This is exactly the point, specifically about budget omnibus bills. Of course they deal exclusively with things that fall within the areas in which the federal government spends money, but that is everything. If the relationship is that it's part of the economic plan, part of government expenditures, that is a wide enough theme that it could catch everything under it.
This was precisely the same argument that was used under the previous government to advance legislation, which members of the current government thought constituted an improper use of omnibus legislation, as opposed to a proper use of omnibus legislation, whatever that distinction is.
This is the point, isn't it? We don't typically see governments in the middle of June coming forward with a Christmas tree bill that covers a bunch of different themes that are in the budget. We see governments bringing forward legislation that covers a large number of themes insofar as they are all related to the fiscal and economic plan of the government. It's hard to envision a system in which that would not be the case.
I know, having just read the budget, that there are many issues dealt with that certainly go outside the narrower scope of government spending.
There are a few obvious examples that come to mind. I think it is page 93 of the budget that talks about unpaid internships. We vote on the budget in principle, so that's a form of an omnibus as well. I may actually have the page number wrong, but there is somewhere in the budget that talks about phasing out unpaid internships unless they are part of a designated educational program.
I suppose that has some relationship to the economy insofar as it deals with education, training, and how young people get into the workforce, but it doesn't involve spending. It's not a question of the immediate economic situation in terms of things that are or are not going to create economic growth right now. Really, it's more of a question of justice and liberty than it is a question of economics. It's a question of whether it is just and fair for the government to restrict people from engaging in voluntary arrangements that they consent to.
If someone chooses to volunteer for free in my office because they feel that the experience they're getting is valuable, I would be of the view that it's not really up to the state to tell them, “Sorry, but you're not allowed to volunteer there because we don't think that you are competent to make that decision for yourself.” I would argue that on the basis of the principles of freedom and justice vis-à-vis those individuals. On the other hand, the counter-argument is that these relationships in which people are working and not getting paid are inherently exploitative, or at least have the potential to be exploitative. I think that to outlaw unpaid internships in all cases, except as part of a formal educational program, because there is a risk of some degree of exploitation is massive overkill.
At the end of the day, someone might sign up for an internship and find that rather than getting valuable experience, all they were being asked to do was to file and photocopy, but it would be up to that person at that point to decide if they thought it had value or not, and to quit if they didn't think it had value. These are the kinds of things people do in a free society. They make decisions in response to the information and incentives that are in front of them.
I don't agree with that particular provision of the budget. It's an example of something that seems pretty far off the track of formally dealing with budget measures, and yet it has some relationship, I suppose, to the spending of the federal government insofar as, if there's going to be a movement against unpaid internships, it will require some kind of enforcement by the government, some kind of definition of what qualifies as a legitimate educational program, and some kind of process of adjudication. That's something in the budget that could lead to the incurring of an expenditure down the line, but it seems pretty far afield if you're just trying to focus on what narrowly fits within the budgetary policy of the government.
There are some changes to the temporary foreign worker program that are in the budget as well, which deal with whether or not labour market opinions are required in certain cases, the ratios in certain workplaces, and so forth. Those are changes that have implications for the economy, of course, because some of those provisions deal specifically with temporary foreign workers who are also caregivers. That has implications for health. There are lots of ways in which this particular immigration policy changes the implications for other policy areas, but changes to the temporary foreign worker program are not, at least in a narrow or direct sense, the sorts of things you would think of as being part of the budget.