Skip to main content

Conservatives continue to abuse “Omnibus Bills” with new budget legislation

Posted by Ralph Goodale on October 22, 2012 | No Comments

The language used in Parliament can sometimes get pretty obscure. Over the last few weeks, for example, many people have asked: “What is an omnibus bill?”

A “bill” is the written proposal that a government presents to Parliament to create a new law or change an existing one. Bills are very specific. Every word is scrutinized to make sure it’s the right word to convey Parliament’s exact meaning, with every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed.

Usually, each bill deals with only one topic, so the debate on its principles and the expert committee work to examine its details can be thoroughly and professionally done. And so the voting on whether to approve it can be clear-cut.

An “omnibus bill” is one that includes several different topics bundled together.

Within reasonable limits, omnibus bills can be managed by Parliament – if all the different topics in any such bill are actually inter-related and inter-dependent. And if the overall volume is not overwhelming.

Before the Harper government took power, omnibus bills were used to implement the core provisions of federal budgets. They averaged fewer than 75-pages and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy.

Under the Harper regime, the “omnibus” procedure has been pushed to unprecedented extremes, causing massive abuses of power. Conservative omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages.

That is why, last week, in advance of the government’s tabling of new budget legislation, Liberals introduced an Opposition Day motion to clamp down on the misuse of omnibus bills. Unfortunately (though not unexpectedly), the Conservatives killed it. And within two days, they introduced a new omnibus budget bill, which has 556 sections, fills 443 pages, and touches on more than 24 disconnected topics – everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

It’s a complete dog’s breakfast, deliberately designed to be so humongous and convoluted in a single lump that it cannot be intelligently reviewed by Parliament, and any votes will be largely meaningless.

Such abusive tactics have been condemned by none other than Stephen Harper himself. But now in power, he behaves like a Third World despot – seemingly afraid of a properly functioning Parliamentary democracy.

That fear of democracy is also evident in Conservative election financing violations (for which they’ve been charged and convicted), robo-call schemes to manipulate voters, and vicious attack-advertising. It’s all beneath contempt.

Ralph Goodale

MP, Wascana
Deputy Leader

Join the conversation  

Please note that comments are moderated with the goal of stimulating an intelligent and fruitful discussion. As such, we ask that you use language that is civil and respectful, and refrain from attacks of any kind. We reserve the right to remove or not post any comments or information that does not meet these requirements.
  1. Profile photo of Martin Showell Martin Showell said on

    It is shameful what the conservatives are doing to our parliamentary system – shameful!

    But very few people seem to care or understand. Had we the money to spend, I would suggest that the LPC launch an ad campaign to bring this abuse of power to the attention of all Canadians.

    Has any consideration been given by the LPC and Liberal Caucus to BOYCOTT all parliamentary debate and votes concerning this bill? Perhaps approaching the other parties to join the protest?

    The media would have little choice but to cover the story giving us some free press to voice our concerns and explain the travesty to the average Canadian. It could possibly inspire country-wide protests to happen in tandem with the debates and votes in the HoC.

    Let’s face it … we can’t stop this bill or even affect it through standard parliamentary procedure (see previous omnibus budget bill) so why not try something new?


Join the conversation