Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against the amendment which basically targets the investments of the board on a high return on international markets and possibly domestic markets, but there is no consciousness of Canadian here.
Our responsibility is to invest our pensions for future generations. It is a social cycle where the youth provide a means for the elderly, the underprivileged and the disabled. It is a human cycle. That is our purpose.
When we have this huge fund for investment purposes we should be consciously aware of Canadian content and Canadian needs. At sometime in the future, beside the investment requirement, our targets could be set on the highest rate of return on investment and disregard the environmental needs or the economic needs of a region of Canada. Instead it could be sent offshore into an Asian region where the return could be 20%. It could be a nice, juicy return. The money could be invested in another region which promises a higher return.
Here we have a chance to invest it in an underprivileged region. It would give a certain workforce in the region more wages in their pockets to contribute to the investment fund. It is a cycle. The more we work, the more the investment fund will work.
The concept of Canadians being Canadian is what is being tested by the amendment. We have to think of the Canadian picture and the Canadian future.
The investment future is a means of our purchasing the economic engine of the future. We can invest it strategically. Hopefully the investment board will do that. If it is restricted to investing only in higher returns, our Canadian concept and our Canadian vision will be dimmed.
I speak against the amendment and encourage other members to reflect on the Canadian need and the Canadian perspective for the betterment of our future.