Hon. Diane Bellemare: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Thank you for your speech, Senator Pate. I think there are many different ways to approach the topic of a guaranteed basic income for Canadians. It doesn’t necessarily have to be through a single program. I will no doubt have the opportunity to speak to this bill and explain how we can share the same objectives of reducing poverty and integrating people, but using different approaches.

My question for you has to do with your speech and your approach, specifically. You mentioned the 1971 Senate report, the Croll report, a number of times. I would like to hear your thoughts on two of the fundamental aspects of the Senate proposal for a guaranteed basic income.

The first is that the guaranteed basic income was being proposed on condition that it be supported by a policy of full employment, which would involve a suite of active measures to support people in the labour force.

The second condition on the Croll report’s proposal was that the government definitely should not start by offering a guaranteed basic income to people aged 18 and over, but rather focus on people aged 40 and over.

What do you think about this and, most importantly, why would you want this proposal to include people as young as 18? Don’t you think it would be better to prioritize people who are a little older and have some work experience?

I would like to hear your thoughts on these two essential conditions from the Croll report that I didn’t hear you talk about much in your speech.

[English]

Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and thank you for all your work and for the time you have taken to educate me about the incredible initiatives that you have been part of and the research you have done, Senator Bellemare.

Yes, 50 years ago last year, when the Croll report was tabled, it talked about a broader approach to addressing poverty. In the ensuing 50 years, we have seen the evisceration of many of the supports that were then in place that actually meant that we had certain populations at greater risk of being in poverty than we do now.

As we saw in the B.C. research that has been done, almost every body of research starts with a suggestion that we start somewhere and incrementally build. In the B.C. model, it was women leaving violent relationships or people with disabilities. But when you actually read all those documents, we’re not talking about getting rid of other supports. We’re talking about building on and increasingly creating the kind of social, economic and health safety nets that Canada, quite frankly, has dined out on internationally for many decades but hasn’t necessarily been worthy of that reputation for at least the past three or four. I think it’s vitally important that we look at the work that you and others — and I mentioned Senator Lankin, Senator Wetston — and members who are here in the chamber now, like Senator Woo, and all of this work. I shouldn’t start naming people because then I forget people, but there is incredible work being done and I think there is a great body of knowledge and expertise here that can assist the government in moving forward on this.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I can see how a universal program might seem very appealing, but I would like to go back to the idea of adopting more targeted measures to tackle poverty. Senator, how did you react to the second report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, specifically the part where he laid out the impact on income distribution should a guaranteed basic income be funded with money currently allocated to existing programs? In other words, several programs would be abolished to fund one universal program. If we look at the impact on distribution, it is clear that the group most severely impacted would be single-parent families, whose income would decrease under a guaranteed basic income system. Single-parent families are currently the second-poorest segment of society, and they would lose over $5,000 per year if a universal basic income program like this one were introduced.

Maybe you missed that bit of information, but I think it is proof that universal programs can sometimes hurt the very people we want to help.

[English]

Senator Pate: I agree. There were facets of the costing that I certainly have questions about and have raised with the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well. I think one correction perhaps is that we’re talking about universally accessible, we’re not talking about a universal basic income such as a demo grant, which has been recommended by some where it would go to everybody and then be pulled back at tax time.

When I first started looking at this some years ago, I was interested in all of these facets, but in talking to people like our colleagues Senator Downe and Senator Wetston, people who have more expertise — and former Senator Eggleton, who spent his pre-Senate life, his working life, as an accountant helping people with money protect and hide that money — we don’t want that. We also need tax reform, which I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer touched on but doesn’t really go into.

Then when I talked to Senator Downe, he talked about the fact that those who are hiding money offshore — of course, an issue that he has a tonne of expertise and I have none in — that we could virtually fund an initiative like this with the tax resources that are lost by some of those sorts of measures. Then I talked to Senator Wetston and he talked about how we need to address the money laundering issues in this country. That’s why I say I’m very excited about the possibility of a number of us working on this, looking at a framework, addressing these issues and meeting those challenges because it’s not that we should hide our heads in the sand about the very real challenges of doing this in a country as large and with as many jurisdictions as Canada. But the fact that we pretend that we’re not already paying multiple billions of dollars — tens of billions, hundreds of billions — to deal with not dealing with poverty, I think that is where we are putting our heads in the sand. That’s what I’m suggesting that we need to stop doing. We need to look at how we can actually invest those resources so they create better opportunities for everybody in this country, not just those whom we — because of myths and stereotypes — judge to be deserving or those who do not.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Senator Bellemare: Senator Tannas, you propose to use a motion that would seek to avoid the situations we encountered in the past, where we wound up facing measures that prevented us from studying the bill.

If a management committee were tasked with standardizing our approach to government bills, as we have already done for other bills, don’t you think that it would give us more weight than the House of Commons, and that it would allow us to plan for such emergencies? Wouldn’t such a committee, which would actually be a standing committee, also allow us to deal with these emergencies? Have you thought of that?

[English]

Senator Tannas: Where we have had managed debates on bills, a time frame hasn’t been the issue. We haven’t been up against June or up against Christmas when we have typically done it.

It has been on issues that are large, complex and extremely important. I think that is the place for which we should save managed bills: those instances when we may or may not agree on what the outcome ought to be, but we agree they are large, complex and important. That is where the role of either management agreements or a management committee could be.

I am instinctively nervous about a committee that would start managing all of our business here. It could easily lead to abuse, particularly in majority situations. I’m not saying we have that now, but, in the Senate’s history, we will. I’m not keen on the idea that every bill goes through a management committee permanently. I know there are others who are, and that’s a debate for another day.

What I’m interested in is trying to find a solution to the issue that seems to keep coming up where the House of Commons drops bills in our lap on their way out the door to go on their break. That forecloses any potential for us to make amendments or improvements and forces us into a situation where we are going to essentially rubber-stamp something. That is the issue I want to discuss today. It’s around Christmas and June. Thank you.