Mr. Speaker, we on the government side and in the Liberal Party always respect the membership. We advance accordingly, knowing full well that they have a tremendous contribution to make. Certainly that has been the way we have traditionally operated and it will be the way we continue to operate.
Having said that, I want to say how gratified I was to hear the hon. member opposite say that he agreed with my speech about the need for Canada to export. I think he understands, or understands hopefully, that we on the government side are somewhat on the right track in this matter. That is very important to note.
In 1997 the member for Fundy—Royal had private member's motion No. 214. I will read from that motion:
—the government should actively develop an innovative national shipbuilding policy which focuses on making shipyards internationally competitive by providing tax incentives and construction financing comparable to what is being provided elsewhere in the world and which ensures reasonable access to foreign markets, particularly the United States of America—
The hon. member for Fundy—Royal was really saying that he has concern over the Jones act, the 1920 piece of legislation. I find that very interesting coming from the very party that allowed that to go forward under the free trade agreement. It is outrageous, quite frankly, that they would have let that proceed in the manner they did and now we are stuck with that kind of nonsense.
For the hon. member to talk out of one side of his mouth on a motion back in 1997 and quite differently now is quite interesting.
During that same debate the member for Saint John went on to suggest improvements to export financing and loan guarantees. She talked about the exclusion of newly Canadian constructed ships from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. “For the life of me,” she said, “I cannot understand why the government would not look favourably on that. It is done for rail cars, vans, trucks and computers”.
Let me point out that by any other name is a subsidy. If it quacks like a duck, I can guarantee it is a duck. That is a subsidy, something that those people opposite say they are not in favour of yet that is exactly what it is.
The implication of that would be enormous. The domino effect it would have on all other industries would be outrageous. I say to them their unfairness will not work and it is simply something we in the government will not buy.