Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

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

To clarify, this amendment as written would not protect any clawbacks from provincial and territorial partners, because that would be something the provinces and territories have to write into their own legislation. Is that correct?

[Krista Wilcox]

That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that it would need to be done through the legislative, regulatory or policy frameworks of those governments, not the federal—

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

This would be as the minister proposed. This would be the minister negotiating with each province and territory and making sure that she negotiates no clawbacks with the provinces and territories. The bill, as it exists currently, would provide the minister the authority to enter into those negotiations and negotiate no clawbacks at the provincial and territorial level. Is that correct?

[Krista Wilcox]

That's correct, and it would be consistent with, for example, the Canada child benefit, which is in a similar situation.

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

Okay. That's terrific.

In terms of any negative interactions with existing federal programs, it's not something that, in your opinion, should be fixed through this framework legislation. The legislation supporting those other federal programs is where you make the alterations and the changes. Is that correct?

[Krista Wilcox]

That's correct, and the timing of that would be important to add after the design of the benefit is set out so that the interaction with those programs is understood.

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

In terms of process, the first step would be to work together with the disability community on the regulations and get the design of the program in place so that we understand how the program is designed. Then we can look at how it impacts or interacts with other federal benefits. At that point is when you make changes to those benefits and that legislation to ensure that there are no clawbacks. Is that correct?

[Krista Wilcox]

That's correct, and that's the process we're following.

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

That's great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll have Madame Chabot and then Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the person who introduced the amendment or for the officials.

I had read this amendment and was ready to support it, but I had interpreted it liberally. I would remind you that it was to amend clause 9, about how payments cannot be charged. According to the current wording, a benefit for disabled people, first of all, “is not subject to the operation of any law relating to bankruptcy,” and second, “cannot be assigned, charged…,” and third, “cannot be retained by way of deduction, set-off or compensation under any Act of Parliament.” The amendment would, after that, add that the benefit “cannot be recovered.” I thought this was logical. When it says that the benefit “cannot be retained,” it means that the benefit cannot be held back to pay amounts that are owing. When it says that the benefit “cannot be recovered,” it means that the federal portion of the Canadian benefit cannot be taken, because it is clearly specified that it is under an “Act of Parliament,” and not under a provincial act.

I'm trying to understand why some people find this complicated. I thought it was logical, but if it's not, I'd like someone to explain it to me so that I can vote appropriately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Wilcox, please go ahead.

[Krista Wilcox]

If I understand the question correctly—and I might not fully understand what the member who introduced the amendment intended—we do not read this as saying that it could prevent anything. It would direct other programs and their legislative frameworks. For example, if there was an interaction with another federal program, such as the old age security program, that program would require an amendment to its legislative framework that would exempt this benefit if it's not included in the calculation of income for that program.

In terms of what it is trying to do, the intention is to ensure that if the individual is in a bankruptcy situation or has debts against another program, benefits are not being clawed back again. Because it is a poverty measure, we're trying to protect the individuals who receive it. It is similar to the Canada child benefit in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I have Mrs. Gray and then Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regardless of what the minister's intentions might be, we have to go with what we have in the legislation. As I mentioned, this is relating to clawbacks. We've heard a lot from stakeholders and from people who have reached out that it's a big concern of theirs.

This is within federal programs. We know that at this point, the interaction with provincial programs would have to be negotiated. Especially since a lot of this will be done in regulations, it's really important that we put something to this effect in legislation.

We just heard from the officials that there could be interactions with other federal programs. This amendment is so we don't pass the buck down the road. We want to have a clear message right now from the start that there are no clawbacks, or the intention is for no clawbacks, and that those won't occur. Putting that in here sends out a really clear message that this is in fact what will happen.

I think we all agree that's the intention, not to push it down the road. Let's make sure we have it in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I have Mr. Van Bynen and then Mr. Long.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's a section called “Payments cannot be charged”. The intent of this section is to protect the benefit to the recipient so that others can't encumber it by garnishing or anything else.

As I understand, clawbacks only took effect was when the provinces reduced their support once they saw the federal support coming up. How would this amendment deal with that, particularly if the clawback is within the domain of the provinces and not within the domain of the federal government? Could I get clarification on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Wilcox or Mr. Conrad.

[Krista Wilcox]

I don't believe it would serve the intended purpose.

What would need to be amended in other legislation is how income is calculated. It would need to be specifically exempted, and that legislation would have to specify that income received through the Canada disability benefit would not be treated as income for the purposes of the calculation of benefits. It would be the same at the provincial level and the federal level. Most of that legislation is quite specific in what it uses to determine income. You would require a consequential amendment to exempt this as income for any of those programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Long.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I'm struggling with the word “recovered”. My first question is for MP Gray.

Do you think it's a clawback? Is that what you're worried about?

My question for the officials is, what's the meaning of “recovered” to you? How do you interpret that? I'm just struggling with that word.

My first question is for MP Gray.

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

We have been really clear with what our intention is. This is wording the legal advisers came back with. This wording would be the appropriate way of capturing that. Apparently we can't say, “We don't want to have clawbacks.” That's not a legal thing that we can put into legislation, so the wording of this came from legal advisers. They knew the intention. This is the wording they came back with that would be appropriate for this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I would ask, then, that the legal opinion be clarified. Again, it's “recovered” that I struggle with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Clerk, I'd like you to speak to it.

[Émilie Thivierge]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As legislative clerks, we do not draft amendments. It was the legislative counsel who drafted the amendment. We do not have an opinion on the legal content of it.