Although the Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPPD) benefit is a public pension earned through individual contributions—not employer premiums—a loophole in federal law allows private insurers to seize it as though it were their own. Section 65(3) of the Canada Pension Plan enables the Minister to enter into reimbursement agreements with insurers, permitting them to reduce long-term disability (LTD) payments by the amount of CPPD received. This offset practice is not mandated by law but is routinely embedded in employer-sponsored LTD policies—often without the employee’s knowledge or access to the full terms. These so-called “clawbacks” are, in fact, a form of seizure—something expressly prohibited under the Canada Pension Plan Act itself. CPPD was never meant to be redirected to insurers. It was meant to protect contributors—not enrich corporations.

CPPD is not wage replacement in the traditional sense. Unlike LTD benefits, which are tied to one’s inability to perform work and usually require active employment at the time of disability, CPPD is based on contributions and is payable even if the individual was not employed when the disability began. It recognizes a broader concept of income loss—the enduring financial hardship that results from the extraordinary and ongoing costs of living with a severe and prolonged disability. This includes medical care, assistive devices, personal support, reduced capacity to participate in economic and social life, and the permanent interruption of one’s career path. By treating CPPD as merely another source of “replacement income” and deducting it from LTD payments, insurers ignore its distinct statutory purpose and wrongfully convert a public safety net into a private subsidy.

In addition, most LTD plans change the rules midgame. These plans are marketed as protection from income loss due to sickness or injury—specifically, the inability to perform the duties of one’s own occupation. Employees pay premiums under the belief they are securing financial support tailored to their profession. But after two years, insurers invoke a redefinition clause that changes “total disability” to mean the inability to perform any occupation for which the claimant is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience. This shift significantly narrows eligibility, excluding individuals who cannot return to their careers but might theoretically perform some minimal or unsuitable work. It undermines the original purpose for which premiums were paid and further compounds the injustice of CPPD clawbacks.

It’s time to see these clawbacks for what they really are: seizure of Canada Pension. A public pension diverted to the private sector without authority, oversight, or transparency.

This is the secret behind Section 65(3). The Minister signs the agreement, then walks away. There is no oversight, no transparency, and no recourse for the severely disabled Canadian left behind. These individuals—already stripped of health, career, and stability—are forced to battle powerful insurance companies that quietly seize their public pensions through federally authorized agreements. These pensions were never meant for private profit. They were created to provide dignity, stability, and partial relief from the devastating costs of severe disability. Yet today, under the authority of Section 65(3), they are rerouted—legally, invisibly—into corporate hands.

This is not policy; this is abandonment.

I ask you now: How many more disabled Canadians must be left behind before we act? The time has come to repeal this clause, restore the rightful purpose of our public pension system, and defend those who can no longer defend themselves. We deserve better. And we must demand it—together.