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.