Finance Committee on June 10th, 2026

[Justin Stuart]

I will do the best I can, but I'll note that I am here to speak about the amendment being proposed for Bill C-30, which is tied to the actuarial report. Granted, I didn't draft the actuarial report.

I will just reference that the 32nd and 33rd reports include.... The chief actuary identifies this in the reports. They list all the assumptions about both the nominal and the real return bases that underpin the report.

On another point that was made, the chief actuary prepares the report and, pursuant to legislation, provides it to the Minister of Finance. Then the Minister of Finance is the one who tables that report in Parliament, pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan legislation, section 115.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I appreciate the point you're making. The amendment and the subamendment relate to a ministerial report. Neither the amendment nor the subamendment, if I am correct.... It isn't the actuarial report. I wouldn't expect it to say, “Please refer to page 462 of the actuarial report.”

I think the conversation we're having right now helps buttress the reason we're proposing these amendments and subamendments. The question I'm asking isn't about the report. It's about how a person with knowledge of how the CPP works can translate nominal numbers into inflation-adjusted numbers. It is a question independent of the actuarial report. I've asked you the question twice.

Maybe the chair can help.

Is there a different official present who could answer this question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

There may or may not be. The officials are here regarding the clauses in Bill C-30. They're not really here to provide opinions on the amendments proposed. We'll have to defer to the officials who are here. I'm not sure someone can specifically answer that question, particularly because this is a subamendment to an amendment that was made on the floor.

I don't know, Mr. Stuart, whether you have anything you would like to add to that.

[Justin Stuart]

I don't have anything to add. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just be rambling if I kept going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Stuart.

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

We don't ramble in this committee.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Let me see if I can ask the question in a different way.

What we are asking for is that a report be tabled in the House that includes projected Canada pension plan assets in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.

Can you explain the difference between nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars?

[Justin Stuart]

Nominal would be if a figure doesn't take into account inflation over time. Let's say someone purchases an asset, and that asset isn't linked or indexed to any sort of indicator. However, real value would take inflation into account and offset it.

Again, the 32nd and 33rd reports provide nominal and real return assumptions. These are built in, listed, accounted for and shown.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I understand the report does that. The question I asked is, how does a person take nominal numbers and turn them into inflation-adjusted numbers? You started to provide the answer to me, for which I am grateful.

I'm wondering if you can explain it. I'm really trying to explain this to the people watching this at home. What we're dealing with is a situation where it's proposed that CPP contribution rates be adjusted. That makes a real difference in people's lives. CPP is one of the things that many Canadians depend on for their retirement. In the interest of being able to talk about the value of this amendment and subamendment, I'm trying to explain how the amendment and subamendment would translate data included in the actuarial report—which has finance language that all of us in this room are comfortable with and used to using—into concepts that people can understand, so they can follow along with us and evaluate the work we are doing in the House of Commons.

Given that you described taking nominal rates and adjusting them through a formula to reflect inflation-adjusted numbers, can you apply that concept to the assets of the Canada pension plan and explain how we take nominal numbers in the plan, actuarial reports and documents to come, and turn them into numbers that provide an inflation-adjusted...?

It's a “how” question, not a “where is it described” question. It is a basic finance question.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lavoie, you have the floor.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.

I understand that she wants the information to be as clear as possible. However, we haven't yet voted on the subamendment introduced today. We can't ask for clarification on how the results will be presented.

I understand her intention, which is commendable. She wants people to understand at what point a report is prepared, but we're not at that stage yet. First of all, we have to understand why we're voting for or against a subamendment. We just need to focus on the subamendment. If it is adopted, we can ask for clarification. I understand, but right now, this has gone too far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

Ms. Kronis, it's just to remind you that this official, Mr. Stuart, does not write these reports.

Try to keep your questions to understanding the capacity he's here in.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I am. That's why I'm not actually asking how he would do this in the report. I'm trying to ask how we do this in the real world. If Canadians are going to be able to understand how these reports are going to work, they need to understand what kind of information they're going to contain. That's how we establish why they're important. It's the idea that you take numbers....

I was hoping that it would be explained by an expert and not necessarily explained by someone like me. While I may have practised a little bit of pension law, I don't happen to consider myself an expert in this area.

What I'm trying to get at is the question of what kind of information we are looking for. The Canada pension plan reports numbers. In order to give meaning to those numbers, we use some formulas that reflect inflation, and we turn them into different numbers that give us a snapshot at a different point in time.

That's the kind of explanation I was hoping to get.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Sure. I appreciate that.

I think the challenge for officials is that they can't impute what you're looking for before they've done that kind of work. This subamendment would be asking for the government to do additional work that isn't already done.

I think if you have those ideas, you're well within your right to explain to Canadians and to the committee why you support or don't support that amendment. However, I don't think that officials will be able to answer those kinds of questions.

You're absolutely welcome to ask them; it's just that we might not be able to get that kind of a response.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'm a little bit incredulous about that, Madam Chair, because I'm not asking him to say what the actual report would contain. I'm asking him to describe the kinds of calculations that we do. Even I learned how to do basic calculations in grad school and law school on how you take a number and multiply it by inflation.

I don't think we are asking officials to do anything unreasonable when we are asking them to describe, in general, these kinds of calculations.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lavoie, you have the floor.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like to add something for my colleague.

The point I was trying to make before was that right now we're not talking about “how”; we're talking about “if”. The question is this: Should we produce this type of report?

Her comments are relevant if we're talking about “how”, but right now we're talking about “if”. We're wondering whether we should submit a report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Lavoie, thank you for your insightful comments.

Ms. Kronis, you're well within your rights to ask these questions. It's just that because this is work that has not yet been done, officials may not be able to provide the answer that you are looking for. You're welcome to carry on.

The officials are here to talk about the technicalities that are in the clause-by-clause for Bill C-30. Certainly, because there have been a number of subamendments moved from the floor that were not contemplated before, it's hard. There might not be the exact official who is able to answer that question, because we as a committee had no preview of what these subamendments would be.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I want to say two things on that.

The first is that how a report is prepared talks about what goes into it. Part of explaining why a report is valuable is explaining the kinds of things that go into it. How those calculations are made are the kinds of things that help us understand what that report is going to look like.

If I've never seen an elephant before, in trying to decide whether or not it's a good thing to have as a pet, you would have to describe what the elephant looks like, how big it is, what its behaviour is and all of that.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

I have a point of order. We are now at 18 and a half hours and counting. We're seeing countless wasted resources. This is obstruction. We need to get things done. We've been on the same clause, I believe, all day. We are looking at a lot longer, provided this continues to be at a constant roadblock.

I ask that we keep it relevant and take this somewhere useful and productive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky.

On the same point of order, we have Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

On the point of order, it is not for one member of the committee to tell or judge other members of the committee about their use of time. Members have a right to speak at committee, and this member does not have the right to make a determination on how other members see the usefulness of this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I've taken both of these into consideration.

Ms. Kronis, you continue to have the floor.