Human Resources Committee on April 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll resume the committee meeting.

Madam Zarrillo, you had the floor and you were introducing your motion.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I did, Mr. Chair, and I don't have any other comments at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are more questions than comments.

I understand the purpose of this new disability benefit and what it might look like, and I'm not questioning that. Rather, I'm wondering how it would be possible to codify all the people who receive provincial support. I'll give the example of Quebec. I don't know how things work in the rest of Canada, but in Quebec, there are allowances for disabled adults or children, and these allowances are independent of what happens at the federal level. How can the federal government get information on these people, since this comes under Revenu Québec?

I'm trying to look at that possibility, and I'm wondering if it's feasible. I imagine that if officials are unable to obtain this information, it's because something is preventing them from doing so, either a problem with minimal information or differences between the provinces. I'm wondering about that, not the substance of the motion.

Is it feasible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Next we have Madame Martinez Ferrada, who had her hand up, and then we'll go to Ms. Zarrillo.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

I'll wait for Ms. Zarrillo to answer the question, and then I'll speak.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I think that's a really good question by Madame Chabot. One of the things that the government is going to need to figure out is how they identify it. I don't know the workings behind the scenes at CRA or how information is transferred, but I do know that there's an opportunity for us to understand who gets a provincial benefit that could potentially be recorded federally. I would leave that to the bureaucrats to figure out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will support my colleague's motion.

I do think it would be very beneficial to know who is receiving support, particularly at the provincial level, so that it can be considered.

To answer Ms. Chabot's question, in the motion, instead of asking the government to codify people, we could ask the government for the ability to codify people.

We need to find a way to do this. I think that would give the motion some flexibility. I would also add something to the motion. I don't have the text in French, but I'll read it in English, and I think everyone will understand.

It's that pursuant to Standing Order 101 the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response.

I would add that the committee must report to the House.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

What are we adding? Is it the demand for a comprehensive response?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

That's right, Ms. Chabot. It says that the committee must report to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Before we get to that, Madame Chabot, you had your hand up.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I had noted much the same amendment. I wrote “if possible”, but “the possibility” works as well. That said, no one is required to do the impossible.

So I'm in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

For clarification, Madame Martinez Ferrada, you made an amendment to the motion.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

The amendment seeks to add the words “the possibility”. We would ask the government to codify all people who receive support.

Is this correct?

I would also add an amendment to have the committee report back to the House.

It's pursuant to Standing Order 101.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll deal with the Standing Order 109 one after we deal with the amendment.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Well, it's a whole amendment. Can I present that as one amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

No.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Why not? It's one amendment and then the other? But it's.... I just presented an amendment.

[The Clerk]

Oh, most definitely the amendment...if the committee would like to do it that way.

Normally, we would do a report. We would usually have Standing Order 109 at the end, following—

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Do you want to do one at a time?

I don't mind. It's however the committee wants to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

For clarification, committee members, just so that you're clear on this, we're voting first on the amendment put forward by Madame Martinez Ferrada.

Go ahead, Madam Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm sorry. Just to clarify, are there two parts to the amendment or just one?

To my understanding, just the one part is about “the possibility”.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes. It's my understanding that I have to present them separately.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Oh, okay. Your first amendment is to add the words “the possibility”.