Those double payments could very well have been caused because people received a pandemic benefit and it reduced the amount they would be entitled to under the CCB. Now that's being recovered.
We know from the GIS, for instance, that seniors weren't warned when they signed up for the pandemic benefit program that it could have an impact on their GIS eligibility in subsequent years. Families are in a similar situation. The debt recovery that's happening now is effectively.... What happened to seniors—which we did manage to finally get fixed a while ago—is now happening to families as they realize their eligibility for pandemic support programs in a time of great need did at some time affect the level of support they received under other programs. They weren't made aware at the time of what those future impacts would be, so it was not possible for them to budget for what they didn't know about.
I'm concerned about the impact this is having on families that are now surprised at the impact it had on other benefits they depend on to put food on the table. Of course, this is not a good time for families to be surprised by shortfalls in their budgets.
The budget talked a bit about supplementary resources for ESDC. I know that's not your department, but it is for integrity checks on pandemic benefit programs. There have been hundreds of million dollars allocated in the past for integrity checks and follow-ups on pandemic programs. I think with the $50-odd million that's dedicated in this budget, we're in the neighbourhood of $300 million to $350 million now in supplementary funding that government has requested of Parliament for debt recovery.
There's an estimated debt amount for CERB programs of about $3 billion. I understand that it's not necessarily a final number and that this number is a running tally of the department as it resolves files. I'm wondering how the agency has not yet conducted a bird's-eye view analysis of all of those CERB files to know, say, the salary profile.
Also, has the CRA looked through all of the cases to flag which ones they think are cases of fraud? If so, why would they not have collected data along the way to know how much of the extant debt is made up of low-income folks versus high-income earners versus people we think committed identity fraud?
Can you provide us with a breakdown of the debt you think you're owed and who owes it? I don't mean individuals necessarily. We're looking for some demographic profiles.