# CPP Child-rearing credit



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Does anyone have experience with the CPP' Child Rearing Provision, specifically the case where someone didn't know about it when they applied for CPP? As best as I can tell, their monthly amount would seem to indicate they didn't have it applied. In her case, it could wipe out 7 or more years of 0% contributions, and increase the benefit significantly. As it is 20 years since her CPP started, I'm trying to find out about retroactive provisions.

A couple of sources (here and here) mention retroactive claims in passing, but with no details. I'm wondering if it is possible to retroactively claim the entire entitlement? 20 years of a potential $100-200 monthly difference could be a hefty sum. I'll be checking into this further next week, but I was curious if anyone out there had any real-world experience with these sorts of cases?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Typically you are limited to 11 months of retroactive payments. If you google "legislative restrictions on retroactive payments CPP" you will find a fair number of references.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Thanks, although that does seem to end the hopes of a nice little present for her! I'll make sure she looks into this for the ongoing payments and whatever retro might be available.

This seems to be one of those areas where the government could do more fairly easily. I'm not sure what information was made available when she first applied, but certainly it would seem that the feds could easily generate occasional "please look into this" notices to women it knows were getting family allowance payments during periods of low or zero CPP contributions, where the child-rearing alteration isn't already in place. It would probably give a large chunk of the potential missed recipients a chance to investigate whether they qualified.


----------



## Maltese (Apr 22, 2009)

NorthernRaven said:


> Thanks, although that does seem to end the hopes of a nice little present for her! I'll make sure she looks into this for the ongoing payments and whatever retro might be available.
> 
> This seems to be one of those areas where the government could do more fairly easily. I'm not sure what information was made available when she first applied, but certainly it would seem that the feds could easily generate occasional "please look into this" notices to women it knows were getting family allowance payments during periods of low or zero CPP contributions, where the child-rearing alteration isn't already in place. It would probably give a large chunk of the potential missed recipients a chance to investigate whether they qualified.


Just last week I assisted a woman fill out her CPP application. On the form it asks for the children's name. birthdates and if family allowance had been received. I wonder if these questions were on the form that your friend completed many years ago.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Hmm, looking at the current form has all the info you mention, which would seem to indicate that the child-rearing adjustment is now semi-automatic. The current form revision is from 2010, and the oldest one I can find online is a 2009 revision which is similar. It might be interesting to beat through the bureaucracy and get a copy of the form from 1989, which I suspect doesn't request this info. I've seen a number of mentions about application for the CRB and that it is an often-missed thing, so presumably it was less obvious in the past.

Anyone out there have copies of older CPP applications that don't ask about post-1958 children and child-rearing options?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I read an article awhile ago, that there were a lot of people who didn't receive the benefits they were entitled to.

The article mentioned a woman who didn't realize she could claim a spousal CPP pension for her husband who had passed away many years ago. When discovered, she was only given 11 months retroactive benefits, so it appears an iron clad rule.

The QPP has done a much better job of informing the beneficiaries of their entitlements, and the article pointed out that the CPP was going to copy some of their efforts.

It seems to me, that it is nothing more than outright theft, to not pay the full amount outstanding. After all, the CPP isn't charity. We paid into it and are entitled to the benefits. What does 11 months have to do with anything?


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> Hmm, looking at the current form has all the info you mention, which would seem to indicate that the child-rearing adjustment is now semi-automatic. The current form revision is from 2010, and the oldest one I can find online is a 2009 revision which is similar. It might be interesting to beat through the bureaucracy and get a copy of the form from 1989, which I suspect doesn't request this info. I've seen a number of mentions about application for the CRB and that it is an often-missed thing, so presumably it was less obvious in the past.
> 
> Anyone out there have copies of older CPP applications that don't ask about post-1958 children and child-rearing options?


It seems you're right, NorthernRaven. I just looked up my first husband's CPP application, dated 1992. It is a much simpler, one-page document that asks nothing about child-rearing nor even if the applicant has any children.

Karen


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

FWIW the child-rearing drop-out provision was introduced in 1978 (by the federal government) and implemented in 1983 (when sufficient provincial approval was received). 

The most common explanation I have read for the limit on retroactive payments is that other social programs (OAS and GIS, provincial programs) are calculated on taxable income, of which CPP forms a part. (The CPP survivor pension is also calculated based on the total entitlement.) 

If CPP entitlements are retroactively adjusted beyond an 11-month window, then other entitlements may need to be adjusted as well...and this is too complex to coordinate between programs and jurisdictions.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

sags said:


> I read an article awhile ago, that there were a lot of people who didn't receive the benefits they were entitled to.
> 
> ...


This story (or series of stories) stated with a study done by Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources a decade ago. http://www.shillington.ca/benefits/gis_saga.htm

Based on a sample survey/study he projected that about 300,000 Canadians were not getting the benefits to which they were entitled. The story broke into the media first on Aug.23, 2001. Fortunately for the government and HRDC, 9/11 occured shortly thereafter, diverting all the media attention. Otherwise I think some Deputy Ministers and Ministers would have been hauled before a Parliamentary Committee to explain their abysmal program failure. (HRDC had no performance measures in place to determine how many clients were not receiving benefits. This is typical of government departments where "program performance measures" are usually measures of how much work is being done (inquiries answered, files processed, etc.), not measures of how well the department is fulfilling the objectives of a program.) 

Shillington says HRDC has taken a number of steps to improve things since then, but I don't know if anyone has commissioned another study to quantify how much things have changed in 10 years.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

I just wanted to update this - the person in question submitted their info to CPP and requested a recalculation, and they did indeed provide a retroactive payment back the full 20 years, which was a hefty 5-figure sum. Perhaps because this is not a "late" application or similar, but in effect a miscalculation when the original application was made. In any case, if you know any little old ladies who are receiving CPP from applications made in the 80's/90's when the child-rearing wasn't on the form, and they might be eligible, it might be worth a second look.


----------

