Nelson Riis

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

My friend the Minister of National Revenue indicates that the important people are here to listen. I know he listens to every word I say.

Let me get back to my theme. The original thought was that the RCMP should be brought in to charge the government with theft and take it to court because of the dipping it has been doing into the EI fund and the federal pension fund.

The second theme was that a lot of people had to wait because this budget was not going to do much for them. I am thinking particularly of those people who are looking for work, people who operate a farm, people who are in the ranching sector, the forestry sector, the mining sector and the fishery. Anything to do with primary resources is pretty light in this budget.

Restoring the funding for health care was not there. It was a bit of a shell game. The promise for health care, home care, pharmacare, none of the cares was represented in the budget. This was very sad for many people.

There were some selective tax breaks and I want to focus on them at the moment. Those tax breaks were intended to provide an incentive for certain people to do things. We have identified that some people need to be bribed into activity. They tend to be wealthy people. It is said that if we can bribe wealthy people or industrialists into doing things, this will eventually benefit the other folks. These are fancy words for an old-fashioned term called trickle down economics.

I know my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is well studied in trickle down economics. He graduated from that university. He knows trickle down economics probably better than most people I have ever met. It is like Peter Pan; if we believe we can fly, we will eventually fly. If we believe things are going to pick up, they will eventually pick up or trickle down better yet. If we feed a bit at the front, eventually the benefits trickle down to normal Canadians.

I want to say uncategorically here and now that Canadians are sick and tired of being trickled on for years and years and years. The trickling has to stop. We are almost drowning. The trickle down theme seems to have been introduced into this budget.

I have to identify two or three of the more general things that were missed. I would be remiss not to quote from two or three people about the budget. For example, the Canadian Federation of Students said that tuition fees continue to rise while the quality of education continues to erode.

The Minister of Finance on many occasions has talked about the importance of education and training for the future. As we approach the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, there is no question that education and training are crucial if we are going to have success in terms of economic growth and prosperity.

What was in this budget that would lend itself to support education? Was there a break on tuition fees? No. Was there some significant support for universities across the country? No. Was there any support at all for persons who are graduating from our post-secondary educational institutions with huge debt loads? No there was not.

What are we talking about here? What is going on? We need to have more support from the federal government for education across the country and we did not get it. That is what is so frustrating. I suspect people listening to this will reflect that frustration. I know students certainly do.

I challenge my friend the parliamentary secretary and I hope he will respond to this. Why not as a government be bold and say “We believe in education. We believe in a quality education. More important, we believe in access to quality education. We can take care of improving the quality but we have to do something about access. What can we do as the federal government?”

We can do what many other countries have done and abolish tuition fees from our colleges, universities, technical schools and vocational schools from coast to coast to coast. Wipe out tuition fees. My friend implies that this is some kind of a pie in the sky thought. Most countries did this years ago.

As a matter of fact the CEGEPs across the river in Quebec do not charge tuition fees. Everywhere else in Canada certainly does: $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 just for tuition fees, let alone the cost of books and laboratory supplies. As well the students have to stay alive; they have to borrow money to simply live.

Why does the federal government not say that it will wipe out tuition fees from coast to coast? How much would that cost? We have the money. It would cost the federal government about $3 billion. There is a $3 billion slush fund. It is called a contingency fund for special occasions. What better signal could the government send? What better suggestion could it make? What better leadership could be provided by the Minister of Finance and the government than eliminating tuition fees for everyone across Canada who wants to improve his or her education?

A cheer would go up across the country if they were to say that. Who would say it was a rotten idea? Most OECD countries have done it years and years ago.

Let us be bold. Let us get out there and say we will do something completely different. However, what would we do? We all find frustrating at this time of the year filling out tax returns, those who can do it. Many people have to hire accountants or take them down to the little shops along the road for someone else to fill them out. We need tax reform, and it is time the Minister of Finance informs us of that.

In closing, a number of phenomenal forces are at work in the country that we must address. We did not address them in this budget but let us do it in the next one. We must come to grips with the forces of globalization and rapid technological change. Technology will change. I am thinking of the impact of electronic commerce on the way people work and the way business is conducted. There is also the tremendous changing demography of our country, the aging population, the major move into self-employment in terms of lifestyle for people, and the whole increasing urbanization phenomenon. The federal government has to provide leadership on these issues.

Unfortunately there is a growing gap between those who have and those who have not. On a local scale, a regional scale, a provincial scale, a national scale and a global scale, the gap between those who have and those who have not is increasing.

We are at a crossroads as we enter the 21st century. While this past budget was a bit of a disappointment, to say the least, let us look forward to a better and more timely budget in the year 2000.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is depressing when one is up giving a speech and there is nobody here to give it to, but now people are here and it is much more encouraging. I realize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here and I know he represents a large cadre of other folks. Perhaps we can say one represents a group.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I accept that admonishment, which is probably well placed. I was going to blame an individual, but I suppose we have to blame the collective government or the collective cabinet and so on.

The truth is that over the last number of years while we have heard people applaud the government for balancing its budget and reducing the deficit, I think it is fair to say that part of that has been on the backs of the people who do not have a job, who are expecting some employment insurance benefits to come their way because they have lost their job, but in fact they do not qualify.

The worst case scenario concerns the young people of Canada. In the last 48 hours we have been told that only 15% of young people who lose their jobs actually qualify for employment insurance. The people who have been paying into the system do not qualify. So 85% of young people who lose their jobs are SOL. They are out of luck. They do not collect any benefits.

I say this is theft. I am not going to say that an individual should be charged. We cannot put the whole government in jail, so we have to assume that there is one person who has to take the hit, and we can speculate on who the most appropriate person ought to be. That is one example.

As we speak today to this budget implementation bill there is another debate going on in one of the committee meetings around the pension system for all of the public employees. Again the government is dipping into that particular pot to the tune of grabbing $30 billion out of the retirement fund of federal employees, members of the RCMP and members of Canada's armed forces. Now the minister is dipping into that to use the money for various purposes in terms of the federal treasury.

On this side of the House we have to shake our heads with a combination of disgust and perplexity. What on earth would a government be doing dipping into a surplus in the EI fund of $25.9 billion and $30 billion in the pension fund?

The government tries to give the impression that somehow it has done magical things and balanced the budget. Of course if we take money from other people we can balance the budget. I suspect, on a personal basis, that if we held up a bunch of people on Sparks Street this afternoon and took all of their money, we could say that we balanced our budgets as well. We could pay off our credit cards and our mortgages through robbery because we held up people and stole their money.

I suspect that people might be thinking this sounds far-fetched, but it is the truth. Whether this is technically theft I do not know. I suppose lawyers could argue this for some weeks. However, it seems to me, as an average citizen, that when we dip into places where we should not be dipping and take money that we are not supposed to be taking, that is a form of theft. That is the one point I want to start off with. This tells us a bit about where the government seems to be going.

I think it is fair to say that the last budget was sort of a wait and see budget for most folks. The millionaires in Canada do not have to wait and see. They got a nice tax break. I calculate that for one million dollars they would save about $8,000 in income tax. That is not much for a millionaire, but $8,000 is $8,000. They could go out and put a down payment on a nice car or something. However, did mothers or fathers who are raising children on social assistance get anything in this budget in terms of tax breaks? No, there was nothing for them.

We have a government that says it should give a tax break to a multimillionaire, but it should not give a tax break to mothers and fathers who are raising children on social assistance. There is something wrong with this picture.

I could go on to talk about a number of points. Let me make my case and I will tell members in a second where I am taking them. There is a very clear school of economics at work. First, should those people on waiting lists in our hospitals and those waiting for a major increase in support for hospital care across the country be cheerleading this budget? The short answer is no.

The government says it is going to restore funding to health care. To my Liberal funds opposite I say that is true. After a number of years it hopes it will have restored the level of funding to health care up to where it was in 1995. We are almost at the year 2000. It is saying that if we wait a bit longer the funds will eventually be up to 1995 levels. Is it a real commitment to health care and medicare that we have seen over the last number of years? The answer is clearly no. This is a bit of a shell game. The impression is that the federal government is playing its role once again, when in fact it is not. It is playing a very minor role.

What about all those Canadians who are looking for work? Did they see initiatives in this budget that will give them some encouragement? Again, I regrettably have to say that the answer is, by and large, no. Is there anything in this budget that will give some hope that the future is going to be better for those who are suffering hard economic times in the forestry sector, the fisheries, agriculture, mining; the resource sectors that essentially built this country? Regretfully, the answer is no. There is nothing in this budget to give those folks hope.

What about the homeless people? What about the people who are struggling to get their family into a decent home? We all appreciate the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people today who cannot afford decent accommodation. A lot of young people who are starting out in their careers cannot afford to buy a house, a condominium, a townhouse or anything. They have to rent because they simply cannot afford it. The housing market is priced out of their limits.

In the past we have seen federal governments, and I will give them full credit, say they would do something about the housing crisis. They did. Those governments introduced various programs and made various tax changes to encourage more rental accommodation, more co-operative housing and a whole number of programs that would enable ordinary working men and women to get into a decent house. Was there anything mentioned in this budget to assist those needing a home? No, to say nothing about the tens of thousands of people who are sleeping on the streets of our cities. If they are homeless or seeking better accommodation, or accommodation period, there is nothing.

I will not even talk about first nations accommodations. If there is a national embarrassment globally it has to be the fact that so many of our first nations people are living in absolute poverty and in absolutely disgraceful conditions. Again, did this budget do anything to assist those individuals in any real way? The answer unfortunately is no. Let us go on.

If there is one thing that unifies Canadians from coast to coast to coast of all ages, all cultures, all backgrounds, all economic strata, it is the concern about the environment. We listened carefully when the Minister of Finance delivered the budget as to what was in it that was going to give some hope to those people concerned about the future environment of Canada. Again there was nothing in this budget. We are supposed to be fulfilling the Kyoto protocol. We have a whole set of programs.

Hold it, I have to be fair to the Minister of Finance. There was something. He was going to give to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities $1.2 million over three years to study ways to conserve energy. Where the hell have we been for the last 10 years? We could go down to the parliamentary library in the next 20 minutes and probably get 50 publications on how to save energy and energy costs. It is not as though we need to find new solutions. We have all kinds of solutions.

As a matter of fact I remember a vote in the House not long ago where we all voted in favour by and large of an energy retrofit for all federal buildings to make them more energy cost effective. It makes sense to change the way we insulate our federal buildings, to change the way we heat and cool them. In other words, we should become a leader in the community in terms of making public buildings more energy efficient.

It is not as though we do not know what to do. We need some cash or we need some incentive. We need some direction and some leadership. All the Minister of Finance could say was “Let us study this for another three years” with the assumption that after that presumably we will see some action. The environmental issues were abandoned in this budget. Let us go on. I do not want to go on too long because it gets very depressing.

I think all Canadians were listening carefully in the last election. I know I certainly was. I know my constituents were wondering whether they should support me because the Liberals were saying “Elect Liberals and we are going to introduce a national home care policy. Not only that, we are going to introduce a national pharmacare policy, plus a national child care policy.”

A lot of my constituents looked at me and said “The Liberals are promising home care, child care and pharmacare. You are a member of the New Democratic Party, you are probably not going to form the government”. I was hopeful, but they are very pragmatic electors. They said “Why should we support you?” I said “You know something, I like my Liberal counterpart, a nice person, but I do not think he knows what he is talking about. I do not think the government will deliver on home care, child care and pharmacare”.

Just as in the last election they said they were going to deliver on eliminating the GST. Remember that? “We will eliminate the GST if you elect Liberals”. The Liberals were elected and they did not do it. It was very disappointing. I said “When you get to the home care, pharmacare and child care, do not hold your breath. You are going to blow up if you do because it will not happen”.

We are now two years into the new mandate and again we listen carefully.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to stand in the House today to make a few comments regarding the budget implementation bill. Budget implementation bills tell us a great deal about a government's priorities. They tell us about a certain value system that is reflected in the government and in its budget.

I will try to categorize my view of this budget and the government. I will use two or three examples to start with. Perhaps what we should be doing today is debating whether or not the Minister of Finance should be arrested and charged with theft. I think it is commonly assumed that the Minister of Finance has stolen billions of dollars from the EI fund in order to balance his budget. I think that is fairly—

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see there are many others who want to speak to this important piece of legislation.

I want to congratulate my friend from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for introducing Bill C-454, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.

I need to say thank you to constituents Yvonne and Jim Hillsden of Cherry Creek who brought this issue to my attention some time ago. They are proud to be one of the three major British Columbia breeders of the Canadian horse. They brought this issue to national attention. They have urged me to support this bill and I will do so with a great deal of enthusiasm. I would like to see that this very important national symbol is recognized.

As others have said, this whole issue began back in 1647 when a horse was brought over from France as a gift for the governor of the day. It was considered unfitting for a knight to be without a horse and to have to walk through the mud or ride in an ox cart like the other people had to do. This horse was the first modern horse to gallop along on Canadian soil.

Not long after that there were imports of other horses from France. It is fair to say that the breed itself is recognized as coming from King Louis XIV and is a combination of Spanish Barb horses, Andalusion horses, French Norman horses and horses with Breton blood in them. It is a very interesting breed.

Many of us have seen this horse perhaps for the first time in the artwork of Cornelius Krieghoff which depicts scenes from the province of Quebec. For many years we saw through his work these small horses working the land, carrying children to school, sick people to doctors, pulling cutters and carriages. Off and on they provided entertainment in the form of racing on lakes at night after the gruelling work was completed. It was such gruelling work that there was an attempt to ban the racing because of the danger to the horses but the spirit continued and the racing went on.

These little horses had a number of nicknames. One was the little iron horse. It had that name because it was a relatively small horse but it was a tough horse. It existed in that time in new Canada on very poor quality food, out in the cold with minimal shelter and did very hard work.

The long and the short of it was that only the very strongest of these animals survived. A very hardy breed resulted here in Canada. It went on to be one of the founding breeds of a number of the horses that are very familiar to us today in various parts of the United States and other parts of the world. I am speaking of the Tennessee Walking Horse, the Saddlebred horse and of course the Morgan horse. To this day when viewing the Morgan one can see that little iron horse from Canada standing there in a slightly different form.

It also went on to have other nicknames. The most recent one is that it is called Canada's best kept secret because until fairly recently it was focused only in one part of Canada. Only in recent years have vast numbers of Canadians become aware of this wonderful horse and to appreciate what its contribution to the modern world of horses could be.

We are fortunate because it almost became extinct. It was very popular in Canada particularly during the American civil war. Its hardiness, sturdiness and ability to work hard was appreciated. Thousands were sent to the United States to take part in that dastardly civil war. We came very close to losing this breed. At one point there were only a few hundred left. I am pleased to say that as a result of breeders taking on this challenge right across Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec, today we are talking of at least a few thousand horses of this Canadian breed.

I could speak a great deal about this horse. It is an incredibly friendly animal. Its primary purpose today would be to pull carriages and that sort of thing. It is also a great working horse. I have seen the horse in action. Any horse owner would be very proud to have one. I hope one day to own one of these horses myself on my own farm. I look forward to that day. It is not there yet but it is the kind of horse I would like to see as part of my operation.

The New Democrats will support this bill. We support it with a great deal of enthusiasm. This is an excellent initiative being brought forward by my colleague.

The United States does not have a national horse. I do not think Britain has a national horse. Obviously Peru has one. We see more and more Peruvian horses in Canada. Mexico has its own national horse. I think it is time that Canada too had its national horse and it should be the Canadian horse.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this important piece of legislation, Bill C-68. There are many aspects of this bill that are a major step forward in dealing with people who run afoul of the law.

I listened with interest to my friend from the Reform Party. I must say I agree with him on one point. Actually, I agree with him on many points. He said that young people age 16 and 17 are very mature people.

I have visited possibly hundreds of schools over the last number of years and have talked to young people age 16 and 17. I am convinced that in most cases they are as mature and knowledgeable about issues as most of their parents. Let us face it. There are some goofy young people, but there are also some goofy older people; people who do not think too much about things, or who are a little emotional or a little bit off the wall or whatever. We could find them in a classroom as well. On balance, when it comes to making mature decisions, when it comes to taking life seriously, the world seriously, their studies seriously, their arts, sports or whatever seriously, 16 and 17 year old young people are adult minded.

It brings to mind a discussion we have had many times about what is the appropriate age for voting. It is fair to say that at the moment somebody somewhere decided people have to be 18 to cast an intelligent ballot in Canada. I see my friend from Toronto and I know he would agree that most of us in the House believe that most young people who are age 16 and 17, given an opportunity to take federal or provincial politics seriously and vote in an election, would in fact do that.

As a matter of fact the record shows in those countries where people are able to vote at age 16 or 17 the participation rate is higher than that of their parents. The evidence is clear that when we expect young people to act as adults, they inevitably do; when we expect children to act like children, they do.

My wife and I raised to boys. I remember when they were at that age of 16 or 17. At times we expected them probably not to behave very maturely and they never let us down. They never did. They always behaved immaturely. But at those times when we expected them to do what was expected of young men, when we asked them to act responsibly and behave responsibly, I can say they never ever let us down.

What do we say to young people today when we say, “Yes, you can get married and raise a family. You can drive a vehicle. You can drive trucks, muscle cars or whatever on our highways. You can join our armed forces and serve overseas. You can work in the workplace and be recognized to receive employment insurance”. In other words, all sorts of things trigger off at age 16. But there is one thing they cannot do in our country and that is they cannot vote. What kind of a signal does that send to young people? Obviously the signal it sends is we do not have faith in their wisdom to cast an intelligent ballot.

A person who is incarcerated in jail can vote. A person who is mentally challenged and over the age of 18 can vote. But young people who are interested in politics, who are well versed in government issues, who have watched the issues and are concerned about their country and are age 16 or 17, we say to them, “Sorry. You can participate in political parties. You can decide who the leader of your party should be. You can work in campaigns. But you cannot vote”.

There seems to be a real problem here. As we look over Bill C-68 and ask ourselves whether or not young people who are 16 or 17 years old should be considered adults when it comes to accepting responsibility for their misdeeds, we ought to also consider whether these young people age 16 and 17 should be participating in the electoral process to decide on what the future of their country should be.

I realize this is a bit of a stretch in the discussion in terms of Bill C-68 but there is some connection. We are talking about the role of 16 year olds and 17 year olds in terms of accepting responsibility.

My friend in the Reform Party made a very eloquent case. He said that in his judgment young people age 16 and 17 who are in the workplace, and in that case the workplace was the selling of cocaine, certainly know the implications of their behaviour, and so it is part of the critical discussion. Let us face it. I agree with most of the provisions of this legislation. It is a major step forward in dealing with young people in a thoughtful and professional way. It is a more appropriate way than we have seen in the past.

There is one major fault which I should speak about before I go on any further. This debate gets us around the real causes of youth crime. If there is a fundamental cause of youth crime, it is poverty and the fact that people are not able to get the things they think are appropriate. They cannot afford them.

If we talked to most people incarcerated in Canadian jails, who are youthful, not necessarily 16 or 17 years old, but youthful, and we trace back their origins as young people, I would be surprised if most did not come from a life of poverty, but not all. That does not mean that poverty results in crime. I just say there is a correlation that we ought not to ignore.

What are the fundamental causes of crime? What are the fundamental causes of young people misbehaving? That is what this legislation fails to address.

I must say I support most clauses. The bill opens up the discussion in terms of what is appropriate for young people age 16 and 17. If we are saying that people age 16 and 17 ought to be held responsible for their behaviour, surely in legislation coming next we should say that young people age 16 and 17 should have the opportunity to vote in future Canadian elections.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think we could convince our colleagues across the way to do this today. It seems to me to be a very thoughtful proposal.

Perhaps another avenue would be to strike a special task force of members of parliament from the various political parties and bring in the various standing committees on industry, finance and others, as she suggested, to work among ourselves toward the development of a program.

Yes, I think that is possible. I hope as this debate concludes that we all agree to make this a votable motion so that we can support it 100%.

My hon. friend mentioned the letters the Minister of Industry wrote to various people in the shipbuilding industry, saying that if he became minister or the Liberals formed the government they would do something about the shipbuilding industry. People misunderstood that to mean that something would be done to improve it, as opposed to something which would make it more difficult to survive. Perhaps we need to read those letters a bit more carefully and recognize that the minister was saying they did not plan to do much.

The time is right. We all agree that it is time to move forward. I suspect that my hon. friends opposite will be anxious to make this motion votable so that we can do something positive for the country.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

My friend says that we have one. We have strategies on everything. However, I do not think anybody knows what this one is. That is the problem. I do not think we could articulate it. I do not think we could sit down and say “This is what our strategy is”.

Let me rephrase that. I do not think we would find a single Canadian who is concerned about the Canadian shipbuilding industry, or certainly knowledgeable about that sector, who would say that we should not at this point bring together the appropriate stakeholders to develop a national strategy which is flexible and includes all of the players, including, as my friend suggested, the various unions. They have indicated a willingness to be flexible even beyond where they have already gone and to do it just seems natural.

I would ask my Liberal friends opposite: Would anybody suggest that we should not do that? I do not think anybody at this time would say that everything is okay. In fact I have not heard people identify many groups in the country which would suggest that we have a shipbuilding policy in place, and certainly one that makes sense.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first, my hon. friend notes that the New Democrats are agreeing with the Progressive Conservatives on this motion. I suspect that probably everybody in the House basically agrees with the motion. However, because of the nature of our parliamentary system, the government has to be somewhat more hesitant to agree and opposition parties more enthusiastic, but that does not occur on all motions.

I also think it is fair to say that as a classic Progressive Conservative and as a classic social democratic we probably find more in common than we find in difference, unlike our Liberal friends across the way. Quite frankly, I do not know what a Liberal is, but I will simply say that it is not a Conservative or a social democratic and whatever is left over can be Liberal, depending on the nature of the times.

Yes, I agree with my friends. I would challenge my Liberal colleagues opposite to identify anybody who would suggest we should not have a shipbuilding strategy for our country.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

I am not talking about a five year plan, I am talking about any kind of plan. I would be happy to have some kind of commitment, some kind of plan so that those shipyards would know they are guaranteed this, this and this order in perpetuity and we could then build on top of that with some other supports in place.

If we look at what other countries do, they offer loan guarantees, long term amortization and so on. In other words, there are actual things that we could do to make these shipyards economically and financially viable into the future. That is what we are calling on the government to do, or at least to consider and be open to this.

We have the Jones Act in the United States. I suspect the Jones Act contravenes every free trade concept that exists. If one wants to move material from port to port in the United States, one has to have a ship that is built in the United States with employees from the United States. We understand why it does that. It is good economic policy from the American's point of view. It is certainly not part of any free trade, free market mentality. It is good regional politics and good national economic development. We do not do that. Again, we are the boy scouts of the world. We let the Americans get away with it.

I suspect that most of us have at one time or another toured a shipyard on the coast or in other areas, large and small. I think it is fair to say that Canadian shipbuilders are probably the most creative, productive and efficient in the world. We do not take a second place to anyone. We can compete with anyone as long as we have a level playing field in which to compete. I think the point being made today is that we do not have that. If we had that, we would do exceptionally well. We need a level playing field for our shipbuilding sector.

Recognizing that employment in this industry has plummeted from 12,000 employees in 1990 to less than 5,000 last year represents where the issue is. It is very clearly a declining industry at a time when international trade is expanding, where the need for ships is increasing and where a whole variety of new technology in shipping is becoming more relevant by the day.

Canada and Canadians should be playing a role in the development of this technology and playing a significant leadership role in the development of these new shipping opportunities, but we do not. One of the reasons we do not is because the government of the day, for some mysterious reason that escapes me, is simply unprepared to sit down and draft a long term strategy, a long term plan for this sector.

I know this may sound boring. I have said long term plan about 20 times in my short speech. However, can we have a successful life if we do not plan it? Can we run a successful organization if we do not have any plan? Can we run a successful business if we do not have a business plan? The answer is always no. However, for some reason we believe that we can have a shipbuilding industry without any national plan to it. It is some sort of magic that we just play by ear day each day. Obviously that will not work.

I could say a great deal more about this, but I will simply compliment a number of the comments made by others earlier. People have laid out the case that we need to have a strategy. It makes sense for a trading nation like Canada to have one.

I say, with some regret, that when we look for leadership on the government benches and to the Minister of Finance, who is certainly well known in the shipping business where he does his shipbuilding and where he gets crews for his ships and so on, they do not really provide the kind of leadership that is encouraging to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that I hope today's debate at least advances the issue and takes it forward another step. Maybe one day soon we will hear an announcement by the Minister of Industry saying that the government plans to bring the stakeholders together to develop, once and for all, a comprehensive, dynamic, national strategy for Canada's shipbuilding sector.