It's interesting that in your question you've mentioned marketing with respect to the border. In terms of forestry, the other thing you asked about, all budget 2008 does for that industry is introduce $10 million of funds to promote Canadian forestry abroad. I'd have to put that in the column of national challenges that this budget doesn't address.
Certainly one of the ways to address it is through targeted tax measures. We'd like to see an enhancement and improvement of the research and development tax credit. I've talked in previous sessions of this committee about the possibility of an investment tax credit for manufacturing, which would certainly include forestry through sawmills, pulp mills, and all the aspects of it that are part of manufacturing. Indeed, Mr. Trahan spoke about that proposal again today.
In terms of the accelerated capital cost allowance, I think that was an example of a measure that actually was tied to real investment in the Canadian economy. It's interesting to note that the budget extends it only at a reduced rate. When you add the measure extended in the 2008 budget with the original accelerated capital cost allowance from the 2007 budget, the total value of those measures is about one-twentieth of the value of the “no strings attached” corporate income tax reductions. A lot more needs to be done in terms of these targeted supports that are tangibly connected to actual investment in the Canadian economy.
An interesting comparison to note is that the 50% capital cost allowance for manufacturing, which is now being extended on a declining basis, can be viewed alongside the accelerated capital cost allowance for the Alberta oil sands, which will continue at a 100% rate until 2010. Again, going back to Mr. Mulcair's question, it illustrates where the government's priorities seem to lie.