Thank you for that question, and thank you as well for raising Ruby's Law.
Both the previous example and the law being considered today demonstrate that not all government work is fancy headline-dropping material.
Nobody designed the system to work this way. Sometimes, when different things get legislated at different times, if we don't come in and play cleanup, we get these unintended consequences. There is, I have found, great valour in doing the boring work and making things more reasonable for normal people.
When you explain the law to individuals, it is such an obvious no-brainer that people are surprised that this is how things actually work today. We had some polling. When the polling was unprompted, with people not knowing anything about the bill and with just an explanation of the situation, less than 4% strongly opposed this bill. There's great support for it.
In terms of the good work that happens at constituency offices, obviously some trouble happens here. Often, a constituency office will hear from a parent in this situation, but more likely, they hear when they get a letter from the CRA asking what's going on with this. They question how they got themselves into this mess in the first place. Then the member of Parliament has to justify what is going on behind the scenes for something that is almost unjustifiable.
We will be able to clean that up, save some administrative hassle and really make life better for parents who are in the worst position imaginable.