Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2026

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'm short on time, so I want to finish with something very simple.

We're talking about Canadians who may already be struggling to make ends meet and do not have the resources to challenge the CRA when something goes wrong. Before the program is expanded, shouldn't we require evidence that the CRA can get these returns right, correct mistakes promptly and make sure vulnerable Canadians aren't left paying the price for government errors?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

That's a really good question. We should all be working together with the community and other organizations to make sure that the details of the program are designed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thanks, Ms. MacKenzie. We're going to have to end it there.

Thank you, Ms. Jansen.

Mr. Leitão, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

I would like to continue on the topic of automatic tax filing. Perhaps I will start by highlighting that what the government is trying to address here is people who currently miss out on getting the government supports to which they are entitled. They miss out because they have not, for whatever reason, filed their taxes. It's not that there is a mistake or no mistake; for whatever reason, they have not submitted their tax filing, and the benefits are based on the tax filing. The tax filing is the entry door.

Ms. MacKenzie, you pointed out that your organization supports this measure. You also mentioned that automatic tax filing is not new in the OECD. Other countries have done it. Would you have an example of what other jurisdictions similar to ours have accomplished with automatic tax filing processes?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

I wish I had that at hand. That's something we can follow up with and provide a bit of a jurisdictional analysis on, but we know that writ large, countries similar to ours in the OECD do this and they do it very well.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That's fine. Thank you.

I agree with you as well that we need to make sure staff are able to answer questions when questions arise. Talking to a machine is not exactly very productive. Talking to a human being certainly is the way to go, so we have to make sure that happens.

Ms. Khanna, you also spoke about the issue of automatic tax filing. From your perspective at United Way Centraide, you brought up an issue that is hugely important, which is the role of community-based organizations in continuing to help citizens.

Perhaps you could tell us how you view that. What is the role of government in continuing to make sure that community-based groups are able to assist people navigating the system?

[Anita Khanna]

Community-based groups are essential frontline social responders. They are the first line of connection for people living with a low income and for community members in many difficult circumstances. Equipping these organizations and this sector with the funds required to create supports to help community members navigate the system, both to access community-based services and local services to deal with their immediate food or housing needs and to connect to benefits and government programs that can help lift them out of poverty, will be essential. United Way Centraide supports the 211 community navigation service, which is available in most parts of Canada 24-7, 365 days a year in 150 languages, to do this—to support people in accessing local services to meet their needs as quickly as possible.

We've also had a partnership with Service Canada to help with the navigation of these systems. Certainly, equipping these community organizations with funding and support to deliver these services will be essential given that they're already under extreme strain from high demand.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I remember that in the case of Quebec, there have been some interesting pilot projects between its revenue agency—the equivalent to Revenue Canada—and Centraide to make sure that particularly people in the more vulnerable segments.... We mentioned today and in previous meetings of this committee homeless people and people without a fixed address. They are entitled to receive government assistance, and sometimes they just fall off the system. The organizations with which you work, that Centraide works with, know how to reach these folks. Therefore, I also think that continued support to them is essential to making this system work.

You also mentioned improving accessibility. On that front, I think we still have work to do.

Perhaps I will ask for your opinion about the root of the problem. Both federally and provincially, the tax system is the entry door to this process. Should we think of other ways to have people access social programs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Answer in 10 seconds or less, please.

[Anita Khanna]

The community sector and social policy experts would be open to continually innovating to ensure that there are easier ways to access. In fact, there's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Khanna. Unfortunately, that concludes the time for that round.

We now go to Mr. Garon for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to my fellow members and to the witnesses.

I'll start with you Ms. Roe. I want to talk about pesticides.

I was a bit taken aback this week, when the committee heard from members of the pesticide lobby, representatives of CropLife Canada. They basically compared Canada's pesticide assessment and approval process to Europe's, telling us that the application of the precautionary principle had made Europe's system so complicated that, in the end, nothing ever got approved. To justify what's being proposed in this legislation, they warned that Canada should not drift towards the European system.

It seems to me that they're exaggerating, that Canada's system in no way blocks the approval of pesticides and that all this does is weaken the system to help the pesticide lobby and the companies it represents.

Do you agree with my assessment?

[Bronwyn Roe]

I certainly agree that these changes would amount to a weakening of Canada's pesticide oversight. I don't agree that Canada has a problem with not approving enough pesticides, or not getting pesticides to market quickly enough.

As we noted in our written brief, Canada is regarded as one of the most lenient jurisdictions in the OECD with respect to pesticide approvals. In Canada, we still authorize 120 highly hazardous pesticides that have been banned in other jurisdictions, such as the EU. Of the 146 pesticides that are classified as highly hazardous according to Pesticide Action Network International, only 25 are banned in Canada.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

I too was surprised to hear what the Minister of Health's new friends had to say when they appeared before the committee. I had a hard time buying what they were selling, factually speaking.

My next question has more to do with the democratic process.

This is the Standing Committee on Finance. I'm an economist. We have committee members who have worked in banks, another who has held the position of finance minister and one who is a doctor. The government is adding these provisions to the pesticide regulations as part of an omnibus bill, when we've heard from very few witnesses. The government is partially bypassing the work of Parliament. My sense is that these measures should have been proposed in a stand-alone bill and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for thorough examination.

Do you think this committee is the right place to deal with these measures, to rush through them so very, very quickly?

[Bronwyn Roe]

I absolutely agree that the changes to the Pest Control Products Act, which is health and environmental protection legislation, would be best placed in stand-alone legislation that could be adequately studied and understood before the health committee and the environment committee.

Certainly, we know that the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill C-30 also came through omnibus budget legislation. That did not allow for adequate scrutiny. The changes in Bill C-31 and Bill C-30 would be the largest overhaul of our Pest Control Products Act since it was updated and modernized in 2022.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It does make you wonder whether this isn't exactly what the government wanted: to push through the legislation without letting parliamentarians hear from enough witnesses, get to the facts or base their decisions on science? I think the government's objective is to make decisions that are not based on science and to use the Standing Committee on Finance to do it. Everyone has their own view, I guess.

I have some questions about the review of the Pest Control Products Act. The government is delaying the application of section 80.1. The act is supposed to be reviewed every seven years. The seven-year deadline was in 2015. It's 2026. What do you make of the fact that the government didn't review or respect its own act, that before carrying out the review and respecting the act, it ultimately decided to riddle it with holes by inviting members of the pesticide lobby to appear before the committee?

[Bronwyn Roe]

Health Canada underwent what it called a transformation agenda process over the past several years where it considered potential changes to the legislation. Many stakeholders were involved in that process, including the pesticide industry and health, environmental and agricultural groups. That process ended without any updates to the act. It did result in the introduction of two new policies: a continuous oversight policy and a proportional effort policy. We haven't seen either of those policies be implemented, so I think it would be premature to implement these proposed amendments without allowing those policies to be implemented.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

The CropLife Canada people told us that their job was to protect seeds, to protect crops, and that not passing this bill would likely jeopardize farmers' crops. I have just 30 seconds left, so very quickly if you can, tell us what you have to say to farmers.

[Bronwyn Roe]

The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food has rejected the pesticide industry's claim that heavy pesticide use is necessary for food security. They've stated, actually, that pesticides are a global human rights concern and their use can have detrimental consequences on the human right to food.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

We now go to Mr. Lefebvre for five minutes.

[Eric Lefebvre, Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to my fellow members, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

Ms. MacKenzie, in your opening statement, you talked about keeping humans in the system, saying that there shouldn't be a time limit on calls. I understand that people with disabilities—I'm in contact with many of them—need time. They especially need to feel that they're not being rushed, that people are there to listen to them, however long it takes.

Could you explain what you mean about the time limit on calls? Are calls timed? Are callers hung up on after a certain amount of time? How does it work?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

We know from the work we did for our report “A Benefit without Barriers” that the Canada Revenue Agency does measure the amount of time that agents are on the phone with people and that the desired outcome is the least amount of time possible to address a question. I'm not sure if that's something staff are actively measured on and if it's a performance issue for staff, but we know there is a limit per se that staff are encouraged to meet.

That simply can't be the case with people with disabilities, seniors and others across the country who need to spend time to resolve the issues they have with the Canada Revenue Agency, either for automatic tax filing reasons or for any other taxation requirements. These are complex issues, and people with disabilities are often living in complex circumstances. We need to make sure that staff are well trained and well equipped to answer and address all of the issues that are brought forward to them.

[Eric Lefebvre]

Do you think that, when people with disabilities call the CRA, the duration of those calls should not factor into performance assessment or be used as a performance indicator? That would ensure that people with disabilities were given the time they needed to receive adequate service. Do you think that's a good alternative?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

It would be really difficult in the general flow of things to know that it's a person with a disability or a senior on a call, so they're not required to meet a benchmark there. I think the benchmarking is fundamentally what needs to be looked at, and the Canada Revenue Agency should provide their staff with the encouragement and the culture to fully address the issues that Canadians are bringing forward to them, in whatever time it takes to do so. It shouldn't be timed, and it shouldn't be that the culture is about saying no and not resolving issues or being punitive. This very much needs to be about supporting Canadians in their interactions with the Canada Revenue Agency, whether they're a person with a disability, a senior or somebody like me.

[Eric Lefebvre]

Thank you very much.

Do you think automatic tax filing will solve the problem of a person with a disability being unable to obtain the disability tax credit, which ultimately gives them access to other benefits? Instead, shouldn't the government change its priorities and simplify the system?