The government’s second Omnibus Budget Implementation Bill will be reported back to the House next Thursday, Nov. 22, after only a handful of meetings at the House Finance Committee and only a few hours at 10 other Commons committees and opposition MPs are criticizing the government’s move to fast-track the bill through the committee process.
“It is a sham. I mean, basically the study by committees is a total sham because, you know, in and out very, very, very quickly with absolutely nothing concrete being able to happen in terms of being able to propose amendments and accept witnesses other than in one little session,” Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.) told The Hill Times. “They’re trying to manage the optics so that they look more reasonable than they did on C-38 [the first budget implementation bill] because public opinion really went against them on C-38.”
So far, the two committees have spent approximately 24 hours and 43 minutes studying the bill. Kathleen Perchaluk, press secretary to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.), told The Hill Times: “No budget bill in history has received as much examination from as many committees—in both the House and Senate—as this one. All Committees studying the budget bill have complete discretion to recommend amendments they deem necessary. It’s time the opposition stop finding excuses to play partisan politics and starts supporting our government’s efforts to support Canada’s economy.”
On Oct. 31, the government agreed, in a rare move, to split the bill for committee study, and as such, portions of Bill C-45 have gone to 10 other committees in addition to the House Finance Committee.
Conservative MP Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, Man.), Parliamentary secretary to the Finance Minister, moved a motion in the Finance Committee, however, which set deadlines for the reviews.
The motion stated that the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee, the Citizenship and Immigration Committee, the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, the Health Committee, the Human Resources, Skills and Social Development Committee, the Justice and Human Rights Committee, the Public Safety and National Security Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Committee had until Tuesday, Nov. 20, at 5 p.m. to put forward amendments to the Finance Committee.
The motion, which passed, also stated that the House Finance Committee would begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 on Nov. 21. Debate on the clauses will be limited to five minutes per party per clause.
In addition, any amendments require 48 hours notice to be given to the House Finance Committee, but MPs are off this week in their ridings and therefore will likely miss the deadline. If the clause-by-clause study is not complete before 11:59 p.m. on Nov. 21, MPs will “without further debate or amendment” vote on the bill. The motion also states that the bill will be reported back to the House of Commons on Nov. 22.
During Question Period last week, NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) said the Conservative government was being “belligerent” on the bill.
“The Conservatives’ dubious plan to have their monster bill examined by committees is collapsing under the weight of Conservative belligerence. Most committees only have a couple of hours to study hundreds of clauses. Witnesses Conservatives do not like are blocked and accountability is being avoided at all costs. It is now becoming clear that their plan to have committees study these bills was nothing but a sham. Why are they so afraid of basic oversight? What are they trying to hide from Canadians?” he asked.
Mr. Flaherty responded: “What we are trying to accomplish is simply this: that we implement the job-creating measures that were announced in the budget in March this year, some of which were in the first budget bill and some are in this budget bill. The opposition members are being intransigent. I just returned from a G20 meeting in Mexico City and the world is worried about the situation in Europe and the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ in the United States, while in the House we have the intransigent opposition to job-creation measures.”
Conservative MP Cathy McLeod (Kamloops-Thompson-Caribou, B.C.) said last week, however, that the number of pages in a bill doesn’t matter as long as the outcome is sound.
“It’s been my observation that the opposition have been more focused on counting pages than reading pages in this particular budget,” said at the House Finance Committee hearing on Bill C-45, the Second Budget Implementation Bill, last Wednesday.
“I’ll just use a short example. The changes to MP pensions was one line in the budget, but it was actually 22 pages in the Budget Implementation Act,” said Ms. McLeod. “… Sometimes taking a plan and putting it into legalese, in terms of the legislation, is a bit of a comprehensive thing. Really, what matters is the outcome.”
Mr. Flaherty, who appeared before the committee on Nov. 7, agreed with her.
“I agree with you. The number of pages in a tax bill doesn’t mean very much,” he told the committee. “We had a lot more pages a couple of years ago in a bill because there were a bunch of schedules attached to the bill that went on for hundreds of pages. It doesn’t mean very much, except to tax practitioners who need to interpret it for their clients.”
Bill C-45, which the government introduced on Oct. 18, deals with much more than simply tax measures, however. Prior to the government agreeing to split up the MP and public sector pension changes into its own bill, Bill C-45 was 457 pages long and amended 64 pieces of legislation and regulations.
The first part makes several tax changes that were outlined in the spring budget such as hiring tax credits for small businesses and changes to the Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit. Others parts, such as changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Fisheries Act and the Environmental Assessment Act were not included in the budget. Bill C-45 reduces the number of protected waters under the newly named Navigation Protection Act from three million to about 100. Major pipeline projects are now exempt from proving the navigable waterway will not be damaged under the Navigation Protection Act.
Under the Fisheries Act changes, “aboriginal fishery” will be redefined, and there has been criticism the government did not consult with First Nations. There are also some technical amendments being made to the Environmental Assessment Act which will correct some errors found in the overhaul under the first omnibus budget implementation bill, C-38.
Bill C-45 also eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board. There are also changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that will screen tourists coming to Canada, changes to the Indian Act, as well as changes to how federal judges are paid.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) told The Hill Times last week that she will wait to see if the Conservative government accepts amendments before claiming the process was a sham.
Ms. May said even with the limited amount of scrutiny, there is still more scrutiny this time around than under Bill C-38. “If you’re really respecting the principles of democracy, you don’t do omnibus bills that exceed one theme and one decision,” she said.
“In the interest of protecting Parliamentary democracy, shouldn’t we ensure on all sides of the House that omnibus bills are not put forward increasingly? Former House Speaker [Lucien] Lamoureux said [that] at some point we can have an omnibus bill with a capital ‘O’ and a capital ‘B’ and it can be the entire government’s legislative agenda and we can do it in one bill. That’s the direction they’re moving in and it’s dangerous,” said Ms. May.
Ms. May, who is not allowed to sit on committees, but is allowed to present substantive amendments at report stage, said she is prepared to move several amendments if she has to.
“I’m hoping the committees will actually make changes to improve the bill, but I don’t expect it which is why I’ll be ready at report stage when I do have the right to put forward amendments,” she said.
NDP MP Megan Leslie (Halifax, N.S.) said the bill’s process was “undemocratic.”
Ms. Leslie said budget Bill C-20, which was what the budget bill was called in 1991, was six pages long and between first and third reading in the House of Commons, there were 192 days of debate. She said in 1995, budget Bill C-76 was 48 pages long and there were 78 days of debate. In 2000, budget Bill C-32 was 29 pages long and there were 60 days of debate. And in 2004, budget Bill C-33 was 76 pages long and it received 79 days of debate in this Chamber.
“Bill C-45 is a massive omnibus budget bill that makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram the legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. They need to remember that we are their members of Parliament. It is our job to look at the bill properly, make amendments and suggest ideas,” she said in the House.
Mr. Flaherty told reporters on Oct. 30 that he would not object to amendments that improved the bill. “We would have to see what came forward, but the finance committee will do its job. The other committees will look at their aspects of the legislation. If there’s some part of the legislation that could be improved by an amendment, then – I can tell you, as finance minister, I would not object,” he said.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment