Thank you very much.
In the spring of 2020, there were kids in Manitoba graduating out of foster care, and in a context where there were no jobs available because everything was shut down, they went to the provincial government to apply for social assistance. They were told by the provincial government that they had to apply for CERB before they could be eligible for social assistance. The Government of Manitoba knew that it was a no-fail process and that the kids would not be denied, so they ended up getting their income from CERB. They weren't eligible, but they applied, not only in good faith but at the behest of a government authority. These are some of the folks who owe CERB debt.
I'm concerned that the agency isn't looking at the profiles of the people who owe money and then prioritizing within that subset, and I'm concerned for two reasons. In the case of these kids who graduated out of foster care, I think there is a moral argument for why they should be spared that kind of recovery action. However, I'm also concerned from the point of view of efficiency of resources. If the government is spending about $350 million to recuperate $3 billion, we're already spending about 10% of the total debt to get it back.
Then the question is how much of it we think we'll get back. We won't get a lot back from low-income folks who are struggling in the context of inflation. Why hasn't the agency tried to prioritize debt cases by likelihood of recovering funds? What would it take to operationalize a principle such that if somebody is below the low-income cut-off, the department will pursue their debt last and go first after cases where there is identity theft, double claims or things that very obviously show somebody acting in bad faith? Then we can go after the category of people who may have applied in good faith and have the income to pay the debt back, and only lastly go after the people who applied in good faith and are clearly not going to be able to pay the debt back.