Hon. Joseph A. Day:

Honourable senators, it is with great pleasure that I join in the debate on second reading of Bill C-9. At second reading, the bill was introduced by the Honourable Senator Gerstein yesterday. I am afraid I am not able to enter into the same type of historical tour de force that the Honourable Senator Gerstein entertained us with yesterday because, honourable senators, I cannot treat a bill of 900 pages nearly as lightly as it has been treated.

Honourable senators, I will tell you a little about some of my concerns, since we are at the stage of dealing with the principles. That is second reading, and the principles are what we are dealing with at this stage. I will raise more questions than I have answers as we have not heard from a good number of witnesses yet.

Honourable senators, I will start by talking about what is in this particular bill. I have indicated that Bill C-9 is almost 900 pages. It deals with or amends 78 statutes. It has 2,208 different sections to be dealt with, and, in fact, it has another statute included within it.

Of the 24 different parts that appear in this bill, let me talk a little about some of the parts; mercifully, I will not go into all 24 of them.

With respect to the section dealing with Employment Insurance, we, in our Finance Committee, have dealt with Employment Insurance in the past, and there have been a number of changes to Employment Insurance along the way.

Last year, we extended for a period of two years the unemployment benefits for certain individuals for five extra weeks, honourable senators will recall.

It was a creation a number of years ago of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, and the idea was to take Employment Insurance out of the consolidated revenues of the government and create an independent board that would set the premiums, and those premiums would be high enough to meet the expenses. Since then, a number of benefits have been added, as I indicated.

The government indicated in legislation last year that $2.9 billion should cover that amount. This legislation takes the old account that was a fictional account within revenue and creates another account. We do not know if it is a fictional or actual account. Several actuaries have come before our committee saying that the amount of money placed into the old account was not sufficient to meet the contingencies and the ups and downs of employment and unemployment. We will have many questions to ask in that regard, and I hope honourable senators will follow the debate. However, if the basic principle is that Employment Insurance should be operated on an insurance basis, and if the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is to be given the authority to make sure that that principle is met, then premiums for corporations and individuals over the next four years must increase by 35 per cent.

That, honourable senators, is what we are dealing with in this particular matter: a 35-per-cent increase in premiums over the next four years.

Another tax increase is in the Air Travellers Security Charge. We just had representatives of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, before our committee on Supplementary Estimates (A) last evening because, in Supplementary Estimates (A), there is a request by the government to give to CATSA $350 million. We have before us a report that I expect Senator Gerstein will be speaking on later today. It is a report on our Main Estimates and in that report is a request for $243 million for CATSA for the coming year. In this particular bill, in addition to those that I have just spoken about, we have an increase of 50 per cent in the Air Travellers Security Charge. This fee will be going up 52 per cent if this bill is passed.

We wanted to know, honourable senators, where all this money is going. We did not get any answers last evening and we asked a good number of questions in that regard. That is another area that will take a considerable amount of time. I am anticipating this bill will be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We will have to explore all of these issues and determine why it is necessary to increase the travellers fee by another 52 per cent, on top of the $350 million that they are asking for in Supplementary Estimates (A). There was also $68,000 going to CATSA for the G8 and G20 summit in Toronto, which is also in Supplementary Estimates (A).

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, honourable senators, is another area dealt with in these supplementary estimates. There have been several different pronouncements by the government with respect to the future of AECL. Our committee has spoken on this. I have a copy of our report from a previous meeting where the government, in Budget 2009, announced the restructuring of AECL. In May 2009, the government announced that AECL would be split into two businesses, one research and one commercial. Later on, it was announced that they would sell the commercial aspect. According to Budget 2010, the government initiated another restructuring process to make it attractive to investors. We have hired a New York City company to try to sell AECL. Various investors have been invited to submit proposals for the commercial sector. Then, most recently, in Part 18 of this particular bill — and this is budget implementation — the government is asking for authorization to sell a part or all of AECL.

What is the answer? Is it part or is it all that they want to sell? If they want to sell part, being the commercial aspect, why are we not being told that? Why would we not participate in this? What about our normal tests and safeguards with respect to the sale of government or Canadian entities to foreign entities? This sale obviously would be a sale to a foreign entity. Why would the test against national security not apply? Why would that be excluded? Why would the interests of Canada not be applied in the foreign investment review agency? Why are these being excluded? Those are questions that we will want to explore. I do not have the answers, but I can raise some questions and I am sure, with the government officials before us, we will raise many more questions, but that will give honourable senators a bit of the flavour of what we have before us.

Softwood lumber was solved forever and ever in 2006, honourable senators will recall. Since then, there has been a major challenge. We had virtually won the court cases previously, but there was a new challenge. We went to the London Court of International Arbitration and we lost that case. Now there is a 10 per cent fee being put on all shipments of softwood lumber products from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan because certain quantities were sold in excess of the quota that was agreed to by the government in order to achieve the earlier settlement. The problem is that Saskatchewan and Manitoba did not breach the quota as much as Ontario and Quebec did. They only breached the quota at certain times, but the same penalty of 10 per cent on all shipments is being imposed on them. We would like to know why that is the case. Why are Saskatchewan and Manitoba being singled out for unfair treatment in this particular instance?

There are several provisions in Bill C-9 deal with pensions, honourable senators.

There is also the issue of remailers with Canada Post, the same issue that was twice before Parliament in a separate piece of legislation, and now it is tucked away in this bill. We will obviously have to delve into this particular matter.

We also have the credit union issue. Credit unions have normally been dealt with by provincial legislation. The federal government is, in effect, inviting them to become national and taking them under federal legislation, requiring them to reincorporate federally so they can be administered under federal legislation.

There is also the issue of credit and debit card networks, dealing with the extensive work that our Banking Committee and Senator Ringuette did with respect to the credit card issue. As well, it is intended that powers and oversight be given to the minister in relation to this particular initiative. We will want to know if the best way to do it is to keep it ministerial or if we should have some other body as an overseeing body.

Senator Gerstein spoke about the universal child benefit yesterday and he characterized it as making it tax-free, and in fact that is not the case. It is not to become a tax-free allowance, and honourable senators will see that if they read the legislation.

Two portions of Bill C-9 deal with single mothers and separated parents. Senator Gerstein described both of those as government initiatives for families. We will have to delve into that particular area in some detail.

Honourable senators, environmental assessments have received attention in a good number of newspaper articles and emails. Many of us have received emails and letters in regard to power that is being taken away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It will lose powers with respect to energy. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will no longer have authority to do the environmental assessment for any energy project or any project the minister can describe as an energy project. The Minister of Natural Resources has the power to define the scope of any environmental assessment and there will no longer be the opportunity for the public — any public — to participate in that scoping exercise. In addition to the energy projects, it excludes certain other projects from assessment.

Honourable senators, these areas are of great concern to a particular segment of society. I have also received communication from the pipeline people, the energy transporting people, to say this is a wonderful idea and this is the way we should go. We will be having conflicting points of view in relation to that particular issue, and we will want to look at it with an open mind.

The government is asking to reduce the statutory requirement to pay corporations or individuals interest on overpayments. If you make a mistake and overpay your income tax, the government previously paid a higher interest rate than what they now want to pay. We will want to understand why that is, and to make sure that the public is treated fairly.

Those, honourable senators, are some of the issues. You can see how diverse these particular issues are. That is why this bill has been characterized by some, including myself, as an omnibus bill.

I looked back through some of the other budget implementation bills. I could not go back as far as my good friend Senator Gerstein did, back to 1763, but I did go back to the time I arrived in the Senate in 2002. I can give honourable senators some of the information from speeches given since then. I want to keep in mind that some people, especially earlier on, referred to omnibus legislation as legislation that actually derived from the budget but was diverse and came from different sources. We understand that budgets are like that. They are omnibus in the sense that the bills deal with many different items coming from the budget.

However, more recently the term is being used to describe legislation that has a lot in it that did not have anything to do with the budget or with financial matters. That is the more modern application of the term "omnibus."

Let me give you just a few of the quotations that I found pertinent, from researching back to the period 2002 to 2010.

First, in 2002, Senator Noël Kinsella said of the budget implementation bill:

. . . whilst I am supportive of the Africa fund, I am not supportive of the air security fee . . .

He is referring to the fee payable on air transportation.

If, at this stage, we are debating the principle of the bill, what is the principle of the bill?

They were at second reading,

I ask, what is the principle of Bill C-9? I understand his dilemma.

Senator Kinsella goes on to say:

Perhaps the bill is totally out of order and should be withdrawn or examined by His Honour. Perhaps that is something we should keep in the back of our minds as we carefully analyze the bill.

Senator Kinsella then goes to say:

I would hope that in committee, if we will not do it here in the chamber . . . the bill could be split or that part which is particularly offensive could be cut away so that honourable senators could be supportive of some parts of the bill they deem to have great merit.

That was Senator Kinsella in 2002, speaking at second reading to a budget implementation bill.

Honourable senators, I have another quotation here. Senator Roch Bolduc also made some very interesting comments, but because he is not here to defend himself, I shall not read what he said. He was a wonderful Conservative senator, for whom I had a great deal of respect. He served on the National Finance Committee during the time he was here. He has since retired. I will therefore skip 2003.

I turn now to Bill C-30 in 2004, second reading, and comments by Senator Donald Oliver. The interesting point is that Senator Oliver became Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I thought this quotation was interesting. He said:

Honourable senators, this rather lengthy bill aims to make law of several of the measures from the most recent budget.

He recognizes that the items were coming from the budget. He refers to it as "this lengthy bill."

Honourable senators, I looked up the bill to see its length. It was 56 pages, — a lengthy bill. There are 900 pages in this one.

That was in May 2004. Senator Oliver had a chance to study the bill further.

In June 2005, a year later, Senator Oliver again — I expect he was still chairing the committee at this time — said:

Honourable senators, we have before us a massive omnibus bill of some 23 separate parts. Bill C-43 ought to have come before us in at least three or more separate bills, one to deal with the budget measures per se . . .

He mentions others to deal with the other matters, and then continues:

I should say, honourable senators, that if these provisions had been put in a separate bill weeks ago, as we had suggested

He goes on to suggest that that portion would have been dealt with expeditiously. That sounds awfully similar to statements made in this chamber just recently.

That "massive bill," honourable senators, was 102 pages. The Honourable Senator Oliver ended his comments by saying:

Regretfully, unfortunate political games were played by including these provisions in this omnibus bill.

They did not deal with financial matters.

Honourable senators, I have a number of quotations that I would love to put on record at some time.

Another quotation that jumped out at me is from Senator Lowell Murray from last year, when he said:

Most important, there are strongly held differences of opinion on these issues among those Canadians who are most knowledgeable, most concerned and most directly affected by these proposals.

In the interests of sound public policy and, indeed, in the interests of the democratic values we espouse, we have a duty to hear them. Their concerns about adverse legislation should not be brushed aside by sneak attack, which is what happens when extraneous measures are forced through in an omnibus budget implementation bill.

That is the position of Senator Murray.

We also have comments here from Senator Goldstein. Since he is not here to defend himself or to support these comments, I will not give them to you. However, I want to remind honourable senators that we on both sides have been making comments about this issue over the past many years, saying that this practice cannot continue.

Last year we came out the strongest that I have seen. We said in our report:

Recommendation 9: The government cease the use of omnibus legislation to introduce budget implementation measures.

We went on and described how the Senate should act if the government does not heed us. The government has obviously not heeded us. Divide the bill into its coherent parts is the motion that has been filed by Senator Murray. Senator Murray's motion would delete all non-budgetary provisions and proceed to consider only those parts of the bill that are budgetary in nature. Alternatively, we do not divide it; just deal with portions of it. Perhaps we should defeat the bill at second reading on the grounds that it is an affront to Parliament. Here we are, at second reading. Do any of us feel like Parliament is being affronted?

We could also establish a new rule of the Senate — I am sorry that we have not pursued this — prohibiting the introduction of budget implementation bills that contain non-budgetary measures.

Those were the recommendations of the majority of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance at this time last year, honourable senators, and you will recall we did a reasoned study of the bill after we passed it. We passed the bill, but we said the Canadian public had a right to be heard on these issues, even though it had been passed. We conducted extensive hearings for the very reason that has been pointed out by Senator Murray and others, that it is important that the public knows that we are doing our expected job and that the public has an opportunity to be heard.

One concern with respect to these omnibus bills is that the public is not being heard. Because we are often rushed and because we have so many different subject matters to deal with, we tend to focus on two or three issues that are well-debated publicly and that are of concern to the most people. The result is unintended consequences and things happen that should not. I pointed that out at the end of my presentation for Bill C-52. This was in 2007. In speaking at third reading, I stated:

Honourable senators, allow me to go through some of the points. Part 7 of this bill is amendments to the Financial Administration Act. We did not have time to look at this, but it changes the right of government to borrow money without parliamentary approval. There used to be a fiscal year limit of $4 billion if they were short on funds before they came back to get approval from Parliament.

That particular provision, clause 85, was deleted and I indicated at that time that our committee felt that we should look into that and that this could have serious unintended and consequential damages.

Honourable senators, in fact, that has been brought up on a number of occasions since. That was three years ago. Why is the government not coming to Parliament to borrow money if they need more money? It was particularly evident last year when the stimulus package was being put together. The government did not need to inform Parliament that they were borrowing more money in order to meet the stimulus package.

I would like to talk briefly about trends. I was drawing together the information from 2002 to the present, and I have already alluded to one of the trends — the size of these bills. However, in 2002, the budget implementation bill was 112 pages long. It was in the House of Commons for 42 days, honourable senators. In 2003, it was 133 pages long. In 2004, it was 56 pages long. In 2005, Bill C-43 was 102 pages. In 2006, Bill C-13 was 186 pages long, with 13 parts. In 2007, there were 134 pages and 14 different parts. In 2008, there were 139 pages and 10 different parts. In 2009, there were 528 pages and 15 parts. Now, in 2010, this bill has 880 pages and 24 parts.

The trend is very clear, honourable senators. In spite of the pleas that have gone out from the committee to please stop this activity of including all this other peripheral information, the government is taking more and more advantage of this particular process with the hope and intention that we will not do the job that we would like to do because we will be anxious to go home for the summer, just like the House of Commons.

Honourable senators, I was very pleased to hear Senator Comeau and then, yesterday, Senator Gerstein repeat the fact that the other side of the chamber is prepared to do what has to be done to deal with this legislation and stay as long as is necessary to do it. I can tell you, honourable senators, that having spoken with my honourable colleagues on this side of the chamber, we feel likewise. I thank you all for the anticipated work that we will be putting in to deal with this bill. I know that we will do what the public expects of us and, in the end, we will do what is right for Canada and what is right for this Senate.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators