Madam Speaker, the member opposite is throwing numbers around, which is leaving an inaccurate impression in the minds of those who are listening to or who will later read this debate. The $20 million she referred to is the sum total of all the investment in this project. It is investment that came from this government, from the provincial government, from private investors and from a chartered bank. Our share was by far a minority share.
Having said that, I must say that our priority is to help Canadians get back to work. That is why we supported the creation of about 291 jobs in an area with a 20% unemployment rate. We did that along with the Government of Nova Scotia. This was a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Obviously it is very unfortunate that the company ran into financial difficulties and had to declare bankruptcy, despite nearly everyone's best efforts and best will. One has to ask why this company ended up going bankrupt when it was off to such a good start. Is it perhaps because the member opposite has spoken so negatively about this project on many occasions in this House that some investor pulled his investment, or is it because a bank closed down a line of credit? Could that be it? Surely not. Or, could it be that the member spoke negatively about this project because the ideology of her party is against aquaculture which this project represented? I do not know.
I do know what the local paper said about it. On February 22 the Port Hawkesbury Reporter observed: “When our elected representative—”, that being the member opposite, “—openly condemns federal aid in this area, then it is time to ask that representative to step down. The families of those former fishermen are just as important as the families of miners. They do not deserve to have their representative trying to jeopardize their employment”. Their representative was successful in that attempt because that company is closed.