Evidence of meeting #3 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
This issue continues to pop up in my riding. I wrote an MP report about it, and I've received telephone calls as well as emails from single parents. Largely, I must admit, these are women, but I have had a case in my riding, in Merritt, involving a father.
What typically seems to happen is that there will be a split-up of a relationship, but the spouse who leaves files their income taxes as if they were still living in the same home. CRA will then say, we're not going to give you this benefit, because we assume that you and your ex are still living together and that your income is thus much higher. Basically, you're guilty until you can be proven innocent.
I'll give a case of a teacher in my area who had to go to her principal to write a letter to state that she was no longer cohabitng with her ex. This was very degrading to her. Another woman who contacted me was told by CRA that she would need to show that she was actually divorced from her husband. She went and got the paperwork and they still refused her.
This is an issue where people rely on those benefits, and we need to be mindful of who suffers the most when this happens. It's the children who are supposed to be getting the support of the Canada child benefit.
It would be a very beneficial study. I'm sure that if we decide to go forward with this, many people will be contacting their MPs, because this is a widespread problem. As I said, it's not just germane to British Columbia but right across the country.
I would hope that members would look at this as being a situation where, first of all, people who pay their taxes, file their taxes and work in good faith should receive the benefits they are owed under law; and second, if there are inequities brought in, in the way the benefit is given—or in this case, not given—we should be looking to see if the bureaucracy can offer better forms than making someone go to their employer to comment on something that is completely none of their business.
I would just ask members to look at that and to say emphatically that there are many people suffering and this is one way we can try to make the system better.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
It's of course the intention of the government to make sure that this benefit flows to every single Canadian who is qualified to receive it. This is a challenge we face in terms of doing it through the Income Tax Act. We also have a huge challenge with the indigenous families on reserve. Additionally, we have challenges with same-sex couples.
I'm a little concerned with the description of having to go to an employer. There's a broad range of people you can go to and get letters from to verify your situation, everything from a community religious leader to police officers, lawyers and judges. It is always of concern when the bureaucracy fails to act in the way the legislation is written, but also the way the benefit has been rolled out.
We share your concerns on that. If there are ways to improve families' access to it, we of course would welcome a study on this. We think it's a very important study. The more people get the Canada child benefit, the more people we lift out of poverty. As you said, that impacts kids directly. We are completely in support of trying to make sure we're as effective as possible.
The one concern I would raise on top of this is that we have a bunch of motions that are lined up ready to be talked about, and before we start introducing new ones, we owe it to our members of the committee to resolve the existing ones. Maybe we can deal with those before we introduce new ones, try to get some of them refined and off to the committee, and then we can canvass members for new motions. That's the only caution on this one.
I'm happy to support it. It helps us deliver the benefit to those who need and deserve it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Mr. Vaughan, for being open to studying this. We do feel that it is important.
I see from the motions still on notice that the government still has one motion. I certainly thought I provided a brief enough time for the individual to present their motion. If they still want to do this, which I believe they do, I would be happy to allow for time after for the committee member to do that.
Also, as you said, we have a number of studies that we have agreed as a committee are worthwhile. Still, we have yet to prioritize them as well. I personally would prefer to have too many studies, rather than not enough. I take your point, but as I said, we have the opportunity as a committee to prioritize them. Just because they're on the list, that doesn't mean we'll get around to them. We could list a hundred studies, and we clearly won't get around to them.
I would put that forward, and I certainly recognize all the motions from all members of the committee that are still on notice. I welcome any member of this committee to put forward their motion in the spirit that not only every party, but every individual would have the opportunity here to study what they feel to be either of greatest concern or of passion to them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
While I respect this new motion that has been introduced, let me explain how I go about my work on the committee.
I have no doubt that the motion comes from the calls from constituents who might be experiencing difficulties. I can say that, in my constituency, I receive many calls on immigration and many calls about the Phoenix system.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that we have a ten-week period to fill. I imagine that we will study the motions that seem to be the most critical, where a particular problem has been discovered that may have broader consequences.
So I wonder about this motion. Are we going to undertake a study for a few cases that could well find their answers elsewhere? Does that warrant the committee's attention?
I am not sure that it is a priority.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this motion is worthy of a study. I am happy to support it.
We have the parliamentary secretary looking at this. After listening to the reasoning presented by the member opposite, I'm wondering whether there are any wording changes that would allow us to be more focused so as to find exactly what we are looking for.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I take your point, Mr. Dong.
Perhaps we could do an amendment such as “undertake a study on the Canada Child Benefit to determine barriers for access” or “to determine barriers for qualification”. That's really at the heart of it.
Our intent is to evaluate the specific cases that, for example, Mr. Albas has brought up, in an effort to see what the barriers are and what the challenge is for these unique family situations to overcome in an effort to receive the benefit.
I'm suggesting the amendment before I propose the amendment. It would read, “undertake a study on the barriers to receiving the Canada Child Benefit” or something more specific to that.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder whether the member has a suggestion or a type of path suggesting a change.
The one thing with this is that, because the CCB is relatively new still, just hearing what parents have to say of the barriers would be very educational for us. Then we would somewhat know what direction to take after we hear from witnesses.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
If we want to narrow it down, perhaps we could say, “undertake a study on the Canada Child Benefit, specifically single parents who, despite being eligible, still have trouble accessing the benefit, and that the committee report on its findings, including recommendations, to the House.”
We're just hitting a very specific targeted group. Quite honestly, if we can quickly bring in a few people who have been affected, ask officials for some clarification about the process and make some recommendations, I don't see this as being a long labour of love; however, I think it would be important to let people know that, if they qualify, they should not be denied because of some red tape.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
I think we would all agree that we don't want any Canadian child to be living in poverty. We know that the Canada child benefit has lifted many children in Canada out of poverty, but there are, of course, times when it might not work.
I take the concern of the opposition to heart, that we want to make sure that every child who needs it is getting it. In whatever way we can refine this, I think it would be a good—and short—study, and certainly I would be in favour of it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Just so that we're working from a basis of how effective enrolment has been, let me say that we're up to nearly 96% of full enrolment.
The gap tends to be on reserve, where it's only 80% of families, because of an inability to convince all to file income tax returns due to a long-standing perception that you don't need to file them. While you don't need to file them, that is the way to receive a child benefit. Even that number.... When we took office, only 50% of families on reserve and in indigenous communities were receiving the benefit. We now have it up to 80% through a series of efforts to reach out to people, with indigenous partners and indigenous governments, to enrol.
The remaining 4% is of concern, of course, and it's not unique to single families. There is a whole series of reasons that we don't have the full enrolment.
I think this would be a quick study. I'm not sure how much personal experience we need, as much as we need the department looking for direction. It may be a question of expanding the list of people who can nominate you and verify your family situation and do it in a way that is sensitive to disclosure rules for families. I agree that sending it to an employer is not the best scenario, but there is a longer list that can be used.
I would suggest one small change. Instead of “specifically single parents”, I would say “in particular single parents”. That way it emphasizes the issue you've raised, but it doesn't limit it to single parents, because we know there are many two-parent and blended families who equally have this challenge. To make the rules accommodate the new, modern dynamics of families would be the best way to do it.
With that small change, I think we can support this and send it to committee for prioritization.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Did you want to make a motion on that?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Yes, I will just make an amendment.
After the words “Canada Child Benefit,” strike the word “specifically” and replace it with “in particular”.
That just highlights the—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Do we have consensus on the amendment? Can we consider it friendly, or do we need to...? Okay.
The motion has been amended to delete the word “specifically” that appears after the words “Canada Child Benefit,” and replace it with the words “in particular”.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Mr. Dong.
February 27th, 2020 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Chair, I would like to move a motion of which I previously served notice. It reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the financial challenges and barriers students face when pursuing a post-secondary education, improvements to the Canada Student Loans and Grants system that will reduce barriers to pursuing a post-secondary education, challenges graduates face when repaying their student loans, with a particular focus on new parents, a review of challenges jurisdictions face that do not participate in the Canada Student Loans Program and the impact this has on students in those jurisdictions; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Notice of this motion was served prior to the last meeting. I believe members of this committee have had a chance to look at it.
In my previous life as a member of a provincial parliament, I was the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for training, colleges and universities. I have seen the effects of the former new OSAP system helping hundreds of thousands of students to access secondary education, which is very important.
I think the government has a role to play at the federal level, with the Canada student loans. It's very important to prepare our future labour force with higher education to make them more competitive in today's world.
I move this motion and hope that committee members can support it.