Madam Chair, I am making my points. It's very relevant. We are asking for the management of the CPP to be compared with the management of sovereign funds and pension funds in other jurisdictions.
If the Prime Minister is politicizing the CPP through his international diplomacy, as he has in Qatar, the U.A.E. and India, it is deeply concerning. Public press statements have all produced the kind of language where there is a perception of the political class deciding and driving how pension fund investment will be deployed. It is absolutely critical that we compare the CPP with other funds in similar jurisdictions. I know it may seem off topic, but it's absolutely germane to the subamendment and exactly why we're trying to push for this to be included. We're making a case through empirical adjustment, not rhetoric.
These are all facts that the Liberal government has produced for us to consider. They're not things that were made up out of thin air. To suggest that our concern about political and demographic risk to the CPP's governance is somehow not relevant to the matter is, I think, objectively obscene. We need to make sure we stay on topic, which is exactly what I'm doing by not getting distracted from the accountabilities that are required when we look at our funds and how those funds work in other jurisdictions.
I'll get into it a bit more. Comparisons reveal how Sweden's notional defined contribution framework with automatic balancing mechanisms and buffer funds.... Let me go to pure pay-as-you-go models. Pay-as-you-go models create massive exposure to risk adjustment. Look at what's happening with U.S. funds. This is something we should be very diligent in guarding against. Looking at positive and negative examples in other jurisdictions is quite relevant to this.
My fifth and final point is that global best practices strengthen governance, transparency and fiscal discipline. These are all key ideas that I wish I could carve into the desk of every Liberal legislator. It's about examining independent investment governance, which is the CPP model; clear individual account structures, which is the Australian model; and regular public reporting, which is the Swedish model—alongside expert analysis, such as that done by my dear friend Dr. Jack Mintz, the giant economic brain that Canada has. His emphasis on keeping pension funds healthy through undistorted, high risk-adjusted returns and sustainable retirement income reforms helps identify approaches that maximize returns for contributors. They minimize policy distortions and build public confidence in the long-term financing of Canada's public pension commitments.
Understanding how that weighs against other pensions around the world is really important for this committee to do, and these five points speak to the subamendment being offered up. Let me repeat them so the crowd back home understands what I've been going through. I can be a bit loquacious and verbose, and I apologize for that. There are five major points I want to suggest in terms of why this subamendment is worthy of committee consideration and worthy of passing.
The first is that advanced funding builds intergenerational equity and reduces future fiscal pressure. The second is that funding level comparisons provide objective sustainability benchmarks. The third is that reliance on professional investment returns enhances fund resilience. The fourth is that long-term financing lessons protect promised benefits from political and demographic risk, and the fifth is that global best practices strengthen governance, transparency and fiscal discipline.
These are five key things that are all essential to understanding why the report must include a comparison between the Canadian pension plan and public funding systems in other jurisdictions. I think there are some empirical truths at the core of them. They're not things that are what I would necessarily describe as typically partisan. They are all fair points in international finance and the governance of pension funds. They're all things that would help our pension fund and help our finance officials plan more judiciously and expeditiously for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers.
They're all things that guard against the political risks of parties that choose to use funds as their own slush funds to direct to their own projects or the kinds of demographic mistakes that Liberals have made that have created a real quandary for our country and our pensioners in the long term and are essential to the success of our national finances.
I look forward to having a continued healthy discussion on all of these types of topics. I hope members found my intervention to be useful. It's something that I really enjoy getting an opportunity to do in committees like this, which are important to our nation's public finances.
I yield the floor to the chair.