseat to pressure from the those who profit from this 5% commission rate. Is it naive to presume our financial industry has not also “influenced” our politicians to side with them over the needs of 90% of Canadians, most struggling?
Numerous organizations have abandoned their mandate and remained silent
CARP has a declared mandate to “Promote financial security for seniors.” A reasonable $200 billion CPP surplus distribution would give six million seniors, two million existing near the poverty line, $10,000 each, $60 billion it total. Why did CARP (Canadian Association of Retired Persons), after advocating vigorously successfully on other pension issues, ignore my plethora of requests to advocate for CPP justice? (CARP is seniors’ most influential advocate. Finance Minister Morneau once stated, “98% of CARP members vote, so we listen.” .
Why did CARP refuse to respond to an offer for a public debate between me and any actuary about the true status of the CPP on a CARP webinar. Is it because actuaries have no ammunition to debate with?
For eight years, CARP executives and CBC executives never responded to my pleas for action regarding the CPP’s potential. In 2025, I threatened to place them near the top of The Reverse Order of Canada List. Why did they then finally respond with a pathetic defence? Why did they not threaten a lawsuit which would likely win, if these claims are false?
CANAGE is a seniors’ advocacy organization led by Laura Tamblyn Watts. She collaborated with me to bring $440 million more per year in GIS payments to low-income seniors. Why has she not even responded to my request for action related to the CPP’s surplus?
The third major organization for seniors in Canada is PROBUS. They have 250 chapters with 35,000 members in total.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and more than 200,000 businesses of all sizes across Canada. Some members pay thousands of dollars per year to receive economic lobbying on their behalf. A $200 billion surplus distribution could lead to a substantial increase in profit for most companies not in the financial industry. Why have they not pressured politicians for a surplus distribution?
BROADBENT, NP, OTHER PROVINCES
Why have numerous other organizations with a mandate to help the less fortunate remained silent when told they could meet their mandate many times over if they simply helped publicize the CPP’s surplus and advocated for CPP reform? Instead they have all acted as if they have received considerable annual “donations” to “Never mention the CPP’s surplus and potential.”
Is it because each party is being influenced by generous, secret donations (aka bribes), to remain silent on the CPP’s surplus and potential?
These questions come with an answer
Why would the actuarial industry suffer if the news of the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: The CPP’s investment success means a 25-year-old could have a $100,000 CPP pension, in 2022 dollars. The demand for actuaries to monitor pension funds and life insurance funds would decrease by an estimated 75%.
Why would the financial industry suffer if the news if the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: Their industry cannot compete with the high profits, low-risk, and simplicity of voluntary investments with CPP Investments. They do not want their lucrative industry “undermined”, as they have stated. A billion-dollar investment to keep the news of the CPP’s surplus suppressed makes economic, but not ethical, sense to this multibillion-dollar industry.
Why would the media industry suffer if the news of the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: Firstly, roughly 15% of media advertising comes from the financial industry as they seek new clients who want to invest. Secondly, the financial industry is likely generously funding the media industry to remain silent regarding the CPP’s surplus, the possibility of a $100,000 CPP pension in 2026 dollars, voluntary contributions and no more need for life insurance.Recall that Finance Minister Freeland, at one time a world class journalist, claimed “The super-rich have bankrolled mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”
Why would the CBC not publish any story on the CPP when the CPP holds 10% of the lifetime earnings of most Canadians?
Answer: Prime Minister Carney is the head of the snake in this cover-up. To illustrate the influence from the financial industry, with a Canada-wide CPP surplus distribution he could probably suppress one million Albertans’ desire for separation. Because the CBC is not publishing the most newsworthy, impactful, helpful story in years, they must be following instructions from Mr. Carney.
Twenty-eight disturbing facts about the CPP
1. Twenty million Canadians have been forced to contribute as much as 10% of their lifetime earnings to the CPP.
2. In 2010, the fund was in perfect balance, able to fund all CPP pensions for the next 100 years, if CPP Investments achieved a 6.3% return. Then CPP Investments averaged an 11% return for 11 years. This resulted in a $550 billion fund value today and an irrefutable $257 billion surplus.
3. It was our money that CPP Investments used to create this surplus.
4. This is a 92% surplus. And if we reasonably forecast with an ongoing 10% return, the surplus today becomes 464%, $464 billion. Standard pension protocol recommends a surplus distribution when the surplus is a mere 25%.
5. In 2000, the Ryerson University Pension Plan had an 18% surplus. The CRA demanded a surplus distribution. Professors received as much as $20,000 each. Unfortunately, the CRA is not responsible for monitoring the CPP.
6. HOOPP, the highly respected Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, has had investment success like CPP investments, resulting in a large surplus. In 2018, the HOOPP Board of Trustees declared a $4,900 increase in all pensions per year.
7. The benefits to Canadians and Canada are huge. A $170 billion surplus distribution would give 14 million working Canadians $9,000 each on average and three million pensioners $15,000 each, on average. It would decrease the deficit by $30 billion, create 100,000 jobs and double our GDP increase. And there is absolutely no risk to our grandchildren’s pensions.
8. Every year, tens of thousands of seniors, barely existing near the poverty line, die without ever receiving their deserved surplus payment of as much as $20,000 each. This is a concealed Canadian tragedy.
9. With voluntary contributions, the CPP could be used to help solve mushrooming income inequality. No actuary, economist or politician has given any viable reason to NOT distribute the surplus.
The actuarial industry
10. Actuaries have much to lose if the news of the CPP’s surplus becomes public knowledge. If CPP Investments continues with a 10% return, which is likely, a 25-year-old Canadian will have a $100,000 annual CPP pension, in 2021 dollars. Why would Canada need any other pension funds, a huge source of employment for actuaries? This explains why the top ten actuaries who were consulted denied the surplus with Trump-like arguments.
11. All pension experts insist on a Board of Trustees for all pension funds. It is mostly comprised of representative stakeholders, contributors, and pensioners. The CPP has no such Board of Trustees. And our Chief Actuary is never audited. He has full rein. A CPP Board of Trustees would have distributed billions of dollars to millions of deserving Canadians years ago.
12. Despite an irrefutable $257 billion surplus, “our” Chief Actuary has denied the irrefutable surplus, stating “The CPP is not in surplus.”. He would not get away with this if he had to answer to a Board of Trustees.
13. Top Canadian actuary, Malcolm Hamilton, spent 40 hours, face-to-face and via email with me, denying the surplus with vacuous arguments. Was he paid to try to suppress any news of the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus? He could have likely earned $20,000 as a consultant for 40 hours of work. Was he possibly paid as much as $20,000 by the actuarial industry to silence me?
14. One top actuary stated that our Chief Actuary,
“has done what pension actuaries frequently do - invent measures that are easily manipulated so that actuaries can control the narrative and hide things at will.”
The author has requested anonymity, stating “
“As an actuary I am not supposed to be openly critical of other actuaries.”
The only audit of our Chief Actuary’s reporting is a peer review.
15. Because of his false reporting, our Chief Actuary is depriving Canadians and Canada of a deserved $100 billion, a huge economic stimulus, and a solution to income inequality. Likely, no other public sector employee has ever been responsible for depriving citizens of 1% of $170 billion.
The investment industry
16. The investment industry earns an estimated $100 billion in fees from Canadian investors every year. They understandably want this gravy train to continue. If CPP Investments allowed voluntary contributions, they could not compete with the high profits, low risk and simplicity of CPP Investments. For example, with an investment of just $1,000 per year, a 25-year-old would likely have $700,000 at age 65. Income inequality could be somewhat solved.
However, the lucrative investment industry would lose substantial profits. Their representative has stated
“The worry was it [CPP changes] would undermine a lot of successful, legitimate (retirement savings) products in the investment industry.”
Should 20 million Canadians sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars each so we won’t “undermine” the investment industry?
The media industry
17. The media industry receives an estimated 20% of advertising revenue from the investment industry. This massive advertising expenditure would decrease substantially if CPP Investments allowed voluntary contributions.
18. Finance Minister Freeland feels the media is controlled by the super-rich who
“have bankrolled mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”
19. Mark Carney has written a book outlining why he thinks the current capitalist system is dysfunctional. He alludes to
“twisted economics, amoral culture, degraded institutions, lack of accountability and lack of integrity”.
These are all characteristics of the CPP surplus cover-up described here.
20. There have never been any stories on the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus in the entire Canadian media, even though the CPP holds 10% of most Canadians’ lifetime gross earnings.
21. It took a respected international publication, The Economist, to write about the CPP’s fund. In January 2018, The Economist wrote
“The fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”
And since those words were published, the surplus has increased by another $107 billion.
The C.D. Howe Institute
22. Because they won’t reveal their funding sources, the C.D. Howe Institute is likely funded by the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. C.D. Howe recently published a misinformation paper that was packed with misleading information denying the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus.
23. Malcolm Hamilton is the top actuary who spent 40 hours trying to convince me there is no CPP surplus. He has strong ties with the C.D. Howe Institute who have a budget of over $5 million per year.
24. The C.D. Howe Institute hosts 90 meetings a year that are “off-the-record”. This enables anyone complicit in a cover-up to verbally agree on a cover-up strategy without any fear of reprisal or criminal charges. The actuarial industry, the investment industry and the media industry all have a great deal to lose if the news of the CPP’s surplus and potential become public. The C.D. Howe Institute is the perfect venue to orchestrate their cover-up details without fear of reprisal.
CPP Investments
25. CPP Investments is the best pension fund investor in the world. Instead of stating to Canadians,
“We are proud to state we have surpassed our Chief Actuary’s expectations for fund sustainability by $257 billion. And by allowing limited voluntary contributions, we could do a great service to low-income Canadians.”
Instead, CPP Investments will only state “the Fund is sustainable.” This might be the understatement of the century. Moreover, they have supplied Canadians with misleading graphs that conceal the surplus.
Prime Minister Trudeau earns $360,000 per year. We pay the top six executives at CPP Investments ten times as much, each. We should be receiving better service than an outright denial of a $257 billion surplus.
Politicians
26. Any political party could have acquired, possibly, millions of votes by promising to legislate a risk-free $170 billion surplus distribution and allow limited voluntary contributions. None did in the September 2021 election, even though they were all very aware of the surplus.
27. Democracywatch.ca has convincing evidence that proves wealthy private interests buy off politicians with huge “secret” donations. The investment industry earns an estimated $100 billion per year in fees from investors. A 0.15%, $150 million expense to preserve a lucrative industry is highly justifiable, even if there are moral and ethical issues involved.
Election campaigns are expensive for each political party. The legal donations to any of the three political parties are roughly $14 million per year. Please compare $14 million to $1 billion, aka $1,000 million. Which type of donor would receive more attention?
28. When:
99% of the populace would vote for these CPP changes,
The wealthiest 1% are subtly using their wealth to suppress them,
All three political parties are ignoring a chance to gain an estimated one million more votes…
…it is wrong to call Canada a “democracy”. Our politicians are more like mere administrative puppets for the “super-rich”. Canada is much closer to an oligarchy, controlled by the 1% on certain crucial issues. The CPP issue is costing 17 million Canadians roughly $10,000 each and a partial solution to income inequality.