Thread by @Paulatics

There is so much misinformation floating around about Bill S-233. The discourse is so toxic, I almost hate to weigh in. But in all honesty, I feel I have a duty to address some of the misunderstandings - and disinformation - about this bill. #SenCa parl.ca/DocumentViewer…

The false claim out there is that this is a government bill, now at third reading, which will take away people's rights to various social supports such as OAS, EI, and others, unless they conform to government health and social edicts. That is absolutely untrue.

In the first place, this isn't a goverment bill at all. It's what we in the Senate call a "Senate public bill" - which is the Senatorial parallel to a private member's bill. In this case, it's sponsored by @KPateontheHill, one of our most independent Independent senators.

Kim is not a part of the government. And she guards her independence fiercely. She makes it her practice not to sponsor government legislation of any kind. In fact, if you track her Senate speeches, you'll see that she's one of this particular government's toughest critics.

Very few Senate public bills ever get passed. Their journey is a long and arduous one. Since they aren't government business, they come well down the order paper in debate. Some can sit on the order paper for months and never be called.

First, such bills get lengthy debate at "second reading" - debate that is often dragged out over months and sometimes years. If the Senate sponsor gets lucky, though, a bill can eventually pass second reading, and get referred to committee for further study.

Even then, a Senate public bill can languish at committee, since government business always takes precedence. But when committee schedules allow, they can study these bills, often quite thoroughly and critically. There are expert witnesses and tough questions.

One a committee has completed its study, it can suggest amendments to a bill, and send it back to the Senate for third reading debate. Quite often, though, a Senate public bill never gets out of committee at all.

But...if it does come back to the Senate, the whole Chamber debates it all over again, and debates possible amendments too. And then we vote. IF the bill passes - and that's a hurdle - it does not become law. Instead, it gets sent to the House of Commons.

At that point, the Senate sponsor needs to find an ally, an MP, who will take up the bill on the House side. And then, the bill goes through the whole process in what we call "the other place" - again, it is way down the pecking order, so it can stall on the order paper.

Some bills do make it all the way through. Last year, @SenatorMunson succeeded in getting his Senate public bill, which called for the creation of Kindness Week, all the way through the Senate and the House. It was sort of our collective retirement gift for a kind man.

But more complicated and divisive bills get a much rougher ride. One twist? Sometimes, the House wants to amend the bill that came from the Senate. So even if they pass it, as amended, it has to come BACK to the Senate for MORE debate. The game of ping-pong can take years.

And many Senate public bills die, at some point, on the order paper. Mostly, their function is to get people talking, to make an idea part of the public debate, to start fresh public policy conversations, and perhaps to poke the government into action.

So...whatever you think of Bill S-233, whatever you've been told about it, I promise you it will not be passed into law any time soon. That's not my opinion. That's just a straight up fact.

Now...let's turn to the content of the bill. First thing to know, is that a Senate public bill CANNOT commit the government to spend any money. Unelected senators CANNOT compel the other Chambers to cough up cash. So this bill can't create a guaranteed basic income.

Instead, it calls on the government to create a possible framework for how a possible GBI might work. In other words, it's designed to start a conversation. (And boy, has it ever!)

Despite the lies floating around out there, S-233 does NOT tie receipt of a hypothetical GBI to your behaviour. In fact, it does EXACTLY the opposite. Indeed, it suggests a framework where no one would have to prove that they were being a good citizen to get at GBI.

Now, we can have all kinds of good faith arguments about whether a GBI is a good idea. One could argue that it trespasses into provincial jurisdiction. Or that it would cost too much. Or that it would create a disincentive to work. Or be inflationary. Those are fair critiques.

I myself don't agree with Kim's proposals to make her GBI payable to 17 year olds, or TWFs, for example. I think her ideas are worthy of debate, but I don't think I would vote for S-233 myself without significant amendment. HOWEVER....

Despite what I'd read on Twitter, and in my inbox...this is NOT a plot by the World Economic Forum. Klaus Schwab and Kim Pate are about as far apart philosophically and economically as it's possible to be! If Kim ever went to Davos, I suspect it would be to protest, not hobnob.

Also? Kim's draft framework is NOT a plot to bring in some kind of "social credit" system, modelled on Chinese social surveillance culture, that would tie payments to behaviour. If anything, the Kim Pate I know is a ferocious champion of privacy rights, and of civil liberties.

We can and should debate the pros and cons of a guaranteed basic income, an idea that has been championed for years by people all across the political spectrum. But it is not a Communist plot to make us N. Korea. It is not a globalist plot to make us part of the New World Order.

It is, at its heart, a way to streamline all the various social support payments that provincial and federal governments make, a way to save governments time and money, and to provide a baseline standard of living for all Canadians, whatever their economic challenges.

Now, you may object to social welfare, and the welfare state as concepts. Some of you clearly do! But even if you do, you might see the appeal in limiting red tape and duplication, and having a one stop portal for support payments. Or you might not! And fair enough.

But I despair that we can't have this debate without fearmongering and conspiracy theories. This is not a Jewish conspiracy. It is not a globalist plot. It is not a secret attempt to make Canada a police state. It's not about your vaccination status.

And I really really worry that by spreading such wild, paranoid lies about such a piece of legisation, we spread a kind of toxic distrust of government in general, one that makes it impossible to have good public policy discussion at any level, provincial or federal.

This is just one of thousands of such letters in my inbox.

I have lots like this, too: they’re not hateful, which is a pleasant change. But this demonstrates the kind of lies being told to frightened seniors.