Lumped legislation

Well, Parliament’s back in session, and it’s time for another massive budget bill, this one over 400 pages long and dealing with pretty much anything the current government wants to toss in the hopper. (Including, this time, stripping refugee claimants of access to social assistance. Delightful — just what exactly does the government expect desperate people to do while they wait for the refugee review process to spin its tiny wheels?)

The federal government wants the debate all wrapped up, the bill voted on and enshrined in law before the Christmas break, meaning, just like omnibus bills past, a fair number of legislative changes will swim through the House of Commons with barely any review.

It’s good politics, I suppose, but it makes bad law.

From a functional point of view, you can understand exactly why the current government likes the bills. Essentially, they let the Conservatives move their political agenda ahead at double-time, without the messy democratic problem of defending it in the House of Commons.

The massive bills move through the House quickly, with opposition parties having scarce time to address even small parts of the blockbuster.

That prevents loud, long and public treatment of proposed legislation and halts any sort of groundswell of opposition from ordinary voters.

Here’s how one parliamentarian described the use of omnibus bills: “In the interest of democracy I ask: how can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and such concerns? … I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.” The parliamentarian who was so outraged by the bill-bundling?

One Stephen Harper, in opposition, on March 25, 1994.

And Harper was right — what’s difficult to understand is why he would have his government do exactly the same thing and, in fact, bring in much broader omnibus bills so consistently.

The move essentially enshrines the concept that the public only has a voice about government once every political term — at the ballot box — and after that, blocks of quick law are passed in perfunctory manner.

But the “parle” is in Parliament for a reason: to have the open discussion that makes good laws, not just politically expedient ones.

So why is the current government so intent on riding on the omnibus?

It works for their ends, and the electorate hasn’t ever decided to punish them for it.

It’s not even ideology. It’s pure pragmatism.