Mr. Speaker, so much for the democratic deficit and the will to reform this House by the Liberal Party. The least we can do is make motions in the House debatable and votable at the same.
We are calling for an ethical screen for the Canada pension plan. I wish the members across the way would stop being so conservative and look more progressive. It was bad enough when the Conservatives were conservative.
We have two good examples of this. We have an anti-smoking campaign in the country, and the member for Souris—Moose Mountain would agree with me on this, and yet we do not direct the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board not to invest in companies that are involved with tobacco. We have a contradiction in the House. So why is that member more conservative than the Conservatives? I cannot understand this.
Then we have landmines, another good example--Canada was the leader on that and I praise Lloyd Axworthy, a former foreign affairs minister, for his leadership role on the international landmines treaty--yet there is no directive at all to the CPP Investment Board not to invest in companies that produce landmines.
I can understand why the member from Etobicoke is starting to hang his head in shame when we point out these contradictions to what he just said.
I would hope that some members in the Liberal Party will come to their senses and say that they will look at taking the first timid steps toward having an ethical screen on some of the obvious things where the CPP Investment Board contradicts what the Parliament of Canada has passed.
Why should we on one hand say no smoking and no to landmines and, on the other hand, say yes to smoking and yes to landmines, in terms of the investments by the CPP Investment Board? That is like being both progressive and conservative at the same time. It does not make any sense. We should take a look at this idea before the House today. That is why I wanted this motion to be votable, so members could stand up and be counted.
We need a lot of changes when it comes to the CPP Investment Board. I proposed a motion in the finance committee years ago that the board should consist of members who represent the workers and the retirees. It is their pensions and yet there is nobody on the board who represents them, and there should be. That is only fair and democratic.
These are a couple of ideas that the board and the government should look at seriously.