Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague across the way that in his speech, basically, he illustrates that all the opposition are against this type of measure, which is not true at all. I certainly do understand why this is in place. The only thing I would say is that it is just a small tool in the shed that we can use. I suggest we should go a little further, given the situation that society finds itself in and the imperative of trying to find stable income in the retirement years.
However, it does not come without some problems. There are other examples around the world; for example, the Australian example. Here is what was written about the program in Australia from 1997. It said:
...total assets in the system have grown substantially through contributions, but net earnings from investments were relatively low. Despite the presumed role of competition, the investment performance of the system continued to be restrained by high fees and costs.
That is from the similar system in Australia. I wonder if my colleague would comment as to how this program would not do that.