Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Jim Flaherty  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit;
(b) introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit;
(c) makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible;
(d) adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends;
(e) allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation;
(f) extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment;
(h) clarifies that the income tax reserve for future services is not available in respect of reclamation obligations;
(i) phases out the additional deduction available to credit unions over five years;
(j) amends rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons; and
(k) repeals the rules relating to international banking centres.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures and tax-related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends rules relating to caseload management of the Tax Court of Canada;
(b) streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers;
(c) addresses a technical issue in relation to the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; and
(d) simplifies the determination of the Canadian-source income of non-resident pilots employed by Canadian airlines.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) reducing the compliance burden for employers under the GST/HST pension plan rules;
(b) providing the Minister of National Revenue the authority to withhold GST/HST refunds claimed by a business where the business has failed to provide certain GST/HST registration information;
(c) expanding the GST/HST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services provided to individuals who require such assistance at home;
(d) clarifying that reports, examinations and other services that are supplied for a non-health-care-related purpose do not qualify for the GST/HST exemption for basic health care services; and
(e) ending the current GST/HST point-of-sale relief for the Governor General.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, 2001 to modify the rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons.
In addition, Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to ensure that the excise duty rate applicable to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and tobacco sticks is consistent with that applicable to other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements various measures, including by enacting and amending several Acts.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to extend for ten years, until December 31, 2024, provisions relating to Canada’s preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries. Also, Division 1 reduces the rate of duty under tariff treatments in respect of a number of items relating to baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment imported into Canada on or after April 1, 2013.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to remove some residency requirements to provide flexibility for financial institutions to efficiently structure the committees of their boards of directors.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the equalization and territorial formula financing programs until March 31, 2019 and to implement total transfer protection for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That Act is also amended to clarify the time of calculation of the growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer for each fiscal year beginning after March 31, 2017.
Division 4 of Part 3 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to certain entities or for certain purposes.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to remove the statutory dissolution date of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office and to provide authority for the Governor in Council, on the Minister of Finance’s recommendation, to set another date for the dissolution of that Office.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Investment Canada Act to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and WTO investors will be assessed and to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency can accurately identify, calculate and refund overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in a particular year by contributors who live outside Quebec.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans’ disability benefits are no longer deducted when calculating war veterans allowance.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to an application for a work permit and the refusal to process requests for such opinions. It authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit and exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, those fees as well as fees for the provision of services in relation to the processing of applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident or in relation to requests for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit.
It also provides that decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of claims for refugee protection that were referred to that Division during a specified period are not subject to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division if they take effect after a certain date.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Citizenship Act to expand the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of that Act and cases in which those fees may be waived. It also exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to authorize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to spend for its purposes the revenue it receives from the fees it charges for licences.
Division 12 of Part 3 enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Development and provides for the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Division 13 of Part 3 authorizes the taking of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Ridley Terminals Inc.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the National Capital Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Holocaust Monument Act to change the Minister responsible for the construction of the monument to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Salaries Act to add ministerial positions for regional development responsibilities for northern Canada, and northern and southern Ontario. It also amends the Salaries Act to replace a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada with a reference to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It also makes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed is equal to the number of ministers for whom salaries are provided in the Salaries Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to remove the requirement for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to obtain a request from a government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere in order for the Minister to do certain things for or on their behalf. It also amends that Act to specify that the Governor in Council’s approval relating to those things may be given on a general or a specific basis.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. It also gives the Treasury Board the authority to require that an employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury Board observe the collective bargaining between the Crown corporation and the bargaining agent. It requires that a Crown corporation that is directed to have its negotiating mandate approved obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before entering into a collective agreement. It also gives the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of certain of its non-unionized employees. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act to provide for increases to the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. It also provides that the sums may be paid on the requisition of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 10, 2013 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
June 10, 2013 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, because it: “( a) weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes the democratic process by amending 49 different pieces of legislation, many of which are not related to budgetary measures; ( b) raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions and small businesses; ( c) gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees; ( d) amends the Investment Canada Act to triple review thresholds and dramatically reduces the number of foreign takeovers subject to review; ( e) proposes an inadequate Band-Aid fix for the flawed approach to labour market opinions in the temporary foreign worker program; ( f) proposes to increase fees for visitor visas for friends and family coming to visit Canada; and ( g) fails to provide substantive measures to create good Canadian jobs and stimulate meaningful long-term growth and recovery.”.
June 4, 2013 Passed That Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, {as amended}, be concurred in at report stage [with a further amendment/with further amendments] .
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 228.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 225.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 213.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 200.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
June 4, 2013 Failed That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
June 3, 2013 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
May 7, 2013 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
May 7, 2013 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1), because it: ( a) raises taxes on middle class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending; ( b) fails to reverse the government's decision to raise tariffs on items such as baby carriages, bicycles, household water heaters, space heaters, school supplies, ovens, coffee makers, wigs for cancer patients, and blankets; ( c) raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next 5 years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs; ( d) raises taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy; ( e) adds GST/HST to certain healthcare services, including medical work that victims of crime need to establish their case in court; ( f) fails to provide a youth employment strategy to help struggling young Canadians find work; and ( g) ignores the pressing requirements of Aboriginal peoples.”.
May 2, 2013 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tradition of the House has been that there is a budget that is tabled and there is legislation that follows, so I cannot speak to what will be coming.

We do know that in the budget there were a few other measures that the Minister of Finance will perhaps look at moving forward at some other date.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Kenora Ontario

Conservative

Greg Rickford ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague. I intend to support the budget implementation act, but if there was any doubt in my mind, certainly listening to her confirmed that we need to move forward with this important implementation piece.

Sometimes what is more important about a budget is what is not in it rather than what is in it. I have been concerned listening to the official opposition, particularly the finance critic. When she was lightly peppered with questions around an alternative budget, she could not explain certain increases in government revenues. She said she was not concerned, in effect, with numbers.

My question to the member is, are there any hidden things in the budget, like a carbon tax? Are we focused on numbers, and does this translate into a focus on jobs for our economy?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my opening remarks, we are the government that understands that every dollar we spend is a dollar out of Marsha the nurse's pocket and a dollar out of someone else's pocket.

As I looked at the NDP platform and saw the extraordinary list of expenditures they intended to make, I could feel many people wanting to tighten up, sew up, their pockets to protect their very hard-earned dollars.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on yet another Conservative omnibus budget bill.

Like its predecessors, Bill C-60 includes a wide variety of complex measures, such as changes to the temporary foreign worker program, changes to the Investment Canada Act and the merger of DFAIT and CIDA. Each of these alone is an important issue and an important measure that deserves thorough consideration and scrutiny, both here in Ottawa and in communities across the country. People would like to understand exactly what is being proposed.

This is the Conservatives' third attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny on their job-killing agenda by packing the bill full of unrelated measures into one big bill and trying to push it through Parliament. That is no way to show leadership in a democracy.

I rise today to speak to yet another Conservative omnibus bill. Like its predecessors, Bill C-60 includes a large variety of complex measures—from changes to the temporary foreign worker program and the Investment Canada Act to the merger of DFAIT and CIDA. These are important issues that deserve thorough consideration and scrutiny, both here in Ottawa and in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

This is the Conservatives' third attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny on their job-killing agenda by packing dozens of unrelated measures into one bill and ramming it through Parliament.

The Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians to move along because there is nothing to see in Bill C-60. In a way, they are right. It is true. There is no job creation strategy, nothing to make life more affordable and nothing to strengthen the services that Canadian families rely on.

Following the 2008 economic crisis, the Minister of Finance begrudgingly ramped up infrastructure investment. He was forced to do it by the opposition. Now he is cutting billions of dollars in infrastructure investments to communities across Canada. These cuts will cost tens of thousands of jobs in cities and communities right across this country. Cuts to services, coupled with tax hikes on thousands of products that Canadians need, will serve as a double whammy to Canadian families. These are families, certainly in my community, like communities across Canada, who are already far too stretched and struggling to make ends meet.

The Conservatives claim to be good fiscal managers—we will set aside the fact that they just lost over $3 billion of our tax dollars—but there are other facts that speak to the contrary. The Minister of Finance missed his economic growth target for 2012 by 35%. He has presided over a record $67 billion trade deficit, and now private sector economists are telling us that this year will be even worse.

It is clear the Conservative economic agenda is not what Canada needs. Perhaps the most ironic part of the Conservatives' reckless cutting is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly demonstrated that the cuts in budget 2013 are just not necessary for Canada to return to a structural budget surplus. In other words, all this pain is not needed.

The PBO has pointed out that what budget 2013 is really about is eliminating thousands of jobs, cutting direct program spending and weakening GDP growth. This is not what leadership looks like, and what a time for leadership to go missing in action here in Canada.

A recent article in The Economist, entitled “Canada's economy: On thinning ice” warns:

—consumers are showing signs of flagging. The economy is set to expand by a paltry 1.6% this year. So the authorities are casting around for another source of growth. The trouble is they cannot seem to find one.

The article in The Economist goes on to say:

Jim Flaherty, Canada's finance minister, has repeatedly warned of the threat household debt poses to the economy. Yet in his budget on March 21st, [the finance minister] did little to encourage business investment or exports to take the place of consumers in supporting growth. Rather, his focus was on eliminating the federal deficit—currently at 1.4% of GDP, low compared with most G7 economies—before the next general election in 2015. His plan, which relies on spending restraint and unusually high revenue growth, is seen by many as wishful thinking. So the Canadian consumer remains the main hope for the economy. It is an odd situation where both government and business have decided to be excessively prudent in their spending, but are hoping that consumers will not follow suit just yet.

Despite these risks to our economy, the Conservatives insist on pushing stubbornly ahead with their austerity agenda, and they are crossing their fingers that Canadians, who already have a record 167% household debt, are going to keep spending. It has become clear that the minister's timetable for deficit reduction has little to do with external reality. A growing number of bank economists, including Craig Alexander and Don Drummond, agree that the government is fixated on eliminating the deficit ahead of the next federal election, but that it is not needed; it could wait a year.

Following a pre-budget meeting with the finance minister, BMO's chief economist, Doug Porter, told reporters, “It probably would be unwise for the federal government to step on the brake further than it already has”. In other words, there is no need for more austerity. There is growing consensus from the IMF to participants at the World Economic Forum in Davos that austerity is not the way to go. In fact, it is making problems worse.

In March, Carol Goar of the Toronto Star wrote of the finance minister's austerity agenda:

Since he began chopping programs and expenditures, the economy has drooped, the job market has sagged, consumers have pulled back and the corporate sector has hunkered down, sitting on its earnings. The same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

In fact, an IMF report released in January estimated that in the European case, every dollar in government spending cuts would cost $1.50 in lost output. This past week, the hand-picked interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, put in place by the government, confirmed that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012 and budget 2013, will be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.7% reduction in GDP. This is at a time when our economy is only expected to grow by 1.5% annually. In other words, the economy is barely growing at all. This is an additional significant drag on our country's economic growth.

Despite what the Conservatives claim, their plan is actually holding back the Canadian economy, instead of accelerating it. What is worse is that they have failed to outline any contingency plan to deal with slowing growth and increasingly negative fiscal indicators. Instead, they are stubbornly moving ahead with austerity measures despite warnings from economists about the consequences.

Right now, at any given time, there are more than six Canadians looking for work for every job that is available. Statistics Canada figures recently released showed that the number of vacant jobs has fallen to the lowest level since record keeping began in March 2011. Our youth unemployment rate is double the national rate. TD Economics has said that the spike in youth unemployment from the recent recession will cost our economy $10.7 billion over the next years alone.

These are young people whose futures are on the line. They are people just starting out and trying to get a toehold in our economy. Young people should be full of optimism and willing to take chances at the beginning of their adult life. However, too often they are saddled with debt, they are saddled with very limited or no job prospects, and they are saddled with a tremendous amount of insecurity and huge costs.

Our aboriginal population is growing faster than any other group in Canada, yet this vibrant young population faces significant barriers to economic participation and development, including chronic underfunding of education at all levels.

Budget 2013 presented an important opportunity for the government to put forward real solutions. Unfortunately for Canadians, the only job creation strategy the Conservatives have is for temporary foreign workers and some parliamentary secretaries.

The Conservatives like to crow about their 900,000 net new jobs, but what kind of jobs and for whom? Too many are temporary. Too many are insecure. Too many are held by temporary foreign workers instead of Canadians.

Nearly 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed. There are still 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession. The Conservatives can clap on the other side about this situation, but it is a national tragedy that they are turning their backs on Canada's youth and all of Canada's unemployed.

At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are in part-time and precarious work when they would rather have full-time permanent jobs. In fact, a recent report by the United Way in Toronto and McMaster University has shown that 50%, fully half, of the workers in the GTA and Hamilton regions are in this kind of precarious work. It means a day-to-day struggle against insecurity and uncertainty.

For those Canadians who do have employment, wages have stagnated. In fact, in the 25 years between 1981 and 2006, including one of the most prosperous periods since the 1950s, workers' wages across Canada fell sharply behind. While Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 51%, average real weekly earnings did not increase. In other words, workers are being left behind.

At the same time, the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has doubled in the past six years and tripled in the last decade. As Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, notes:

The bottom line is that Canadians are being displaced by temporary foreign workers, wages are being suppressed and employers are being allowed to abdicate their responsibility for training Canadians.

Professor Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa agrees:

Flooding the market with workers from elsewhere year in and year out—even during a major recession—is not about an acute labour shortage. It is nothing more than a wage subsidy to low-paying firms, a subsidy that stunts the reallocation of goods, capital and labour that is the basis for efficient markets.

What is the government's response?

Just yesterday Barrie McKenna of The Globe and Mail wrote: “... the federal government is now belatedly acknowledging that two of its signature workplace programs may be making the country's employment landscape worse, not better.”

Belatedly, indeed. After years of mismanagement, the Conservatives are proposing to fix major flaws by giving the minister an override power when work permits and labour market opinions approved by government become political hot potatoes.

This is a band-aid solution that does not get to the heart of this government's mismanagement of the TFW program.

In the meantime, not only are the Conservatives failing to create jobs, but they are continuing their attacks on Canadian workers.

Bill C-60 gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in free collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees at crown corporations.

With an enduring jobs crisis and cash-strapped households, where do the Conservatives expect Canada's growth to come from?

In a National Post op ed, economist Armine Yalnizyan writes about household debt in Canada:

Yes, many goods are cheaper than they were a generation ago. But the list does not include higher education and home ownership, both of which lead to greater economic security.

For many people, these two items are increasingly out of reach.

Those costs have zoomed past most people's income growth. Increasingly, Canadians have been pursuing these two dreams with ever-growing piles of debt. You don't need to work at the Bank of Canada to know that current levels of household debt offer a precarious foundation for sustained growth.

No matter your political leanings, most people understand that endless concentration of income, wealth and power is bad for the economy. After all, businesses rely on rising purchasing power of the many, not the few, to deliver growth and profits.

In 2001, a study by the International Monetary Fund found that:

...when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact, equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth.

This comes at a time when inequality is rising in Canada.

Budget 2013 does nothing to address the record levels of household debt or the rise in inequality. Instead the Conservative government has remained focused on an austerity agenda that has made major cuts to the services families rely on.

Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit. There is no need to reinvent or to privatize public services, no need to trample on economic and labour rights, no need to sacrifice equality in the name of efficiency.

New Democrats know that investing in education and infrastructure, making life more affordable and supporting our small and medium-sized businesses in creating high-quality, high-paying jobs is the real solution to our deficit.

Canadians are counting on us to provide leadership and to bring forward ideas and proposals that put the public interest first. New Democrats have tried to make this point time and time again. The Conservatives just do not seem to be getting it, so let me be clear: we do not want a budget that pushes aside the concerns of first nations groups and pushes stubbornly ahead without real consultation.

We do not want a budget that attempts to balance the books by downloading costs onto struggling families, provinces and municipalities.

We do not want a budget that fails to account for the long term and leaves the next generation further behind than the last.

We do not want a budget that fails to move Canada forward in a 21st century economy and leaves a huge environmental debt for our children and grandchildren.

We do not want a budget that not only ignores the concerns of Canadians but will also actually make it harder for families to make ends meet.

New Democrats will continue to stand up and hold the government accountable in the interest of all Canadians. We do not support the Conservative budget of 2013 or its implementation bills unless they are revised to address the real priorities of Canadian families and unless the government starts providing real leadership for this country.

With that, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses: (a) clauses 136 to 154, related to the Investment Canada Act; (b) clauses 161 to 166, related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign worker program; (c) clauses 174 to 199, related to the proposed department of foreign affairs, trade and development act; (d) clauses 213 to 224, related to the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act; (e) clauses 228 to 232, related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between crown corporations and their employees;

that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do form Bill C-61; that Bill C-61 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do form Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this motion do form Bill C-63; that Bill C-63 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE);

that the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this motion do compose Bill C-64, that Bill C-64 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Heritage; that the clauses mentioned in section (e) of this motion do compose Bill C-65, that Bill C-65 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order and that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

In proposing this motion, we are attempting to allow for proper study of some very complex clauses of this bill, rather than have them all merge together in one large bill for study at the finance committee. We believe that the sections that pertain to industry should be studied at the industry committee, which can invite witnesses and actually hear testimony, and similarly for the foreign affairs committee, et cetera.

That is the rationale for introducing this motion.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

There is no consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, we all listened with interest to our colleague's comments. Before I get to a question, I want to mention something that I think she misstated.

She talked about many things in this bill that are unrelated to the budget. I do not always agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but I know her to be extremely thorough. She mentioned in a question today in question period that everything in this bill is in fact related to items in the budget, so I would take exception to that misrepresentation.

I want to ask the member a more specific question about the forecasts by the minister widely acknowledged to be world's finest finance minister with respect to growth forecasts.

He says it is 1.6% and the IMF says it is 1.5%—close enough—for 2013, but that puts us well above the average for all advanced economies. We do not operate in a vacuum. We are about even with Japan. The only one we are behind in that group is the United States, which is clearly coming from much lower to start with. In 2014, it is the same story. We are behind only the U.S. and we are above the average in the advanced economies.

Would my hon. colleague admit that there is perhaps some context that could be put around the numbers, rather than just simply picking a number and saying that number is not good enough?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify.

In my remarks, I did not reference whether anything in this bill had or had not been included in the budget bill, although those of us who were at the technical briefing found that in fact there are things that were not mentioned in the budget bill. What I said is that there are many things in this bill that should be studied by other committees: foreign affairs, industry, government operations. That is what I was talking about.

However, let me clarify. The Minister of Finance has been far wide of his economic projections. He has been off by 35%. Every time he says the measures he brings in are going to make things better, lo and behold, the economy slows down even further. That is the kind of economic management the government provides. If people in Canada want to see what better economic management is like, the New Democrats are ready to take office in 2015.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague from Parkdale—High Park said about this government's fiscal incompetence.

Unless it manages to balance the budget, in 2015 we will have our eighth consecutive deficit with this government. The Conservatives only balanced the budget in 2006 and 2007 because they inherited a big surplus that we, the Liberals, left them. Before that, the last time a Conservative government balanced a budget was in 1912. These people do not know how to manage an economy.

My colleague from Parkdale—High Park said that measures were urgently needed to meet the needs of families.

What specific measures would address these needs?

I agree with her, but I would like to hear specifics.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to point out that if we look at all provincial and federal budgets across the country, in fact we see that it is the New Democratic Party that has the best fiscal record and the best record of balancing budgets right across Canada. Members do not have to believe me. If they would like to do their homework, they can check the record.

I will tell members what we will not do. We will not be like the Conservative government and lose over $3 billion of taxpayer money, as the Auditor General pointed out this week. We will not increase taxes on thousands of consumer goods that will make life more difficult for Canadians right across the country. We will not slow the economy, increase unemployment and throw people into precarious, uncertain jobs. That is what we will not do.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the official opposition's finance critic, on her excellent speech that gets to the heart of our concerns about budget 2013 and Bill C-60, which we are currently examining.

A lot of figures have been thrown around. We know that the International Monetary Fund lowered its projections for Canada's economic growth to 1.5%. That is 0.3% lower than the previous projection, which is a significant amount, considering the slow economic growth we are currently experiencing.

The OECD says that in terms of economic growth among G7 countries, Canada will not only be behind Japan and the United States, but it will also be below the G7 average. The reason is simple. Budget 2013, like budget 2012, is an austerity budget. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer and most economists agree, austerity budgets do nothing to increase growth. On the contrary, they limit economic growth.

Does my colleague from Parkdale—High Park think that budget 2013 and the measures in Bill C-60 will promote or limit economic growth?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would like to thank my colleague.

The austerity measures set out in budget 2013, like those in budget 2012, will make the economic situation worse and will slow down our economy. Instead of creating good jobs for Canadians who need them, these measures will increase unemployment and job insecurity throughout Canada.

We need the opposite of what this government is doing.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is always well-researched, well-spoken and logical. I thank her for her recent topic.

I wonder if she heard my statement today at the beginning of statements by members. Mr. Stern of the London School of Economics has said that Canada is facing a huge carbon bubble with the risk that if we continue to export huge volumes of fossil fuels and do not diversify our petro-economy, at some point the bubble is going to burst, and it will cost us thousands of jobs and huge amounts of economic benefit to Canada.

Would she like to comment on that, particularly given that her leader has made very valid comments about how rushing the huge volume of oil into other countries has put our loonie and our economy at risk in other ways?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 1st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sincere passion about the environment. Clearly in the New Democratic Party we share that passion. We understand that in a 21st century economy we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we understand that we need to leave our environment in better shape for our children and grandchildren than the situation in which we found it.

As in many other countries around the world, priorities for Canadians need to be energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing the new technology for the kinds of energy-efficient industries that will be needed around the world. Canada needs to be a leader, not a laggard as we are now under the Conservatives.