Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Did I miss anybody?

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

Why was it allowed, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's deemed admissible.

[Émilie Thivierge]

Procedurally speaking, it's admissible. It doesn't go against any procedural rule.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do you want the floor, Mrs. Gray?

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

Sure, Mr. Chair.

Committee members have known about this amendment. It's not something I just tabled right now. Committee members could have had legal advice on this prior to the committee meeting today. I think my answers are based on what our intention was and what came from the legal advisers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Madam Zarrillo.

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

I think there is unanimous consensus among committee members that we want to prevent provincial and territorial clawbacks. That is something we've heard from witnesses here. I think every committee member has made the same comment. We know it's a priority. We heard the minister talk about making sure that when the Canada disability benefit is introduced, Canadians with disabilities are better off, and he said this will supplement existing programs. That was loud and clear, and I can tell you that everybody around this table shares the goal of making sure there are no provincial and territorial clawbacks.

What we hear from the officials right now is that with the way this amendment is worded, it will not protect against provincial and territorial clawbacks. In fact, protections would come from negotiations among the minister, the premiers and the provincial and territorial partners. That's what I'm struggling with. I see the intent of it. The spirit of it, I think, is admirable, but we heard that it will not provide a safeguard.

The other question I have for the officials is about that word “recovered”. What we really don't want to do here is have unintended consequences. I want to ask our officials about that. I understand that the legislative clerk is not able to comment on and interpret the word “recovered”, so perhaps I'll ask our officials to speak to it.

Are there other instances where the word “recovered” is used in a way that we don't intend to use it right now? Are there concerns around the way that word is being used and the way the amendment is structured?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Wilcox.

[Krista Wilcox]

I can't speak to how “recovered” is used in other legislation.

What I can say is that it may be contrary to paragraph 9(d), where we are trying to, for the purposes of family orders, make the CDB garnishable. If there is a parent not paying their support payments to another parent, for example, this benefit could be used to recover that money. There may be an interaction between the word “recovered” and that particular clause.

In terms of clawbacks, I would say that “clawbacks” is a word we use, but we haven't really explained it. It really is the calculation of income for those benefits, and whether or not the new benefit, the Canada disability benefit, would be put into the legislation for those other benefits to be used for the calculation of income.

That's really what we're looking at when we talk about the clawback: to exempt this benefit for the purposes of the calculation of income. That's the clawback we're speaking about. It would require a specific legislative amendment to those programs in order to protect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do you have one more question, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

Go ahead.

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

I want to bring the conversation back to paragraph 9(d), because I think you've raised a really critical point about the unintended consequences of having this amendment introduced. Paragraph 9(d) says:

9 A benefit under this Act

(d) is garnishable moneys for the purposes of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.

There may be some conflict here. Can you explain that one a little more? I think it highlights what we're concerned about, which is that there may be unintended consequences. Could you speak a bit to that?

[Krista Wilcox]

Yes, indeed. This again is consistent with the Canada child benefit, for example, where it is garnishable for the purposes of family orders and agreements. Without this addition in here, you wouldn't be able to use the benefit to get payments from a parent who isn't providing the support payments they are required to pay by law.

The one other thing about “recovery” we would specify is that normally this is dealt with under provincial common or civil law and not federal statutes. That's another element that's different in this situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Madam Zarrillo and then Madame Chabot.

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

Thank you.

With this new information, I have a question about federal benefits.

How many federal programs or benefits would potentially interact? How many acts are we talking about that would need to be changed?

[Krista Wilcox]

Thank you for that question. It's an excellent one, and I can't answer it at this point.

What I can say is that when we have the design of the benefit, we will look at all of the interactions of all the federal benefits to see how this will interact. The reason I can't specify more at this point is that without the level of the benefit, without the income thresholds we would be using, without the deduction rates that would be applied and without establishing the population we're talking about, it would be very difficult for us to fully assess the suite of federal programs that could potentially interact with this program.

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

I have one other question on the gender lens and the GBA. With the new information today about the child benefit, I'm thinking about those whose spouses have passed away. I'm just wondering about that. Is there more of an impact on women from this one?

[Krista Wilcox]

I don't have the figures in front of me, but from my recollection, there are more women who receive family orders—for example, for family support payments—than there are men. I could certainly get that information for you so you can better understand what those figures look like, but it's likely that this would be more for women than men.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Madame Chabot and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Go ahead, Madame Chabot.

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

In our initial analysis, it looked logical and straightforward to me. From a legislative standpoint, I would say that there is a difference between the words “retain” and “recover.” These are two completely different legal terms. That's very clear.

Let's look at the guaranteed income supplement, which people receive when they have retired. Is it exempt from recovery under any acts other than federal ones? That should clarify things for us. Excuse my interpretation, but we're not talking about the provinces.

There is a difference between saying that where the minister wants a new benefit to be additional and complementary, that money cannot be retained—we will be talking about this again when we look at the other amendment—and say that the money cannot be recovered. In my view, there is a difference between the two.

When we use the word “recover,” it means that even if there is fraud or anything else, it cannot be recovered. If that's what is intended, then it's a little more forceful. Examples would be required. This affects federal laws, because it says, “under any Act of Parliament other than this Act.”

There should have been legal experts to guide us. Although I studied law when I was younger, I am not a legal expert. I understand that it's procedurally admissible, but it would be important to know the legal implications.

I was in agreement with clause 9 as it stands, according to which it is exempt from the application of bankruptcy rules, and cannot be assigned, charged or retained. I was also prepared to say that it could not be recovered, provided that we have proper guidance on that. In the end, it's not clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Ms. Wilcox, do you care to comment on her comment?

[Krista Wilcox]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have officials from the department. We also have legislative counsel, but they simply comment on admissibility, not the interpretation.

We'll go to Mr. Kusmierczyk, and Mrs. Gray has her hand up.

Members can choose as they choose, but you have the amendment. The amendment was deemed admissible. It's under discussion, and then eventually we'll get to a vote.

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thank you, Madame Chabot. You much more eloquently described the confusion that I think we have with the amendment as stated.

That was our confusion from the very beginning. To us, the word “recovery” connotes a recovery of debt, for example. There are situations where, for example, a payment may be made to someone who was not eligible or in situations where there is identity fraud, and that's where the term “recovery”, as I understand it, is used. That is completely different from the goal of protecting the Canada disability benefit against clawbacks. “Recovery” is debt. Clawbacks are about making sure we're not reducing anything.

I think that's where the confusion stems from. The danger of that confusion, as the amendment is currently written, is what the officials have stated right now. The confusion can have unintended consequences. It can impact families and disproportionately impact children and women.

I think we have to be very careful about this amendment. I think we all share the spirit of wanting to prevent clawbacks, but I don't think this amendment is the vehicle.

Mr. Chair, I'll ask for us to suspend the meeting for a moment, just so we can have a discussion about this, if possible.