Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's good to be back, as always, on the finance committee.

I think what Mr. Jackson has pointed out in his subamendment to CPC-13 is quite valuable.

We were talking about reporting requirements, which I know took up a fair chunk of our time yesterday, and I thought we were just beginning to make ground when, sadly, we had to suspend for the evening. Fundamentally, we were talking about transparency measures—reporting requirements to the House of Commons and more transparency on, among other things, changes to CPP. A great many Canadians have these questions. That's the context behind it.

When we're talking about the subamendment, really, we're looking at sustainability and explaining what sustainability means, a plain language definition of this. Does sustainability mean the CPP fund will be there for the next five or 10 years? Does it mean in perpetuity? Does sustainability refer to environmental sustainability?

This gets to the problems that I was starting to touch on yesterday about how pension funds, endowments and other investments have been subject to some of these—to be frank—very woke clauses that aren't in the best interests of the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of these funds. In this case, these are the fundamental life savings of Canadians, the retirement plans of Canadians.

We're trying to look at plain language explanations. This would include whether projected benefits can be paid in full under the current legislation, as well as the distinction between annual cash flow deficits and actuarial insolvency. Ultimately, we're trying to figure out what the differences are between cash flow deficits—these are benefits exceeding contributions—and actuarial insolvency.

The report notes that contributions are in fact expected to be lower than expenditures, beginning in 2027, so we already have exactly one of these things here that would warrant such a level of scrutiny. Again, this does not mean CPP is in trouble, because investment earnings fund a large share of benefits.

Canadians would always benefit from transparency. We should always want to be transparent for Canadians. I think we always want to make sure Canadians have the accurate information they need. Just to weave in some context, which is important, we have seen, in the United States, what has happened in a couple of very notable cases—with Bernie Madoff, for example—when people thought their life savings were secured, but they weren't.

I'm not at all—unless one of my Liberal colleagues wants to get trigger-happy on social media—calling CPP a Ponzi scheme. I am talking about the need to have transparency so that people can have assurances. This is what sustainability is all about. I don't see why this would be attracting any opposition from our colleagues opposite. I welcome any of their contributions to the debate on this subject.

We have already seen, in Canada, a significant proliferation of Latinate language. This is language being used in government reports that is not in keeping with how ordinary Canadians speak. It's language that is deliberately designed to exclude. When you look at some of the documents and reports that come out of the government, they're not made in such a way that any real Canadian who lacks an advanced education in a particular subject matter would be able to understand them. Perhaps that's a deliberate ploy. Perhaps some government officials are using this because they're trying to conceal information. They don't want Canadians who are affected by these things to actually read it.

This is one of the things we have spoken about, and our leader, Pierre Poilievre, has been very clear on this. You need to use simple Anglo-Saxon language that most Canadians can understand when you're dealing with matters that affect them on a very direct level.

It was Mr. Jackson's subamendment. The brilliance of it blinded me from remembering if he had moved it. His subamendment was very important in ensuring that the language we have in these reports—the language that's actually being used to communicate what these details are fundamentally about—is deployed in a way that Canadians can understand it.

If I could look at the actuarial report for a moment, I would say that some of the things in it.... This is not at all a slight against the chief actuary or their office, because a lot of the directions the chief actuary has been following are directions set out by the Liberal government.

We have not given, and will not be giving—unless this subamendment is passed—a plain language requirement. Looking at some of the terms that are in here, a lot of Canadians couldn't look at this and fundamentally understand, “What is the status of my investments? What is the status of the fund that I'm expecting to draw on in my retirement?” You have charts that, without having the context and the knowledge of how to read government charts, are very difficult for the ordinary Canadian to read. You have a section here that reads:

The MCR of the base CPP is the sum of the base Plan’s steady-state contribution rate and the full funding rate for increased or new benefits. The MCR determined in respect of a triennial valuation is effective after the triennial review period, where the statutory contribution rate applies during the review period. The current review period is 2025 to 2027.

Suppose that were a policy. Would any of us in this room be elected if that were the way that we communicated policy to people in our ridings? I don't think so, because it's not written in a way that is plain and simple for the people affected by this. We forget that a lot of the time, these reports serve a parliamentary function. They are reports to Parliament, and I like to believe that all of us, as people who have had some level of skill in our own lives before coming here, may be able to read these.

We know what we're looking for, but Parliament is meant to be the body that serves as the conduit between the people and the government. If you have these reports being written in a way that is not easily understood or easily digestible by the people we serve, all of a sudden, ordinary Canadians are at the mercy of how their members of Parliament and their politicians choose to represent these sorts of documents and represent this sort of information to them. Let's be real: If you're the government, you have a vested interest in not communicating how bad some things in these government reports are.

I would note that the Auditor General gives a very useful illustration of what we could strive for in the actuarial reports and in ministerial reports. I would note that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well. Obviously, the current PBO is relatively new to the role, but in the past.... I think the last time I was at the finance committee was when we were discussing the valuable work that the previous PBO was doing. I think they should have been allowed to continue doing that work.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

With the greatest of respect to my colleague, what does this have to do with the subamendment to the amendment that is on the table in this discussion? I would love to—

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

That's an excellent question.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

If you could get to that point, I would be so grateful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Mr. Lawton, there is a provision for relevance to the point that you are making. If you could please be relevant to the subamendment that was moved, that would be appreciated.

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

That is an excellent question from the good doctor, and I welcome her to this chamber. We've not had an opportunity to meet personally, but I'm familiar with her work from before we got here.

I was illustrating some of the examples of when plain language reporting, which is what we're striving for in this subamendment, has been used and providing an illustration of other things that we could do, as parliamentarians, in this. I wish that this actuarial report.... Again, I know it needs to get to the meat and the substance, which is, as an example, what I'm doing in my remarks here today. It needs to get to the meat and substance. It needs to give us the information. It shouldn't be sugar-coating or glossing over things.

The whole point of what we're trying to get at here is that I believe these reports on the state of Canadians' pension funds, which, again, are sacrosanct for a lot of working-class Canadians—the people we serve—should be written and drafted and submitted to Parliament in a way that could be as easily understood as some of the other reports that we've put plain language expectations into. That was where we were talking about the former interim PBO, Mr. Jason Jacques, as well as the Office of the Auditor General. We see other departments and commissioners that have done this as well. I recall—well, no, I don't want to get another point of order, so I'll share that later.

What we're trying to do here is ensure, with Mr. Jackson's subamendment, that this report, which yesterday.... One of the chief opposition points that was given by some of my Liberal colleagues was that we already have reporting requirements. They're not objecting fundamentally to the idea of reports and the idea of reporting. What they're doing is inexplicably objecting to us trying to ensure more transparency and a more predictable timeline on that, which is what the initial amendment was doing. I think as far as the subamendment is concerned, we're just saying, “Let's make sure these people can read these.” We want to make sure that these documents are being put forward in such a way that they serve the interests of Canadians, they do not obfuscate and they actually communicate something instead of using—

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a point of order.

With all due respect to my colleague, he keeps saying the same thing over again. Yesterday, it was made clear at committee that members mustn't keep repeating the same thing. It was clear, but he is still doing it. Perhaps it's necessary to reiterate what was said yesterday about being repetitive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie. You're right.

Mr. Lawton, there is a standing order about not being repetitive. Once you've made a point, you need to either make another point or stop.

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

I believe I heard you make that point before, Madam Chair, but I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lawton, please be respectful of the chair.

Thank you.

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

I am. I'm very.... I'm heeding it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lawton, the job of the chair is to make sure that we continue in order, so I ask you to please be respectful of the chair.

Thank you.

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

I am, and I'm heeding that.

It's also important to contextualize. The discussion we had yesterday was on the amendment. This is on the subamendment, which I wouldn't say dramatically changes what we're trying to go for, but it certainly adds a new dimension to it.

It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to ensure that we are serving the people we represent.

I'll leave it there.

I welcome any questions or input that my colleagues have on the subamendment.

Ultimately, I do not see why, if their position is that reporting is already an established component of what we're trying to do, there would be any opposition to this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Countryman, for returning. We're glad to have you.

My questions are with respect to the subamendment. At the heart of it is to make sure that we're not just publishing data but publishing information that people can use and process.

Do you have any statistics on how often your report is viewed? Who do you give the hard copy of the report to? To the extent that it's available on your website, how many views do you get on that?

[Galen Countryman]

Thank you for the question.

The report is released by the chief actuary and her office. I do not have statistics on how many views are on her website, but it is posted on the website, and it is provided to and tabled in Parliament.

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

Here's my concern, though: In a multimedia world and in a place in which there is so much coming at Canadians, especially the struggles that Canadians face every day, I suspect that very few—and by very few, I probably mean less than 1% of 1%—ever go to your website to review that.

I think part of the reason is.... I enjoy the actuarial language. I'm a tax lawyer by trade, so I could talk to you all day. This is my excitement, but for most normal human beings and most well-adjusted people, the idea of going to your website and looking at an actuarial report, I think, has limited appeal.

What this amendment gets at is that, in today's world, government doesn't just have an obligation to vomit out information and numbers, but it also has an obligation to make it understandable and a little bit interesting, if not compelling, to individuals. I don't think that the publication of the information is enough in 2026. I think we need to, as much as possible, make it easy enough for people to understand, and when they're going from working all day to making dinner and taking their kids to dance or to hockey, they're still compelled to look at this.

My colleague's amendment is talking about, in plain language, whether the CPP is sustainable.

Do you understand, and do you think the chief actuary could perhaps do a little better in the job of making the information not only digestible but also interesting, as much as possible?

[Galen Countryman]

It is not for me to comment on the work of the chief actuary. The chief actuary is not here to speak to her report.

The conclusions of her reports have always been that the CPP is financially sustainable, taking into account the projected contributions and investment income to pay benefits for the next 75 years.

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

Right. I understand that, and I get that.

As I said, we can talk about MCRs. We can talk about the balance. We can talk about what it will look like in 2100 and the fact that it will have 30% less funds in it, because of the reduction in funding for it right now. I get all that, and I'm happy to nerd out all day.

I am saying that for people who are well adjusted, unlike me, and who don't have the time to do this, maybe we could make that more bite-sized and actually get people to review it.

Is there a hard copy—I've only seen the soft copy of it—and who do you distribute that to?

[Galen Countryman]

The report is posted on the website of the office of the chief actuary, and it's tabled in Parliament.

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

It's tabled in Parliament, but do you have a distribution list that the hard copy goes to?

[Galen Countryman]

I'm not the one who looks after the tabling of the federal—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I think, Mr. Lawrence, he has clarified that it's not the Department of Finance but the chief actuary who does this.

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

Oh, okay.

Who does the chief actuary report to?