Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Suspension of Sitting

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Seeing no more business before the House, the House will now stand suspended until noon.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:42)

(The House resumed at 12 noon)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There are 284 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-4.

Motions Nos. 1 to 284 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 284 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

, seconded by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 415.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 416.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 417.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 418.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 419.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 420.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 421.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 422.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 424.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 257

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 258

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 260

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 261

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 262

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 263

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 266

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 268

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 270

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 272

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 273

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 274

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 275

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 276

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 277

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 281

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 282

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 283

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 284

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes.

Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of. We are now debating Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation.

This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38, C-45, and C-60. The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill.

Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget. They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges.

These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made. It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better.

As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made.

With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma. No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills.

There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected. That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review.

Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony.

The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”.

We completely agree.

We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation.

What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country.

We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing. Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say:

...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada. Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market.

That is the International Monetary Fund.

Business columnist David Olive wrote:

We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy.

Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's, in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote:

...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this.

It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call. However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified.

There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians.

New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians. We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable.

I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has pointed out, it is important for us to recognize what the Prime Minister has done with previous bills. It is also important for us to recognize that never in the history of Canada have we seen so much incorporated into budget legislation. What is happening is that the government is using the back door of budget debate to pass massive amounts of legislation that should be stand-alone legislation.

Could the member comment on the fact that when stand-alone legislation is incorporated into what should be a budget debate, it takes away the opportunity for parliamentarians in this House to contribute fully to a debate on an entirely separate piece of legislation that should have come before the House? We are supposed to be doing this on behalf of all Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate recently about the rights of parliamentarians and what kind of autonomy and power we do or should have. I understand that there may even be some rumblings growing in the government caucus. I would urge my colleagues on the other side that if they want to assert their independence and truly represent the constituents who elected them to this place, then regardless of the content of this bill, they should stand in this place and vote against the process of these omnibus budget bills. They are fundamentally undermining our rights as parliamentarians and undermining the democratic right of Canadians to have adequate scrutiny of their legislation. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand in their places and vote against this bill.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the rumblings she is hearing are from my tummy. There are no other rumblings coming from the Conservative Party. We fully support this budget and what it does for Canadians.

Given all the great things this budget does for aboriginal people, homeless people, the environment, and the economy as a whole, why would the Green Party vote against all of these wonderful initiatives? Can the member answer that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Parkdale—High Park has the floor, not the leader of the Green Party. Therefore, I will recognize the member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Green Party will answer that question at some point.

Let me just provide another example of what the government is doing. It created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board in order to take the politics out of financing employment insurance. That was at a time when Liberal and Conservative governments had plundered $57 billion from the premiums paid by working people and employers across this country into the EI fund. The government created an independent fund to get away from those politics. It put the fund at zero, so there was no money. It was immediately in deficit, and ultimately, the premiums had to be raised. Now it wants to get rid of this board, this outside agency it created, and go back to being able to play politics with EI funding. It is shameful. It is a disgrace. It opens up the premiums paid into this fund, which ought to be going to unemployed workers and ought to be the best adjustment program Canada has during a time of insecurity and high unemployment. Instead, it uses them to play political points by having bigger surpluses or lower deficits than it would otherwise have. It is shameful. That is another measure included in this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if my hon. colleague had given the member for Parkdale—High Park a promotion or demotion by making her leader of the Green Party.

However, on this particular debate, the Green Party and the NDP are on the same page. We completely lament the fact that this is an omnibus bill once again, with multiple sections that were very much deserving of a full parliamentary review and full and proper hearings in committee.

I want to begin my analysis of Bill C-4 in presenting the various amendments I have made for deletions with two fairly brief points to the substance of the abuse of Parliament that omnibus budget bills represent.

We have heard it said by Conservative members in their talking points that this is nothing new. In every debate we have on budget omnibus bills, we are told this is normal. However, although I have only been a member of Parliament since 2011, I have been around a long time, and I know that we have never had budget omnibus bills of the staggering length of these bills until the current administration. It is only under the current Prime Minister that we have seen an omnibus budget bill top 200 pages.

Between 1994 and 2005, there were occasions of omnibus budget bills, and they were averaging 73 pages. The first big whopper of an omnibus budget bill occurred under the current Prime Minister in 2009. The 2010 budget omnibus bill was almost 900 pages.

Then, by 2012, the Conservatives started a new process. Ironically, my very first question in the House once I was elected was on the 2011 budget. I asked the Minister of Finance if he was planning the abuse of process constituted by an omnibus budget bill. He said he was not. Well, 2011 was indeed the last year in which we did not see omnibus budget bills. By 2012, the Conservative administration had started this new practice of putting forward two omnibus budget bills. It now refers to it as a tradition, almost like having Easter in the spring and Christmas in December. It is a tradition, apparently, that we are now going to see a 300- to 400-page spring omnibus budget bill, followed by 200-, 300-, or 400-page fall omnibus budget bill. The government has done this now for 2012 and 2013.

What this does is make a mockery of Parliament. I cannot put it more strongly than that. The idea that we would have disparate, unconnected bills, many of them never mentioned in the budget, that do substantial damage—this one in particular to labour relations, previous ones to environmental concerns—is an offence to Parliament. There is no excuse for it.

Second, I know there has been a lot of public interest in the fate of members of Parliament like myself and my party. I quite clearly represent a party with fewer than 12 MPs; I represent a party with one MP. However, I am a party in the House. So are my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and so are four independent members of Parliament. We were treated differently, since there were multiple motions carried through multiple committees to require that substantive amendments be submitted at committee, where we are not members and do not have equal and full rights of participation.

I will set that aside for now. That is why all of my amendments presented today are deletions. I did have substantive amendments I would have liked to present at report stage. I had 26 substantive amendments that I did present to the finance committee, and they went through a very quick ritual slaughter. I would have liked for the people of Canada to know about those amendments. I would have liked to have brought them forward at report stage.

Before I move to the specific parts of the bill that Canadians need to know about, I want to make an overarching comment.

As the only member of Parliament for the Green Party, one of the great advantages of having to watch everything while also doing due diligence on behalf of my constituents is that I am able to see everything in a comprehensive overview, not just in silos. There are themes here. There are disparate bills, but the manoeuvres are the same. The manoeuvres go in the direction of increasing ministerial discretion, reducing objective criteria, removing boards and agencies that have independent expertise, and putting bills forward instead to systems of political whim.

That certainly was the case in budget omnibus Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. They reduced criteria, letting the minister of environment or the minister of natural resources make decisions without guidance.

In this particular omnibus budget bill, we see it happening quite a lot again. I will mention just a few of the areas.

Under the Canada Labour Code changes, which my friend from the official opposition already referred to, the changes go in the direction of removing health and safety officers and leaving decisions about health and safety up to the minister.

The same kinds of changes have happened in immigration. In Bill C-4, we see substantial changes in part 3, division 16, to the expression of interest system, basically for immigrants who are coming by way of economic advantage. The decision-making would now increasingly be by ministerial discretion.

Another area where we see ministerial discretion replacing an objective system is in division 14, in which we would repeal the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and replace it with a very similar Mackenzie gas project impacts funds act. In this change the one big difference between the two acts would be to replace an objective corporation, a regional organization that would make decisions about where the funds go, entirely with ministerial discretion.

My friend and colleague from the NDP, the member for Western Arctic, had this to say about it, because he has a lot of expertise in this area. He said:

There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008.

Then I have another excerpt from his quote:

What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate.

Before diving into the specifics of Bill C-4, I wanted to raise into higher profile a consistent ideological theme: moving more and more decision-making in our system of government, which is a parliamentary democracy, away from Parliament, and at the same time moving decision-making of ministers into more and more discretion with less and less guidance.

Those of us who have practised law at any time know that administrative law provides a certain amount of accountability whereby a minister has to follow certain prescribed considerations or in fact delegates authority to expert boards. Less and less will we see this. More and more will we see ministerial discretion. As well, we know that ministers do not really exercise discretion, not in this administration. They do what they are told by the people at PMO, who I think one Conservative described brilliantly as a series of Stepford wives who insist on certain decisions being made a certain way.

To raise my concerns in brief, this bill would do serious damage to the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would change the definition of danger and the ability to refuse dangerous work. It would remove the health and safety officers.

As well, a different section of this bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act, again for more ministerial discretion about which aspects of public service work would be considered to be essential and therefore not open to the usual recourse that trade unions have in negotiations.

We see changes to the Immigration Act to increase ministerial discretion. I would like to cite concerns from the Canadian Bar Association on the immigration law section. They wrote to the committee:

The CBA Section has concerns about the limited consultation on this important change to Canadian immigration law and policy. Bill C-4 would substantially change the way in which economic immigrants are selected to come to Canada. The Bill would remove these changes from Parliamentary scrutiny and approval and give what appears to be unilateral authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to change selection rules and procedures.

Another section of the bill that has gotten very limited public attention is the section that appears in part 3, division 7, which is in aid of getting rid of our deficit by selling off assets. This is the sale of 20,000 hectares described as the Dominion Coal Blocks land.

My amendments at committee, had they been approved, would have provided some conservation protection. These lands are among the most ecologically significant in Canada. They are the blocks in the Flathead Valley and Elk Valley. They are an integral part of what is called the Crown of the Continent, right near the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which is an international peace park on both sides of the border.

The Flathead has been protected by the strange reality of its ownership by the federal government over these years, but it is now to be sold for coal mining. We need to ensure that careful concern is applied to the conveyance of these lands and to ensure that we do not contaminate adjacent park areas. This is a concern already expressed by the United Nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to again try to emphasize, as the member has done, the importance of the immigration and other legislation that has been incorporated in this bill. I have argued in the past and will continue to argue in the future that this is the wrong way to bring in legislation. By doing it this way, we are not allowing for proper procedures on substantial pieces of legislation.

For example, when the leader for the Green Party makes reference to immigration changes, that should have been stand-alone legislation that would have had a second reading at a committee of its own. The committee on immigration would have dealt with it. We would have had stakeholders and witnesses come to committee to provide comment on it, and then it would ultimately come back there. There would have been a more wholesome debate on the whole issue of that specific change.

I wonder if the member could highlight for people who might be watching what has been lost as a result of not having that separate stand-alone legislation for the immigration component and for other pieces.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very hard to know what was lost. We do know that in previous omnibus budget bills, even drafting errors were not corrected. We have seen this rush to pass legislation in a hurry, and if the disparate parts do not get reviewed by committees that have developed expertise in this area, they come back to the government's attention, even within six months, as mistakes.

At the simplest level, haste makes waste, and they end up coming back with amendments to fix things. This bill includes amendments to fix mistakes the government made last time in the employment insurance system for fisheries, fisheries families, and their income.

What is important to drive home is that at a more fundamental level we see a systematic, transformative change in Canadian legislation, away from well-considered and well-developed legislation operating under criteria and controls to a system that could very easily become completely manipulated through the Prime Minister's Office, a system in which ministers have nothing to do but follow through with their directions while the people who actually understand the system are precluded from the decision-making.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the over 70 changes through this legislation would be to public sector collective bargaining rights. Unlike in the private sector, the government wants to give itself the unfettered right to deem certain workers as essential workers in the federal public sector. This could have the impact of their deeming the majority of workers in a bargaining unit to be essential workers, thereby essentially denying them normal collective bargaining rights and the normal right to strike. Coca-Cola cannot do that with its bargaining, but it is what the minister is proposing to do.

Does the member have any comments about the impact this would have on public sector collective bargaining?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as with other pieces of legislation we have seen in this Parliament, would strike directly at the heart of collective bargaining. I will admit a bias, because part of my past work history included working for a union side labour firm and working for labour unions and in collective bargaining.

The principles of collective bargaining are important. If the tools that a labour union and an employer have at their disposal are roughly equal, the employer has the right to lock out and the trade union has the right to strike. If that aspect of collective bargaining is removed, essentially it becomes a system of the employer dictating terms. The employees have no recourse.

In healthy democracies and healthy economies and in places where civil society is healthy and there is less of a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, the strengths of the trade union movement are one of the clearest indicators of a healthy society and a robust middle class. Striking at the heart of collective bargaining for federal employees, as this bill does, is not in Canada's interest.