Public Accounts Committee on May 4th, 2021

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Please give a very short answer, Mr. Hamilton.

[Bob Hamilton]

We have an automated system. Agency employees can enter data when they have the information on the taxpayer. The issue arises when the agency doesn't have the information in the system.

When the agency has the information on the taxpayer, there isn't any issue. We have the ability to enter the data into the form.

We're working very hard to try to find new approaches for vulnerable people.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Hamilton.

We will move to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dompierre, in March 2020, Parliament allowed for a one-time payment of up to $300 per child to help families with the high costs of child care during the pandemic.

We know that the Canada Revenue Agency was responsible for this payment. However, in your opinion, which department proposed this payment and its eligibility requirements?

[Martin Dompierre]

Thank you for the question.

I may have misunderstood, but you want to know which department proposed the payments. I believe that the government made the decision to use the program, in light of the pandemic, to help families. The Income Tax Act was amended, of course, to temporarily change that formula and allow more families to receive support during the pandemic.

To my knowledge, the government decided to ask the Canada Revenue Agency to manage this change.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Dompierre, I wanted to know which department proposed this measure.

[Martin Dompierre]

I'll turn to my colleague. Mr. Le Goff can tell you more specifically which department made this decision.

[Philippe Le Goff]

Good afternoon.

The department responsible for this program is Employment and Social Development Canada. However, the Department of Finance is responsible for the Income Tax Act. This probably involved both of these departments.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you for these clarifications, Mr. Le Goff.

I have a question for both of you, Mr. Le Goff and Mr. Dompierre.

What analysis did the departments use to decide on the payment amount and the expanded eligibility for families who wouldn't normally receive the Canada child benefit because their income was too high?

[Martin Dompierre]

I'd like to ask Mr. Le Goff to answer the question.

[Philippe Le Goff]

We haven't seen any analysis that supports the additional payment. However, we haven't requested this analysis. Regardless, it may exist.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I just want to understand, Mr. Le Goff.

According to your report, we don't know anything about the $300. I understand that you didn't conduct an analysis, but it could have been $300, $500 or $700. We don't have any details to show why this amount was chosen.

[Philippe Le Goff]

We don't have any details because this was beyond the scope of the audit, which looked at only the eligibility and accuracy of payments.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you for these clarifications.

Mr. Hamilton, my question comes from one of my constituents, Ms. Dubé.

There are many reconstituted families. Currently, for the Canada child benefit, the spouse's income is taken into account in the calculation of the family allowances. This can frustrate some people.

Has the Canada Revenue Agency ever considered the idea of not calculating the income of a spouse in the case of a reconstituted family?

[Bob Hamilton]

Thank you for the question.

I would like to ask my colleague to respond. I suppose that it might be better to ask the Department of Finance that question. It seems like a policy question.

Perhaps Mr. Vermaeten can give you more information.

[Frank Vermaeten]

Thank you for the question.

I don't believe we specifically looked into this issue. Certainly it would be a decision by the Department of Finance.

At first glance, it's not clear to me why a reconstituted family should be subject to a different rule with respect to an income test than the original family, if that's what you want to call it.

Again, this is a policy decision that would have to be considered by the Department of Finance.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Vermaeten, for these clarifications.

I could add that my constituent was referring to the Quebec government's tax exemption on support payments. She wanted to draw a parallel with respect to the reconstituted family.

Mr. Dompierre, I'd like to go back to the question about the $100,000 that you estimated. You said that you calculated it from the birth of a child until they qualify for the Canada child benefit.

In your opinion, are these benefits that will never be recovered?

In your calculation, does the $100,000 include audit and legal costs, if applicable?

[Martin Dompierre]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think that it takes into account all the things that you brought up. I'll turn to my colleague, Mr. Le Goff, who can provide some insight into how the calculation was structured.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Please give a very short answer, Mr. Le Goff.

[Philippe Le Goff]

The answer is no. The calculation includes only the benefit amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas and Mr. Le Goff.

We will now go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That was a great line of questioning by my friend from the Bloc. I appreciated hearing some of the answers to those questions to better understand how these decisions are made, and I would love the opportunity to go beyond just the government. We know it's the government that makes these decisions, but it would be interesting to hear, for this committee's purpose, the rationale on how the earners of higher incomes were able to access this.

I'm going to shift gears a little bit. I might not even use the fullness of my time, but there are some questions I had around the processing. If this has been covered by previous questions, I apologize.

We know that it's not always possible for families or parents to have immediate access to the traditional forms of ID or registration, especially when a parent is fleeing a harmful domestic situation. Mr. Hamilton, can you explain the importance of allowing families to submit alternate documentation to prove evidence of benefit eligibility?

[Bob Hamilton]

Madam Chair, I will turn it over to my colleagues who have more in-depth knowledge of the system.

The point you raise is an interesting one, in the sense that there can be clear and well-defined rules for simple cases, but in administering the system, we have to understand that life is not always simple and that things can crop up that can make the situation more awkward. We have to try to have as much sensitivity and flexibility as possible and get the information we need in a way that's most reasonable for the taxpayer and the recipient of the benefit.

Perhaps my colleagues can talk a little bit more about how that process works and what kinds of flexibilities we have.