Debates of Oct. 6th, 2011

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to technology I was able to find on Google the company Structurlam, which the member mentioned. It looks like quite a company and is the type that will do well in the future.

He talked about the accelerated capital cost allowance and how it would allow companies like that to purchase larger machinery. However, does he not fear that the decreasing dollar value, now hovering closer to 90¢, would wipe out a lot of the credits and benefits that may ensue from the government's budget?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, basically we have a business environment where on long-term expenditures, such as purchasing such big master planers or whatnot, it is important to send the right signal now. We are saying we support jobs and economic growth. We support and encourage those businesses to meet those challenges. There will always be challenges. However, this government stands behind big and small businesses no matter where they are in Canada.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, a lovely riding.

I will change course a bit. The last two members spoke at length about what this budget does for big business and corporations in Canada. Certainly we in the Liberal Party understand fully that one of the greatest things a Canadian can have is a job. It is important that our corporations are strong and our small business owners do well. Those initiatives are important but we cannot do that in isolation. We have seen what happens with trickle-down investments. Very rarely do those in need in this country reap any type of benefit.

In 2007, 9.2% of the population was living in poverty. Now almost 10% of the population is living close to the poverty line. Therefore, I will focus my comments today on those who do not have a voice, those I have not heard mentioned throughout this debate and those not mentioned in the chamber.

Before I begin my comments on poverty, I want to speak specifically about some of the closures of Service Canada and EI processing centres that are taking place across the country. There are 600 people processing EI applications now who will be sent home over the next number of months. Conservatives talk about investing in rural communities. This action by the government will take jobs out of rural Canada and consolidate them into fewer positions. However, those positions that will be maintained will be moved into centres that have very low unemployment rates.

I point specifically to three cases where the government centralized jobs. In Gander, Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay where the unemployment rate is 17%, the jobs are being moved to St. John's where the unemployment rate is under 6%. In Edmundston, Campbellton and Bathurst where the unemployment rate fluctuates anywhere from 11% to 15%, the jobs are being moved to Moncton where the unemployment rate is under 7%. Finally, in Sydney where the unemployment rate is over 16%, a number of jobs are being moved to Halifax where the unemployment rate is under 6%. It makes no sense at all.

When questioned in the House on this, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development came back with the line that they were temporary jobs created with the economic action plan. That is absolute hogwash. That is misinformation provided on the part of the minister. There are 70 employees at the call centre in Glace Bay, which has been operating for well over 25 years, where 50 are permanent and 20 are term. Those term employees were all employed prior to the economic action plan.

The part that makes no sense at all is that the government is trimming these jobs when we know we are on the cusp of another economic downturn. We have seen the increase in the unemployment rates, which we know will continue to grow. What will then happen is as more people are unemployed, they will file for benefits. When they contact the employment insurance office there will be fewer bodies to handle the calls which will create more of a backlog. That is unacceptable.

In 2006, 80% of calls were handled within the three minute work standard for responding to telephone inquiries at EI call centres. As we speak, that percentage has gone from 80% to 32%. Calls are being dropped. People are phoning to ask where their EI cheques are and wondering when the next bit of money will be coming in to buy groceries, diapers or whatever it might be to help keep that household running. They are having to call back 10, 15 or 20 times before they get an agent.

These are the most vulnerable in our society. These are people who have the toughest time working from paycheque to paycheque and there is no mention of that in this budget. That is unacceptable.

The budget is 642 pages long and the word “poverty” comes up twice. The government sees poverty as a spending issue. Most Canadians see it as an investment issue. Certainly the people on this side of the House see it as an investment issue and the government has missed the target completely with the initiatives taken in this budget.

There are a couple of glossy things in the budget. Conservatives throw a couple of nuggets in it. It is like a bouquet of thorns with a couple of roses thrown in for good measure. Where I have concern is in the totality of the budget, that it does not do enough for Canadians who are up against it and will continue to be as we go forward.

I want to bring to the attention of every member in the House a study which has just been done on poverty. Senator Art Eggleton did an exceptional study entitled “In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness” on initiatives that could be pursued by the government in order to address poverty.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development embarked on a three-year study on poverty. Former NDPer Tony Martin did a lot of work on it. My great friend from Dartmouth Coal Harbour, Mike Savage, put a lot time on it. It was an excellent report that went forward to the government which pretty much dismissed it. The government is motivated by dollars and cents.

That is why I want to bring to the attention of members, especially those on the other side of the chamber, to the National Council of Welfare report which is a branch of the government. The study it just completed is entitled “The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty”. I am sure it will be distributed to all members, but I encourage them to take a look at it. It is a great study and talks about an investment model going forward to deal with some of the aspects of poverty.

Some of the anecdotal comments in the report highlight a couple of very obvious things. They make a great deal of sense. It talks about housing and investing in housing. If people do not have a place to live, or continue to find themselves in unacceptable housing conditions, if they are worried about whether they and their children are going to have a roof over their heads, that drifts into their physical health, their mental health and emotional well-being, but certainly their physical health as well. If people are sick and do not have a safe place to live, how are they able to focus on getting healthy again? Housing relates to costs on the health care system.

The study indicates that 20% of the cost of our health care system is attributed to socio-economic factors. If child care spaces are not available, how does a single mom take a job if she does not know what she is going to do with her children? If we have citizens who are engaged in the economy, if a single mother is able to go to school, or able to take a job, that is what we as legislators want to do. We want to ensure that those opportunities are there and the assets are in place so people can become contributing citizens within this great country.

The government has missed an opportunity in this budget. What scares me is that with the justice bills, things are going to get tougher on those who need help the most.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my robust colleague across the way for his comments.

The member was talking about those who are being disadvantaged. In fact, we have done more for poverty-stricken and low income individuals in Canada.

Let us talk about the new veterans charter. When the Liberals were in government, they did none of these things to help our veterans who were sometimes up against the wall. There are now disability awards to recognize veterans' pain, suffering and injury of $800 to $285,000. As well, with the earnings lost benefit, income replacement while in rehabilitation, 75% have seen a minimum of $40,000, and, in fact, the top part is non-taxable. Also, the amount for death benefits was not as high as it is now at $285,000, which is non-taxable.

I list just a couple of things the government has done so far. I would not mind my colleague's response and hope that he would support it.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure, it does not matter whether a member supports it or not, we know that the government would ram it through anyway. We know we are going to be force-fed here for the next four years.

I hold a great deal of respect for the member, and I listened as he stated his case on some of the boutique tax reductions. The government sort of has a buffet table of tax reductions; however, one must drill down to get into the actual aspects of it.

The government did a pretty good thing with the tax credit for volunteer firefighters, but it is a non-refundable tax credit. Those who are under a certain annual income would not be able to receive it. Therefore, there are some guys on the fire department who receive it and some who do not. It is not fair. It is not bad for some, but not for all. We see that with the family caregiver tax credit as well. These boutique tax cuts have a varying impact in the community.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, in which he spoke about the most vulnerable members of our society. I would like to ask him a question about the budget approach. He mentioned that it was the combination of all the small measures that created one big document. How does he think we could remodel this budget in the current economic context?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is some piecemeal effort here, but we have seen programs before. Some past governments have done good things. We know where the level of poverty for seniors was in the 1960s and that it is considerably less now. We have seen programs like CPP and the guaranteed income supplement and, just by chance, they were Liberal initiatives. However, I am sure the opposition of the day supported that.

Good things can be done, but we have certainly not seen an attempt or any effort through this budget to even address poverty. Like I said, within the 640-odd pages of the budget, poverty is mentioned twice. We recognize that it is not a priority with the current government. We recognize that the poor in this country and those who find themselves close to the poverty line are on their own for the next four years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for generously sharing his time with me. I want to just add to his speech.

One element of his speech that I found should be brought up in the House once again is the measure by which jobs are to be put into efficiency mode. In other words, they are being shifted around and moved to places when in fact it is a cloak and dagger way to eliminate positions within the most vulnerable communities. In my riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have 195 communities and in one of those larger communities, Gander, it is losing 30 positions or more. They are moving to an area of lower unemployment and the excuses that come out boggle the mind.

The advent of technology has put us in a place where people can do their job in certain areas and they do not have to be centred around a particular building or group of people. It is a remote way of connecting. I heard one of the other members from the government talking about the wonderful broadband Internet strategy. As I mentioned, I have 195 communities in my riding and 65 of them do not have access to broadband Internet. It is like a community that has no access to even get in there. It is not good for business, it is not good for all these credits that the Conservatives are promising, as my colleague points out, these boutique tax credits. It means very little if they set up in a place that does not have access to broadband Internet and certainly some of the basic resources.

I want to move on to some of the measures that are contained within this budget and some of the stuff we find is a promising gesture. However, the promising gesture does not come to fruition. It does not come to its logical conclusion to allow those in poverty to be brought out of poverty and I can think of many examples such as the tax credits regarding the family, the volunteer firefighters and others. Because these tax credits are non-refundable, the lowest end of the poverty scale does not benefit from them. That is unfortunate because, in a big way, that is what these tax credits are for. That is probably the largest part of the population that would benefit the most from this. It is rather disingenuous when they play with these numbers and they do not explore the stories that exist behind them.

When the Conservatives reduced the GST by two points several years ago, I remember how they bragged about saving money for so many impoverished people. However, the story we do not hear is that the real beneficiary of a two-point cut in the GST was a person buying a home valued over $300,000 or buying a car that is valued over $20,000 or $25,000. The person who goes day to day scraping by, trying to get enough money to pay an electricity bill was not the biggest beneficiary of a 2% cut to the GST. Look what that did to the treasury itself.

So in the estimation of the government, it might be tax cutting that benefits the most vulnerable but it is not. If the government wants to brag about the tax cutting measures that it has for protecting elements of society like the upper class, the upper middle class or businesses, then it should say so.

My biggest problem with the particular government is not so much the thrust of its policy as it is the salesmanship behind it. In regard to something that was announced several months ago but now has been re-announced, but that is a whole other issue, the government will say that it will offer this brand new tax credit for small business that is taxed itself. The other issue is that, come January, there will be that increase or, so as not to offend the treasury, a modest increase in the EI premiums. It is a typical example of “I will give you this and while you aren't looking I'll take from here”. It shows up in the copyright legislation that we are about to debate but I will leave that for another day.

It is unfortunate because we are now in the middle of time allotment because the Conservatives have cut down on the debate in this House.

Let us face it, we are paid fairly well to be in the House, yet we cannot have this conversation. We cannot have this discussion among ourselves from all different regions of this country to find out what these measures will mean.

The median income in my riding is among the lowest in the country. It is not the lowest, but it is pretty close. Therefore, the message from people in my particular area would be that they do not benefit from this particular tax credit. Would it not be advantageous to have a refundable tax credit, so that someone who is on a lower income would get the benefit by way of a refund?

It would not be income tested. It would not be not based on an individual's particular income. This cuts across a wide array of these boutique tax credits, as my hon. colleague from Cape Breton points out, and quite rightly.

I do find that some of the matters that are not being discussed here are of great importance. Now that we have a majority government in place for the next four or five years, it is an opportunity for us to have a good, long discussion that is broad in scope on pension security.

Pension security will be one of those issues that will come back to haunt us several years down the road, and somebody will look back at us and say that at this particular moment, we did not really discuss what was most important. That is unfortunate.

I am not wholeheartedly against corporate tax cuts. I do believe, in many instances, that they do exactly what the government says. I do not think they are altruistic. I am not one of those people who blindly believes that any corporate tax credit will go directly toward creating new jobs. Corporations have shareholders; they want their returns, and they want a nice return. A lot of their shareholders include many of our seniors and the like, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, let us not expect a corporate tax credit to dig us out of levels of poverty at a time when we cannot really afford it.

I look at corporate tax credits and then I look at millions of dollars put into the F-35 jets. I am not one to turn down more resources for the Canadian military, but what about search and rescue? Where does that line up? It is a priority issue that we debate in the House, and unfortunately, every time we try to debate it, the debate gets shortened.

There are some good, concrete measures within the budget and within other pieces of legislation. There, I admit it.

Some are way too modest to make a difference. The CLC credited the government by saying it was a modest increase in the guaranteed income supplement for our most vulnerable seniors. Of course it is a modest one. It could have been doubled. Numbers from many think tanks and many corners of this country say that if we had doubled that amount of money, from a $300 million to a $700 million investment, it could have brought many more people above that poverty line.

Let us bear in mind that a lot of people in my area depend on the government for their sole source of income: a combination of CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. These are people who have larger homes, and that is the only income they have. Winter is coming, and, as we all know, oil is not particularly cheap these days, and has not been for the past five to 10 years.

I would look at this debate as a way of saying yes to this and more of that. Instead of a vote of no, it is a question of saying that the government can do a lot better. The people demand of not only the government but of us as individual MPs that we reflect the opinions of our ridings that it can be done better.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland talks about how the government gives us this and takes it away from us here.

It is quite true. I get a lot of inquiries from seniors. The government gives them an increase on their CPP in January, and then it claws it back on their GIS in July.

The Conservatives think they are doing great things for seniors, yet seniors are not getting the money they deserve. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member talks about, and we get a lot of calls about this, is that when there is that modest increase in CPP, there is a decrease in the old age security. We have to look at this.

Another example is that a lot of seniors out there will take money out of their RRSPs. When they do that, what ends up happening is a decrease in their old age security, their basic income from the government, which they have invested in for the past 40 years of their lives. Therefore, the RRSP is not the vehicle they wanted it to be. The investment that was there is no longer there, simply because of government regulation.

When it comes to pension security, my hon. colleague is right: it is a lot of giving and taking back. That can be fixed by having the discussion here and over the next three years.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to further elaborate on that exact point of the government giving with one hand and taking back with the other hand.

We are all aware that in January the government is going to increase payroll taxes by 5.6%. Any small business operator in this country fully understands that payroll taxes are job-killing taxes. The government is going to introduce that increase, but it is saying in the budget is that it is going to give it back with the other hand. It is going to have a hiring credit for small business to a maximum of $1,000. That credit is going to be taxable. CRA has said it is going to tax it.

Up front there is going to be the additional payroll tax, and there is going to be this other tax credit, but it is going to be taken back. The government is sort of taking it back twice. It is unprecedented for the government to be taking the money back twice, but the government will stand up, take a bow and pat itself on the back for all the great things that it does.

Does my colleague see that it is imperative that we as an opposition stand up and make Canadians aware that there is a shell game going on over there that has never been seen before in this country? It is smoke and mirrors about the help that is on its way. The government is taking it back with the other hand.

Does my colleague see that we have to take this message to Canadians?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is a little frustrated, as we all are.

I would have to say that in this particular situation the member is right. In some cases the government will actually take it back twice, only to provide a benefit in the future, so it goes here, it goes there. It is here and there. It is like the Cirque du Soleil of fiscal policy. It goes up and it goes down, and it never stops.

Unfortunately, that is the problem of the salesmanship in all these boutique tax credits out there. The problem is that the most vulnerable are not going to be assisted by it, even though the government says that they will be.

It is a government numbers games, saying x numbers of people will actually benefit from this particular tax cut, but in fact they are not the most vulnerable, as the government claims, and unfortunately this little shell game, as my hon. colleague points out, will continue on other measures. It is like going to the store and seeing what we want in the window, but by the time we get to the cash register, it is an entirely different piece of policy. That is unfortunate.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my fine colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents and to speak with my colleagues about the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The legislation introduced by our Minister of Finance, Bill C-13 is a key element in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

We made a promise to Canadians to focus on the economy and to continue to deliver new jobs and strong economic growth.

With the excellent leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister Flaherty, this Conservative government—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would like to remind this hon. member and all others that it is inappropriate to use the given names of other members of this House while in the chamber. He can refer to them by their ridings or by their titles, but not by their given names.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I do apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and this Conservative government have cemented the strongest job growth in the G7. Since July 2009 we have created nearly 600,000 new net jobs. This is a result that our government can hang its hat on.

The International Monetary Fund projects that Canada will continue to be one of the strongest nations in the G7 over the next two years. While we appreciate that claim, it does not mean that Canada is protected from the global economic turbulence it is now facing. That is why our government is moving forward with, and implementing, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

One of my favourite features of Bill C-13, and one which would help my constituents tremendously, is the forgiving of loans for new doctors and nurses in rural and remote areas. This excellent program will help make access to quality health care in my riding and across Canada easier. It will create jobs in the riding and also support numerous communities in my riding.

Another example of our government helping communities and the excellent volunteers within them is the introduction of the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I know from my own experience serving in the RCMP what it was like to be in the line of duty and see volunteer firefighters at motor vehicle accidents. These are the individuals who put their lives on the line every day just for a simple thanks.

These individuals not only serve in the line of duty but do so as a volunteers. These volunteer firefighters are hard-working taxpaying Canadians. This tax credit would help ease the burden in these difficult economic times. Nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters provide their services to protect the lives and property of Canadians living in communities across Canada. I greatly respect the work that they do.

As a result of our Conservative government, families are now able to enrol their children in artistic, cultural, recreational and sporting activities. This is great, and with a young family myself, I know the value and results that this brings. Youth stay active and their minds are challenged. It keeps them working hard for their future endeavours so they can contribute to the Canadian economy in years to come.

We are also investing in education by helping apprentices in the skilled trades or workers in regulated professions by making their occupational or professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit.

These are excellent policies that will improve the lives and livelihoods of all Canadians.

Bill C-13 also has excellent measures for supporting Canada's forestry industry, something that is very important for my constituents.

By extending the powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing support to Canadian forestry companies, we have created new jobs and growth. In fact, a new mill is opening in Big River in northern Saskatchewan, and it will provide over 100 new jobs in the reforestation and transportation fields and also in the sawmill process. By extending the enhanced work sharing program to assist forestry employers, we have protected those forestry jobs that were at risk.

Another excellent initiative that helps my riding is the mineral exploration tax credit.

The Canadian mining industry is very important to my riding in northern Saskatchewan. There are numerous mines, and they employ thousands of people. In fact, 300,000 Canadians are employed in the mining industry today. This industry promotes economic stability and growth in the many rural towns and first nations and Métis communities in my riding.

I am very proud to be a part of the Conservative government. We are leading the way on the world stage on how to manage the economy effectively through this dangerous recession.

It is no wonder Canada is the envy of the world.

Our Conservative government set out on a mission to provide stability and growth in these troubled economic times while keeping taxes low, and we have accomplished that.

I would like to quote from Warren Jestin, the chief economist at Scotiabank, who pointed out in the Daily Commercial News and Construction Record on September 27 that “Canada is the best place to be and almost everything I look at screams that out to me.”

We cut taxes over 120 times since 2006. This has resulted in the overall tax burden being at the lowest level in nearly 50 years. We reduced the GST, as it was pointed out, from 7% to 5%. We provided seniors with pension income splitting. We introduced a child fitness tax credit. We cut the personal tax rate to 15%, the lowest it has ever been, and we introduced a children's arts and tax credit. This has resulted in a total savings of over $3,000 for the average Canadian family. That is $3,000 back in their pockets. These are results that all Canadians can be proud of.

The number one issue for this government is getting people back to work, which will help the communities and the country grow.

Today's bill announces measures that would encourage hiring and provide additional financial support to Canadian workers and families during the recovery, including a temporary hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000 against small employer increases in their 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2010.

Today's bill also proposes $4.5 million annually to expand the wage earners' protection program to cover employees who lose their jobs when their employer's attempt at restructuring takes longer than six months, is unsuccessful and ends in bankruptcy or receivership.

In conclusion, Canadians gave our Conservative government the mandate to continue to lead the way on the world stage. I am here to tell members that we will continue to lead the way and Bill C-13 is the way forward for this country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, for this entire fishing season on the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a shrimp plant that has not been working in quite some time. We are looking at a couple hundred people affected by this closure over this season and, for a lot of them, the benefits they received from employment insurance have now diminished.

I wonder if the hon. member would help me address how the economic action plan would help those people when I meet them soon.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have, in northern Saskatchewan, freshwater fishing. What this government is doing is lowering taxes to help small businesses get back on their feet and to give them an opportunity to start hiring more people. That is why we have more people and why we are looking at further negotiations in the world free trade agreements. There are 50 new ones in negotiations right now. These will promote fishing--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You are drinking our own Kool-Aid.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the member can go back and say to those people that this government is working hard to promote industry, all industries, from fishing, wild rice harvesting--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You have to be kidding.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That would be lying on your part.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague represents a constituency similar in many ways to the one I have the honour of representing, I would like to hear his thoughts on why, in the government's economic plan, we have not seen the priority put on first nations and the needs that first nations have in our regions in northern Canada, whether it is in terms of housing, funding for education or, quite frankly, a real commitment to economic development in some of the communities where the highest rates of poverty exist in our country.

Given that reality is so critical in our part of the country, I would very much like to hear his thoughts on why his government has been negligent on all of those priorities.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I earlier said, forestry and mining are very important in my riding. Those communities across northern Saskatchewan deal every day with those industries. Many first nations people are employed there. Many Métis are employed there. Many non-aboriginals are also employed there. We have people coming from Newfoundland and Labrador to Fort McMurray for employment. We have people coming from Ontario to northern Saskatchewan to work at the uranium mines. That is why we have invested over $1 billion just in the forestry alone for the pulp and paper and green transformation program. That promotes economic stimulus for northern Saskatchewan, as well. We have provided millions of dollars to the mining industry in order to promote job growth.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of my colleagues on the Liberal side talk about a shell game. I was quite intrigued by that comment because it is my understanding that the biggest shell game that ever happened was the $40 million that were distributed in brown envelopes. However, that is not my question.

I would ask the member to touch a bit on the capital cost allowance that our government is instituting in this bill.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have cut taxes by $120 million since 2006. We have taken one million low-income families, individuals and seniors off the tax rolls altogether, which is very important. We have cut taxes in every way. We cut personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more. This includes cutting the personal income tax to 15%.

Wherever we can, we are working to lower the tax burden on Canadian families, as well as on small business in order to promote more business in Canada.