Human Resources Committee on Oct. 31st, 2022

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

When I say it's modelled after GIS, the most important aspect of that is the supplemental income nature of the GIS. It's not income replacement.

Of course, the GIS is its own type of benefit and doesn't need to interact in such a complex way with existing PT benefits. If you look at the OAS portion in our model, it is being delivered by the PT. On the GIS side, OAS is a federal benefit, so it's interacting with another federal benefit. It's not interacting with established, complex PT benefit systems.

If you look at.... I can't even think of another example. It's fundamentally modelled after the GIS in the sense that it will be a supplemental income.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Were there consultations done with the provinces to see how that will interact with the provincial and territorial benefits that are in each respective province and territory?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Absolutely. They are ongoing; they've been ongoing. The first round, I would say, resulted in an agreed-upon work plan among all 14 jurisdictions. We all agreed on the work that needed to be done to maximize benefit interaction and set out a schedule of ongoing meetings at the ADM level and the DM level; an FPT ministerial meeting in July 2021; an upcoming one in December 2022. As I said, we have to do this with the provinces. We actually joked before this meeting that I'm worried more that the provinces and territories are going to get sick of hearing from us on this, not that they are going to feel like they weren't heard.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

If there was consultation, is there any idea if there's going to be a provincial or territorial clawback?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Again, with the term “clawback”, I'm only hesitant because that again is shorthand for a bunch of different ways that a federal benefit within a provincial system could interact. There is absolutely, I would say, consensus that people will be better off. We have to work with each province and territory to ensure that someone doesn't lose entitlement to a peripheral benefit, like a bus pass.

If by clawbacks, you're meaning the bigger one—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I mean in general, with anything. If it does affect somebody's bus pass, that's going to make life more difficult, not easier.

You mentioned this red line with the provinces and the territories. How is the federal government going to enforce this red line of making sure that the provinces don't do clawbacks or that type of thing?

I come from a province that your government has railroaded over and over again. My province has given two separate...when it comes to the carbon tax plans, and it's been rejected by your government but enforced anyway.

How do we ensure that the federal government in this aspect is going to respect the provinces and territories and the autonomy they have?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

As I said earlier, from the beginning, from day one, we were committed to working with the PTs. I've met with Minister Carr from Saskatchewan. I have an upcoming meeting with Minister Mekowsky from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has signed on to the FPT work plan.

Listen, if it doesn't work for Saskatchewan, if it's not going to work for the people in that province, then we're going to make sure it does.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Exactly. It will be just like the carbon tax.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Falk, your time is over.

We have Mr. Coteau for five minutes.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm Michael Coteau, and I represent the riding of Don Valley East in Ontario.

Thank you so much, Minister, for being here today.

I know this is an exciting time for Canadians to bring forward a program of this type. I just want to thank you for your advocacy and for the work you've done, not only in the House of Commons, but even prior to coming to the House.

I guess my question is a bit related to the relationship between the provinces and the territories. We know there are going to be important partners on this journey. There's no question. Many of the provinces and territories offer their own suite of programs and services.

I guess the question is this: How do you ensure that at the end of the day, from coast to coast, there's going to be consistency in program delivery? There are such a wide variety of programs. I know in Ontario there are specific programs that may differ from those other provinces.

How do you bring consistency within that kind of model?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

It's a really important question. That's why the overarching work plan is so important. It's why the general principles are important. It's why we need to work individually. We need to work on a multilateral level to make sure that we're all heading in the same direction, but also on a more bilateral level as we negotiate benefit interactions with provinces and territories.

For example, we may be in a world where a province looks at a federal benefit, like the housing benefit or the CCB, and within its own system has a list of exemptions, things it doesn't consider for the purpose of calculating income for the purpose of enabling a person to get their benefits. The solution in that province might be to get this on that list, on that side of the ledger. Another province might not have that list; another province might have a different way of determining benefits.

What this government managed to do, very quickly, coming out of the 2015 election, was negotiate that every province in the country would not consider the Canada child benefit as income for the purpose of supports and social assistance entitlements. We have a model. We have a precedent within the time of our government. There are lots of variables, but there are also strong indications and a lot of hope that we will be able to get this across the finish line.

I don't think there's going to be a problem doing this, but we have to do it right.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

There's no question that this will impact thousands of Canadians if it goes through the process and is approved by the House and implemented through the regulations. Obviously, there will be so many complexities with regulations of this type. How do you make sure that if something does not work...?

Let's say the rollout happens and a year or six months into it something's not working. Do you have a mechanism in place through your department to look for ways to fix it as you're moving along?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I'll ask Alexis to jump in on this, but to my understanding, the flexibility afforded through the regulatory process would allow us to course-correct and pivot a lot more easily than if we were to bake this into law.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Rather than coming back and changing the legislation—

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Exactly. If it turned out that an agreement with a province didn't yield the outcomes we thought it would, we could then negotiate just with that province and not bring all the provinces and territories to the table.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

That's a fair answer. You know, it's interesting, because there are these themes and guiding principles that you keep talking about—for example, “nothing without us”. You're working through the regulatory process to develop those key pieces to ensure that the community's voice is captured in those regulations. It's actually an innovative way to go about creating a new program to service people across the country.

With regard to those conversations with stakeholders and these guiding principles, these values and these themes that came up, such as “nothing without us”, were there other pieces helping to guide you through this process?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Yes. The first and consistent message, as has been said here today, is, “We need this as quickly as possible, and we want to be involved at every stage.”

I believe the disability community understands the approach we've taken and the rationale behind it. I believe we have established an amount of trust with the community and they have confidence that there will be meaningful engagement and input received. They will be listened to through the regulatory process.

The disability community is terrified—I use that word intentionally—of the potential for clawbacks. They're worried about the idea of a race to the bottom. If I put out a number right now and all of a sudden the provincial and territorial landscapes started changing, there would be nothing I could do. We need to support the disability community and validate their concerns. They don't want to be imposed upon. Governments have done this forever. Let's work with them. Let's work together to get this done.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Madame Chabot, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Okay.

I will give an example we are all familiar with: the guaranteed income supplement as it relates to retirement benefits.

It seems simpler because they are retirement benefits. There is a maximum amount that one can receive under the GIS with an income of, for example, $20,700, to use a round figure.

I'll take that as an example and apply it to Quebec. It is only an example, not a real case.

Let us say that the basic income is $24,000 for people living with disabilities in Quebec. Eventually, by regulations, the poverty line is set at an income level of $24,000.

Does that mean that in provinces or territories that have more generous regimes, people with disabilities will not receive anything more? In other words, the amount of the benefits will be different depending on the jurisdiction. Is that correct?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

That is exactly why we must work hand in hand with provinces and territories. I do not think it is fair if one province or territory contributes more.

It's a good problem to have if we have a situation in which a province has actually lifted people out of poverty. We then have to work with that province in creative ways to support other efforts on the disability file. There is absolutely room in these conversations to—I don't really know how to say it—celebrate if a province has that level of generosity, and respond to it.

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

I ask the question because we just went through the same thing with Bill C-31, under which eligible families will receive a cheque for dental care. In Quebec, some people will not get anything because they already have a dental care program.

Even if I appreciate that everyone means well and that the community wants to have such a program, is it possible that it could take several years before the benefits start flowing?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I am not sure I fully understand the question.

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

As you said, the aim is to create a social safety net.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Yes.