Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's already required. That's why.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Then we shouldn't have an issue with beefing up this mechanism. That's the point of what we're trying to do here.

I am happy to engage in the back-and-forth on this. If Mr. Turnbull wishes to put himself on the speaking list, I'm happy to address any of these points later on. The whole point of this is that the Minister of Finance must be tabling this. We have to have a review period. We, as parliamentarians, have to be able to go back to ensure that we have accurate information.

I'll leave it there. I suspect I may have some further additions later on, so if I could be put on the speaking list again, Madam Chair, I'd appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Just remember that you don't need to be repetitive, once you've made your point. Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

We'll continue now with Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We certainly wouldn't want to repeat a repetition, would we?

Mr. Countryman, you've been a great witness. You've been prepared. You've had answers, which was, quite frankly, a bit different from some of our other witnesses, so I appreciate that. There is one area that I don't believe is currently covered in the reporting but is covered in the amendment. I'd like to get your thoughts on that.

You have told us that—I believe, as of June 8—there was an actuarial report prepared by the chief actuary officer that said, despite the reduction in CPP contributions, the plan is solvent for 35 years out. There's also a triennial review, at which point it will be checked for solvency again. The one difference, though, or the delta, is that this amendment requires an assessment five years from now as to the impact of the amendment. This would not be captured by the snapshot of yesterday's or today's report, nor would it necessarily be captured by the triennial assessment. Is that the case?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, Mr. Countryman.

[Galen Countryman]

The report tabled today is regarding the amendments in this bill, and in 2028, when the 34th actuarial report comes out, it will be based on the legislation that's currently.... If this bill passes, it will take into account that amendment. It will be about the full health of the plan at the proposed 9.5% contribution rate. It would be an actuarial assessment based on that contribution rate in legislation and would compare that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

It will—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Countryman—capture the solvency of the plan in 2028 and how it will look in 28 years, and it will obviously take into account the legislation as it is today, with the contribution amount reduced. What it won't necessarily show us, though, is what the plan would have looked like if that reduction in the contribution had not been made. Is that correct?

[Galen Countryman]

No, the chief actuary will be assessing it on the legislation that's in place at that point in time.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I'm not trying to trap you, Mr. Countryman. I'm just saying that I think this amendment does have value in that it will, in five years' time, capture for us the delta. You would have to report—and I think they would be fairly easy numbers to do—the difference between what the CPP would look like, in terms of its solvency, with and without the amendment or the reduction in contribution rates.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Like I said, I'm not trying to trap you, Mr. Countryman.

[Galen Countryman]

Thank you for the question.

If the chief actuary were to find that the plan was solvent with the proposed rate reduction in the next actuarial report in 2028, if the plan rates were higher, then the plan would be even more solvent.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

It would be more solvent. I guess the information that I or Canadians would like to have is.... I realize that the current forecast, right now, is that it'll be solvent for 35 years, but in my 47 years on this earth, there's not been a five-year period when something significant hasn't happened, whether that be the trade towers, the tech bust, COVID or the financial crisis.

If we run into one of those black swan events, if you will, and if in three years a triennial evaluation says that we're actually not solvent, then that is a possibility. Is that right?

[Galen Countryman]

I can't predict the future.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it is a possibility. This is reality.

We're the only G7 country, right now, in a recession. That wasn't predicted a year ago. The PBO has just re-revised downwards. There can be, and there have been—I just rattled off four or five in my 47 years—various black swan events that could happen. I would like to see, if that triennial evaluation comes up and says that we're actually not on track to be solvent for the next 35 years, what that number would have looked like if we didn't decrease the contribution rate.

Do you understand how that could add some value?

[Galen Countryman]

The question will always be whether—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'm just going to interrupt really briefly as the bells are ringing.

Do we have unanimous consent to continue for another 15 minutes?

[Voices]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

What...?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

It's shocking, I know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I thought you guys wanted to be here all night.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

We do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'm so surprised by the Conservatives that they want to shut down—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

We need to go. We need to do our democratic duty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. That's so interesting.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They are 30-minute bells, aren't they?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

They are 30-minute bells, yes. That's why I thought we could be here for another 15 minutes.

Do we have unanimous consent to continue for another 15 minutes?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I think you already asked that one, Chair.