Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2023

[Bob Hamilton]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I would say is that I'm confident that, at the end of the day, people will find our compliance efforts to be rigorous in this space with regard to the COVID benefits. We're taking the risk-based approach. We're taking the time to do it, and we're finding the places where we need to look. It's early days, but that's what I expect, because that's something we take seriously.

It's more of a policy question, I suppose, as to whether an attestation-based approach is right in a non-emergency environment. I would just say that not all attestation-based programs are created equally. Some have greater ties to the information that you have at your disposal. I would use the dental program as an example of that. I'm not getting into the question of whether attestation is appropriate in non-emergency times, but if you look at the dental program, we have information on the person's tax filing and we have information on the children involved through the Canada child benefit. It's a bit tighter—I suppose I would put it that way. I would just caution against treating them all equally.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a few comments about the employment insurance system. I remember that during the first few days and weeks of the crisis, my office was receiving calls from people who wanted to make employment insurance claims, and we helped them.

I was struck by one particular call. It was from a single father who provided an essential service and who had to work, but who did not have access to day care for his children. That's when it struck me: everything was closed but we still needed benefits unrelated to employment insurance. I clearly remember the teleconference calls we were trying to organize together.

As my colleague Mr. Desjarlais mentioned, we encouraged the people who were calling us and who were literally panicking to make an application. As soon as the CERB system was put online, there were something like 30,000 applications in the first 10 minutes. A few days later, the total had risen to 3 million. So clearly the pressure was enormous at the time.

I would also like to refer to an article published in La Presse On November 30, about the matter of recovery. When I heard about this decision, I was afraid that we'd be receiving calls at the office from people in a panic. But that didn't happen. I find the following quote very encouraging:

The amounts to be recovered are not considered fraud but rather benefits paid to individuals who were later deemed ineligible.

I think that in the midst of all the confusion at the time, people may have misunderstood or mistakenly made an application, or it may have been us who misunderstood.

At the moment, 1.2 million instances of recovery are being dealt with. Mr. Tremblay, you mentioned the number of letters sent out; the Commissioner, Mr. Hamilton, also mentioned these. How is the recovery process going? Are people complying with their obligations?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

We sent out recovery notices to 1.8 million individuals, and 1.2 million have responded. For advance payments, which we estimated to be over $3.2 billion, I believe, we have recovered half of the total amount. Under the circumstances, we are definitely on the right track. As for the…

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

How does that compare to other recovery methods?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Rather well, I would say.

Mary, I don't know if you have any comparisons. To be frank with you, it's hard to compare with other cases.

But it's definitely good.

We're going to continue to move forward, and that's why the Commissioner said that these were still early days in the overall process. The letters were sent out barely a year ago. Replies are starting to come in, and people are working out payment agreements. It will take a while to put the system in place. What we are seeing, in fact, is that people are willing to repay what they owe. Of course the earliest ones to respond are likely to be the most willing. We'll have to see how things go as we progress. It's rather positive at this stage.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Excellent.

In connection with the recovery process, are you experiencing the same thing, Mr. Hamilton?

[Marc Lemieux]

I can take this one.

Yes, things are going well. We've set up teams to answer calls from people who received a letter telling them that they had a debt to pay. We can give them support and help them determine how much they can repay based on their own financial circumstances. That's important. We are adopting an affordable repayment plan for each Canadian.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Excellent.

I'd like to discuss one case in particular, a young man who was a victim of identity theft. Fraudsters managed to steal some money from him, and it's frozen in his bank account. He's awaiting instructions to determine how to repay his debt. Are there many cases like this, where the money is available but frozen in a bank account, and for which we are awaiting instructions?

[Marc Lemieux]

We have had to deal with hundreds of thousands of identity theft cases over the years. We take the time to examine each one so that we can investigate.

We introduced numerous measures to help these people, reassure them, and tell him there would be no repercussions from the identity theft. If the money is available, we take time to work out a repayment arrangement with them. We want to make sure that people do not have to suffer because of the situation. They are victims.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we're nearing the end of the official time, but we started late. I'm informed by the clerk that we actually continue to have translation in the room, so I'm going to allow for one last full round. I will be judicious with the time.

Mr. McCauley, you're welcome to take up that last question you had with Mr. Hamilton. It is your time—five minutes, please—but you are on the clock, and it's my clock.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you. I will.

Mr. Hamilton, before I was so rudely interrupted, the question was on the 960,000, following up on the “with thousands more”. How many thousands more is it? Just a ballpark number would be good.

[Bob Hamilton]

Go ahead, Marc.

[Marc Lemieux]

At this time we've completed three hundred—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

The question was this: In the opening statement, it said “thousands more”. How many “thousands more” on top of the 960,000 redeterminations were there?

[Marc Lemieux]

We are working on doing about 875,000 reviews.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, but the opening statement was 960,000 “with thousands more”, but you're saying it will actually be less now.

[Marc Lemieux]

I'm saying these ones we've issued are mostly for the people who received two payments in one period. We completed a lot of the work of reviewing whether people were eligible because of income.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Lemieux, I'll just ask the question maybe a bit more clearly.

In the opening statement, Mr. Hamilton said letters were sent out for 960,000 redeterminations, “with thousands more” coming. When you say, “thousands more”, how many thousands more is it on top of the 960,000?

[Marc Lemieux]

I can't tell you exactly how many more—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Would you be able to get back to the committee with that?

[Marc Lemieux]

—but I would like to say that—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I just had one question, and that was on the “thousands more”. Maybe you can get back to the committee on that.

AG Hogan, thanks again for everything you're doing with us today.

In your opening statement, you talked about postpayment verification not being done within the legislated timelines. What happens if it's not done within the legislated timelines, and how much money is at risk for taxpayers?

[Karen Hogan]

The legislation indicates that there's a period of about 36 months to communicate with an individual to notify them that they owe money, unless there is fraud or intentional misrepresentation, in which case that period of time is extended. When you think about some of the first payments under CERB going out in March of 2020, that time frame is quickly approaching. As I mentioned earlier, there were likely some very honest mistakes by people who were just confused. Those need to be identified in that time frame, or the government can't notify them and then proceed with the next step of deciding whether collection is the avenue to take.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Right. Okay.

Mr. Hamilton, I just want to go back to you.

We talked about the change in the process in the summer of 2020. You've stated that there were 700,000 unwarranted applicants. You mentioned that you couldn't do it earlier because you didn't have the previous year's tax information. Walk me through very simply. I'm not a tax person, thankfully. April 1 is tax time. When did you have that information and when could you have changed it?

It sounded as though you changed it, from what you said, based on intelligence you were receiving regarding some fraud happening. Would you not automatically make the change when you had the tax information from the previous year?