Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 206
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 11:07
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am happy to be with you once again, to discuss “Report 7—Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy”, released in spring 2021 by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, or OAG.
With me today are Ted Gallivan and Maxime Guénette, whom you already introduced.
My focus today is on the response of the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to the motion adopted during meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts related to its study on report 7.
The motion requested that both the Department of Finance and the CRA provide the committee with:
all studies, data and analysis used for the implementation of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, that these documents be provided to the committee with redactions for Cabinet confidence and personal information, and that these documents be provided to the committee no later than May 27, 2021.
Upon adoption of this motion—
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 11:08
I'll start where I left off. It's getting close to the end.
Upon adoption of this motion, the CRA immediately set to work to meet the committee's expectations. I acknowledge the efforts of numerous employees across the agency, representing both a significant and a necessary time investment to perform this work within the stipulated deadline. Their effort underscores the seriousness with which the agency takes its duty to be both transparent and accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.
Thank you again. We welcome any questions you might have today.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-08 11:17
Madam Chair, what I would say is that this is an internal document that we produced based on a number of assumptions. Our own internal analytics folks would have made a number of assumptions to produce that analysis. That is an estimate to help guide the level of effort that was necessary. It's not a projection but perhaps an outer limit that we used for planning purposes to allocate resources. It's based on assumptions, and only time will tell whether those assumptions will be proved to be correct.
Maxime Guénette
View Maxime Guénette Profile
Maxime Guénette
2021-06-08 11:43
Thanks, Commissioner. Thanks, Madam Chair.
There are two sections of the Access to Information Act that were invoked, the principles of which were invoked for redactions in the package that you see.
In the case of the particular paragraph that is being referenced, it would be paragraph 16(1)(c) that applies. This is information whose disclosure could jeopardize our ability to enforce the law, essentially, so the information that you would see redacted, without getting into the details of what's behind that particular paragraph, is information that would telegraph perhaps a bit too much to the general public about the ways in which we'll conduct our audits or the areas where we would focus more of our attention.
The way that these redactions were applied, of course, was by access to information folks within my team with delegated authority. Even though this is not an access to information request, these are the principles that we use, and when we make recommendations, we would check in also with the experts—in this case, in Mr. Gallivan's shop—to validate that the risk of injury is what we understand it to be.
In this case, maybe Mr. Gallivan would have something to add to that.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for being with us today.
I know that having to put programs in place quickly during a pandemic has its own set of concerns and risks. As we read through the documents you sent us, we could see which risks had been raised and which had been proven to be real over the weeks and months.
My question is for Mr. Hamilton.
I was surprised to see that, in several places in the documents, there was reference to reputational risks to the Canada Revenu Agency.
Can you explain to me the extent to which these risks were considered among the major potential impacts? Why was so much attention paid to them?
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:40
I thank the hon. member for his question.
The agency's reputation is important to us, both in times of pandemic and in normal times. It's important because for the tax system to work, Canadians need to have confidence in the agency. So, the agency's reputation is a factor in the decision to participate in the tax system, among other things.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
You'll understand why I'm asking this question. This is a discussion I want to have because I want to understand what Mr. Gallivan was talking about earlier. He talked about the risk associated with the very small number of audits that will be done of individuals and businesses that received the wage subsidy.
Does the agency want to maintain that tough image, and has this program hurt that image, which you have to maintain to make sure that people pay their due to the government?
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:41
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.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (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
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:42
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.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee is meeting in public today and is being televised.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to study “Report 4—Canada Child Benefit—Canada Revenue Agency”, of the 2021 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021, and therefore members may be attending in person in the room or remotely by using the Zoom application.
I have a few reminders for you.
Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.
Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we want to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Now I'd like to welcome the witnesses who have joined us today.
From the Office of the Auditor General are Martin Dompierre, Assistant Auditor General; Philippe Le Goff, principal; and Lucie Després, director. From the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Bob Hamilton, commissioner of revenue and chief executive officer; Marc Lemieux, assistant commissioner, collections and verification branch; Frank Vermaeten, assistant commissioner, assessment, benefit and service branch; and Heather Daniels, director general, benefit programs directorate, assessment, benefit and service branch.
With that, welcome, all.
I will turn the floor over to Mr. Dompierre for five minutes.
Martin Dompierre
View Martin Dompierre Profile
Martin Dompierre
2021-05-04 11:05
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on the Canada child benefit, which was tabled in Parliament on February 25, 2021.
Joining me today are Philippe Le Goff, who was the principal responsible for the audit, and Lucie Després, who led the audit team.
The Canada child benefit provides a non-taxable monthly payment to eligible families, based on their net family income. In the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the program allocated $24.5 billion to parents in Canada who were responsible for 5.9 million children under the age of 18. The Canada child benefit is a key public policy tool for reducing inequalities and poverty among low-income families.
Overall, we found that the Canada Revenue Agency ensured that the payments to millions of eligible families were accurate and timely. The agency had effective systems and processes to assess the eligibility of recipients.
However, we found opportunities to improve the program's efficiency and prevent its misuse. For example, requiring proof of birth at the time of application for children under the age of 11 months who were born in Canada would help agency staff verify a family's eligibility.
We also found that the agency sometimes lacked the latest information when it determined applicants' eligibility for the program and when it calculated payments. For example, in some of the samples we analyzed, we found that the agency was not always informed of changes, such as when a recipient left Canada. Payments continued until the agency received updated account information or until a parent ceased filing a Canadian income tax return.
Our audit also examined the one-time payment made to support more families at the beginning of the pandemic in May 2020. We found that the modified formula extended the benefit to an additional 265,000 families. The one-time payments were found to be accurate.
Finally, we found that the female presumption concept presented a challenge for the administration of the program, especially because of the diversity of families in Canada today. According to the program's conditions, benefit payments go to the parent who is the primary caregiver. By law, the primary caregiver is presumed to be the female parent. We found that in some cases the parent who in reality had primary responsibility for the care of the child did not receive the payment initially. In our view, the administration of the program would gain in efficiency by enhancing its procedures and communications to mitigate the confusion and sensitivities caused by this concept.
The Canada Revenue Agency agreed with both of our recommendations.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you for your attention.
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-05-04 11:09
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the Canada Revenue Agency's action plan on “Report 4—Canada Child Benefit—Canada Revenue Agency” of the 2021 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.
I'm accompanied by three colleagues, whom you've already introduced.
In report 4, the Auditor General of Canada noted that the CRA managed the Canada child benefit program in a way that ensured accurate and timely payments to millions of eligible families.
The Office of the Auditor General, or the OAG, also found that the CRA could improve the administration of the Canada child benefit, or CCB, program by better managing the information used to assess eligibility for the program.
Within that context, the Auditor General of Canada made two recommendations to the CRA, which we accepted.
First, the AG made recommendations to improve the administration of the CCB program. They included updating the list of documents used to assess eligibility, requiring proof of birth for all applicants and greater collaboration with other government departments to ensure eligibility of applicants.
Second, the Auditor General recommended that although the female presumption concept is a legislative requirement under the Income Tax Act, the CRA should enhance its procedures and communications to mitigate any confusion associated with this concept.
The CRA has agreed with both recommendations, and has advanced a detailed action plan—which has been shared with the committee—that includes associated timelines in order to implement the recommendations.
I am pleased to report that the CRA is acting on both recommendations.
With respect to the first recommendation, the CRA conducted a thorough review of its online documents, training materials and other procedures to ensure that Canadians are better informed about the documents required to apply for this benefit, and we will require all training materials to be updated by the end of June of this year.
Additionally, by the end of July of next year, in order to conduct a comprehensive review and meet annual spring publishing deadlines, the CRA will ensure that two key documents, the RC66 Canada child benefits application and the program and eligibility guide called “Form T4114, Canada child benefit and related provincial and territorial programs”, as well as Canada.ca web pages, are updated to reflect these changes.
The CRA will conduct a review to be completed by the end of December of this year to determine the benefits and risks of the recommendation to provide proof of birth for all CCB applications.
Finally, by the end of July 2021, the CRA will consult with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in order to determine the feasibility of receiving citizen information of CCB applicants.
With respect to the second recommendation, by the end of December 2021, the CRA will complete a review of its materials and update the aforementioned two key documents, as well as various canada.ca web pages in order to ensure applicants understand who the CRA considers to be the primary caregiver of a child, what is required for an applicant to prove they are the primary caregiver, and that only one payment per household can be issued.
In closing, I just want to highlight the importance of the CCB. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, as Mr. Dompierre mentioned, this important program allocated $24.5 billion to 3.3 million families in Canada and 5.9 million children.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm now happy to answer any questions the committee has.
View Corey Tochor Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses today. Thank you for doing the important work during these trying times during a pandemic to make sure the taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. Any improvements on the system are much appreciated by everyone.
First off, you touched on the fact that 265,000 new families were receiving payments with the top-up. I have a question along those lines. It's a two-part question. I'm not sure who to ask first.
Has there been increased usage because people's incomes have been down due to COVID-19? Is that the reason there have been over a quarter million new families receiving benefits?
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-05-04 11:15
I'm happy to take a stab at that, although Mr. Dompierre indicated that he wanted to also, so he may come in after me.
Yes, there was a special top-up to the CCB as a result of the pandemic. I think the first part of your question, and maybe the second part as well, was why we saw an increase in the number of families that were eligible for it.
That is really an arithmetic issue. The amount was raised $300, but the income thresholds at which it is clawed back did not change. As a result, as the maximum amount was ground down to reflect higher incomes, there was a group of 264,000 people who normally wouldn't have received the CCB but did receive it because of the enhanced value.
I'm not aware of any statistics relating to the incomes during the pandemic and whether that caused any effect. Perhaps one of my colleagues is aware, but I would have to get back to the committee on that one.
Results: 1 - 15 of 206 | Page: 1 of 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data