Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) - May 4, 2021

On this page

• Notice of Meeting
• Opening Remarks
• Supporting Documentation
  • OAG Winter 2021 Report – Report 4
  • OAG Opening Statement to the News Conference (February 25, 2021)
  • Overview: Impact on CRA (from AERB)
  • News Release: ‘Statement by the Minister of National Revenue on OAG’s performance audit of the CCB (February 25, 2021)
  • Action Plan (to be shared with PACP)
• Issue Notes
  • Does CRA agree with the findings in the report?
  • How will CRA implement with the OAG recommendations?
  • Why does the CRA sometimes issues CCB payments based on outdated information and without requiring proof of birth?
  • Why are two territories not participating in the Automated Benefits Application?
  • Why is the CRA presuming that the female parent has the primary responsibility for the child?
  • Can you clarify if CRA paid 88 million in extra CCB payments to high-income families?
  • Upcoming COVID-19 CCB extra payment
• PACP Committee Information
  • Member Profiles
  • Relevant Committee Meeting Recap

Notice of meeting

Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP)
43^rd Parliament, 2^nd Session

Meeting 29
Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Room 025-B, West Block
Televised

Report 4 - Canada Child Benefit - Canada Revenue Agency

Witnesses

Office of the Auditor General

• Martin Dompierre, Assistant Auditor General
• Philippe Le Goff, Principal
• Lucie Després, Director

Canada Revenue Agency

• Bob Hamilton, Commissioner of Revenue and Chief Executive Officer
• Frank Vermaeten, Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Benefit and Service Branch
• Marc Lemieux, Assistant Commissioner, Collections and Verification Branch
• Heather Daniels, Director General, Benefit Programs Directorate, Assessment, Benefit and Service Branch

Opening Remarks

Speaking notes for Mr. Bob Hamilton, Commissioner of the Canada Revenue Agency

Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Report 4—Canada Child Benefit

Ottawa, Ontario
May 4, 2021

Check against delivery.

Good morning.

Thank you Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Canada Revenue Agency’s (the Agency) Action Plan on Report 4—Canada Child Benefit of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

I am accompanied by two of my colleagues from the Agency: Marc Lemieux, Assistant Commissioner of the Collections and Verification Branch, Frank Vermaeten, Assistant Commissioner of the Assessment, Benefit and Service Branch, and Heather Daniels, Director General of the Benefit Programs Directorate.

In Report 4, the Auditor General of Canada noted that the CRA managed the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) program in a way that ensured accurate and timely payments to millions of eligible families.

The OAG also found that the CRA could improve the administration of the 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.

Firstly, the Auditor General of Canada made recommendations to improve the administration of the CCB program, which included updating the list of documents used to assess eligibility, requiring proof of birth for all applications, and greater collaboration with other Government departments to ensure eligibility of applicants.

And secondly, the Auditor General of Canada 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 confusion associated with this concept.

The CRA has agreed with both recommendations, and has advanced a detailed action plan – that 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 Recommendation 1, 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 will require all training materials to be updated by the end of June 2021.

Additionally, by the end of July 2022, in order to conduct a comprehensive review and meet annual spring publishing deadlines, the CRA will ensure that two key documents - RC66 Canada Child Benefits Application and the program and eligibility guide, T4114 Canada Child Benefit and related provincial and territorial programs, as well as Canada.ca webpages are updated to reflect these changes.

The CRA will conduct a review, to be completed by the end of December 2021, 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 feasibility of receiving citizen information of CCB applicants.

With respect to Recommendation 2, by the end of December 2021, the CRA will complete a review of its materials and update the aforementioned two key documents - RC66 Canada child Benefit Application and the T4144 Canada Child Benefit and related provincial and territorial programs, as well as various Canada.ca webpages 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 want to highlight the importance of the CCB, in fact, in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, this important program allocated $24.5 billion to 3.3 million families in Canada and 5.9 million children.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I am happy to now answer any questions you may have.

Supporting Documentation

OAG Winter 2021 Report – Report 4

2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Parliament of Canada

Report 4—Canada Child Benefit—Canada Revenue Agency

OAG Opening Statement to the News Conference (February 25, 2021)

Auditor General of Canada’s Opening Statement

Overview: Impact on CRA (from AERB)

2021 February Reports of the Auditor General of Canada
Report 4 – Canada Child Benefit

Impact on the Canada Revenue Agency – Expected to be low to moderate

Audit objective

The objective of this audit was to determine whether the CRA ensured that benefit recipients of the Canada child benefit program were eligible and that payments were made in a timely and accurate manner.

Audit scope

The audit focused on the CRA’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the controls in place for the program, and the service offered to Canadians by the CRA.

As part of its examination process, the OAG reviewed data, information, and selected case file samples. In addition, the OAG interviewed CRA employees involved in the Canada child benefit program and observed agents reviewing and assessing applications at three CRA tax centres in three regions (Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba). The audit covered the period from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, and the month of May 2020 only for the additional payment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Highlights

• In 2016, the Canada child benefit (CCB) program was introduced to replace the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the National Child Benefit Supplement, and the Universal Child Care Benefit.
• In the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the CCB program allocated $24.5 billion to 3.3 million families in Canada responsible for 5.9 million children under the age of 18.
• The benefit is intended to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age and is a key public policy tool for reducing poverty and inequality by providing help to low income families.
• The OAG found the following:
  • CRA managed the CCB program in a way that ensured accurate and timely payments to millions of eligible families.
  • Eligibility assessment was effective, however, the OAG identified opportunities for improving program efficiency (e.g., payments were sometimes issued on the basis of outdated information, proof of birth was not always required at time of application).
  • In May 2020, the government expanded the program to provide additional income support to families. The government issued a one-time additional payment of up to $300 per child, to help families during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.  Close to 265,000 higher-income families not previously entitled under the CCB received payments totaling almost $88 million.
  • According to program eligibility conditions, benefit payments are supposed to go to the parent who is the primary caregiver for a child or children. The Income Tax Act provides that the female parent is presumed to have primary responsibility for the child; this is known as the “female presumption”. Given the diversity of families today in Canada, this concept has had an impact on the administration of the program.

Positive observations about the Canada Revenue Agency

• The OAG found the following:
  • The CRA had effective systems and processes to assess the eligibility of CCB recipients. However, the OAG suggested that modifications to certain aspects of the requirements and processes would improve the integrity of the program.
  • The CRA established control mechanisms for validating eligibility, including reviews of compliance and quality assessment. In the representative sample of benefit applications and cases selected for examination by the OAG, the CRA ensured that benefit recipients met the program’s eligibility criteria.
  • The CRA conducted validations to determine eligibility after it began to issue the first payments to a recipient. This intentional approach allowed CRA to start payments as soon as possible to help families.
  • The CRA’s payments to CCB recipients were accurate and payments were made in a timely manner according to the service standards established by the CRA.
  • For the one-time payment issued to families in May 2020, the CRA followed the formula prescribed in the March 2020 amendment to the Income Tax Act. (The modified formula allowed recipients of the additional one-time payment to include families not previously entitled to the benefit because of their higher net family income.)
  • To improve the efficiency of the process under the female presumption concept, the agency considered possibilities such as sending payments to the parent who applied for the benefit, or issuing two payments per household for a blended family.

Negative observations about the Canada Revenue Agency

• The OAG found the following:
  • CRA’s first-level agents could better authenticate the information provided for data entry if they had more time to process the benefit applications.
  • Supporting documentation was not always requested by CRA agents to confirm information needed to assess eligibility.
  • In part due to limited information sharing between the CRA and other federal departments, CRA senior level agents sometimes lacked the latest information when determining eligibility for the program and calculating payments.
  • Some of the documents from which applicants could choose to provide evidence of their benefit eligibility were of limited value
  • In some samples, because the female presumption concept was applied on the basis of available information, the parent who in reality had primary responsibility for the care of the child did not initially receive the CCB payment. The female presumption concept made it difficult for the CRA to treat all applications equally in light of the diversity of families in Canada.
  • OAG observed convoluted and confusing letters sent to male partners to explain who would receive the CCB payment based on the information CRA had and the steps to be taken to be kept as the primary caregiver.

OAG recommendations and Agency response

The audit report contains two recommendations for CRA:

1. Recommendation. To improve the administration of the Canada Child Benefit program, the Canada Revenue Agency should:

   • Ensure that the list of documents that applicants can submit are suitable for assessing eligibility.
   • Require valid proof of birth for all applications.
   • Improve receipt of data from other government organizations to obtain greater assurance that the eligibility conditions are met.

   Canada Revenue Agency’s response
   Agreed. Given that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada observed instances in which Canada Revenue Agency agents assessed applications where they did not correctly apply the list of acceptable documents in determining eligibility, the agency will provide a reminder to all assessors.  In addition, the CRA will review the list as well as related training products and revise as necessary.

   The agency will conduct a review to determine risks associated with the requirement to provide a valid proof of birth for all applications. The agency will also review the timing of when this documentation should be provided to validate and support the Canada Child Benefit application.

   In addition, the agency will engage with its partners with the goal of improving data received to ensure Canada Child Benefit eligibility conditions are met. Lastly, the agency will continue to work with and support the 2 remaining territories in their implementation of the Automated Benefits Application.

2. Recommendation.Recognizing that the female presumption concept is a legislative requirement and that only 1 payment per household can be issued under the Income Tax Act, the Canada Revenue Agency should enhance its procedures and communications to mitigate the confusion and sensitivities caused by this concept.

   Canada Revenue Agency’s response
   Agreed. The Canada Revenue follows a People First philosophy. In keeping with this philosophy, the agency will review procedures and communications tools, such as the Canada.ca website, applicable guides, and forms. The review will be to ensure that information is readily available to help everyone understand the steps required for the primary caregiver of a family to receive the Canada Child Benefit.

News Release: ‘Statement by the Minister of National Revenue on OAG’s performance audit of the CCB (February 25, 2021)

Statement by the Minister of National Revenue, the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, on the Auditor General of Canada (OAG)’s performance audit of the Canada child benefit (CCB)

Action Plan (to be shared with PACP)

Canada Revenue Agency detailed action plan

Issue Notes

Does CRA agree with the findings in the report?

Key messages:

• The CRA thanks the OAG for their recommendations.
• We welcome the OAG recommendations to improve the administration of the program.
• The OAG’s findings regarding how the CRA administers the CCB program align well with the CRA’s People First philosophy.
• Following this approach, we want to give Canadians the information and tools they need to file their return on time and receive their entitled benefits and credits.
• We are also committed to protecting and maintaining the fairness and integrity of Canada’s tax system for all Canadians.
• Consequently, we are satisfied with the OAG performance audit conclusion that “the CRA ensured that benefits recipients of the CCB program were eligible and that payments were made in a timely and accurate manner”.

How will CRA implement with the OAG recommendations?

Key messages:

For Recommendation 1, we will:

• provide a reminder to all assessors to ensure they correctly apply the list of acceptable documents in determining eligibility. We will also review the related training materials for these assessors
• conduct a review to determine risks associated with the recommended requirement to provide valid proof of birth for all applications
• engage with other government department partners to improve data received
• work with and support the two remaining territories in their implementation of the Automated Benefits Application.

For Recommendation 2, we will:

• work to enhance its procedures and communications to mitigate the confusion and sensitivities that the concept of female presumption, which is a legislative requirement, could cause to CCB recipients.
• For example, we will review procedures and communications tools, such as the Canada.ca website, applicable guides, and forms.
• Our goal will be to ensure that information is readily available to help everyone understand the steps required for the primary caregiver of a family to receive the CCB.

Why does the CRA sometimes issues CCB payments based on outdated information and without requiring proof of birth?

Key messages:

• The OAG audit report found that CRA’s eligibility assessment for the CCB program was effective. In fact, our most recent review shows that the accuracy rate for CCB application was 98.96%.
• In the few instances where the OAG found that payments were issued based on outdated information, we agree that there is an opportunity for improvement, to ensure CCB eligibility conditions are met.
• We will engage our partners in other departments with the goal of improving data received.
• As for the proof of birth, the Automated Benefits Application (ABA) process allows for provinces and territories to transmit information from a child’s birth registration form to the CRA for use as a benefit application. Applications received through the ABA account for almost half of all CCB applications.
• However, the CRA continues to receive mail-in and online applications. We will conduct a review to determine risks associated with the requirement to provide valid proof of birth for all applications.

Why are two territories not participating in the Automated Benefits Application?

Key messages:

• Since March 2018, all 10 provinces and the Northwest Territories can submit CCB applications via the ABA process.
• The CRA will continue to work with and support the two remaining territories in their implementation of the ABA.

Why is the CRA presuming that the female parent has the primary responsibility for the child?

Key messages:

• The CRA recognizes today’s reality in which Canadian families come in many different forms.
• However, in deciding who is the primary caregiver of a child, the CRA must refer to the Income Tax Act and its regulation.
• The Act states that where the child resides with the female parent, the parent who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child is presumed to be the female parent.
• Recognizing that the female presumption rule is a legislative requirement and that only one payment per household can be issued under the Income Tax Act, the CRA will work to enhance its procedures and communications to mitigate the confusion and sensitivities that the concept of female presumption could cause to CCB recipients.

Can you clarify if CRA paid 88 million in extra CCB payments to high-income families?

Key messages:

• In May 2020, Canadians who received the CCB got an extra $300 for each child to help offset pandemic-related costs.
• 3.7 million families received this $300 per child payment for a total of close to $1.95 billion.
• The Emergency Measures Act provided temporary additional CCB amounts for the purpose of the May 2020 payment.
• However, the Act did not amend the family net income thresholds used to calculate the amounts eligible recipients can get.
• Consequently, families that were not entitled to regular payments based on their 2018 family net income became eligible to receive up to $300 per child in May 2020.

Upcoming COVID-19 CCB extra payment

In the Fall Economic Statement of 2020, the Government proposed additional support for families with young children for 2021. The CCB will temporarily be complemented by an additional supplement, the CCB young child supplement (CCBYCS) which is part of the federal government’s support Canadians during the economic recovery. The legislation to implement this additional supplement (Bill C-14) is before the Senate and has not yet received Royal Assent.

Key messages:

• In the 2020 Fall Economic Statement, the Government announced support for families with young children for 2021.
• This one-year supplement, the CCBYCS, would be available to families with children under the age of six provided they are entitled to receive the CCB in January, April, July or October 2021 and they have filed, their 2019 and 2020 tax returns.
• Families with a net income of $120,000 or less would receive $300 per payment, per child under the age of six and families with a net income of more than $120,000 would receive $150 per payment, per child under the age of six.
• As a result of difference in the family net  income between 2019 and 2020, families may receive a different amount in July and October than they did for the first two payments.
• This supplement will be offered retroactively until December 31, 2023 provided the 2019 and 2020 tax returns have been submitted and assessed by that date.
• Following Royal Assent, the first two payments (which were originally slated for January 2021 and April 2021) will be issued at the same time in late May 2021 and will be based on the family net income for 2019. The second two payments, which will be issued July 29 and October 30, are based on the family net income for 2020.
• Any family receiving the CCB for a child under the age of six will receive this supplement – they do not need to apply separately.
• Any family that is eligible but has not yet applied for the CCB will have to apply to get CCB in order to access the new supplement
• This supplement will be offered in addition to the CCB for 2021 and will be issued on a different date than the CCB.
• Payments will be made to the individual (parent or guardian) who is entitled to receive a CCB payment in January, April, July or October 2021.
• Parents who share custody, and are entitled to the CCB, will each get half of the CCBYCS for each child under the age of six based on their own family net income.

PACP Committee Information

Member Profiles

Chairperson

Kelly Block (CPC)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Goods and services tax.
• Harmonized Sales Tax.

Written Questions:

Q-522² — March 10, 2021 — Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek) — With regard to government contribution agreements: (a) how many contribution agreements ended or were not renewed since January 1, 2016; (b) what is the total value of the agreements in (a); and (c) what are the details of each agreement in (a), including the (i) summary of agreement, including list of parties, (ii) amount of federal contribution prior to the agreement ending, (iii) last day the agreement was in force, (iv) reason for ending the agreement?

Response prepared by FAB.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Vice-Chairs

Lloyd Longfield (Lib.)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Nil for the CRA

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (BQ)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Nil for the CRA.

Written Questions:

Q-404² — February 16, 2021 — Mr. Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski- Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques) — With regard to government spending in the ridings of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane–Matapédia, Manicouagan, Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Papineau, Honoré-Mercier, Ahuntsic-Cartierville and Québec, since 2015 and broken down by constituency: (a) what is the total annual amount, broken down by year; (b) what is the detailed annual amount, broken down by department, Crown corporation, agency or body; and (c) what grants and contributions have been made, broken down by year according to the source of the funding?

Response prepared by FAB and SIIB.

Correspondence:

• N/A.

Members

Luc Berthold (CPC)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Nil for the CRA.

Written Questions:

Q-287² — December 2, 2020 — Mr. Berthold (Mégantic-L'Érable) — With regard to contracts issued by ministers' offices for the purpose of media training, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendors, (ii) dates of contract, (iii) dates of training, (iv) individuals for whom the training was for, (v) amounts?

Reply was tabled on January 25, 2021.

Q-288² — December 2, 2020 — Mr. Berthold (Mégantic-L'Érable) — With regard to polling by the government since December 1, 2019: (a) what is the list of all poll questions and subjects that have been commissioned since December 1, 2019; (b) for each poll in (a), what was the (i) start and end date each poll was in the field, (ii) sample size of each poll, (iii) manner in which the poll was conducted (in person, virtually, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all polling contracts signed since December 1, 2019, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) summary of the contract, including the number of polls conducted?

Reply was tabled on January 25, 2021.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Kody Blois (Lib.)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Canada Emergency Response Benefit.
• Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Greg Fergus (Lib) (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Canada Student Service Grant.
• Charitable organizations.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Matthew Green (NDP) (National Revenue Critic)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Tax credits.
• Persons with disabilities.

Written Questions:

Q-71² — September 28, 2020 — Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the tax fairness motion that the House adopted on March 8, 2017: what steps has the government taken since then to (i) cap the stock option loophole, (ii) tighten the rules for shell corporations, (iii) renegotiate tax treaties that allow corporations to repatriate profits from tax havens back to Canada without paying tax, (iv) end forgiveness agreements without penalty for individuals suspected of tax evasion?

Reply was tabled on November 16, 2020.

Q-314² — December 7, 2020 — Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre) — With regard to government business finance programs and government contracts, broken down by funding program, contracts and fiscal year, since 2011: (a) what is the total funding for (i) Facebook, (ii) Google, (iii) Amazon, (iv) Apple, (v) Netflix?

Reply was tabled on January 25, 2021.

Q-541² — March 10, 2021 — Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre) — With regard to the CRA's decision to temporarily suspend, as of March 2020, the programs and services of "high-risk audits", "international large business", "high net worth compliance", "GST/HST audit of large businesses", "audit of complex transactions", "audit of flow-through shares" and "foreign tax whistleblower program", broken down by each of the programs and services mentioned, by month, since March 2020 to the re-establishment of the service of audits, and by risk level of non-compliance: (a) how many audits were suspended as a proportion of total audits; (b) of the audits in (a), how many are still suspended as a proportion of total resumed audits; (c) what duties were performed by the auditors during the suspension period; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files closed in (d), what was the average amount of time spent processing each file before a decision was made to close it; (f) of the files closed in (d), (i) how many have been assessed (ii) how many have been transferred to the criminal investigation program; and (g) what was the change in the number of auditors, in terms of full-time equivalent?

Response prepared CPB.

Q-542² — March 10, 2021 — Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre) — With regard to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) high net worth compliance program, broken down by year, from November 2015 to date : (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of non-compliance of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?

Response prepared by CPB, FAB, ABSB and CVB.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Philip Lawrence (CPC) (National Revenue Critic)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Canada Revenue Agency.
• Tax exemption.
• Canada Emergency Response Benefit.
• Canada Recovery Benefit.
• Goods and services tax.

Written Questions:

Q-32² — September 23, 2020 — Mr. Lawrence (Northumberland-Peterborough South) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s approach to workspace-in-the-home expense deductions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic’s stay-at-home guidelines: are individuals who had to use areas of their homes not normally used for work, such as dining or living rooms, as a temporary office during the pandemic entitled to the deductions, and, if so, how should individuals calculate which portions of their mortgage, rent, or other expenses are deductible?

Reply was tabled on November 16, 2020.

Q-283² — December 2, 2020 — Mr. Lawrence (Northumberland-Peterborough South) — With regard to the section on page 116 of the Fall Economic Statement 2020, which reads, "CRA will allow employees working from home in 2020 due to COVID-19 with modest expenses to claim up to $400, based on the amount of time working from home": (a) how many Canadians does the government project will be eligible for the deduction; (b) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for the full $400 deduction; (c) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for a deduction less than $400, and what is the formula used to calculate the eligible deduction amount; and (d) what is the specific eligibility criteria to determine if someone who worked from home is eligible for this new deduction, as opposed to the traditional work from home deductions for individuals who worked from home prior to the pandemic?

Reply was tabled on January 25, 2021.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Francesco Sorbara (Lib.) (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Tax evasion.
• Canada Student Service Grant.
• Charitable organizations.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Len Webber (CPC)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Bill C-210 An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors).
• Income tax returns.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Jean Yip (Lib.)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Nil for the CRA.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA.

Correspondence:

• N/A

Associate Member

Luc Desilets (BQ) (National Revenue Critic)

Key Issues raised in the House of Commons:

• Income tax returns.

Written Questions:

• Nil for the CRA

Correspondence:

• N/A

PACP Committee Hearing Recap (March 11, 2021)

Parliamentary Affairs monitored the House of Commons Public Accounts (PACP) Committee meeting held on March 11, 2021.

PACP met with the Office of the Auditor General to discuss the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Parliament of Canada (released on February 25, 2021).

During her opening statement (almost verbatim as the media statement delivered on February 25, 2021), the Auditor General made a passing mention of the audit of the Canada Child Benefit program (Report 4 - CCB), explaining it “found that the Canada Revenue Agency managed the Canada Child Benefit program in a way that provided accurate and timely payments to millions of eligible families. We also noted areas where the Agency could improve the administration of the program. For example, a better information-sharing process with other organizations that notified the Agency when recipients left the country permanently would enable the Agency to avoid issuing payments based on outdated information.”

During the question and answer portion of the meeting, there were zero questions or comments by PACP Members about Report 4 – CCB. Instead, the discussion was dominated by Report 2 - National Shipbuilding Strategy, Report 3 - Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities, and Report 5 - Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety.