Human Resources Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Sure.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we get that circulated to the committee members and give them a chance to analyze the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee will resume consideration.

You have before you a subamendment to NDP-6. The discussion is now on the subamendment of Mr. Van Bynen.

Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to the subamendment, this basically means that the government doesn't have an obligation to meet any kind of timeline; it's strictly a progress report. The government is not committing to any type of timelines here. That's what they're looking to interject.

That's concerning, especially considering that we had testimony from the minister and officials, who said maybe around a year is likely where it would be. Now this is making it sound like it's going to be considerably longer than that.

Again, they've had more than a year to work on this. The legislation has been exactly the same as the previous legislation. We heard that they were even consulting before the original legislation. Now they're looking at punting it way further down the line. It's very non-committal, and it's sort of surprising that the government's not committing to something stronger in this legislation.

They say in their public statements that they want to provide for people with disabilities and that they want to be helpful. They make lots of really great statements and press releases, yet the actions—we can see it right here—don't reflect that. They don't reflect anywhere near the timeline that the government is talking about.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment by Mr. Van Bynen?

We have Madam Zarrillo on the subamendment and then Madam Chabot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear the concerns of the member. I think later in this meeting I'll have a motion to bring forward that I feel addresses that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

Madame Chabot, go ahead on the subamendment of Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll take this opportunity to express my disappointment, not in the government's decision to establish a Canadian benefit, because parliamentarians already voted for that in the House of Commons, but in a bill that is essentially a blank page that offers no guarantee whatsoever.

The proposed amendment is basically saying that there will be a very nice report tabled in the House of Commons and that the committee will discuss it again a year later. What will that change? Either the regulation will already be adopted by then, which is fine, or we'll get an update, but that won't change anything about the fact that this will be an unprecedented situation that serves as a precedent because it will be the first act, the first long-term benefit for persons with disabilities for which the decision wasn't made by Parliament.

All that does is make people feel good about themselves and make them look like they did a thorough job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk on the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see things differently. I see both Madam Zarrillo's and Mr. Van Bynen's amendments as strengthening this bill. It's excellent work. I see the amendment and the subamendment really adding and building additional confidence into the process.

It would include two really important checkpoints. The first would be a pulse check. Within six months of the consultations beginning, government would have to report back to talk about how those consultations are progressing. I think it's absolutely important to make sure that those consultations are progressing as the community wants them to. It's an opportunity, also, to course correct, if required.

On Mr. Van Bynen's subamendment, the government must report back on all the regulations that were brought forward or introduced up until that point. This provides that balance. It provides two of those checkpoints. Also, it balances it against what we heard from the disability community very clearly, which was that we need to make sure we bring people, Canadians, into pay as quickly as possible. We understand the urgency. I believe this amendment strikes that balance. It's about oversight and transparency. I would also add that it does introduce two very clear timelines, six months on the consultation and within one year in terms of the regulations. The timelines are there for all to see.

Again, I commend my colleagues for bringing these amendments forward. I absolutely will be supporting both the subamendment and the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Madame Chabot, go ahead on the subamendment.

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

I just wanted to say that, since the start of the process, the government hasn't put anything forward on this.

We dropped the idea of the subamendment and the NDP amendment. The NDP decided to drop NDP‑5. That is its choice. Now we have a proposal that everyone seems comfortable with but I want to go on record as saying that this won't change anything about the regulatory process in the clause we're talking about, 11.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Seeing no further discussions, I'll call the vote on the subamendment of NDP-6, the subamendment of Mr. Van Bynen.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

We'll go to the vote on NDP-6 as amended.

Madam Gray, you wanted to speak to it? You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would have been great to have both this and also the Conservative amendment that was just voted down. They could have paired together where this one asks for a progress report in six months and then as of 10 months you actually have the regulations. This is considerably weaker, but I guess if this is all that we have, we'll support this. It's better than nothing, but it's certainly not as strong as we would have liked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further discussion, we will vote on NDP-6 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Now committee members, as I indicated, we will return to suspended clause....

I'm sorry, guys, I cut too quickly. We'll now move to PV-9, and this is deemed moved.

Mr. Morrice, it's your amendment. Do you wish to speak to it?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start by reading PV-9 into the record.

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:

11.1 The Minister must provide persons with disabilities from a range of backgrounds with meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate in the development and design of the regulations, including regulations that provide for the application process, eligibility criteria, the amount of a benefit and the appeal process.

I'll note that, given the recently passed amendment of NPD-6, this would likely be 11.2 in the amended bill if this were to pass.

This is what we heard from so many folks across the disability community, calling for the principle of nothing without us to be baked into the bill and specifically to ensure that people with disabilities across the country are involved meaningfully in the regulatory process. In particular we saw this in briefs from March of Dimes Canada, from Disability without Poverty, from Maytree, the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network and the Plan Institute.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Morrice.

Is there any discussion on PV-9?

Ms. Gray, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very important to have people with disabilities, as this does say, “from a range of backgrounds”, to have meaningful opportunities in order to have their voices heard. It does add to co-creation as well, which we heard a lot about in testimony.

We can support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing no further discussion, I will call the vote on PV-9.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(On clause 9)

We will return to clause 9, which was suspended. There was a general discussion, but we had not proceeded beyond CPC-1. The discussion was on amendment CPC-1.

Before I open the floor to discussion on CPC-1, there was some discussion the last time we met. I asked the clerk to reach out so that committee members are aware that, when any member of the committee reaches out to legislative counsel to prepare amendments, they then have client-solicitor confidentiality between the member and that branch of government. As well, the department uses the Department of Justice legal counsel and the department to provide advice on the drafting of the bill.

What you have before you is the department's legal phrasing that is in an amendment proposed by Ms. Gray. Committee members will have to choose on supporting an amendment or supporting the original draft of the section of the bill.

I will now open the floor to discussion.

Go ahead, Ms. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If it's all right, I'll read it again just so that everyone's clear on what we're referencing. I am moving to amend Bill C-22 in clause 9 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

Just as a reminder about the premise of this, we heard a lot of testimony around concerns about clawbacks. I know that at the last committee we had a lot of conversations around provincial governments, but this is strictly within federal programs. Anything that would be provincial would have to be negotiated, so that's out of the context of this. That would have to be negotiated between the government and the provinces. This is strictly within federal programs, which is also very important.

I will also note that, in this, one of the concerns was around the garnishing of wages, but paragraph 9(d) in the bill itself says it can be garnished for that reason, so it really doesn't apply to this. That's already covered.

I will mention as well that, when we went to legal in order to draft this, this is what they came back with. A lot of people had questions around the word “recovered”, but that word is in another part of the bill. It's a term that is used. It's maybe not a word that each of us would use in normal conversation, but again, legal came back with this specific wording in order to address this. Even though we heard concerns around what it might be, that was the rationale.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion on CPC-1 in clause 9? Seeing none, I will call a vote on CPC-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We'll now move to PV-5.

This amendment is deemed moved, pursuant to the motion.

Mr. Morrice, do you wish to speak to it?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PV-5 seeks to be similar to what we just saw from CPC-1 in terms of addressing clawbacks. On further review and discussion, we realized what we were looking to do isn't possible. I'd like to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We need unanimous consent to withdraw PV-5, as requested by the mover.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 12)

We'll now move to clause 12, which begins with CPC-3.

Madam Gray, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the following amendment. I'll read it here.

That Bill C-22, in clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 6 with the following:

12 As soon as feasible after the first anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force, after the third anniversary of that day and after each

This is tightening up the timeline for reviews to be had, so that we can see what is working. It also allows parliamentarians to be involved in that process. It's reducing the timelines from what is already in the legislation.

Thank you.