Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for accepting to appear before this committee again one and a half weeks following the tabling of the budget. You could have had the option of saying that we never listened to you well enough the first time, that you had done your job, and that you were tired of repeating the same message to people who were not listening. But instead, you decided to come back and continue trying to convince us.
I'd like to digress briefly. For us, direct assistance is not necessarily synonymous with subsidies. There are forms of direct assistance, such as Technology Partnerships Canada, among others. The debate is not about that.
If the government does not react to the additional demands being made, what type of impact will this have in the future? In a news release issued yesterday, the Bank of Canada stated, and I quote:
At the same time, there are clear signs that the U.S. economy is likely to experience a deeper and more prolonged slowdown than had been projected in January [...] These developments suggest that important downside risks to Canada's economic outlook that were identified in the NPRU are materializing and, in some respects, intensifying.
These are the words of the same people who, three or four months ago, were saying that there was no problem. This shows me that a catastrophe is in the making if the government does not do its utmost. I believe that we should have invested a portion of this year's surplus, among other measures. Please tell us if you have anything to add with respect to this issue.
On the other hand, what will the consequences be if we do not have a more robust and aggressive action plan to assist the manufacturing and forestry sectors?