Omnibus Legislation

End omnibus legislation. When politicians lump a number of disparate topics together into one bill, as often happens with omnibus legislation, the result is anti-democratic. Each individual measure should be taken on their own account, not hidden behind other more high-profile topics.

Overbroad legislation leads members to compromise on some issues in order to stand with their party “all-or-nothing” on a vote.

Omnibus legislation is used to speed up the legislative process, which can be cumbersome. In theory, the topics have “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes”. (22) Aimed to “bring together in a single bill all the legislative amendments resulting from a policy decision to facilitate parliamentary debate.” (23) However, when this legislative tool is abused, making significant amendments to various pieces of legislation, it obscures honest criticism and rigorous examination of all facets of the Bill.

Between 2001-2015, Stephen Harper used omnibus bills excessively. Bill C-51, The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 simultaneously created two laws regarding National Security: the Enactment Of The Security Of Canada Information Sharing Act, and the Secure Air Travel Act and also amended at least 8 others, including:

The Criminal Code
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
The Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act
The Excise Tax Act,
The Department of Fisheries Act Ocean’s Act,

The Customs Act
The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act
Income Tax Act.

The Criminal Code amendments included increasing powers of electronic surveillance and provision for preventative arrest, arrest without warrant, and prolonged detention before being brought before a judge.

Although these changes also allowed for the enhanced protection of witnesses, and the bill does specify that it’s reach “does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression” (22), this one piece of legislation did more to strip Canadians of their right to privacy than any legislation that has ever come before.

Bills C-38 and C-45, The Jobs and Growth (and Long-Term Prosperity) Act(s) of 2012 was a budget bill which amended 135 federal laws, affecting the Indian Act, the Navigation Protection Act, and Environmental Assessment Act, among others. This Act had an incredibly detrimental effect on aboriginal land and fishing rights, and was a direct catalyst for the rise of the Idle No More movement, protesting the ongoing injustices faced by native Canadians.

Speaking out on this issue, Bob Rae, former premier of Ontario said that, “Major changes in environmental legislation came through budget bills which makes it very difficult to debate or divide these amendments. And when you consider the importance of the protection of land and water to First Nations—who believe that treaties were never intended to undermine these rights but to protect them—then it's just unlawful."

The ruling Liberal party declares that ”Stephen Harper has… used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” And yet despite this promise, Bill C-74 Budget Implementation Act, 2018, included the implementation of the carbon tax, amendments to marijuana and tobacco taxation, and implemented new environmental policy. It also includes amendments to the Criminal Code which allow corporations to buy their way out of a criminal conviction, a remediation agreement which is not available to individuals, unions, or other public bodies – only corporations.

In parliament, omnibus legislation cannot be divided once introduced, as per the decision of the Speaker and current parliamentary procedure. In 2017 the government amended the rules of the house of Commons to allow the Speaker to split up omnibus bills when the topics are unrelated, and this has been utilized when advanced by the opposition. However the practice of improperly advancing omnibus legislation continues to be used as a tactic to obscure contentious legislation.

Canadian lawyer, Michael Spratt states, “Separate legislation would allow focused study. It would allow for expert testimony and evaluation at committee. It would allow every MP to know what the heck is in the government’s legislation. It would be more transparent and it would increase democratic accountability. And it would probably result in a better law.” (24)