Thank you, Madam Chair.
Considering that the last subamendment was not accepted, I really do think that it is key.
Canadians expect us to make sure that their Canada pension plan has adequate reporting. Having a report prepared that compares the Canada pension plan with those of other jurisdictions that are effectively peer jurisdictions, such as the United States, Australia and Sweden, is a very good practice. It will give us the space to understand whether the funding levels are in line with our peer jurisdictions. Are we overly reliant on one stream of financing over the other? Is it meeting the expectations of Canadians?
This is a very common-sense subamendment that simply allows us to have more information when it comes to what we're putting into the Canada pension plan. This is something that many Canadians want to understand, because they have growing fears of what their retirement is going to look like.
Doing this work now by having Parliament look through this, and having those peer jurisdictions considered, will put us in a better place to make sure we're making the right decisions in regard to any proposed or anticipated changes. Frankly, there are more and more Canadians who rely solely on CPP, and later on OAS and GIS, as their form of savings. If that isn't meeting the mark, if that's not meeting the expectations of Canadians, it's better for us to figure that out sooner rather than later.
I don't see how the Liberals could vote against this. This is very simple. It isn't asking for a big and sweeping change. I'm not sure if we're even going to hear from anyone on the Liberal side as to what their thoughts are, or if they're just going to do what they've done with other subamendments. They raise a few points of order occasionally and vote it down.
I hope they see that this is a very common-sense solution. This is about having a comparison between our pension plan and how it's invested, and those of peer jurisdictions. I would welcome everyone to vote in favour of this.