I think it's a very good subamendment, to be quite honest with you. I'm glad Mr. Lawrence moved it. I look forward to hearing what members on the Liberal bench have to say about it.
There's a theme to our subamendments. They're trying to make our amendment...which seeks to make the bill better. Dr. Strauss raised a good point, which is that if the bill hadn't been so rushed, there might have been fewer amendments and subamendments at this stage of the game. Unfortunately, we are where we are.
Speaking to the subamendment to CPC-13, I think it's important for readers. This comes back to the theme of accessible, consumable language for Canadians, whether it's talking about the margin of safety, historical margins of safety or how much deterioration, for example, would be needed for contribution increases.
In terms of statutory rates, minimum rates and historical rates—whether it's any of those topics—defining that and making it consumable for everyday Canadians who want to understand the health of their pension plan is important. It demonstrates financial resilience and transparency by showing current and historical margins of safety. This would help stakeholders understand how much buffer actually exists against adverse experiences that may happen in the marketplace. Whether it's a market downturn or a significant demographic shift, this would reinforce confidence that the system is prudently managing funds over time.
We feel that including this would highlight trends and early warning signals that may not otherwise be caught. Certainly, it would be fair to say that it would be less accessible to parliamentarians and the public in general if this provision is not adopted. Presenting historical margins of safety would reveal whether resilience is strengthening or eroding. It ensures that it's encapsulated in a report that's tabled before Parliament, so it's right there in the record permanently for Canadians to review when they're making a determination about the health of a fund.
The trend analysis would allow decision-makers to identify emerging risks rather than reacting only when the threshold has already been breached, so it's good for parliamentarians. Too often in government we're reactive after a problem happens. We miss the warning signs and allow something to spiral into a crisis. Then everybody panics, throws their hands up and says, “Oh my God, we have to do something about this”, when we could have caught it sooner and minimized the impact and damage to Canadians.
There are lots of examples of that, Madam Chair. You're very familiar with them, so I don't need to go into that, but they certainly do exist.
Including these provisions in the amendment to the bill would quantify risk tolerance and trigger points. Illustrating how much deterioration would be required before contribution increases are needed would make risk thresholds explicit. Again, this would help Canadians understand not just the likelihood but the timing of contribution changes under different scenarios, such as whether they need to happen faster than Parliament can necessarily do that through the legislative process. We understand that it can be a cumbersome process.
If these indicators are there and regularly reported on, perhaps Canadians might start demanding changes to contribution rates sooner than a legislative process, given the spool up and how long it takes for legislation to be drafted and go through the rigmarole on the House side, etc. I think these indicators would probably be helpful in allowing a quicker response, should some crisis point occur at some given time in the future.
In addition to that, it would enable clearer policy and funding discussions. Linking margins of safety to contribution requirements would become easier not just for the Minister of Finance but for all parliamentarians. This comes back to what I was talking about earlier regarding the conversations we have at the door when we get whatever questions come at us as soon as somebody opens the door once we've knocked on it. If it's about the CPP, it would be easier to explain the trade-offs among stability, higher margins, future shocks, affordability and whether lower contributions today impact higher risk tomorrow.
Overall, the conditions we've provided in this subamendment would improve communication and the tools from the Department of Finance, the chief actuary and parliamentarians...directly to their constituents. The subamendment didn't specifically outline this, but perhaps it could even include a graphic comparison that would compare the statutory rate, the minimum rate and the historical rates. We could outline that in a simple graphic for Canadians and include that in the report itself when it's tabled annually.
People need information in bite-sized portions these days. We're talking about the 20-second TikTok clip world. That's where people consume more and more of their “news” and “information”. It has a whole set of problems of its own that we're dealing with at the PROC committee. I'd welcome feedback from members on that at any point, but that's not for today. I recognize that's not necessarily a healthy way to consume information, but it is happening whether we like it or not.
Having documents from the Department of Finance include perhaps a graphic or having these reports, as we've moved, would be an important step for ensuring that accurate information is getting out there in a consumable format given all the disinformation we're seeing.
Just to recap, it would show the pension fund's ability to absorb shocks, would provide insight into long-term funding discipline through history, would clarify when contribution increases would and should be triggered and would support intergenerational fairness and stability. We had a subamendment—unfortunately defeated—that talked about that. Adding the provisions in this subamendment would still assist the intergenerational fairness and stability questions that we were raising earlier, and it would enhance the understanding and accessibility of information through funding rate comparisons.
It's a good subamendment. It would not create all that much more work for the Department of Finance. As Mr. Lawrence and Dr. Strauss pointed out, Conservatives often criticize make-work projects. This is a pretty simple thing for the Department of Finance to add to their creation list that would not cause an onerous burden to the officials who do important work on behalf of Canadians.
I sincerely hope that government members support this amendment. It's a good one that makes sense to me.
Thanks, Madam Chair.