Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I think it's a real point of order.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

No, Mr. Ho. I will continue with Monsieur Garon. I will turn to you in a moment.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

As a parliamentarian, I think I have the right to ask whether we may be wasting our time. The Conservatives, like anyone here, can move as many subamendments as they want. The subamendments can be new and constructive and have new content. We'll debate them; there's no problem with that.

I think that claiming to know where a colleague is going, implying that I'm filibustering, when I have spoken for three minutes out of around 20 hours of debate, is unfair.

I encourage my colleague, beneath his facade of fake kindness, to be careful about what he says when he talks about colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I would like to remind all colleagues that we are all honourable members. We approach everyone in that vein. We treat everyone like that.

Thank you, Monsieur Garon, for that.

Mr. Ho, do you have a point of order?

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

I wish to raise a question of privilege.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I withdraw my point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

I was listening through interpretation. What I heard Monsieur Garon attribute to me was not what I said. I want to make sure he understands what I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lawton, this is not a debatable point.

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

Actually, it is, Madam Chair, because he imputed motive, which is a violation of privilege. I believe it stems from a misunderstanding or, potentially, a mistranslation.

What I said was that I understand where he's coming from, not that I understand where he's going. Those have fundamentally different meanings. I was trying to respond to that with respect. I wasn't accusing him of going anywhere.

I just want to make sure he understands that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you for clarifying that.

You continue to have the floor. We would certainly like to receive the text as soon as possible.

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

Thank you. I'm at that point now.

Ultimately, what I'm pointing out is that people would have a lot more confidence and trust in the report on CPP—which we believe is necessary—if we could see how Canada's system stacks up against those of other jurisdictions.

With that being said, my subamendment is that the amendment be amended by adding after proposed subsection 43.1(1) the following:

(1.1) The report prepared under subsection (1) and the report prepared under subsection (3) must include a comparison between the Canada Pension Plan and public or mandatory pension systems in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Australia and Sweden, with respect to funding levels, advance funding, reliance on investment income and the long-term financing of promised benefits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

We will have a brief suspension while you send that in and while we have it circulated for translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We are continuing.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Would it be possible to take the floor next turn so that I have time to read the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Yes, absolutely.

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

We can suspend if you would like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

No, it's okay.

We'll continue with Ms. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Considering that the last subamendment was not accepted, I really do think that it is key.

Canadians expect us to make sure that their Canada pension plan has adequate reporting. Having a report prepared that compares the Canada pension plan with those of other jurisdictions that are effectively peer jurisdictions, such as the United States, Australia and Sweden, is a very good practice. It will give us the space to understand whether the funding levels are in line with our peer jurisdictions. Are we overly reliant on one stream of financing over the other? Is it meeting the expectations of Canadians?

This is a very common-sense subamendment that simply allows us to have more information when it comes to what we're putting into the Canada pension plan. This is something that many Canadians want to understand, because they have growing fears of what their retirement is going to look like.

Doing this work now by having Parliament look through this, and having those peer jurisdictions considered, will put us in a better place to make sure we're making the right decisions in regard to any proposed or anticipated changes. Frankly, there are more and more Canadians who rely solely on CPP, and later on OAS and GIS, as their form of savings. If that isn't meeting the mark, if that's not meeting the expectations of Canadians, it's better for us to figure that out sooner rather than later.

I don't see how the Liberals could vote against this. This is very simple. It isn't asking for a big and sweeping change. I'm not sure if we're even going to hear from anyone on the Liberal side as to what their thoughts are, or if they're just going to do what they've done with other subamendments. They raise a few points of order occasionally and vote it down.

I hope they see that this is a very common-sense solution. This is about having a comparison between our pension plan and how it's invested, and those of peer jurisdictions. I would welcome everyone to vote in favour of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.

Mr. Garon, are you ready?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is the fifth time we have considered a subamendment to CPC‑13.

I am a Quebecker. The public portion of my pension plan is with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Understandably, debating the Canada pension plan for 62 hours doesn't fill me with excitement. That said, we have to do it, since we're part of a federal parliamentary committee. Personally, my money is with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Madam Chair, you'll see that what I'm saying is related to the amendment.

As far as the Quebec pension plan goes, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is a national treasure. Since Mr. Leitão used to be Quebec's finance minister, he can attest to that. Obviously, the Quebec plan is aligned with the federal plan in many respects, but we're talking about comparable elements. The contribution rates are different. The benefits are similar, but there's a harmony.

One thing is certain: we're proud of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. It has been a key development tool in Quebec's history. It's an amazing model, and we look after it. There is something I find odd. I find it hard to see members of the Parliament of Quebec spending 40 hours denigrating the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. For Quebeckers, we find it to be a very important structuring tool. It's a social safety net, a vehicle that aims to force people to save.

Mr. Leitão has previously sat in Quebec City, but I don't know if he has ever seen a situation like this. Dozens of hours have been spent denigrating the Quebec pension plan. I think that's a problem. In Quebec, we're too proud of our system for that.

Report after report, the Conservatives are saying that when they go door to door, people tell them that they're terrorized by the thought of not getting their pensions and that they wonder whether they'll be able to make ends meet. I don't want to put anyone's word into question, but if it's true that people tell them they're terrorized by this thought, it has to do with the amendment. We're missing a report.

Between two trips to the grocery store and the children's swimming lessons, I would like to see three-coloured graphs that show the actuarial structure of the Canada pension plan. Maybe the reason people are terrorized is that the Conservatives are denigrating the Canada pension plan. They're attacking it, even. In Quebec, I don't think we would put up with that. We're too proud of our plan. When I go door to door in Quebec, people talk to me about the high-speed rail and all sorts of things, but they don't tell me they're afraid of not getting their pension.

An actuarial report has been drafted. Mr. Leitão actually knows the details better than I do. I think a report is tabled every 36 months, as is the case here. The contribution rates are adjusted, and the benefits are indexed. Employer plans are adjusted, and they're complementary to the established adjustment factors. In Quebec, no one tells us that they're afraid of not receiving their pension.

I would like my colleague opposite, who is very familiar with the Quebec pension plan, to tell me one thing. In Quebec, people aren't being terrorized. Do we really do things differently when it comes to publishing information?

I would like my colleague Mr. Leitão to comment on that. I'm very interested in that. In fact, it's one of the only things to have interested me in this debate. It would be worth us spending some time on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Ho, you're next on the list.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a very great and unique subamendment talking about comparisons between different jurisdictions. I know that some of these different pension systems across the world operate differently. They have different rules, different contribution rates, different contribution timelines and different draw rates. However, it's still worth having those comparisons. Of course, one could argue that you could just pick up the annual report of another pension plan from a different country. Yes, theoretically, one could do that, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

It's important that we be able to compare and distill information drawn from these other jurisdictions and put it into one report so that Canadians can see and have a comparison that is more apples to apples. This is because reports will be written differently. There are going to be different types of information disclosed. The reports will be written in different formats and have different lengths. They're going to be in different languages. They're going to be in different formats of varying degrees and maybe with different reporting periods and different fiscal year end dates as well.

Also, of course, we're looking at being able to make it more comparable in terms of normalizing the asset classes those pension plans invest in. There is geographic diversification. These pension plans invest in all kinds of countries around the world, and they have different weights in those different countries in terms of the investment class and in terms of different asset classes altogether. Therefore, we would be able to normalize that.

To be able to normalize that information across those peer countries, including—without limitation to the United States—Australia and Sweden, and to be able to present that information to Canadians so that they can have an apples-to-apples comparison rather than an apples-to-oranges comparison is very important, because we do want to compare—