Human Resources Committee on Nov. 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks so much to the witnesses for joining us. Bill C‑22, which is before us, is a major piece of legislation. As parliamentarians, we had to pass it in principle before we could consider it here in committee. Today's testimony and all the testimony that's come before will be very helpful to us as we move forward.

I want to begin by acknowledging all the work that's been done in Quebec. I know that it took a huge amount of consultation work to get to this point. We can therefore say that the basic income program, which will be introduced on January 1, 2023, is a first for Quebec.

Mr. Prévost, you know it, you told us so: things will get awkward if we proceed by regulation. For us, as parliamentarians, there is a legal vacuum as to how and to whom this new benefit will apply and how much it will be. The government believes that the guaranteed income supplement model, which we all know through our pension plans, will apply here. It provides an income supplement below a certain threshold.

Mr. Prévost, why do you feel it's crucial that regulations be developed in tandem with government, by and for organizations and groups of people with disabilities? I understand that this is how Quebec has seen it, but we need to look at the situation on a Canada-wide scale.

How can we be sure that the regulations will apply to all groups? Will all groups making up this disability community have the opportunity to be consulted?

What are your thoughts on the timeline for consultation, if people with disabilities want to be able to receive their benefit as soon as possible?

[André Prévost]

That's a very big question you're asking me. I don't pretend to have a complete answer, but the concept of intergovernmental coordination comes to mind.

On this issue, perhaps more than many others, we're going to need intergovernmental coordination, and we'll also have to define the parameters of that coordination. It will probably take a tailored approach, not a one-size-fits-all approach. A colleague mentioned earlier that the cost of living is not the same across Canada, which is true. Nor should we give out the benefit with one hand and take it away with the other at tax time, partially or in full.

So, as you can see, we need to define broad, Canada-wide parameters based on principles, some of which came up earlier. One of them was additional costs. People who have earned minimum wage all their lives receive quite a low level of benefits in their senior years. All clienteles and demographic groups must be respected. The concept of additional costs should be endorsed and enshrined in the terms of the benefit that would be coordinated with the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

I've proposed one parameter, but there could be a series of others. We can't come up with a specific amount, because it's more complicated than that. To be fair and equitable, we're going to have to go with parameters to explain the rules of intergovernmental coordination. The overarching goal is to lift people with disabilities out of poverty, and that includes recognizing the concept of additional costs.

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

Thank you. You've made some valuable points and given us some clues. As you know, we're currently looking at a blank page, and the need to have guidelines has been raised in the House.

I have another question that deals with those guidelines. The bill we're considering is for working age people with disabilities, ages 18 to 65. When we asked the minister and her officials, they said that a benefit is already given out before age 18, and after age 65, it's retirement.

However, certain witnesses have said we should expand the scope of the bill to cover people who start working at age 15 or keep working after age 65. Do you have an opinion on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Your time has concluded.

We go to Ms. Zarrillo for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really want to thank the witnesses today. Those presentations have really highlighted and brought home the importance of getting this right. I'm hearing from witnesses what we've heard quite a few times before: Let's get it right and let's do it quickly. I actually don't think we should have to give up one for the other. I think there is an opportunity for us to get it right and to also get it within a very reasonable timeline.

I was going to start with Ms. Wood and then ask Mr. Prévost a question. I really want to go with that theme that Ms. Wood brought in, which is around hope and expectation. We know that this bill doesn't have a lot of information about what it's really going to bring, so I'm interested to hear from Ms. Wood what the expectation is, both for you and your community, many of whom you speak to.

The minister spoke of this benefit being a top-up. I'm wondering if you could share your interpretation of what that top-up means to you and your community. What do you think that top-up looks like? What are you visualizing that to be?

[Karen Wood]

The top-up would be taking us out of the poverty level, the below-poverty level. We need to be at poverty or above it a little bit. I'm not expecting millions or anything; I'm just expecting to be able to live without bobbing for apples every month, wondering what bill I have to pay or what I have to buy over and above what is expected.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm just going to follow up on that with a question. We got some information from Employment and Social Development Canada recently that talked about individuals with disabilities living alone. There is nowhere in Canada where they are living at the poverty line or above, and I just wanted to ask you for your thoughts about household income versus disability being individualized. Do you believe that it should be individualized or do you think that a household income test is appropriate?

What are your thoughts on whether this should be an individualized benefit or whether it's okay to have a household income test?

[Karen Wood]

I think it should be based on individuality.

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

We heard that a number of times. Thank you for that.

I want to go to Monsieur Prévost on the same question around the top-up. I'm really trying to get an understanding of what the expectation is out there in the community. With very little detail, people must have an idea in their mind of what it should be or could be.

It's just that same question about the minister speaking of this as a top-up. Could you share your interpretation of what that means, what that top-up looks like?

[André Prévost]

I will found my response on Quebec's basic income program.

In today's dollars, and not counting the indexation will be applied in January 2023, a single person will be eligible for an annual income of $13,656. This will go up $337 per month for a single person. Obviously, that's a bonus for a single person, not a penalty for a couple.

We need to consider even more important parameters. For example, can an individual retain certain assets, like real estate, and if so, to what extent? Quebec allows a total of $500,000 in assets to be retained while receiving the basic income.

These criteria will obviously be important when coordinating and intertwining Quebec's basic income program and the federal disability benefit. It wouldn't make sense to have one amount for the federal and another for the provincial.

We also need to think about the issue of registered retirement savings plans or retirement savings: Do they have to be exhausted, as is currently the case, before an individual becomes eligible for the basic income program?

Of course, all these issues must be considered and, most importantly, tied in with the Quebec basic income program or its equivalent in other provinces or territories. Things need to be fair and equitable between the provinces across the country.

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

Thank you so much for that. Actually, the basic income project out in Quebec is very interesting and quite exciting, and I'm looking forward to seeing data come back on that.

One thing that we did hear in this committee was that the basic income plan in Quebec took four years to go from the outline to fruition. I am just wondering, Monsieur Prévost, if you would be able to share with us how we could ensure—legislators who are sitting around this table and in Parliament—that we meet the expectation of no more than 12 months to get this benefit into people's bank accounts.

I see what you're saying about all the different aspects that need to be considered. How can we ensure that it takes no more than 12 months to get there and to get money and supports to people?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you directing that question to Mr. Prévost?

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

Yes, I just want to follow up on some of the commentary on basic income in Quebec.

[André Prévost]

Can you repeat your question?

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

Yes, I'm sorry. I was just talking about the basic income in Quebec, that it took four years and there are many factors that have already been cleared out in Quebec. Here, we have to deal with all those factors from the beginning, and we really have a very short timeline. We're hoping it's less time, no more than 12 months.

Do you have ideas or thoughts for us on how we can ensure, as legislators, that this takes no more than 12 months?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Prévost, give a short answer, please.

[André Prévost]

I'm going to don my political scientist's cap to talk about public policy.

In terms of methodology, like Quebec, a few provinces have programs. I would tend to have a quick meeting to compare the existing program statements and the different parameters that apply. Once this first meeting is done, it would be very realistic to take stock of the situation, unless that's already been done. I am not sure what's been done in Canada in that respect.

Based on that meeting, which could be held quickly, it would be easy to determine key parameters to be included in the final version of the bill to accompany the transfers to the provinces. The check could certainly be sent directly, and the terms would need to be explored. After all, we're in the digital age and bank transfers are becoming more common. However, to understand what's going into our bank account, we need to know the parameters, and these parameters require intergovernmental coordination. Why not start with what's already been done and taken several years to negotiate?

As I said earlier, Quebeckers are allowed to keep up to $500,000 in assets. Perhaps that's not enough, maybe it's too much, but we must at least agree on a value that will be the same for everyone, even if it means updating it based on other parameters, such as the cost of living. As we discussed earlier, the cost of living isn't the same in Nunavut as it is in southern Ontario or Quebec. We would need to have something that makes sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Prévost.

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

We go to Ms. Ferreri for five minutes, please.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate your time and insight.

If I may, I'll start with Ms. Wood. Thank you for your testimony.

As a member of the opposition, I really want to make sure that we don't repeat some of the same mistakes that we have seen happen in other programs that have been rolled out. We want to make sure everything is done correctly.

The Auditor General's report has just come out. One thing in particular is around housing. The report says that CMHC has “spent about $4.5 billion and committed about $9 billion but did not know who was benefiting from its [work].”

As well, when we look at food security, which you've been sharing so much about, the Auditor General's report has said that “the government had not developed a national emergency preparedness and response plan that considered a crisis affecting the entire food system and Canadians' food security.” It also stated, “According to a May 2020 study by Statistics Canada, food insecurity among Canadians rose” to almost 15%. We know food bank usage is up to the highest it's ever been in history.

My question for you with this bill is, what do you see that will make sure that this program—this bill—doesn't see the same lack of accountability or proper implementation for getting the funding to the people who need it most?

[Karen Wood]

Can I refer this to my partner, Matthew Maynard?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

You certainly may.

[Karen Wood]

Thank you.

[Matthew Maynard, Community Connector, The Local Community Food Centre]

Hi. I'm Matthew Maynard. I'm with The Local Community Food Centre in Stratford.

One thing I would suggest is that if it is done and co-designed with lived experience, that brings a different focus to the legislation and to the regulation. It will also bring a different energy, because those who are speaking from those lived experiences are going to be looking at, “How do I achieve the dignity and the support that is needed? It's not that I need to benefit more than anyone else across the country, but I do need to be able to thrive.”

I think in that way it doesn't matter which side of the House you're on. It means that you're bringing into the conversation around regulation those who are going to be impacted. As we've heard from other witnesses, those organizations will also be there to support, regardless of which side of the House it's on, and to make the accountability so that individuals can experience dignity.

I guess I would make one other comment, as you brought up the food security issue. We know that at an individual level, those with disabilities have to find solutions day to day. That can mean going to a food bank that is empty. It can mean taking advantage of a food program that is available through a community centre or a church.

If the solutions can be at both the neighbourhood and the community levels, as well as at the provincial level and the federal level, that's how it can be done quickly and with the accountability that you're looking for.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much. I appreciate that feedback greatly.

I guess the question, then, is this. We often hear “Nothing about us without us”. Do you feel that this has been done effectively in this bill, that there's been enough consultation with those with lived experience and those with living experience?

That's for Matthew.