Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Pate, thank you very much for bringing forward this bill.

As you and I know, many of us have been working on this for many years. I think of the work of Evelyn Forget in trying to finally bring together the research from the Dauphin, Manitoba project. I think about the changes that have been made, and the calls and some sort of patchwork from the Eggleton-Segal report. I think about the report on social assistance reform in the province of Ontario, which called for enhancement of the disability benefit and a basic income. Those were over the years. I think of P.E.I. more recently being interested in exploring this.

It doesn’t matter the political stripe of the government in power over all of these decades that we have been fighting for this; there is a stop — a hard wall. It seems to come from the Finance Department. I’m not blaming bureaucrats; they have their interests, reasons, philosophy, ideology and whatever. I want to understand it better, because I have never gotten a straight answer from them. They talk about the problems of design, but those are problems to be solved.

Have you, in your discussions with the minister or the department, gotten any clear information about why they continue to say “no” and won’t pursue what so many Canadians think is a much more inclusive and much more deliberately compassionate social policy?

Senator Pate: I wish I had a clear answer for you. My answer is “No, I have not received clear understanding,” hence the reason I spoke about many of the myths and stereotypes about poor people and the assertions that, in fact, CERB has significantly impacted the labour situation in this country when all of the available evidence to the government and beyond reveals just the opposite.

The only thing I have heard is that some have said, “Well, that’s not the legacy project this particular government or any government was looking for.” I think that’s beyond regrettable.

As we’re seeing outside the doors of this chamber right now, people’s frustration with their inability to navigate throughout this pandemic is rooted in the evisceration of social, economic and health policies over decades, and then is being used — I would argue is being appropriated — by some with very extreme horrific views, and they are exploiting people who are very much struggling to get by.

It’s imperative that not just the government, but all of us, look at how we move forward on this. I thank you very much for all of the work you have done historically, both in this chamber and before being in this chamber in the work you did provincially, municipally and throughout the country.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I wish to start by saying thank you to Senators Cordy and Coyle for such beautiful tributes to Alexa. Senator Coyle, you took half of my speech, so I will just speak from the heart. I don’t often talk about my role in partisan politics from the past, but I spent many important years in my life in the New Democratic Party. Alexa was certainly an immense presence as a leader.

By the way, the media continue to refer to her as the first woman elected as the leader of a major political party provincially in Nova Scotia, but — and not to take all the credit due to her away — that’s not quite true. Hilda Watson from the Yukon was the first woman leader of a provincial party, the Conservative Party of the Yukon.

I had the opportunity to work on Alexa’s leadership campaign. I was a fervent supporter. I believed in her vision of social justice, equity and feminism. I believed in all that she had to bring to purposeful, quiet and important deliberations on the topics of the day.

She was a gentle soul with an iron will to continue to move ahead, but she also had a love of all, and that’s been expressed by my colleagues.

We have seen so much loss over the last few years, and it’s hard in this disquieted world that we’re in to take a moment to stop and think. But I had the opportunity to do that about Alexa, and it also made me think of my other favourite female federal leader in the NDP, Audrey McLaughlin, who was a dear friend to Alexa as well and with whom I was also able to work on her leadership campaign.

But this loss is hard. On Saturday night I saw the headline flash across my phone of another loss, and that was John Honderich, at 75, former publisher of the Toronto Star and chair of the board. Again, on a personal level, I thought, “How could somebody so full of life and love not be with us anymore?” He was a mentor of mine. He worked side by side with me at United Way. He helped me move into my roles in the Ontario Press Council and the National NewsMedia Council. He loved to connect people. He loved to connect gossip. He loved Toronto. He loved Canada, and many of us truly loved him, and for both of these amazing Canadians I mourn, and I share my mourning and my grief with all of you. Thank you very much.

Senator Lankin: Briefly, I think it’s time that a group of us and perhaps some of the folks that are involved in the All-Party Anti-Poverty Caucus — because it involves people from all political parties and, in the Senate, from political caucuses and groups — to meet with Department of Finance officials and get them to spell out their concerns. I know we’ll hear about marginal effective tax rates. Those are design issues; they are not things that are impossible to overcome.

So maybe there is a group of us that need to request a full briefing and a full dialogue, and I would be happy to work with you on getting that set up. Thank you.

Senator Pate: Thank you very much. I would be happy to work with you, as always, on that and many other things. So thank you, and thank you for all your work for gig workers as well. I know that is well appreciated by me and many of the people in my circles. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Tannas, this is a very important discussion for us to have as a Senate. It is important to the Canadian public — not that they may be interested in it at all, because it’s pretty much insider baseball — to ensure that the responsibility we undertake as senators to review the bill, the oft-used phrase “sober second thought,” is actually realized in our work and that we’re able, in conjunction with all the processes and rules, to do our work well.

Many senators have spoken to the fact that there are rules that could be used. You have said that the Canadian Senators Group will not provide leave for expediting government legislation. That’s a pretty strong signal. I thank your group for deliberating and bringing this forward for the rest of us, and for those who think we just use the rules that we have or whatever.

There is incredible pressure when a matter is called “urgent” by the government and the House of Commons adjourns. We know that if we make any changes, it has to go back to an empty chamber. In June and December, it delays further work on that bill for months, not just for another week or two. It’s important to keep in mind what effect this would bring.

I understand the Government Representative Office bringing forward — and I look forward to Senator Gold’s speech, although I think we got a preview of it there; it was more than a question. I appreciate their desire to have the flexibility to work through things with a leadership group.

However, as Senator Tannas points out, sometimes therein lies the problem in that it is opaque to many of us. It happens sometimes at the last minute. There is not the same willingness — at least as has been demonstrated by the Senate during my years of experience here — to actually stand up under that pressure, except in extraordinary circumstances.

This discussion is very important. Senator Tannas, I support your motion. I very much want to have conversations with other senators about what improvements there could be or about pitfalls that we haven’t examined — thus the process of debate, deliberation and, at some point in time, some deliberative process among groups to try to see where some of the criticisms may be addressed or where some things need to be strongly held to.

I particularly want to say that I think this kind of a rule being set out is an important tool to inform the House of Commons about our work and our expectations on timelines. It’s not enough to simply say, “Well, we usually adjourn a week or a week and a half after the House of Commons, so we have time.” It depends on the number of bills that have come through, but there is also that unspoken pressure about the House of Commons not being there to receive our amendments.

I think it is important to have it spelled out clearly in the Rules, with the opportunity to recognize collectively where we, as a majority in the Senate, determine that it is a true emergency and that we can allow it to go forward. I think it’s important to restrict the length of time on debate on whether it’s an emergency or not — I’m not wedded to 20 minutes, neither are you; we’ll determine that.

There is much to talk about here. Given the hour, Your Honour, I move to adjourn this for the remainder of my time. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Lankin, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:28 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List