Most provinces and the federal Government agreed to increase Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) premiums starting in 2009. Can Canadians refuse this offer?
Currently CPP premiums are 4.95% from both employer and employee; self-employed pay both, or 9.9%. The new rates will eventually be 1% more (5.95%) so self-employed premiums will jump from 9.9% to 11.9%, or a 22% increase. This means less disposable income for current expenses and for savings, which are already dismal – a 2016 Broadbent Institute study found that for Canadians between 55-64, more than 30% had less than $1,000 saved for retirement.
Phillip Cross, in a Financial Post article says, “The dirty secret of a bigger CPP is that it’s to help bail out public-sector pension plans”. He says the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that the federal employees’ pensions are underfunded by $269 billion (in contrast, CPP and Quebec’s Pension Plan combined only have $292 billion). The shortfall is paid now and in the future from Canada’s Consolidated Revenue Fund (“CRF”).
Canadian law defines the CRF as “public money” that belongs to Canada and that is paid to the Receiver General. As part of the former British Commonwealth, Canada’s laws are based on common law principles from the Bible, where the Eighth Commandment from Exodus 20:15 says, “Thou shalt not steal”. This is where Canadian’s common law human right to private property comes from; it is not from the Government. As money is property, Canadians’ paycheques can be either their private property or it can be Canada’s “public money”.
“Employee” deductions, such as income tax and CPP, are paid to the Receiver General, so both are also “public money” and are not your private property. How did such income get converted from private property into Canada’s “public money”?
From my Theory, Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”) deems Canadians work as an officer defined by the ITA and the CPP, a separate person in law that one chooses to represent. That ITA/CPP officer receives income for Her Majesty who “legally personifies the public”. By consenting to be an ITA/CPP officer, that office’s income no longer is your private property, as representing such an officer legally converts your former private property into Canada’s “public money” for the CRF, contrary to the popular belief that CPP is your private property. This means these increased CPP premiums can be used to make up the federal employees’ public pensions’ $269 billion shortfall and/or pay Canada’s national debt, as that is also paid out of “public money” from the CRF.
The same ITA/CPP officer can also receive Employment Insurance (“EI”), GST credits, and many other benefits listed on a T1 form, such as the new Canada Child Benefit out in July. Accepting any benefit associated with this office means also accepting the new increased CPP contributions. Like the Godfather, it is an offer that many Canadians find hard to refuse.
Consenting to represent an ITA/CPP officer handling “public money” means also consenting to be a “public money” trustee with fiduciary duties. This allows the Government to withhold, set-off, or not pay your officer’s CPP if that officer owes any tax, any overpayment, any GST, any EI, or perhaps if there is a shortfall, since they are all paid out of the CRF. (So far Cyprus, Detroit, Greece, Iceland, Illinois, Ireland, Spain, and Venezuela had to reduce pension payouts. Is it a coincidence Ontario pushed the hardest for these increased CPP rates while Ontario’s debt is $307 billion?) On top of that, as CPP is paid by, and later back to, your officer, it can be (and it is) taxable income without violating your private property rights.
In summary, you have no control over “your” CPP, as it is not your private property. Since one has to consent to represent such an officer it follows that CPP is not mandatory. Could that be why the Government obfuscates that CPP is payable only by and to the ITA/CPP officer?
 The Composition of Legislation, 2nd Ed., Driedger, 1976, Department of Justice Ottawa: “Deemed: Used to establish legal fictions. For a statutory purpose it is often necessary to deem a thing to be something it is not.” The ITA uses the word “deem” 3,681 times. Available at www.CanadaIncomeTaxIsLegal.is
 Principles of Contract, 6th Ed., Sir Frederick Pollock, p. 107: “Officer: The Roman invention, adopted and largely developed in modern law, of constituting the official character of the holders for the time being of the same office, … into an artificial person… of legal capacities and duties.”
 The office and the officer are “conceptually divisible but legally indivisible… the office cannot exist without the office-holder“: The Queen’s Other Realms, Peter Boyce (2008a), Canberra: Federation Press.
 Conversion is a Criminal Code s.322(1) offence unless it is by the owner: 373409 ALBERTA LTD. v. BANK OF MONTREAL, 2002 SCC 81, para. : “An owner’s right of possession includes the right to authorize others to deal with his chattel in any manner specified… No action lies in conversion or trespass to chattels for consensual interferences with goods…”: http://canlii.ca/t/1fwx6
 Excise Tax Act s.123(1): “office” has the meaning assigned by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (Chapter 10). A GST account is evidence of working for Her Majesty’s office as Her officer and agent.
 From “Apu’s Theory”, the CPP/ITA “officer” is identified with the individual’s name in ALL CAPS and the CPP/ITA “office” is identified with a “social insurance number” styled with all lower case letters – as on a T1 tax filing form.