Debates of April 23rd, 2007

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to simply understand that this nation is more about taking our natural resources and handing them over to somebody else to get the value added jobs.

Whether it be softwood, oil, manufacturing through auto, aerospace and textile, there is something more in Canada than just shipping out our stuff for somebody else to do something with it. We can do it here. We have the people, the skills, the technology and the will. That is where the real jobs are. The prosperity gap will diminish if we have value added jobs.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has 10 minutes of which three minutes are today and seven minutes are in the bank for next time.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this bill, and since I only have three minutes, I am going to get to the point.

The government introduced a budget that is an orgy of spending, three times the rate of inflation. The government is sprinkling little goodies here and there with one purpose which obviously is to win the next election.

In a time of surplus, there are great opportunities. I am going to offer the government some ideas that I hope it will consider adopting to improve our country and our citizens' well-being dramatically.

I would propose that the government adopt my private member's bill on the Canadian low income supplement. It would give $2,000 to those Canadians who make less than $20,000 a year. That would put real money in the hands of the most underprivileged in our society.

The budget failed to deal with the real fiscal imbalance, and that is the imbalance between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. That was utterly ignored in the budget and was a huge blunder on the government's part.

The government has to decrease the lowest income tax rate on those who are the poorest.

The government has to increase investments in research and development and technology. When we were in government, Canada went from being 19th in the world in Rx and D to third in the world in research and development.

The government should introduce further tax credits, something called tax shifting. If we used tax shifting we would be able to shift the taxes in such a way that would convince Canadians and industry to use green technologies and thereby improve our environment.

The government needs to deal with the crisis in affordable housing. The way to do that is to use public-private partnerships. No single segment in society is going to be able to deal with this challenge that is coast to coast. P3s would work. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership and the federal government has a responsibility to act. So far it has failed.

The government needs to provide strategic investments in health care. Health care is truly the number one issue in the lives of Canadians and the government has failed to deal with this. It should open up a centre for best practices under the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

The government needs to exert a leadership role with other partners on a national workforce strategy for health care workers. As we are getting older, so too are caregivers. This is a massive crisis that will not be resolved overnight.

The government needs to do a better job of investing in local infrastructure. It should reduce the federal taxes on gas prices.

These and other solutions that my colleagues have would dramatically improve the welfare of Canadians. I hope the government does the right thing and listens to us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. When we return to the study of Bill C-52, there will be seven minutes left in his speaking time.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by paying my respects to Pauloosie Paniloo and his family and friends. He was a member of the Canadian Rangers, a former MLA and he died on Friday on routine patrol in Nunavut.

I was prompted to raise my question on the government's lack of a northern strategy on Friday, March 23 in the House and it had no answer. Since that time Canada's government has continued to demonstrate that it does not have a strategy for the north.

My questions were simple. The previous government demonstrated an understanding of the north that resulted in infrastructure, economic development and land claims. It is fair to say that the north prospers today because of the work of the previous administration in its dealings and investments with the first nations community and with northern governments.

The Prime Minister promised the north three new icebreakers and a northern port. For some reason they have disappeared from the government's budget documents, so let me ask again. When will the government deliver on its only promise to the north for icebreakers, search and rescue craft north of 60 and a northern port? The people of the north are still waiting for proof that the government will deliver.

Last summer there was a military exercise in the north. The Prime Minister was escaping from the AIDS conference in Toronto so he and the defence minister came north. As the Ottawa Citizen reported on March 19, the military report explained that the Prime Minister and defence minister disrupted the northern sovereignty operation by coming with only two days' notice and distracting the military personnel.

It is interesting to note that Operation Narwhal is currently under way. This exercise involves the military, law enforcement agencies and energy companies and is testing defence plans against a possible terrorist attack on Canada's northern oil and gas infrastructure. Maybe we could get an update on this exercise before the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister shows up again in the north for a tour and disrupts the exercise by diverting armed forces personnel away from the mission, much like what happened last summer during Operation Lancaster.

Planning for Operation Narwhal began in 2004 under the Liberal government, once again demonstrating an understanding of the north and a strategy working for its best interests.

Earlier this month armed forces personnel and northern rangers participated in an 8,000 kilometre patrol across Ellesmere Island. Perhaps this is the government's backup plan to the broken promises for icebreakers and a northern port to back up our sovereignty claims. The mission was successfully completed. I suggest that some northern history was etched out in a patrol of this magnitude. I congratulate the forces members and rangers.

We need to ensure that sovereignty patrols of this nature will be undertaken on a regular basis. Unfortunately there is no indication if that will be the case.

A meaningful report on a northern strategy in this House would address issues such as coastal and continental shelf mapping and sovereignty issues, such as where the United States is claiming oil and gas rich Canadian waters, something the government does not care to address. Why is that?

Furthermore, with many countries addressing concerns of global warming and meaningful follow-up for the International Polar Year, such as including new infrastructure and scientific research infrastructure that is so needed in northern Canada, one would think the government's northern strategy would address this issue, but that is not the case.

There are too many examples of a lack of action for the north. I wish the government would come forward with a northern strategy. I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary on this strategy.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in response to the question from the hon. member for Yukon.

From the outset, Canada's new government has recognized the importance of the north and its unique place in Canada. In fact, just last summer the right hon. Prime Minister identified three priorities for the north: to assert Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic; to work with our territorial partners to develop the region's natural resources to create jobs and prosperity for northerners and all Canadians; and to work with northern communities to raise their standard of living. We are working hard to advance these priorities.

Budget 2007 strengthened the territorial formula financing to reflect the special circumstances and higher costs in the north, providing an additional $115 million this year alone. Furthermore, the budget provided for $25 million per year to each territory to help build the modern infrastructure that is fundamental to the future of the north, and $23.2 million over seven years will go to Nunavut to strengthen financial management practices in that territory.

This is a good budget for the north and has been applauded by the northern premiers. Yukon Premier, Dennis Fentie, stated:

This budget gets us back to a principle based fiscal arrangement with the federal government, something for which we have been striving for some time now. That will be beneficial to us now and in the long term.

Northwest Territories Premier, Joe Handley, said, “That kind of increase is good news to us”.

The launch of International Polar Year on March 1 was another strong indication of our commitment to the north. Involving more than 60 countries and thousands of scientists, it is the largest ever international program of coordinated scientific research and observation focused on the polar regions. Canada is very proud to be taking a leadership role in this initiative.

Our new government is very pleased to commit $150 million toward a strong and innovative program in support of Canadian involvement and participation in this major international event. Forty-four research projects will benefit from this funding, projects that will focus on science for climate change impacts and adaptation and the health and well-being of northern communities.

The new knowledge that will be uncovered by Canadian and international scientists is expected to bring, not only benefits to Canadians in the north and across the country but economic and health benefits as well. A portion of this funding is also directed toward training and developing science and research relevant skills among northerners, particularly aboriginal youth, to build capacity in the north and to take on future challenges in northern research.

Dynamic northern science is indispensable to our commitment to extend national security to all our territories. International recognition of Canadian scientific expertise and leadership in Canada's sovereign north affirms the importance of the territories to Canada.

It is largely through resource development that we will be able to provide northerners with options for economic benefits, a basis for healthy, sustainable communities, and a broad set of resource based projects in the north, including diamond mining, oil and gas exploration and the proposed Mackenzie gas project, will contribute to increased economic growth over the next couple of years.

Canada's new government is determined to make tangible, practical progress in enabling stable, prosperous communities in the north and an improved standard of living for all northerners. Through the provisions of budget 2007, initiatives such as International Polar Year and our support of resource development projects, we are confident that we are making that progress.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for congratulating us on our initiatives: the O'Brien report, of course, made the recommendations on the formula financing for our infrastructure program which, after us pushing and pushing, is carrying on; and the Polar Year initiative that was announced by Anne McLellan.

I will give the parliamentary secretary one more chance to answer the questions. First, what about a northern strategy and, second, what about the promise for the north of the northern icebreakers and the northern port? Has the government completely dropped them and can we get on with other things or will it be pursuing these two initiatives, one of which it promised?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again I will state that the government is committed to the north and the sovereignty of the north, which is something that the previous government let go to the wayside for so many years with our military in a state of ill-repute and ill-repair due to its lack of funding. This is something the our government has taken head on.

However, we are very committed to improving opportunities for all northerners by ensuring that all governments have access to the resources they need to meet their responsibilities. Budget 2007 is a tangible demonstration of the government's understanding of the unique situation in the territories. Premier Okalik said:

The federal government is coming forward to assist us in building up capacity and systems in terms of financial management, and we appreciate that. We look forward to using it wisely....

However, another question needs to be asked today. I know the member opposite stated that he was happy we brought forward the O'Brien report and implemented it. I find it surprising that he did not vote for the budget then because this is something that he should have done. It was obviously good for his territory.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise a subsequent question in the House of Commons with regard to the government's fee bate policy introduced into the budget program.

I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary has shown up again to at least debate this issue. We see a big problem ahead with regard to the government's actual procurement plan. Frankly, it is puzzling how it was introduced. It was done without consultation and appropriate discussion, to the degree that it has caused a significant market shift and an intervention that has cost Canadians jobs.

The end result, and make no mistake about this, is that we will actually witness Canadian money going to international cities that are building vehicles to compete against Canadian auto workers, and that is unacceptable. I do not think Canadians who are listening tonight want to see their money going to Seoul, Beijing and to other places. What they want to see is their hard-earned tax dollars going into producing the types of conditions that win jobs for themselves.

The fee bate policy is so messed up that even domestic auto producers will examine disabling safety equipment to be eligible for this fee bate system. In my previous debate tonight I thought it was a different company, Volvo, but I retract that. It is actually Honda that has gone public and said that it will examine disabling safety equipment in order to be eligible for this fee bate system.

How have we come to the point where Honda will actually put a proposition in front of its engineers and its CEO and say that it will sacrifice Canadian safety to be eligible for the Conservative's $1,000 rebate policy? That is how attractive it is for Honda, while at the same time it is disturbing for Canadians.

Let us look at the impact and the money that will go to the companies in fee bates for this type of method. Toyota alone will get $47 million. Yaris will get $34 million and it does not produce one vehicle in Canada. How about Ford? It is estimated that Ford will lose $26 million, General Motors will lose $18 million and DaimlerChrysler will lose $10 million.

How is it that the government has concocted a policy on fee bates that will not even put the proper vehicles on the road?

I grant the government that it is early, it is only the first month, but sales of luxury SUVs are up over 15%. It will not get the type of result that we want which is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. There is other Canadian technology in there that we could actually have some investments and some solutions. It could be cylinder deactivation. For those who are not aware, that is when the engine reduces its capacity at different times which produces less greenhouse gas emissions. It can be just as efficient and effective in many other models. In fact, if it is in the high class vehicles that we have. In terms of weight, it is very effective.

I would say that the government has to put forth a full auto policy. It has the flip-flopping, floor-crossing minister, who was a Liberal and is now a Conservative, who promised an auto policy many times in this chamber and yet did not deliver. The Conservatives could stand up and walk down to him and ask him what happened to the auto policy. Maybe this it. Is this the actual Liberal plan? I do not know.

All I do know is that this is putting a damper on economic development. Specifically, General Motors has now put on hold its plant decisions in Canada. That is unacceptable. Canadians deserve better.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the concerns of the member for Windsor West about Canada's auto industry and the ongoing free trade negotiations with South Korea.

The member would have us believe that Canada's auto sector is on life support when the facts clearly show otherwise. Canada's auto industry assemblers and parts makers are some of the most successful and competitive in the world.

Our industry employs over half a million Canadians. Automakers have 12 major assembly plants with the 13th coming on line in 2008. They produced 2.5 million cars and light trucks in 2006, or about 16% of all North American production. In fact, in 2006, Ontario outperformed Michigan for the third year in a row as the highest automotive producing region in all of North America, all this while maintaining high quality standards.

That said, a global restructuring is taking place within the North American auto industry. The Detroit based assemblers are making some tough but necessary decisions to stay competitive, as we have all heard about recent events in the industry. Our concern is for the people impacted by these business decisions. Workers affected are eligible for assistance through the HRSDC programs in addition to their severance packages.

With some companies restructuring, other companies within Canada's auto sector are expanding and creating new jobs. Toyota is building a new $1.1 billion assembly plant in Woodstock, Ontario, which will come on line in the fall of 2008. Honda is investing $154 million in a new engine plant in Aliston, Ontario, which also will come on line in 2008.

Despite a difficult period for the Detroit based automakers, Canadian branch assembly plants are winning product mandates. The new Chevy Camaro will be proudly built in Oshawa. The new Dodge Challenger, DaimlerChrysler awarded to its Brampton, Ontario facility. In Oakville, Ford is building two new successful crossover vehicles, the Edge and the Lincoln MKX. I understand Ford is going to have another new model starting in the next year. Our Canadian automakers are renowned for their quality. These mandates reaffirm that a job well done will be rewarded.

Canada's new government will continue to work to ensure that our auto sector remains strong. The auto industry is vital to our economy, as are the spin-off industries associated with this sector. Our constructive measures in budget 2006 to reduce corporate and personal taxes make Canada an even better place for auto investment. Our strategic economic plan in Advantage Canada will create a better business environment for all industries.

Budget 2007, widely considered the best budget for Canadian manufacturers in decades, continues to reduce taxes, accelerates capital cost allowance writeoffs, cuts red tape, invests in modern infrastructure, and is geared to develop a skilled and educated workforce. Canada's new government is setting the stage for economic growth, innovation and opportunity.

As for the member's concern about the impact of a free trade agreement with South Korea, it is our contention that such an agreement will have a limited impact on Canada's auto sector, and the overall benefits outweigh the concerns. The implications of the proposed elimination of the tariff are relatively small when compared to the size of the automotive industry. With the tariff currently only being 6.1% and that would only be eliminated on roughly 8% of total Canadian vehicles sales, the impact is negligible. However, the proposed deal has the potential to deliver significant commercial benefits across a wide range of the Canadian economy, from agriculture to high tech services to investment.

Free trade agreements ensure that Canadian companies are competitive in key markets. The United States and other countries are aggressively negotiating free trade agreements, including with South Korea. Canada has a similar interest in actively negotiating improved market access for our products and services, including the auto industry.

There is no deal yet, but what I can tell the member for Windsor West is that this government will only agree to a free trade deal that delivers substantial benefit for Canada and all Canadians.

The member talked about the fee bates. I will get to that--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that government officials would actually prepare something. The question I asked was specifically on fee bates. I would be happy to spend the time that I have right now to talk about the South Korea deal as well.

The South Korea deal, quite frankly, is very alarming. The United States is going through vetting process. Its members will vote on the issue. There is growing opposition to this deal, be it from John Edwards, be it from the automakers on both the American side and the Canadian side. We are not going to have that same right in Canada.

The government has shut down studies. We have had to drag the studies out of it. They are half-measured, half-concocted, not sufficient, old and outdated studies. The government will not give us the chance to have a vote in this chamber about the way things are going.

I ask the member who is from Oshawa, is it his personal opinion that we should have a vote in this place on the Korea trade deal?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a little bit back and forth on things, but I would like to address our environmental policy to help encourage fuel efficient cars. I am very surprised that this NDP member would be against the government policy put forward to encourage the purchase and utilization of environmentally-friendly cars for all Canadians.

We have come forth with an ecoenergy program. As he said, I am from Oshawa and again, I am incredibly surprised that he would be against a policy that encourages technology from Oshawa, from Canada, cars like the Chevy Impala and Monte Carlo that have E85 technology developed right here.

He talked about fee bates. I think he needs to look at his own policy in the past and what the NDP is in favour of. Is the NDP not supportive of things like California standards? I remember debating in the House last year where the NDP was in support of a 25% reduction in fuel consumption that the industry said would bankrupt and would put--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight particularly since we are questioning the government on two matters in adjournment proceedings pertaining to the fact that the policy for the manufacturing industry, whether the automobile industry or any other sector, is woefully inadequate.

Let us remember that, on March 28, the Bloc Québécois pointed out to the government for the umpteenth time that significant numbers of businesses were closing their doors. Mr. Ken Georgetti, President of the Canadian Labour Congress had this to say about the statements by the Minister of the Environment: “I am astounded to hear the Minister of the Environment describing the hypothetical loss of 250,000 good-paying jobs in the manufacturing, forestry and processing sectors as a looming crisis. Because three weeks ago, the same number of jobs lost did not warrant any government concern”.

While the Minister of the Environment pronounces his apocalyptic forecast, in reality the apocalypse has already arrived, in the disappearance of manufacturing jobs across Canada.

There was a report by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on this subject but the government, typically, decided to retain only certain parts of the report. There are provisions for accelerated depreciation. That is interesting. However, when we compare them to what is available for the tar sands, they do not provide the same kind of benefits. We should also examine credits for businesses that do not make large profits—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Could I ask him to turn off the earpieces on his desk?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Done. I am sorry.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you. You may continue.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to go back to what I was saying, the government says that there is a policy for the manufacturing sector. That policy is based in part on the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. However, another important part of the report has not been put forward. It was recommended that tax credits be provided for workforce training so that workers can be ready for change in the company instead of having to take training when they lose their jobs. This is a proactive measure that would help us keep people employed.

The government could also make investment tax credits for research and development refundable. At present, especially in forestry and harder hit sectors, many companies are not earning huge profits but have managed to stand up to competition from emerging countries without too much government assistance. They have done so by eating into their profits, leaving themselves no flexibility for investment. If the government had accepted the recommendation to make investment tax credits refundable, these companies could position themselves in such a way that they could compete much better.

What can I say about the government's hesitation concerning older workers? Globalization can be good in some ways. It keeps the economy running. However, we have to accept that there will be losers, who are often older workers who cannot find new jobs. The evidence is irrefutable: every time a business closes, 20% of the employees cannot find other jobs.

The government has been going from committee to committee for a year and a half. The latest committee it set up was the Expert Panel on Older Workers. Apparently, they are waiting for opinions from various people. The panel has been asked to observe the situation on the ground, but it has refused to do so. I think that there is very little understanding of the reality on the ground for these sectors in terms of the manufacturing workforce. People think that Canada's overall economy is doing well, so they do not understand how some sectors can be experiencing difficulty.

The parliamentary secretary knows this. He participated in the debates with us. When will the government move forward with real action for the manufacturing sector in addition to the partial measures it picked from the report? I know and they know that these measures will not address the crisis, because there really is a crisis, which the ministers refused to recognize when they met with the president of the CLC.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for participating in the industry committee report. As he stated, it was a wonderful report. The Minister of Finance actually took the majority of the recommendations and put them into the budget. I would request that he take a look at the budget a little more carefully because we are incredibly concerned about plant closures. I believe it was Perrin Beatty who said that this is the best budget for Canadian manufacturers in recent history.

Canadians elected their new government just over a year ago. At that time, we knew there were manufacturers across Canada facing serious challenges: high energy prices, an aging workforce, a high Canadian dollar relative to the U.S., and an economic slowdown for some of our major trading partners. Our government was not content to sit back and watch one of Canada's oldest and most important industrial sectors, one that employs over two million Canadians, disappear.

As my colleague heard through our month-long manufacturing study in committee, for manufacturers to succeed they need to increasingly rely upon their knowledge advantage. They need to be innovators. They have to be able to compete in a global economy. To be successful they have to operate in an environment that promotes innovation and investment.

They need access to a knowledgeable and highly skilled labour force. That is why when Canada's new government brought forth our first budget, we introduced 29 tax cuts in budget 2006. We eliminated capital tax. We reduced corporate and small business tax rates and we eliminated the corporate surtax. Then, last November, we announced our plan to rebuild a strong economy by creating the right conditions for Canadians and Canadian businesses to thrive. “Advantage Canada” is a strategic, long term economic plan to improve Canada's economic prosperity, both today and in the future, a plan to build an economy that will benefit manufacturers.

Our plan focuses on five key advantages that will help Canada compete globally: a tax advantage that will continue to reduce taxes for all Canadians and establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7; a fiscal advantage that will eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation; an entrepreneurial advantage that will reduce unnecessary regulation and lower taxes to unlock business investment; a knowledge advantage designed to create the world's best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce; and an infrastructure advantage that invests in modern, world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services across the country and across our borders.

In budget 2007, we delivered directly to the needs of Canadian manufacturers.

The government introduced tax measures, including a temporary change to the capital cost allowance that will encourage manufacturers to invest and be more productive.

The government is working to identify opportunities to improve the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program.

The government will put in place the programs and initiatives needed to ensure that we have the best educated, most highly skilled workforce.

The government committed to reducing the paper burden in businesses and streamlining regulations.

The government invested in the infrastructure to make Canada a North American hub for manufacturing.

We committed to aligning research investments with the real-world challenges of commercialization.

Canada's new government is providing businesses and manufacturers with the right conditions to compete with the rest of the world. Canadian manufacturers are adapting to the global marketplace and they will succeed. They are confident that the government will be there for them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers who have lost their jobs and then found another usually find that they are earning 25% less, or about $10,000 less per person. That means $2.5 billion less in our economy per year.

Manufacturing sector jobs are being transformed into warehousing sector jobs. As a result, there are fewer economic spinoffs for our regional economies. Up to this point, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has given an excellent report. However, the government has not done everything it must do. It took some of the committee recommendations that had a fiscal impact, but it did not do everything that was recommended. The committee's recommendations on accelerated capital cost allowance were much broader than what the government included in the budget. In conclusion, can we look forward to a real action plan—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking action when the previous Liberal government, for 13 years, did nothing.

The government recognizes that Canada's manufacturing sector faces challenges. Since we have taken office, we have not let manufacturers tackle those challenges alone. The new Government of Canada listened to manufacturers and we acted.

Our strategic economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, goes to the heart of addressing manufacturers' concerns. We introduced budget 2007, which I believe is the most manufacturing-friendly budget ever produced. Budget 2007 not only responds to the key tax concerns of manufacturers, it also invests in innovation, infrastructure and new technology. It lays the foundation for streamlining regulations by ensuring that we have the best educated, highest skilled and most flexible workforce.

Our latest announcement, the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, shows our commitment to promote excellence in the industrial sector. We will continue to work with the manufacturing sector. We will continue to deliver and we will continue to act when the previous government did none of that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)