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.