The Senate
Motion in Amendment Negatived
May 7, 2026
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:
1.by replacing the words “subject matter of Bill C-30” with the words “subject matter of all of Bill C-30” in point 3;
2.by adding the following new points 4 and 5:
“4. the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine the subject matter of Divisions 7 and 8 of Part 3 of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, introduced in the House of Commons on April 29, 2026, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate, and that the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 4, 2026;
5. the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to take any report tabled under point 4 of this order into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-30;” and
3.by renumbering current points 4, 5 and 6 as points 6, 7 and 8.
Honourable senators, I would first like to respond to the arguments put forward by Senator Osler and Senator Robinson regarding the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, the government cannot support that amendment, and I will explain why.
I will say a few words about Senator Osler’s comments on pre‑studies. If pre-studies were used to shorten consideration of the bills themselves, then I would certainly agree that they are a roundabout way for the government to limit debate.
Since Senator Robinson was kind enough to quote me, I will refer her to the speech that I gave here when I agreed to serve as Government Representative in the Senate. One of the commitments that I made was to make more frequent use of pre‑studies. Why? When we combine pre-studies with the actual study of the bill, we do not reduce the substance of the debate. We actually increase the time given to senators to conduct a proper, in-depth study of the legislative proposals before them, particularly in the case of government bills.
We should therefore not see the increased use of pre-studies as a roundabout way of reducing the time allocated for debate. On the contrary, the goal is to allow for more time.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve heard senators in this chamber insist on taking more time to hold more in-depth debates or to enable senators to explore every single bill. Pre-study is a tool that, unfortunately, we don’t use often enough, in my opinion.
We opted to do it in the main motion for three bills because these bills are making their way to the Senate toward the end of the session. This will enable us to get started on debates, discussions and studies before the bills are even introduced in the Senate. We can ask questions and meet with witnesses so we can do a thorough study within the time we have. We decide how to approach this. We can sit until June 23, and I believe all senators are prepared to do so, including on Mondays and Fridays if necessary. Pre-studies enable us to do this work when it suits all members of this chamber, in my view.
That’s what I have to say about pre-studies.
In response to the remarks made by my colleague Senator Robinson, I would like to begin by commending Senator Robinson, Senator Lewis and Senator Black for their interest in issues related to agriculture. As I’ve had the opportunity to say on several occasions during Question Period while responding to some of Senator Black’s questions, these issues are of particular interest to me, since I was born and raised on a farm myself. In fact, I wanted to tell Senator Robinson that my nephew, who took over the family farm, recently acquired a potato farm, so we might end up competing in that regard, too.
I think there’s some confusion regarding the substance of the matter. Senator Robinson is presenting Bill C-30 as a budget bill. Bill C-30 is not a budget bill. The fact is that the government introduced Bill C-31 in the House of Commons yesterday. The short title of that bill is “Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2,” and its purpose is to implement the measures in the Spring Economic Update 2026. Bill C-31 is a budget bill.
It is clearly common practice to split budget bills because they tend to be quite lengthy and we want to be able to draw on the expertise of all the senators who serve in committee.
Although Bill C-30 does contain provisions related to agriculture, it is not a particularly lengthy bill. It is only 42 pages long. If the government motion is adopted without amendment, it will be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which is chaired by Senator Carignan. This committee is fully capable of studying this issue and all of the subjects addressed in Bill C-30.
The National Finance Committee is not a closed committee. Any senator, regardless of who they are, can attend the meetings and participate in them. They can ask questions and participate in the debates held in that committee.
I suggested to Senator Robinson that she speak with Senator Carignan directly to ensure that the provisions of Bill C-30 relating to agriculture receive the committee’s full attention. I even suggested to Senator Robinson and Senator Osler that we make every effort to convince Health Minister Marjorie Michel to take part in the debate. It shouldn’t be too difficult. I don’t want to speak for Minister Michel, but I know how eager and willing she is to help and I’m pretty sure she’d be willing to come and take part in the National Finance Committee debate on the agriculture-related provisions.
In fact, Senator Robinson is part of a group, the Canadian Senators Group, which currently has a vacant seat on the National Finance Committee. I am confident that the members of her group will have no objection to appointing her as a member of the National Finance Committee for the purposes of studying Bill C-30 and allowing her not only to participate, but also to vote on the provisions and any items that might be put to a vote.
Lastly, I know that Senator Robinson is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I submit to you, honourable colleagues, that the committee, pursuant to its order of reference, it is quite able to consider issues related to Bill C-30 and report back to the National Finance Committee, should it so wish, within the time allotted and suggested by Senator Robinson in her amendment.
For all of these reasons and in the interest of efficiency, I would simply say that the government has no hidden agenda and no intention of avoiding debate, on the contrary. Otherwise, it would not have proposed a pre-study of Bill C-30. As the Government Representative in the Senate, I cannot endorse the amendment proposed by Senator Robinson. I encourage senators to vote against this amendment.
Honourable senators, I intend to be brief. I don’t want to reiterate many of the points that the government leader so ably put forward, but I’m a little bit perplexed. This is the most important thing for us when we get together at the leadership table: When it’s all said and done, what we are is glorified air traffic controllers. We’re essentially trying to control the traffic in this chamber and in committees to make sure that legislative work is done effectively.
More importantly — and this is coming from the leader of the official opposition — my preoccupation has always been that we have robust debate on issues and that we have the opportunity to conduct sober second thought in an effective way. We’ve had instances of very controversial legislation where the opposition has used the tools at our disposal to make sure we drag out the process as much as possible, but that’s because the legislation is controversial and there are outcries from stakeholders and so on and so forth.
When we’re looking at Bill C-20, Bill C-25 and Bill C-30, you won’t get any more ordinary legislative business coming through this place. We’re talking about the supply bill, economic statements and legislation here where people are not ripping their shirts in indignation because you’re on one side of the legislation or the other.
As a result, when we get around the leadership table, I’ve seen a desire on the part of the government to say, “Let’s take all the time that is required.” Maybe on the calendar, it looks like two or three weeks spent on a particular piece of legislation is crunch time or a short period of time, but you have the opposition acquiescing and supporting motions on this floor that we could have easily blocked at any time, such as allowing committees to sit while the Senate is sitting and allowing motions to pass. And we’ve allowed committees to sit — even on bills that we’re not necessarily thrilled about, like Bill C-9, and we’re not thrilled at all by it — even while the Senate is not sitting.
The point I’m trying to make is you’ve seen there’s a willingness on both sides of the government and the opposition to make sure we have enough hours. That’s how you count proper, robust legislative review: the number of hours that every committee has on any piece of legislation. Again, on Bill C-20, Bill C-25 and Bill C-30, we’ve acquiesced in allowing for pre‑studies to make sure the agenda flows in this place and that all senators have more than enough time in order to weigh in on issues.
Lastly, Senator Robinson, I echo the point of view of the government leader. This is not a budget bill. More importantly, regarding the elements you want to study, your committee is free at any given time to do a narrow study, a broad study or a wide study. If the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, in your opinion, has not had proper voicing or its place on this stage, it’s certainly not the fault of any legislative process. It’s for that committee to determine its proper agenda and what it wants to study and what it doesn’t want to study. It doesn’t require a pre‑study or a bill of this nature to take something narrow or something vast in order to conduct a study.
Those are my thoughts. I think we need to spend a little more time at leadership meetings committing to time frames without having it spill over into the debates in this chamber. It has happened in the past, and it’s happening now. I don’t think it’s a valuable use of this chamber’s time. Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Housakos, would you take a question?
Sure.
Thank you, Senator Housakos. I’ll be brief in my question. I want to thank you for your speech. Part of the reason why I spoke to it is just to have this discussion so that senators can think about the question before us.
I agree with you: I think at leaders’ meetings, we can spend more time, but this is a short debate on this, which I’m glad we as a chamber are having. I want to thank you for your speech.
Was there a question, Senator Osler?
Yes. Would you agree, Senator Housakos?
Senator Osler, you know that I’m always agreeable, but may I also suggest that these are some of the discussions that we air traffic controllers can take back to our respective groups in order to have those discussions in advance so that when we sit around the leadership table, we can actually take decisions on the part of those groups in terms of timelines, schedules and how we approach the legislative-making process.
We have all these meetings, not for posterity’s sake or for the sake of navel-gazing. We have them in order to make maximum and valuable use of the time of all senators. That is my response to your question.
Honourable senators, I hadn’t intended to speak, but I wasn’t quick enough to signal my desire to ask Senator Moreau a question.
I’m fortunate to sit on the National Finance Committee, so I’ll have an opportunity to examine the bills before or after their pre‑studies. However, Senator Moreau, I would like to support my colleague, Senator Robinson. It is semantics to claim that Bill C-30 bears no relation to the budget. Bill C-30 is called An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. Among other things, it amends tax laws. Bill C-31 is called A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
I know that I won’t win the legal battle with you, Senator Moreau, but between us, the budget updates contain tax provisions, just like the budget does. I just wanted to set the record straight. In my opinion, Senator Robinson had a good point.
I’ve said it publicly before and I don’t need to repeat it here, but we need to be open to the idea of pre-studies. We need to be agile and efficient, and I think that pre-studies can help with that efficiency.
Often, it’s easier to persuade the government to make amendments to its bill during a pre-study than it is after the government has already passed the bill and we have only about a week or a few days left before the summer recess. Normally, we have to propose amendments and send them to the other place, and then good luck getting any amendments through just a few days before the end of the session, particularly if the bill is related to the budget.
For all of these reasons, I share Senator Osler’s concerns. Perhaps the government should not be overusing these pre-studies. However, in this case, when it comes to the three bills before us, I think it is a good idea and I intend to support the Government Representative.
Senator Gignac, would you take a question?
I’ll take a question.
My question is simple. Have we already voted on this year’s budget?
Yes, we’ve adopted some provisions. Sometimes, in the two years following a budget, we study bills containing provisions that were in the budget a year or two earlier. We always see measures in subsequent bills, sometimes within three months, sometimes within two or three years. We’ve seen this before.
I have a question for Senator Moreau. Would you take a question?
You would need to ask for leave to revert back to Senator Moreau to ask a question. Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Senator Moreau, will you take a question?
I would be happy to.
Senator Moreau, I wanted to pick up on a point you mentioned about efficiency. If we were to send Divisions 7 and 8 to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to study, would you agree that it would work in tandem with the National Finance Committee and be not only efficient but would also allow us to really leverage the expertise that our esteemed colleagues have certainly invested the time in developing at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee?
It would offer an opportunity, in my opinion — and I’m wondering if you would agree — to not only facilitate debate and investigation specifically to the agriculture sector on its own as opposed to going to the National Finance Committee, but it would also facilitate an expeditious response to assist in returning the pre-study on Bill C-30 to the government as they have requested.
I’m happy to answer the question, just as I do every day. This is the only question I’ve been asked today, so I’m happy to give you an answer, Senator Robinson.
I would say that the answer to your question is in the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry’s order of reference.
I’ll read you part of it. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is authorized “to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry” in accordance with rule 12-7(12).
It’s not up to me to tell the committee how to do its job, but the standing committee does have the necessary authority, per its order of reference, to thoroughly examine any issue, particularly issues related to agriculture in Bill C-30.
In the interest of efficiency, the purpose of the order of reference is precisely to provide any given standing committee with the independence it needs to study an issue it deems to fall within its ambit.
I can anticipate your next question. In my view, it would be entirely legitimate for the standing committee to study the issues in Bill C-30 and report on them. It would also be very efficient.
Senator Moreau, would you take another question?
With pleasure.
Thank you. I’m so happy that you’re so happy.
In the Senate, we have 18 committees, and each committee invests time and, certainly, resources — taxpayer resources — in developing expertise of the subject matter, which is outlined within their orders of reference. I understand committees are the masters of their own destinies; they can choose what they want to study. I do understand that.
However, I continue to be unclear as to the resistance when we have a pre-study bill that specifically has two out of eight clauses that are very specific to a committee on which we have fantastic expertise, as I mentioned in my speech, as well as a connection to industry, which would really allow us to get much more in depth within the pre-study.
I’m confused. Do you think we should maybe do away with the rest of the committees and just have the National Finance Committee deal with everything? At what point do we start sending our Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans bills to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources? I don’t understand why we’re not using this expertise to the fullest extent.
On the contrary, Senator Robinson, you have two possible avenues for conducting a comprehensive study related to agriculture, including with regard to Bill C-30.
The first option would be to ask your group to designate you as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which will be studying Bill C-30 in its entirety, including the provisions related to agriculture. The second would be to suggest that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of which you are the chair, take up the agriculture-related provisions in Bill C-30 and report to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Nothing is being bypassed here.
On the contrary, the government is giving senators the opportunity, through pre-studies, to address all the issues covered in the bill, including agricultural issues, before it even reaches the Senate, and to revisit those issues once the bill is officially before the Senate for study and approval.
