June 20, 2012 - No. 92

Omnibus Budget Implementation Act Passed in House of Commons

Harper Government's Fraudulent "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity" Act

Cross-Canada protests against Bill C-38 in recent weeks.

Omnibus Budget Implementation Act Passed in House of Commons
• Harper Government's Fraudulent "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity" Act
• Sweeping Changes Seek Complete Wrecking of Canada - Pauline Easton
• Trampling of the Public Will to Serve Private Interests - Jim Nugent
• Government Departments Withhold Information Requested by Parliamentary Budget Officer - Anna Di Carlo

For Your Information
• Harper Dictatorship's Omnibus Budget Implementation Act - Enver Villamizar
• Changes to Temporary Foreign Workers Program - Presentation of Alberta Federation of Labour to Senate Standing Committee

Omnibus Budget Implementation Act Passed in House of Commons

Harper Government's Fraudulent "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity" Act

On June 18 Omnibus Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, passed third reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 158 to 135. It is now in the Senate where it is expected to pass before June 22 when the Houses of Parliament are scheduled to adjourn for the summer.

One can only surmise that the Harper dictatorship decided to load Bill C-38 with everything it could not or did not want to attempt to present to Parliament when it had minority status. It further follows that it decided to limit review to only one House of Commons Committee and limit debate so that Canadians would be as uninformed as possible about how their country is being changed.

While Canada's system of government has always served the propertied classes and decisions put before the Parliament have always been taken in the boardrooms of big business beforehand, this legislation actually makes secret deal-making about all public affairs legal. It is the most fraudulent attempt yet on the part of government to claim democratic legitimacy for something the public perceives to be utterly corrupt and undemocratic.

This method of seizing dictatorial powers is also being adopted by the Ontario government of Dalton McGuinty, despite its minority status, as well as others. The Charest government's suspension of civil rights has given his Ministers wide powers to make changes in the fields of education, sports, recreation, finance and public order.

TML calls on workers across the country and Canadians from all fields of life to step up their opposition to this bill and undertake measures to see that it does not succeed in accomplishing its aim. It is also necessary to seriously study the measures this bill contains so as to defend the interests of individual Canadians, their collectives and the general interests of society. Vigorously oppose the secret deals, the sellout of Canada and the privatization of public institutions and public life! Oppose Bill C-38!

Sweeping Changes Seek Complete
Wrecking of Canada

- Pauline Easton -

Opposition to the Harper government's fraudulent "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act" is manifesting itself across the country, along with opposition inside the Parliament. Already this opposition has managed to reveal that the bill is very damaging to the life of Canadians as concerns employment insurance, old age security arrangements and environmental protection. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of what this bill represents for Canada.

A reading of Bill C-38 makes it clear that it was not written so that MPs or the general public would have any overall sense of its aims or guiding principles. Instead it is a massive compilation of almost any and all initiatives the government wants to implement and the question remains what precisely all of those are and what the government seeks to accomplish.

The Harper dictatorship arrogantly tries to cover up its nation-wrecking tracks with fraudulent attempts to give the legislation legitimacy. First it added a short title: the "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act." This in turn permits the Harper government to hide what it is doing to politicize private monopoly interests and depoliticize the polity. By integrating Canada into a United States of North American Monopolies, the Harper government's overall aim is to turn over all of Canada's assets to the private monopoly interests which are colluding and contending with the Europe of the Monopolies. It is integrating itself with U.S. arrangements and military command, because it wants to be part of the U.S. deciding the fate of Europe and it wants to play a role in making U.S. plans to dominate Asia effective. It also seeks to become more effective in helping the U.S. to reverse the trend of anti-imperialist integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is how the Harper government is advancing the monopoly interests it serves. This is why, no sooner had it passed the Budget Implementation Act, its full attention shifted to Europe and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This is also why the Harperites continue to use the despicable medieval practice of defamation to declare that anyone who opposes this legislation opposes "jobs, growth and long-term prosperity" and is therefore an enemy of the state. This is not an idle threat by the Harper government for everyone to toe the line or else. The very aim of the legislation is to give the executive power unfettered "right" to make whatever changes it wants to practically any laws it wants and to criminalize any opponents under the pretext that they are damaging the economy and threatening national security. In this way, with this bill, the Harper dictatorship is not only assaulting the constitutional premises upon which Canada was founded but also gives itself the power to criminalize any individual or collective which resists the changes or fights for their rights or a new direction for Canada.

The more one studies this bill, the more obvious it becomes that an inquiry should be conducted to consider whether it is not in fact a coup d'état, using all the legal trappings to achieve it. The fact remains that the sweeping changes contained in Bill C-38 attack fundamental individual and collective rights and the general interests of society and radically alter Canada's foundational constitutional arrangements. This makes it clear that the clash between the conditions in Canada and the authority will continue to sharpen and that the program which the working class and people must seriously consider taking up for implementation must bring about democratic renewal and lead to adopting a modern constitution.

Canadians from coast to coast are presented with the call of history to rise against the vision of society contained in this legislation and the sweeping anti-worker, anti-social and anti-national changes it seeks to make. The crisis must be resolved in favour of the working class and people of the country. A government worthy of the name must uphold public interest, not the private interests of the monopolies and their nation-wrecking. All out to make it so!

Trampling of the Public Will to Serve Private Interests

- Jim Nugent -

Long before it was ever presented in Parliament, Stephen Harper outlined his government's 2012 budget for international financiers and CEOs of international monopolies gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Summit in January. In his speech at Davos, Harper said that his government would undertake a "transformation of Canada ... within months" to make Canada more attractive in the competition for international investment. Pushing Bill C-38 through Parliament is Harper keeping his promise to the global moneybags.

All of the elements of Bill C-38 that Canadian workers and broad sections of the people have been opposing were part of this promise: dismantling social security programs; cuts to health and social programs; elimination of "unnecessary regulatory delays" to energy, mining and other major capital projects; closer integration with the U.S.; and more trade agreements opening Canada to the major trading blocks and providing Canada access to those trading blocs; closer alignment of immigration policy with the needs of international monopolies; and making expansion of energy exports and pipelines for exports a national priority.

The unfolding events in the European Union countries and elsewhere are revealing that a fierce and intensifying competition is underway within the imperialist system of states to provide competing sections of finance capitalists with the most attractive haven for international capital. Capital considers a situation attractive where political authority serving private interests is expanded to the maximum and where the standard of living of the people and public interests are collapsed to the minimum. To come out on top in the global scramble, Harper is determined to make whatever anti-social, nation-wrecking transformations are required within Canada and demand the same of other countries. Harper's Davos promises to the financial oligarchy, now delivered in Bill C-38, serve this end.

Harper was able to push his budget bill through, but not without arousing widespread opposition to the measures it contains to drive down the standard of living of the people and to make all of the resources of the social and natural environments available to international monopolies and financiers. Workers, workers' organizations and other organizations across the country are in action against this offensive. There is also widespread opposition to the bill on the basis of the profoundly undemocratic way it has been imposed and the dictatorial powers it grants to the government for the purpose of expanding the political authority it uses to serve private interests.

In their determination to impose their austerity agenda and other anti-social measures against the public will, the Harper government, with the governments of Quebec and the provinces in lockstep, are pressing into service every legal prerogative and every form of executive power available to them, regardless of how undemocratic and dictatorial this use of power is. The constitutionally sanctioned use of prerogative powers which are limited by law has now been overthrown by passing laws which permit the unfettered use of the prerogative powers. This has been done in the most bellicose "shock and awe" style to impose regulations which drive down the standard of living of working people and aggressively attack anyone who resists and to integrate Canada into the United States of North American Monopolies and put it under U.S. military command.

The prerogative powers, also known as police powers, belonged to "the King and the King's Men," to be exercised according to "the King's personal conscience," until democratic governments were created which brought these powers under the control of the Parliament. The prerogative powers were kept but were brought under the control of the Commons by making sure a mandate was provided for their use by Parliament with duly enacted laws to that effect. This means that the use of ministerial regulation, ministerial directives and ministerial orders were designed to prevent arbitrary rule -- absolute right of a monarch -- and ensure Rule of Law, a situation where elected bodies can render account for what takes place.

The expansion of the scope of the arbitrary police powers in Bill C-38 is unacceptable in a modern society which is said to be governed by the Rule of Law. Vague and open-ended legislation providing powers to create regulations and overrule existing laws make it impossible to consider what the possible consequences of legislation would be, putting the electorate and the Parliament itself in the ridiculous position of having to come under the dictate of whatever a Minister decides on matters of serious concern to the polity and its future. Broad sections of law affecting every aspect of people's lives, public interests and public assets are handed over to the sole discretion of Ministers and the Cabinet who, once granted the powers, never have to return to Parliament for approval.

The very format of the omnibus budget implementation bill, along with the use of severe time constraints on debate and committees, has itself been characterized by many as an abuse of parliamentary processes, a farce which makes a mockery of Parliament. The bill lumps together into a single Act hundreds of unrelated pieces of legislation, including a smorgasbord of legislative changes micro-targeted to serve very specific private interests. Such an incoherent way of presenting legislation, without even the usual lip service to due consideration, is in fact a massive assault on the concept that the electorate has the right to be informed about and consider the laws before Parliament.

This entire episode of Bill C-38 is contributing to the growing perception among the people that the Harper regime, in its determination to impose its austerity agenda and other nation-wrecking measures on the country against the public will, is prepared to use whatever undemocratic and dictatorial means are required to achieve this. It is becoming plain to see that a government serving the private interests of a tiny rich minority and the international financial oligarchy at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of working people, will necessarily resort to draconian means for achieving its aims.

People are striving for empowerment and for a say in issues affecting their lives and the society. They will not tolerate Harper's trampling over the public's legal will by making a mockery of Parliament to seize dictatorial powers. Opposition to the Harper government's undemocratic and dictatorial measures is strengthening the opposition to its anti-social, nation-wrecking offensive.

Conservative Government Defies Its Own Laws

Government Departments Withhold Information Requested by Parliamentary Budget Officer

- Anna Di Carlo -

What part of "financial and economic data" don't the Conservatives understand?

On June 18, the Harper Conservatives pushed the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 through its third and final reading in the House of Commons by sheer force of their majority. On the same day, Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) Kevin Page released a commissioned legal opinion attempting to pressure the government to release information it is withholding about the consequences of the Budget Implementation Act, in violation of  the laws governing its responsibilities to Parliament.

The Conservative Party first came to power in the 2006 Federal Election promising to end an era of government and party corruption as embodied in the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal. In a personal message to Canadians introducing the Conservative electoral platform, Stephen Harper wrote: "The time for accountability has arrived. Canadians will soon be able to finally hold the Liberals accountable." Six years later, it has become brutally clear that while Canadians held the Liberals accountable by ending their 12-year rule, the Conservative Party had no intention of subjecting itself to principles of accountability once in power.

Since April 12, the PBO has been attempting to get information "pertaining to the savings measures" of government departments in relation to the 2012 Budget. Of the 82 departments solicited for this information, only 18 have complied. On May 15, the Clerk of the Privy Council wrote a letter to the PBO on behalf of the 74 delinquent departments, stating that the withheld information related to "the government's obligations under collective agreements" and that the information would be provided to "affected employees and their unions" as the departments start to implement their cutbacks. Instead of the information requested by the PBO, a summary of planned spending reductions was provided. On May 30, the PBO renewed his request, noting that the "contractual obligation under collective agreements" was not a legal ground for refusing to provide his office with budgetary information.

Finally on June 18, the PBO released a legal opinion prepared by University of Ottawa Law Professor Joseph Magnet and PBO Senior Financial Advisor Tolga R. Yalkin who is also a lawyer. It outlines the "legal basis for the requirement to provide the information requested by the PBO." The opinion states: "The Act requires the provision of financial and economic data in a timely manner. No legal exception to this requirement has been advanced, and none appears from the analysis of the correspondence exchanged [between the PBO and the Privy Council]. Accordingly, the non-compliant departments have statutory obligations to provide the information."

The legal opinion summarizes the mandate of the PBO as outlined in Section 79.2 of the Act of Parliament as amended by the Accountability Act of 2006. It states: "The PBO's mandate consists of three core objectives: 1. Independent and self-directed analysis about the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government, and trends in the national economy...; 2. Activities at the request of one of the committees referenced in subparagraphs..., as well as research at the request of any committee of the Senate or House of Commons or a joint committee that is mandated to consider the estimates of the government...; 3. Estimate the financial cost of any proposal relating to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction at the request of any member of either House or by a committee of either House or a joint committee...."

Referring to the PBO's mandate in the context of the 2012 Budget, the legal opinion states: "Approximately 70 per cent of these reductions pertain to unspecified efficiencies. Given the uneven track record of public sector jurisdictions, including the federal government, in achieving sustainable operating efficiencies without material service impacts or necessary fiscal adjustments, the PBO requested details regarding the implementation plans of federal organizations to achieve the fiscal 'savings.' An assessment of the underlying risk and uncertainties related to these savings initiatives would inform consideration of the nation's finances, as well as the government's estimates."

The legal opinion notes that the Act of Parliament requires, among other things, that the PBO's request "must be for financial or economic data" and "required for the performance of the PBO's mandate." To argue the case that the PBO's request is valid and should be complied with, it provides the Conservative Government with definitions of "financial or economic data" which should be used to interpret the law. It states:

"'Data is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as:

"Datum / n. (pl. data: see data as main entry). 1. a piece of information. 2. a thing known or granted; an assumption or premise from which inferences may be drawn (see sense -- datum). 3. a fixed starting-point of a scale etc. (datum-line). [L, = thing given, neut. past part. of dare give].'

"These definitions show that the primary meaning of data is the facts and information used for the purpose of study and research, including studies, research or conclusions that have been reached"

It goes on: "The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'financial' as:

"[o]f, pertaining, or relating to finance or money matters,' with 'finance' defined as '[t]he pecuniary resources: ... of a sovereign or state [or] ... of a company or an individual... The term 'economic' is defined as '[o]f, relating to, or concerned with the science of economics or with the economy in general...; relating to the development and regulation of the material resources of a community or state.'"

It concludes that: "The ordinary or plain meaning of the words financial or economic data is therefore facts and information that relate to Canadian pecuniary resources and the regulation and development of Canadian material resources."

The legal opinion also addresses the two legally allowed exemptions under which the government could refuse to release information. One is under Section 19 of the Access to Information Act which forbids the release of private information about individuals. The legal opinion states that no personal information is involved in the data requested and in the event such information was at stake, it could be redacted. The other exception relates to information contained in a Cabinet confidence. Legislation related to this matter specifies a list of seven Cabinet confidence exemptions, such as "memoranda the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to Council" and "discussion papers the purpose of which is to present background explanations, analyses of problems, or policy options to Council for consideration by Council in making decisions." The legal opinion points out: "It is doubtful that any financial or economic data of the type requested by the PBO would meet the criteria for a Cabinet confidence. This data is likely to exist in forms other than that provided to Cabinet or to a Minister for the purpose of Cabinet discussions in any event."

As its general conclusion, the legal opinion states: "It follows that financial or economic data is used in the Act in a sense sufficiently broad so as to allow the PBO adequate information to conduct analysis on the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy."

The irony of all of this is that the Conservative government introduced the office of the PBO in its signature Accountability Act in 2006. This legislation was introduced in keeping with the Conservatives' 2006 election campaign, where they said they would "ensure truth in budgeting" by requiring "government departments and agencies to provide accurate, timely information to the PBO to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament." The Conservative electoral platform stated: "Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament does not know the accurate state of public finances."

When they promised Canadians these things and passed legislation to make it so, the only thing they left out was that they themselves would not follow the law.

For Your Information

Harper Dictatorship's Omnibus Budget
Implementation Act

- Enver Villamizar -

Omnibus Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures passed third reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 158 to 135 on June 18. The 453-page omnibus legislation presents Parliament with 753 clauses modifying, amending adding or eliminating close to 70 laws, all to be decided in a single vote.

The law is now in the Senate, where the Harper government arranged for a "pre-study" of the legislation prior to its adoption by the House of Commons. This was done in order to guarantee its enactment into law before Parliament recesses for the summer on June 22 notwithstanding Opposition efforts to slow the progress of the legislation.

Revealing the significance of the changes being brought in with the legislation and the arrogance of the Harper government in ramming it through the House of Commons, Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty stated:

"I'm sure there are items in the bill that could be improved and made better. We always do that in government over time. The bill is the economic policy of the government; it's the big plan for the government for the next decade. It's a generational plan, so it's not about bits and pieces. It's about the big picture, that's why it's so important that we move forward, particularly given what's going on in the world."

Confirming that the new law is all about imposing the Harper government's neoliberal ideological vision for Canada, Flaherty once again tried to claim legitimacy for his government's anti-social, anti-worker and anti-Canada law by saying his so-called majority government is elected to implement this platform: "The New Democratic Party is quite radical and has a very different view of the economic future of our country. We have our view and our view is supported by the mandate we got from the people of Canada last year, so we're carrying out the mandate that we have -- which is about jobs and growth and economic prosperity."

The Opposition parties attempted to split up Bill C-38 so it could be better debated in the House of Commons and at Committee. Once it was clear this was not going to take place, both the NDP and Liberal Party decided to hold public consultations on the legislation. During the short period available for their consultations and the debate, the Opposition parties tried to focus on the changes to Old Age Security, Employment Insurance and environmental regulations.

This legislation will drastically affect the basic social fabric since it delivers Canada to all out privatization in all spheres of life, including permitting the privatization of all hitherto public social services, institutions, social programs, pensions and everything else which can be robbed from the people to pay the rich. The bill provides government Ministers with unfettered prerogative powers to rule by decree. It will not only lower the standard of living of all Canadians and further destroy the principles on which the Canadian federation was founded -- which include the need to provide universal high standards and services to all Canadians -- but it totally dehumanizes Canadians. In this world of the Harper dictatorship, Canadians -- citizens, residents and temporary foreign workers and refugees alike -- are totally dehumanized to be considered nothing but cheap labour, clients, consumers or treasonous elements to be deprived of all civil rights.

Committee Hearings on Bill C-38

Bill C-38 passed second reading on May 14, moving on to committee stage. Despite the impact of the legislation on more than 70 laws, the government used its power to restrict review by committee to the Standing Committee on Finance. This is a significant issue since the legislation contains measures that touch on the mandates of almost all of the House of Commons' Standing Committees. Some MPs pointed out that this was a departure from parliamentary practice which would normally entail a single piece of legislation debated by a committee for at least four to five hours.

Instead, consideration of the legislation and any amendments to its many clauses was crammed into 10 sitting days by the Standing Committee on Finance. During the hearings, which totalled 70 hours, 100 witnesses appeared. In most cases they were unable to elaborate their area of expertise due to time constraints and the fact that MPs on the committee were dealing with files normally out of their jurisdiction.

The 70 hours also included consideration of amendments and voting on the amendments, all of which were voted down by Conservative Committee members. On June 7, the Committee tabled its report in the House of Commons recommending that it be adopted unchanged.

Meanwhile, four Senate Committees were engaged in the pre-study of Bill C-38: the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources; the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce; the Committee on National Security; the Committee on Transport and Communications; and the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Opposition Efforts to Stop Bill C-38

On June 4, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands raised a Point of Order challenging the legitimacy of Bill C-38 under House of Commons Standing Order 68 (3) which states that: "No bill may be introduced either in blank or imperfect state."

Elizabeth May was in a unique position that enabled her to bring forward a vast majority of the 871 motions that were tabled. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons specify that an amendment cannot be brought forward at report stage if it could have been presented in committee. Since party leaders do not normally sit on committees and there is no other Green Party MP that could have sat on a committee, her motions could not be ruled invalid because it would have been impossible for her to present them at committee.

May argued that C-38 was not properly an omnibus bill, and sought a ruling from the Speaker that it be set aside. Specifically she raised that Bill C-38 does not meet the criteria for omnibus legislation because it lacks one central theme, that is "one basic principle or purpose"; it fails to provide a link between certain items in the bill and the budget itself; and it "omits actions, regulatory and legislative changes" that the Government claims are included in it.

On June 11 Speaker of the House Andrew Sheer ruled against May's Point of Order, upholding the validity of the omnibus bill. He prefaced his ruling with the declaration that "Although this expression is commonly used, there is no precise definition of an omnibus bill." Nevertheless, he went on to provide a definition, stating that "an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives. An omnibus bill has 'one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.'" One of the reasons cited for introducing an omnibus bill is to bring together legislative amendments arising from a single policy decision in order to facilitate parliamentary debate, Sheer said.

The Speaker ruled that C-38 was tabled in proper form, pointing out that its long title -- An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures -- was sufficiently broad to indicate that elements not in the budget were being included. He also cited the Bill's short title: the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, reiterating that this gave the government license to include all the measures it did. He ended his ruling by stating: "In the absence of rules or guidelines regarding omnibus legislation, the Chair cannot justify setting aside Bill C-38 and accordingly must rule that Bill C-38, in its current form, is in order."

On June 7, the unamended legislation returned from Committee and was presented to the House of Commons for approval. At this point, 871 amendments were tabled by the Opposition, the majority by Elizabeth May.

May's amendments focused on substantive changes to the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, as well as the Fisheries Act and other provisions reducing protection of fish habitat. Her amendments also included one to re-instate the National Round Table on the Environment, of which May was a former member. During debate on the amendments, May offered to withdraw her other amendments in exchange for the Conservatives agreeing to restore the Round Table, but the Conservatives refused.

On June 11, NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen raised a Point of Privilege, arguing that the government had not provided the House of Commons with information it possessed on the implications and impact of Bill C-38. Cullen stated:

"In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.

"Herein lies our privilege. We have used every available tool to the Opposition through questions on the order paper, requests through the Parliamentary Budget Officer, through questions during question period and at committee directed to the ministers pertaining to this issue, to understand directly and implicitly the impacts of the legislation that the government has been moving forward through its budgets and explicitly about what the cuts and implications will be for its budget measures, cuts to either services or to the number of employees who will be affected."

Cullen accused the Conservatives of violating their own Federal Accountability Act which requires the government to produce, in a timely and transparent manner, information that exists on such legislation. He cited repeated requests for information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer to 82 government departments, most of which have been denied. According to Cullen, the government's claim that it does not want to release the information on cuts before informing the unions is shown to be false, given that unions have written to the Clerk of the Privy Council specifically asking that the information be made public.

Then, reflecting the crisis in which the parliamentary system is mired, Cullen stated: "If the House cannot hold the government of the day to account, then why have the House at all? If members of Parliament cannot do their jobs and cannot go back to their constituents with a clear conscience and understanding of the legislation that has been brought before us and its implications, then why are members of Parliament in the service of Canadians at all? They are not."

On June 13, Sheer ruled against Cullen's Point of Order. In his ruling he stated: "Echoing the ruling given by Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010, on the question of privilege concerning the Afghan detainee documents, the Opposition House leader argued that in a system of responsible government, the right of the House to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege. In the 2010 case, however, the circumstances were quite different. There had been a House order and committee orders requiring the production of documents. So it was the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the orders of the House were obeyed. In the case before us, there are no such orders and, in their absence, the Speaker has neither the authority nor the power to compel the production of information."

Enunciating the core of his ruling, he stated: "In the case before us, the Opposition House leader has acknowledged that information was unsuccessfully sought through various means including written questions, questions posed during question period and questions posed in committee. I cannot presume to judge the quality of the responses that have been received."

"Furthermore," he stated, "as I noted earlier, there is no House or committee order requesting the information sought by the honourable member. The Chair appreciates his frustration and I understand that he may feel aggrieved in view of his unsuccessful quest for more detailed information. However, while the member may have a legitimate grievance, I can find no evidence that he or any other member has been impeded in the fulfilment of their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case."

Debate on Committee Report and Opposition Amendments

On June 11, 2012 debate on the amendments to the legislation began. The Speaker of the House of Commons began by explaining that he had grouped amendments into 157 batches so that voting could be expedited. He also explained that some amendments would not be considered, pointing out that he was acting in accordance with a "note" which had been added to the House of Commons Standing Orders in 2001 which stated that "For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom."

The Speaker explained how he had approached the hundreds of amendments. He explained that motions to delete clauses are in order, but would be grouped "tightly" in order to apply a vote on one motion to delete, to as many others as possible. Motions which sought to amend the text of individual clauses would be considered in order since they had been submitted by MPs who had no opportunity to present amendments during the committee hearings.

He summed up what would take place by stating: "Although 871 motions have been placed on the notice paper, it is clearly not intended, nor do our rules and practices lend themselves to the taking of 871 consecutive votes. With respect to the voting table, substantive amendments have been grouped so as to allow for a clear expression of opinion on each of the subject areas contained in the bill. Motions to delete have been dealt with in conformity with the grouping scheme outlined above."

Summary of Legislation

Bill C-38 is divided into the following four parts:

Part 1: Amendments to the Income Tax Act,
a Related Act and the Income Tax Regulations

The following Acts are amended:

- Income Tax Act
- Governor General's Act

Part 2 : Measures Relating to Sales and Excise Taxes

The following Acts and regulations are amended:

- Excise Tax Act
- Air Travellers Security Charge Act
- Excise Act, 2001
- Value of Imported Goods (GST/HST) Regulations
- Non-Taxable Imported Goods (GST/HST) Regulations
- New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2
- Tax on Importation of Goods

Part 3: Responsible Resource Development

The first section of Part 3 establishes the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. This is the section which has gained the main media and Opposition attention.

The following other Acts are amended in this Part:

- National Energy Board Act
- Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act
- Nuclear Safety and Control Act
- Fisheries Act
- Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
- Species at Risk Act
- Access to Information Act
- Export Development Act
- First Nations Land Management Act
- Antarctic Environmental Protection Act
- First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
- First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act
- National Energy Board Act
- Navigable Waters
- Nuclear Safety and Control Act

Part 4: Various Measures

This part is completely vague and incorporates any and all changes the Harper dictatorship wants. It contains the vast majority of the legislative changes. It contains 53 sections each amending a different piece of legislation, and two sections that create new legislation: The Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, which permits U.S. security forces to operate in Canada, and the Shared Services Canada Act. (There is no clear indication in the legislation of the purpose of the new Act. All that is stated is that it will "standardize and consolidate, within a single shared services entity, certain administrative services that support government institutions.")

This part also:

- repeals the Department of Social Development Act;

- eliminates the First Nations Statistical Institute, Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada and the National Council of Welfare;

- it repeals the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act and hands over powers from the Round Table to the Minister of the Environment;

- it abolishes the Board of Governors of the Canada School of Public Service and places certain responsibilities under the Canada School of Public Service Act on the Minister and on the President of the School;

- it repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act;

- it also amends the Statutory Instruments Act to remove the distribution requirements for the Canada Gazette. The Gazette is "the official newspaper of the Government of Canada published since 1841. It provides Canadians with their rightful access to the laws and regulations that govern their daily lives."

Below is a full list of amended legislation and regulations under Part 4 taken from the index of Bill C-38. They are presented in the order in the index of bill, with repetitions removed, as some Acts are amended multiple times in relation to other changes to other Acts. Even the use of headings normally used to delineate one section from another seem totally arbitrary. This incoherence is in keeping with the attempt to cover up any real sense of what the amendments to various Acts are.

***

- Measures with Respect to the Auditor General of Canada
- Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Act
- Currency Act
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Act
- Northern Pipeline Act
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Act
- Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act
- Canadian Polar Commission Act
- National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act
- Yukon Surface Rights Board Act
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
- Canada Revenue Agency Act
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act
- Transitional Provisions
- Life Annuity-like Products
- Trust and Loan Companies Act
- Bank Act
- Cooperative Credit Associations Act
- PPP Canada Inc. [Public-Private Partnerships Canada]
- Territorial Borrowing Limits
- Northwest Territories Act
- Nunavut Act
- Yukon Act
- Financial Administration Act
- Alternative Fuels Act
- Public Service Employment Act
- SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL
- Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act
- ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OR ENFORCEMENT
- Canada Pension Plan
- Old Age Security Act
- Employment Insurance Act
- Access to Information Act
- Federal Courts Act
- Labour Adjustment Benefits Act
- Privacy Act
- Income Tax Act
- Public Sector Compensation Act
- Consolidation of Privacy Codes
- Social Insurance Number Cards
- Canadian Wheat Board Act
- Farm Income Protection Act
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- Wage Earner Protection Program Act
- Amendments Relating to the Parks Canada Agency
- Parks Canada Agency Act
- Canada National Parks Act
- Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
- Insurance Companies Act
- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
- National Housing Act
- COVERED BONDS
- Bankruptcy and Insolvency Protection
- Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act
- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act
- Amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
- Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act
- Customs Act
- Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
- Canada Health Act
- Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
- Amendments to the Act
- Security of Information Act
- Currency Act
- Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
- Amendments to the Act
- CANADA HEALTH TRANSFER, CANADA SOCIAL TRANSFER AND WAIT TIMES REDUCTION TRANSFER
- Consequential Amendments to the Canada Health Act
- Fisheries Act
- FISH ALLOCATION FOR FINANCING PURPOSES
- Food and Drugs Act
- Consequential Amendment to the Excise Tax Act
- Government Employees Compensation Act
- International Development Research Centre Act
- Canada Labour Code
- Long-term Disability Plans
- Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act
- Consequential Amendment to the Campobello-Lubec Bridge Act
- Old Age Security Act
- Salaries Act
- Seeds Act
- Statutory Instruments Act
- Investment Canada Act
- Customs Act
- Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
- Railway Safety Act
- Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
- International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act
- Public Service Superannuation Act
- Health of Animals Act
- INFECTED PLACES AND CONTROL ZONES
- Canada School of Public Service Act
- Corrections and Conditional Release Act
- Coasting Trade Act
- Status of the Artist Act
- Canada Industrial Relations Board
- Federal Courts Act
- National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act
- Public Sector Compensation Act
- Telecommunications Act
- Employment Equity Act
- Consequential Amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act
- Canada Marine Act
- First Nations Land Management Act
- Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
- Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act
- First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act
- Indian Act
- Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act
- Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
- Repeal of the Department of Social Development Act
- National Council of Welfare
- Wage Earner Protection Program Act
- Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- Amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2008
- Assisted Human Reproduction Act

To view the complete text of Bill C-38 as passed by the House of Commons on June 18, click here.

Changes to Temporary Foreign Workers Program

- Presentation of Alberta Federation of Labour
to Senate Standing Committee -

On May 31, 2012 the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) made a presentation to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The committee was hearing evidence on Division 54 of Part 4 of Bill C-38. The AFL presentation was made through video conference by AFL Policy Analyst Shannon Phillips. She highlighted the negative impact of the bill on workers hired under the Temporary Foreign Workers' (TFW) program who would be paid wages up to 15 per cent below the prevailing wage rate for skilled workers. The changes to the prevailing wage requirement are not only anti-worker measures, but also anti-union measures, she pointed out. They are designed to assist employers with worksites organized by the yellow company union, the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) and other non-union companies to undermine both the standard Canadian wage level and workers' organizations.

The prevailing wage in the oil sands, for example, is set by the unionized wage rates. Under the old rules, this was also the wage rate for TFWs. An employer can now pay a TFW up to 15 per cent below the prevailing wage, provided the employer is paying a Canadian worker that same wage or less. Of course, CLAC employers and other non-union contractors pay less than the prevailing wage. Now non-union contractors can fill their jobs with bonded workers making less than the prevailing rate as long as they have a Canadian worker working at that low wage.

The AFL presentation is excerpted below.

***

[...] As we head into another oil sands boom, I am here today to talk about the temporary foreign worker changes contained in Bill C-38 and possible alternatives to the changes that Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has proposed.

Under the old temporary foreign worker [TFW] process, employers had to obtain a Labour Market Opinion and had to pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage in the region. This offered little advantage to employers who wanted to undercut wages by replacing Canadian workers with TFWs.

Changes to the TFW Program now allow employers to suppress wages by up to 15 per cent in areas with skilled labour shortages, like Alberta.

Under the Accelerated Labour Market Opinion process, or ALMO, TFW wages can be up to 15 per cent lower than the prevailing occupation's' wage in the region, so long as that wage is no lower than the Canadian average and is no lower than the wage of a Canadian or permanent resident worker with the same job in the same workplace.

Under the old wage structure, employers were required to pay temporary foreign workers at least the average wage for an occupation in a specific region, regardless of what they were paying their Canadian employees. Employers must still provide documentation that clearly demonstrates that the wage being paid to a temporary foreign worker is the same as that paid to Canadian employees in the same job and in the same location.

It is unclear, however, how a workplace is defined and further how "the same job as a Canadian" is defined. This could be an area ripe for abuse of temporary foreign workers.

In our analysis, these changes mean that this is a huge advantage for non-unionized employers in the construction sector of the oil sands in Alberta. Non-union construction firms, for example, pay lower wages than unionized construction jobs. Under the new rules, employers no longer have to prove any real effort to hire Canadians before TFWs. We believe these new rules are designed to give a competitive advantage to non-union construction firms in Alberta's oil sands.

TFWs brought into a unionized work site must be paid the same as Canadian workers. Unionized construction workers tend to negotiate wages that keep pace with the high cost of living in Alberta. On the other hand, non-unionized workplaces tend to have lower wages. Non-union construction companies will now have an advantage because they will have a ready supply of non-Canadian workers willing to work for lower wages. They will have approval of TFWs in just 10 days and will not have to prove they attempted to recruit Canadians for the jobs in any meaningful way.

Non-union construction firms like Merit Contractors can now have just a handful, or even just one, Canadian or permanent resident worker willing to work for the lower wages and benefits they offer. Because Merit and other non-union shops have trouble attracting and retaining skilled tradespeople because they do not offer as attractive wages in Alberta's booming economy, they can fill most of their workforce needs now with temporary foreign workers.

In terms of the real story on oil sands construction costs, we often hear low wage groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say that wages are going through the roof and construction costs are going up because of labour costs. However, according to a recent report by equity firm Raymond James, wage rates increased by only 20 per cent during the last oil sands boom, reflecting increases in the cost of living in Alberta's average weekly earnings index. Oil sands construction projects went over-budget by an average of 100 percent. Some projects went 260 per cent over initial cost estimates, and most of those cost overruns -- according to the Raymond James equity firm report -- were due to productivity losses and the high cost of steel.

Low wage lobby groups like the CFIB claim they need be to be able to pay temporary foreign workers less because there is a labour shortage; they must have quicker access to TFWs in order to remain productive.

We, at the Alberta Federation of Labour, submit that we do have a shortage of some skilled labour in select fields, but as the Bank of Canada noted in their last Monetary Policy Report, Canada actually has a tremendous amount of slack in the labour market left over from the last recession. A great number of involuntary part-time workers remain in the economy, and firms report lower-than-usual labour shortages to the bank.

What we have is a training deficit, especially in the construction trades in Alberta. We do not require firms to invest. We have no provincial or federal leadership on the matter beyond a public relations exercise. The result is we have low wage lobby groups saying they need to bring in temporary foreign workers and, by the way, also pay them less than the going rate.

These changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program are going to make the problem worse. By bringing in skilled guest worker labour, we deny a whole generation of Canadians the opportunity for training and absolve firms of their responsibilities to train apprentices in the skilled trades as other industrialized countries do.

There is all manner of lax oversight with the new Accelerated Labour Market Opinion process that has come in under Bill C-38. Also, there are fewer advertising and recruitment requirements under this new process; advertisement is recruitment in this new process. The only thing a potential employer has to do to prove that they are willing to look for Canadian workers is to advertise.

Under the old LMO process, employers had to document efforts to recruit Canadians or permanent residents, including copies of advertisements, number of Canadian applicants and why they were rejected. However, under this new accelerated process, efforts to recruit Canadians or permanent residents appear to have been scrapped. Employers are required only to advertise and be prepared to prove they have done so if requested by the federal government for a compliance review after the fact.

Fewer than 20 per cent of the successful ALMOs will be subjected to a compliance review, a change we believe exposes temporary foreign workers to further vulnerabilities when they enter Canada. There are no real punitive measures for employers found to be non-compliant with the accelerated process. Employers will have an opportunity to provide justification as well as corrective action where applicable, and that is all.

In summary, the Alberta Federation of Labour recommends that ultimately the Temporary Foreign Worker Program be phased out entirely. We have been through this labour shortage scenario before; just three years ago, during the last boom. If there is a shortage of skilled workers -- and there are, in some occupations in Alberta -- we ought to be bringing people in as immigrants so they can build our country, instead of building a guest worker program modeled on approaches that have been shown to be catastrophic policy and human failures in other industrialized countries, particularly in Europe.

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca