The Senate

Honourable senators, I want to speak very briefly on the government’s omnibus motion to pre-study three bills. Pre-studies are a legitimate tool for managing the Senate’s legislative workload efficiently, but they require disciplined and purposeful intent.

The question of whether to undertake a pre-study is not new to this chamber. We are revisiting a familiar issue. Let me draw on the wisdom of former senator Joan Fraser, whose work in this chamber was marked by a deep command of Senate rules and a strong respect for proper process. When debating a motion for a Senate pre-study, former Senator Fraser once described two general categories where a pre-study is an appropriate tool. As we consider this motion for three pre-studies, I think it would be helpful to reflect on those now.

The first category involves situations of urgent need and limited time for Senate review, most commonly budget implementation bills, which contain time-sensitive measures and typically arrive late in the sitting period or to address impending court deadlines.

The second category applies to large and complex bills that the Senate studies while the bill is under consideration in the other place to influence the study and improve the bill before it arrives in our chamber. The example that former Senator Fraser pointed to was the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, when the Senate undertook a pre-study for the first time in eight years to recommend amendments before the House of Commons had completed its review of the bill.

More recently, we can think of Senate pre-studies on medical assistance in dying and the Official Languages Act as examples of this kind.

Pre-studies should be guided by clear principles. Without them, we risk normalizing their use simply to fast-track legislation that could otherwise follow the standard legislative process.

If the government intends to use the legitimate tool of pre‑studies, this chamber should fully understand and be fully informed of why we are deviating from our usual legislative process. It should not become a perfunctory process, moved and agreed to without any words on the public record.

To that end, future motions for a Senate pre-study should be assessed for its purpose, in keeping with the guidance of our predecessors, such that these tools be reserved for the limited and necessary circumstances.

Honourable colleagues, we are operating in exceptional times when diplomatic, economic and social stresses compel us to act with urgency. It’s these same stresses that compel us to act with vigilance in protecting the rules and order that allow this chamber to fulfill its duty to represent regions, amplify minority voices and provide sober legislative review.

That is all I wish to say. I know we will have amendments to be discussed and other speeches, and I’m glad we’re having that conversation today so that we can be better informed. Thank you.

Honourable senators, today I rise not as the Chair of the Senate's Agriculture and Forestry Committee but as a senator who recognizes agriculture holds the potential answers to many of our nation's challenges.

Divisions 7 and 8 of Bill C-30 modify the mandates of both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, to include consideration of food security and economic security.

Yes, CFIA and PMRA are under Health Canada while being agriculture-related regulatory bodies. CFIA was moved to Health Canada in 2013. Before that, it had a direct reporting relationship with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Before PMRA was created in 1995, pesticide regulation was overseen by the Minister of Agriculture. The lion’s share of the work both regulatory bodies deliver continues to be in agriculture.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in the other place, released a report in December 2025 entitled Unleashing the Potential of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri‑Food Sector through Regulatory Reform. Of the 26 recommendations, 12 dealt with CFIA and 8 with PMRA. Colleagues, I share this with you, as I believe it is important to understand the issues and challenges at stake.

After hearing 47 witnesses, the committee specifically recommended the two regulators “. . . ensure they consider the economy, food security and the cost of food in all their regulatory decisions . . . .”

The House Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee is the sister committee of our Agriculture and Forestry Committee, meaning these divisions in Bill C-30 are within the mandate of our committee.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has spent much time familiarizing itself with the issue of food security and, within that, food sovereignty and economic security. In fact, our study is still ongoing and will be completed by the end of the year. CFIA and PMRA have been brought up a number of times during the committee’s study.

Going back to the motion at hand, it is not an uncommon practice to divide budget bills in pre-study motions. Our own National Finance Committee just finished a study on the inclusion of non-financial matters in budget bills.

One of the recommendations was to formalize the use of pre‑study motions for budget implementation acts, or BIAs, and to exercise our authority to divide these bills, in line with our current practices. We did it with Bill C-32, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, and we did it with Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1.

Whenever there have been legislative non-financial matters in budget bills, we have typically sent them to the relevant committees for pre-study. We've been doing it since 2014. It is not against precedent.

What is against precedent is choosing to not send legislative matters in a budget bill to a specialized committee for pre-study. Imagine if in this bill there were amendments to the Judges Act or to the Indian Act. Would we not be advocating for these measures to go to the Legal Committee or the Indigenous Peoples Committee for pre-study before the bill formally arrives to us in this chamber?

My point is that by not sending these divisions to the Agriculture Committee for pre-study, we are failing to leverage the expertise in this committee. Members of this committee have done the work to expand their knowledge, polish their expertise and deepen their connections to the industry. What a missed opportunity if we fail to capitalize on that when the moment commands.

Agriculture in Canada has long been a quiet economic giant. We now appear to have a government that is beginning to recognize the full potential of the sector by viewing it through an economic lens.

For years, the agriculture sector has said that agriculture policy is economic policy, and it is also science policy, national security policy, food security policy and social policy. The list does go on.

I would like to share with this chamber that last week I attended an industry event featuring a fireside chat between our Minister of Health and a representative from the agriculture sector. Minister Michel's remarks clearly resonated with the room, which was filled with key industry people. Our Minister of Health shared how surprised she was to learn that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency both fall within her portfolio.

To begin with, I cannot recall a Minister of Health being invited — or accepting an invitation — to address an agriculture industry audience, let alone speak so candidly and constructively with the sector.

Early in her remarks, the minister shared that she had been surprised to learn, after her appointment, about the CFIA and PMRA falling within her portfolio. She also conveyed a genuine sense of urgency about helping to unlock the future potential of Canadian agriculture. Her message was overwhelmingly positive, and it was met with a standing ovation. To me, that response demonstrated that industry has been waiting a long time for the opportunity to pivot from critic to partner.

Colleagues, the Senate prizes itself on the important work carried out at the committee level. It is troublesome that the motion before us limits our ability to conduct a pre-study of this legislation.

There are great benefits to having subject-matter experts examine issues within their area of expertise. I do not understand the hesitation to allow the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry pre-study Bill C-30 alongside the National Finance Committee, especially when this would take place within the government’s established timelines.

I would like to conclude with the following quote:

We have to take the time and look at a specific issue from every angle: It’s our constitutional duty to make sure a decision made by the other place is the best decision for Canada.

Senator Moreau, these were your words, in an article published on January 6, 2026. Your words precisely capture what I believe we should be doing in this chamber.