It is a good question, Mr. Turnbull. I'm happy to attempt to answer it.
We think it's important for a number of reasons. Starting with including the “projected...Pension Plan assets in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars”, this preserves real purchasing power insight. Showing projected assets in both nominal and inflation-adjusted—or real—dollars ensures that Canadians can understand not just how large the fund appears to grow but also what that growth actually means in terms of future benefit-paying capacity after inflation erodes value.
Also, it would add in some transparency or prevent the misinterpretation of growth. Nominal figures alone can exaggerate perceived financial strength over long horizons, so including real-dollar projections distinguishes true economic improvement from inflation-driven increases, enabling a more accurate assessment of the plan's sustainability.
This is fairly timely, considering the financial projections the government continues to put forward, overall, as it has done for the last 11 years. Its members continue to grandstand about the great economic growth they've created for this country, when in fact, they've created the largest household debt per capita in the G7, amongst many other extremely concerning economic indicators in real dollars versus their nominal projections, which they continue to tout as the only numbers that matter, in terms of trying to sell their success to Canadians.
By putting this specific provision in this subamendment, we would at least be able to tell both stories to Canadians, with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, which would be at least one area in which we could protect them from Liberal victory-flag waving, shall we call it, on other matters with respect to the economy and the finances of Canadians.
In addition, the provisions put forward in this subamendment would improve contribution and policy planning. Inflation-adjustment projections better align with real wage growth, benefit indexation and cost of living adjustments, which would help policy-makers and actuaries set contribution rates and funding strategies that are appropriate in real economic terms.
Additionally, it would provide meaningful participant-level perspective. Again, coming back to the Canadians, particularly—well, not necessarily particularly—young Canadians who are new to contributing to the CPP as they're getting into the workforce. It would ensure their perspective at a participant level.
Reporting “assets per contributor” would highlight the average funding support backing current workers' future benefits, while “assets per beneficiary” would show the adequacy of resources available to pay retirees, making aggregate figures more relevant to individual stakeholders.
Again, it's important to come back to the demographic breakdown and what they're contributing, what that means if catastrophic events occur or what's going to be left for them when they get to the pensionable age, based on what they've contributed over the course of their working career.
These are a couple of important amendments. People may ask me, when they see this clip, why “inflation-adjusted” projections are important, what this means and why it was included it in this subamendment, so I think it's important to explain that to Canadians. Inflation-adjusted projections—also called real-dollar projections—show the future value of pension plan assets after removing the effects of inflation.
We've been dealing with a period of challenging inflationary levels postpandemic. The cost of living has not come down, even though the government, I'm sure, is just about to point out that the inflationary target is within the Bank of Canada's limit. They often mention that in question period. This doesn't mean the impact of inflation—which wasn't in the period during and just after COVID—and its effects on the cost of living aren't still being felt by Canadians.
It's about showing the future value of pension plan assets, instead of just showing how many dollars the fund might have in the future. Adding this requirement to the amendment would show what those dollars will actually be worth in terms of purchasing power in the moment when an individual Canadian viewing the projection would access it. As a simple explanation, these projections would help Canadians have a better understanding of the real purchasing power of what every one of their CPP dollars will be able to buy when it comes time to turn to the “brown envelopes”, as we like to call them, when they arrive for Canadians to support them in their retirement years.
An actuary would start with a nominal projection of assets. Then they would strip out the inflation by discounting future values back into today's dollars using an assumed inflation rate. The result would be a real inflation-adjusted projection, reflecting the true economic value of the pension plan. This matters because benefit payments are often indexed to inflation, which does not reflect the challenges we just outlined. It would allow an apples-to-apples comparison over time, since all values are expressed in constant dollars. It would highlight whether the plan's assets are truly growing in a meaningful way—not just keeping up with rising prices but also planning ahead for what prices may be long term, down the road. It would support better policy decisions, since contribution rates and funding adequacy should be evaluated in real economic terms.
Madam Chair, from our perspective, that's the case for why this subamendment matters. We've been pretty reasonable in the comments outlined here with respect to why this excellent subamendment has been moved. It is an important one. I look forward to the government members' making some comment on this matter. Of course, we would certainly like to see them come around to supporting it in the end.
I think some of my colleagues here have important comments to make with respect to the subamendment and the important provisions therein, so I will end my comments for now and turn it over to those colleagues.
Thank you very much.