Mr. Speaker, I want to add a couple of points with regard to this report stage motion which deals with restriction on foreign investment. Currently investments are restricted to 20% foreign content. That rule applies to other pension plans. It is the same rule that applies to personal RRSPs. As the previous speaker said, these are all instruments or vehicles under which Canadians get tax consideration for having made those investments.
The rhetorical question to ask is should the Canada pension plan investment fund have different rules or latitude from that extended to other investors providing for their retirement through registered pension plans or RRSPs. I have some concerns that the differential may lead to some adverse consequences and some challenges simply because the rules are not consistently applied in Canada.
The issue of the borrowing requirements of Canada has to be taken into account in view of the fact that the Government of Canada is not borrowing anymore. Although the deficit is not totally eliminated at this time, the non-cash charges mean the government is in a position where it is not a player in the market. It does not have an appetite for new capital at this time other than for debt that is maturing and has to be rolled over.
There are some dynamics that occur in the marketplace. Although Reform has indicated Canada is only 3% of capital markets, it is still a substantial marketplace in which there is broad latitude to invest.
It would appear to me that nobody in this House can support this motion. I will check it. Motion No. 2 basically states that clause 37 be deleted. Clause 37 is the clause that states that the investment shall be subject to the same rules that are applied to RRSPs.
It appears to me that if the clause is deleted so that the 20% rule does not apply, in the absence of anything else, that means there would be unrestricted foreign investment. I do not know how anybody in this House could leave this bill in the shape where the investors of the funds of Canadians, the Canada pension plan, could invest anywhere they wanted, totally outside of Canada. I will check that. If that is the fact, I doubt there is anybody in this House who can support Motion No. 2.