The underlying issue is that CPP, while originally designed as a publicly managed and compulsory pension program, and still operated somewhat (but only somewhat) as a pension program, has also become a social policy/program of the Federal government.

If CPP had remained a more pure and compulsory pension (saving) program, there would be less interference (i.e. restrictions) in the form of this and that bureaucratic rules. The bureaucratic rules are not about making CPP a better (i.e. more accessible, affordable, efficient, and effective) pension program, but about achieving other public social purposes.

There is a parallel with EI, which was a transitional work insurance program paid for by employees and employers, but now, like CPP, is a mixed approach, serving public social and fiscal goals.