Human Resources Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call to order meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please return to mute. For those in the room, the mike will be monitored by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice, and interpretation services are available for this meeting. For those participating by video conference, you have the choice of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances—and it would be exceptional—I will not recognize those appearing virtually unless they have a House of Commons-approved headset to participate in the meeting. They could participate in the voting, of course. I would like to also remind members that screenshots are not permitted.

Should there be any difficulty with the interpretation or translation during the meeting, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's being rectified. I would also like to remind members and witnesses to speak slowly, as we do have sign language interpretation for this meeting. They would appreciate it if you could speak slowly.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-22, Canada disability benefit act.

Before we continue clause-by-clause consideration, as the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to participate, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

As chair, I will go slowly to allow members to participate fully in the proceedings.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I would like to welcome back the Department of Employment and Social Development.

I would ask both witnesses to introduce themselves to the committee.

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

Hi. I'm Krista Wilcox. I'm the director general of the office for disability issues.

[Mausumi Banerjee, Director, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Hi. I'm Mausumi Banerjee. I'm the director of policy in the office for disability issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Madame Chabot.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a request. It will be up to you, obviously.

As you know, I always have my union hat on, so I would like to know if we can take a physical and mental health break in the middle of this three-hour block of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Of course, Madame Chabot, we can accommodate that.

Before we begin going back to clause-by-clause review, Madam Wilcox has information to an answer that was requested by Madam Zarrillo as the meeting was closing on Monday.

Madam Wilcox, you have the floor.

[Krista Wilcox]

Thank you very much, Chair.

With respect to the question Madam Zarrillo asked about paragraph 9(d) and the ability to garnish the Canada disability benefit for the purposes of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, she asked whether this had a greater impact on women and what the gender-based analysis of this clause was.

In regard to clause 9, as identified in the 2015-16 survey of maintenance enforcement programs conducted by Statistics Canada, in almost all families, which is approximately 96%, the recipient of the support in these instances is female. From a gender-lens perspective, allowing the Canada disability benefit to be garnished for the purposes of outstanding debts under family support orders would disproportionately benefit women—and their children—who may be the former partners of men with disabilities in receipt of the benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Wilcox.

We will resume with clause-by-clause review with new clause 11.1. We were in discussions on NDP-5, and there was a subamendment made by Madame Chabot that was under discussion. When we conclude clause 11.1, we will then return to suspended clause 9.

We were in discussion on the subamendment of Madame Chabot on NDP-5.

Madame Chabot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make it clear to my fellow committee members and everyone tuning in who's part of these groups that the purpose of this subamendment is, in my opinion, essential.

I know we received a letter from the representatives of the 29 groups, who are concerned that the Bloc Québécois subamendment and the NDP amendment could result in people waiting longer for that money.

This subamendment has absolutely nothing to do with confidence. We sincerely believe that the current minister is determined to make this benefit a reality. As committee members, we're determined to make that possible too. That said, as things stand, the bill as written establishes eligibility criteria, conditions and the benefit amount by regulation. That is unheard of.

If we want to see the Canada disability benefit become law and if we want it to be mandatory, the House of Commons and Parliament must say so officially. If they don't, there's no guarantee.

Think of it this way.

Anyone at all could issue a regulation stating that the Canadian benefit is $5 a month, say. Another government could decide to eliminate the benefit. That would be meaningless because the House of Commons and parliamentarians would not have given it the force of law that would have created the requirement for a Canadian benefit. The bill does not create the benefit. It authorizes the Governor in Council to make a regulation. It doesn't create it.

For example, it would have been inconceivable for the guaranteed income supplement, old age security and the Canada child benefit to be decided by regulation. Those are laws. That's the purpose of our amendment.

The NDP amendment calls for the tabling of a report, but it doesn't introduce a mandatory aspect to the Canadian benefit, which is what our subamendment brings to the table. The only way to guarantee the benefit and make it permanent is for the House of Commons to vote on the regulation.

The idea is not to ignore the “nothing without us” principle. I think that what everyone wants is for us to contribute to the regulatory part.

Unfortunately, there won't have to be a law for all of clause 11.1. Many issues fall under the regulatory aspects, but the first three paragraphs are crucial.

If we want to make sure a Canadian benefit becomes a reality, I think it requires the approval of parliamentarians. The goal of the subamendment is to make this act and this benefit permanent and guaranteed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment of Madame Chabot?

Seeing none, I'm going to call for a recorded vote on Madame Chabot's subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll return to NDP-5. Is there any further discussion on NDP-5?

Madam Zarrillo.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to make some comments on amendment NDP-5.

I want to ask my colleagues to consider a unanimous consent motion to have me remove this one. I've had a lot of conversations with the community over the last few days, at the back end of last week, and I'd like to have it considered later. I have another amendment coming later, which I think will cover what needs to be done, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent from my colleagues to pull this one and look at ones further down.

This is one of the issues around not having full transparency for the community. They don't have access to all the amendments that are coming. I don't know whether that's something we could do ahead of time. I didn't feel I could even talk about amendments that haven't yet been tabled.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Does Madam Zarrillo have unanimous consent to withdraw amendment NDP-5 on subclause 11.1(1)?

(Amendment withdrawn)

We will now move to amendment BQ-1.

Madam Chabot, do you want to speak to your amendment?

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

Are we at amendment BQ‑1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

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

Okay.

Essentially, amendment BQ‑1 states that the minister must table in the House of Commons every regulation that the government proposes to make under the first three paragraphs of clause 11,1: 11.1(1)(a), 11.1(1)(b) and 11.1(1)(c). These cover eligibility criteria, the conditions for payment of the benefit and the amount of the benefit.

Then there's the number of days and, in paragraph 11.1(3), there's the same wording as the subamendment we proposed to amendment NDP‑5.

I think I would reiterate the same arguments I made earlier. In the interest of transparency, any regulations should be tabled in the House of Commons to make them permanent and mandatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call a vote on BQ-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to amendment CPC-2.

Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move that Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:

Report

11.1 Within ten months after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report setting out proposed amendments to this Act that would, among other things, specify the eligibility criteria for a Canada disability benefit, the conditions that are to be met in order to receive or continue to receive the benefit and the amount of the benefit or method for determining the amount.

That is the entirety of the motion. The intention of this is to put a timeline. We heard a lot in testimony, both written and from people who testified, that there was a lot of concern with not having any timelines. This does put one in. It is a reasonable timeline as well, based on testimony that we heard both from the minister and the officials. It's not far from the potential timelines they gave. It's a little tighter than what they said, but it definitely does put the ministry into a place where they have to work to bring this to a resolution within a time frame.

We have to remember as well that the exact same legislation was tabled well over a year ago. We understand there have been lots of consultations already, so this is why we're bringing this forth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

Is there any discussion? Seeing none, it is a clear amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will move to NDP-6.

Madam Zarrillo, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in relation to a midpoint check-in. Today we were voting on some timelines and some potential pushes for regulations. I guess what I heard last week from the community and again even at the beginning of this week was that they want to have the most amount of input and co-creation on this bill, but at the same time I do want this government to be accountable that the work they are doing is living up to those expectations.

This amendment, NDP-6, is the opportunity to ensure that the disability community, which has been working on this for many years, has influence, but also that we have some accountability to the government that they are moving it along in a timely manner.

I will move NDP-6, which is that Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:

Progress Report

11.1(1) Within six months after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must table in the House of Commons a report that sets out the manner in which the obligation to engage and collaborate with the disability community in relation to the development of regulations has been implemented.

(2) The report must be published on the website of the Department of Employment and Social Development.

That is for further transparency, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank Ms. Zarrillo for putting a timeline in that holds the government accountable and makes them report the engagement that we've heard was so critical. I want to thank her for that.

I would like to strengthen it somewhat, if the committee agrees. I'd like to make a subamendment.

Following paragraph 11.1(1), I'd like to add “Tabling”. After that I would add, “Within one year after the day on which the act comes into force, the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report on the progress made in the regulatory process.” Then I'd add the following clause, which would be, “The report stands referred to the committee of each House that may be designated or established for the purposes of receiving the report.”

That is my subamendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do we have a copy of that prepared?

Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

Mrs. Gray.

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

Mr. Chair, we would need that in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I assume, Mr. Van Bynen, that you were reading from a prepared document. Could we get that translated and submitted to the members' P9s?

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

Can we suspend for two minutes?