The changes to the PCU worried about the unemployed

Les changements à la PCU inquiètent les chômeurs

Les changements à la PCU inquiètent les chômeurs

The offices of the Canada revenue Agency in Ottawa


10 June 2020 8h31

Updated at 13h21


The changes to the PCU worried about the unemployed

The canadian Press

The tightening of eligibility criteria for the Provision of canadian emergency (PCU) and the presence of sanctions for those who have defrauded the program in a bill that will be discussed Wednesday by the federal members of parliament are of great concern to a grouping of organizations of defence of the rights of the unemployed.

The autonomous Movement and in solidarity with the unemployed (MASSE) estimates that the Trudeau government had “caved in” to a “campaign of fear” that combines the providers of the PCU to fraudsters and lazy.

The bill, which will be considered Wednesday at a meeting of the “normal” of Commons, imposes heavy fines and prison sentences to those who would have received this emergency assistance “illegally”.

The organization which gathers 14-rights groups argued that the criminal Code already includes means to punish identity theft.

He also fears for the fate of the unemployed who have made mistakes in good faith, in particular because of ambiguities about the eligibility of the PCU and of the confusion caused by surplus income payments.

On Tuesday, the prime minister, Justin Trudeau has assured that those who have harvested the PCU by mistake, without having the right, will only have to repay the amounts received. He added that it was necessary, however, “go out and get this small minority of criminals” who used the pandemic in order to defraud the system.

“Our past experience invites us to question ourselves seriously about the way in which the administrative staff will be required to disentangle the good from the bad faith of the service providers”, notes, however, the coordinator of the MASS, Sylvain Lafrenière, in a press release.

Eligibility criteria

The provisions of the piece of legislation that aimed to cut off the PCU to a person who refuses to return to work following an offer of employment is “reasonable” or a request of his employer trouble also the body.

“It is clear that there are still important legal clarity surrounding the determination of “reasonable conditions” of the return-to-work; through the establishment of exclusion if draconian, the government puts the worker-its at the mercy of some employers eager to “start the machine” without regard to conditions of work,” says MASS.

The grouping believes that it would be minimally “essential” that the bill includes provisions similar to those found in the Law on employment insurance to provide that in certain cases the benefits are paid in cases of voluntary departure.

Le Soleil

Share Button

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *