Unchecked omnibus bills risk abuses of process: Senator Tannas
Tags
What do cosmetic tests on animals, money laundering and King Charles III have in common?
Nothing, except that each was covered in last spring’s Budget Implementation Act, 2023, an omnibus bill that ran over 400 pages and included dozens of non-budget-related legislative changes.
The bill was just the latest example of a growing problem of omnibus budget bills that contain a wide range of matters unrelated to the actual implementation of a budget. In this fall’s parliamentary sitting, we will likely see this pattern hold in expected legislation to implement the fall economic statement.
In its purest form, a budget implementation act should be a list of required legislative items that are tied to the spending and revenue lines in a budget. However, for many years and across multiple governments, budget implementation bills have contained a litany of legislative items that are unconnected to the budget, but placed in the bill for convenience, efficiency or time sensitivity.
Sometimes items are also stuffed into the back of budget bills under the innocuous title of “Various Measures,” for the purpose of avoiding proper scrutiny. This is something that should concern all parliamentarians. It’s simply not feasible to carefully study the hodgepodge of legislative changes that accompany the financial matters that are rightly the focus of attention when budget bills come before Parliament.
The problem with omnibus budget bills is that they fundamentally short-circuit the legislative process by packing a miscellany of measures in a bill that also contains time-sensitive budgetary initiatives. It affords minimal time to study wide-ranging matters, meaning that committees don’t have the means to hear from pertinent witnesses, and particular legislative changes receive little or no debate. Canadians often don’t even hear about many of the bill’s consequences until after it has been passed.
For the Senate, omnibus budget bills pose a unique challenge because the upper house generally defers to the elected chamber when it comes to financial matters. The House of Commons has long maintained that any Senate amendments to money bills are a violation of its privileges. Yet, the practice of stuffing these bills with wide-ranging, non-fiscal items effectively constrains senators’ ability to scrutinize the legislation and propose amendments.
In practice, it is nearly impossible for the Senate to make substantive changes to anything in a bulked-up budget bill.
The problem of omnibus bills will persist unless parliamentarians push back on the abuse of process. After all, the rights of Parliament can only be enforced by parliamentarians themselves.
I fear that we are unintentionally entrenching a convention of presumed deference and restrained scrutiny to everything contained in budget bills, no matter how extraneous to the budget or how consequential to Canadians they may be.
Frustration about the size and scope of omnibus budget bills has been mounting among senators for years, and many of us are ready to critically evaluate how to respond to the problem when we return for the fall sitting. The objective is not to delay or deny the government’s proposals, but rather to insist that every item follows the proper legislative process.
Anticipated legislation to implement a fall economic statement will be an opportunity for the government to recommit to its promise to scrap omnibus bills and to present legislative matters that directly relate to the government’s fiscal proposals. There is no shortage of challenges facing the finance minister as she prepares the next economic update. The risks of a recession and the pressures on the cost of living have only intensified since last spring’s budget and will require renewed attention.
Let’s concentrate on those fiscal matters and ensure that separate policy initiatives are given fair and focused debate.
Senator Scott Tannas represents Alberta and is Leader of the Canadian Senators Group.
This article was published in The Hill Times on August 21, 2023.
What do cosmetic tests on animals, money laundering and King Charles III have in common?
Nothing, except that each was covered in last spring’s Budget Implementation Act, 2023, an omnibus bill that ran over 400 pages and included dozens of non-budget-related legislative changes.
The bill was just the latest example of a growing problem of omnibus budget bills that contain a wide range of matters unrelated to the actual implementation of a budget. In this fall’s parliamentary sitting, we will likely see this pattern hold in expected legislation to implement the fall economic statement.
In its purest form, a budget implementation act should be a list of required legislative items that are tied to the spending and revenue lines in a budget. However, for many years and across multiple governments, budget implementation bills have contained a litany of legislative items that are unconnected to the budget, but placed in the bill for convenience, efficiency or time sensitivity.
Sometimes items are also stuffed into the back of budget bills under the innocuous title of “Various Measures,” for the purpose of avoiding proper scrutiny. This is something that should concern all parliamentarians. It’s simply not feasible to carefully study the hodgepodge of legislative changes that accompany the financial matters that are rightly the focus of attention when budget bills come before Parliament.
The problem with omnibus budget bills is that they fundamentally short-circuit the legislative process by packing a miscellany of measures in a bill that also contains time-sensitive budgetary initiatives. It affords minimal time to study wide-ranging matters, meaning that committees don’t have the means to hear from pertinent witnesses, and particular legislative changes receive little or no debate. Canadians often don’t even hear about many of the bill’s consequences until after it has been passed.
For the Senate, omnibus budget bills pose a unique challenge because the upper house generally defers to the elected chamber when it comes to financial matters. The House of Commons has long maintained that any Senate amendments to money bills are a violation of its privileges. Yet, the practice of stuffing these bills with wide-ranging, non-fiscal items effectively constrains senators’ ability to scrutinize the legislation and propose amendments.
In practice, it is nearly impossible for the Senate to make substantive changes to anything in a bulked-up budget bill.
The problem of omnibus bills will persist unless parliamentarians push back on the abuse of process. After all, the rights of Parliament can only be enforced by parliamentarians themselves.
I fear that we are unintentionally entrenching a convention of presumed deference and restrained scrutiny to everything contained in budget bills, no matter how extraneous to the budget or how consequential to Canadians they may be.
Frustration about the size and scope of omnibus budget bills has been mounting among senators for years, and many of us are ready to critically evaluate how to respond to the problem when we return for the fall sitting. The objective is not to delay or deny the government’s proposals, but rather to insist that every item follows the proper legislative process.
Anticipated legislation to implement a fall economic statement will be an opportunity for the government to recommit to its promise to scrap omnibus bills and to present legislative matters that directly relate to the government’s fiscal proposals. There is no shortage of challenges facing the finance minister as she prepares the next economic update. The risks of a recession and the pressures on the cost of living have only intensified since last spring’s budget and will require renewed attention.
Let’s concentrate on those fiscal matters and ensure that separate policy initiatives are given fair and focused debate.
Senator Scott Tannas represents Alberta and is Leader of the Canadian Senators Group.
This article was published in The Hill Times on August 21, 2023.