Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've heard over the course of the last few months how reserved the government has to be in these kinds of interventions, in allowing public dollars. It's not to say that they can't be made, but when a government chooses to make particularly these kinds of monetary weighty interventions to bolster the economy, we've heard testimony going back several meetings now about how that is in fact 180 degrees away from the right kind of economic policy.
We recognize, as my honourable colleague has in fact just mentioned, that the government has forged ahead with the community development fund for specific industries, particularly in one-industry communities, to help them—and we don't know what the outcomes might be—to recognize that there needs to be some transition when you have potential economic softening such as we've seen.
But the fact is that the best approach, the approach that has stood the test of time, particularly since the eighties, has been to make sure that good, sound economic policies are practised in a broader sphere, not to try to.... You recognize that there will be adjustments. I think we heard not too long ago that things will continue to come our way that happen in the global economic framework and that will impact here at home. The very best way we can protect ourselves against that impact is by good, sound macro-economic policies and a dynamic competitive environment, but not to the point where we're using public dollars to try to stop-gap what we know is going to involve these kinds of adjustments. There will be some job losses, and nobody likes that situation, but we continue to hear that this is going to be the reality we as a country will deal with from time to time and sector by sector.
What we have to look at is how we make sure that there will be opportunities coming forward and that investment will continue to be vibrant in Canada. That kind of investment is going to provide good-paying jobs in a knowledge industry, in industries that in fact can give to families the kind of income they need to improve their lot in life and carry on and bolster our economy.
It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that this is in fact the course Canada set out several years ago, and that we need to continue to keep it as our focus and resist the urge, as politically expedient as it might be, to get too top-heavy with our monetary interventions this way.
So I argue against the motion, recognizing that we've already committed to a part of it. The community development fund is very specific, and I hope it will enjoy broad party support in the House. But I think that initiative on its own is a good and sensible approach that will get us where we need to go, and that we do not need this motion.