Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to PV-8.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thanks for the spirit of collaboration from all members of the committee.

PV-8 seeks to address the concern we heard with respect to looking at an individual's income as opposed to a household's. The text adds, after line 39 on page 5:

“(1.1) The eligibility criteria, conditions and amounts provided for in regulations made under paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) must be determined on the basis of the net income of the person to whom an application for a benefit relates, not to the income of the person’s household.”

We heard from many witnesses who gave testimony here and who gave written briefs with respect to ensuring that the benefit looks at the individual and not a family.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-8?

We'll hear Ms. Zarrillo and then Mr. Long.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was wondering if I could ask either Madam Wilcox or Mr. Conrad a question.

I saw some consultation that was done. We received some information last night with regard to consultations that were done as early as January 2020. There were some consultation from diverse communities that had different points of view on this aspect.

Because it's relatively new information that we just received, I wonder if we could get some information around the concerns that were heard from diverse communities.

[Alexis Conrad]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're right that this has been a subject of discussion. The eligibility behind the benefit is key in how we would determine how much someone got and on what basis. There is a school of thought that says we should absolutely go in this direction. There are other voices saying, “Be careful” and “Engage us and understand better.”

To go back to some of the comments around unintended consequences, most federal benefits are built on family income. You could end up, for example, with a couple with a top 1% income earner and the other partner has a disability. We would be paying the benefit, therefore, to a high-income family, based on an individual's income.

There are those kinds of scenarios that we've heard about from the community, and this is a lot of the work that needs to be done through the regulatory process. We foresaw this as being part of the regulations rather than the legislation, to understand the exact design that works best and to make sure we target the people who need the help the most.

It's something that we have heard from the disability community, but I think their expectation is that we will work with them through the regulatory process to establish this. That's how the bill was designed and how the community would expect us to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Mr. Long, and then Madame Chabot.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, we're coming from....

I understand what MP Morrice is saying here, but I think it goes beyond the concept of the legislation to determine this specific element of eligibility. As Mr. Conrad just said, there's going to be, through the regulatory process, consultation with the disability community to determine the best way forward.

I think this boxes it in too early. We can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I have Madame Chabot and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Morrice pointed out, some witnesses said that the benefit should apply to the individual. We understood the thinking behind that. It's a question of autonomy and the status of disabled people, and this would ensure that they would receive this support.

I wanted to ask a more technical question, about whether it was net income or gross income, but it's not important.

On the other hand, there are other points of view, and it's true that it's sometimes better for it to be on the basis of family income.

Which is most beneficial to the disabled person? That's who we want to help.

Am I prepared to say that the best arrangement is on the basis of the individual's income? There are arguments for that, but would it not be a better idea to pursue this discussion if we want to comply with a part of the principle stated in the “nothing without us” strategy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will go to Mr. Kusmierczyk. Then we have Madame Zarrillo.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I think that for me, the most important principle is the principle of “nothing without us”. In my opinion, this conversation about individual versus family is better suited, as the officials stated.... This is something that needs to be discussed with the disability community so that we can listen to their viewpoints and listen to their voices. I think this is why, again, I will oppose this amendment. It presupposes that conversation and that consultation, which are so absolutely critical. I think we need to hear from the disability community on this issue, and we will when this bill moves from the committee to the House and passes. Those consultations that will take place, those discussions with the disability community, are exactly where we will determine which avenue we will take.

For that reason, I will be opposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Zarrillo, you had your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is one of the things that we did hear in testimony: that the community wants to be fully involved, wants to be fully engaged and fully at the table. I know that there is some testimony here and some consultation here that just talks about racism in the application of benefits. The lack of consultation on that is clear. I think precarious immigration status and citizenship status and all of those things need to be considered. Before we make a decision, I want to hear from people in the community who would be affected by this.

I am open to that idea that we need to have more consultation before we usurp it here in regulation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I feel that my colleagues have made great points and I'll offer to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

What are the wishes of the committee on PV-8? We need consensus to withdraw, or we have to vote. Do we have consensus to withdraw?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. PV-8 is withdrawn.

We now move to NDP-3.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I stated earlier, it was heard in testimony, over and over in almost every testimony we received, either on paper or spoken, that people wanted to have an adequate standard of living and the necessities of life. We know that's also our commitment as Canadians.

I want to raise, again, the concept of adequacy. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we could not get it into legislation. We could not get it secured. The minimum floor would be the poverty line. Of course, we know persons with disabilities need even more than the poverty line, because expenses can be even higher. I am introducing the idea that it goes into regulation here, in order to at least protect the minimum that the minister and order in council should be considering for this benefit.

The concept of adequacy was raised in testimony by human rights lawyer Vince Calderhead on Monday, November 14. The Canadian government has legally binding obligations under international human rights law to ensure that persons in need have an adequate standard of living. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and then acceded to the optional protocol in December 2018.

Under this convention, we adhere to the principles mentioned in article 3, which include, among others, non-discrimination and accessibility. Article 28 declares an “adequate standard of living and social protection” for persons with disabilities, specifying the need “to ensure access by persons with disabilities, in particular women and girls with disabilities and older persons with disabilities, to social protection...and poverty reduction programmes” in paragraph 2(b).

Furthermore, as mentioned in testimony, under subsection 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, Canada and the provinces have a joint constitutional commitment to provide “essential public services of a reasonable quality to all Canadians.”

Canada's official poverty line—we actually have one, so I'm surprised it's not being used in this legislation—reflects “the cost of...basket[s] of goods and services representing a modest, basic standard of living.” Even StatsCan itself agrees this is ableist in its nature, in that it does not cover the cost of disability, which we talked about in the past. This is a minimum protection for people, at least.

Lastly, for Parliament to meet its international human rights and constitutional obligations, Bill C-22 must be amended to include a provision requiring that amounts set by regulation for the Canada disability benefit be adequate.

We have testimony or briefs from Vince Calderhead, Maytree, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, ARCH Disability Law Centre, Michelle Hewitt from Disability without Poverty, Income Security Advocacy Centre, the Basic Income Canada Network, Jeff Neven from Indwell, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Rosemarie Hemmelgarn, and Lorna Aberdein, to name just a few who believe we should be protecting for a level of adequacy.

I'd truly hoped we could get this into clause 5 in legislation, because this is a matter of life and death, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.

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

Oh, and I will take this opportunity to read the amendment:

(1.1) In making regulations under paragraph (1)(c) respecting the amount of a benefit, the Governor in Council must take into consideration the Official Poverty Line as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.

Go ahead, Mr. Long, on the amendment.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thank MP Zarrillo for this. It's a good amendment. Obviously, the intent of this is to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. We can definitely support this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also believe it holds to the intent of this legislation. This is something we can support as well.