The Quiet Capture of the Canadian Pension System

By Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®, co-authors of the international bestseller It Starts With Gold™ and the forthcoming Killing Crypto™ 

A growing number of observers argue that a major structural shift is unfolding across Canada and the United States. They point to a pattern where governments, global financial alliances, and large private investment platforms are reshaping the flow of public capital without direct approval from the citizens who fund it. These critics warn that Canada has become an early testing ground for a model that blends public guarantees, private profit structures, and long-term contractual commitments that outlast elected governments.

This article explores those concerns with clarity, humility, and a steady voice. It investigates how pension funds, taxpayer guarantees, transition finance, and de-risk policies can combine in ways that redirect public wealth while giving citizens little visibility or control. It does not accuse any individual of wrongdoing. It examines the systems and incentives that critics say deserve scrutiny before Canada crosses a financial point of no return.

The information below reflects public reporting, parliamentary testimony, official program descriptions, and commentary from financial analysts who have raised questions about the scale, structure, and long-term consequences of these arrangements.

👉 Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, along with our white paper, Last Asset Standing™ and early updates on our forthcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Observers first point to events that began in 2019, when a major global initiative was launched in the United Kingdom aimed at coordinating financial institutions in the pursuit of Net Zero targets. The initiative grew until it represented more than one hundred trillion dollars in managed assets across the world. Canadian leadership played a central role in building the structure and securing global participation.

By 2023 and 2024, several major American banks faced legal scrutiny from state-level authorities. Concerns included competition issues, fiduciary obligations, and the perceived financial risks of long-term climate transition commitments. Under pressure, several large banks stepped back from their earlier positions. A gap opened between global ambition and actual capital. According to analysts, this is when the policy model shifted.

If private capital became hesitant, governments would step in. If governments absorbed the risk through guarantees, private capital would return. This became the core of the debate. Critics warned that when governments guarantee long-term investments, taxpayers become the backstop for projects that may not produce returns for decades, or at all.

The Canadian federal government responded by building a policy framework that directed substantial public money toward the de-risking of major transition projects. Public materials from federal departments show that between 2020 and 2025, federal budgets committed close to two hundred billion dollars to climate transition strategies, tax credits, public financing bodies, and green innovation programs.

Analysts reviewing these programs describe them as structured in a way that shifts early-stage risk away from private investors. The term de-risking refers to the use of taxpayer funds, tax credits, loan guarantees, or long-term off-take commitments to make a project financially viable. Critics argue that this approach creates a pipeline where governments absorb liability while private partners secure priority claims on future revenue.

This raised a deeper question. How would Canada secure enough capital to meet these ambitious transition finance goals if global participation were shrinking

According to analysts, the answer emerged through Canada’s pension system. Canadian federal and provincial pension funds manage hundreds of billions of dollars. They are required to invest for long-term stability. They are governed by appointed boards. They hold steady inflows from workers across the country. They do not face quarterly pressure like corporate institutions. They are built for long horizons.

Critics argue that these characteristics make pension funds appealing targets for large-scale transition initiatives seeking stable capital. Public statements show that several Canadian pension funds, including the Public Sector Pension Investment Board and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, joined certain transition-related private funds as limited partners.

Observers also note that the federal government created a new body, the Canada Growth Fund, capitalized with fifteen billion dollars. It was designed to attract private investment into transition projects. The fund operates through a subsidiary structure inside the pension governance ecosystem. Public filings show that its mandate includes offering long-term contracts, guarantees, and other instruments to reduce risk for private investors.

This convergence of pension assets and government guarantees raised new concerns among analysts following these developments.

In Canada, the federal cabinet holds influence over the boards that oversee major public investment bodies. These are paid positions with significant responsibility. They are intended to operate independently of political direction. Critics argue that the appointment process still creates indirect influence. They note that any structural pressure on these organizations would not need to be explicit. Their mandates, budgets, and leadership are shaped through federal authority.

Observers also highlight that pension investment rules are traditionally strict. They focus on low-risk profiles and long-term returns. Transition projects that may not produce returns for many years, and often depend on subsidies, would normally fall outside these parameters. Yet they point to public disclosures showing that pension funds have participated in transition-related private funds. This led analysts to ask whether government de-risk guarantees, long-term contracts, or other structured commitments allow these investments to pass internal thresholds.

None of these questions alleges misconduct. They highlight how policy design can reshape what pension funds consider acceptable.

To understand the scale of the concern, critics point to publicly available information about private transition funds operating internationally. One example, discussed frequently by analysts, involves funds managed by major private asset managers with global reach. These funds pursue investments in large transition infrastructure, including carbon capture, energy storage, and green industrialization.

Public disclosures show that certain Canadian pension funds joined these transition funds as limited partners. The limited partner structure means pension funds contribute capital while the general partner controls management and receives management fees and carried interest.

Carried interest is a share of profits after meeting a performance hurdle. In many funds, this is often around 20 percent. Critics emphasize that carried interest can accumulate to very large numbers if front-loaded valuation events occur.

This point becomes essential to the concerns raised by observers.

One example widely discussed by policy analysts involves a carbon capture company located in Western Canada. A transition fund acquired a controlling stake for approximately three hundred million dollars. Analysts argue that the investment met the pension threshold because of government de-risk commitments.

Public reporting indicates that the Canada Growth Fund agreed to long-term contracts supporting the project. Public materials show terms that include annual payments extending for more than a decade, as well as substantial upfront financial support. Analysts raise the question of whether such guarantees enable a fund to reach its performance hurdle faster through accelerated valuation.

This is where critics argue that systemic risk emerges.

To explain the issue, analysts use a simple analogy. If a project has a guaranteed revenue commitment over fifteen years, and if that guarantee can be recognized financially at the outset, then the project’s valuation can jump immediately. Critics argue that this can push a fund past its performance hurdle on day one. When this occurs, carried interest for the general partner can be activated instantly.

Observers say the concern is not about legality. It is about structural design. The question they raise is whether public guarantees intended to promote long-term projects may also accelerate private returns far earlier than the public realizes.

This issue becomes more significant when combined with pension capital involvement. Analysts warn that public money may be committed for long periods while private profits are realized upfront.

A second concern raised by critics involves the internal structure of performance calculations. Analysts question whether some limited partnership agreements might calculate return hurdles using simple interest rather than compound returns. If true, this could accelerate performance qualification.

It is important to be clear. There is no public proof that any specific fund uses simple interest for hurdle calculations. Analysts raise it as a hypothetical because it would magnify the effect of front-loaded valuation events.

This forms part of a wider debate about transparency.

Observers warn that the combined effect of long-term guarantees, pension involvement, and accelerated valuation structures creates obligations that future governments cannot unwind. Contracts can extend for fifteen to twenty years. These commitments bind taxpayers long after an election has changed political leadership.

Critics call this an erosion of democratic control. Voters can remove a government, but cannot remove a contract that binds the Treasury for decades.

This is where the debate becomes far more serious.

Analysts warn that some transition projects supported by Canadian taxpayer guarantees may end up majority-owned by foreign entities. Public documents for certain funds show international limited partners, including sovereign wealth funds.

When a foreign-owned project is supported by Canadian guarantees, three concerns emerge:

• • • The project may be owned offshore 
    • The returns may flow offshore 
    • The risk stays with Canadian taxpayers

Critics argue that this exposes Canada to a structural imbalance where wealth flows out while liability remains within the country. They describe it as a slow erosion of national financial sovereignty.

Analysts describe the structure as circular because it begins and ends with the same source. Taxpayers’ fund guarantees. Pension contributors supply capital. Public institutions provide long-term liabilities. Private entities receive early valuation benefits. If a project succeeds, gains may be distributed among private investors according to the limited partnership structure. If a project fails, taxpayers and pension participants carry the consequences.

Observers warn that this model places Canada in a difficult position. A nation already facing rising public debt, demographic strain, and inflationary pressures is now taking on additional long-term commitments without broad public debate. Critics argue that this creates a form of financial inertia. Canada becomes locked into obligations that shape budgets for decades.

Policy experts say these commitments will shape the next generation’s fiscal landscape, whether they agree with the original decisions or not.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly warned of a deteriorating federal fiscal outlook. Critics connect these warnings with the escalation of long-term transition contracts. They argue that Canada is entering a period where fixed structural costs outpace growth. When combined with an aging population and slower economic expansion, the pressure intensifies.

Observers refer to this as a point of no return for one reason. Long-term contracts cannot be undone without severe financial penalties. Even if a new government takes office, the commitments remain. The Treasury must honour them. The public must fund them.

Critics fear this leaves Canada with shrinking room to maneuver at a time when global uncertainty is rising.

When international banks stepped back from coordinated climate finance coalitions, a gap in transition financing emerged. Analysts argue that pension funds became the last major stable source of long-horizon capital. They add that pension funds are attractive because their investment cycles span decades. They do not rely on annual profit cycles. They seek stable, long-term returns.

Observers warn that this made pension funds a target. They say the pressure to align pension mandates with national climate goals created a channel through which capital could flow into projects that would not normally meet traditional pension performance standards.

According to critics, this was made possible only because government guarantees changed the risk profile of the projects. In their view, the pension system has become intertwined with federal climate strategy in a way that deserves deeper public examination.

Several analysts argue that Canada is uniquely vulnerable. They point to five forces shaping the country’s financial trajectory:

• • • A highly centralized federal governance structure
    • Large public pension systems with appointed boards
    • High levels of household debt
    • A heavy reliance on foreign capital
    • An ambitious climate transition agenda tied to global frameworks

Critics say these factors combine to create a kind of financial gravity. Canada is pulled toward structures that require external investment and internal guarantees. This increases the long-term obligations placed on the public while reducing the ability of future governments to change direction.

This is where observers argue the Canadian public faces the greatest danger. A country loses flexibility when it binds itself to long-term contracts. Critics fear that Canada may have already passed the threshold where these commitments shape the nation’s economic path for decades.

Several policy researchers describe these long-term obligations as a form of quiet sovereignty erosion. They do not suggest wrongdoing. They point to structural consequences. When a nation commits itself to contracts that extend beyond political cycles and places taxpayers behind investment guarantees, it shifts decision-making from the public sphere to contractual governance.

This is not a theory. It is a structural reality. A contract becomes a form of control. It outlasts elections. It overrides budgets. It sets the direction regardless of who sits in office.

Critics argue that this places more influence in the hands of financial entities and less in the hands of voters. They view it as a quiet shift in power that occurred through policy design rather than explicit public consent.

Analysts warn that when a nation builds its future revenue streams around long-term obligations, it narrows its ability to adapt. Tax revenue that might have been available for hospitals, schools, infrastructure, or national defence may already be committed to servicing long-term transition contracts.

This is not a political argument. It is a fiscal reality. Budgets cannot be spent twice. Critics say this is how a country becomes financially trapped. Not through sudden crisis, but through long-term commitments made during periods of optimism. The consequences appear decades later.

Observers assert that this is where Canada may be heading if current patterns continue.

This is not isolated to Canada. Analysts point out that transition finance frameworks across Europe, Asia, and parts of the United States also rely on public guarantees. The difference, critics say, is that Canada has a more concentrated pension system and a more centralized federal structure. This increases the scale of exposure when guarantees are made.

They warn that Canada could become a global case study in how public commitments accelerate private returns while creating long-term taxpayer obligations. Observers argue that Canada’s vulnerability lies not in the intention behind climate policy, but in the financial architecture built around it.

The concerns outlined by analysts do not challenge environmental goals. They challenge the method of financing those goals.

Critics argue that Canada is drifting toward a model where national policy is guided by external commitments rather than internal priorities. This becomes more severe when projects involve foreign ownership. Observers warn that when ownership flows outside the country, and liability remains inside the country, it creates a dangerous imbalance.

They describe this as the beginning of a financial dependency loop. Canada becomes dependent on foreign capital while foreign investors depend on Canadian guarantees. Breaking this loop would require unwinding long-term contracts, which is almost impossible without major penalties.

Analysts say this is why Canadians need to pay attention now. Once the structure is in place, reversing it becomes extremely difficult.

In discussions across media, academic forums, and policy circles, analysts describe the structure as funnel-like. Public money flows in at the widest point through guarantees, incentives, and subsidies. Private capital flows in only once risks are lowered. Early valuation events can trigger large returns. Ownership and profit flows move upward to private entities. Liability flows downward to taxpayers.

Critics argue that this is not sustainable for a nation with rising debt and limited growth. They say it places too much strain on future Canadians. Observers warn that this structure may create a generation burdened by obligations they did not approve.

Analysts say the most urgent issue is transparency. Many transition funds operate through complex subsidiary structures. Their disclosures span multiple jurisdictions. Public details can be difficult to follow.

Critics ask how Canadians can evaluate long-term commitments if the financial structures supporting them are not fully visible. They call for deeper public reporting, more clarity on contract terms, and greater transparency around the role of pension funds.

They argue that Canadians deserve to know the long-term commitments that will shape their fiscal future.

Many Canadians sense something is changing, even if they do not yet understand the underlying mechanics. They feel the pressure of higher living costs. They see rising taxes. They worry about pension sustainability. They sense that decisions are being made far above their level of influence.

Analysts argue that this moment calls for clarity and courage. Citizens need to understand the structures shaping their future. Policymakers need to act with restraint and transparency. Critics say that ignoring these issues risks letting financial obligations accumulate to the point where national flexibility disappears.

Analysts warn that when large public obligations are cemented into long-term contracts, a nation’s financial path becomes narrow. Future governments inherit promises made years earlier. They must honour these contracts even if economic conditions change. Critics argue that Canada is approaching this point. They see warning signs in budget projections and debt ratios. They warn that Canada may face two decades of reduced fiscal flexibility if these structures remain in place.

Observers argue that once a country enters this phase, democratic choice becomes limited. Elections may change the people in office, but not the financial obligations those leaders must uphold.

This is why critics describe the model as a quiet erosion of national agency.

The most striking part of the debate is how accountability shifts. Traditional democratic accountability depends on citizens influencing lawmakers. Long-term contracts create another layer where accountability depends on legal terms, penalty clauses, and multi-decade obligations. Critics argue that this elevates contractual governance above electoral governance.

In their view, this is how a nation enters a system where financial architecture begins to outrank political choice.

Analysts stress this is not a question of intent. It is a question of structure. And structure always wins over time.

A further complication emerges when foreign entities hold ownership stakes in projects supported by Canadian guarantees. Analysts warn that this changes the direction of wealth flow. Revenue may leave the country. Liability remains with Canadians. Critics argue that this accelerates a long-term imbalance that weakens national resilience.

Observers say that Canada must understand the implications of this pattern. When foreign owners hold assets supported by Canadian guarantees, the country becomes a financial underwriter rather than a beneficiary.

This pattern concerns many analysts watching global trends in transition finance.

Across the broader policy landscape, analysts highlight four patterns that they believe deserve urgent public attention:

• • • The use of taxpayer guarantees to trigger early valuation gains for private investors
    • The participation of pension funds in funds investing in transition projects
    • The complexity of subsidiary structures makes transparency difficult
    • The potential for foreign-owned assets to rely on Canadian public backstops

Critics argue that these patterns are not isolated events. They view them as signs of a systemic shift in how Canada organizes its capital. They warn that Canada is risking too much of its future revenue and too much of its pension stability on a policy model that may not deliver the benefits citizens expect.

They fear that if these patterns continue, Canada may enter what they describe as a financial no-escape velocity. This is not a collapse. It is a long glide into increasing fiscal constraint.

Observers warn that if transition projects underperform, the revenue shortfalls will not fall on private investors protected by contracts. They will fall on taxpayers through guarantees, on pension funds through lower returns, or on the federal budget through higher deficits.

Critics argue that Canada may not be prepared for this possibility. They point to rising interest costs, slowing productivity, and an aging population as signs that the fiscal foundation is already under pressure.

The fear expressed by analysts is not a sudden crisis. It is a long-duration strain.

Several policy researchers describe this as the formation of a quiet dependency. Canada becomes dependent on foreign capital for investment. Foreign investors become dependent on Canadian guarantees to reduce their risk. The relationship reinforces itself. Breaking it would require either the cancellation of contracts or a fundamental redesign of the financial architecture.

Critics warn that dependency is a dangerous place for a nation to remain. It reduces leverage. It diminishes sovereignty. It limits long-term strategy. It places national priorities behind contractual obligations.

Observers argue that Canada needs to confront this now, while there is still time.

The issues described by analysts are not abstract. They affect every Canadian worker, contributing to a pension. They affect every taxpayer’s funding guarantees. They affect every family that relies on the strength of public services. They affect every community shaped by national budgets.

Critics argue that Canadians need to know how their money is used, where their pension contributions go, and what future obligations are being created on their behalf. They call for a national conversation rooted in clarity and courage.

This moment belongs to informed citizens.

While the structural concerns described by analysts are serious, individuals still have options. Citizens cannot rewrite federal budgets, renegotiate long-term contracts, or restructure transition finance systems. Yet they can build personal resilience that stands outside institutional volatility.

This brings the discussion to the practical question of how individuals can secure stability during periods of systemic change.

As the pressures described in this article continue to build, individuals still have the ability to strengthen their own foundations. Our team of professionals assists clients in structuring wealth by Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security. This approach prioritizes the most secure assets first and protects the most vulnerable, forming a stable foundation that remains reliable even when national systems are strained.

• • • Pillar One: Precious Metals That Hold Tangible Value: Gold and silver stand outside government promises. They do not rely on policy decisions or political cycles. Analysts have long viewed them as anchors during periods of monetary expansion and fiscal strain.
    • Pillar Two: Alternative Investments That Reduce Exposure to Public Markets: Private real estate, private credit, and selected non-public assets offer income streams less dependent on market volatility or federal program design. These can strengthen stability during periods of national financial uncertainty.
    • Pillar Three: Private Portfolio Management That Reduces Counterparty Risk: Professional discretionary management adds discipline and structure. It lowers exposure to mass market advice models and reduces reliance on large financial institutions whose incentives may be shaped by policy trends.
    • Pillar Four: Mutual Life Insurance Instruments That Preserve Capital: Participating whole life policies issued by mutual companies can build long-term certainty. They offer stability, tax efficiency, and multi-generational benefits that help families stay grounded as national obligations grow.

In It Starts With Gold™, we describe how these four pillars operate as a unified structure to protect wealth and maintain continuity through economic and political uncertainty. Each pillar plays a distinct role: precious metals preserve purchasing power, alternative investments diversify and stabilize income, private portfolio management provides professional oversight, and mutual life insurance strengthens capital protection. Together, they form a balanced foundation that helps investors remain secure when one or more areas of the economy are tested.

Together, these pillars offer a personal stability framework at a time when national systems are becoming more fragile.

👉 Book Your Complimentary Review to learn how to structure your wealth around the Four Pillars of Asset Security.

The concerns described by analysts do not mean Canada is destined for decline. A country can change direction when its citizens understand what is happening. Public conversations can reshape policy. Families can build their own stability. Communities can organize. Nations rise when people act with intelligence and resolve.

There is always a path forward. It begins with awareness. It continues with clarity. It grows through decisive action at the personal and community level.

We can make a difference. We can strengthen our own foundations while encouraging transparency and accountability in national decisions.

These themes, and the pressures facing Canadians, are explored in greater depth in our number one international best-selling book, It Starts With Gold™, co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®. Inside the book, we show how to establish a tangible-asset foundation, measure security across asset classes, and safeguard against systemic shocks while maintaining control of your future. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ to receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, our white paper, Last Asset Standing™, and early updates on our upcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Prefer a hard copy? Order It Starts With Gold™ on Amazon today.

1. Budget 2025: Issues for Parliamentarians – Web Page
2. Budget 2025: Issues for Parliamentarians – PDF
3. Canada Growth Fund – Mandate, Programs, and Governance
4. Fiscal Sustainability Report 2024
5. PBO Analyses of Federal Climate Commitments and Long-Term Liabilities
6. Office of the Auditor General – Reports on Federal Climate Spending
7. Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP) Annual Report – PDF
8. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Annual Report
9. OECD Pension Funds in Focus Report
10. Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Annual Report 2025
11. International Energy Agency – Clean Energy Investment 2024
12. UN Environment Programme – Emissions Gap Report 2024
13. Brookfield Asset Management – Transition Investment Funds
14. Entropy Inc – Carbon Capture Technology Overview
15. Canada Growth Fund Financial Disclosures (GC Articles and Statements)
16. Conflict of Interest Act (Canada)
17. Governor in Council Appointment Process – Treasury Board of Canada

This publication is for general information and educational purposes only. It is not financial, legal, tax, or investment advice, and it should not be interpreted as a recommendation, endorsement, or solicitation to buy or sell any product, security, service, or strategy. The views expressed reflect general observations and publicly available information at the time of writing and may change as economic conditions, legislation, or market factors evolve.

Readers should not rely on this publication to make financial decisions. Before acting on any information contained herein, individuals should consult qualified professionals who can evaluate their personal circumstances. All investments involve risk, including potential loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and government policies or regulatory changes may materially affect outcomes.

The authors write in their capacity as commentators and educators. Nothing in this publication constitutes personalized advice or guidance specific to any individual or organization. No representation or warranty is made regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. For advice tailored to your situation, please seek independent financial, tax, or legal counsel.