By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 2, 2013 - 0 Comments
Officially, C-60, the first budget implementation act of the year, requires 128 pages to print. Government House leader Peter Van Loan gave notice yesterday that he’ll move a motion of time allocation today to limit debate at second reading to a total of five days.
We support efforts to help Crown Corporations manage public resources responsibly. We believe that this initiative may have unintended consequences on the successful operation of some corporations. It is important that these consequences are understood and addressed.
We will be writing to the Government to share our concerns about C-60, and to request a meeting to ensure that Ministers have accurate information on CBC/Radio-Canada’s record, both at managing public resources and delivering on its mandate.
The New Democrats, meanwhile, have tabled their proposal for splitting the bill. The motion was denied yesterday at the finance committee, but, for the record, here is what Peggy Nash proposed.
“That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses:
a) clauses 136 to154 related to the Investment Canada Act;
b) clauses 161 to 166 related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
c) clauses 174 to 199 related to the proposed Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act;
d) clauses 213 to 224 related to the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act;
e) clauses 228 to 232 related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between Crown corporations and their employees;
That the clauses mentioned in section a) of this motion do compose Bill C-61; that Bill C-61 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;
that the clauses mentioned in section b) of this motion do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;
that the clauses mentioned in section c) of this motion do compose Bill C-63; that Bill C-63 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development;
that the clauses mentioned in section d) of this motion do compose Bill C-64; that Bill C-64 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;
that the clauses mentioned in section e) of this motion do compose Bill C-65; that Bill C-65 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates;
that Bill C-60 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this Order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”
The Conservatives have said they would like different parts of the bill sent to different committees for study, but we don’t yet have the details of their proposal.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM - 0 Comments
Here is Bill C-60, the first budget implementation act of the year.
At 125 pages—according to the page count on Adobe—it is the shortest budget bill tabled by the Conservatives since 2009, when that year’s second budget bill was 60 pages (the first budget bill tabled that year was 551 pages). It is still larger than all but three budget bills tabled between 1994 and 2005. See this short history of budget implementation acts for previous page totals.
After tabling the bill in the House, Jim Flaherty told reporters that the government will ask the finance committee to send certain parts of the bill to different committees for study.
The bill amends the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Customs Tariff, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Citizenship Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the National Capital Act, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, the National Holocaust Monument Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act.
It also enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, which allows for the amalgamation of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and CIDA.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM - 0 Comments
The official opposition has sent a letter to Jim Flaherty to explain what they’d like to see in the spring budget.
Included therein is a demand that omnibus bills not be used to implement the budget. There was some suggestion last month that this year’s budget would be “smaller.” Smaller is possibly not a hard expectation to meet. What would constitute a small budget bill at this point—200 pages? 100 pages? 50 pages?—is a matter of perspective.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM - 0 Comments
The Canadian Press finds that the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association was interested in changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The Harper government’s attempts to explain the changes to the act have been problematic from the start. First was the attempt, in the context of last year’s second omnibus budget bill, to claim that the changes had been mentioned in the budget. Then there was the case of the disappearing FAQ. And then there was the claim that the act had nothing to do with the environment.
But members of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) are claiming a victory with the change to navigable water legislation. ”We’re ecstatic about that,” president David Marit told delegates to SARM’s mid-term convention back in November. It’s a long fight that we’ve had to deal with and we finally got what we wanted.”
… Marit said the change is the result of a 10-year battle waged by Saskatchewan RMs. “We were the leading advocate across Canada on this issue and we got it,” he said. He said it means streams that only run during the spring season no longer come under the Act. And there’s “one less bureaucracy that we have to go through for approvals on either bridge or culvert replacements.”
Here is Mr. Marit’s testimony to the transport committee last fall.
(Mr. Marit is now perhaps better known as the dissenting commissioner in the dispute over the new Saskatchewan riding boundaries.)
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 4, 2013 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments
Over the weekend, the Liberal leadership frontrunner released his democratic reform platform, including measures to “loosen the grip of the Prime Minister’s Office on Parliament.”
Members of a Liberal government caucus led by me would be required to vote with the Cabinet on only three categories of bills: those that implement the 2015 Liberal platform; those that enable budget or significant money measures; and those that speak to the shared values embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I further believe that prorogation and omnibus legislation have become means for governments to evade scrutiny and democratic accountability. In the case of prorogation, it should never be used to abet governments in their avoidance of difficult political circumstances. As for omnibus bills, they are a simple affront to Parliament and the people who are represented there, and we will not use them.
We will also strengthen the committee system, both in Cabinet and in Parliament. In Cabinet, we will appoint non-Cabinet MPs to committees to ensure that a wider variety of voices are heard as policy is developed. In Parliament, we will strengthen the role of committee chairs and create a more robust system of oversight and review for members from all parties in the House and Senate. Specifically, Parliamentary committees should be given more resources to acquire independent, expert analysis of proposed legislation. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM - 0 Comments
Chris Selley points to one part of C-45, last year’s second budget implementation act.
Until C-45 passed, reserves wishing to lease off parts of their land to businesses had to obtain the consent, in a referendum, of 50%-plus-one members, with a quorum of 50%. If that failed, a second referendum could be launched, and the plan approved with a simple majority, no quorum. Now a single simple majority vote is all that’s needed. Some native leaders object to this amendment on principle. But many others support the changes as a way of streamlining a process that can take years, during which time reserves are at a huge disadvantage in attracting new businesses compared to surrounding communities that are subject to no such process. (Here’s a crazy idea: Why can’t reserves decide the process for themselves?) At the Aboriginal Affairs Committee on Nov. 19, representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Tax Commission, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board and the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association all expressed support for untangling land designations.
But the democratic process that led to these amendments came in for a pounding, both from otherwise supportive witnesses and opposition politicians. Andrew Beynon, the witness from the Aboriginal Affairs department, conceded that there had been no “extensive consultation process,” and that he had never before seen such a sensitive matter crammed into an omnibus bill. Suspicion is warranted any time a government tries to slip something by you in a giant document without asking your opinion.
Two First Nations from Alberta are seeking to challenge C-38 and C-45 in federal court on the grounds that they were not consulted, but their concerns seem to be primarily with the changes made to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Structural reform to limit the ability of a government to table and pass omnibus legislation is probably necessary—if you take the opinion that such bills are a problem and that actual, codified reform is the only way to establish change—but I wonder whether we might reach a point at which the practice is more trouble than it is worth: that what is gained by a government in getting to do what it wants to do in a relatively expedient manner is surpassed by the consternation that results. Does the very idea of omnibus legislation become poisoned? Or can you eventually exhaust the public (and perhaps critics) into accepting that this is how business is done?
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 1:50 PM - 0 Comments
Scott Clark and Peter DeVries explain how to fix the budget process.
The use of Budget Omnibus Bills has grown to the point that they seriously undermine the credibility of the budget process and the authority of Parliament. There is a clear lack of transparency and accountability. There is an urgent need to restore the role of Parliament and its committees in assessing, reviewing and approving proposed legislation. Without sufficient information and clear intention of the proposed initiatives, Parliament and its Committees cannot properly assess the budget. Parliamentary debate is stifled, public involvement ignored and the implementation of good public policy prevented.
The budget needs to be much more explicit on the proposed policy initiatives, providing sufficient details and background information on the proposed initiatives for Parliamentary assessment and for a better understanding by the public at large. Budget Omnibus Bills should be restricted to proposed tax changes only and all proposed spending initiatives should be presented either through the Main Estimates or through separate legislation, submitted to the applicable Parliamentary Committee for review.
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 3:48 PM - 0 Comments
Conservative MP Larry Miller suggests opposition complaints about the size of this year’s omnibus budget bills are not to be taken seriously because he “never heard a peep out of them” when the budget bill in 2010 was 900 pages.
It is possible that Mr. Miller didn’t hear anything, but it would not be accurate to thus presume that the omnibus nature of C-9 passed without a peep. Here, for instance, is a rudimentary search of Hansard that shows the omnibus nature of the bill was at least noted. There were two attempts to split that bill—one in the House, one in the Senate—but the Liberals were loath to initiate an election. Ultimately, the bill passed the Senate intact.
That said, Mr. Miller has something of a point: the consternation expressed about C-38 this spring (and again this fall with C-45) seemed orders of magnitude larger than the reaction that met previous bills. That probably has something to do with the fact that a majority government situation makes it easier to oppose. And had there been more attention paid to previous budget bills, the fight against omnibus legislation now might be easier. (If, for instance, you imagine that continued fights over omnibus legislation will ultimately force some kind of compromise, it’s possible that a greater fight two years ago might mean compromise that much sooner. That is, if you believe that this year’s fights over C-38 and C-45 have had, or will have, some impact.)
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM - 0 Comments
Wab Kinew explains the Idle No More protests.
2. #IdleNoMore is about the Environment
Idle No More started in part because of outrage that Bill C-45 reduced the number of federally protected waterways. The environment continues to be a regular topic at Idle No More protests. Dr. Pam Palmater, one of the leading voices in the Idle No More conversation, argues this is indigenous environmentalism is significant since the crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal people before natural resource projects proceed. She says, “First Nations are Canadians’ last, best hope of protecting the land, water, sky and plants and animals for their future generations as well.”
1. #IdleNoMore is about Democracy
Democracy thrives when well-informed people are engaged and make their voices heard. Idle No More started with four young lawyers trying to inform the people in their communities about an issue they were passionate about. Now many people are engaged. Even more information is being shared, and even more voices are being heard. There is no one leader or “list of demands” attributable to Idle No More. While this may seem chaotic, this is what democracy is all about. Democracy is messy. Democracy is loud. Democracy is about hearing a wide ranges of voices and trying to build a path forward among them. It is not about shutting off debate or trying to rush things in through the back door.
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM - 0 Comments
Chantal Chagnon, an aboriginal singer and drummer originally from the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, said the omnibus bill violates First Nations’ treaty rights as well as human rights. “We’re fed up,” Chagnon said. “This new bill coming in, it’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Regena Crowchild, a treaty consultant with the Tsuu T’ina nation, said the government hasn’t consulted with First Nations groups on the legislation that affects them. “They’re not giving us proper opportunity to address our concerns or talk to them about it,” Crowchild said. “They want to amend the Indian Act without consulting us. All this legislation is just moving towards making us ordinary Canadians with no treaty rights.”
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 10:16 AM - 0 Comments
Shortly after Question Period concluded, the Speaker formally called for yelling. All those in favour of the motion were invited to yell yea. All those opposed were invited to yell nay.
Technically, one supposes, the members need not yell yea or nay. They could nearly say so aloud. But democracy is not for the quiet. And so on one side they yelled yea and on the other side they yelled nay, the NDP’s Peter Julian seeming to particularly enjoy this (holding his yell for an extra beat or two). The Speaker made a judgement as to who had yelled most and then, inevitably, at least five members of whichever side had lost stood to demonstrate their desire for a formal standing vote to be recorded for the sake of posterity.
With a few of these final formalities dispatched with, the Speaker called for the members—all those duly elected to be here given 30 minutes to report to the House to spend the next seven hours expressing their respective wills on Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act of 2012.
Out in the foyer, as the dull digital tone that now stands in for the ringing of actual bells chimed over and over, Bob Rae attempted to explain to a cluster of reporters what could be hoped to be accomplished by what was about to happen.
“Well, you know, we want to inflict, frankly, as much damage and make the government realize this is just a crazy way to do public business,” he said. “We’re happy to discuss navigable waters. We’re happy to discuss the tax credit policy of the government. We’re happy to discuss what their approach is to small business. We just think these things have to be dealt with in a way that respects the House and respects the democratic process. And we just don’t see that in the approach that’s being taken by the government. They are pushing any approach that’s being taken by any other parliament in the world much, much, much further. In fact, if you go back to many of the principles of parliamentary democracy, they’re opposed to this joining together of several measures in one bill. In some states in the United States, to do that is actually unconstitutional.” Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM - 0 Comments
The proposed amendments are presently being read into the record and put to voice votes in the House. As I type, Joe Comartin just read Motion 386, leaving just less than 300 to go. While we wait for the reading to end and the standing votes to begin, a few random speeches (courtesy of YouTube) from the C-45 debate.
Liberal MP Judy Foote.
NDP MP Glenn Thibeault.
Conservative MP Ted Opitz.
NDP MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault.
Conservative MP Kyle Seeback.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM - 0 Comments
With the House due to spend something like eight hours Tuesday night voting on the second budget implementation bill, a rough guide to how we arrived at this point (again).
I have this odd feeling of deja vu.
Yeah, me too.
So what’s the deal?
As has been their habit since forming government, the Conservatives tabled a second budget implementation act this fall. C-45 measures 457 pages. That’s actually five pages longer than the relatively infamous C-38. At a combined weight of more than 900 pages, this year’s budget bills are only outweighed by 2010′s tandem, which measured 1,056 pages. In all, C-45 amends all of these different pieces of legislation and creates an entirely new act to deal with the bridge from Windsor to Detroit.
Could you please neatly summarize the issues and concerns about omnibus legislation of this sort?
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:07 PM - 0 Comments
Scott Brison has submitted some 3,000 amendments to C-45 to be considered by the finance committee. The committee will inevitably run out of time to vote on all those amendments, at which point the House could be asked to consider the proposed changes.
Either way, Elizabeth May says she’ll have about 100 amendments to proposed when the latest budget bill returns to the House. So while the precise duration remains to be seen, some kind of voting marathon appears likely.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM - 0 Comments
But NDP MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, Ont.), chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, countered that the government knew the timing meant the committee reviews would be limited. “I think our House leader nailed it right when he said it’s a charade,” Mr. Christopherson said. “The government is trying to give the impression they are acquiescing to the opposition’s request for a more detailed scrutiny of the budget implementation bill, but they are doing it in such a way that, in reality, it’s not going to happen in a way that can have any kind of impact,” he said. “It’s all a charade, it’s all a game. It’s unfortunate because it leaves Canadians with the impression that this government is being transparent and accountable, but the reality is they are not. By having control of all the committees, through their majority vote, they are able to manipulate this process in such a way that it looks like something good is being done, but in reality it’s not really happening, which is sort of the trademark of this government, isn’t it,” Mr. Christopherson said.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM - 0 Comments
The House is scheduled to be on break for the week of November 12 and the New Democrats and Liberals are thus concerned that the government’s schedule for study of C-45 does not allow committees sufficient time to properly review the bill. A motion from Marc Garneau that would’ve instructed the committees to meet through the break week failed to receive unanimous consent in the House.
Here is Bob Rae’s exchange with the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Bob Rae. Mr. Speaker, in the discussion on the omnibus legislation, it is now clear that because of the short week next week and because of the break the week after, the committees to which all these bills and measures have been referred will have very little time to deal with the substantive matters before them. Would the Prime Minister agree that it would be a much better idea if the House were to direct the committees to meet during the break week so that these substantive measures can be dealt with?
Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, traditionally I do not get involved in procedural matters and committees are the masters of their own business. As is very well known, the government tabled the budget in March of this year, with a range of very important measures for the strength of the Canadian economy. We are in a period once again of some global slowdown and we need to be doing everything we can to keep our economy moving forward. I know these things have been before Parliament for a very long time so obviously I would encourage all members to continue their study of them and to act expeditiously in a way that is in the interests of jobs and growth.
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM - 0 Comments
A recent poll from Forum Research.
‘Do you agree or disagree the government should be permitted to bundle many different types of legislation under one Omnibus Budget Bill?’
Don’t know 22%
Within that sample, only 33% of Conservative supporters agreed that government’s should be permitted to use omnibus budget bills.
The significant development here, if there is one, would be that the very idea of an omnibus bill could be taking on negative connotations in the general public. Arguably that’s already happened with prorogation.
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments
Of the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that are included in the latest budget implementation act, the Conservatives have argued that the act is “not an environmental law” and insisted that the NWPA is about “navigation and navigation only.” On that note, Megan Leslie deferred yesterday to Transport Canada’s FAQ on the act.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities’s own web page contradicts his talking points. The Navigable Waters Protection Act FAQ alone mentions the environment 23 times, and the website says of the act: “These stiff new penalties reflect the government’s ongoing concern toward maintaining the safety of public navigation and the environment.” That is right, according to the department, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is about protecting the environment. Why is the minister so confused about his portfolio?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, changing the words “navigable waters” to “navigation” does not change the essence of this act. That is about navigation, and that is what we will continue to do. The member asks frequent questions about the environment, and the Minister of the Environment will continue to answer her. We will continue to answer her about navigation.
The FAQ in question is here.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM - 0 Comments
On CBC radio’s The House this weekend, Evan Solomon interviewed Jim Flaherty. During that interview, Solomon raised Stephen Harper’s 1994 point of order about omnibus legislation and asked Mr. Flaherty what had changed since then. Mr. Flaherty responded as follows.
Well, you know, what has changed is that it’s very, very difficult to get a piece of legislation through the House of Commons because of the obstreperous nature of the opposition and so we need to, you know, make sure in the budget—it’s like, the budget itself is 473 pages, which I delivered on March 29. So we took half of it and we did it in the first budget bill. The other half we do in the second budget bill. There are no surprises, it’s all part of jobs, growth and prosperity for the government of Canada. It’s our agenda and we’re a majority government, we’re entitled to advance our agenda. I know the opposition doesn’t like that and good luck to them in the next election.
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments
In fact, a cursory search of the March 2012 budget document reveals that Flahery is wrong — not everything in the legislation tabled Thursday was flagged in the spring spending blueprint. For instance, on EI rates, the budget stated that: “Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the rate, but the government will limit rate increases to no more than five cents each year until the EI Operating Account is balanced.” On Thursday, the board was disbanded while the Conservatives set up what they’re calling an “interim … regime” for setting EI rates.
The budget also made no mention of changes to the definition of a native fishery included in the omnibus bill, while the Navigable Waters Protection Act is entirely absent from the March budget.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM - 0 Comments
The Scene. Thomas Mulcair agreed with Stephen Harper. Just not now. Or at least not the version of Stephen Harper that was now in front of the NDP leader.
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to shove another 450-page budget bill down the throats of Canadians,” Mr. Mulcair reported. “The finance minister once again showed total disregard for our democratic institutions, choosing photo ops rather than Parliament, 450 pages. The Prime Minister once criticized the Liberals for their omnibus approach. He was right then, he is wrong now.”
“Will the Prime Minister respect Canadians, respect the role of Parliament and split this omnibus bill to allow for proper study?” the NDP leader asked.
Alas, Mr. Harper was not inclined to agree with his earlier view.
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians’ priorities are focused on the economy. They remain jobs and growth,” the Prime Minister reported. “This government continues to move forward with the latest version of the plan presented in March to promote jobs and growth across this country and to continue the relatively superior performance of the Canadian economy.”
You needn’t read the budget yourself, you see, because it is mostly just the words “jobs” and “growth” written over and over again for 450 pages. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM - 0 Comments
In all, C-45, the second budget implementation act, amends or affects the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, Jobs and Economic Growth Act, Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, Trust and Loan Companies Act, Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, Fisheries Act, Schedule I of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, Canada Pension Plan, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, Indian Act, Judges Act, Canada Labour Code, Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, Customs Act, Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, Employment Insurance Act, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Fees Act, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Canada Grain Act, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to Repeal the Grain Futures Act, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act, Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act, Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, Public Service Superannuation Act, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and Canada Revenue Agency Act
It also enacts a new bill, the Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act, which “excludes the application of certain Acts to the construction of a bridge that spans the Detroit River and other works and to their initial operator … establishes ancillary measures” and “amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act.”
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM - 0 Comments
Here is C-45, the second budget implementation bill, which was tabled in the House about 20 minutes ago.
As a pdf, it is 457-pages long.
Depending on the precise and final formatting, that would make this bill longer than C-38, the year’s first budget implementation act. At a combined 900 pages, that would be the second largest load of budget bills in the last 19 years: surpassed only by the two bills that were tabled in 2010 that combined for more than a thousand pages.
Here, for the sake of comparison, are the page counts for all budget implementation bills going back to 1994. If you add all the budget bills from 1994 through 2001 together at the time they received Royal Assent, they total 473 pages.
And here again is the rough guide to Bill C-38, which should answer a lot of the procedural and contextual questions you might have about C-45.