THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 3, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET], in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business); and, in public, to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally; and to study Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Now that we are back in public:
Is it agreed that the budget application for travel to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for a fact-finding mission under the committee’s general order of reference, in the amount of $110,450, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
Before we begin, I’d like to welcome the officials from the Office for Disability Issues at the Income Security and Social Development Branch at Employment and Social Development Canada who are with us in the room today: Elisha Ram, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security; Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues; and Mausumi Banerjee, Director, Office for Disability Issues.
Before we proceed to clause by clause, I would like to remind senators of a number of points regarding the process that we will use today. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order that they appear in the bill. I will remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we are all on the same page when we are in the process.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as a standing part of the bill.
I also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. Should this be the case, it would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where that amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it will become very difficult for members of this committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Staff will help us and endeavour to keep track of the place where subsequent amendments need to be moved, and they will draw attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
Colleagues, the committee is the ultimate master of its own business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. However, to do so, I will depend upon your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. If a roll call vote is called, the chair will cast the first vote and then we will move alphabetically down the list. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions or comments about the process?
Hearing none, I am going to give the floor to Senator Cotter first as the sponsor of the bill to address us for five minutes.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As sponsor of the bill, I appreciate the opportunity to offer these opening comments in relation to clause-by-clause consideration. These comments are general in nature, and I will offer more focused thoughts on each of the proposed amendments as we come to them. Over the next two meetings, we will be considering a significant number of amendments. I’ve reviewed each of them carefully, and it is my opinion that each of them is heartfelt in trying to make the bill better, by which I mean a bit more prescriptive or to inject more accountability.
My position as sponsor, though, is that I will ask you to take the same approach that I take. While most amendments are positive and reinforce what is clear — that each of us supports the objectives of the bill — they are not needed to advance our collective goal, and I encourage you to adopt the bill without amendments.
We are on the cusp of doing something great as parliamentarians. We are close to adopting a historic law that will make the lives of millions of our most disadvantaged Canadians in this society a little better. This is a great opportunity, honour and responsibility.
Second, the bill, intentionally a framework bill, has been crafted and modified with input from a wide variety of sources: the leadership of the disability community across Canada, government officials in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, the Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Committee, of the other place, where the bill was fine-tuned and improved, and 314 members of the other place who unanimously adopted this bill in February.
Third, the details mostly left to regulation are to be developed in partnership with the disability community. This is, again, intentional, as is noted in the bill and in Minister Qualtrough’s statements. This approach is supported by a significant majority of the disability community and all members of Parliament who voted for this from all five parties in the other place.
I note that while we heard from a wide variety of witnesses with various points of view — a tip of the hat to the chair, and to all of you who participated in those deliberations — those who spoke in favour of the bill in its present form were usually representing, in a representative capacity, dozens and dozens, hundreds of disability organizations working on behalf of hundreds of thousands of disabled people in this country.
After the hearings of this committee, they are still supportive of the adoption of the bill in its present form. Let me identify one: Inclusion Canada. Inclusion Canada speaks for all the inclusion organizations across each of the provinces and territories and tens of thousands of their clients and families. They support the bill in its present form.
Disregarding so many of these voices would be, in my view, with respect, the opposite of “nothing about us without us.” I encourage you to respect those voices who communicated the need for urgency, avoidance of risk, and a particular confidence on their part that they — working with government in developing regulations — will get it right.
As we consider the amendments, I will speak to policy reasons, why they are thoughtful but not needed and, in a couple of cases, problematic. I would not be honest or candid with you if I did not also express to you my concerns about the risk of delay. We hear that message from time to time from the Government Representative, who has an important and honourable role to play, but he is also an advocate for the government.
I want to convey my own concerns about the risk of delay. I am far less concerned about helping to achieve success for the government than I am concerned that we achieve something great for millions of disabled people in this country. This is the most important work that I will do in this chamber for a community of interest about which I, and I know you, care deeply. If most of them say, “Trust us, this bill works for us” — and I think it does — who am I to say, “I know better”?
There are two aspects that concern me. First, there is general uncertainty that an amended bill would get across the finish line in a timely way. There are liable to be a limited number of days in the calendar of the other place to entertain a message with amendments. Who knows the priorities in the other place? Who knows the uncertainty of the world of politics? I certainly don’t. In a short time, I know nothing can be taken for granted.
Secondly, I don’t know what the disability benefit will ultimately cost. Let’s say it’s $2 billion a year. I am making up this number; I have no idea what it is. Three months’ delay in the implementation of this bill — roughly the amount of time it would take to consider this bill in the early fall — would cost people with disabilities over $500 million. Even a month’s delay would cost them, by this math, over $150 million. Even on this basis, I would not want to stand in the way of such a delay and cost to people in desperate need of support, unless I thought amendments were critical to the functioning of the bill.
My message is: I invite you to think about whether amendments you consider are necessary to make this bill work, or whether they are just attractive and constructive but unnecessary. Does the adoption of the bill and delay in the finalization of the bill justify the small but significant risk of jeopardy to the whole bill and the certainty of at least some delay in the benefit getting to people? I will argue those are not necessary for the success of the bill and I hope you will agree.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cotter.
Senator Kutcher: Colleagues, I have given up my spot on this committee for voting and discussion to Senator Cotter as the sponsor of the bill. I wanted to share with you my own thinking about the bill before you start the deliberations. I will participate but I cannot vote.
I have struggled mightily, and many of you have as well, over whether this is good enough or not good enough. It has been a real struggle. I have spoken with many people who did not appear before us, because this is such a concerning issue. I agree with Senator Cotter. This is a life-defining bill.
I have a number of friends who live in abject circumstances because of their disability, and it is just not fair.
The way that I try to resolve this, which I will share with you, is that this is a framework bill. That has different meanings for us. We need to remember that much of the hard lifting will happen in the regulations that the bill puts forward.
I am also very aware that the runway to Royal Assent is very short. I don’t know what level of risk we are comfortable with as a group, if that runway shortens or can’t be extended. I did not know the numbers that Senator Cotter talked about, and I don’t know that I trust his math, but I do know that the runway is extremely short.
We have heard overwhelming inputs telling us that the community wants us to move ahead without amendments. We have heard overwhelming inputs that they have confidence in the process and that they are active participants in the process in terms of writing the regulations and that they are very much looking forward to being part of that process.
We did hear other concerns. We have noted them, for sure. I have noted them as well. That is what gave me my struggle.
My thinking, before I stated my position to Senator Cotter, was that I would test every amendment under a particular test. I am sorry. I am using the legal term. I have absolutely no idea about legal terms. That is what you use. The test I used is: Is the amendment substantively important enough that it can’t be dealt with in regulation? That’s what I would think is my test. You might have a different test.
If there are components that people are suggesting as amendments that could be reinforced and considered in amendments, I would suggest that we make observations on those.
Thank you for listening to me and, hopefully, sharing my concerns and my struggle as I went through this bill.
Senator Petitclerc: For myself, I wanted to voice that I find this is a very unusual practice, to have opening remarks from the sponsor. In my experience — I have been here for seven years — it’s the first time. It’s making me a little uncomfortable. I suggest if we change to that practice, the members should know so that we can prepare opening remarks too.
Senator Dasko: I have no prepared remarks. I want to speak to some of the points that have been raised.
As we know, members of the committee have been working on this bill for many weeks. I can’t remember the date we started. It is correct to say that we have had many witnesses here who have urged us to proceed without amendments, without change.
Others have come here with the opposite argument, to say that changes and improvements are definitely needed to this bill, which is what we believe we are doing. Improvements are needed. I observed the committee review and consideration in the other place were able to make changes.
As we heard different witnesses on both sides of this, it became clear to me that some of us on this committee — I don’t know exactly how many — were working on amendments because we listened to those who argued that this bill needed change. We were working on amendments, whereas others were not.
I agree with Senator Petitclerc. To hear this particular message at this point is a little unsettling because some of us have worked very hard on amendments and do feel that the bill is in need of change. We don’t believe that we are putting the bill in jeopardy. This is a new argument we heard today.
That is what I would observe has happened over the last several weeks. I know that some senators have worked on amendments and have pulled them back because others have come forward with the same amendment. There are a number of us who do think that this bill could be vastly improved by the changes we are proposing.
As for myself, today, to explain, I will be proposing a couple of amendments. Senator Lankin had a number of amendments that she wants to propose. She’s not able to be here today, so she’s asked me to advance her amendments. She is very enthusiastic about this process, so I will be advancing a number of amendments on her behalf. Those will be identified.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dasko. Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 which contains the short title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry? Senator McPhedran, I believe you have an amendment on clause 2.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I want to make sure that we’re talking about my proposal to add, following line 23.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: I would like to offer an observation on this, which I’ve also shared, and let the section stand as it is.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. In other words, you’re withdrawing your amendment, and you will speak again on observations. Thank you for that clarification.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. This is a suggestion to further clarify. It doesn’t change the existing wording. It adds as follows — let me get the beginning of the wording.
The Chair: The line as well, please.
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing line 2 with the following:
“they
(a) meet the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations; or
(b) are receiving any benefit or compensation (as defined in section 2 of the Government Employees Compensation Act) set out in the regulations.”.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, perhaps you’d like to explain your amendment in further detail, and then we can take questions from the senators and go to the officials.
Senator McPhedran: Yes. I would put this under the overall theme of potential clawbacks, of which there are many modes. We’ve already established, I think in our discussions, that at the federal level we have real limited capacity to deal with clawbacks. This is one potential area where a benefit is seen potentially as making someone ineligible. It is a clarification that we’re not taking away that the Canada disability benefit would flow to those who are receiving compensation under the Government Employees Compensation Act.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have questions or comments on this amendment?
Senator Osler: Not being a lawyer, I would appreciate hearing opinions from committee members and legal experts at the table about the wording in the proposed motion. Could this be adequately captured in the yet-to-be-developed regulations?
Senator McPhedran: I don’t style myself as a legal expert on this particular bill, but I do have some background over the years in the difference between “regulation” and “statute.” I think we just have to bear in mind the practical reality. We have absolutely no influence over the regulations. A great deal could be put into the regulations, and a great deal could be left out of the regulations.
Technically, it could potentially be addressed, but because this is about eligibility, it seems like an area where we would want to be as clear and expansive as possible.
Senator Cotter: With respect, this identifies a category of eligible beneficiaries of the Canada disability benefit. It doesn’t actually speak to clawbacks here. I think there’s an intention to include this as an additional feature of the clawback provision a bit later in the bill.
It’s not illegitimate that these folks should be entitled and sheltered from clawbacks, but it is a highly unusual circumstance to single out one single category of federal beneficiaries when one thinks about all the other benefits that are made available to federal government employees and to provincial people who would be normally entitled to fit in here under eligibility. It’s a bit confusing to single out this one group and guarantee their place in the scheme without consideration of any of the others.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the idea, but its placement in the legislation privileges this group and no others when there is a high degree of expectation that comprehensive eligibility will be developed in consultation with the disability community, who tend to know the wide range of programs that support the people they speak for and who can ensure that that wide range of people will be included as eligible.
I guess I would say this provision is nowhere near being necessary to achieve the goals unless you think the government will make a real effort to exclude people. This would be one that I think would be naturally included, but by far not the only one.
Senator Gold: Thank you, chair, for your work and thank you to the committee members on this.
I think that the government doesn’t support this amendment, but we’re actually not supporting any amendments for different reasons. This one is on policy grounds for the reasons that Senator Cotter outlined and I won’t repeat.
I do want to underline two points. First, the statute is clear that the regulations are going to be developed in concert with members of the disability community. The government has confidence in that process and the members of the community to do the right thing. In that regard, I think the statute does provide a lot of comfort to me, and I hope to members of the committee, that this will be done responsibly, respectfully and effectively.
I won’t belabour the point, but I’m sure that all members of this committee are aware that the rules in the House of Commons for how legislation is dealt with are very different from the Senate. I’m not going to try to school you on that, but when Senator Cotter says there are very few government days left, multiply by two the number of bills that can be debated on those limited government days — and by the way, it’s a minority government — because the House works differently than the Senate.
When you look at the calendar of bills that the government is trying to get through to us before they rise — and I won’t list them, but we all know what they are; they’re very much in the news — the government has a real concern that they might not have the time or take the time, given their own legislative priorities, to deal with the Senate amendments before we rise. That poses a risk that this important bill will be delayed, if not worse.
So that is the underlying reason, as meritorious and well intentioned as many of the amendments are, the government is just not able to support them. I won’t belabour the point every time; I’ll speak only to policy. Thank you for the time.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senators Gold and Cotter, for that context.
I understand what Senator Cotter is saying — that the groups want to be a part of that decision — but we also heard witnesses who said that they want to be sure that if they are receiving a benefit, it should be automatic. That’s how I understand it.
Have you given thought to why it should be there, or should it be left to the group? They voiced it so much that they will make sure it happens.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the question.
One could look at this addition of (b) as an invitation for that consulting process to indicate that there is room here for more specificity without presuming the full list, as referenced by Senator Cotter. This is a very specific example of a large group, which becomes an invitation in those ongoing consultations to expand upon the eligibility criteria.
I think the sense of this is that if it is left as is, it is completely wide-open territory that might be appropriately occupied, but it might not; whereas, this is a marker of a good, practical and particular place to start.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I wish to ask Assistant Deputy Minister Ram or any of your team about the impact of this bill on the proposed objective.
Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Employment and Social Development Canada: I think you are asking me about this particular amendment.
It would not have an impact on what we set out in the regulations. The regulations will still determine eligibility. I believe it would be redundant in the sense that it doesn’t provide any more legal effect in terms of how we would determine that in the regulations.
I think it does cause some concern in terms of what it means. The language “any benefit” — does that mean any benefit that anyone would receive, such as, for example, Employment Insurance? The reference in here in terms of the compensation as defined under the Government Employees Compensation Act, for example, is really about compensation for federal employees. I don’t have a lot of data in terms of how many of those individuals would be living in poverty.
I do think using eligibility of other programs to determine eligibility for this program would be difficult to implement. It would, in the first instance, create differential eligibility across the country, because there is no uniform approach across the country if we are talking about this. It would limit portability of benefits for individuals going across. It would be unprecedented in terms of federal benefits to have a program that would have eligibility that is not determined by the Government of Canada. There would be fiscal implications. If provinces, for example, were changing a benefit, that could potentially have a fiscal cost for us in determining it.
In terms of actually operationalizing that, it would take a considerable amount of time for us to set up information-sharing agreements and to receive the information about eligibility.
Also, many of the programs have individuals who come in and out of eligibility, so we would be entitling and disentitling persons with disabilities. For a benefit that is really about poverty, that situation would be really challenging, and it would actually create a lot of problems for the individuals we are trying to support.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any further questions? There is no rush in doing this. I want to make sure we all have the time to consider what is before us.
Senator McPhedran: For clarification, do I understand that you’re saying that if (b) were to be added to this clause, it would disqualify people, they would lose a benefit or they would regain a benefit?
What you outlined sounded very dire, so I’m wondering if you wouldn’t mind clarifying. Are you saying that adding this would cause people to lose a benefit?
Ms. Wilcox: I’m happy to clarify.
I’m saying that if we were to consider an approach that would use the eligibility of other programs as the basis for this benefit — defining that in regulations in terms of using other benefits, such as the one that’s referred to here — the nature of some of these programs, like workers’ compensation, is that individuals receive the benefit for a period of time. Sometimes for workers’ compensation — let’s take it as an example — workers who are receiving workers compensation sometimes return to work. They are receiving employment payments again, but they can have relapses and go back on to workers’ compensation.
If we were using that for the purpose of this benefit in determining eligibility, if they were to lose their eligibility for those programs, they would also lose eligibility for our program, unless they met other criteria that were set out in the regulations.
That’s the concern we would have, for example, about using provincial and territorial social assistance programs, which are also similar. People are entitled and disentitled to those programs depending upon their income levels. They are programs of last resort. For insurance programs where they’re coming in and out of pay, this would be administratively very difficult for us, and it would be challenging for individuals themselves in that they would be constantly having to reapply or have some sort of administrative mechanism that would have us pay them and then stop paying them. That could potentially be very disruptive to them.
Senator McPhedran: I’ll just say for the record that that’s a description of how you plan to implement the Canada disability benefit that has a very different appearance than, for example, Old Age Security benefit with the disability supplement. In other words, this taking away, giving back and having to reapply is quite different from the impression I’ve had of the purpose of this program and the fact that it would be reliable and not be the kind of bureaucratic nightmare that so many people living with disabilities already face.
For me, that’s a very disturbing description you’ve just given us of how you anticipate administering the Canada disability benefit.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry? We have two amendments here. Senator McPhedran’s amendment is line 14. Senator Dasko’s amendment is 14(a). I will give Senator McPhedran the floor.
Senator McPhedran: I would just like to say that I think the intent of both of the amendments before us is the same, and I would like to defer to Senator Dasko.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, you are withdrawing your amendment?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties]. Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: I move:
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 7, on page 3, by replacing line 14 with the following:
“Act, the Social Insurance Number or other forms of government identification of an applicant.”.
We have heard from some witnesses that just limiting it to the use of a social insurance number is too limiting for people with disabilities, in particular those who do not have a social insurance number. These are people who may be homeless, are simply not working or are facing other conditions.
This is obviously a very simple amendment. This is simply permitting other forms of government identification to be used rather than just the social insurance number. This aligns with the goal of ensuring that applicants are maximally accessible for the benefit.
As well, it is not just limited to those who don’t have a social insurance number. Even if you have one, according to this amendment you might also be able to use another form of identification. What it does is it permits maximum flexibility for applicants to use one or another form of government identification. Government identification, I think, is important because it can’t be opened up to any kind of identification, but this does open it up to other forms of government identification. That is the reasoning that I would place on that.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Cotter for a question, may I ask one of you? What other forms of government identification that are federal?
Senator Dasko: It doesn’t say federal.
The Chair: It doesn’t say federal.
Senator Dasko: No.
The Chair: So a provincial driver’s licence.
Senator Dasko: Yes, that is a form of government identification that one would think could be used by officials. There would be others.
The Chair: Questions?
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Senator Dasko. I guess my question is when I look at clause 7, it says:
The Minister is authorized to collect and use, for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act, the Social Insurance Number of an applicant.
But it doesn’t preclude the use of any other identification. It doesn’t say any other identification is not acceptable.
I’m just wondering about this. It says she’s authorized to collect and use social insurance numbers, but if someone has another kind of identification, it doesn’t say she can’t accept that.
Senator Dasko: Yes.
The Chair: I will be linear about this, colleagues.
Senator Dasko: I think this is an important clarification to make sure it’s clear that other forms can be used, because if we’re just mentioning the social insurance number, I think it raises a little bit of doubt as to whether forms can be used. So this actually does put on paper in the bill the ability for other forms to be used, and it says so specifically.
Senator McPhedran, you may have something to add. Okay.
The Chair: I said I would go linearly, which means that Senator McPhedran should respond. I will go after you straight to Senator Cotter, who has had his hand raised for some time.
Senator Cotter: With the greatest respect, I think there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of this clause in the legislation. This is really as much as anything a privacy point. Social insurance numbers are very carefully guarded. They’re expected to be guarded by the government. What this clause really does is authorize this minister to access social insurance numbers for the purpose of this program. It’s not intended to even communicate a suggestion of exclusion of people who don’t have SINs but open the door to facilitate the administration of the program. With respect, as a result, the amendment is actually not needed, because this only is a key that unlocks access to SIN numbers. So you don’t even have to mention the others in this. This is actually a door opening.
Ms. Wilcox, have I got that right?
Ms. Wilcox: Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed you do. In fact, I would point out that clause 6 already provides the minister with the opportunity to collect other information that might be needed in respect of the application for this. So my view would be that this is redundant, that it’s already covered in the bill, and this is, in fact, about the legal authority for us to use the SIN for the purposes of administration of this program. It doesn’t compel the minister to use it. It enables her to use it.
Senator McPhedran: Again, a point of clarification. Certainly, as I read clause 6, it is limited to an applicant “. . . incapable of managing their own affairs . . .” That’s a very narrow definition, so it’s very interesting to me that you would expand it in this way.
The Chair: Do you have a response, Ms. Wilcox?
Ms. Wilcox: Indeed I do. If you read it, it says “An applicant or the representative of an applicant . . .” So, in fact, the second part of that is just providing for, for example, people with disabilities sometimes cannot make their own decisions. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I think the clarity that I needed has been answered. I just wanted to be sure, because we did hear that the social insurance number doesn’t cover everybody that we want to reach. But this has clarified it for me so thank you.
Senator Moodie: We heard this a couple of times. If we are having difficulty interpreting this as not just being a unique identifier, the social insurance number, and others have said that they’re having difficulty because it is a unique identifier that has been named in the bill, I’m concerned that the answers we have gotten are not adequate. Because, in fact, we are interpreting it. We are concerned about it. We’re raising the concern of the uniqueness of this one identifier. Others have come forward with the same concern. All of us can’t be wrong in our interpretation. We’re interpreting what we’re reading.
Senator Gold: I take your point, Senator Moodie, but do I understand this correctly? If I may check this again with the officials, I understand that this is facilitative, designed to protect privacy because absent this clause there would be legal constraints around the collection and use of this. It’s completely separate and apart from the regulations, which will be developed with the communities. Representatives of persons with disabilities will come to the table saying, this is the range of identification we may need. That will be in the regulations. But this is absolutely necessary to circumscribe the privacy protections that the law provides.
Senator Moodie: I do not agree that clause 6 speaks to the minister seeking any and all information. It speaks very specifically to an applicant who is incapable of — there is no comma on mine. I read it as-is.
I am concerned that, although this may be authorizing the minister to use social insurance numbers — and there are privacy concerns around that — it also implies that there is the idea of choice. That’s how it could be interpreted.
Senator Seidman: It’s always challenging to read these bills, always, for those of us who try and understand them for clause by clause.
I think the clarification of clause 6, obligation to provide information, is really clear to me because it’s an applicant or the representative of an applicant who is incapable of managing their own affairs. It’s an applicant, and then there’s an applicant who needs a representative because they are incapable of managing their own affairs. The reading of that line is absolutely clear. I have no trouble with it.
As far as the SIN is concerned, for research purposes we know that access to SIN is impossible. It is a question of privacy. Even the minister wouldn’t have access to a SIN number unless the minister is authorized in the legislation. That is the issue here.
If I understood correctly, it’s a matter of legal authorization to the SIN; without it, no one would have access to the SIN. The SIN is a particular kind of identifier. Granted, not everyone has one. Then there are allowances for people who don’t; they can provide different information. That’s my understanding of it.
I will end and not belabour it further.
Senator Bovey: I agree with Senator Seidman.
Senator Gold: As do I. It is made explicitly clear in French. Both versions are authoritative. One is read with the other.
In the French:
[Translation]
“Le demandeur ou” , comma, “s’il est incapable de gérer ses propres affaires, comma, “son représentant” and so on. So it’s very clear in both texts, in both official languages, just like my colleague Senator Seidman is saying.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
An Hon. Senator: No.
The Chair: It is accordingly defeated.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Agreed.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator McPhedran: If I may speak to this, again, we’re in one of the areas that has the most potential risk to people living in poverty, living with disabilities.
If things happen to go wrong with the regulations, there could be any number of scenarios — they don’t have to require malicious intent — where the whole nature of the agreements that are referenced in clause 8 —
A couple of things I would like to point out about the existing wording in clause 8: That this is entirely optional that “. . . the minister may enter into agreements . . .” and “. . . may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with any department or agency of a province.”
We’re facing a possible scenario where there are no agreements. We’re also facing a possible scenario where, in order to reach an agreement, the kind of negotiations that happen at the provincial, territorial and federal level may well involve trade-offs and significant compromise. This is the nature of the political craft in many ways. This is where the proposed addition of subclause 8(1.1) comes in because, if it’s not in the statute, it doesn’t exist as any kind of safety net for the very good intentions that are articulated in the bill.
We are all familiar with numerous experts who have expressed concerns about there not being the kind of movement on this that I’m sure the minister hopes there will be. I note that some of those who came to us and said, “Don’t touch it, pass it,” then went on in their remarks to express concerns about the process not actually following through, and they decided to put their good faith into that process.
This strikes a balance in between the completely blank slate that’s articulated as it stands and the proposed addition which says:
Despite anything else in this Act or the regulations, within six months of the Minister entering into an agreement under subsection (1) that prevents any recovery of or deduction from any Canada disability benefit, the Minister must commence the payment of the benefit to eligible applicants who are resident in the province to which that agreement pertains.
It’s not changing the eligibility, “. . . applicants who are resident in the province to which that agreement pertains.”
Proposed subclause 8(1.1) is about agreements being made. It is about actually following through and commencing the payments within a reasonable amount of time.
Proposed subclause 8(1.2) covers the situations where no agreement has been reached. There may be many different factors taking us to that place where there is no agreement. In those situations, again, this is a statutory commitment that the minister clearly has the capacity. In fact, there is an onus, I would say — without it being too heavy-handed — to start paying the benefit, even if it has not been possible to reach an agreement.
Almost everyone here will be familiar with why we ended up with Jordan’s Principle. It’s derived from Manitoba. I would like to speak to it briefly. There are, of course, many differences. It comes down to a little disabled boy died without ever being able to go home after months and months in a hospital because levels of government would not step up and did not take responsibility to focus on what was needed for Jordan.
Jordan’s Principle comes out of the kind of situation that we might well see in this Canada disability benefit arena as well. None of us here are naive enough to think that provincial, territorial and federal agreements come easily, quickly or, in some cases, at all.
These proposed additions just reinforce that the focus here is on getting money to people with disabilities who need it for the sake of dignity and trying to get to an optimal health level, and their purpose is to follow through on the overall promise that is in this bill.
Senator Petitclerc: A quick question, Senator McPhedran, because it covers a lot. I am sure I know the answer to this, namely that you have gone to a law office and you’ve done your homework to make sure that the wording conforms to this as well as where it is placed in the bill. I want to have that on the record.
Senator McPhedran: Of course. I appreciate the question, Senator Petitclerc. The drafting of this particular proposal has come about from numerous consultations with very experienced lawyers in the field, not only in disability rights but also in the field of legislative drafting.
I also want to underscore that, with this timeline of six months, the emphasis is on maintaining the discretion of the minister so that where it has not been possible to reach an agreement, it’s focused on the follow-through of the promise that money that will lift disabled people out of poverty will flow.
Senator Cotter: I agree with Senator McPhedran that if adopted, it is in the right place in the bill. But with the greatest of respect, I think this is a bad idea.
First, proposed subclause 8(1.1) essentially licences the minister to withhold money from recipients. She may choose not to do that but the tenor of that first provision is that she doesn’t have to pay.
You might remember that Minister Qualtrough, both in her letter and in her testimony, said that notwithstanding no agreements, it was her intention to pay immediately. In some ways her commitment is stronger than this provision in the bill. In fact, this bill invites her to do the opposite.
Second, I understand the nature of this being a degree of leverage in the bargaining with provinces and territories, but, to date, to the credit of the government in trying to construct reasonable agreements with the provinces and territories, the bill itself hasn’t been designed to create leverage in those negotiations. I think that has been done consciously out of respect for the provinces and territories and to try not to hold their feet to the fire and try to make them either look bad in public or punish them. That’s pressure that will be brought to bear on provinces that might be reluctant to sign an agreement that these benefits work in a healthy way in tandem. This is a kind of in-your-face message that I think would undermine the goodwill that the minister has developed in the negotiations with provinces and territories. I would encourage you not to adopt it.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. I think we heard something about this in testimony. However, as a Quebecer, we all know about the jurisdictional issues that occur consistently. I think this would create a huge problem for the Quebec government, frankly.
I’m going back now to the kind of point that Senator Cotter made. I think it’s very in your face. I don’t know how I feel about it but, generally speaking, whenever we deal with reports or legislation, there are always issues around jurisdiction and Quebec and their reaction. I don’t think this is healthy for the kinds of discussions that the government and the provinces are going to have. I’m sure Quebec isn’t alone. I’m sure there are other provinces that don’t want to be told how to conduct and within what length of time to come to an agreement.
In fact, I asked the question directly to the minister when she was here testifying in the committee hearings at the outset. She said clearly, and quite demonstratively — and I was quite surprised — that if there was no agreement, it did not matter. This benefit would be paid directly to the recipient without any agreement, regardless of any agreement. She was quite demonstrative about that. That’s a strong statement and she would be hard put to withdraw it.
Senator McPhedran: I think the specific references to the minister create an opportunity for me to also put on the record — underscored by a lengthy discussion with her in the last couple of days — that this is an honourable, dedicated, skilled minister. We are lucky to have her as the minister. However, there is nothing to say that we will have her tomorrow. that we will have her at the crucial time when these actions and this follow-through need to be taken. I certainly share in the hope that that is the scenario. However, a statute has to address and try to deal with situations where the rose-coloured glasses have to come off.
As a point of clarification in response, Senator Seidman, I want to point out that the way you addressed proposed subclause 8(1.1) is maybe a little different from what is actually here in that we’re talking about 1.1 applying after an agreement has been entered into. It’s not a prophylactic against there being good discussions and agreements. It’s after an agreement is entered into, and it addresses the flowing of money. It addresses actually getting the money to people living with disabilities. That is a bit of a difference from the way you characterized that provision. It in no way interferes with the eligibility process because it clearly accepts that eligibility will have been predetermined.
In regard to the proposed subclauses 8(1.1) and 8(1.2), and with genuine respect for Senator Cotter’s extensive experience in federal-provincial negotiations, I would say something similar. The minister came here and said that as this particular minister, at this particular time, nothing would stop her from starting the payments, even if there was no agreement. Excellent. All proposed subclause 8(1.2) does is put into words what the minister herself said to us so that, should there be a change, there will be a similar level of commitment and follow-through. The statute will help to make that happen. However, if it’s not there, it’s not there.
The Chair: Senator Gold, I would like to go to the officials as well. Ms. Wilcox, I see you nodding.
Ms. Wilcox: Thank you very much. Perhaps I could provide a couple of points of clarification. In the first instance, the language that is used in the proposed amendment, “recovery of or deduction from any Canada disability benefit” is really not what we are going to be doing with provinces and territories. The nature of when we talk about clawbacks is, in essence, how provinces and territories will treat the Canada disability benefit as income under their legislation and regulations. Recovery in this sense is really about after a benefit has been paid, having it clawed back. That will not happen. There are separate programs. They have separate rules, and the negotiations are really about how that will be treated in different programs rather than actually having an impact on the benefit itself and what is paid by the government.
The second thing I wanted to clarify is that it’s not clear in terms of how this amendment will work with respect to the coming-into-force clause. It’s not clear how it would work with respect to the coming into force of regulations, which really is the trigger for how we would pay the benefits. We may enter into, for example, agreements with provinces and territories well in advance of the regulations being made, but we would not be able to make payments until those regulations are made, so it does create a bit of confusion for us as to the sequencing of how this will all come together.
The final thing is that if we have a sequencing of some provinces receiving this benefit before others, or individuals in those provinces receiving benefits before others, we come back to the some of the issues that I have raised before. You will have issues around portability benefits. What if I live in B.C. and have an agreement there, and that gets paid first, but I will be moving to Alberta? I get disentitled when I move to Alberta.
Operationally, this would be challenging for us to administer. We would have to set up systems that would allow us to pay in one province versus another. There would be issues of fairness and equity across provinces: “Why am I being paid in one province but not another? This is a national program.” Those are the things I want to point out to the committee in considering.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wilcox.
Senator Gold: I think Senator McPhedran wanted to respond to the minister.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
Could you please tell us a little more about this disentitlement that you have emphasized pretty much every time you have spoken? Are you talking about someone who is eligible for the Canada disability benefit being disentitled if they change provinces? Is that what you just told us?
Ms. Wilcox: No, let me please clarify.
I am suggesting that the way this amendment has been written, which would require us to pay the benefit in provinces where an agreement had been made, would create a sequencing issue where we could, in theory, have the situation where you have people in different provinces receiving the benefit and others not. If they were to move from one province to another, it would create an administrative challenge for us that they are no longer living in the province in which you had an agreement. Therefore, potentially, they would no longer be eligible for the benefit.
I am raising this because we are talking about a national program. In national programs — for every single one we have in the Government of Canada for a benefit — we create national-level eligibility criteria that apply across the country. If we were to break the administration and eligibility down by province, it would create the problem in terms of portability of benefits, which is effectively disentitlement if you are no longer eligible if you move from one province to another.
That’s what I am speaking about. As you create complexity around the eligibility criteria or how it is paid, that brings into question how it is operationalized for individuals.
Senator McPhedran: Surely that is not okay. That scenario is exactly why there is such strong interest in a portable national disability benefit.
And that is a better scenario — the consistency, the reliability — by setting this out in proposed subclauses 8(1.1) and 8(1.2.), so that the money actually flows to those who need it.
The Chair: Is that a statement or a question, Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: It’s probably both. The emphasis on disentitlement is really shocking to me.
Elisha Ram, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Perhaps I can attempt to clarify things.
There are two issues you are trying to address with this amendment. One is the issue of ensuring that individuals living in every province have an opportunity to access the benefit. That is certainly what we are trying to do. If you refer back to clause 5, clause 5 makes it clear that once eligibility conditions have been established in the regulations, the minister must pay the benefit. There is no question that once those regulations come into force, the minister is bound by the legislation to pay the benefits to those individuals who are eligible.
So whether or not the government enters into an agreement with a province around how the province will treat the income from the benefit, the minister must pay that benefit.
The second issue is around the issue of when the benefit will become payable, which is a reference to the six months.
Again, I fall back to clause 5. Once regulations come into place, the minister must pay. There is no timing difference. As soon as the person demonstrates eligibility, the payment must be made. Adding the six-month condition really doesn’t speed up the process any, because if the regulations are in place, the minister must pay. If the regulations are not in place, there is no way to establish eligibility.
There is a conflation of the two issues, which was the point Ms. Wilcox was making. If we follow the language of the proposed amendment, as stated, you could have a situation — could, not necessarily would — where if a minister has entered into an agreement with a province, the minister must pay individuals in that province within six months. But if the regulations are not yet in force, you could have a problem of consistency between the coming into force and the amendment. If followed through on, you can have a situation with an individual in a province where an agreement was made must be paid before individuals in other parts of the country must be paid. That is a situation that could cause a portability problem.
We’re not disagreeing at all with the intent. We’re simply pointing out that the way this has been drafted does not achieve the objective that you set it up for.
Senator McPhedran: I would like to observe that the agreements that are being addressed in this clause require a decision to sign the agreement. So when the minister and the minister’s officials know that this is part of the statute and that the focus is on getting the money to flow to people who desperately need it as soon as possible, I have every faith in this minister and generally that it’s possible to coordinate the timing so that the signing of the agreement is consistent with the statute and the very reasonable six-month timeline.
It’s not like somebody drops from a helicopter with a pre-signed agreement. This is in the statute. It’s clear. It’s reasonable. There can be a coordination of the processes so that the statute can be honoured and the money can flow to those who need it.
The Chair: I am happy. We are doing well on time, so there is no rush.
Senator Cotter: On this point, Senator McPhedran is correct that the timing issue around agreements could be managed constructively. But this provision makes it possible that the benefit will be available to some people in British Columbia and not available to some people in Alberta, as a hypothetical example, because this authorizes the minister to not pay the benefit in provinces where there is no agreement.
That’s inconsistent with the philosophy of the bill. It creates the heartbreaking possibility that somebody who is getting the benefit in British Columbia will move to Alberta, where there is no benefit because there is no agreement yet. If that person continues to get the money while living in Alberta, how can that be fair to the disabled person living across the street who is not getting that benefit?
This creates the dilemma of diversity when the whole objective, to the credit of the minister and the government here, is to have a universal distribution of the benefit and not hold up benefits coming to provinces on the basis of the existence or absence of agreements.
If we create a circumstance where the minister has the power not to deliver the benefit, we create the risk of this kind of inconsistency in the delivery of the benefit to people who really need it.
Senator McPhedran: If I may, proposed subclause 8(1.2) captures what the minister herself said to us that she was prepared to do. In fairness and to avoid a situation where any one or more provinces and territories could hold everyone else hostage and delay paying out.
The whole nature of disentitlement because someone has to move is not the core of a national benefit. There absolutely may be some timing glitches along the way, but there is no question that we have to be moving to the national benefit that’s available and is portable. We don’t do that to people with Old Age Security. We don’t do that to families with the child care benefit or the disability supplement to the child care benefit.
Senator Petitclerc: Maybe you can give clarity. What you just said is important, Senator Cotter. That’s not how I understood the testimony. I need clarity on it. We’ve heard from a lot of witnesses that they expect that once the regulations are done, once the agreements with a province or a territory are settled, then the money starts to flow, and we’re not waiting for everybody to agree. That would sincerely scare me, because who knows?
I’m not talking about one person moving. That’s something else. It’s also important, but we hope that all agreements will be done together and very quickly, but what if they aren’t?
I would like to hear more about that.
Senator Cotter: As we heard from the officials, clause 5 requires the benefit to be paid — that is, unless we write in a condition here that said no provincial agreement, no benefit. However the minister has said the opposite.
Clause 5 requires the benefit to be paid. The situation that this provision invites is the opposite of what the bill is trying to do, namely, to provide a national benefit regardless of agreements. Agreements or no agreements, people get the benefit if they qualify.
This invites a minister to say to a province and the people in that province — it’s implicit in here and they intend it — that you don’t have an agreement, we can withhold payments to the people in your province. That seems to run counter to the whole conception of the bill.
This is a form of leverage in negotiation with the provinces, but that’s unsatisfactory in the world of federal-provincial relations. The premise of proposed subclause 8(1.1) is that in cases where there is no agreement with the province, no benefit is paid.
Imagine a situation where you have no agreement and you’re paying, and then you have agreement. You don’t need this provision. This contemplates a circumstance where benefits are not being made. Once there’s an agreement, the minister has to start paying. However, it implicitly says that until there is an agreement, there is no payment if that’s the choice the government makes.
Why would we want that arrangement when the concept, as Senator McPhedran has pointed out, is a universal national benefit? We don’t want to tinker with the potential for the withholding in some provinces once everything is lined up pursuant to clause 5. We want the benefits to go out the door. If provinces are advantage taking in some respects, that will need to be addressed by other means, but not by withholding agreement and the consequent withholding of a benefit.
I don’t think that was ever the intention of this legislation or what the minister told us.
Senator McPhedran: I very much appreciate being able to respond to that.
While Senator Cotter offered us his interpretation of proposed subclause 8(1.1), I would like to invite all senators to listen to what it actually says:
Despite anything else in this Act or the regulations, within six months of the Minister entering into an agreement under subsection (1) that prevents any recovery of or deduction from any Canada disability benefit, the Minister must commence the payment of the benefit to eligible applicants who are resident in the province to which that agreement pertains.
So the agreement has been made, and the money needs to flow in a reasonable amount of time, within six months. Six months is a very long time to people living in poverty.
That’s what it actually says. With all due respect, I don’t think your interpretation is correct, Senator Cotter.
Senator Cotter: Doesn’t it mean in this contemplation that you just described that the benefit would not be flowing until that agreement was signed and the six months passed?
Senator McPhedran: No, because you have proposed subclause 8(1.2). Whether there are agreements or not, the emphasis is on getting the money to flow and allowing, through the statute, the minister to follow through on the commitment that she made here, or if she has a successor who might not be as committed as she is, you then have more of a statutory framework that’s going to motivate following through on the promise.
Senator Cotter: With respect, proposed subclause 8(1.1) just articulates a patchwork possibility.
Senator McPhedran: Canada is a patchwork reality.
Senator Cotter: But with respect, a moment ago you said that we wanted a non-patchwork regime —
Senator McPhedran: Absolutely, and this works toward it. It’s an incremental process.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran and Senator Cotter, this is a terrific conversation, but maybe it is time for me to allow someone else to speak.
Senator Gold: Yes, it is a good conversation, and, yes, there is some debate about the meaning, not the good intentions behind it. We heard from the officials as well that some of it is misleading because of the way in which the benefit is going to work — not as a clawback or recovery but in terms of how it is treated in the provinces.
For this reason, plus the clear statement of the minister, both in writing and testimony, of what her intentions are — and she speaks on behalf of the government — I think this is not sufficiently necessary and carries with it the risk of delay that Senator Cotter and I alluded to at the outset, which, on balance, is why I would recommend voting against it, respectfully.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, one last time, please.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. This is a minority government. The minister may well change. The intent and the wording of proposed subclauses 8(1.1) and (1.2) are the opposite. They are not to cause delay; they are to cure delay. They are to prevent delay, and the wording is consistent (a) with what the minister said to us; and (b) with the whole idea of moving efficiently and quickly after the agreements are reached.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. Senator Gold wants to quickly respond.
Senator Gold: The delay I was referring to is the delay of getting the bill to Royal Assent.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Gold: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: We will go to a recorded vote. You know the drill.
Emily Barrette, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Omidvar, Chair?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Barrette: Yeas, five. Nays, eight. Abstentions, zero.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Senator Dasko: I have an amendment which is put forward by Senator Lankin:
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 9, on page 3, by replacing lines 27 and 28 with the following:
“(c) cannot be recovered or retained by way of deduction, set-off or compensation, in whole or in part, under any Act of Parliament other than”.
This amendment, and the next one, deal with the issue of clawbacks, which has been an issue that has come up many times in our deliberations on the bill with various witnesses. I will speak to this one. This one deals with federal clawbacks. The next one deals with clawbacks with respect to insurance companies.
The intent of this amendment is to prevent clawbacks to the disabled community from federal programs, very similar in wording to what is there now, but it does provide clarification with respect to federal clawbacks.
As you can see, the wording is quite similar, but it does say that clawbacks cannot be recovered or retained by way of deduction, set-off or compensation in whole or in part. A key difference between this and what’s there now is that the federal government cannot take this benefit back in whole or in part.
It’s meant to provide an important clarification with respect to federal clawbacks. That’s the reason for the change in wording. The federal government should not, itself, claw back any funds paid to people with disabilities who receive the benefit.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dasko.
May I ask Mr. Ram to make a comment?
Mr. Ram: Thank you, Madam Chair.
We understand what the intent is behind the proposed amendment. From a technical perspective, however, I don’t think it’s clear that the amendment, as stated, would actually achieve the intended effect. Effectively, subclause 9(c) is intended to ensure the federal government cannot use the Canada disability benefit as a way of getting back money that an individual might owe the federal Crown for other reasons; for instance, maybe they owe some income taxes or have an overpayment on another benefit.
Subclause 9(c) is meant to ensure we cannot look at the recipient and say, “You might be eligibility for the disability benefit, but because you owe us money for different reasons, we’re going to offset the one against the other.” The addition of the word “recovered” in this situation doesn’t actually increase the protection to the individual, because recovery is typically used in a situation when a benefit is paid but has been paid inappropriately and needs to be taken back.
Given that the clause only applies to this bill and not any other act of Parliament, there is no recovery that we can make to this payment under another act. Recovery can only be made for payment under this bill, because this is the bill under which the amount would have been paid.
The proposed addition to subclause 9(c) is really redundant, because it doesn’t provide any additional protection to the recipient.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Senator Dasko: This suggestion came from witnesses who felt that this was actually a very important clarification, especially because of the portion of the bill that reads “in whole or in part.” That was intended just to make clear that no part of it can be taken back by the federal government. It was meant to clarify and to ensure that part of it is not taken away.
I’m putting this forward on behalf of Senator Lankin, but we talked through this. As I mentioned, this did come up from several witnesses, and it seemed to be an important clarification and addition to the piece that deals with federal government potential takeaways or clawbacks; we always use the word “clawbacks.” That’s the reason this is contemplated.
Senator McPhedran had the same clause; we had identical clauses in our amendments. We think it’s an important clarification with respect to the legislation and the federal government.
The Chair: I have a question of the officials, if I may, Senator Dasko. Can this concern be dealt with in regulations?
Mr. Ram: I’ll get back to my initial clarification.
The intent of this clause is simply to ensure that the federal government cannot use the disability benefit as a source of funds to recover from individuals for payments that might be owed under other interactions that the individual might have with the federal government. So there is no particular need to deal with this with regulation, because the clause is already very clear that we cannot do that.
We understand there is an additional concern that the federal government — so other programs may consider the disability benefit to be income that might reduce entitlement to other benefits. This clause does not deal with that situation, and the addition of the language that is proposed would not provide any additional protection for that concern.
That is potentially an issue that could be dealt with through regulation, but the advice that we are providing to the committee is that this particular language, as proposed, in our view, would not actually address the issue at hand.
Senator Gold: Do I understand correctly that this is designed not to protect the disability benefit from being clawed back but to prevent the recipient of the disability benefit from having their other federal benefits amounts being affected by the disability provision having been provided?
Mr. Ram: This particular clause is intended to ensure that an individual who is eligible for the disability benefit receives that disability benefit even if they owe the federal government money for some other reason, such as a tax debt or some other issue. The additional language doesn’t provide additional protection, because the legislation as passed by the House is already clear we cannot do this.
I think the concern raised by the senator is a slightly different one. It is around what happens if an individual is eligible for more than one federal program and the receipt of the disability benefit is somehow considered to be income that disentitles them or reduces their eligibility for another benefit.
This clause doesn’t actually address that situation at all, but it is something that we could address in regulations.
Ms. Wilcox: I will add that this exact issue was debated at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities as well, and it was defeated because of this very issue.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We have another amendment that contains exactly the same language. Senator McPhedran, is it with your agreement that we will withdraw that?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? We’ll have a roll-call vote.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Barrette: Yeas, 4; nays, 9.
The Chair: Accordingly, colleagues, the motion is defeated.
Shall clause 9 carry? Sorry, colleagues. We have another amendment, so I withdraw that, for the record.
Colleagues, I wish to thank you all and, in particular, I wish to thank the table staff, interpreters and the officials for helping us through this session. I wish to also thank the page, who has kept me constantly supplied with hot tea that keeps me going.
We will reconvene tomorrow for our study of this bill.
(The committee adjourned.)