Even I know that's debate.
I was saying that what the report will do is require the minister to report the impact of the changes that the government wants to make in Bill C-30 to the Canada pension plan in both nominal dollars—the numbers as you do the math—and inflation-adjusted dollars. That matters, because while a big future number may sound reassuring, inflation can make it less meaningful. For example, saying that the CPP fund will have a certain number of billions of dollars in 2040 doesn't actually tell us that much today unless we also know what that amount is worth in today's dollars. It also, I suppose, helps to know what projected inflation rates might be and what those numbers might convert to in the long run.
The subamendment would also require, where the information is available, the minister to come back to the House with projected CPP assets per contributor and per beneficiary. That's important, because the total size of the fund is not the whole story. As Canada's population ages, we need to know not just the number of people making contributions but also the number of people who will be drawing benefits. That matters a great deal. We've had a lot of talk in the last decade or so about how shifting demographics are going to have a big impact on the CPP and on the plan, so it's important to do that.
What that means is that the fund may grow in total dollars, but the amount available per worker or per retiree may be less strong. That's something that Canadians really care about, because it affects our future ability to support Canadians in their retirement as we move on. Put very simply, what the amendment says is that if the government wants to lower CPP contributions, that's fine—they can make it sound as good as they want—but we want a report back to Parliament on what that means for CPP's finances. The subamendment says that, on top of that, the report shouldn't be allowed to just use broad headline numbers. It has to show the real value of CPP assets after inflation and show not only what the fund looks like on a per-person basis but what it looks like for contributors and beneficiaries.
The reason this is important and the reason I'm here to support this subamendment is that it's about protecting transparency. CPP is not a normal government program that's funded from general revenue. It is a contributory pension plan that workers and employers pay into over their entire working lives. Changes to contribution rates affect paycheques today, but they also affect the long-term strength of the plan.
This touches on issues of intergenerational fairness and touches on issues of transparency, and those are some of the core issues that we come to this place to address. A lower contribution rate may very well give workers and employers some relief now, but I have to tell you, Madam Chair, that when government is going to the CPP to be able to provide relief, it is really going into one of the core pockets where Canadians get really worried about things. They get really worried about the state of our economy. I get a lot of emails in my office urging us to keep our hands off the CPP—emails from those worried about what we might do to it in this place.
When we talk about affecting our financial cushion and adding risk for younger workers, it's difficult. What these reports we are asking for through the amendment and the subamendment would do is make the numbers harder to spin. A report that only gives total assets in nominal dollars could make the program look stronger than it really is. Requiring inflation-adjusted figures and per-contributor and per-beneficiary figures gives parliamentarians and Canadians a clearer picture. That strengthens accountability, and it is something that I think we would all agree we're here to do. That's why I'm surprised to hear that members across the table are potentially not supporting this amendment and subamendment.
When you explain it the way that I've explained it—when you explain in plain-language terms that people care about the Canada pension plan because it is their financial cushion in retirement—it really lays bare why this amendment and subamendment are so important to us. The simplest way to say it is that the amendment is about making sure that Parliament and Canadians know whether cutting CPP contributions is truly safe for the long-term health of the pension plan, and not just whether it sounds like another good announcement to make in the short term. I think Canadians are looking for that kind of reassurance. They want to understand the financial state of the Canada pension plan and the effect that the things we do in this House will have on contribution rates.
The amendment says that the report has to be filed “in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.” By “both Houses”, what we mean is that the report has to be provided to both Parliament and the Senate. That is important, because, of course, it allows both Houses, which represent Canadians and deal with those issues, to have input and look at it from the different perspectives and different dynamics that both Houses provide. That is another thing that I hope is going to reassure Canadians that we are acting responsibly with the CPP and with their money, because, again, that is something I hear about on a regular basis.
The first 15 sitting days matter because we don't sit every day of the week. That gives the government a defined parliamentary timeline, as opposed to just a number of days, to table the report. The subamendment doesn't replace the reporting requirement or create a separate report. It adds more detail to what the minister's report has to include. It says the report has to include, as I think I've said, assets in both nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted dollars.
Of course, when we talk about a projection, what we're talking about is an estimate of how much money or value the CPP is expected to have in the future—not just current figures, but also forward-looking numbers that will help parliamentarians and Canadians understand what the plan may look like over time. We're asking the minister to bring the actuarial report that my colleague talked about to life and turn that information into what I hope will be highly digestible information that will be tabled in both the House and the Senate so that we can consider it.
That's also why the subamendment talks about inflation-adjusted dollars in addition to nominal dollars. Inflation-adjusted dollars will show the real value of the assets.