Your Honour, I have just a few words to say about this. I think it’s important to put this amendment into context.

As Your Honour said yesterday, the amendment submitted by Senator Pate is a reasoned amendment that would in effect kill Bill C-17.

The reasoned amendment is one of three types of amendment that can be presented at second reading of a bill. It is indeed very rare. In fact, according to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017, Bosc and Gagnon:

To date, the House has never decided in favour of a reasoned amendment.

I could not find any precedent of a reasoned amendment adopted by the Senate. This would, therefore, be a first. I don’t want to debate the reason for the amendment; the fact that the government may not have its priorities in order. I, in fact, agree on that point with Senator Pate, although not for the same reason.

I want to remind senators of our role in Parliament, especially vis-à-vis supply bills. Senator Pate admitted herself in her speech yesterday that the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to impose upon the house additional expenses. This principle is in conformity with the rules on how the Crown requests and obtains funds, and it is given the authority to raise revenues. These rules go back centuries and are at the heart of our democratic system.

What Senator Pate is asking us to do is kill Bill C-17 and request that the house authorizes additional expenses before the Senate agrees to pass a supply bill. She is asking us to do indirectly what we cannot do directly. Using a reasoned amendment to kill a bill would be a precedent; it is not something that we should take lightly. Using such a procedural manœuvre to kill a government bill — a supply bill on top of that — is crossing a red line for the Senate.

As you may have noticed, I do not have a lot of confidence in the current government and the Prime Minister. But that does not blind me to the fact that I have duties as a senator and parliamentarian to protect how our institutions are run. I therefore cannot support Senator Pate’s amendment.

The Prime Minister and some of his appointees here have claimed that we now have a new Senate. Well, colleagues, I think that the rules and traditions that are the foundation of our democratic and parliamentary systems must be preserved. We should take the opportunity offered by Senator Pate to send a clear message on this. Senators know that there are limits to their power. Senators acknowledge that as unelected parliamentarians they must be cautious when dealing with questions regarding expenses and taxing powers voted by the elected representatives of the people.

We will therefore, Your Honour and honourable colleagues, ask for a standing vote on this amendment so that all senators have the chance to put their position on this issue on the record.

We will ask for an hour bell so that all senators can reflect on this important question and have all the time necessary to get into the chamber or on Zoom. Thank you.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on why I seconded Senator Pate’s amendment and why I sincerely believe it is a reasoned amendment.

As Canada’s first woman Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland advised in her Fall Economic Statement of November 30:

As we build back, we have it within our reach to build back better, tackling challenges that hold us all back: Homelessness. Systemic racism. The unfinished and essential work of Reconciliation. The support and investments outlined in this plan, including our stimulus, will foster a resilient and inclusive recovery.

Yesterday, we were advised of the report of the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, Potential Economic Impacts and Reach of Basic Income Programs in Canada , and again the economic discrimination exposed by this pandemic is confirmed by the evidence in yet another report.

This issue was addressed in the Speech from the Throne with this compelling question. It is highly relevant to senators who have accepted responsibility to bring forth the voices and concerns of minorities that are often lost in high-level decision making and majority votes.

Do we move Canada forward, or let people be left behind? Do we come out of this stronger, or paper over the cracks that the crisis has exposed?

As addressed by Senator Pate, women, Indigenous and other racialized peoples and essential yet economically insecure workers remain unsupported by the many legislative measures that we have adopted and are rolling out to support Canadians. About 3.5 million are still lost in the cracks mentioned by our finance minister, and we seem to be doing nothing of substance to reach them and support them. We were promised in the Speech from the Throne:

It is the job of the federal government to look out for all Canadians and especially our most vulnerable. We need to work together. Beating this virus is a Team Canada effort.

Well, honourable senators, Team Canada seems to be on the bench. The House of Commons is still sitting. The Senate is still sitting. We are all still working. I joined with Senator Pate in bringing attention to the inadequate measures in this bill.

Are we seeing hypocrisy here, or is it as simple as the fact that the most socially and economically vulnerable people in Canada are also often those least able to defend their interests?

Regardless of the answer, what we do as senators in responding to the government’s failure in this legislation needs to be on the record. Thank you, merci, meegwetch.

Since we’re going to have an hour to reflect, let me also provide some comments to help reflection.

Senators, I rise to speak to Senator Pate’s amendment to Bill C-17, called a reasoned amendment in parliamentary practice. At the outset, nobody can deny that Senator Pate is a strong advocate of causes that she endorses, and she does not hesitate to use this place as a platform for recording her strongly held positions. But I’m afraid her reasoned amendment ventures in dangerous territory, way beyond what the drafters of our Constitution have contemplated for the upper house of our Parliament.

The Constitution Act of 1867 provides for two houses in our Parliament: one made of individuals elected by the people and one made of individuals appointed by the Crown. Though our Constitution states that all bills must receive the consent and approval of both chambers and that each chamber can initiate bills, the drafters of our Constitution have enacted an important restriction to the powers and role of the Senate, found at section 53 of the Constitution, which reads:

Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

Bill C-17, now before us, is clearly an appropriation bill governed by section 53 of the Constitution. The restrictions found in section 53 of the Constitution flow from the very well-known principle of “no taxation without representation.”

In other words, the imposition of taxes and the appropriation of public revenue must rest first and foremost in the hands of those elected by the people.

Bill C-17 before us has been considered by the representatives of the people and adopted with the support of the majority of MPs representing four of the five political parties in the House of Commons. Now this bill is before us for our review and, possibly, our suggestions for corrections at committee review or at third reading.

Senator Pate’s amendment doesn’t seek to correct an omission or an oversight, which is possible, but not at second reading. Instead, she wants us to suspend second reading of Bill C-17 until the government implements a basic universal income, a policy that will require months, if not years, of thorough analysis and drafting. In other words, she’s inviting us to transgress our constitutional role by dictating to the elected government and the elected House of Commons how to appropriate public funds.

A basic universal income is an idea that many senators have advanced, and I am confident that the Senate will continue to look at issues around it as well as around reformed employment benefits. However, there is a major difference between facilitating debate about such issues and suspending second reading of an appropriation bill until the government enacts a given program. This far exceeds the bounds of the Senate’s constitutional role of providing sober second thought.

Before concluding, I would like to add some technical comments about the unusual procedural vehicle before us. On page 133 of the Senate Procedure in Practice, a “reasoned amendment” is described as follows:

This amendment allows a senator to state the reasons for opposing second (or third) reading of a bill by introducing another relevant proposal that replaces the original question. In other words, it provides a means to put on the record a statement or explanation as to why a bill should not receive second reading. If the reasoned amendment is adopted, the bill is dropped from the Order Paper. A reasoned amendment always supersedes second (or third) reading.

It is worth highlighting that this procedural mechanism is very rarely used, as Senator Plett has said, and even more rarely accepted, as he pointed out. He referred to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I have the same quote, and certainly concur with him.

I will go further. In a 1946 ruling, finding that a similar amendment was out of order, the then honourable Speaker Senator James King, added:

. . . neither in the House of Commons nor in the provincial legislatures has it been the practice to move amendments at the second reading of a bill.

Honourable colleagues, such an amendment is out of place, and I urge you to vote against it. Thank you. Bonne réflexion.

Honourable senators, I rise today to be brief, as our former colleague Senator Baker used to say. I applaud Senator Pate and other colleagues who have worked so hard on helping Canada’s poor and vulnerable but, as we’ve heard from Senator Dalphond, there is a difficulty in voting for this motion today. It would pose great problems for the government, so we will have to make allowances for that.

But that does not mean, Your Honour and colleagues, that there’s anything wrong with the concept of a guaranteed annual income. In fact, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s Royal Commission on Canada’s economic prospects, chaired by the late Donald S. Macdonald recommended both free trade with the United States and a guaranteed annual income to help those who lost their jobs as a result of the trade deal.

The Macdonald Commission had done extensive studies on the issue, and those studies are publicly available.

In any event, the Macdonald Commission report was released in 1984, just as the new Mulroney government was taking power. They went ahead with free trade but never got to the GAI.

Now, more than 35 years later, on December 2, P.E.I.’s all‑party Special Committee on Poverty called on the federal government to partner with Prince Edward Island in such a program to provide a guaranteed annual income or a universal basic income for Islanders. I hope Premier King was able to raise this matter in his meeting today with the Prime Minister and the other first ministers.

This issue has been studied enough. Canadians are ready for a GAI. Thank you, colleagues, for your time and attention.

Colleagues, I also want to share my thoughts on this particular issue. I think it’s an issue that’s very important and touches a series of elements that are essential to the work we do in this place.

Firstly, I would like to talk about the constitutionality of this motion. I would like to talk about the impact it would have on rules, procedures and precedents. It also touches on the core of what the Westminster model of Parliament is. I would like to weigh in on that as well. I would also like to share some comments with regard to the content and the objective of our honourable colleague Senator Pate, which, of course, is noble and I agree with.

We all have to acknowledge that the question of poverty in this country should be first and foremost on our minds. We’ve seen over the last few years the growth of that sector of the population, and very little attention has been given to it from this government other than, of course, platitudes in a number of Speeches from the Throne where they continue to promise action, and we’ve seen inaction.

Having said that, of course, I suspect that if we engage in a debate about poverty and how to solve it in this country, probably Senator Pate and I are going to be on different sides of the spectrum about how to do it. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that this institution should be doing it. We should be having these debates. We should be engaging on how to solve what is a menace right now to society and an ever-growing problem, and that is, of course, poverty.

The second element is the constitutionality of what she’s proposing to do, which is, as my colleagues have pointed out — Senator Plett very appropriately and Senator Dalphond — that in the Westminster model of government, it’s fundamental: there is no taxation without representation, without a doubt. Having said that, at the same time, I want to highlight to colleagues that if you check section 18 of the Constitution, it’s crystal clear that this institution is a parliamentary body that has the same rights, privileges and immunities as the House of Commons does in Westminster. That’s what this institution was based on.

At the end of the day, I will quote a giant of this institution, who always used to say, “Colleagues, we have the power to approve every piece of legislation; we have the power to defeat every and any piece of legislation.” That was the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal.

There is a long-standing precedent, because we are an appointed body and this is a democracy. The Westminster model, despite its sober second chamber being an appointed body, recognizes the fact that this is not a place of confidence. At the end of the day, we don’t have the authority to compel the government in order to carry through expenditures, particularly on supply bills.

But we do have the authority as senators to amend bills. We have the authority to, for example, add addenda to studies done by finance committees. We have all that opportunity when we are dealing with supply bills.

But I also want to draw attention, colleagues, to an ever-growing problem that I foresee happening, and we’re seeing it at various crossroads, which is this government’s feeble and poorly thought out attempt to reform this institution by giving the impression that somehow senators cannot work within the confines of caucuses and the government-opposition structure of the Westminster model. We’ve seen time and time again that it runs into obstacles and difficulties. Because, at the end of the day, there’s a number of senators who believe the Prime Minister when he says they have absolute independence. And this government, as we’ve seen recently in the response yesterday from the government leader, Senator Gold, getting up in total indignation at the actions taken by senators who felt they were acting independently of the government and basically articulating a point of view that they have the right to articulate.

Having said that, as I said, I agree they went a bit far, Senator Gold, in terms of a reasoned amendment, which is unprecedented; it has never happened. And I totally disagree with that. However, senators do have the right to amend even a supply bill. They have a right to question it and to challenge it.

The point I want to make is that this place has been neutered and hindered. Many independent senators have been hindered with regard to the opportunity to do some of the work we used to do in the Senate, before we adopted this new model, Senator Gold. Once upon a time, government-appointed senators had the opportunity in relation to pre-budget studies, which often take place at national caucus and at advisory committee groups of the governing caucus.

Senators did some of their most important work on behalf of their provinces and regions, and had a lot of influence, in terms of putting together budgets and programs. In this particular case, Senator McPhedran and Senator Pate would be great champions in terms of articulating on behalf of poverty groups in this country.

We do have the opportunity in the Westminster model for the opposition to oppose, and we should have the opportunity for government-appointed senators to influence important decisions, including supply bills, at the preliminary and pre-study stages. Unfortunately, the chamber has been neutered of that right and privilege by this Prime Minister. This amendment has highlighted some of the difficulties that have been created as a result.

Having said that, again I highlight that our colleagues have the right to speak on behalf of these stakeholders and this particular group in the country, and they have the right to amend the bill. Unfortunately, with regret to my colleagues, I think they have gone a bit too far and against the rules that the Constitution calls for, under which the chamber has the privilege to work. Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, that Bill C-17 be not read a second time — shall I dispense?

Those in favour of the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on a bell?

One-hour bell. The vote will take place at 4:22. Call in the senators.