For about 150 years, the term “omnibus bill” went without a firm definition in the procedural rules of either the Senate or the House of Commons. Often when omnibus bills were introduced, questions arose about their nature, admissibility and appropriateness, among other matters.
Over time, the essential characteristics of what was generally considered to be an omnibus bill were expressed by a variety of parliamentary sources. Omnibus bills came in different forms. They could be voluminous, complex and far‑reaching, and they could seek to create or amend many disparate statutes.
However, successive Speakers of the House of Commons have indicated, when ruling in favour of the procedural admissibility of omnibus bills, that the multiple components of these bills were held together and made coherent by a unifying principle, a single purpose, a unifying thread or a unitary purpose.
In 2017, the House amended its Standing Orders to provide a definition of “omnibus bill”: an omnibus bill is a government bill that seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one Act, yet it does not contain a common element that connects its various provisions, or it seeks to link unrelated matters. For the purposes of voting, the clauses of the bill can be combined thematically and these groups of clauses addressed separately as part of a single debate at each stage of the process.
Although today the use of omnibus bills is well entrenched in Canadian parliamentary practice, it is often still seen as an exception to the usual legislative process. Nonetheless, few studies have attempted to answer recurring questions about these bills. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about omnibus bills.
Omnibus bills have been used for decades by governments of various political stripes as a vehicle to propose certain kinds of legislation to Parliament. While their use is well entrenched in Canadian parliamentary practice, it is nonetheless often seen as an exception to the usual legislative process. Whenever omnibus bills are introduced, questions arise about their nature, admissibility and appropriateness, among other matters. Yet, few studies have attempted to answer these recurring questions.
The purpose of this paper is to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about omnibus bills.
For about 150 years, the term “omnibus bill” went without a firm definition in the procedural rules of both the Senate and the House of Commons. However, the essential characteristics of what was generally considered to be an omnibus bill have been expressed over time by various parliamentary sources.
In 2017, the House amended its Standing Orders to define omnibus bills for the purpose of empowering the Speaker to divide questions on such bills, where applicable, for votes held at second and third reading. According to Standing Order 69.1, an omnibus bill is a government bill that seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, yet does not contain a common element that connects its various provisions, or that seeks to link unrelated matters.1
Similarly, the House of Commons Glossary of Parliamentary Procedure defines an omnibus bill as: “[a] bill that seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked.”2
Often, rulings by Speakers of the House of Commons draw from applicable precedents. As such, it may be worth recalling previous definitions used in Canada’s parliamentary context to define an omnibus bill.
In 1988, the Right Honourable Herb Gray, then Opposition House Leader, stated during a debate that the core element of an omnibus bill is a unifying purpose tying together the multitude of statutes it is to amend:
The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the Bill in question, although it may seek to create or to amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.3
Successive Speakers of the House of Commons have made these words their own by referring to them with approval in their own rulings. 4 They have also referred to the “unifying principle,”5 “single purpose,”6 “unifying thread,”7 or “unitary purpose”8 that tie together the multiple components of omnibus bills.
In a broader parliamentary sense, the meaning of “omnibus bills” could vary depending on the context. For example, the term has sometimes been used in reference to legislative proposals enacted under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. Established in 1975, this program allows the speedy adoption of amendments aimed at correcting anomalies, errors or inconsistencies, or making changes of an uncontroversial and uncomplicated nature, in various Acts of Parliament. In total, 12 Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Acts have been enacted since the beginning of the program, the latest in 2017.9
The term “omnibus bills” has also referred to bills that were not necessarily long, but if enacted, had far-reaching consequences for statute law in general. One notable example is the Quebec legislature’s omnibus use of the notwithstanding clause in 1982. With the passage of Quebec’s An Act respecting the Constitution Act, 198210 (a statute of just seven sections), all Quebec statutes were repealed and re enacted adding the derogation provision contemplated by section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), thereby exempting all Quebec statutes from the application of the Charter.11
It is difficult to state with certainty when the first omnibus bill was introduced in Parliament.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice suggests that the practice existed in 1888, when a private bill was introduced with the aim of confirming two separate railway agreements.12 However, bills of an omnibus nature may have preceded this date. Indeed, as early as 1868, during its very first parliamentary session, the Canadian Parliament enacted An Act to continue for a limited time the several Acts therein mentioned,13 which may well be characterized as the first omnibus bill enacted in post-Confederation Canada. This Act contained a single purpose in the continuation of legislation about to expire, while at the same time amending several statutes with different subject matters, such as bankruptcy, peace at the borders and banks.
According to Hansard, the omnibus nature of a legislative proposal prompted negative reaction for the first time in 1923. In that year, the Senate rejected a government-proposed omnibus railway bill as being overly broad. Bill 234, An Act respecting the Construction of the Canadian National Railway Lines proposed a large program for the construction of 29 branch lines. During debates, it was suggested that the proposal, if reintroduced, should take the form of separate bills for each line. In the subsequent session, the government followed this suggestion and introduced a series of separate bills.14
In the House of Commons, the appropriateness of omnibus bills appears to have been first questioned in 1953 when the Honourable Brooke Claxton, then Minister of National Defence, was asked to explain why a particular legislative proposal covered three existing Acts of Parliament. The Minister explained that for the convenience of members of the House of Commons and of the Canadian Armed Forces, amendments to the legislation relating to the armed forces had been proposed in a single annual statute in 1950, 1951, 1952 and again in 1953.15
Nothing in the parliamentary rules, procedure or practice prohibits the introduction of omnibus bills. However, these bills – like any other legislative proposal – must obey the established rules respecting the admissibility and examination of bills.
In 2017, amendments made to the Standing Orders empowered the Speaker of the House of Commons to divide omnibus government bills for the purposes of voting at second and third reading; these amendments have no bearing on the procedural admissibility of the bill itself.
The first ruling regarding the admissibility of an omnibus bill appears to date back to 23 January 1969. Speaker Lucien Lamoureux had to rule on the admissibility of a motion to instruct a committee to divide a bill into separate parts before the bill had been referred to the appropriate committee. The Speaker ruled this motion out of order and contrary to precedents and authorities, on the basis that such a motion was admissible only once the bill had been referred to committee. As for the omnibus character of the bill, Speaker Lamoureux stated: “It is not for the Chair to determine whether it is proper or appropriate or politic for the government to present this legislation in the form of an omnibus bill.”16
Two years later, in 1971, Speaker Lamoureux was again called upon to rule on the admissibility of an omnibus bill. Members were objecting to the inclusion in Bill C-207, An Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto,17 of several distinct proposals and principles. Speaker Lamoureux, while sharing the concerns expressed about the omnibus character of the proposal, felt bound by “long established practice” with respect to the introduction of omnibus bills before the Canadian Parliament. He nonetheless suggested that, at some point, the omnibus character of a legislative proposal might render it inadmissible procedurally:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? … [W]e might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital “O” and a capital ”B.” But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint … where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.18
Since that statement, many points of order have been raised to object to the omnibus character of legislative proposals, alleging, among other things, that the point of no return referred to by Speaker Lamoureux had been reached. Yet, successive Speakers of the House of Commons have consistently found omnibus bills procedurally acceptable. For example, motions to instruct committees to divide bills have been ruled out of order,19 and requests to the Speaker that they divide bills have been refused.20 While the Speakers have often expressed concerns about the use of omnibus bills,21 they have clearly indicated that they were bound by “long established practice” with regard to omnibus bills.22
While the omnibus character of a bill does not, in and of itself, render it inadmissible from a procedural standpoint, omnibus bills are, of course, subject to the procedural requirements of the Rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. For example, an omnibus money bill would have to receive the royal recommendation before its third reading and adoption by the House of Commons.23 An omnibus bill, like any other bill, cannot be introduced “in an imperfect shape.”24 In 1981, Speaker Jeanne Sauvé struck down Part I of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for raising funds,25 because its borrowing provisions had not received the appropriate notice under the Standing Orders.26
Political pressure, procedural devices and other pace-slowing tactics may sometimes be used by the Opposition to delay or block the adoption of omnibus bills. In some cases, these actions have resulted in the division of omnibus bills. For example, House of Commons Procedure and Practice27 explains that, in 1982, the insistence of the Opposition led the government to agree to the division of Bill C-93, An Act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.28 By unanimous consent, Bill C-93 was withdrawn and the government agreed to introduce two separate legislative proposals in its stead.29
The political process led to the division of an omnibus bill again in 1982. Unsuccessful with its point of order alleging that the omnibus Bill C-94, the Energy Security Act, 1982 should be divided,30 the Opposition demanded a recorded division on a motion to adjourn. Members were called in by the division bells for the recorded division, but the Opposition Whip refused to walk down the aisle of the Chamber with the Government Whip, which would have been an indication that the vote could then take place. At the time, the Standing Orders provided no time limit on bells, and they rang continuously for more than two weeks.31 When the House resumed sitting, it adopted a government motion dividing the bill into eight separate ones.32
Another notable incident in 2012 delayed the adoption of an omnibus bill. At the report stage of Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the Opposition submitted 871 motions in amendment and asked for a recorded division for each vote. A 22-hour voting marathon ensued in the House of Commons.33 The bill, however, was adopted without amendment.
The following is a selective list of omnibus bills that have been introduced in Canadian Parliament.
Arguments for and against omnibus bills have been put forward over the years.
Some have defended the omnibus nature of a legislative proposal on the grounds that its various components reflect a common principle, theme or purpose, or are part of a single administrative initiative. Grouping the various amendments may then actually enhance Parliament’s study of each component and its interaction with other elements of the bill, and facilitate the examination of the bill. As the volume and complexity of government initiatives have increased over the years, omnibus bills can facilitate the simultaneous consideration of all the interrelated aspects of a particular legislative agenda. Omnibus bills grouping different proposals on the same subject may also help to focus parliamentary debates.
Objections to omnibus bills typically centre on claims that individual parliamentarians are prevented from saying “yea” or “nay” to specific measures contained in the proposal. However, it may also be argued that the legislative process offers various opportunities for parliamentarians to express their views and vote on different measures of each bill, particularly at the report stage in the House of Commons. Another argument levelled against omnibus bills is that they cannot be referred to the appropriate specialist committee for study. Further, their size and their quick adoption, in effect, prevent parliamentarians from being able to inform themselves about the relevant issues, and Parliament could lose the opportunity to identify and correct any flaws the bill might contain.
(3.30 MB, 327 pages). [ Return to text ]Library of Parliament, “House of Commons Debates, 21st Parliament, 7th Session: Vol. 4,” Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources, Database, 2 April 1953, p. 3551:
The National Defence Act was enacted in 1950, and at that time we incorporated in the one bill a great number of provisions from other legislation. We have decided, and the house so far has concurred, that it would meet the convenience of hon. members, as it does very much that of the armed forces, if all amendments to existing legislation relating to the armed forces were contained in a single bill each year. In consequence, the Canadian Forces Act, 1950; the Canadian Forces Act, 1951; the Canadian Forces Act, 1952 have been enacted. All of these amended a number of different statutes, and this follows that precedent.[ Return to text ]
(617 KB, 100 pages), 20 September 2001, 1030 (Speaker Peter Milliken); and House of Commons, Debates (892 KB, 124 pages), 11 June 2012, 1205 (Speaker Andrew Scheer). [ Return to text ] (892 KB, 124 pages), 11 June 2012 1205 (Speaker Andrew Scheer). [ Return to text ]
© Library of Parliament