Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Morneau.
I just came from a Speaker's ruling in the House of Commons where the Speaker agreed with my contention that this massive omnibus legislation was an omnibus bill and needed to be divided for the purposes of voting.
This really flies in the face of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign when he said that omnibus legislation of this type was undemocratic and didn't allow for proper examination, and he promised to end the practice.
To start, I wanted to make the comment that the idea that omnibus legislation is acceptable is simply wrong. The fact that the Speaker has agreed and is dividing the bill for the purposes of votes indicates that there is far too much dumped in this one piece of legislation for proper scrutiny. We've only had a few hours of parliamentary witnesses, and so far they have indicated grave concerns with the pay equity provisions, which you commented on in your initial statement.
The pay equity provisions are unconstitutional, according to pay equity advocates. They offer less protection for women who are in precarious work situations such as part-time or temporary work. They are advocating for immediate amendment so that the botched job that is the pay equity legislation within this massive budget bill can be addressed.
My question is very simple. Why weren't the pay equity advocates heeded when they raised concerns about this bill? Why has the government refused to incorporate what are deep considerations about the flaws in the bill so that the bill can do what it purports to do?