Something very usual happened in the Senate yesterday, in that Independent Senator Kim Pate decided to move a reasoned amendment to the government’s supply bill. A reasoned amendment is basically a procedural move to decline to give a bill second reading, meaning you don’t even agree with the bill in principle. This is a very rare move, and the fact that this is being used on a supply bill is a sign that this is a senator who is playing with fire.

Ruh-roh. It looks like Senator Pate is starting to move out of the traditional bounds for a senator. #SenCA pic.twitter.com/xAd1e0I5ig

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 9, 2020

You don’t mess around with supply bills. This is about money the government needs to operate, and if it fails, they can’t just keep funding government operations with special warrants. It’s going to be a giant headache of having to recreate the bill in a way that isn’t identical to the one that just passed (because you can’t pass two identical bills in the same session), go through the process again as the House is set to rise for the holidays (the Senate usually lags a few days later) is going to be a giant headache that is going to lose this senator any of the support she’s hoping to gain. Now, because the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, defeating a money bill won’t make the government fall, but this is still a very bad precedent to try and set, or worse, given other newer senators ideas about how they should start operating.

There are plenty of objectionable aspects of this stunt of Pate’s – and yes, it is a stunt – but part of it is misunderstanding what that the supply bill is not about new pandemic aid programmes – it’s about keeping the civil service functioning. Her particular concern that 3.5 million people remain the poverty line is commendable, but Pate has been advocating for the government to implement a basic income for a while now, and a lot of people have been misled by the way in which the CERB was rolled out into thinking that this is a template for a basic income, which it’s not. And implementing a basic income – of which certain designs can be useful, but plenty which are not – is a complex affair if you talk to economists who have been working on the issue for years, not the least of which is that it’s going to require (wait for it…) negotiation with the provinces, because they deliver welfare programmes. And if Pate thinks that this kind of a stunt is going to force the government to suddenly implement one, she’s quite mistaken. I am forced to wonder who is giving her this kind of procedural advice, because she’s operating out of bounds, and asking for a world of procedural trouble. It’s fortunate that the Senate adjourned debate for the day shortly after she moved this motion so that others can regroup, but this is a worrying development for the “new” Senate.

Good reads:

• Health Canada gave its initial authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine, and the first doses are expected to ship on Friday, and arrive in the country by Monday.
• The prime minister is having his virtual meeting with premiers, where they will (again) demand health transfers without strings attached.
• Chrystia Freeland gave a warning to companies who accessed the wage subsidy while also paying shareholder dividends.
• The government tabled their UK trade deal legal text and legislation yesterday, but it’s unlikely to pass before the New Year (barring an all-party agreement).
• While David Lametti calls out the Conservatives for their stalling the assisted dying legislation, one Liberal MP is also voting against it (for dubious reasons).
• The CRA has been sending out warning letters to self-employed CERB recipients about possible repayment (which seems to misread how eligibility worked).
• The CRTC is considering investigating CBC’s plans for branded content.
• American dairy producers are set to challenge Supply Management trade restrictions under the New NAFTA.
• Here is a look at how the future of the monarchy is shaping up with both Charles and William as they have taken no more duties during the pandemic.
• Anonymous Conservatives claim that their party is planning a more robust environmental platform for the next election.
• Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at how the government could force the vote on the assisted dying bill in face of Conservative filibustering.
• Former Senator Serge Joyal cautions the government not to succumb to demands to extend Bill 101 to federally-regulated sectors, as it will weaken Charter rights.
• Kevin Carmichael parses the latest release from the Bank of Canada, and in particular the concerns about how a rising dollar would impact our recovery.
• Colby Cosh savages the federal Treasury Board guidelines on retaining Access to Information summaries, as part of their lax commitment to transparency.
• Susan Delacourt previews today’s first ministers’ meeting, and the perpetual demands for higher health transfers (without strings, of course).
• Paul Wells looks ahead to how the Trudeau-Biden relationship might play out.

Odds and ends:

For the CBA’s National Magazine, I looked into the provinces-sized gap in the federal climate legislation, and why that makes climate action harder in Canada.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.