Mr. Speaker, if any Canadians watching the debate were wondering about the necessity of the amendment, they had only to listen to the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to be scared right out of their socks.
The amendment would make it necessary for the board and for cabinet, in making regulations respecting how the board invests, to be guided simply and solely by what is in the best interest of contributors and beneficiaries.
This is our retirement we are playing with here. What words do we hear from the socialists? We have to invest “strategically”. We have to have a “social conscience”. I can just see the socialists getting into government, licking their chops over having these billions of dollars to do their wonderful social engineering experiments with. It would be our pensions they would be playing with.
If we do not have an amendment which prevents a future cabinet from indulging in that kind of nonsense, this kind of doctrinaire driven investment, our pension security goes right out the window. We would have all those with noble intentions to save the country or to save this or that industry, having our money to play with. It is bad enough that we are paying so much in taxes for social engineers to dispose of, to waste and to fritter away as they have for years and years. Now they want to use our pension plan.
I hope Canadians watching this debate run, not walk, to their faxes, phones and e-mail machines to say: “For God's sake, members of Parliament, include this amendment and make sure that whatever you do with our pension funds you are guided simply and solely by what is in our best interest and what will get us the best return, secure future pensions, and keep the mitts of social engineers and economic central planners off our pension plans”.