Section 65(3) of the Canada Pension Plan is a loophole—and the private sector has discovered how to exploit it.

Agreements are signed without oversight. Insurers now claim the right to seize Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPPD) benefits, despite the fact that this action violates both Sections 65 and 65.1 of the Canada Pension Plan Act.

These agreements do not authorize the seizure of pensions, yet this is exactly what is happening—quietly and without public knowledge. This petition calls for an end to this practice, and demands that CPPD benefits remain with the contributors who earned them—not diverted into private hands.

Most Canadians have never seen the agreement that allows this. I will provide a summary below. If you'd like to read it yourself, you can request it under the Access to Information Act. Section 65(3) is a loophole that allows access to our pensions.  Insurers choose to walk through this door to claim pensions belonging to disabled people. Not to help disabled people, but to create a financial incentive forcing them back to work.  Coincidently, the insurers profit.

 
🔹 1. Definition of the Administrator
The “Administrator” is self-defined by the insurer as any party that administers a disability income program. The agreement simply assumes the insurer has made payments that would not have been made had CPPD benefits been available. 

There is no requirement for the Administrator to:

Be a government agency,
Prove a contractual obligation to the claimant,
Or verify their authority beyond Ministerial approval.
 
🔹 2. No Requirement for Excess or Advance Payments
The agreement allows insurers to recover CPPD benefits without proving overpayment. It assumes they’ve made qualifying payments and permits reimbursement—without requiring documentation such as:

Proof of overpayment,
Evidence of financial hardship,
Or any validation of calculations.
 
🔹 3. No Consent or Contract with the Claimant
The agreement is between the Minister and the insurer only. There is no:

Notification or consent from the individual,
Disclosure of the agreement’s terms,
Legal contract between the federal government and the claimant.
Claimants are affected without their knowledge, consent, or legal recourse.

 
🔹 4. The Minister is “Saved Harmless”
The agreement includes a clause that indemnifies the Minister, meaning:

The government accepts no responsibility for what the insurer does,
There is no obligation to verify fairness,
And no accountability for error or harm.
Even more concerning: Federal agreements shield insurers from the protections of the Insurance Act, giving them free rein to act without regulation or oversight.

 
🔹 5. A Reimbursement Mechanism Without Oversight
Insurers can request that CPPD retroactive payments be redirected to them, with:

No documentation,
No government oversight,
No independent review.
This practice exists to spare insurers the financial obligation of fulfilling their private LTD contracts, while placing the burden on disabled individuals. That’s not coordination. That’s exploitation.

 
🔍 Summary Conclusion:
This agreement lets private insurers collect public pensions, without proving harm or obligation.
Claimants have no say in how their pensions are handled.
The Minister is fully indemnified and plays a passive role in funneling public funds to private companies.
The system relies on an “honour system” that consistently fails Canada’s most vulnerable.
Worst of all: there is no requirement to inform the people whose pensions are being taken.
 
📢 Why This Matters
This isn't just about paperwork. It’s about dignity, transparency, and justice.

Section 65(3) has become a pipeline that delivers public pensions into private hands, while leaving disabled Canadians struggling to survive. We deserve better.

Please sign and share this petition so we can demand change before you—or someone you love—needs that pension and discovers the truth too late.