Is Parliament no more than a democracy theme park?

In her critique of the spring parliamentary session, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May argued that democracy and Parliament, by extension, are being disrespected by the current Liberal majority—declaring that Parliament is no more than a theme park. In other words, the work of Parliament is decorative, but non-functional.

May admits that while she called Stephen Harper’s use of omnibus bills “appalling,” those measures pale in comparison to the approach used by the Carney government.

It’s not unusual for opposition members to decry the manoeuvres by which majority governments get bills past, but the current session points to a departure from established norms.

Not only has the Carney government continued to introduce omnibus bills, but the bills themselves insert provisions not signalled in the government’s policy messaging. In addition, they have limited debate using time allocation, and used other procedural devices that have resulted in minimal debate and deliberation in Parliament.

May’s criticism has merit because the Carney government has combined an already troubling use of omnibus bills with procedural tools that further weaken scrutiny.

Omnibus bills: efficient or undemocratic?

Governments often cite efficiency as justification for the use of omnibus legislation. These bills allow several related matters to be passed in one vote. Controversy arises when provisions in the legislation are unrelated to the stated purpose of the bill.

Omnibus bills are not new Canadian parliamentary practice. However, Stephen Harper’s majority government dramatically expanded the use of omnibus bills, which were noted to be extensive in both breadth and scope. For example, Bill C-9 (Budget Implementation Act 2010) was criticized as having “883 pages of varied and unrelated legislative provisions” (Dodek 2016, 20).

Despite Justin Trudeau’s pledge to reform parliamentary debate and end the use of what the Liberal Party of Canada called “undemocratic” (Liberal Party of Canada 2015, 30), Bill Morneau’s first budget as finance minister under Trudeau was an omnibus bill, and Trudeau continued the practise throughout his majority and minority governments.

As for the current government, Bill C-30 (Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act) includes additional non-financial and regulatory provisions that were not contained in the Spring Economic Statement or even anticipated in the government’s messaging on the financial update. For example, there was no mention of changing pesticide use, food inspection or the transport information powers and payment-system liability, which made it into the legislation. Yet some items that were promised in the Spring Economic Statement such as support for youth employment and a pledge to provide enhanced FINTRAC powers were noticeably absent from Bill C-30.

The main concern regarding omnibus bills is that they limit the function of parliamentarians by making it nearly impossible for them to study legislation, thereby diminishing their ability to hold the government to account.

Harper intensified the use of omnibus bills, but it was normalized under Trudeau and is likely to go unabated under Prime Minister Carney. Moreover, Carney has gone a step further by pairing omnibus legislation with procedural devices that compress or eliminate scrutiny altogether.

Procedural tactics further limit debate and scrutiny

The Carney government has extended its powers through a broader combination of tools than were used by Harper or Trudeau. This government has used its majority to impose time limits on debate and other procedural limits such as deeming the report stage completed and limiting third-reading debate at a fixed time. These devices show a further step toward hollowing out deliberation and reducing Parliament to spectacle rather than a place for substantive debate.

One egregious example was the limit placed on MPs to deliberate the Spring Economic Statement. This was done using a programming motion on June 12, 2026. First, the motion instructed the finance committee to meet at 9:00 a.m. the following day. It then imposed a 30-minute time limit on the clause-by-clause review of over 80 clauses at which time debate would automatically end. Regardless of what was discussed, the review would be considered completed and concurred. The debate at the third reading was also limited to one member from each party to a strict time limit of 20 minutes, with only 10 minutes for questions and comments. This programming motion also prevented debate or amendment at third reading and there would be no ability to defer the matter, thereby curtailing any chance of studying or examining the bill in any meaningful way.

In a similar vein, on June 18, three bills were passed with the language “deemed read a third time and passed on division”—bills C-11, C-22 and C-27. This is parliamentary speak to say that there would be no debate at third reading or recording of any votes. This would allow the bill to be passed in one step and only a notation made that it wasn’t unanimous.

In short, the government used accelerated procedures on substantive and constitutionally sensitive matters: defence, surveillance and privacy online, and Indigenous self-government. These are not housekeeping matters but issues touching state power, civil liberty and constitutional recognition. These are all significant policy areas that require robust scrutiny and debate to guard against unintended consequences, ensure legitimacy and reinforce trust in our institutions.

Governments have always sought ways to manage the House and overcome opposition delay, but the issue here is not merely efficiency. What distinguishes the current Liberal approach is the combination of omnibus legislation with procedural devices that truncate committee study, limit debate, and in some cases deem legislation passed without meaningful scrutiny. In that sense, Parliament is not being abolished but hollowed out; its form remains intact while its deliberative function is steadily diminished.

If Parliament becomes a place where MPs may be present but cannot seriously examine, amend or debate legislation, then Elizabeth May’s metaphor begins to look less like partisan exaggeration than constitutional diagnosis. The danger is not simply that the government gets its way. When scrutiny becomes performative, the legitimacy of parliamentary government itself begins to erode.