Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Galen Countryman]

For the MCR, in the 32nd report—I believe you're referring to the 32nd report now—the chief actuary included some sensitivity analysis and indicated various scenarios, one being an economic shock of about four years. That could increase the minimum contribution rate.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Yes, which means it would effectively become unsustainable. In other words, if that were to happen, it's not guaranteed that in 75 years we would have enough money to pay out the CPP.

[Galen Countryman]

It's always a sensitivity analysis. The buffer we had between the minimum contribution rate and the statutory rate was 15 basis points in 2019 and then we went through COVID.

The economic system has had many different shocks. The buffer that we have posted at the amount of 30 basis points is still larger than the buffer we've had on average in all the previous triennial reviews.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

We will be to a bit of an inflection point, though, within the next half decade, because we will start having more withdrawals than contributions. Is that not correct?

[Galen Countryman]

The basis of the 1997 reforms was always that at some point, the amount of benefits would exceed the amount of contributions. In the 1997 reforms, the idea was to build up a fund that would stabilize the contribution rate, and then there would be some withdrawals from that fund to help pay for benefits.

In previous actuarial reports, that date has always been pushed back.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Which date is that? Sorry, I'm not clear on that.

[Galen Countryman]

There's always been a point projected with the current structure of the plan at which investment income would be used to help pay for benefits.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Exactly, and that date has been pushed back, but that date is coming, which is a bit of an inflection point. Logically, the investment income becomes critical going forward.

It's very important that the CPP performs well, as I mentioned to your colleague. I won't repeat it, but 4.05% is the number you're relying on. I think that's a reasonable assessment. If that were to drop to 3%, I believe the number is, it would then become unsustainable. Is that not correct?

[Galen Countryman]

The projections that the chief actuary has in the 33rd report, based on her assumptions, say the investment income that would be required to help pay for benefits in 2100 would be 36.9% of the investment income. Contributions plus 36.9% of the investment income would be sufficient to pay for benefits in 2100.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

It's 60:40 there from the contributions plus 36%.

[Galen Countryman]

It's in addition to the investment income.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I've got it.

This legitimately comes up at the doors when I'm door knocking. People still think it's back in the nineties when we were unsustainable. I would encourage you and the department to get out there and let people know that the CPP is actually sustainable.

In fact, even under the Trudeau government, when we we're asking for a payroll decrease, it was actually increasing the payroll. It very much made the case that we had to do this, because we wouldn't be solvent. We know that's not true.

Thank you very much, Mr. Countryman. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Shall subamendment two to CPC-13 carry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Let's do a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We'll do a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

Shall CPC-13 carry?

Go ahead, Mr. Jackson.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are a couple of other comments that we have to make regarding the reporting requirements.

As moved in our CPC-13 amendment to this bill.... It was a very unfortunate decision by the government to defeat those provisions requiring plain language text, so let it be known that the Liberals would rather have the language continue to be inaccessible to many Canadians across this great country than to keep them informed about the status of their pension plan.

Moving to further concerns regarding the reporting requirements of the bill overall, we feel that Canadians would benefit from some stress test scenarios being included in the reporting requirements in terms of a couple of examples or predictions that they could easily access to ensure sustainability.

I think this comes back to some of the comments that have been made. I do get questions at the doors about the health of the CPP. There's a growing skepticism in many Canadians for some reason that they're ever going to be able to access it. I understand that the numbers being put forward by the government and the chief actuary today indicate that it's very healthy, but there is a perception out there that it somehow isn't true or is skewed in some way. Canadians really seem to be questioning that and are skeptical of it.

In my time on the procedure and House affairs committee, we have seen Canadians having a growing distrust in many of the staple identity items across this country. It might be something as profoundly regarded as Elections Canada and their work in ensuring our elections, but there's still a growing distrust of that institution and the legitimacy of our elections.

I think, too, that the CPP is something that Canadians have long regarded as a core part of our national identity and the social contract of this country, right alongside universal health care and many other things that Canadians control as part of their identity but also that are known around the world as part of who we are.

We are concerned about this growing distrust. Unfortunately, the government defeated the previous subamendment that would have required plain language. Perhaps they'll accept our feedback that, if they're not going to agree to our amendment—their comments from last night suggest they won't—the bill should at least be amended to allow some stress test scenarios in the bill. These would describe the “what if” factors that I've heard about at the door. If this happens, what happens to the CPP? If this happens, etc.

If we can show our work with the very intelligent people on the chief actuary's team, they can show their work as to what those impacts would be. It would give Canadians, in my opinion, greater certainty that there is a plan. If any of these economic tragedies happened, as Mr. Lawrence described—a prolonged recession, for example—what exactly would the impact be and where do those things go? The scenario could be lower investment returns, lower immigration, lower productivity growth or longer life expectancy. These things are changing. We know that things are changing on that front. It could be a severe recession. As mentioned, the chief actuary regularly performs sensitivity analysis and broader CPP reports.

This subamendment or a supplement here would contain little discussion of the downside cases. I think we need to add some factors into the bill to ensure that it would take place. Again, I think that would give Canadians greater certainty that there is a plan and that their pension funds are well looked after. It would dispel this myth that we deal with at the doors such as, “It's just not going to be there when I get to retirement age. There will be no funds left for me. It's going to be emptied out, hollowed out.” I've heard that. I've been elected for only a year, but I've heard that at the door many different times. Canadians are stressed about trying to put their money elsewhere, because they don't believe, despite all the numbers—unfortunately, in some ways, inaccessibly communicated—that it's true and that fund is going to be there to support them after they've done their time, worked hard, contributed back to society and are looking forward to enjoying their retirement.

We have to find a way to make this work for Canadians a little better, so they are able to consume the information the government and the chief actuary are providing. We feel that there are a couple of ways we could do that.

I would urge the government members to support this initiative. I don't think it hurts the government. It's really not going to be much more work for them to simply rework the way some of these things are worded and add in some very brief scenarios—I'm not talking about pages long—on what the outcomes could possibly be and on what a particular given incident, as we shall call it, would do to the fund and Canadians' investments therein.

I think my colleagues have a few more comments to make on this topic. I would like to add myself back to the speaking list following completion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't want to repeat what Mr. Jackson has said, because I agree with it. I would like to put something to this effect into a bit of a firmer sense, so we account for what he's talking about.

I am moving a subamendment to CPC-13 to achieve what Mr. Jackson is talking about there, with the need for stress testing. The subamendment is to amend the amendment 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 stress-test scenarios showing the projected financial state of the Canada Pension Plan if investment returns are lower than expected, immigration levels are lower than expected, productivity and wage growth are lower than expected, life expectancy is higher than expected or Canada experiences a prolonged economic downturn.

That is the subamendment. Once it's accepted, I wish to speak to it as well.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Go ahead on a point of order, Monsieur Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It's just a suggestion. It's quarter after one, and question period is in 45 minutes. Since the amendments and subamendments have to be translated and the legislative clerk has to review them, perhaps we should suspend the meeting and resume after question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Monsieur Garon.

Is there unanimous consent to do that?

No, there is not.

We will briefly suspend. Once we return with a translation, we will come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Colleagues, you will now have received the latest subamendment to CPC-13 by the Conservatives. It's translated and in both official languages. I believe this is their third subamendment to this amendment.

Mr. Lawton, you still have the floor.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm reviewing the subamendment. I'm still learning French, so if any of our francophone colleagues see any issues in the translation, please let us know, though I certainly trust the tremendous House of Commons team tasked with doing that work.

I'll further expand on why I think this subamendment is necessary.

Mr. Lawrence was talking about this earlier. We have—and I'm very glad about this—a situation in which our CPP system is solvent. Canadians don't need to worry. We also know the economy has its peaks and valleys and its ups and downs. No one knows what the future holds. I would have liked to make a suite of changes to the reporting requirement. Again, we have to look forward, not backward. One thing that all of us need to accept is that no one can say what the future will hold. If we're going to talk about long-term sustainability, which is a key part of what we're trying to do here, we need to envision all these different outcomes.

I have some questions for our witness and official, Mr. Countryman.

I appreciate your patience on this, sir.

To set the stage for these things, do you agree that all the things mentioned in this subamendment are scenarios that could affect the overall health and sustainability of the pension fund?

[Galen Countryman]

With respect to what you're proposing, the chief actuary typically includes an analysis of various scenarios for the CPP. In the 32nd report, they're included in appendix E.