Health Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Kwan has challenged the chair. That is a non-debatable motion.

The question for the committee is whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

Therefore, the debate is now on NDP-2.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm going to spare everybody. I think you heard the arguments that I had for the last hour on the last one. I'm going directly to our witnesses to ask if they could give us the estimated financial cost for moving this from 50% to 100%, if at all possible by Wednesday evening.

Thank you.

[Nadine Leblanc]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can answer the question, but we can also commit to providing—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Oh, you have it. Okay.

It extends the eligibility, potentially, doesn't it?

Go ahead.

[Nadine Leblanc]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In our calculation of the 1.8 million low-income renters who would be eligible for this program, it includes people who paid their rent. That change would not have an impact on the cost, unless somebody would directly or indirectly falsify their attestation. That remains a risk to the attestation process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I guess to the witness's comments, this is an absolute unknown. There's no way to understand who's going to say, “I paid 63% and you paid 37% of the amount.” There's absolutely no way to figure this out. For our witnesses to say that it's not going to add to it.... They have no idea. There's no way to figure that out. Nobody knows what evil lies in the hearts of men. When you think of it that way, people can say whatever they want. I realize it's an attestation. I understand that point, unless I'm missing something here with respect to this amendment. If I am, please enlighten me. I'd love to know.

[Nadine Leblanc]

Mr. Chair, there is a check and balance through an upfront validation and through the attestation process, as well as some audit and compliance steps to this program.

I will pass it over to my colleagues at CRA should we want to hear more around that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there anything to add from CRA's perspective?

[Gillian Pranke]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to respond to questions specifically regarding validation, but I have nothing further to add based on the response from my colleague from CMHC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think Ms. Leblanc really spoke to that, because in other parts of the bill, there are provisions for verification with the attestation process and CRA random checks or spot checks or however they do the checks. All of those measures are still in place.

All this provision does is that, instead of coming up with an arbitrary number of 50%, it reflects the actual amount of rent that people paid. That's all. There's nothing untoward about that. It's just to say that the benefit should reflect what people actually paid. That's it. There are no secrets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I think having an amendment that stipulates that you can only get what was paid is a reasonable space to be in, but it comes back to how this could potentially change the overall cost to government. I wish we had full financial information that we could be basing our decision on.

While I believe the intent is very clearly good, any time you're dealing with attestations you're opening yourself up to some abuse and to some potential where people can fall somewhere in the middle. That's always a spot that makes me a little bit leery, but I won't belabour that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I see no further interventions requested. Therefore, are we ready for the question on NDP-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Kwan, do you have a further amendment to clause 3 of the bill?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The next amendment I would like to move is to change the application period from 90 days to 120 days. I just fear that 90 days is a very short time frame for people to make an application.

Earlier I asked the ministers about the process and what they intend to do to notify people. For example, in my riding, Vancouver East, I fear that I have a great number of seniors who are not necessarily technology-literate or even able to access technology, so they rely on a lot of help from the community and volunteers to help them do all kinds of stuff, including getting their taxes done and what have you. I also fear that there are individuals who may have a language barrier in getting the information and then understanding how to go about applying for this benefit.

I think extending the period of time so that it gives more time to make that application would be beneficial to the community. To that end, I am making the amendment to change the 90-day period to 120 days, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm sure everyone here will be pleased to know that the amendment is in order. The debate is now on the amendment.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the question I would have for the witnesses is this.

Obviously, every bill has built into it the necessary difficulty that many people won't apply for the benefit. I guess I'm wondering this: What is the number that would normally be used to understand how many people might not apply for the benefit—whether they don't know about it, care about it, think about it, or whatever the reason might be?

Of course, adding days to that time will add more people. Again, we are adding, potentially, to the cost of this bill. Is there an estimate from our witnesses about that?

[Nadine Leblanc]

We are estimating that there will be a 95% pickup on this program, so that is built into our current numbers.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Just to be clear, you're saying that the original estimate for a 90-day period is 95%. Do you have an estimate that this is going to change that, or is this just something we shouldn't even bother with? If it's not going to change it, why are we amending it?

[Nadine Leblanc]

Extending the period will allow Canadians to get their income tax filed for this period, and allow Canadians to access this program for a longer period of time. Again, we believe there would be a 95% participation rate in this program, and our numbers—the 1.8 million—include everybody who would be eligible for this program.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Your cost estimates were for 100%, if I understand you correctly.

[Nadine Leblanc]

They were for 95%.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I am saying. If we're creating an amendment, and the idea or the spirit behind the amendment is that more people will be able to apply, does that change your 95% to 95.2%, 96.8%, 99% or 100%? Where are we?

If it doesn't change it, why are we even bothering with it?

[Nadine Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

The 95% was based on the overall population of the 1.8 million. Extending it would allow more people a chance to file their income taxes in due course.