Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's input. I am fascinated by his last remark. Is the NDP is coming forward with a position different than ours on supply management? That was fascinating territory for him to be straying into.
Any government program, whether it is a local program to fix potholes or whether it is a federal program to look at exploration in space, by its very nature is always over subscribed.
The member says that we are not doing enough on the facility financing. I think $50 million to assist with the paying down of interest is a lot of money. Could it be more? I guess it could be.
Just announced were $175 million for Coast Guard vessel procurement construction acquisitions. Could it be more? Of course, it could be, but $175 million is really nothing to sneeze at.
We have identified some $45 billion of acquisitions over the next three decades. Could it be more? I guess it could. Could we have put more than $12 billion into our infrastructure and roads program? I guess we could have.
There will always be an argument for more resources in any government program, but those requests should not deter the forward movement of seeing Canadian industries becoming more competitive and doors being opened for them.
That is why we have spent a lot of time with the shipbuilding industry. Let us talk about major shipyards. For the Davie shipyard in Quebec, we went to EDC and pursued the Canada account. We looked for provisions even above and beyond what normally would be available through EDC's deliberation to the point of over $300 million for expanding its facilities, but keeping that from violating other trade agreements. It is not perfect.
We have not produced unlimited funds for every program, but we have gone a long way to ensure that our shipbuilding industry is protected in the appropriate ways that are allowable.
We have not only verbal but written assurance from Norway, and the proof to follow, that it no longer subsidizes its shipbuilding industry. That should be acknowledge as an accomplishment of the EFTA, that we have virtually another country standing back and getting out of the subsidy business.
To say that we should not pursue the agreement because in the past a certain country subsidized a certain industry, then we may as well pack up our bags and go home. Every country is guilty somewhere along the line of having subsidized some industry or another. We should not use that as a reason to stop this agreement.
I appreciate the member's questions, but we need to move ahead. Hopefully we can see program increases in some of the areas that he has mentioned.