Study on Practice of Including Non-financial Matters in Bills Implementing Provisions of Budgets and Economic Statements

Honourable senators, I rise today to respond to a report that was tabled in this chamber in late spring. It was the omnibus budget bill. I had an opportunity to read that bill as a member of that committee when I first joined in this brief year that I’ve been part of this chamber.

Much has been said this year about the length and content of budget bills and the use of omnibus bills. All that has been said is negative.

When I arrived at the Finance Committee, the study on omnibus budget bills had already been completed. What the committee did at that point was review the report on budget implementation acts, or BIAs. It offered in the summary:

It is regrettable that BIAs, once brief and focused on financial measures, have evolved into increasingly lengthy and complex bills that bundle diverse, and sometimes controversial, non-financial measures to expedite their passage, a practice that undermines Parliament’s ability, and Canadians’ opportunity, to give these measures the thorough examination they deserve.

I would argue that this isn’t necessarily the case. I would like to offer a different perspective from the one set out in the report tabled in the chamber late last spring.

Broadly speaking, the report expressed a certain frustration with the growing size and complexity of budget implementation bills. These bills have expanded from just 24 pages in 1994 to more than 600 pages in 2024.

That’s true. However, we should also ask ourselves what else has changed over the past 30 years.

The answer is simple: The world itself has become more complex. That reality is reflected in the actions of public authorities, not only at the federal level, but across all levels of government.

The Cabinet Room, Room 235 of the East Block in Parliament, was used for federal meetings in Canada for cabinets for over a century. Every prime minister, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, held meetings in Room 235. The room is the size of a large dining room: five chairs on either side and a couple at the end.

Canada’s first ministry had 13 members, including the prime minister. By 1987, prime minister Brian Mulroney appointed a record of 40 ministers, and a larger room had to be found in the Centre Block.

Today, the minister’s cabinet lists 27 cabinet members with portfolios such as Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation; Emergency Management and Community Resilience; Housing and Infrastructure; and the Environment, Climate Change and Nature. Additionally, there are 10 Secretaries of State, spanning sectors including Combatting Crime, Defence Procurement, Nature, Sport and Seniors, bringing the ministry to a total of 38 positions.

C.D. Howe would be shaking his head. What are all these people doing there? In fact, I would argue every single one of them has an important role reflecting the country’s needs today.

It was noted in this report that the size of the budget bill grew from 24 pages in 1994 to a whopping 600 pages in 2025. The report says, “. . . whereas recent bills routinely exceed 600 pages.” It would actually be more correct to say that, in the last 30 years, five have been over 600 pages.

However, simply counting the number of pages is not an adequate way to measure the scope of initiatives contained in a bill. For example, a simple measure included in the last budget implementation act eliminated the underused housing tax. However, that change resulted in countless pages of consequential amendments to other statutes, as reference to that tax had to be removed from every legislative provision in which it had initially been included. A simple measure can therefore create many pages of amendments. The number of pages is not a reliable reflection of reality. One measure alone can produce a substantial number of pages.

For this report, the Finance Committee heard from three witnesses. One was Senator Tannas, from the group of leaders who proposed the study — nothing wrong with that, other than hearing an opposing view would help even out the report or, at a minimum, suggest why the government uses them; why we need them.

Another witness was a former clerk named Charles Robert who said:

Meeting the “deadline” for passage of the BIAs while satisfying the obligation for sufficient examination of these unwieldy bills, particularly the non-financial provisions, will become more and more difficult and unsatisfactory.

So we know where he stands — again, no opposing view. In fact, each time he was asked to opine, he suggested, instead, that was up to the Senate to decide.

The third witness, Louise Pratt, was a senator from Australia. She explained, “We have quite strong constitutional powers and also our own standing order to prevent omnibus bills.” Again, none of that is helpful since we don’t have similar constitutional powers.

The real angst, in fact, that I have heard from fellow senators is questioning our ability for due diligence in a proper review of what comes before us. Are we taking sufficient time, regardless of the size or content, to properly scrutinize and give thorough examination? Given the comments at the National Finance Committee this morning from chairs of committees that studied parts of Bill C-31, the Budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, it seems time isn’t the issue. It’s getting the witnesses whom they want in the scheduled time for their meetings.

Honourable senators, I would argue that governing today requires a comprehensive set of measures acting together to achieve the objectives set out in the federal budget the government tables in the fall for the coming year.

Measures to address national housing needs, kick-start nation-building projects and investments, and strengthen Canada’s supply chains are not limited to fiscal and budgetary policy. They also require what the committee report calls “non-financial” measures that must act in concert with fiscal and budgetary provisions to ensure the success of these initiatives.

To separate these non-financial measures out of its own bill or to suggest these measures each become their own separate piece of legislation would see far too many bills slowly work their way through Parliament, if at all. And I would argue it’s a disservice to Canadians, as programs could not fully be realized until each separate piece of legislation receives Royal Assent, which could be months or years after the initial budget implementation act is passed.

Is separate legislation a realistic alternative? Bills can proceed concurrently, but Parliament still has limited chamber and committee capacity. Which measures would we choose to introduce? Which ones would wait? Despite the growth in the size of government, the complexity of issues, requirements for new laws or updating old laws — all have grown exponentially, but Parliament’s sitting time remains relatively unchanged. We sit for roughly 26 weeks, just like the other place.

There’s no doubt that the growing complexity of modern budget implementation bills, together with the broad range of issues they address, has made it more challenging to adhere to the traditional timetable of the budget cycle. However, the Senate, like the other place, has adapted its procedures to meet this challenge of ensuring these substantial bills continue to receive rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.

We frequently approve pre-study of budget implementation acts to allow for congruent study in both houses. The Senate will also parse out measures in the bill to ensure that a committee with certain subject-matter expertise is contributing to the scrutiny of the legislation in the best possible way. Bill C-31, the government’s Budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2 — which is currently in pre-study — was examined by nine committees here, excluding the National Finance Committee, which has responsibility for the entirety of the bill.

Motions passed on this very floor allow committees to sit during chamber sessions to allow for more time. Committees can extend the number of meetings, at least to the extent that infrastructure allows, like enough staffing, translation, et cetera. We could sit additional weeks. The other place uses its constituency weeks as vital connections with the very people who put them in that place. We don’t have the same restrictions as unelected senators. Committees could sit for longer, inviting more witnesses with each meeting. Because supply bills are, in fact, passed throughout the year, the government would not stop working if we chose to add more time to our calendar.

As described by Charles Robert, the former Clerk of the Senate and the House of Commons, where he appeared as a witness:

. . . BIAs . . . are considered under a fixed calendar, a predetermined time allocation process with three distinct periods . . . December, March and June every year.

Under this regime, BIAs are invariably adopted by both houses of Parliament before the extended winter and summer adjournments . . . with a tight deadline in the Senate, much to the frustration of many senators.

I would say maybe in ordinary times, but at least in our recent history, minority governments have been the order of the day. Every single one of the last four prime ministers has led a minority government for some part of their mandate — in these last 30 years.

It’s the inability to stick to a time frame to have legislation finish committee work or agree to debate time in the other place, simply because the governing party does not control the committees, and certainly not the agenda in the House on any given day, during a minority Parliament. This only gives the Senate more grief, running us headlong into the weeks that we would otherwise not be sitting, and so, there’s more pressure to finish quickly.

The omnibus report tabled a recommendation to separate financial from non-financial elements into at least two bills. I would argue: Who is to say, as Senator Marshall and Senator Loffreda did at that committee study, what is not financial? One could argue everything is financial. Moreover, it is for the House to decide what bill they write, table, debate, pass and ultimately send to the Senate. The report suggested that the Senate retains the right to divide a bill. The ruling over this practice is anything but clear in the few times that this was attempted.

The report’s final recommendation involves asking the government to appoint the Government Representative in the Senate to cabinet. It suggests that this would in some way change the practice of omnibus legislation. The Government Representative in the Senate was part of cabinet until 2015 and the practice of omnibus bills has continued unchanged.

I don’t know the point of that recommendation. Colleagues, “omnibus” does not mean less scrutiny. It’s an obligation for us to find a better way. Governance will only become more complex — better scrutiny, not necessarily more bills. In my short time here as a senator, I watched this chamber — through pre-study of the budget bill — amend, change, enhance and correct the budget implementation act before it even landed as a bill in this chamber. These Sherlock Holmes even found corrections to the French translations that somehow slipped through the cracks.

Omnibus bills pose a challenge for Parliament. As I mentioned, everything has changed except time. Both the Senate and the House of Commons have adapted to the realities of governing in a minority or majority situation, and this will continue unabated.

Omnibus legislation should not be celebrated or used to hide unrelated measures, but neither should we pretend that modern government can operate as though every measure exists independently. Properly used, omnibus bills are a necessary tool of modern governing. And I ask again: Which of us will determine what issue falls by the wayside just because we don’t have time and because it’s not the other’s priority?

Colleagues, this is the context that I wanted to add to a report that was studied before my time here. For those of us just beginning our Senate careers, we may see many omnibus bills. When I see them coming, I think Buckley’s cough syrup: It tastes awful, but it works. Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Pupatello, you are almost out of time. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

I would request some extra time. Thank you.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you for the question, senator. I would say you’re making my argument for me. The reality is that there is time. The committees have often said they need more time to study these very large omnibus bills. When we look at the schedule, opportunities exist to book more meetings and have more witnesses.

I’ve sat and watched all of us stand, approve and vote for extending that extra week, as we did in that third week of September. That entire week was just for committees. We can’t have the committees say there isn’t time.

When I ask the chairs of committees today what the issue is, really, they say it is that they couldn’t get the witnesses they wanted in that time frame. That’s a very different issue. That becomes a question of what control we have. While in the American system, they can compel people, under law, to appear at their committees, we don’t have such a provision here.

At least 15 senators in this house have had experience in other legislatures where they know that it’s elbows up all the time. If they want their measure to be enacted, they need to get their measure into the funnel. The only way to do that, when it’s 40 cabinet ministers and not 15, is to jam them all into the few opportunities to get a bill into the House. That becomes the reality. The funnel is larger, but the hole that it shoots through is as small as it ever was because the time — the number of weeks — has not changed.

Unless we decide to change how we manage our studies — to do more by Zoom, hear witnesses by Zoom, add extra meeting times and all those things to give them the hours they want — the omnibus bill time complaint isn’t the actual complaint. In my view, it’s not a legitimate one. It is really about getting the people who have the information they need to appear and then making those reports in a timely fashion.

I’m sorry to interrupt.

Senator Pupatello, your five minutes have expired. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer Senator Housakos’s question?

Yes, if the chamber would allow.

Is leave granted?

Leave is granted.

I would suggest that, because the bills originate in the House and not the Senate, the House has its reasons and its rationale, which regard that — as I have described — they have limited time in their chamber to address legislation, so they jam in everything they can at every chance they get.

The best example is probably from 2010, when former Prime Minister Harper tabled a budget that was 904 pages. It was the epitome of a large omnibus bill. However, he was in a minority government at the time. We all know that a budget vote in the House is actually a vote of confidence. They knew that all elements they wish to undertake as a government must be in a bill, if legislation is required, where they could assure its passage.

That rationale has nothing to do with us. It has everything to do with why they did it in that way. Our role is to accommodate how one would properly study something of that magnitude.

I read in a report that time is the issue. I’m suggesting that time isn’t the issue. The issue is our ability to secure witnesses and hear them in a timely fashion. The committees need to take advantage of the time that’s allowed to hear them, et cetera. But those are elements we don’t control. At least 15 people here have been on the other side and understand that funnel, which keeps growing with the complexity of the world, still only allows for 26 weeks of legislative debate. That’s not likely to change. That means we need to change how we do our business.

Will Senator Pupatello take another question?

Yes.

Honourable senators, I will be brief.

I haven’t been here as long as Senator Housakos, but I was here during the last Parliament when we had discussions about omnibus bills and non-fiscal measures being included in BIAs. The committee, in its executive summary, says “. . . that the government should facilitate more effective parliamentary scrutiny by presenting two separate bills . . . .” which means separating the two.

In your speech, I was interested to hear you use the phrase “properly used,” saying that when omnibus bills are properly used, they are a modern tool.

I’m interested to hear your opinion. What would proper use be? How would you justify an omnibus bill that contains fiscal and non-fiscal measures and does not separate the two? Is that proper use?

In November 2025, the budget was tabled by Minister Champagne. That large book, which we could all read when we received our copy, contained a number of elements. Some were financial; some were non-financial. The “Buy Canada” policy, as you will recall, was a huge piece. The new procurement in Defence was a huge piece.

There isn’t necessarily legislation attached to each idea, but sometimes there is legislation required to implement the ideas that are also non-financial but are still tied to the budget document tabled in November 2025. That’s why you see these things falling out into Bill C-15, Bill C-30 and Bill C-31.

We will continue to see that because the original notions were all part of the budget in November 2025, financial and non-financial. That was the document of which we all received a copy. For example, today we heard from the Chair of the Transport Committee. They were not studying a large part but a significant item regarding passenger rights. It was a function complemented in November 2025, finally falling out with whatever legislation was required as part of this bill.

The government will sit back and say, “We want to pass this quickly. The public demands it. How will we get this through quickly?” They will put it into an omnibus bill so that it is taken care of, as opposed to waiting for its own separate bill, whenever they might get to it. That’s the point.

They are tied up with their time constraints in the House, and we suffer the consequences.

I will say that when I asked the chair of that committee if they needed more time, they did not need more time. They needed certain witnesses to appear, which they weren’t able to secure. That is not a time issue. Thank you.

Senator Pupatello, you have 13 seconds, and there are two senators who want to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer those questions?

Sure, thank you.

Is leave granted?

Leave is not granted.