Public Accounts Committee on June 8th, 2021

[Bob Hamilton]

These are two aspects of the agency's reputation.

First, it is its ability to deliver benefits in a timely and efficient manner. Second, it is its ability to ensure that those who receive benefits are eligible for them. It's important for us to preserve both aspects of the agency's reputation.

That was a consideration in the period after benefits began, and that process is still ongoing.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

In terms of collecting money owed to the government, are you concerned that the lack of audits that will be done on the emergency wage subsidy will damage the agency's credibility?

[Bob Hamilton]

It is certainly always possible to criticize the agency, but I'm very pleased with the balance that we've been able to achieve in this context, as we did audits early in the program. Mr. Gallivan described actions that the agency took during that period, including using information obtained by our auditors. However, at the same time, there was a need to pay benefits.

I think we've struck a good balance, and now we're in the process of doing a little bit more post‑payment auditing, just to make sure we correct any errors that may have occurred.

In my opinion, as far as the reputation of the agency is concerned, I think we've struck a good balance in terms of auditing.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do I have a bit more time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay. I will not ask any more questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.

We will now move to Mr. Sorbara for five minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

First off, welcome to the commissioner and DM Sabia. It's always a pleasure.

I think this is going to be our last meeting that's not going to be in camera. The next three are in camera.

I want to ask something sort of big picture, because a lot of my colleagues have asked questions with regard to granular details.

We put programs in place and we put in guardrails. Obviously, during the middle of a pandemic, a once-in-100-years event, we had to put in place a program that had the objective of maintaining an employer-employee attachment. At one time, 5.5 million Canadian workers maintained an attachment to their employers, so that objective was achieved. On the CERB, we assisted almost nine million Canadians at one point, so that objective was also achieved.

As my first question, how important was it to strike that balance with regard to the guardrails?

The second component of my question is on digitization. I'm a big believer in digitization, let's call it, on the governmental level. What lessons can we learn—and this also applies to CRA—that we can take away as we move forward? The CRA has an implementation arm; the legislation comes from the Department of Finance. What can we take away to digitize government services and provide them more efficiently and more effectively and at a lower cost to Canadians?

If I can turn to Mr. Hamilton and then Mr. Sabia, I'll leave it to you folks to divide that time up.

[Bob Hamilton]

I'll say a few words, and then I'm sure my colleague Michael will have a few things to say.

Obviously, one of the things the pandemic has made us all realize is the importance of digitization for now and for the future.

I say that knowing that the agency actually had made a lot of progress before the pandemic. Over 90% of individual tax returns are now filed electronically, so in some sense I think the agency has been in the vanguard of trying to make our operations more electronic and more digitized. Nevertheless, we saw pockets of the organization where we relied on paper extensively. Developing new programs in a pandemic can sometimes perpetuate that.

We actually have a strong initiative right now to try to find those areas where paper persists and try to digitize them as fast as possible, because it is certain that in the future we're going to need more rather than less. That's the future of the agency. We've seen the benefits already of actions that the agency has taken to become more digitized. It just makes us more resilient and more flexible, and it provides better service to Canadians as well. It's a real focus for us.

I'll turn it over to Michael if he wants to add something.

[Michael Sabia]

First let me pick up on Bob's comment with respect to digitization.

I think there is a consensus across the government about the importance of pressing ahead and indeed accelerating what the government's doing on digitization. There is a substantial amount of investment in the recent budget for precisely that purpose and to assist the Canada Revenue Agency in what they're doing so that Canadians can interact with the Canada Revenue Agency on a more efficient and purely digital basis.

More broadly than that, the goal is to create a set of systems whereby individual Canadians can interact with their government much more efficiently on an online basis. Those investments extend, yes, to Revenue Canada, but also very much to a number of other departments that have day-to-day interaction with individual Canadians. For instance, employment insurance is another area where significant investments are absolutely needed to ensure that the program is up to date and ready for the challenges of the digital economy that we find ourselves in.

That continues to be a priority and something that we're going to continue to fund in subsequent budgets.

I will just move to this issue about guardrails and the design of the program. I can say this from a distance, because I wasn't there at the time.

When you think back to March and April of 2020 and the kind of economic damage that the pandemic was doing to Canadian businesses and individual Canadians, there was urgency to get a program out there that would have a big and immediate impact. The situation was just that urgent.

If you take a couple of steps back, I think that's one of the reasons you're seeing the Canadian economy now able to react with the kind of energy that it has as we progress through the vaccine and as the energy and the spring of the Canadian economy begins to expand. Hopefully, we'll get a lot more of that through the summertime and into the early fall as the economy fully opens.

This program has played a critical role in greatly shortening the amount of time from when an employer picks up and begins to expand business until their employees are there. One of the things that the government wanted—and I think they were right—was to cut that time to the absolute minimum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sabia and Mr. Sorbara.

We will now move to Ms. Vignola for two and a half minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

With respect to the wage subsidy, we know that only on federal party didn't apply for it, and that party is the Bloc Québécois.

In total, all parties combined, what amounts were paid to them?

[Bob Hamilton]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I don't have those numbers right now. We can provide them to you after the meeting, unless my colleague Mr. Gallivan has them with him. In any case, we'll find that information.

We'll have to make sure it's not confidential first, but I don't think it is. I'll check it out. If it's possible to give that information, we'll provide it to you after the meeting.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Are any political parties still receiving the wage subsidy?

[Ted Gallivan]

Madam Chair, referring to a specific taxpayer is also prohibited under section 241 of the Income Tax Act.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Are you saying that political parties are taxpayers?

[Ted Gallivan]

All information received in the application of the act is considered protected information under the act. Information received about an act that is being enforced is afforded the protections of that act.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Are some political parties still receiving the wage subsidy currently?

[Ted Gallivan]

I can't confirm that information because I don't have it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

On the agency's website, you can see the list of employers who received amounts, but not the amounts that were paid to each employer. I imagine that section 241, which you just mentioned, explains why it doesn't show that information.

[Ted Gallivan]

That's right. The registry is an exceptional transparency process provided for in this section of the legislation. The agency worked within the parameters of the legislation and in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Ms. Vignola.

We will now go to Mr. Green as our last questioner. You have two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think all of the witnesses present here today understand the urgency with which I'm calling for greater transparency and accountability for all those who received money from taxpayers' public coffers for their operations.

In fact, I want to commend my friend Ms. Vignola for pressing on that issue. I would agree that all parties should be open and transparent about what they received, as should all companies.

I have one question, and I don't even know exactly where it lands. Under these current scenarios.... Actually, it's not even a question. It's probably a comment, because I don't think anybody could answer it fairly anyway.

Following up on Ms. Vignola's line of reasoning, it is very probable that many members of the House of Commons received dividends off the backs of the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

Anybody who invested in Imperial Oil and some of these other companies likely received dividends. I want to note the way in which this transfer of wealth happened. Many members of the House of Commons, likely and probably, through their investments, received dividends. That's something that could be the topic of future studies or exploration, if at all possible.

I'll conclude my remarks, before giving my time back, to state that while the intentions were good at the outset, the controls put in place that allowed major corporations to take advantage of this program, I believe, were a risk. I also believe the program ought to have had greater instruments of control to ensure that workers weren't laid off permanently and to ensure that the money wasn't siphoned off to CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Green.

Colleagues, it is 12:55. Our meeting is scheduled to end in five minutes.

I could provide two rounds of two and a half minutes each, or we could seek to adjourn prior to 1 p.m. What is the will of the committee?

Mr. Blois, go ahead.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, I have four minutes on my clock right now. Our translators do a tremendous job, and we should give them a four-minute break to stretch their legs and get a coffee. I thank them for the work they do.