Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

(Return tabled)

Question No. 39

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

With regard to the so-called “carbon bubble”, or the inflation of hydrocarbon and oil and gas sector company stock valuation beyond their utilisable assets, what modeling, planning, estimates or mitigation strategies have been carried out since 2008 on this investment bubble or its potential impacts on the Canadian economy by (i) the Department of Finance, (ii) Industry Canada, (iii) Natural Resources Canada, (iv) any other government department or agency?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 40

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

With regard to adaptation to climate change and future impacts of climate change on department or agency operations: (a) what planning has been done since October 14, 2008 by (i) the Department of National Defence, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) Transport Canada, (iv) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, (v) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, (vi) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (vii) Canada Revenue Agency, (viii) Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, (ix) Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, (x) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (xi) Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, (xii) Industry Canada, (xiii) Foreign Affairs, (xiv) Infrastructure Canada, (xv) International Joint Commission, (xvi) National Capital Commission, (xvii) Parks Canada, (xviii) Public Health Agency of Canada, (xix) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (xx) Natural Resources Canada, (xxi) Environment Canada, (xxii) Emergency Preparedness Canada; and (b) since October 14, 2008 what climate change economic impact assumptions have been made or budgetary estimates been done for the departments and agencies listed in (a)(i) through (xxii)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 41

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

With regard to government funding distributed in the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North from the 2011-2012 fiscal year to the current fiscal year inclusive, listed by date: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many full time and part-time jobs is this estimated to have created?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to add my comments to this debate.

Today I will focus on ways in which economic action plan 2013 helps strengthen Canada's economy in these uncertain times.

Let me assure the House that our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians: job creation and economic growth. Indeed, just last week Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy expanded in the third quarter of 2013. This is the ninth consecutive positive quarter of economic growth and this is just the most recent example that our economy remains on the right track.

What is more, Canada continues to have the best job growth record among all of the G7, with over one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession.

However, Canada is not immune to the challenges beyond our borders. The global economy remains fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, our largest trading partners. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to grow the Canadian economy with positive measures such as tax breaks to help small businesses create more jobs, freezing employment insurance premium increases to allow Canadians to take home more of what they earn, and introducing new tax relief to help our manufacturing sector grow.

Indeed, implementing the job-supporting measures in economic action plan 2013 will help Canada's economy continue to grow. It is these job-supporting measures that I would like to discuss today.

Our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed. We know that we have been growing. We see the results in that Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs since the recession. However, while the Canadian economy is improving, uncertainty remains.

We heard the concerns of business owners. That is why Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business. By expanding this credit over 560,000 employers will benefit, helping them hire new workers and grow. This would provide an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013.

Bill C-4 would also increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000. This would increase the rewards of investing in small businesses and make it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation. Today's legislation would also index the exemption to inflation for the first time. This would ensure the real value of the lifetime capital gains exemption is not eroded over time. Overall, this measure would provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15.

As Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

...they've expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That's really good news, with a promise to index it each year going forward. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs.

There is still more. Bill C-4 would freeze employment insurance premium rates in 2015 and 2016. This tax relief would help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustained business-led, long-term growth. This would build on our government’s recent announcement to freeze EI premium rates, bringing more stability and predictability to employers and workers. What is more, it would save them $660 million in 2014 alone.

Diane J. Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, agrees. She stated, “This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure”.

Furthermore, the employment insurance freeze would enhance Canada's globally competitive business environment. The freeze would help to attract foreign investment into Canada, create jobs for Canadians and foster long-term economic growth.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated:

...payroll taxes like EI are particularly challenging for small business, [the] announcement of an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs and their employees.... This move will keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-4 would also extend tax relief to manufacturers, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to include the equipment used in the production of biogas and equipment used to treat gases from waste.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadians and families. In fact, as a result of our government's low-tax plan, in 2013 the average Canadian family now pays $3,400 less in taxes. This includes reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back into the pockets of the average Canadian family; introducing and enhancing the working income tax benefit; introducing the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs; and eliminating consumer tariffs on babies' clothes, sporting goods, exercise equipment and more.

Having said that, our government is under no illusion that our work is finished. The global economy remains fragile with the growth in advanced economies slower than expected, and Canada is not immune. That is why Canada's economic action plan actively pursues new trade and investment opportunities, particularly with large, dynamic and fast-growing economies. Indeed, our government recently completed negotiations on a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement alone has the potential to add more than 80,000 new jobs. In fact, John Manley, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives agrees, “the [comprehensive economic and trade agreement] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth.”

Unlike the members of the opposition, we understand that the pursuit of free trade is beneficial for the economy. Our government trade agenda has already made Canada one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world. Since 2006, we have reached free trade agreements with nine countries and are currently negotiating with many more. Canada has also joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and we are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic and fast-growing economies, such as South Korea, reflecting our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for global economic recovery.

Our government remains firmly committed to supporting Canadian jobs and fostering long-term prosperity for Canadians and their families. Canada's low-tax approach continues to be a beacon to other nations around the world in a time of global economic uncertainty.

Our efforts have not gone unnoticed. Indeed, KPMG's Competitive Alternatives 2012 report concluded that Canada's total business taxes are more than 40% lower than those in the United States, and confirmed that Canada has the lowest tax burden on business in the G7. Along with growing investment and our support for free and open trade, our government continues to support the low-tax environment that is required to create jobs and economic growth.

Canada is now one of the top five destinations in the world to start a business. Colleen McMorrow of Ernst & Young remarked that:

Canada has emerged as a real leader in fostering an entrepreneurial culture... Canada also offers a supportive tax and regulatory environment for entrepreneurs. All these factors are combining to really promote the growth of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship from coast to coast [to coast].

She concluded by saying that Canada’s government has been highly supportive of entrepreneurs, providing regulatory and tax regimes that have enabled start-ups and growing companies to flourish.

Clearly, Canada's competitive tax system plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth. These tax reductions would leave more money for job creation, to hire more workers and to invest in new machinery, equipment and other technology that will further strengthen Canada's economic partnerships.

With that in mind, it is shocking that just last week the Leader of the Opposition again confirmed that he would increase taxes on Canadian job creators in a time of global economic uncertainty. Clearly, when it comes to the economy the NDP cannot be trusted. With no economic action plan, the Liberals cannot be taken seriously as well. When it comes to the economy, there is a clear choice. It is our Conservative government that will keep Canada's economy strong.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech, but it seemed pretty repetitive to me. Indeed, it was more or less the same speech that I have been hearing from all Conservative members any time they are debating a budget bill.

The member talked about job creation and economic growth. One measure in the bill involves phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

I have already mentioned this in the past, but I would like to ask the member the question once more.

Phasing out this tax credit will have a serious impact on job creation. In fact, 160,000 jobs are currently supported by the private venture capital provided by labour-sponsored funds, which makes Quebec a leader in venture capital. Studies have shown that at least 20,000 of those 160,000 jobs are at risk and could disappear as a result of the measure proposed in this budget.

I would like to know how the member can justify a bill like Bill C-4, which could quickly kill over 20,000 jobs, particularly in Quebec, but also across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic, listening to my colleague across the floor ask the same repetitive question over and over again. This is the same official party that rejects any type of economic stimulus to help Canada grow.

We are seeing the government doing just that. I would like to point out a couple of things that we have done. I hate to be repetitive, but since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years.

We are seeing this take place and we are seeing the economic benefit assisting Saskatchewan, my home province. We are seeing it flourish. We are seeing it become an economic driving hub across Canada. We are seeing jobs being created. We are seeing individuals leaving other provinces and coming to Saskatchewan to work, because the jobs are there. We are seeing economic development take place.

That is why the government is reducing taxes, to help people create a better, more financial and fiscally responsible lifestyle.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from across the way talked about the Canadian corporate tax rates being lower than those in the U.S. I do not see a lot of companies lining up to come to Canada because of that. There are other things going on.

I should also point out an example of something else that is going on. Quite often I find that Canadian managers of R and D cannot get the large global corporations, often headquartered in the United States, to do their R and D in Canada. The proposals are just not as good as what they get from other countries where some of the subsidies are bigger.

An example of what is going on is that, in budget 2012, the government decided that it would reduce the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, and replace that with a system of direct grants.

We heard in the finance committee a couple of weeks ago that there is a delay. The cuts in SR and ED are already occurring, but replacement by the grants has been slow to happen. Therefore, a witness in committee told us that something like $300 million in investment has not been made. That amounts to something like 2,000 ongoing jobs.

I would like to ask my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we see is what Canada is doing to lure businesses to the country, or to have more individuals hired in.

What this Conservative government is doing is extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employees. We are also increasing the indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding. Also, we are expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation.

One of the most important things here is freezing the employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding directly to the speech of the colleague to whom I asked a question.

I am always repeating the same question because I never get an answer from the government. There is a specific measure set out in Bill C-4 that could result in the loss of 20,000 jobs in Quebec, and the member is telling me about the jobs that will be created in Saskatchewan.

Does he really mean to say that Bill C-4 will create jobs in certain locations and eliminate them in others? In fact, that is exactly what Bill C-4 will do.

The issue of labour-sponsored funds is crucial. This model for economic development has worked well in Quebec. Since labour-sponsored funds were created in 1983, this economic model has strengthened the role of Quebec and Canada in raising venture capital funds in order to develop emerging leading-edge sectors for the country. This has happened not only in Quebec but also in the rest of the country, because other provinces followed suit with other models for labour-sponsored funds.

These funds have not only been useful in raising venture capital levels but also in raising savings levels. Quebec used to be one of the provinces where people saved the least, but now it is among those where people save the most. Speculators and large corporations are not the ones who are investing in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction. It is small investors, workers. These people decided to put money aside, but they did not choose to invest in major hedge funds or mutual funds made up of mostly stocks and bonds. They were prepared to accept a greater share of the risk.

We know that venture capital that is invested in labour-sponsored funds or private venture capital funds is unsecured. For example, if things go bad, then one becomes a creditor. These funds are provided to a company and the creditor, which is actually a venture capital fund, is at the bottom of the creditor pecking order.

This model has worked well in Quebec, despite what the government says. How do I know? It is obvious. If Quebec were an OECD member country, it would currently rank third in terms of venture capital in relation to GDP—its economic size—behind Israel and the United States. It invests in proportion to its economy. It is nearly three times the Canadian average and four times the Ontario average.

The government's proposal to gradually eliminate the tax credit is something that Ontario did in 2005. Since then, the venture capital rates in Ontario have been steadily decreasing and now represent just 36% of Canada's venture capital. There is a cause-effect relationship here.

Quebec's rate has reached 36%, even though its economy is much smaller than Ontario's. The two have the same proportion even though they have very different economic levels.

How significant are venture capital and labour-sponsored funds in Quebec?

Labour-sponsored funds represent over $10 billion in capital. At the beginning of the debate at second reading, the member for Beauce said that 10% of this capital is invested, but that is not true. He would repeat that to anyone who would listen.

Every year, investments are renewed, which means that 10% is reinvested. Obviously, when the capital is invested in a business that operates well, the funds will eventually withdraw the capital to invest it elsewhere.

However, Quebec law requires labour-sponsored funds to invest at least 60% of their assets in venture capital or development capital every year. I repeat: 60%.

Labour-sponsored funds generally surpass that objective. Right now, 67% of all that capital is invested. We are talking about nearly $7 billion invested in innovation, research and development, and it also goes to help struggling businesses and start-ups, in order to help Quebec develop.

I believe that this model could be adapted to the Canadian model. This is a model that is universally supported.

If our Conservative friends had bothered to listen to the submissions, particularly those made to the Standing Committee on Finance, they would have noted that opposition to this tax credit goes well beyond the two labour-sponsored funds targeted.

Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association opposes abolishing this tax credit because private venture capital works hand in hand with labour-sponsored funds. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec also opposes this measure. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec all oppose this measure because they know the impact it will have.

The government relied on only two studies to support its position, if we can actually call them studies. The first comes from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary and dates back to three or four years ago. The second is an OECD study from 2006.

These studies clearly show that the OECD and the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary have no understanding whatsoever of the complex role played by the two labour-sponsored funds, particularly in Quebec.

There are examples of development outside Quebec, but the fact remains that this is fundamentally a Quebec phenomenon. The study by the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy states that it is not really venture capital. The amounts are much smaller. The role of these labour-sponsored funds is extremely complex and there are two types: development capital and risk capital. Both are needed in a region such as mine, where there is insufficient venture capital. These funds can serve regions ignored by private capital.

There is another important aspect. I am addressing my remarks in particular to those members who represent rural areas, areas outside a large city or major urban centre.

Obviously, risk capital is more readily and disproportionately available in major cities. Regions such as mine and the Lower St. Lawrence need this capital to develop. For that reason, labour-sponsored funds have specific funds for regions not served by private venture capital or development capital. Thus, labour-sponsored funds play a very crucial role.

I am surprised to see the government acting so nonchalantly and not justifying its position. The government wants to eliminate the tax credit gradually, even though it knows what happened in Ontario. Ontario is no longer a leader in terms of venture capital and development capital.

I asked a government official some questions. How can the government take this position without conducting any studies? Was there an impact study on venture capital? The answer was no. Was there an impact study on savings? The official told me no. The last question I asked is probably the most serious: was a study conducted to compare what these two types of funds offered and what the government has offered?

What the two funds offered the government in exchange for not phasing out this tax credit was to accept the venture capital action plan proposed by the government. The government is taking away the equivalent of $355 million from the tax credit over five years, while allocating $400 million to launch the venture capital action plan. The two funds said they wanted to put a cap on the share offering and reduce the government's tax cost by 30%. In return, they proposed investing $2 billion over 10 years in the venture capital action plan. The government has only $400 million invested. The funds said they would invest five times more than what the government invested. The Minister of Finance refused. He wants to eliminate the tax credit. How does that make any sense? If the government were really serious about wanting to develop venture capital in Canada, it would have accepted and jumped all over the offer made by the two funds, which work hand in hand with all funds and private venture capital funds.

Preserving this particular measure is extremely important. I have made it my own personal cause, as the opposition and government members know very well. Indeed, this issue is critical and crucial to economic development in Quebec—development that this government is jeopardizing. At this time, the funds support 160,000 jobs, and studies have shown that 20,000 of those jobs will disappear if the government goes ahead with this measure.

I implore the government to carefully assess the impact this will have. If it really cares about job creation and economic growth, it will remove those parts of the bill in order to ensure a better future for Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and his comments. What struck me was the negativity from the member. It was negative, negative, negative. He did not highlight any of the positive aspects of the budget, not even one.

His province of Quebec, like my province of Manitoba, receives a lot of payments through the federal transfers. I wonder if he could at least acknowledge that Quebec benefits from these billions of dollars in transfers, as I am happy to acknowledge that Manitoba benefits from the billions of dollars it receives from the federal government.

Will the member say thanks to the federal government for the transfer payments?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the current government is not taking credit for transfer payments.

If we look only at the transfer payments for health, in last year's budget, the government cut the increase in those transfers from 6% to 3% a year. Yes, the transfers will continue to increase, but only by half as much at a time when we will have to deal with an aging population and a demographic curve that will require us to invest more in health. The government has capped the increase in those transfers.

I talked about only one aspect of Bill C-4, and my colleague from Parkdale—High Park mentioned quite a bit more. I am actually focusing on the elimination of the tax credit, which will have an adverse effect on Quebec in particular, when the Quebec model should be adopted across the country so that everyone can benefit from it. Venture capital and development capital are crucial for Canada's economic development.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the bill. I understand and appreciate the value of venture capital funds. In fact, if the member were to google the Crocus fund, which did not really work out too well, it did create lots of opportunities and economic wealth for the province of Manitoba.

That said, when we look at the amendments that have been brought forward and the bill as a whole, we see a budget bill once again that is changing all sorts of legislation. There is great substance we could talk about in regard to the budget component, but it is the 85%-plus of the other aspects of the bill that cause a great deal of concern in regard to the government sneaking all sorts of legislative changes in through the back door.

I am wondering if the hon. member might provide a comment on that aspect of the legislation.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his important question.

He talked about the Crocus Investment Fund. There are examples that have worked well and others that have not worked so well.

For example, when the Ontario government abolished its tax credit, it implemented an action plan, the Ontario Venture Capital Fund, which is what the government is proposing today. For that fund to work, the labour-sponsored funds in Quebec had to invest heavily in it in order to sustain it.

We have concerns about a number of other aspects of the bill. That is why we proposed 24 amendments, the Liberal Party proposed 6 and the Green Party proposed almost 30. Some aspects of the bill need to be corrected.

This is fourth budget implementation bill I have debated in committee and, again, I see that none of the amendments were accepted, as was the case the last three times.

I do not see how I could accept such a budget when we made reasonable proposals to amend it. The government constantly says no.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York South—Weston, Housing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the job-creating measures that would be implemented by today's legislation.

Let me start by saying what Lori Mathison, chair of the government budget and finance committee of the Vancouver Board of Trade, said, and I will quote it very slowly so the opposition can listen to this:

The Government is demonstrating a commitment to returning to a balanced budget in the short term, but at the same time, supporting economic growth and job creation.

Given the state of the global economy--where we are [all] seeing recessions, drops in national and sub-national credit ratings, and out-of-control deficits--we are truly fortunate in Canada to be contemplating balanced budgets, receiving AAA credit ratings, and growing our GDP.

Ms. Mathison has captured the essence of what this government has been doing.

Our Conservative government recognizes that small businesses are the engines of job creation in Canada. My wife Neena ran a small business for over 10 years. Therefore, I know the challenges that are faced by small businesses.

Today's legislation would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses. The credit would provide needed relief to small businesses by helping to defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of the emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, it is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013.

It would also increase the rewards of investing in small business and make it easier for owners to transfer their businesses to the next generation of Canadians by increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption. There would be up to $800,000 of capital gains realized by an individual on qualifying property that would be exempt from the tax.

It is no surprise that small business owners are happy about these changes. Indeed, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, had this to say about these measures:

The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit [...] On top of that, they've expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That's really good news, with a promise to index it each year going forward. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs.

That was said to the CTV News Channel, in 2013.

However, that is not all.

To ensure the predictability and the stability around the EI program rates, these measures would set the EI premium rates for 2015 and 2016 at $1.88 per every hundred dollars of insurable earnings.

As announced this past September, our government said it would freeze the EI premium rates for the next three years. By doing this, the government would be promoting stability and predictability for employers and employees. It would also leave $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in 2014.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about other measures in the budget. Indeed, as today's legislation clearly shows, our Conservative government is squarely focused on creating jobs, economic growth and securing Canada's long-term prosperity.

It has been with the help of the Canada economic action plan that Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery.

Canada has created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. This is the strongest job creation record in the entire G7, by far. What is more, Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S.

That is why both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 countries in years ahead.

However, as we have repeatedly said, Canada's economy is not immune to economic challenges from beyond our borders. We have been, and will continue to be, impacted by the ongoing turbulence in the U.S. and Europe, among our most important trading partners. That is why economic action plan 2013 focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and for the future.

Indeed, the key task for all countries is to balance efforts to support job creation and economic growth while respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets over the medium term. That is exactly what we have been doing in Canada. Last week, as confirmed by the government's annual financial report, we are on track to balance the budget in 2015. Let me repeat that for the opposition. We are on track to balance the budget in 2015, while eliminating wasteful spending and ineffective government programs. In fact, the deficit last year fell to $18.9 billion, down by more than one quarter; $7.4 billion from the deficit in 2011-12; and down by nearly two-thirds from 2009-10.

Most importantly, we are doing this without raising taxes. In fact, we have cut taxes over 160 times since forming government. That has reduced the tax burden on the average family of four by $3,220. Taken together, this fiscal management has resulted in Canada having a net debt-to-GDP ratio of 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level among the G7 countries, with Germany being the second lowest at 57.2% and the G7 average at 90.4%. All of this has been done by this government's strong management of the economy.

Despite the fearmongering by the opposition, this has not changed. Canadians can rest assured that the health and safety of workers is very important to workplace relations. The health and safety of workers is a key priority for the government. That is why today's legislation would allow more oversight around the enforcement of occupational health and safety standards.

While I have the floor, I want to say this. As has been announced, we are in negotiations now to complete our free trade agreement with the European Union. Having the NAFTA agreement, the European Union agreement and waiting for the TPP to come along, as well as the economic partnership with India and other countries, Canada is poised to have markets opened to it. The business community all across this country will be able to take advantage of this free trade agreement. By signing all of these economic trade deals, we are poised to go into unprecedented market availability for our businesses. What does that mean? It means, jobs, job, jobs. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said, it is jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the key priority of Canadians.

This government has done this through its budget implementation and trade deals, all opposed of course by the NDP and the Liberal Party. The NDP, thank goodness, has never had a chance to work on our economy. Otherwise, it would be the last. I am very happy to be associated with a government that has very strong control of where our economy is moving and is meeting the aspirations of Canadians so they can have jobs, jobs, jobs, not just now but for future generations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the OECD. I am glad that he did because the report last week from the OECD said that Canada has seen a rising gap between seniors who are falling into poverty and those who are doing okay.

The OECD reported just last week that a comprehensive study on global pensions by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development showed that Canadians over 65 years of age are relatively okay compared to most others. There is one exception, which is that the average poverty rate for those 65 and older has grown to 7.2% during the last number of years. In other words, the poverty rate for seniors has gone up and the government is looking at attacking pensions.

I wonder if the member could explain his rosy disposition over there vis-à-vis the real economy and the seniors who are being hit hard.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has done more for seniors than anybody else has done since the Liberal government.

We have a dedicated minister addressing the issues of seniors. We have a dedicated minister doing that. As a matter of fact, since we formed the government we have created a pension split. We have done everything possible for seniors. I agree with the member that seniors are the ones who built this county and are why we are here today.

When I speak about this rosy picture that we are talking about with this government, it has all been built on the hard work of the seniors who, I want to tell the member, work very hard and have Conservative values. They also look for balanced budgets. Their values are what the government is espousing.

I can tell the member that this government will always stand for seniors.