Madam Speaker, what pleases me about these last few speakers is that I was touched by the remarks by two members concerning something that happened in my riding. In my riding, I must admit, there was a shipyard working full out; it had hired over 3,000 people at one time and now, unfortunately, hires practically no one. This is despite the fact that the shipyard in question has one of the most modern dry docks in Canada and leading-edge equipment.
Here is the question I want to put to my colleague. In fields such as shipping, the fact of having a shipping policy will at least enable our most efficient shipyards to survive. Once again, the province of Quebec is directly targeted, because of the seaports that have already closed and others that are on the verge, and also because of the aerospace and aeronautics industry. Why is it that we are always arguing about the reasons for trying to give a legitimate birth to policies that could help us survive? Why is it that in Ontario, during the election campaign, these arguments did not have to be double-checked in order to get confirmation of Liberal Party support to help the automobile industry survive?
Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou how he can explain that we must always go over these elements point by point even though they are quite obvious, because they are part of our daily lives? No one here in this House is denying that Ontario's auto industry is efficient. Thank heavens, it is.
On the other hand, how is it that in Quebec, where we have the credentials that prove how efficient we are, we must constantly struggle to achieve a minimum of legislation and, in particular, with respect to the amounts of money needed as guarantees so that we can make better progress in the international competition we face?
