Budget omnibus bill C-59

[kimmy]

There's been some chatter in the status updates about this, so why not have a thread to talk about it.

Budget bill rewrites access to information laws to protect the RCMP from potential criminal charges.

An unheralded change buried in last week's 167-page omnibus budget bill exempted all records from the defunct long-gun registry, and also any "request, complaint, investigation, application, judicial review, appeal or other proceeding under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act," related to those old records.
...
A source familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, said the government moved out of concern Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is poised to recommend charges against the Mounties for withholding, and later destroying, gun registry documents while the legislation was still being debated.

The government explains that the change is to close a loop-hole that would allow people to request gun registry information that is supposed to be destroyed:

A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney would only say the retroactive law will fix a "bureaucratic loophole" that allowed citizens to request heavily redacted copies of the gun registry data while the legislation to destroy the data was before Parliament.

"This clearly goes against the will of Parliament that all copies of the registry should be destroyed," spokesman Jeremy Laurin said in an email response.

The budget bill includes a lot of other non-budget issues:

2015 Budget tax measures:

• Changes announced by Oliver last month to RRIFs and TFSAs, the small business tax rate, capital gains exemptions, disability savings funds and veterans benefits are all included, as is the new home accessibility tax credit.
• Family tax cut and benefits changes: Announced by the prime minister last October and re-announced by Oliver in the budget.
• Federal Balanced Budget Act: Announced as a separate bill, it's rolled into this one for passage.
• Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act: Also announced as a separate bill, but rolled into C-59 to allow security officials to seize passports from would-be terrorists and sex offenders.
• Parliamentary Protective Service: Previously-announced changes to security on Parliament Hill, as the RCMP takes over security for the Parliamentary precinct following the Oct. 22 shootings.
• Public service sick leave: New authorization for Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite existing laws and ongoing contract talks, the "terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees," including the establishment or modification of a new short-term and long-term disability program.
• Patent Act and Trade-marks Act changes.
• Compassionate care leave extension: Now up to 28 weeks, and related EI benefits extended to 26 weeks.
• Copyright Act changes.
• Export Development Act changes.
• Canada Labour Code changes to include unpaid employees (for example, interns.)
• Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act changes to harmonize contribution rates for senators and MPs.
• National Energy Board Act changes to extend the duration of natural gas export licenses.
• Employment Insurance Act eligibility changes.
• Canada Small Business Financing Act changes to increase the amount of gross revenue allowed in the definition of "small business."
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act changes.
• Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act changes.
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act changes, to expand the use of biometrics and electronic documents.
• First Nations Fiscal Management Act changes.
• Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act changes to enact previously-announced injury and caregiver benefits.
• Ending the Long-gun Registry Act changes to exempt applicable records from Access to Information rules

I have always hated omnibus bills. I hated them when they were Chretien's favorite thing, and I hate them now.

I suppose supporters would say they provide efficiency, a way for parliament to get a lot of business done in a hurry. That might be true, but they do so by limiting debate on topics that should be debated on their own, or to hide potentially controversial laws in a hay stack of other laws.

And there is also an element of political gamesmanship. If you stash up a potentially controversial law in with laws that you expect to be popular, you're daring your opponents to give you election campaign material. "They voted against the Lollipops for Sick Orphans program. What a bunch of heartless jerks." Leaving their opponents to try to explain that they voted against the lollipops for sick orphans program because it was in an omnibus bill that also included the flatscreens for felons program.

And if you have a minority government situation, attaching non-budgetary laws to a budget bill omnibus provides a way to turn every vote into a confidence vote. "We really oppose the Flatscreens for Felons program... but to we oppose it enough to force a national election over it?"

-k

[TimG]

I suppose supporters would say they provide efficiency, a way for parliament to get a lot of business done in a hurry. That might be true, but they do so by limiting debate on topics that should be debated on their own, or to hide potentially controversial laws in a hay stack of other laws.

Let's assume that each of these measures was introduced as a separate bill and had to go through the formal process. I find it hard to believe that parliament would have enough time to handle all of the bills without invoking closure or other measures designed to speed up the process (and thereby limit debate and get people complaining about abuse of process). It may be a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you don't scenario. Edited May 23, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

This is the price we pay for allowing these Omnibus bills be created. I also blame the government for creating this problem. A "loophole" in a law indicates that it was not vetted and debated properly to try to identify the weaknesses of any bill. That is the role of the opposition. When you pile all kinds of bills into one and then restrict the time for a debate then "loopholes" will exist. It does not allow the opposition enough time to analyse, criticize and offer amendments to legislation.

That is the way our democracy is supposed to function and is one of the checks and balances of our system. The current government has no moral or ethical right to curtail democracy. We end up paying the price for unsavory practice.

[Freddy]

This is the price we pay for allowing these Omnibus bills be created. I also blame the government for creating this problem. A "loophole" in a law indicates that it was not vetted and debated properly to try to identify the weaknesses of any bill. That is the role of the opposition. When you pile all kinds of bills into one and then restrict the time for a debate then "loopholes" will exist. It does not allow the opposition enough time to analyse, criticize and offer amendments to legislation.

That is the way our democracy is supposed to function and is one of the checks and balances of our system. The current government has no moral or ethical right to curtail democracy. We end up paying the price for unsavory practice.

If only the opposition had the vision to use it as a political platform to use to gain votes, with the promise to outlaw this kind of practice.

If they did, they might have a chance of winning.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Freddy

[eyeball]

NDP MP introduces legislation to stop omnibus bills

What are the chances of you voting for the status quo?

[cybercoma]

Let's assume that each of these measures was introduced as a separate bill and had to go through the formal process. I find it hard to believe that parliament would have enough time to handle all of the bills without invoking closure or other measures designed to speed up the process (and thereby limit debate and get people complaining about abuse of process). It may be a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you don't scenario.

Right. Let's just give the PMO the power to just pass laws along to the Governor General that would be even faster. There's no need for representatives debating issues in the House at all. Expediency should be the goal when creating laws.

What utter nonsense.

Edited May 23, 2015 by cybercoma

[Shady]

What about keeping omnibus bills but just limiting their length so that not as much can be stuffed in them?

[Big Guy]

I agree with Shady - perhaps the bills could be separated by function or some other method. The process is an aberration of majority government first used in Pierre Trudeau's time. It has just become more prevalent over the years - another reason why I have always preferred minority governments. I do not see this as an ideological issue but one of efficiency. Our system is healthy because members of the opposition have the opportunity to look at a bill impartially, test its parameters and make adjustments and/or changes to make it applicable so that not everything ends up going to the Supreme Court.

[TimG]

This is the price we pay for allowing these Omnibus bills be created.

As I said above: what would parliament look like if all of these measures where split into separate bills? Do you really think that much would change if the resulting work load means each of these measures is rushed through because there is not enough parliamentary time to deal with the workload? It may be better from a theoretical perspective but in practice we would still have pundits complaining about either 1) a parliament that can't get anything done or 2) a imperious governing party cutting off debate on bill after bill.

[Shady]

I don't think you'd have to have each measure as a separate bill. Maybe categorize them. And have 2 bills or 3 instead of 1 giant one. It reminds me of the 2000+ page monstrosity that is Obamacare. Nobody had time to read through the whole thing before it was voted on. You actually had democrats insisting on passing the legislation to find out what's in it.

[Big Guy]

To TimG - I challenge the idea that the reason these bills are bundled (by all governments) is because of the time debating. The whole function of our parliament is to take whatever length of time is required to debate a change in the law. Get it right the first time and there are no appeals to the Supreme Court or retroactive legislation.

I do not think that our elected officials can spend too much time on checking the wording and intent on laws that govern our lives.

[Civis Romanus sum]

As I said above: what would parliament look like if all of these measures where split into separate bills? Do you really think that much would change if the resulting work load means each of these measures is rushed through because there is not enough parliamentary time to deal with the workload?

Members of parliament spend a lot of time on useless nonsense of no value to the taxpayers. You could introduce each of these measures separately and give a few days to debate them. Nothing said after that point is new anyway so I wouldn't care if they used closure. But at least each bill would e separated out and could be properly voted on as is the purpose of a parliament.

[TimG]

To TimG - I challenge the idea that the reason these bills are bundled (by all governments) is because of the time debating.

I disagree - the point of bundling in a majority parliament is to speed the passage of laws.

Get it right the first time and there are no appeals to the Supreme Court or retroactive legislation.

Appeals to SCC occur because different people have different ideas on what the constitution means. No amount of about debate in parliament would resolve those differences. Also, unintended side effects occur all of the time and it is unreasonable to expect them to be caught by a highly politicized process. Edited May 23, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

What about keeping omnibus bills but just limiting their length so that not as much can be stuffed in them?

...

I don't think you'd have to have each measure as a separate bill. Maybe categorize them. And have 2 bills or 3 instead of 1 giant one.

I think these are good ideas, particularly categorizing stuff. I don't see a problem with packaging a bunch of tax changes and housekeeping stuff in with a budget bill, but the idea that changes to the access to information act or anti-terror measures should also be bundled with the budget defies common sense.

-k

[Derek 2.0]

I disagree - the point of bundling in a majority parliament is to speed the passage of laws.

Right, expediency in a majority Government is their only purpose.......

Edited May 23, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

I don't think you'd have to have each measure as a separate bill. Maybe categorize them. And have 2 bills or 3 instead of 1 giant one.

Omnibus:

of, relating to, or providing for many things at once

[Keepitsimple]

I've had trouble wrapping my head around this as a serious issue. An Access to Information request was not fulfilled because the records were destroyed - as Parliament intended them to be. It may be the first time such a ruling is passed - but it's not a precedent. Any future similar attempt would be judged on its own merits and risk a genuine public backlash. As far as I know, we have not been told who raised the request - or what they were seeking. I'm sick of hearing about the Long Gun Registry.....let it die.

[Derek 2.0]

I've had trouble wrapping my head around this as a serious issue. An Access to Information request was not fulfilled because the records were destroyed - as Parliament intended them to be. It may be the first time such a ruling is passed - but it's not a precedent. Any future similar attempt would be judged on its own merits and risk a genuine public backlash. As far as I know, we have not been told who raised the request - or what they were seeking. I'm sick of hearing about the Long Gun Registry.....let it die.

Exactly.........An ATIP attempt to gain the latest personal information prior to CTRL-ALT-Delete being pressed on the former LGR.......What I find ironic, is that many are now chastising the Harper Government/RCMP for protecting/withholding the personal information of ~2 million Canadians......

Damned if you do (C-51), damned if you don't (C-59)......

[Shady]

Omnibus:

I get that that's what it means, but does that mean we always have to do things that way? Can it never change, even just a little?

[cybercoma]

...

I think these are good ideas, particularly categorizing stuff. I don't see a problem with packaging a bunch of tax changes and housekeeping stuff in with a budget bill, but the idea that changes to the access to information act or anti-terror measures should also be bundled with the budget defies common sense.

-k

Shockingly, I found myself agreeing with Shady too.

[cybercoma]

I've had trouble wrapping my head around this as a serious issue. An Access to Information request was not fulfilled because the records were destroyed - as Parliament intended them to be. It may be the first time such a ruling is passed - but it's not a precedent. Any future similar attempt would be judged on its own merits and risk a genuine public backlash. As far as I know, we have not been told who raised the request - or what they were seeking. I'm sick of hearing about the Long Gun Registry.....let it die.

You don't see anything wrong with the RCMP breaking the law and the Conservatives turning around and rewriting the legislation to take effect retroactively to get the RCMP off the hook? Would you have also been ok with Chrétien rewriting the laws so nothing illegal happened under AdScam?

[cybercoma]

You must see what kind of precedent this sets for future governments, especially since it concerns Access to Information laws. Don't sit here and say you support this then talk about how you want openness and accountability from government.

[Derek 2.0]

I get that that's what it means, but does that mean we always have to do things that way? Can it never change, even just a little?

Why though? I see it as one large piece of legislation that some will oppose versus smaller pieces that will also be opposed........same endgame.

[Derek 2.0]

You don't see anything wrong with the RCMP breaking the law and the Conservatives turning around and rewriting the legislation to take effect retroactively to get the RCMP off the hook? Would you have also been ok with Chrétien rewriting the laws so nothing illegal happened under AdScam?

What law was broken and to whom does it effect?

[eyeball]

Smaller more digestible omnibus bills would lend themselves really well I think to public vetting via referendums or citizens assemblies. Maybe we could do this to replace the Senate - in the same name and spirit of efficiency and more representative and participatory democracy.