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.

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 depositread more

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.

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

As spoken

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

As spoken

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

As spoken

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the NDP member for LaSalle—Émard, what she thinks about the fact that the government is scrapping the 15% tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This tax credit was of great benefit to Quebec savers.

At 163% of disposable income, Canadian household debt has reached unprecedented levels. It is no secret that Canadian families are having a hard time making ends meet and saving.

Families want to use this tax credit to sock away more money for retirement, yet the federal government is scrapping it.

What does she think about that?

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely unfortunate.

We know that these funds are key to stimulating economies throughout Quebec, including in the regions.

The Conservatives do not seem to appreciate this model, because it is democratic, encourages savings and fosters regional development. We know that the Conservatives have abandoned the regions.

This measure is totally counterproductive. It will not stimulate the local economy or Canadian businesses. I am vehemently opposed to this measure.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she could offer her comments in regard to the ham-fisted nature in which the government has interfered with the collective bargaining process of crown corporations.

Through the last two years, we have heard the government say that Canada Post and VIA Rail are arm's-length organizations and it cannot do anything about certain situations, yet it feels it is able to interfere in their collective bargaining processes.

Could the member comment on that?

As spoken

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question.

This budget implementation bill continues to advance an ideology that is totally opposed to free bargaining between an employer and its employees. The government has said it over and over again. In responding to our questions, the Conservatives have said time and again that these corporations are at arm's length and that the government should not interfere in free bargaining between employers and employees.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

There are a number of issues that need to be discussed regarding this bill. My colleague already addressed several of them.

However, I also wanted to hear her comments on another topic, one that she has not yet addressed, namely, science and technology. I think this is an important issue. Perhaps she has already addressed this; I cannot say for sure. The government seems to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

Could she comment on the government's attitude and what it is not doing versus what we would have liked to see in the area of science and technology to help our businesses be more innovative?

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this matter, which I am very passionate about. I am talking about both basic and applied science.

Investments in basic science, which this government has neglected, are what make a country a leader in this area. If we are not doing basic research, we will not make any of the basic but important discoveries that will move our country forward. This sector is extremely important, but it is being increasingly neglected by this government.

The other topic has to do with applied science. It is very important to have access to research centres, even within the government, in order to develop public science that belongs to all Canadians, that paints a picture of Canada and that allows us, as parliamentarians and Canadians, to better understand our country and the challenges it faces. For instance, the government took away Statistics Canada's ability to do any research about how much new technology small and medium-sized businesses are adopting.

That is what moves a country forward and that is what an NDP government with long-term vision will bring in 2015.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:45 p.m.


See context

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my NDP colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her excellent speech.

Just a few minutes ago, before coming into the House, we were in the lobby discussing my beautiful region, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I must say that she knows my region very well. If the member for LaSalle—Émard were the minister of industry, I would bet quite a lot of money that my region’s economic development would be flourishing in a way that it is not under the current Conservative Minister of Industry.

Today is a special day. I have time to discuss the budget. I think it is very important for members to be able to express themselves in the House. It makes me angry every time the Conservative government decides to silence the NDP members of Parliament. It is important for our democracy to be able to speak out. I will therefore take advantage of this opportunity, and I treasure the time I have to speak about my beautiful riding and the economic situation there.

Today is May 2. It has now been two years since the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord put their faith in me to represent them in Ottawa. I think I am representing their interests quite well, especially when I see what the Conservative government is trying to do to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I feel that what is happening in my riding is as important to me as what is going on in the riding of Jonquière—Alma and the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the current riding of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is a very complex region. It is isolated because of its rural nature. It is one region: Lac-Saint-Jean must help Saguenay, and vice versa. Our ancestors go way back. We are a nation within a nation within a nation; we are closely connected. The same can be said for our economy.

Two years ago, the Conservative government tabled an omnibus bill that took aim at the people of Canada and the people in my riding by implementing a variety of inappropriate tax measures. The same thing happened last year: a monster bill sent a shock wave through Quebec voters, particularly those in my riding. For the past two years, people have been talking about their concerns, about how to make ends meet, how to create jobs, decrease unemployment, and spur regional development. The fact is that society and the world are moving forward, and we do not want to be at the back of the pack. We want Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean to be a strong region in a strong Quebec, within a strong Canada.

This year, unfortunately, I must condemn omnibus bill 3.0 and I will vote against it on behalf of all the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that is inadequate for many reasons. In my short speech, I will list a number of those reasons. I hope the Conservatives on the other side of the House will listen, because I will first talk about the economy and the reality of my riding.

Right now, even though the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities comes from a riding in my region, I do not think the Conservative government really understands my region's socio-economic situation. I do not think this government is putting its energy into developing the region. On the contrary, over the past two years, I have noticed that the Conservative government has been erecting barriers to the development of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

I am the proud representative of one large municipality and eight little ones, including cities and villages. When I go to Saint-Fulgence, which has about 2,000 residents, those people are very concerned about employment insurance. In omnibus bill 3.0, the Conservative government is once again going after workers who rely on certain industries. In Saint-Fulgence, the forestry industry is very important. It is no secret that, since the 2008 recession, Quebec and Saquenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have had a hard time revitalizing the forestry industry. As a result, the unemployment rate is higher.

Yesterday, during question period, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine mentioned that the youth unemployment rate for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is 13.5%, which is very high.

When I see that level of unemployment, it tells me that our young adults and even our young children want to stay in the region. They like our region, which is very nature-oriented. The pace is a little slower than in the big cities. We want to keep our young people. In recent years, the population of our region has been declining. We have been working very hard to turn things around. However, this means that young people must have jobs. At present, with an unemployment rate of 13.5%, it is hard for our young people to find work, especially in Saint-Fulgence, which depends on one particular industry.

I am very disappointed that the government is not putting more energy in the right place in order to help the people of Saint-Fulgence, both youth and adults, find work. The next generation of workers, or at least the young generation of workers, is the future of our region. If they leave, they are giving up the opportunity to raise a family in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is appalling that my region is declining because of that.

Ferland-Boileau is a municipality that is quite similar to Saint-Fulgence, because the forestry industry is very important there, too. The Conservative government injected 10 times more money into the automotive industry in southern Ontario than it did into the entire Canadian forestry industry, and only a small fraction made its way to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I deplore what is happening, because this government is creating winners and losers.

In the latest budget, omnibus 3.0, the government did not allocate any new funding for the forestry industry, although it tried to claim that it did. Canadians are not the fools that this government seems to think they are.

In Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, a charming town of 500, people are concerned that their small community does not have the financial resources it needs to build a waste water treatment plant. I know that waste water treatment is under provincial jurisdiction, but the problem in my region is that waste water gets dumped into the Saguenay Fjord. I am not sure many people know this, and I am not even sure that government members are aware, but the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is co-managed by the provincial and federal governments. That is why the federal government must do its part to protect water and environmental quality within the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.

Unfortunately, when small communities like Sainte-Rose-du-Nord dump waste water into that lovely expanse of water, which is protected by the federal and provincial governments, I have to wonder. The government is doing two contradictory things. It is not putting in the effort or coming up with the money that these small communities need to treat their waste water. All they need is a $5 million waste water treatment plant. The government could do something to support these small communities financially. I am not talking about transferring the gas tax, which is worth $500,000 over a period of four years, to Sainte-Rose-du-Nord. I have done my homework, so I am not interested in hearing any nonsense. We can all agree that a community with a population of 500 will not be able to come up with $4.5 million to build a waste water treatment plant. The government's lack of vision for the development and support of the small communities I represent is deplorable.

Unfortunately, the community of Petit-Saguenay is wasting away. Its population is declining rapidly, as are the revenues that would enable it to recover and thrive. When I talk to elected officials there, they all say that the Government of Canada, specifically Canada Economic Development, is not helping them.

Saint-Félix-d'Otis has a lot of great projects going on, such as the Site de la Nouvelle-France and the transformation of its elementary school into a nature-focused school. Unfortunately, Economic Development Canada is not doing enough.

I wish I had more time to talk about my riding, but I urge the Conservative government to take note of my concerns.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking me again on a tour of the beautiful region that he represents and for highlighting the creativity, the goodwill and the attachment of people who live in rural areas and create vibrant and economically strong communities.

My colleague also pointed out that, over the years, the Conservative government has abandoned the regions. We have proof of that again with this austerity budget, which is not at all a visionary budget and does not seek to support the creativity of the people of the beautiful region of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I wonder if he could elaborate on how the government, in this budget, has completely abandoned some programs set up to help regions and their small businesses.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to comment further on my constituency. The Canada summer jobs initiative is very helpful to small municipalities in my riding.

I spoke to the mayor of Saint-Honoré, who told me that her municipality was lucky because it is among the very few whose population is growing, because an increasing number of young families come to live there.

During the summer, 84 children use the playgrounds. Previously, the Canada summer jobs program provided seven young monitors, but now it only provides two or three. This prevents the municipality from providing a service to its residents. That is a very specific and current example of the importance of programs such as the Canada summer jobs initiative, which help our regions.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to take note of a few things in the budget implementation act that I believe are of benefit not only to his riding and to Quebec but to all of Canada.

I would ask if he is prepared to support and is interested in supporting the program that is going to look for youth entrepreneurs. It is a very important program that I know has had great benefits.

Genome Canada is well known across the country in terms of the very important work it does, as is CNIB in terms of the hub that it will be creating, and I could go on and on about the improvements in veterans' benefits.

How can and how will the member justify to his constituents his voting against all of these very important measures that will help him directly in his riding, as well as help Canadians across the country?

As spoken

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I find it hypocritical that a Conservative government would claim to be doing good things for the development of my region when that is clearly not the case. The Conservative member said the government wants to support young entrepreneurs.

Here is a very concrete example. A resident of l'Anse-Saint-Jean who was receiving employment insurance benefits told me he wanted to start his own business and become an entrepreneur. Incidentally, I congratulate all the entrepreneurs in my beautiful region who decide to start a business to create wealth and jobs. However, this constituent explained to me that this transition caused him a problem. Indeed, as soon as he declared himself a full-time entrepreneur, they cut his employment insurance benefits, because creating his own job meant he was no longer looking for work. This severely restricted that person's ability to set up his business as a self-employed worker.

The Conservative member made me laugh when she said the government is trying to help young entrepreneurs, because the reality is quite different. Residents of l'Anse-Saint-Jean tell me they want to start a business but cannot do so because the employment insurance program does not provide a transition period that would help them meet their basic needs. These people have a wife and children to support. They need a minimum income to meet the needs of their family and start their business.

Translated

Second ReadingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

May 2nd, 2013 / 1 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance for remaining committed to what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 advances a solid vision with a proven track record. We are the only party with a plan and that plan is working for the Canadian people. Let us look at the evidence.

Before I continue, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie.

Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew by 0.3% in February. Over 900,000 net new jobs have been created since the end of the recession in July 2009, the strongest job creation record of any G8 country.

All major global institutions say that Canada is a model of economic leadership. The OECD says that Canada has the most sound economic fundamentals in place for a strong economy for the next 50 years. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G8 country.

However, we must remember, and this is a very important point, that Canada is not an island. We are not immune to economic shocks emanating from our global neighbours. Therefore, while the Canadian economy continues to grow and create jobs, the challenges confronting us remain significant and we cannot afford to become complacent.

That is why now, more than ever, we must remain focused and on track. Economic action plan 2013 is a balanced and responsible approach. What we propose is not partisan; it is simply good for Canada and will lead to further growth in our economy and to job creation.

Bill C-60 contains a number of substantive measures to build a stronger economy and create jobs. Some of these include extending for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance; indexing the gas tax fund payments to better support job creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada; extending for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors; modernizing the Investment Canada Act to clarify the treatment of proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises, the timeline for national security reviews; and providing $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms.

One critical area we are focusing on is Canada's skilled worker shortage. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has identified the skill shortage as the number one obstacle to success for its members. There are too many jobs that go unfulfilled in Canada because employers cannot find workers with the right skills.

We heard this message time and time again at finance committee. Therefore, our government has taken action. The temporary foreign worker program has been reformed to enable employers to hire foreign workers on a temporary basis to fill immediate skills and labour shortages when, and only when, Canadian citizens and permanent residents are not available to do the job. However, let me be clear. The temporary foreign worker program is designed to ensure that Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs.

Bill C-60 also has a number of proposals to support Canadian families and communities. Some of these are introducing a new, temporary, first-time donor super charity credit for first-time claimants, expanding tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians and removing tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

I want to take this opportunity to talk a bit about the general preferential tariff. I am proud that the economic action plan would modernize Canada's general preferential tariff regime, which has not been updated substantially since 1974. A lot has changed since the 1970s in the global economy.

Let us consider this. In 1980 the Canadian economy was $269 billion. It was bigger than China's, bigger than Brazil's and bigger than India's. Why would we continue to administer, virtually unchanged, a foreign aid subsidy program based on what the state of the global economy was in 1970s? We should not.

The GPT was a collective commitment from developed western countries in 1974 to help the economies of the poorest third world countries. The program gave companies from these countries preferential access to the Canadian market. Throughout the years, as some of the poorest countries grew stronger, many in the west modified their list of countries to ensure it properly reflected changing economic realities. In fact, the United States revises its program every two years.

Remember, as I said just a few minutes ago, that in 1980 the Canadian economy was bigger than China's, Brazil's and India's. Compare this to today. The economy of China is $7.3 trillion, Brazil is $2.5 trillion, India is $1.8 trillion, and all have overtaken Canada, which is $1.7 trillion. If our government does not revise the general preferential tariff with these countries, all three countries will continue to receive the same benefits as the poorest third world countries.

The general preferential tariff is not a free trade program. There is no increased access for Canadian exporters to those preferred countries. In fact, many Canadian companies face hurdles when they try to enter those very markets. That is why our government has been pursuing an aggressive trade strategy, negotiating nine free trade agreements since 2006 and negotiating to open more markets for our goods and diversify our trade. However, we cannot accomplish that by letting an outdated program from the 1970s continue indefinitely.

The recent changes would provide an incentive for many countries to open their markets to Canada, meaning better jobs for Canadians and tariff reductions for Canadian consumers. I recently heard from a business owner in my riding who was having trouble competing with his counterpart in China. He was quite upset that Canada was giving tax breaks on imports from China. He did not seem to think this was fair, and neither do I. I am proud, therefore, that t his new budget would graduate countries from the list of developing countries and ensure Canadian companies could better compete so jobs would be created in Canada rather than in China.

I would like to conclude by clearly stating my support for Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, which would keep our promise to the generation that made us great but also would invest in the next generation that would make Canada even greater.

I thank the Minister of Finance for his hard work on this budget. The people of York Centre and Canada truly appreciate it.

As spoken