Former Lancastrian

I am just listening to politicians, pundits and the host of a political show talking about drafted legislation to be introduced regarding the CERB programme and fraud.
There are approx 8.4 million collecting this programme and everybody agrees it was a good programme to get money out of the door to those who needed it. Granted the role out wasn't great and who qualifies or not.
I have no problem with honest mistakes made and people were under the assumption it applied to them etc etc.

So how is it an honest mistake when someone deliberately assumes another persons identity and claims CERB.? CRA reporting that this has occurred. I also expect there will be cases where people did claim it knowing they weren't entitled to it and using the honest mistake.

I was under the distinct impression that this offence already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Fraud

• 380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
    
  • (b) is guilty
    • (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
      
    • (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
      
    where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
    
    

scrubbedexpat091

Maybe the current legislation isnt specific enough? Must be some reason they felt current laws are not suitable.

Seems Liberals could not get the support they needed from the opposition parties.

Former Lancastrian

Perhaps the Liberals should have waited for this story before they tabled the proposed legislation which of course did not receive unanimous consent so they need to revise it or offer the other parties something in return for their support.

Canadians have made almost 190,000 repayments of Canada emergency response benefits they weren't entitled to receive, according to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cer...buse-1.5605838

scrubbedexpat091

The government could have been clearer from the start as well, they said one thing on TV and then website says another, no wonder people got confused over it all.

Now if this legislation had passed would it apply retroactively back to March? Could they prosecute under a law say passed in June if the event took place in March or April or May?

Not a lawyer don't know how these things work.

Former Lancastrian

Neither am I. Certain legislation can be passed and include retroactive clauses if they thought existing legislation did not cover from when the CERB was officially announced and became effective. Other legislation isn't.

dbd33

I don't see the complaint here. There's a crisis, people need money, the government gives people money knowing that some claims will be unjustified and/or fraudulent. The government is confident of getting that money back and sees the need of the many as being greater than the greed of the few so it goes ahead with the program. As expected, some people cheat and the government comes after them.

It seems to me that the government has done the right thing.

scrubbedexpat091

"The government has resisted reinstating Parliament entirely, citing health and safety risks"

But the same government wants to pass a bill that would penalize people on CERB if they turned down a reasonable job offer for health and safety risks.

Trudeau and the whole blaming the conservatives delaying money to the disabled, but Trudeau seems to fail to recognize he is letting a lot of people with disabilities fall through the cracks because the payment he wants to send out requires one to have disability tax credit, which a lot of people with disabilities do not qualify for or have, if he truly wanted to help people with disabilities he would help everyone, not just those who happen to qualify for the very difficult to get DTC.

This quote made me chuckle.

" Yves-François Blanchet, has said the prime minister is acting like a "prince" and expecting the opposition parties to agree to his every command."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...ents-1.5608312

Shard

Yup. No real issue.

BristolUK

I'm not sure I see any contradiction. The MPs are 'employed' and still working. It's considered that too many of them crammed into one confined area means they can't do the distancing thing in that area so they came up with an alternative way of working.

Non-essential businesses can operate providing they are are able to observe, among other things, the distancing requirements. Either the distancing aspect isn't an issue or they have, similarly, adapted.

Of course, it may be that some employers are only paying lip service and that health and safety considerations are genuine.

I heard some interviews on the radio this morning. "Why should I go back to work when I'm making more than when I was working?" Did she think it was permanent?
The one that really puzzled me was the man who wanted to give his one-off payment back because he didn't want to pay tax - the implication being that he currently doesn't pay tax. Chances are, he'd still not have to pay or he might have to pay a small amount. Like finding $500,losing $100 and expressing a preference for not having gone out that day.

Almost Canadian

Parliament is not operating as it normally would. What can be discussed is very limited.

BristolUK

But MPs do not only operate in parliament. They are still working. It's the comparison with people not working that is relevant to this particular topic.

Former Lancastrian

Maybe I am being a bit thick or looking far too deep into this.

The CERB is good programme and the Govt has done a good job overall in rolling out this programme given the timeframe etc etc. No programme would be perfect when introduced in such a short timeframe. Any programme is subject to abuse. The Departments administering this programme were advised that they should not carry out stringent checks on those applying. Any abuse could be dealt with later. This is what multiple Liberal Ministers said on record.
I don't have a problem with any of the above.

So in regards to my initial post why do the Liberal govt now need to introduce legislation that includes punishment to those who claimed this programme and it wasn't an honest mistake? Doesn't current legislation cover this?

Almost Canadian

I respectfully disagree. The post you quoted made reference to "...reinstating Parliament..."

MillieF

These were really frightening days, and I can’t imagine what might have happened to a greater society had these measures not been implemented. There will always be people who will try to gain from it, and there were a number of people who have suddenly found themselves earning a bit more, but it’s very swings and roundabouts.

BristolUK

Actually it said reinstating parliament entirely.
You're also ignoring the second part of the comparison.

Slippery rather than respectful.