Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Ontario, "omnibus bill"

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 06:40 PM
Since it seems that we are all in the mood for politics tonight, i thought I would throw this out here, Especially since the spectre of it keeps haunting me.

When the Harris gov, took power in Ontario all those yrs ago, they passed an omnibus bill. We were warned at the time that this bill would drastically reduce the democratic rights of Ontario Citizens. I never did find out what was in it, and now that were all up in arms about bill 132, and taking the Ont gov to court to protect our charter rights, that bill keeps popping through my mind. like what if we really don't have the rights that we keep insisting be protected. Does anyone remember this, or even better, does anyone understand it?

Loki
December 15th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I think an omnibus bill is a bill that covers a number of pieces of legislation.

I believe the Harris government introduced one to allow for same sex marriage.

The word "marriage" appears in many different pieces of legislation. I think they wrote one omnibus bill that enshrined those rights into any law where the word marriage appears.

SSM probably wasn't the only time he used it though. Do you remember the jist of the bill you are thinking of?

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 08:15 PM
I think an omnibus bill is a bill that covers a number of pieces of legislation.

I believe the Harris government introduced one to allow for same sex marriage.

The word "marriage" appears in many different pieces of legislation. I think they wrote one omnibus bill that enshrined those rights into any law where the word marriage appears.

SSM probably wasn't the only time he used it though. Do you remember the jist of the bill you are thinking of?Oh no,it wasnt about smae sex marriage, if it were it would be about not allowing it, Im talking about the one that was at the beginning of there mandate and there was a huge back lash and protests on its passing, but it was around the time that there were protests at least every week! The jist of it was about the government getting more powers. People were upset because it was huge even for an omnibus bill and was rammed through parliament, they may have even invoked closure. So much was going on at the time that i never really found out what it was about. I think they were giving themselves more powers to get them selves out of honouring contracts that previous governments had entered into as well as taking away rights from regular people. I have heard it refered to lately in the house, My fear is that we get to court and find out we lost certain rights and freedoms long ago through the passing of that bill. The way the Ont government keeps bringing up thier reverse onus clauses with such confidence, it has me worried that maybe they know something I don't:eek: I hate to give Bryant even that much credit, but I do remember at the time people were very concerned that that particular omnibus bill would greatly reduce the rights of the individual.

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 08:24 PM
[QUOTE=db7]'Omnibus' can sound a little intimidating, but it generally is not. An omnibus bill is just a whole bunch of bills with different subject matter packaged together to be voted on as one bill. This packaging is typically done simply to save time in parliament. For the most part the subjects are straight forward and not controversial. Governments don't really put controversial issues in an omnibus bill

QUOTE] I think that was the point, it was a huge bill with lots of smaller "housekeeping" regs in it but they were saying that burried inside all of that were controversial laws and that those controversial bits of legislation were extremely important and should have been debated seperately. I have to admit, what reminded me about it this time, but I have had it run through my mind several times, was during quesition period, our boy Dalton...grrr was trading insults with the conservatives, who were questioning him on civil rights in regards to "reverse onus" usages, He responded by ridiculing the conservative who had participated originally in that "omnibus bill" and Im sure thats the one he was talking about. Ridiculing them because the bill had somehow diminished Civil Rights! I neeeed to know LOL..

Loki
December 15th, 2005, 09:33 PM
Oh yeah, sorry. I worded that poorly. I meant when they introduced the phrase same sex couple( or something like that) in response to the court's decision.
It just struck me as an issue that I remembered alot of protesting over.

Was it Bill 26 (Saving's and restructuring act)? It impacted about 40 or so laws.
The opposition was complaining that it gave Harris "dictatorial powers."
I think their claim was that it gave minister's too much control over funding, and would force almagamtion etc.

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 10:09 PM
that could be it Loki, if the claim was that it gave Harris dictatorial powers, then it sounds like it was in the ball park, Twenty Six sounds like it would be early in the mandate.
DB7, I have no idea how to respond to most of your post, not because I don't understand it, but because for one, I think I have a relatively good understanding of the parliamentry process for a layperson and two, because you and I obviously would disagree over what the Harris government did or didn't do to Ontario.
I really don't want to argue about it, I spent years of my life fighting many things that Mike Harris did and I fought it from my heart so Id rather not debate it if you don't mind. I am asking about this particular bill because I am wondering if what was in it still impacts the power that the provincial government has.