In a year marked by political gridlock and limited activity, both Canada's Parliament and the United States Congress recorded historically low levels of legislative production in 2025. This trend has sparked a debate about whether a slowdown in lawmaking is a sign of dysfunction or a potential benefit for citizens weary of constant regulatory change.
A Tale of Two Unproductive Legislatures
According to year-end analyses, the Canadian House of Commons sat for a mere 72 days in 2025, a figure calculated to be the lowest number of sitting days since 1937. Across the border, the U.S. Senate had already surpassed that number of sitting days by May, despite a significant government shutdown later in the fall that further hampered operations.
The output of new laws was equally sparse. Reports indicate that Canada's Parliament passed only seven laws throughout the entire year. The U.S. Congress managed to pass more in terms of volume, but still set a modern record for inactivity, enacting only 40 laws in the first year of a new presidential term. This pales in comparison to the 115 bills passed during Barack Obama's first year in office.
Is Measuring Laws the Right Metric for Productivity?
The common critique of these legislatures is that their productivity should be measured by the number of bills passed. However, this premise is being challenged. Observers are asking a fundamental question: Would Canada or the U.S. truly be improved by 40 or 50 additional new laws each year?
Legislation is not created equal. A single, massive omnibus bill can contain hundreds of provisions spanning thousands of pages, as seen with recent U.S. budget bills. In Canada, budget bills have similarly become catch-all vehicles for wide-ranging policy changes, a tactic criticized by opposition parties who then often employ it themselves once in power.
The author points to the ever-growing list of line items in federal budgets—now routinely exceeding 200—as evidence of a governing reflex to constantly tinker and add, raising the question of whether such a high volume of annual "refinements" is necessary or effective.
The Case for Less Lawmaking and More Repeal
If the solution to national problems were simply more laws and programs, both nations should be nearing perfection. For decades, each country has piled on dozens, if not hundreds, of new regulations annually. Yet, many persistent issues remain or have worsened.
A more compelling measure of productivity, some argue, would be a government dedicated to reducing and repealing outdated or overly complex federal laws and regulations. There was a minor move in this direction in the U.S. Congress, which voted 22 times in 2025 to repeal federal regulations under a fast-track process. The ultimate goal, as suggested by the commentary, would be to "hack through the undergrowth" of legal complexity until it meaningfully simplifies life for citizens, rather than primarily benefiting the legal profession.
Interestingly, the legislative slowdown did not halt human progress. Popular Science's list of the "50 greatest innovations of 2025" included breakthroughs from private moon landers and super-strong wood to solar roof tiles and advanced medical technologies, proving that societal advancement often occurs far from the floors of Parliament or Congress.
The record-low output of 2025 forces a re-evaluation of what citizens should expect from their lawmakers. Is constant legislative activity a sign of a healthy democracy, or can strategic inaction—or even active deregulation—sometimes be the more valuable contribution?
