Debates of March 4th, 2008

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we do not use proper names, just riding or titles.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2008 will also make the gas tax a permanent measure to help municipalities finance their long term infrastructure needs. Oshawa is receiving approximately $11 million and with this measure, the residents of Oshawa are now assured that money will flow directly to the city.

These are just some examples of our Conservative government delivering for Oshawa residents. This is a breath of fresh air for my constituents who have gotten so used to being ignored by previous Liberal governments.

Unlike the Liberals, we believe Canadians pay too much tax. We understand that high taxes are not good for families, businesses or the long term national interest. That is why, through budget 2008 and previous budgets, we are delivering historic tax relief that will leave more money in Canadians' pockets.

We also do not want to saddle future generations, our own children, with debt. We have already reduced Canada's debt by over $37 billion to bring the national debt to its lowest level in 25 years. Canadian taxpayers have paid for Liberal inaction with scandals and boondoggles, and I know the people of Oshawa will not go back to that.

In conclusion, budget 2008 is balanced, focused and prudent, and it delivers for all Canadians, including my constituents of Oshawa.

I want to especially thank the Liberal Party for supporting the Conservative government's third balance budget. Its support proves that it believes that this is a Conservative government that is best equipped to lead Canada through these uncertain times. I thank the Liberal Party for allowing this budget to go through.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for every dollar in the budget that is spent on social services or for people in Canada we see $6 in corporate giveaways in the form of corporate tax cuts or subsidies. The priority is obviously wrong.

I heard a lot of discussion about infrastructure needs, for example, just a few minutes ago. I notice that for the city of Toronto there is hardly any funding in the budget for roads and highways, to fix the potholes or to deal with city transit initiatives, to build the subways and buy the new buses that are desperately needed, as they are in different cities. There is really no national transit strategy at all.

There is hardly any funding for seniors or for health care and hiring more doctors to take care of people in need.

How could anyone support a budget that is so wrong-headed and pushes Canada in the wrong direction?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for allowing me to answer this question, because it proves that the members of the NDP do not even read or pay attention to the budgets that have been passed or that they have voted against.

In the current budget there is over $500 million for new transit money. That is right in the budget. Before the budget was even out, the members of the NDP said they would vote against it. If they had paid attention, they would know that this year, because of fixing the fiscal imbalance, Ontario alone is getting $2.7 billion more in federal money to work with its infrastructure needs.

If the hon. member were paying attention, she would know that the government committed $33.1 billion over seven years, which is the largest investment in infrastructure since the second world war. We are going to be able to leverage that with our provincial partners and with municipalities up to over $100 billion in new infrastructure.

The hon. member talked about corporate tax cuts. What she did not realize, when she was not listening to my speech, is that there is over $200 billion in tax relief, of which $140 billion goes directly to individuals. She does have to read things before she votes against them.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague talked a lot about the program to help the auto industry in Ontario. He said that this program helps the people of Ontario, and rightly so, since Ontario has been the hardest hit.

It makes sense that an assistance program for the auto industry is concentrated in Ontario, and that there is no assistance for Prince Edward Island or Alberta, in the same way that it made sense during the mad cow crisis that money was given primarily to Alberta, where the crisis was going on.

However, today we see that with respect to assistance for the manufacturing and industrial sectors, the per capita funding is not going to Quebec, the province experiencing the most difficulties.

Why does the government not send the money where it is truly needed? When Quebec needs help, why does it not get any? And why do Alberta and Prince Edward Island receive more money per capita, when they are experiencing fewer difficulties in the manufacturing and forestry industries?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before the budget, this government took a proactive approach. If the hon. member remembers, in this House we talked about the $1 billion community trust fund, which the government initiated before the budget because it was needed for the manufacturing and the forestry sectors, especially for one-industry towns.

To talk about Quebec, right now I believe it has one of its lowest unemployment rates in over 30 years. This government understands that it is important to support different sectors. That is one of the reasons we have what is called SADI, the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, which puts aside $900 million for the aerospace industry. If the hon. member would look at the statistics, he would see that the aerospace industry in Quebec is doing wonderfully.

Over the next few years, this government will be giving record amounts of tax cuts, putting more money into businesses. As for lowering corporate taxes, what the hon. member does not realize is that it is going to create more jobs for the people of Quebec and more jobs for the people of Canada.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will share my time with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I am very pleased to rise today in this House to talk about my views on this budget, views that are shared by the women we represent, aboriginal women, senior women, single mothers, women who are still in school and veterans' widows. In short, we feel that the budget is certainly not favourable, and this is definitely one of the reasons we will vote against it.

Last week, the UN held its 53rd session on the status of women. The minister did not attend, but the coordinator of Status of Women Canada, Clare Beckton, was there. What a surprise it was for the representatives of the social groups at that session to hear Ms. Beckton's statements, in which she simply repeated that Canada would develop an action plan, as set out in the budget, and that Canada's position was very low compared to some European countries, such as the United Kingdom.

This meeting was also attended by Michèle Asselin, of the Fédération des femmes du Québec, Louise Riendeau, of the Quebec association of women's shelters and transition houses, and representatives of many other organizations such as the CSN, FIQ and FTQ. They roundly condemned the fact that, although the budget included an action plan, there was almost no point in mentioning it because an action plan had already been adopted some years ago, in 1995, namely the Beijing platform for action. This is the action plan that we should be implementing to ensure that women are afforded equality and equity.

This year, the rhetoric was to have been transformed into action by implementing the Beijing platform for action. I would also like to point out that the report submitted to the Status of Women Canada committee in 2006 by the expert panel of which Ms. Langevin of Laval University was a member, pinpointed the issues and the means of addressing the challenges.

Therefore, we really wonder why the budget mentions a plan, when there are no specific measures geared to women to improve their status, pay equity and so forth. Serious questions are being raised. Are they just trying to look good? In the throne speech, the word woman appeared only once. This year, we have a brief paragraph of six lines that talks about women without providing the means to meet the needs identified by a number of groups.

Prebudget consultations were held and groups told the government exactly what they wanted to see in the budget to improve their condition. It is fairly surprising to note that nothing came of all these consultations. We are left wondering. Is it worthwhile having these consultations? Does the government really want to know what women want to see in budgets or is it all just window-dressing?

Personally, I tend to believe the latter. I have the impression that it is just window-dressing. In fact, the budget before us takes a step backwards. A gender-based analysis should have been carried out before the budget. Unfortunately, there is no sign of it.

As Ms. Beckton explained it to us, gender-based analysis (GBA) is supposed to be carried out within the various departments and services before approaching the Treasury Board or the Privy Council. If the gender-based analysis had been done properly, the GBA champions in the various departments would have been able to point out the contradictions in the measures proposed.

I am convinced that these people, who do nothing but this kind of work, would have informed the ministers concerned of the different measures proposed and they would have persuaded them to make changes to those measures so that they truly respond to women’s needs and whatever had been found using gender-based analysis. Unfortunately, we see those concerns were not taken into consideration in the measures—and there are not many—that appear in this budget now before us.

Canada has been criticized several times in recent years by the United Nations and by CEDAW, the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Moreover, Canada is still under investigation this year and CEDAW has criticized Canada many times. There is also ICESCR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has criticized Canada on several issues, including employment insurance, the absence of day care in Canada and aboriginal women. I say “absence of day care in Canada” because everyone in this House certainly knows that day care services are well provided in Quebec. Quebec has provided day care services and ensured that women in Quebec have proper and effective day care services and that their children are well protected and receive an education that promotes their development until they are able to go to school.

I think that is a real shame because it was a wonderful opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it really is concerned about the status of women. We saw that with older women who are veterans' widows. I have said often enough that my own mother is a veteran’s widow. She took care of my father for 40 years. Today, she needs help. With this new program that the government has introduced, there is no way for her to receive help, even though she has been a widow for 20 years and she looked after my father for 40 years. It is very clear that my mother is much older than she was in those days. Now, she is the one who needs help.

Yet, the government is not interested in providing help to these widows whose husbands spent six years at the front. We see people now returning from the war in Afghanistan after spending six months at the front and those people are suffering from post-traumatic syndrome and all kinds of conditions. There is help for them.

When my father went to war, from 1939 to 1945, he spent six years on the front lines. He took part in all the Mediterranean campaigns, and yet, when he came back, there were no services to help him deal with post-traumatic shock. The only way he could get through the post-traumatic shock was by being with his family, his wife, the woman who helped him his entire life. Today, those very people are being denied assistance, those people who acted in a very exceptional way to support our soldiers returning from the second world war after experiencing so much trauma.

They are not the only people who were abandoned by this budget. Indeed, aboriginal women were once again overlooked. Once again, the government decided to give small amounts of money to small organizations and groups, instead of giving significant amounts of money in order to ensure that aboriginal women living in first nations communities can benefit from adequate services to meet their needs.

We saw that shelters for aboriginal women receive a subsidy of only $90,000 a year, while women's shelters in Quebec receive a subsidy of $300,000 a year. Yet the needs are quite different. For aboriginal women, the shelters are in the community and are known to everyone. The challenges are therefore even greater. They need even more support and greater security. They must be given adequate services to get out of their difficult situations.

I am being signalled that I have only one minute left and I will soon be cut off. Yet I have so much more to say. I will come back to this topic, there is no doubt.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member time during her answer to finish her speech as there were other things she wanted to say.

She outlined a great number of cuts to women's programs, including the Status of Women programs. People cannot lobby through the court challenges program or the Law Reform Commission. There were cuts to programs for aboriginal women.

There is another point on aboriginal women that she did not mention. Recently there was an excellent report on how homelessness is affecting northern women. There has been absolutely no reaction from the government. The government did not even attend to listen to the women's groups from the three territories.

However, I have a question for the member. It is not just about dollars and cents, is it? Is that the only problem? Or is it symbolic and is it the tip of the iceberg of a larger attitudinal problem toward women?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot hide our heads in the sand. We must recognize that this is a very, very conservative and very, very right-wing government. We cannot help but be afraid that, with measures like the ones that have been adopted, things would be even worse if the Conservatives had a majority government.

My colleague mentioned the homeless. There are currently 4.2 million homeless people in Canada. We have never seen or known such poverty. Yet the government has a $14 billion surplus which it is whittling down by spending on military equipment and giving tax breaks to oil companies that are making so much money, they do not know what to do with it. The Government of Alberta is forced to send cheques to people because it no longer knows what to do with the money. It is disgraceful.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting. The Bloc Québécois frequently notices that the government does not listen to the consensus in Quebec, where we want to make our voice heard and help people in difficulty. Even though the Bloc Québécois passes on what Quebeckers are thinking, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives ever take any action. The government never listens to Quebec. In the medium term, the Bloc Québécois will continue to push and fight to make Quebeckers' voices heard, so that the government will take action.

Could my colleague, as a member of a sovereigntist party, suggest how Quebeckers might get out of this situation, have real control over all their laws and all their taxes and make their voices heard on the international stage?

[An hon. member]

By becoming independent?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that a Conservative member has shown a glimmer of intelligence for once. Bravo! By Quebec sovereignty—

[An hon. member]

Quebeckers do not want it.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Quebeckers do want it, and they will take a responsible approach, as they have always done. We want to do it democratically, and we will continue to work democratically to help people understand how important it is for Quebec to have its own constitution, its own institutions, its own taxes and its own rights. These things will help Quebec make progress in the direction in which it has been heading for several years now. Unfortunately, the federal government is constantly getting in our way. Nevertheless, Quebeckers are making slow and steady progress toward developing better programs for themselves.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Laval for sharing her time with me and for her analysis of the status of women. I am sure that she could tell us much more, and that it would all be just as interesting as what she has already said. Unfortunately, the government will not have the pleasure of hearing more just now, but I am sure that she will return to the subject in the future.

I am also pleased to see that my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who has taken over as citizenship and immigration critic, is here in the House today. Although I appreciate the current government's investment in accelerating citizenship and immigration case processing, I find that it has done very little about refugees. Also, the government could have done a lot more about the fees that must be paid by permanent residents coming to Canada.

Without further ado, I would like to talk about the minority Conservative government's third federal budget. I wish I could say that the government has listened to the people, but that is certainly not the case. The day after the budget was presented, Quebeckers, on the whole, reacted negatively.

I want to remind this government that we told them about the threat of an economic slowdown and about the need to change course accordingly. Unfortunately, I have no cure for the government's plugged ears; they remain deaf to the demands of the Quebec people.

I will not support this budget, and the reasons are very simple. The Bloc Québécois consulted several communities throughout Quebec. From these consultations, we determined some guidelines, or six priorities that the government should focus on.

The government should address the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries, for which there was a request for $5.5 billion.

We also wanted the government to restore dignity to seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement and still live under the poverty line and the low-income cutoff. We were calling for $3.9 billion in retroactivity. When the government was in the opposition, it promised to reimburse seniors.

We wanted $3.5 billion to increase education transfers.

The government should invest $1 billion for status of women and social housing.

Furthermore, $398 million is needed to promote culture.

Lastly, we wanted $1 billion to make a 180-degree turn on the environment.

In the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, more than 400 people told us their expectations for the budget and the use of the surplus. We carefully analysed all the proposals sent to my constituency office. There were expectations concerning measures for seniors, the environment, taxation, health, families, education, housing, and so on. We analysed all the recommendations and expectations shared by the public. I can also say that people had some rather high expectations concerning the use of the surplus.

This was a fantastic example of public participation, and I would like to thank these people for their help. The results have been made public.

I should add that there was a huge amount of support for seniors who are not receiving fully retroactive guaranteed income supplement payments and are living below the poverty line. The Conservative government will have to answer for its actions and its political choices. Here again, the response greatly exceeded our expectations, and I would like to thank the local stakeholders and community organizations for their contribution. We are getting results when politics serves the people and not the reverse.

The Conservative government brought down a very slim budget and did not listen to repeated calls to use a portion of the surplus before March 31, 2008. Quebeckers want a change in direction and major gains for Quebec. Today they are disappointed, and this budget does not come anywhere near reflecting their interests and values.

In the past two years, this Conservative government has spouted its ideology and slashed social programs without any real debate here in the House or in society at large. It is shameful. The government has not even made a commitment to develop foreign policy or defence policy to justify the militarization of Canada. It makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, in their budget, the Conservatives decided to put all their extra cash towards the debt. They increased military spending, maintained help to western oil companies and promoted nuclear development while entire sectors of Quebec's economy, hit by crises in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, are suffering because of Ottawa's laissez-faire attitude.

Workers have also been abandoned and many organizations were counting on this budget for a little help. It is true the Conservatives established a reserve for the employment insurance fund but they are endorsing pillage of the fund by refusing to return the $54 billion already drawn. This money belongs to workers and employers. The government must return it. Unemployed workers would also like to see the EI system improved.

The Conservatives turned a deaf ear to farmers and cattle producers, who were expecting much more aid in view of the urgent issues and the income crisis they face. There is nothing new in the budget for these vital economic sectors in Quebec. If that were not enough, the government went so far as to give $250 million to Ontario's automobile industry when Quebec's problems are just as urgent. In fact, the Conservatives refused to meet the needs expressed by industry and all sectors, including the Government of Quebec.

The Conservatives were in a position to meet Quebec's needs given that there is a surplus of $13 billion for the 2007-08 fiscal period, according to government figures, and room to manoeuvre with the $8.2 billion surplus for 2008-09, according to Bloc Québécois calculations, which have proven to be on the mark, year after year.

The Harper government intends to use the entire budget surplus to pay down the debt—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member must refrain from using the names of members. Please use the name of the riding or the member's title.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government intends to use the entire budget surplus to pay down the debt, and I find that unacceptable. The Conservatives must reverse that decision before the end of this fiscal year. They do not seem even close to doing so. As a result, they will have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. They will have only themselves to blame if an election ensues. If that happens, you can rest assured that they will find us in their path.

Regarding citizenship and immigration, if I may, I would like to come back to a topic that I have discussed at length here in the House since I was elected, namely, the issue of the refugee appeal division. I cannot believe that a government that has the means at this time is refusing to allocate the $10 million needed to get the refugee appeal division up and running.

I would also like to point out this government's indifference when it comes to the appointment process for the Immigration and Refugee Board. At present, delays and a shortage of commissioners are causing considerable harm to the public.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. I want to ask a question based on my personal experience living in the city of Surrey, which has for a long time been one of the fastest growing cities and remains one of the fastest growing in the country.

When we look at the budget from a Surrey perspective, the infrastructure that is so important to us, like flood control for farmers as there are more floods in Surrey, is not there. Transportation for a city our size is not being enhanced at all.

I want ask the member particularly about mental health services. A study is being done by very respectable people, but people with mental health needs are being studied to death. I use the phrase “to death” deliberately, because many people have died while we study. What it really means is we need services, assistance and housing. When I ask about housing, I hear about mental health. People with mental health needs will not cover themselves with the paper that will be created by the study. They need actual safe places to live.

Is the perspective I see from Surrey reflected in the perspective the member from Quebec sees?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question on the mental health issue. I want to emphasize here before the House that we are not investing enough in a number of areas, including the program to reduce homelessness.

The population of my riding is increasing quite quickly and the needs are ever greater, but unfortunately, the budget does not live up to what the people of my region expect.

There are two different realities in my region: rural life and urban life. Each has its own problems. One of them is the lack of housing. There is very little investment in social housing and, in addition, people with mental health problems do not get the services they need.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, does the member think this is an environmentally sound budget? A constituent from a small village said that the budget offered nothing. She wanted people to clean up the tar sands and to establish a carbon tax. Is there any of that in the budget?

I looked at the environment page in the budget to see exactly what was done. The biggest item on a cleaner, healthier environment is investing $300 million to support nuclear energy, including the development of an advanced Candu reactor. As we know, that is a reactor we sell for profit. I do not have a problem with this, it is fine. However, is this the biggest item on the environment?

Is this helping the people who are wheezing, coughing and dying from the effects of pollution? Is this helping to clean up dirty water and air? Would the member comment on the environmental aspects of it, the carbon tax, the tar sands and the fact that is the biggest item?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said in my speech, I consulted with the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and they were quite clear on the environmental issue. They want practical steps to fight climate change. We are certainly investing in hydroelectricity in Quebec. We encourage it, therefore, and expect to receive what is owed to us by the government and due recognition of the efforts that Quebec has made.

Other ideas came out as well. People were very disappointed with the rebates for hybrid vehicles, that is to say, the money that was provided for a program to encourage people to use vehicles that are safer for the environment. People also think that the government should do more to tax industries that pollute. In addition, people wanted more significant investment in public transit.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Last week the Minister of Finance delivered our government's third budget, a budget that builds on our record of strong financial management. It is a budget that reinforces the fiscal advantage for Canada and provides for responsible leadership in the current period of economic uncertainty.

In the past three budgets, including budget 2008, the government has provided more than $2.3 billion in new resources for science and technology initiatives. Focusing on targeted priorities, we will maximize the impact of these investments by ensuring they are applied where Canada can use its strengths to make a difference. We are carefully managing spending, reducing debt and ensuring government programs provide value for money while keeping the tax burden to a minimum.

Let me mention a few key measures that we have taken.

Since 2006, our government's actions will provide $21 billion in incremental tax relief to Canadians and to Canadian businesses this year. We continue our record of strong fiscal management, reducing debt for 2007-08 by $10.2 billion and $13.8 billion by 2009-10. In fact, by 2012-13 total debt reduction, since we came into office, will be more than $50 billion, which is a remarkable achievement.

Moreover, we are ensuring that programs and services are affordable, that they are focused and aligned with the priorities of Canadians. In fact, spending this year, as a share of GDP, is below the track set out in budget 2007.

Budget 2008 recognizes the importance of the automotive industry to our long term economic success. Canada's automotive industry is a world leader and provides high quality jobs in many communities across our country. The actions taken by the government will result in over $1.6 billion in benefits for the automotive sector over this and the next five years. The auto sector will benefit, as I pointed out, from over $1 billion in tax relief by 2012-13. In budget 2008 we have also extended the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for three years on a declining basis. This will provide the manufacturing and processing sectors both with an additional $1 billion in tax relief.

As promised, we have cut the GST from 7% to 6% and now 5%, which has lowered the cost of all new vehicles for Canadians.

The automotive sector produces 12% of our manufacturing gross domestic product and accounts for 24% of our exports. It directly employs over 150,000 Canadians. At this point in time one out of every six vehicles that is manufactured in North America is made in Canada. Our automotive plants are renowned for their high productivity and for their exceptional quality.

Worldwide the automobile industry is, however, changing and automotive technology is evolving very quickly. This presents both a challenge and opportunity for us in Canada. The competition around the world for new assembly plants is, quite frankly, fierce and the future will belong to those countries that both invest the most and aggressively innovate.

In budget 2008 the finance minister announced new key initiatives that broaden and deepen our approach to positioning Canada in this fast paced technologically driven industry. The approach is built on four pillars, which I spoke to in Toronto recently: first, a positive business climate; second, an integrated North American auto sector; third, investing in automotive research and development; and fourth, creating a new automotive innovation fund.

Dealing with the positive business climate, our strategic economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, creates the first pillar, and that is a positive business climate, which we have achieved by lowering taxes, by cutting red tape, by investing in critical infrastructure and by fostering what is the best educated, most skilled and most flexible labour force in the world.

This warrants emphasis. I have been to the floor of the assembly plant for trucks in Oshawa. The Canadian workers are the best workers. They are the best automobile assembly people anywhere in the world, with the highest quality product, the lowest number of down days and the lowest number of qualitative problems on the assembly line.

It does not matter of what company we speak. Our plants in Canada earn high marks. In many cases they are best of class facilities and in many cases they are award winning, world calibre facilities.

The second pillar aims to preserve and support the deep integration of the North American market for vehicles and parts. The Canadian automotive industry has succeeded over the past 40 years because it has integrated with the U.S. industry and has enjoyed easy access to the U.S. market.

There is only one automotive industry in North America. Whether we are speaking of Mexico, or the United States or Canada, this is an industry that is integrated across borders. It must be harmonized if we are to achieve the competitiveness that we need to achieve on a North American basis so we may take on all comers in the future.

In particular, the border at the Windsor-Detroit crossing is becoming increasingly clogged. We cannot remain competitive with a border that clogs and slows down the smooth operation of an integrated industry. Something approaching 40% of Canada's trade is carried across a single bridge constructed before the great depression, the so-call Ambassador Bridge. This is a critical point in terms of our capacity to trade with our American neighbours. I have pointed out repeatedly in other circumstances that in excess of the amount of trade done between the United States and Japan in an entire year moves back and forth across that single bridge in the same period of time.

We are working hard to remove barriers to the cross-border flow of vehicles and auto parts. The government will provide $400 million for an access road to the new Windsor-Detroit border crossing, which will also be expanded to provide seamless transportation of goods and services. This is something no previous government has been able to achieve. This government is, and we are moving forward.

The third pillar of our approach speaks to the importance of investing in R and D. Over the next five years, the government will use new resources in budget 2008 and will redirect existing resources in that budget to create a coordinated automotive R and D plan with industry and key provinces.

Our approach is going to focus on research and development support, which is the dollars the Government of Canada is currently expending, on creating a more innovative Canadian auto industry, making Canada a leader in green automotive technologies, in greenhouse gas reduction and in the long term competitiveness of the automotive sector.

If Canada is to do this, we need to go one step further. That is where the fourth pillar comes in. The United States and Mexican governments provide extensive support to attract this kind of new automotive investment. Canada's new automotive innovation fund, announced in the budget, allocates $250 million over the next five years to lever large scale private sector R and D and innovation. The fund will target areas in which the Canadian automotive industry has already secured a worldwide reputation, a reputation that we will build on and retool for a new, environmentally conscious, fuel efficient innovation.

Our goal is ambitious. It is to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to assembly automobiles, but the Government of Canada is just one player. Our success depends on a strong partnership with all members of the automotive team. That includes industry, labour, research institutes, academia, all levels of government and industry itself.

We have a sound approach for the automotive industry. We are dealing with the circumstances of creating a Canadian value proposition. We have been very good at automotive assembly in the past in our country and we have to be very good in the future.

Certainly, there are challenging circumstances that the industry has faced and will face in the days ahead, but all in all, we have been very successful in the automotive industry in Canada. With the four pillar approach which I have outlined today in the House, we intend to stay at the forefront of innovation, and I would suggest, do what we have always done, which is to be the best people in the world at automobile assembly.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that there is indeed a lot of good news coming from the automotive sector from the perspective of the people who work there. The hon. deputy leader of our party was at the General Motors facility a week and a half ago. We talked about the potential that lies there and the importance for the government to understand, unlike the fee bate disaster which actually cost jobs and cost investment, that we get these things right and continue to understand, to underpin and recognize it is an important part of our economy, certainly an important part of the manufacturing sector.

The minister will know that the public safety committee and in fact the industry committee on two occasions unanimously came to a conclusion with respect to urgently needed legislation that is being requested in papers by industry and stakeholders across the country with respect to copyright legislation, to modernize it, to bring us out of the digital age.

We heard the minister suggest that the copyright legislation would be forthcoming. I can honestly say this side of the House cannot wait for it. When can we expect the minister to table the necessary legislation to help manufacturing in this country?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member strayed from the subject of the automotive sector into copyright. I can assure him that the copyright bill will be introduced in the House as and when I and my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, are satisfied that we have a legislative proposal which strikes the appropriate balance.

I welcome my friend's continuing interest and sincere concern in this subject matter. However, on autos I am pleased to respond to questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure copyright legislation is relevant to the budget, but I will allow a question from the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.