Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Full Employment Act September 19th, 1994
Members are saying let's get going. It is the first day back from the summer recess and we are going. We have a tremendous turnout of interested members this morning. It is Monday morning and we are going at it. I am not asking you to be patient. In fact, I hope you keep pressing harder than ever. I think members are raising a very important point. This is the sense of urgency.
I was working on a project this summer in the Toronto waterfront corridor. According to provincial studies-
Full Employment Act September 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main body of my remarks I would like to deal specifically with a couple of points that the member for Mercier made in her remarks.
She talked about this motion not dealing enough with the macroeconomic factors in this equation of creating an environment for full employment and focused very much on the fact that all of these jurisdictions such as training and education be the exclusive jurisdiction of the province.
I would like to remind the member for Mercier that trying to get the macroeconomic factors in the equation right is very tough to accomplish when there are members in this House whose constant barrage dealing with the dismantling of this country affects our markets in terms of the way foreigners invest in this country, which ultimately affects the rate of our dollar, which causes great stress on our deficit and debt reduction programs.
If the member for Mercier is truly committed to getting the macroeconomic side of this equation in place, then I would ask the member to review the impact her party and its dialogue are having on that part of the equation.
To the hon. member who raised this motion, I agree that it is the most important issue facing this House of Commons today. I wish we could have this debate going non-stop around the clock until we grind this issue down and get a number of concrete and doable ideas on the table. I, like the hon. member, believe that this is the priority for all of us.
We on this side of the House are trying to work in some concrete ways in addressing this problem. I think it is important for Canadians to understand that, because it is easy to create the perception in the public's eye that not a heck of a lot happens in Ottawa and in this House of Commons.
We stated during the last election that the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to work rests with the small and medium sized business community. Not only on this side but all members have been working very hard in the industry committee on a study called access to capital for small business which essentially will challenge the banks to become more accountable in their actions toward small business.
That report hopefully will be tabled in this House in the not too distant future for all of us to debate. Members from all parties worked on that report, not just for the last six months but during the summer. It is in its final edit stages. Canadians should know that commitment of challenging the banks, that report which we said in the last budget we would undertake, is very close to becoming a public document for all of us to debate. I think that is important.
I would also like to remind Canadians that my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka worked all last spring with many other colleagues and they travelled every region of Ontario on an access to capital report. That report is in fact finished. It contains some fabulous recommendations. It is available to all Canadians. They just have to write to the office of the member for Muskoka-Parry Sound who has said repeatedly that he would be more than happy to send it out.
In specific terms, small business needs capital if it is going to put people back to work. That is something concrete that we are working on.
There is something else happening. I do not want for a second to suggest to the member for Yukon that what I am saying is enough. I do not think we are doing enough. I think we should be more accountable. It is important to show that we are doing some specific things.
There is another thing we are working on in a very specific way. There is a joint Industry Canada-Finance Canada study on how to reduce the paper burden for small business. This is another reason why a lot of entrepreneurs have a feeling of frustration and are holding back. That study, which is being worked on, is something we must address in concrete terms.
Another issue that Canadians want us to take on this fall especially as we head toward the next budget is the whole issue of tax reform. We have a system of taxation in this country that is inefficient, complex, and obviously not fair. I support many of the recommendations of the member for Yukon. She has talked about many of these issues over the last number of years. I believe that we have now reached a point in this House and in the country where Canadians are going to be pressing us harder than ever to deal with the whole issue of taxation.
I believe taxation is an integral part of putting Canadians back to work. The harder you work, the more you make and the more you tend to want to invest or spend. The current tax system is a disincentive to investment and a disincentive to spending. In fact many of our best and brightest, our real achievers, are leaving our country. If they are not parking themselves offshore, they are parking their investment dollars offshore. Putting Canadians back to work and dealing with the very concrete and real numbers that the member for Yukon talked about in terms of deficit and debt costs cannot be done without dealing with the entire tax regime that exists in this country. That will be another one of our very important challenges.
Lobbyists Registration Act June 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has raised a couple of very good points in terms of possible amendments.
The point he raised about government funding lobbyists is something we have to review. Many members find it strange that we fund heavily many lobbyists. In many cases the government funds them to constantly criticize even the good things governments are doing. Therefore, as the bill proceeds to committee, I know that part of it will be subjected to some good and rigorous exchanges in debate.
I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry for taking the necessary time to bring before the House a comprehensive package. Often in our haste we could have maybe had the Lobbyists Registration Act amended and it might not have met the total test. By having a comprehensive package which includes an ethics counsellor, the Prime Minister has sensitized all of us who are public office holders and the entire machinery of government, as well as outside lobbyists. We will do our best to make sure the process of rebuilding trust is one that involves a constant, high profile, highly respected public servant who will keep us all alert to what tends to be the temptations to which the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca alluded.
Many people come into our offices at times. Sometimes it is difficult to judge where the real truth comes from. It is so easy in this game because sometimes the presentations to us as members of Parliament are so sophisticated and well organized that we end up buying in to some of the policies thrown at us. This will put a very vigorous discipline on us to make sure we get to the bottom of all information presented to us.
I would like to highlight subclause 5(2)(i) which reads:
where the individual has undertaken to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence any matter described in subparagraphs 1(a)(i) to (vi), particulars to identify any communication technique that the individual has used or expects to use in an attempt to influence that matter;
That is a central point in the legislation and I say that from experience in the past Parliament. Often in the past we were not aware of the various techniques used by lobbyists. What are some of those techniques?
First, let us take the drug patent legislation as an example. That is a bill by which members can see the full force of a lobby at work. The organization of brand name manufacturers not only had very good lobbyists but used polling companies. It used advertising. It used print. It used the media. If we were not really sensitive to the total package or the comprehensive communication strategy they were using, we could be very susceptible to their particular lobby or their particular point of view.
Often in the House of Commons we are susceptible to polls because we have been conditioned as politicians to look at polls to find out what people are thinking. In the past we have seen lobbyists designing polls and using polls to create a sense that the public was supporting the presentation they were making to us on a particular issue. That is where we have to keep our heads up.
Mr. Speaker, you are a veteran of the Hill; you have been here for many years. You have seen these various techniques employed. The bill states that the technique lobbyists are using, whether it be print media or polling, the total package of how they will try to shift our attitude toward redrafting a piece of legislation, has to be on the table. Their operation has to be transparent in the way it comes at us. That is a key component of the legislation. It will help us make better laws for the people of Canada.
The Minister of Industry made another very important point in his speech: Canadians do not have to pay to talk to their members of Parliament. Millions of people would probably be shocked at the very thought of having to pay to speak to their members of Parliament.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca alluded to the fact that during the last 10 years the sector of the economy that grew the most in this town was the lobby sector. I do not know what the percentage increase was, but it outstripped every other sector in terms of growth in this city. An impression was created that if we really wanted to get something done in Ottawa we had to go through a lobbyist. It made members of Parliament seem irrelevant.
I remember being in opposition and feeling the frustration. When I would run into constituents flying back to Toronto or in a restaurant or doing something in town here, I would say: "What are you doing here?" They would say: "Well, I'm with my lobbyist trying to get something done". I would ask: "What do you mean you are with your lobbyist? Why wouldn't you just come around? This is what we as members of Parliament are here for. This is what we are here to help you with. You don't have to pay a lobbyist".
If we are talking about a piece of complex policy where they want to get some ultra-sophisticated advice on how one might advance a very complex issue, fine, there are some good professional policy people out there who can help. But you never have to pay to get access to your member of Parliament.
In dealing with this legislation in the first part of our mandate in a comprehensive way, we are not only going to help our constituents, whether they be from a social agency or a business, but we will also be reinvigorating the role of members of Parliament.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry through this legislation will make our role as members of Parliament much more meaningful than it has been in the last 10 years. In the previous 10 years it is a well known fact that if one had a really good lobbyist who could get to the eight or ten key people who were basically administering the government, one had a pretty good chance of getting one's issue on the front burner.
The Prime Minister is saying with his comprehensive ethics package: "Work with your members of Parliament. They're here. They're working for you". We are not trying to put lobbyists out of business, but we are trying to put the role and the responsibility of members of Parliament back to where it once was.
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act June 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, through you I say to the member for Bourassa that we should be perfectly clear and should not leave the impression with the people of Canada that there will be any compensation for lobbyists.
The bill states very clearly in subclause 10(2):
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to
(a) any loss of profit, or
(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-
We should make sure that point is clear. Somehow the Bloc mixes the lobby issue with disbursements that might be paid for the leadup to the conclusion of the contract. Lobbyists will not be paid.
There is a point we have to make. I believe my colleague and seatmate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, tried to make the point about the seriousness of the bill to the Bloc. The bill has no precedent. We have taken a contract that was signed by a previous government, as the member acknowledged, 18 days before election day.
There is a convention in our country that in the last period of an election campaign senators are not appointed, deals are not signed, and we await the outcome of the election. The previous Conservative government broke that convention and the victim was that private sector firm.
Now we have to be fair to the victims, the subcontractors and other people who led up to the packaging of the bid which was called by a duly elected government. We are trying to communicate to the opposition, not the Reform Party but to the Bloc Quebecois, that there will be no compensation for future profit and no lobby money will be paid. We believe the small and medium size operators that were part and parcel of the bid and
had some legitimate expenses that went into that consummated transaction should be treated fairly.
We are trying to strike a balance which is accountable. We are accountable once it is over. I want to say to members opposite through you, Mr. Speaker, that a royal inquiry will take millions of dollars and another 18 months. During that same period we could have the renewal and renovation of an airport which is so vital to the national interests of the country looked after.
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act June 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the precise year Pearson started to make money. It used to be Malton Airport before Prime Minister Trudeau named it Pearson on December 13, 1983. It was his last supper in Toronto when he announced the name as Lester B. Pearson. I do know that the now Pearson International Airport was making money in 1980.
The member has touched upon a very good point. He is alluding to the fact that over several years Canadian taxpayers have invested millions and millions of dollars in developing the airport and infrastructure, bringing it to the point it is at today.
About five or six weeks ago there was a study which ranked Pearson airport in its current state as seventh in the world. We are tough on Pearson, but the operators of terminal 3 have done a very good job. It is working well.
I agree with the member that terminal 1, the terminal in the middle, the original terminal, is not in good shape. We all recognize that. However terminal 2 has gone through a constant renewal, both in terms of construction and efficiency. The officials at Transport Canada have done a remarkable job.
The member has raised a very good point. When we talk about 20 million passengers a year, all of them are not from Toronto. They are from every part of the country.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act June 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in third reading of Bill C-22.
Before I get into the main body of my remarks I would like to say to the member from Simcoe in the Reform Party through you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill states quite clearly under subclause 10(2) entitled "No compensation":
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to
(a) any loss of profit, or
(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act ,
in connection with any agreement,
The Minister of Transport said quite clearly in the House last week that not a nickel's worth of taxpayers' money would be spent unless it was directly related to the contract.
All this is subject to the auditor general, which ultimately means that the Reform Party will have access to it. We will be publicly accountable for any decision the government takes in terms of using taxpayers' money with regard to Bill C-22.
It is never after the fact when one is talking about a transaction like this one. The previous government paid a very heavy price because in opposition we took a very strong stand on the issue of privatization of the Lester B. Pearson airport. I am happy to say that I have not wavered on the issue. I have always considered the Lester B. Pearson airport not to be a metro Toronto airport. It is not even an Ontario airport. It is an international airport.
There is a great misunderstanding about the contribution of the Pearson International Airport to the economy of Canada as a whole. That is one of the reasons I personally do not support the Toronto Star position of handing over the Pearson International Airport to an LAA, a local airport authority.
I acknowledge the member for Simcoe Centre was absolutely correct when he mentioned that it was a very profitable operation. The profit from Pearson International Airport has not just gone into the Toronto region. Traditionally the profit from Pearson has been used to help other disadvantaged airports in this country.
The airport system, whether it be North Bay, Hamilton or any other part of the country, is inextricably intertwined with Pearson International Airport.
We said this in opposition and we said this during the campaign and we said to the Prime Minister of the day, Ms. Campbell, not to proceed with that contract.
I am proud to be part of a government which immediately upon assuming office the Prime Minister appointed someone with real credibility to look at that contract and it was discovered that it was not a good contact.
There are a couple of things that bug me about the previous government's contract on Pearson. The thing that bothered me the most was the flip clause. There was a flip clause in this contract which meant that there was a possibility that if Claridge Holdings Inc. or the Matthews Group Limited wanted to sell Pearson that option existed in that contract. The possibility existed in that contract which we have cancelled that we could have been in a situation in which Pearson would have been owned by the Taiwanese or by the Libyans. Think what could have happened.
I was very rigorous in my opposition to selling off Pearson International Airport. I believe that selling off Pearson is no different that selling off the East Block or the West Block. I believe that Pearson is an instrument of government which does not just look after air travel but is intertwined with some of the disadvantaged regions of our province and of our country. I also believe it is an instrument which can affect our tourism policy, our trade policy. It it not only the gateway to Toronto but one of the major gateways to our country. I believe this is the room, this is the Chamber that should be ultimately responsible for making decisions on how Pearson is managed.
There are times when we have been very tough on the bureaucrats who have operated Pearson international. Is it not interesting that these same bureaucrats, and the member for Simcoe Centre acknowledged this, managed to always make a profit at Pearson International Airport?
The argument from the private sector will be: "We could make a lot more". I accept that point of view from the private sector that there probably is room for improvement at Pearson International Airport. I think we should consider bringing in the experts. Hire some people, give them a four or five year management consulting contract.
Why should we give away Pearson when we can give a management contract? If the management expertise wants to compliment or support the officials of Transport Canada in increasing the profits or developing other options of profitability and testing them, bring in the management consultants and give them a contract. If they meet certain levels of profitability pay them. If they go beyond their budgets and produce more profit then pay them a bonus.
With all due respect to captain Messier of the New York Rangers, and he made a tremendous contribution in helping the team win the Stanley Cup, you will give him a good salary but you will not give him the franchise.
That is where I have strong views on this issue. The catering is done by a very good firm in terms of the way it manages and operates it and gives a percentage back to the Crown; the parking, the taxi service, the construction. We do not want the construction. Put all of that out to the experts, but the notion of giving to the private sector an instrument of public policy-it is an instrument of public policy, not just for the Toronto area but it affects every region of this country-I believe is not the way to go.
Another thing I want to touch on is the way these public servants who are managing the airport tend to be underestimated. Is it not ironic that the manager of the airport, Chern Heed, is now respected as one of the top three airport operators in the world and is now running the Hong Kong airport?
It is a pity that we lost such a great airport manager and I hope there will be a day when we can bring him back as a public servant to participate in managing the Toronto international airport.
I want to go back to this notion of a local airport authority. A local airport authority usually is made up of representatives of the city and the surrounding boroughs in the greater Toronto area. I am sure we would have some representation on that board.
My concern with that is twofold. When you are only concerned with issues as they relate to your own city, you tend to be a little parochial. The difference between being involved in city politics or provincial politics versus national politics is centred around the fact that when we deal with issues in this Chamber, it is our responsibility to not just think of our own communities, our own ridings, but we have to think of them in terms of how they would affect each other's ridings on a national basis.
My concern about a local airport authority stems from the fact that I do not think that unit would have the capability of really dealing with the national interest. That is point number one.
Point number two is the member from Simcoe Centre in his speech talked about a sum of money of revenue somewhere in the neighbourhood of seventy-odd million dollars for 1993. That was a bad year. Our passenger count is down by a tremendous amount right now. Imagine when the economy comes back and we can develop some more efficiency in that airport.
Think four or five years from now when that airport could be generating a couple hundred million dollars a year. Imagine how we would feel as national members of Parliament if four or five years from now we saw a local airport authority that was generating close to a couple hundred million dollars a year. The private sector would say we are getting the first $25 million or $30 million. Forget it, this airport is there for the national interest.
I am speaking now as a member from Toronto. Four or five years from now, after we have renovated the airport and cleaned it up, because I really do hope that the money that the airport generates between now and then can go into the renewal and go in the deal, on the point the member from Simcoe Centre was making, we have to get some jobs going in Toronto.
We have talked about infrastructure. The member is right. The airport is a terrific area where we can begin. Let us plough some of that money back into the airport and renovate it, renew it, do the things we have to do. Four years from now after those renovations have been made it still will be the Government of Canada operation working in partnership with terminal 3 which, by the way, is a private sector operation. That to me is a pretty good compromise.
Personally I would not have supported the privatization of terminal 3. Ideologically I do not support that thrust. However, there could be a compromise, a private sector operation in terminal 3 and Government of Canada in terminal 2. I do not think we can sustain terminal 1 the way it is right now. It is a mess.
The point is that is a good competitive synergistic approach. Let us be proud of the fact that five years from now when all of those renewals are done the cash flow coming from that airport can go into other projects in the national interest.
I say to members of the Bloc, the notion of a royal inquiry is only going to delay the process. We already know it is not a good deal, so why kill a dead cat? The Prime Minister announced that the deal is cancelled. Why take another year and a half, spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to find out what, that there were some Liberal lobbyists involved?
Well Liberal lobbyists were involved. Naturally some of my best friends are Liberal lobbyists. Do you think they did not try to lobby me to change my mind on the airport? That is their job, but it is up to us to either agree or challenge their lobby. What do you want to do? Is it going to be such a big deal?
The member from the Bloc mentioned some Liberal lobbyists so the Bloc wants to have a royal commission of inquiry into what happened. We are going to bring a bunch of Liberal lobbyists forward and they are going to say they lobbied the member for Broadview-Greenwood or other members. That is irrelevant. It is not important because we stopped the deal. We took a stand; the lobby did not work on us.
A public inquiry is not going to produce anything different from what the Auditor General's analysis will produce. The Auditor General is going to look at the disbursements the Minister of Transport will make in terms of settling this deal. He will analyse those things. Opposition members will analyse them. The press will analyse them. If there is a nickel's worth of taxpayers' money which has been spent inappropriately they are going to raise hell in this House which is fair ball.
I have to talk about my city for a minute. Toronto is going through a very difficult economic period with close to 600,000 people out of work. We want to put this file behind us so we can come back at it with a renewed thrust in order to get something going. As Mr. Nixon has recommended I believe that the airport is a good place to get some activity going, but we said not at any price. That is why we stopped the deal. It was tough to say no to that deal when there were so many jobs, but we just cannot give it away at any price.
It is important that we get this behind us so we can come at it with a renewed and fresh approach involving the Government of Canada. Once we get the renovation and renewal done on the whole Pearson operation, then let us hope that three to five years from now the cash flow that place throws off can help every other region of the country.
I encourage hon. members to please let us put this bill behind us so we can start with a fresh slate.
Canadian Film Development Corporation Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an agricultural analogy with him, but I do want to challenge the member. I do not want to challenge you, Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge the member on his commitment to tax reform.
I happen to agree with the member. I believe all members in the House agree that the current tax act is unfair, inefficient, complex and no longer globally competitive.
The Reform Party should have stuck to its campaign promise during the last election, which was basically to promote the notion of tax reform that would go a long way in generating the kind of entrepreneurial activity which would generate enough tax revenue for this country. This would not only reduce the deficit and ultimately pay down the debt but it would also provide enough money to make sure that galvanizing instruments like the CBC or the motion picture industry did not have to be touched.
I would say this, with great respect to the Reform Party, when are we going to start hearing about its commitment to tax reform that we heard about all during the last election?
Canadian Film Development Corporation Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about job creation. The CBC has been a training ground for thousands of Canadian men and women who have gone on to work in the private sector, whether it is radio or television or the motion picture industry. I happen to think there is a lot of the quality in CBC productions, for example, in a production like "The Journal". I am not talking about "Prime Time" but "The Journal".
The man behind "The Journal", Mark Starowicz, is probably respected as one of the geniuses in television public affairs programming right now in the world. This is a man who came through the system and that format is being copied by various units all over the world.
I guess my point is that we should not just measure the contribution of the CBC in terms of its ratings. We have to look at the CBC's macroeconomic contribution, the contribution of its training, the contribution of it holding the country together as an agent. I am not saying it is the only thing.
I have to speak about my riding for just a second. I have 5,700 people in my riding that are employed in the motion picture industry. We are exporting motion pictures right now. We are manufacturing American written productions. We are producing these major motion pictures because our cameramen, our set designers, our sound men and women are outstanding. All of these people are Canadians who have worked with the CBC film production operation.
This has expanded into the Toronto film festival which is respected now as one of the best in the world. I am appealing to the members of the Reform Party to not look at the CBC in narrow terms but to look at the contribution the motion picture industry makes in the macroeconomic sense.
Canadian Film Development Corporation Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I really do not know where to begin because I think we basically have an ideological difference. Nothing personal intended to the member, but I see it in just the opposite light. I see the CBC as an instrument of national unity. I know you do not. I know the member does not.
Canadian Film Development Corporation Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I did not want the remarks of the Reform Party member for Medicine Hat to go by without some mention.
As I mentioned, the hon. member for Medicine Hat talked about the fact that we subsidize the film industry in this country. The member has to be very careful about using the word subsidy because the energy sector in this country probably receives more subsidy than any other sector in the economy.
We do this through tax preferences buried in the tax act. The member stood in the House of Commons and talked about close to $2 billion in subsidies that go into culture related industry. He basically condemned that. He should know that the energy sector receives a lot more than that. The difference is it receives those subsidies buried in tax preferences and the tax act.
I feel very defensive when members stand in this House and take on the cultural industries because in my riding there are close to 5,800 people who work in the motion picture industry.
In the motion picture industry we do not just have actors and actresses. We have cameramen and women, craftsmen and women who do set designs, lens grinders and costume makers. In the last 10 years we have managed to build a world class motion picture industry.
We now have products that we are exporting all over the world. I think of "Degrassi Junior High" which was developed and produced here and is now being exported to over50 countries. It has been cancelled on the Canadian networks but this product is still being exported.
When we go to the 500 channel universe we will have an opportunity to manufacture all kinds of Canadian products. In addition, there are several motion picture producers that come to Canada now and have their motion pictures made in Canada.
The member gave the example of Buddies in Bad Times, a city of Toronto arts grant which I do not want to debate with him today. I do not think he should take one example like that and brandish the whole cultural industry in this country. It is not really fair. It is like taking the CBC and only looking at it for the work it does as a unit. You have to look at the CBC in the sense that it has been a training ground. Many people have left the CBC and gone on to work in the private sector. It has been an
apprenticeship centre which has created the tremendous inventory of talent that supports the motion picture industry.
I could also say to the member for Medicine Hat the CBC is one of the few galvanizing agents in this country. It is very sensitive to bringing together not only information and culture from every region of this country but providing service to remote regions which sometimes may not be seen as profitable for the private sector.
I am not putting down the private sector for not getting involved in unprofitable ventures in this country, but the responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to make sure that every region of this country is covered. We do not run the CBC like a business. It is not like a business. Whether it be the post office, the CBC, or Petro-Canada, if we dealt with them strictly on an earnings per share per quarter basis we would not have the type of service that these agencies of government have provided over the years. They really have been able to bring this country together.
With the 500-channel universe just around the corner from us, we have invested so much in training, in the motion picture industry, we now have a talent pool that is recognized as world class. More than ever as we come close to that period where we have the opportunity to fill that 500-channel universe with Canadian product, we should make sure we do not pull away from supporting the motion picture industry. If anything, I would encourage members of the House to urge the government to not only continue to support it, but to increase its support.