Amend Canada Pension Plan Act
Sign on the House of Commons websitePetitioners ask the House of Commons to review Bill C‑2 (1997) changes and amend the Canada Pension Plan Act to ensure mandatory CPP contributions fund only Parliament‑authorized purposes, restore diminished protections and require periodic independent review.
Why we would sign this petition
- It would clarify and restore statutory limits so CPP contributions are spent only for purposes Parliament authorized, protecting contributors’ entitlements.
- An independent review could identify administrative practices that reduced legal protections and recommend targeted amendments to restore them.
- Periodic parliamentary review would increase transparency and public confidence by ensuring legislation, not administrative precedent, guides CPP administration.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Existing oversight bodies or courts may already address misapplication, so a parliamentary review could duplicate effort.
- Restricting administrative discretion could hinder practical coordination with target‑benefit schemes and reduce flexibility in managing complex pension arrangements.
- Legislative amendments and formal reviews may be time‑consuming and costly, risking unintended consequences instead of simpler corrective measures.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled The CPP is a mandatory contributory public pension established by Parliament; Contributors earn statutory entitlement through mandatory contributions made during employment; Parliament determines the purposes for which mandatory CPP contributions may be used; Following Bill C-2 (1997), broadly framed terms in sections 65(2), 65(3), and 80 have enabled administrative agreements and practices that treat CPP as payments that “would not have been made,” and apply those payments to target-benefit schemes, reducing third-party obligations; These developments warrant examination of whether the protections in section 65(1) have been diminished by subsequent legislative or administrative practices; The CPP Act does not inform contributors that the pension can be used to reduce third-party obligations through administrative arrangements, thereby circumventing CPP's statutory purpose; and Only Parliament may set those purposes, so periodic independent review is essential to public confidence. We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to: 1. Review the changes introduced by Bill C-2 (1997) to the Canada Pension Plan Act and recommend any amendments to the Act or Regulations necessary to ensure mandatory contributory pensions are administered only for the purposes authorized by Parliament; 2. Independently examine whether current administrative agreements and practices remain faithful to the statutory purposes enacted by Parliament; 3. Restore any statutory protections that Parliament determines have been diminished or displaced; and 4. Establish periodic independent parliamentary review to ensure legislation—not administrative precedent—remains the foundation of public administration.
Government response
No government response is available yet.