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?