Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. May I have another five minutes, with leave of the chamber?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Your time is up, senator. Senator Housakos would like to ask you a question. Would you like to ask for another five minutes?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, Senator Dupuis.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, Senator Cormier.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted? Please continue.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly why I’m saying that in this case, if we want to do a pre-study, it would be urgent to get on it instead of just talking about it. If we continue to discuss this and vote next week, we’re losing out on 10 potential days of work.

No, I’ve never experienced that problem before, and I probably shouldn’t have compared journalism to politics. I just wanted to highlight this idea of using all of the time available to get things done, instead of simply talking about deadlines and saying that we don’t have enough time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Senator Francis: Is the federal government at least willing to forgive debt for Islanders living at or below the poverty line? If so, what does this process involve and how long does it take? What are the consequences of non-repayment for this population?

Hon. René Cormier: Would you agree that the Senate is the master of its own affairs? We can read the following about the Rules of the Senate on the Parlinfo site, and I quote:

The Rules of the Senate allow the Senate to examine the subject matter of a bill before the bill has been passed by the House of Commons. The bill must have been given first reading in the House of Commons but not yet been passed by it and, therefore, not introduced in the Senate.

In the context of studying a quasi-constitutional act on which the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages worked for a very long time, demonstrating the complexity of this constitutional act, would you agree, Senator Gagné, that a pre‑study is, in this case, entirely appropriate in our context?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, and I have heard them as well. I didn’t attend the same summit you did, but of course, since we know that music and other cultural products are so central to francophone minority culture, it should be obvious that this issue is important.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is about the committee’s current mandate.

Can you tell us what the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is currently studying, and how important it is to francophones?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I explained in this chamber, the government decided to appeal the ruling not because it is against the principle, but because the reasons set out in the ruling raise important constitutional issues that must be dealt with and determined by the Supreme Court.

Senator Martin: Last month, after the NDP-Liberal government once again failed to bring forward the Canada disability benefit, Kenzie McCurdy, with the accessibility group StopGap Ottawa, told CTV:

Look how quickly CERB went out. Why do they get it within a matter of months and people with disabilities can’t be helped before a three-year study and lots of promises and delayed action?

That’s a very good question, leader. What is your response to Kenzie? Why are Canadians with disabilities never a priority for this NDP-Liberal government?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my question to you today concerns the status of the Canada disability benefit. Last week, the other place voted unanimously to adopt a motion calling on the government to put this benefit in place without delay. The NDP-Liberal government has previously supported motions and then did nothing to implement them, such as the motion regarding carrying forward lapsed funding at Veterans Affairs, and the motion to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity.

Leader, during Question Period in December, you told Senator Housakos that the government is, “. . . reviewing this important issue.” Is this benefit still under review? If so, how much longer will the review take?

You also told Senator Petitclerc last month that you would make inquiries with the government about the time frame for creating this benefit. What answer did you receive to your inquiries?

(1430)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dasko, we have two more senators who wish to ask you questions, and you are out of time. Are you requesting five more minutes to answer questions?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Saint-Germain, I was on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when we did that pre-study of the Fair Elections Act and I wonder if you were aware of the fact that when we did that pre‑study, it was quite a bit more advanced in the House of Commons than this particular bill is at this point in the House of Commons, and because of our pre-study in the Senate, we were able to make substantive changes to that bill by consensus at the Senate Legal Committee, suggest them to the government, and the government actually took our advice on that and made the changes to the bill. They were then able to incorporate those changes at the House of Commons and then send the bill to the Senate.

That is actually the ideal way that a pre-study would work, have it be advanced to a certain objective in the House of Commons, come to the Senate for a pre-study, have some definite work done so we can do our proper sober second thought, and then have the government take our advice, unlike some other matters where we had the Trudeau government not take our substantive pre-study advice we have given on bills in the last five years.