Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Before I get to you, Mr. Kusmierczyk, I note that Bill C-22 establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. It sets out generous provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit's design elements through regulations. The amendment attempts to change the terms of the benefit so that it is high enough to enable the person to whom it is paid to not live below the official poverty line, as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.

This is the interpretation given to me by the table officers of the Commons. I appreciate your interpretation, Ms. Zarrillo, but I have to follow the interpretation of the table officers. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation attached to the bill, as adopted at second reading by the House. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. This ruling also applies to amendment PV-3 since it is identical.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I note the word “generous”, but the qualification was not specified, so I'm going to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. Any member can challenge the chair's ruling. My ruling is not debatable, so I will call on the clerk for a vote.

This is the ruling that's been provided to the committee by the House of Commons table officers. If the amendment is voted in, it will be unilaterally turned down when it gets to the House of Commons.

With that information, the chair calls a recorded vote on the motion by Ms. Zarrillo to challenge my ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)

The chair's ruling is sustained, and the amendment is not approved.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 8)

Now we have PV-4.

Go ahead, Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PV-4 seeks to add these words:

(2) The Minister must make public any agreement entered into under subsection (1).

Specifically, this would require the federal government to make public all federal and provincial-territorial agreements with respect to the Canada disability benefit. This was recommended by many groups, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, by experts who came to testify at committee, such as Mr. Prince, and by organizations like Spinal Cord Injury Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I'll note that part of the interest here, given what I heard from the disability community, is hearing from the government. This is about trust. I think more transparency leads to more trust from the people this benefit is meant to serve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, throughout this entire process, working hand in hand with the disability community has been our primary concern as well. One of our priorities has been to make sure that we build trust, that we are transparent and that we are working side by side every step of the way.

I do have some questions for our officials on this particular amendment, if that's okay.

My first question is about the general practice for federal-provincial agreements. Can you speak to the normal course of action for making those agreements public? Are some agreements made public? Are there some agreements that are not made public, for example?

Also, what is the impact, or what could be the potential impact, of requiring that all the agreements are made public? What impact might that have on the course of the negotiations between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments, given that those negotiations are going to be so imperative and critical to making sure that we have the best supports possible for Canadians with disabilities?

[Alexis Conrad, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I would answer that in a couple ways.

First, of the thousands and thousands of intergovernmental agreements that exist, a lot of them are public, some by default and some upon request. The general standard is to release things publicly whenever possible, but there are times when governments prefer not to.

I'll cite an example around the compliance of a program. From time to time, there are details in agreements about information sharing and what information is shared between levels of government. If they were made public, it could lead to potential fraud. If people can understand the program better behind the scenes, it can compromise the integrity of the program.

That's one thing. The other part is that generally when we do a release agreement, we seek provincial consent given it's a partnership. We don't necessarily oblige unless it's written into the agreement that it should be public. In this sense, an obligation to release the agreement would oblige us to release something that the province may not necessarily agree with.

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

Thank you very much for that.

Knowing that this will be a complicated process of negotiation, does this amendment, in your opinion, have the potential to actually hinder the best outcomes of discussions with provincial and territorial partners?

[Alexis Conrad]

I think there is a risk that if we impose obligations on provinces, or try to, they will not see it in the spirit of partnership, which is how we've approached this. The minister has talked a lot about working closely with provincial officials. We've tried to do everything in a sense of partnership rather than put an obligation on the other party. There is a concern, or at least a risk, that the provinces would see this as a break from that and as us trying to impose something on them.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Gray, go ahead on PV-4.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe in open and transparent government, so I think this is something we can support. Also, almost everything in this piece of legislation will be in regulations, so in order for the public to be aware of what has actually been agreed to—in particular because everything primarily will be in regulations—it's important for this to be in there.

I will be supporting this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Could I ask for a suspension of the meeting for a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Sure.

We'll suspend for three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee will resume.

Before the suspension, Mrs. Gray made an observation.

Is there any further discussion on PV-4?

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

Mr. Chair, I have a concern with respect to requiring these agreements to be disclosed. It may hamper negotiations, and there may be a requirement on behalf of the other party to have some degree of confidentiality. I'm struggling with the notion of requiring people to do that. If in the normal course of events there's a disclosure, I think that's appropriate, but there may be some situations where this could be a problematic requirement on behalf of the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion on PV-4?

Madam Clerk, since I sense there is not going to be unanimity, I would ask for a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9)

On clause 9, we have CPC-1.

Go ahead, Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move that Bill C-22, in clause 9, be amended by adding, after line 25 on page 3, the following:

(c.1) cannot be recovered, in whole or in part, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act; and

Then it continues on with the rest.

What this is referring to is clawbacks. That's the intention of it. When we went to legal advisers, this was the wording recommended to protect people with disabilities from potential clawbacks. That's the intention of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, all of us here are very much concerned about clawbacks. Something we heard from pretty much every witness, if not every witness, was that in negotiations we make sure there are no clawbacks of provincial and territorial benefits that persons with disabilities already receive.

I just want to get clarification from the clerk in terms of the way this amendment is worded because it could mean multiple things. For some of us reading it, it may mean, for example, that we cannot recover funds or payments in situations where there might be proven identity fraud, so I'm a bit concerned about the wording of the amendment.

I also want to ask our officials to speak about what impact this might have on the Canada disability benefit. Do we foresee interactions, for example, between federal benefits, and is this the appropriate place to actually address that, or can it be addressed later on in the process through amendments in other pieces of legislation that provide for federal benefits? I'd like to have that explained.

I would also like a clarification—a third one—on whether this amendment, as it's written, prevents the clawback of provincial and territorial benefits. I know that was a primary concern for every witness who came to this committee and in every submission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You're directing that to the officials, but we'll have to let legislative counsel—

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

Go first to legal counsel, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Actually, legislative counsel drafts the legislation, so this will have to go to department officials, not to the clerk. The clerk drafts the amendments and determines if they're admissible. The question you have will have to be addressed by department officials.

[Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you for the question.

In our work on the Canada disability benefit, we expect—and the minister talked about this at committee—that there may be interactions with other federal programs, as well as provincial and territorial programs. She made it very clear in her testimony that the intention of the design of the benefit is to ensure that it does not interact with those programs and that there are no negative interactions or clawbacks regarding them.

Given the sense of this amendment and what's being proposed here, I'll take the member's question in backwards order.

In terms of provincial and territorial governments and interactions with provincial income-tested programs, the only way to do this is through their legislative, regulatory or policy processes, and there is an array of them. Each of those programs is different, but it would be under the authority of those governments to make changes to their legislation to determine how to treat this new benefit.

In terms of federal programs, we foresee that there could be some potential interactions, but that will really depend on the design of the benefit. If there are any consequential amendments that would need to be made to federal programs, they would be done through legislation and regulatory processes or policy. Again, it depends on each program. However, that's not necessarily the intention of this clause. It was intended to speak to issues of bankruptcy and insolvency so that the CDB would not be used as a way to pay outstanding debts.