Judy Foote

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has noted, this is really not about democracy at all.

Today, the government House leader foolishly told Canadians not to concern themselves with procedure. It is crazy for the government House leader to say such a thing in Parliament, where we are all about procedure and making things happen in the right way and ensuring that what is discussed in the House among MPs of all parties should be about democracy.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly finding ourselves in a situation where, if we do not all come together and recognize that this is the wrong way to go, then we are going to find ourselves in this situation as long as the government is in power.

The procedure and House affairs committee can look at this, with representation from all parties in the House, to try to change the way we have been dealing with legislation, particularly legislation that is so large, considering that the last omnibus bill included 70 acts. We need to come together and work on this, recognizing that it puts members of Parliament in a very difficult position when they are being asked to vote on one piece of legislation that covers so many topics; some of which we could never vote for and some of which we do not want to vote against.

This is why it is important for us to work together and for the procedure and House affairs committee to be asked to look at this and to find a way to make sure that members of the House of Commons are not put in a situation where we are dealing with legislation of this magnitude.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into this omnibus bill, the Conservatives have attempted to pull a fast one on Canadians, hoping that they would not take the time to consider each devastating page of the bill.

Fortunately, Canadians were not fooled and have expressed their outrage at the Conservative government by encouraging this motion today. Indeed, when we had the Liberal opposition introducing 500 amendments in an attempt to have the bill divided so that it could be voted on properly, we know that we and other parties were hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Conservatives used their majority to push through the bill without amendment anyway.

That brings us to today, days before the Conservatives are set to introduce a follow-up omnibus bill rumoured to be even larger and more expansive than its predecessor.

While omnibus bills may present an easy opportunity for governments to introduce complex legislation affecting multiple acts, they are not always the most democratic approach. Lumping dozens of individual pieces of legislation together limits the ability of a voter to hold his or her member of Parliament to account by forcing a member's wide-ranging opinion into a simplistic yes or no.

For example, we expect the next Conservative omnibus bill to make substantive changes to parliamentary pensions. Let me be clear: I support reductions to parliamentary pensions, including my own, so they better reflect the Canadian standard. I think that is the fair and right thing to do. However, if the Conservatives decide, for instance, to include measures in their omnibus legislation that would continue their pattern of dismantling search and rescue in my province, Newfoundland and Labrador, then I would have a real difficulty supporting that particular piece of legislation. I made a commitment to my constituents to oppose any measures that would risk the lives of those who make their living at sea and I intend to keep that commitment.

Herein lies the dilemma with omnibus legislation. In such a circumstance, if I chose to support the reduction in parliamentary pensions, then I would also be forced to break a separate commitment to my constituents. That is why Liberals believe that measures to change the pensions of members of Parliament should be introduced through separate legislation so we have the opportunity to vote in favour of it. We have raised this point both in and outside the House of Commons time and time again, calling upon the government in fact to introduce a different piece of legislation with respect to the pensions of members of Parliament.

In the end, the Conservatives will undoubtedly continue their history of partisan gamesmanship and will predictably include these pension measures in their omnibus legislation, not because it is easier and because the pension measures are related to the budget, but because they can falsely claim that we did not support reducing our pensions if we vote against their millions of dollars in advertising or raising of EI premiums on job creators.

They know that their assertion is patently untrue, but they also know that it will make it easy for them to give stock answers in question period, as my colleague referenced in his earlier remarks. When we are holding the Conservatives to account for reckless policies, it gives the government the opportunity to stand and say, “Well, you voted against it”.

This scheme is insulting to the intellect of Canadians and is, at its heart, intentionally misleading. However, do not take my word for it. Let us listen to what the current Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest, said in response to an omnibus bill on March 25, 1994:

—I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

Keep in mind that the bill the member for Calgary Southwest thought was too diverse at that time to hold a single vote on was only 21 pages long. Twenty-one pages is less than 5% of the length of the last Conservative omnibus bill the Prime Minister introduced.

Ironically, the Prime Minister's reservations could not be more relevant than to his own omnibus legislation. The same Prime Minister who now tries to use an omnibus bill to sneak substantive legislation past Canadians previously asked:

How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

He went on to suggest the following:

Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

That is exactly what we are saying in our opposition day motion today. What the Prime Minister said in 1994 is exactly where we are coming from today. I would like to think that his view would still be applicable today if he were to be asked the question. Unfortunately, that is not the case and we are finding ourselves having to introduce this private member's motion dealing with omnibus legislation because of the actions of the government.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

It was a quote, Mr. Speaker, an editorial in the Toronto Star, but I appreciate—

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

I rise today to speak to the Liberal opposition motion calling on the House to do the following:

[I]nstruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study what reasonable limits should be placed on the consideration of omnibus legislation and that the Committee report back its findings, including specific recommendations for legislative measures or changes to the Standing Orders, no later than December 10, 2012.

To fully understand our motion, let us begin by examining what an omnibus bill is. Chapter 16, page 724 of O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, explains:

[T]here is no precise definition of an omnibus bill. In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several initiatives.

Citing Speaker Fraser's ruling of June 8, 1988, O'Brien and Bosc further state that an omnibus has:

—one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders a bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.

As Canadians await the impending sequel to the Conservative government's March omnibus bill, they clearly remember Bill C-38. Under the guise of implementing the budget, this 425-page Conservative omnibus bill amended more than 70 individual acts affecting an extensive list of departments, including 150 pages dedicated to gutting critical environmental protections and drastically changing the employment insurance program.

We can look at the media's response to this; it is not just Canadians from coast to coast to coast. An editorial in the Globe and Mail stated:

The federal government's 452-page omnibus budget bill contains too much for adequate consideration by Parliament, because it is really more than budget-implementation legislation. Only some portions of it are about public finance, that is, about such matters as income tax, sales tax and federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

Another editorial in the Toronto Star said:

This is political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government. It is not what Harper promised to deliver.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for employment insurance claims that “the vast majority of people who are working while on an EI claim will...be better off”. This is simply wrong.

The government's own report reveals that it plans to cut 57% of the funding for the first year of the working while on claim pilot project compared to last year's project.

How can the minister honestly claim that the vast majority of Canadians who work while on claim would benefit from almost 60% less funding?

[Academic Achievement, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a young women from Grand Bank in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

When Samantha Strowbridge graduated from the nautical science program at the Marine Institute in St. John's, Newfoundland, she was awarded that institution's bronze medal in recognition of her attaining the highest overall average in the final year of the program.

Samantha also won the Governor General's Award, given to the student who attains the highest academic standing for all diploma-level programs.

Her time spent with the local sea cadet corps, RCSCC 71 Atlantic, was instrumental in developing her interest in nautical science and in developing many of the attributes that are helping her succeed in her chosen field.

Samantha is a prime example of a new generation of women who are entering fields once dominated by their male counterparts. Undoubtedly she will have a successful career on the sea, where she aspires to become a master mariner and ultimately to captain her own ship.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Samantha Strowbridge and wishing her every success as she continues to build on her accomplishments.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree and we will vote in favour.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Random—Burin—St. George's who are calling on the government to reverse its decision to raise the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. We are talking about the most vulnerable in our society. In 2009, 4.6 million Canadians received OAS and 1.6 million received the GIS. That number will not be any less as we have an aging population. Seniors are trying right now to make ends meet. It will be no different a year from now, 10 years from now or 50 years from now.

The petitioners are calling on the government to reverse this decision, do the right thing and have the age of eligibility for OAS remain at 65.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at a disastrous news conference today, the Minister of Agriculture smugly stated that the government is “the chief defender of consumer health”. If this is the case, then Canadians are in real trouble. The Minister of Health has remained shockingly silent on the issue. The government has provided misleading and confusing answers to this crisis every day.

Why has the Minister of Health and the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada not stepped in to make sure Canadians are getting the right information?