Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I found it quite extraordinary that in his speech he listed a series of things the government had done which he claimed hurt small business. Some of them may have; some of them may not have. Some of them may in fact help small business. He listed all these as arising out of the last budget.
Then he made the most extraordinary statement, having gone through a fairly comprehensive list that the government had done nothing during its term of office to do anything about anything and that all it had done was study. If it has done nothing, why did he come up with a list at the beginning of things the government had done?
The inconsistency was quite extraordinary. I do not know whether the hon. member reviewed the remarks he was going to make in advance and picked up this illogical inconsistency or not. But it was quite obvious to those of us sitting here that he was talking through his hat for the second half of his speech at least. It cast serious doubt on the statements he made in the first half of his speech when he listed the government's many accomplishments and then decided the government had done nothing and that all we were doing were studies.
He knows perfectly well the government has done a lot more than study. He knows the government has produced these studies with a view to taking action. Part of the study process involves consultation with Canadians which he knows the government believes is in the best interests of the country so the views of Canadians can be solicited before the government takes decisions that sometimes are going to be painful or unpleasant.
Surely he agrees that is the right approach. Surely he agrees that the speech he just made is utter nonsense.