Evidence of meeting #45 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Colleagues, thank you very much.
We have received the text of the motion. It is outside the scope of the amendment, currently.
We're going to move back to the main amendment.
I have Mr. Jackson on the speaking list.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
I'm a little disappointed that the subamendment was ruled out of order, but that's the way it goes in this business, I suppose.
I noticed, when I was here last night, Mr. Turnbull mentioning that much of his opposition to some of the important amendments we were moving was based on the 33rd actuarial report. He couldn't remember the date it was tabled, but it was, in fact, tabled yesterday. I just want to provide what I see as the reason we feel there are some amendments that should be made to this bill. Some of the context that isn't provided in the actuarial report, which Mr. Turnbull referenced, is sufficient for the reporting requirements that we don't agree with.
In terms of the report itself, page 5 highlights things at the beginning and then gets into more detail, but even something as simple as.... Canadians concerned about the long-term health of the pension plan may not be actuaries. They may not be completely in-depth in terms of the financial language or lingo used in this report—quite correctly. I'm not suggesting that the report wasn't done to the standards or requirements it was supposed to use.
However, I think there could be some amendments made to the bill, which would amend how this report.... If Mr. Turnbull feels an additional report is not eligible because the government voted down those amendments last night, some amendments could be made to this report—as it's currently required to be presented—to allow that language to be a little more friendly to everyday Canadians who, perhaps, in years gone by, were under the assumption, quite happily, that the Canada pension plan is sound. They don't really think much about it until they need to access it. In recent months and years, though, it's certainly been a question coming up a little more frequently, at least at doors when I hit them.
There are a couple of concerns about ensuring that the plan.... The supplemental report by the chief actuary that was tabled in Parliament is technically sound but narrowly focused on the one question about whether reducing the base CPP contribution rate, as Mr. Lawrence mentioned, from 9.9% to 9.5%, beginning in 2027, would still leave the plan sustainable. There are several additional facts and an analysis that we feel would make the report much more useful for ordinary contributors and retirees—the everyday Canadians who are served well by this plan but who may have questions. If they're looking at this, it may not be the most user-friendly document. I think many readers may see statements such as “the reduced...contribution rate...is sufficient to finance the...CPP over the long term” and wonder what it means, what definition of “sufficient” or “sustainable” is being used and whether benefits are in fact guaranteed.
I wonder if our witness could provide a user-friendly definition regarding the difference between “sustainable” and “sufficient”, as used in this report, and what these describe to Canadians in terms of their guaranteed benefits.
Senior Director, Income Security, Department of Finance
Thank you for the question.
I'm not an actuary by trade.
I will just highlight that the 32nd and 33rd reports are consistent with actuarial principles. This is how they would evaluate pension plans.
I can't speak to the terminology used by actuaries to evaluate the health of the plan.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
That's fair. Thank you for acknowledging that.
I think this remains a question on our side—one we would like to see answered.
The report, in itself, as acknowledged by the government.... They don't see a need for a secondary report. The report could add a plain-language definition of “CPP sustainability”. We think that would be an important factor, if we're not proceeding with a secondary report, as recommended. As well, we think it could add whether projected benefits can be paid in full under the current legislation, if necessary, and the differences among cash flow deficits, benefits exceeding contributions and actuarial insolvency. Understand, we're not criticizing the report to say that due diligence wasn't done, but we feel that explanations for Canadians in plain language of what these terns mean are lacking in the report as it currently exists.
The report notes that “Contributions are expected...to be lower than expenditures” beginning in 2027, but that does not mean the CPP is in trouble, because investment earnings fund a large share of the benefits. Many Canadians, I feel—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
I apologize, Mr. Jackson. The bells have begun.
Do we have UC to continue for the next 15 minutes?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We do not have UC.
We are suspended until after the vote. I will see everyone back here immediately following the vote.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
Could you share the current speaking list? I had my hand up earlier, and I would like a sense of where I'm at.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can you share what the list shows, though?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
You will be second on the list. There are two more people: Mr. Garon and then you.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
I believe we left off discussing the provisions in CPC-13, regarding the reporting requirements that we're seeking to add to the legislation as it currently exists. We are ensuring that, if the government is going to continue to vote down our asks for further transparency and reporting amongst the bill's provisions, that the existing reporting requirements, which it argued are sufficient, could be amended to provide greater clarity, particularly around plain language for Canadians to understand.
I'm hopeful that at that time the government would be willing to support subamendment two to CPC-13.
I move 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 plain-language explanation of what it means for the Canada Pension Plan to be sustainable, including whether projected benefits can be paid in full under the current legislation and the distinction between annual cash-flow deficits and actuarial insolvency.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Can you please send that in writing? We will briefly suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We're resuming the meeting.
Colleagues, you have received the updated text in both official languages.
Mr. Jackson, you have the floor.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I appreciate the translation work on that being done by our—
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I have a point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague. I see there are bells.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
I'm so surprised.
Okay, we will resume immediately following the votes.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
As I said before, I appreciate the translation work that was done on the subamendment to CPC-13. I want to put a few more words on the record about why we think that subamendment is important.
We've heard from Canadians that they would appreciate some more plain language regarding the explanation about what it means for the Canada pension plan to be sustainable, including a plain language definition of that to be spelled out in the act.
This would be an important step to ensure that the minister, the department and the chief actuary take those steps when they are presenting these reports. I hope that CPC-13 passes. We would then have CPC-13 amended, and that would become a requirement as part of the new reporting requirements within the bill.
I can see, having moved this subamendment, that my colleagues are very eager to put a few additional words on the record about the subamendment before we get to the vote. I would be very glad for them to do so.