More from Scott Clark and Peter DeVries available More fromavailable here

Last Friday, the Harper government tabled another very large (359 page) omnibus budget bill — one which, in keeping with the government’s practice on omnibus budget bills since it was elected, had very little to do with the budget.

When it comes to legislation, the Conservatives appear to prize bulk over quality; getting bills passed is far more important to them than making sure the bills themselves are well-designed, or fair, or based on facts. The so-called Fair Elections Act is only the most recent example of this.

The possibility that legislation, once passed, will end up getting tossed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t seem to enter Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s mind. He claimed to be “genuinely surprised” by the court’s rejection of his nominee to the bench, Marc Nadon — along with his clumsy attempt to clear a path for Nadon by retroactively changing the rules on SCC appointments. This is a government that regards the Constitution as an awkward impediment to fulfilling its ideological goals.

Ever since its election in 2006, the Harper government has shown contempt for Parliament — and, by extension, for Canadians. A minority government might be justified in dreading an institution that has the power to dissolve it at any moment — but why should a majority government display such fear and hostility toward the bedrock institution of our democracy?

A majority government can always get what it wants; it doesn’t matter how long Parliament debates, ultimately, since a majority government always gets the last word. But the Harper government has never behaved with the kind of confidence majority governments should enjoy. It shuns discussion and ducks questions — behaviour which strongly suggests a lack of faith in its own policies and its ability to defend them in open debate.

The Harper government has never behaved with the kind of confidence majority governments should enjoy. It shuns discussion and ducks questions — behaviour which strongly suggests a lack of faith in its own policies and its ability to defend them in open debate.

Its use of omnibus bills is an affront to Parliament and to Canadians. It also undermines the way omnibus bills are supposed to work.

An omnibus bill is supposed to — according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice — bring together, in a single bill, “all legislative amendments resulting from a policy decision to facilitate parliamentary debate”. In other words, for a policy initiative to be included in a budget omnibus bill, it must first be detailed in the budget — indicating that the government is proposing a change to an existing piece of legislation or proposing a new initiative.

The language in the budget should be quite explicit in describing the proposed policy change. In the absence of a clear reference in the budget, no policy change has any business being included in the budget omnibus bill; it should be presented in a separate piece of legislation. But that’s not how this government works, and in recent years references to pending policy changes in the budget have been getting more obtuse and vague — when they show up at all.

Harper government budgets are designed to give MPs as little information as possible on what the government actually intends to do. The details are left to the omnibus bills — or regulations, in some cases — in a clear effort to short-circuit debate before it can get started.

The omnibus bill for Budget 2007 should have given us a warning of what was to come. In that budget, the government announced its intention to undertake borrowing for three of its Crown corporations. In Annex 3 of the budget, the government proposed to amend the Financial Administration Act to (we were told) provide greater transparency and accountability on its borrowing activities and increase its flexibility to meet future borrowing needs, particularly with the respect to the consolidation of Crown borrowings.

Then along came the budget omnibus bill, in which the government interpreted those “statements” in the budget as carte blanche to eliminate the FAA requirement for a Borrowing Authority Act whenever it needs to borrow new funds. Without any debate, without clearly stating its true intentions to the Canadian people, the government did away with a key provision of parliamentary control over government finances — the requirement that the government obtain the permission of Parliament before borrowing money.

In the March 2013 budget, the government indicated that it would “propose changes to the labour relations regime”; again, no details were offered. In fact, details on changes to federal labour laws and procedures would only be provided after the omnibus bill received Royal Assent. How on earth are parliamentarians expected to do their jobs without understanding what they’re being asked to approve?

Without any debate, the government did away with a key provision of parliamentary control over government finances — the requirement that the government obtain the permission of Parliament before borrowing money.

The current budget omnibus bill dissolves the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board. Here’s what Budget 2014 had to say on the subject: “the Government will refocus its innovation programs delivered through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.” No mention of dissolutions.

Budget 2014 is also silent on amendments to the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act, payments to compensate veterans for deductions for certain benefits, amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and changes to the Old Age Security Act — just a few of the almost 40 proposed legislative changes. The omnibus bill also proposes amendments to previous budget bills.

The inclusion of non-related budget measures clearly violates the spirit and intent of budget legislation. These measures should be presented in stand-alone bill and debated by the appropriate committees of the House and Senate. They should not be buried in omnibus bills. It’s a practice which undermines the credibility of the budget process and the authority of Parliament. It’s got to stop.

Opposition MPs can hold the government to account by demanding that government officials appearing before committee identify the specific references in Budget 2014 giving rise to measures in the omnibus bill. And any proposed legislative change in the omnibus that isn’t backed up by clear wording in the budget itself should be thrown to the Speaker for a ruling.

Without the information to which they are entitled, Parliament and its committees cannot properly assess the budget; parliamentary debate is stifled, public opinion is ignored and the process by which we make public policy better is short-circuited. This isn’t bureaucratic arcana. This goes to the very core of the system through which we govern ourselves.

Scott Clark is president of C.S. Clark Consulting. Together with Peter DeVries he writes the public policy blog 3DPolicy. Prior to that he held a number of senior positions in the Canadian government dealing with both domestic and international policy issues, including deputy minister of finance and senior adviser to the prime minister. He has an honours BA in economics and mathematics from Queen’s University and a PhD in economics from the University of California at Berkeley.

Peter DeVries is a consultant in fiscal policy and public management issues, primarily on an international basis. From 1984 to 2005, he held a number of senior positions in the Department of Finance, including director of the Fiscal Policy Division, responsible for overall preparation of the federal budget. Mr. DeVries holds an MA in economics from McMaster University.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.