We're not so innocent

Many observers of the Canadian political system, myself included, take pride in (or at least appreciate) the fact that Canadian legislation is not burdened with unrelated amendments and riders (the range of goals associated with this practice potentially being quite varied). This, of course, is in contrast to the (perceived) frequent occurrence of this practice in the US.

Not surprisingly, it turns out that Canada hasn't always been free of this practice. It seems that in the pre-Durham/United Province of Canada days the existence of this practice was something that Durham highlighted and repudiated in his report

As Durham was kind enough to note,

“A singular instance of this occurred in 1836 with respect to the renewal of the Jury Law, to which the Assembly attached great importance, and to which the Legislative Council felt a strong repugnance, on account of its having in effect placed the juries entirely in the hands of the French portion of the population. In order to secure the renewal of this law, the Assembly coupled it in the same Bill, by which it renewed the tolls of the Lachine Canal, calculating on the Council not venturing to defeat a measure of so much importance to the revenue of the latter, by resisting the former. The Council, however, rejected the Bill; and thus the Canal remained toll-free for a whole season, because the two Houses differed about a jury law.”