Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
With due respect, I want to make a comment on this. I've been to this committee before, and this is now my third time on this point. When I was here last night for the first time, the officials were not here, so I didn't have the ability to ask them questions. That is why I'm asking them questions now, because I respect the expertise of the people who work for us in this country, and I would be grateful if they could help us to help Canadians understand why we're proposing this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
On that point, Ms. Kronis, it's not for the officials to opine on a subamendment or an amendment that is proposed as to the usefulness of it or not; it is simply to answer technical questions on the subamendment.
I'm not going to tell you how to ask your questions. Just note that what they are able to answer might not be what you are looking for in your question.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I understand. That having been said, the technical question I was asking was from a mathematics perspective. How do you get from a nominal number to an inflationary number? That doesn't require referring to any part of the actuary's report. It doesn't require referring to—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Mr. Stuart is here on the chief actuary report, because that is one of the clauses that is within Bill C-30 and one of the clauses that is being proposed to be amended. I want to recognize what his expertise is and what he is able to answer.
Again, we've established over the last number of days to not be repetitive, as it says in the Standing Orders.
Please carry on with your time.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Chair, let me ask you a question. There are 15 or so witnesses listed on this notice of meeting. Who is the official who is here to answer the questions that I am posing?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
The questions you are posing, as I have explained, are not necessarily questions that officials are able to answer, because the questions are outside of what officials are here to do. This is a subamendment that came from the floor, and none of these officials are responsible for writing the chief actuary's report.
As I said, you are welcome to ask the questions, but there may not be officials who are able to answer them.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Let me ask this in a different way.
There are 10 officials from Finance listed here. Are none of those Finance officials able to answer question about how we...? Are none of those people able to answer questions beyond technical questions within the four corners of the actuarial report?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
There will be Finance officials who are here on different elements of finance that the Department of Finance works on. Mr. Stuart is here on the chief actuary's report, so he is able to answer technical questions on that report.
This subamendment is proposing a new report, so, if you have opinions, thoughts or arguments as to why you support this subamendment, you're absolutely welcome to make them or not, and you're absolutely welcome to ask him questions, but he likely will not be able to answer them if they're outside his area of expertise.
That is part of the challenge when subamendments are made from the floor. We have a certain number of officials who are here. They have expertise, but they're not here to opine on the necessity or not of a proposal from a member of Parliament.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Is it not part of the standing rules that during the clause-by-clause consideration of a government bill, officials from the departments concerned normally remain before a committee as witnesses in order—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
No, I'm not done, Ms. Kronis. They are here. We have a list of officials who are here who are experts on the clauses. There is not a lack of officials for the work that we are here to do.
What you are asking goes beyond the expertise, because it was not previewed. We didn't know this was coming. Therefore, we have access to the experts who are here. Again, you may continue to ask your questions, but I'm not going to continue down this line of dialogue with you further, because I've made my point. We need to carry on.
If you would like to carry on with the floor, please continue, and we'll go from there.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I think this is now a point of order.
I would like to know who of the witnesses are here to provide technical explanations of the effect of individual clauses of the bill and the technical implications of proposed amendments. The questions I am asking are about the technical implications of proposed amendments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Ms. Kronis, you have a list of officials. I've already told you that Mr. Stuart is here, and he is one of the experts on the subamendment. However, part of what the subamendment is asking is beyond what the government currently does, so there is likely not an official who could answer your question, because this is new work that you are asking the government to do.
I'm going to ask, very politely, that you move on from this point and continue with your time.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
What I'm hearing is that there are no officials who are able to explain how grade 11 economics work.
I'm going to ask a different question. I'll turn to a different line of questioning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Ms. Kronis, I would really appreciate that we don't impugn the ability of our officials. I ask you to withdraw that comment, please.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
It's not the ability of the officials. It's the decision as to who the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Ms. Kronis, I would respectfully ask that you withdraw that comment about our officials.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I am very happy to withdraw that comment. I think that the officials are more than capable of answering the questions that I have proposed.
Let me ask a different question. In terms of the kinds of assets that are valued through the actuarial report, what does that asset mix look like? Are some of the assets liquid and some of them illiquid?
Senior Director, Income Security, Department of Finance
That would be based on the current investments by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which is a Crown corporation independent from the government.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
In terms of the actuarial report, though, does the actuarial report review the different kinds of valuations that are done by CPP officials?
Senior Director, Income Security, Department of Finance
I'm not quite sure if I get the question, but I will just clarify. The chief actuary does not assess whether the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is making the right mix of investments. I don't know whether the question was going down that line, but the chief actuary does not assess whether it's the right mix of investments.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The question I was asking wasn't about the mix of the investments.
Let's say we take an illiquid investment, like a bridge or something that's owned by CPP. There's obviously some kind of nominal value that's applied to that. Is that correct?
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The actuary reviews that, not in terms of the wisdom of holding that illiquid asset, but in terms of how the calculations that are done as to how it's valued. Is that correct?