The reviews are in

Following up on this morning's post, here's the Montreal Gazette editorial board with its own well-justified concern about the Cons' dumpster bill:

The measures are not of prime importance - except maybe the environment one - but this practice simply guts Parliamentary debate.

And they're getting away with it. No party wants an election now, and the public wants one even less. But an election would be triggered if MPs defeat the budget, the cornerstone of the government agenda. So the budget is sure to pass, meaning anything included in it has a get-out-of-jail-free card: no cranky opposition, no careful study, no public airing. The whole budget bill got just seven days of House debate, and five in committee.

This is a shabby and unreasonable way to do the public's business.
...
One passed in the House, the budget bill faces the Senate, where some senators are threatening to separate one or all of the measures listed above before passage. The argument against that is that the Senate, with so little democratic legitimacy, ought not to interfere with the public will as expressed by the Commons. But an omnibus bill like this is in itself plainly a circumventing of MPs' authority (and duty) to express the public will on various matters.

Stephen Harper and his troops have resorted to this gimmick after about half of their legislation, in recent years, has been stymied one way or another - either by their own artful prorogations or by the opposition. We can understand ministers' frustration, but respected political scientist Ned Franks had this right when he told the Hill Times that this kind of "end run" is an "abomination" and a good example of "how not to do legislation."