Human Resources Committee on May 15th, 2020

[Benoît Robidoux]

Good afternoon, Ms. Chabot.

We are working hard to review how we can dovetail the CERB and the EI system. We have regular meetings on the issue. Some people have been receiving benefits since March 15, and their benefits will end after 16 weeks. Our team is working very hard to find a solution.

I will not hide the fact that it will be a challenge, given the number of people who applied in the first four weeks of the program. We are working hard to ensure that they are transitioned to the EI program, that the wait times will be reasonable, and that payments will be made as quickly as possible.

We are constantly thinking about that and about what will happen to the CERB and all the programs we have put in place.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

Having said that, I am certain that we, as elected officials, must talk about the transition that is going to take place. As you know, I agreed that one of the great advantages of the CERB was to be able to support workers who were not eligible for EI. That is quite an adjustment. I think there will still be needs after mid-June. In that sense, we have to deal with those situations directly.

My other question may be a little more specific. It's about supplemental unemployment benefit plans. I imagine you know what I'm talking about. They are agreements with municipalities or with industry, particularly the metal industry, to increase the 50% EI threshold by 20% to 40%. The agreements with the government are in place. But there is an impasse, because there are no rules for making the payments.

Do you have a solution for this?

[Benoît Robidoux]

For those who were entitled to EI before March 15, there is no problem. If they were entitled to these programs, they can continue to receive additional amounts from employers who laid them off, generally on a temporary basis. So, yes, that is an option. For those who have been receiving the CERB after March 15, that's not a direct option, as it is for those receiving EI benefits. There is not as much flexibility.

The fact remains that, if they wish, employers who have temporarily laid off some of their employees, who are now receiving the CERB, are entitled to increase it by up to $1,000. That increase is allowed under this program. Those employers can offer up to an additional $1,000 directly to employees; that's the amount allowed to date.

As I was saying earlier, the government continues to examine on a regular basis the possibility of adjusting all these programs. This includes the cases you mentioned in your question.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

I have already contacted the department and I was told that they are aware of the problem and that they are looking at possible solutions. However, even with the additional $1,000 allowed—and that's the answer I received—I think there's still a problem. The goal is to have proper agreements. This should not deprive workers who are temporarily laid off, who are entitled to EI, and who have applied for the CERB, of income owed to them. At the end of the day, we want to support workers. We are counting on a quick response and an equally quick solution on this issue. Seasonal workers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Don't be sorry, I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Next we have Ms. Kwan, please, for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials.

I have a constituent who was hoping to apply for the student CERB. However, she makes $1,040, so she's $40 over the limit. Is there any flexibility at all with respect to the application process here, or does she have to turn down her job? She has part-time work and is making $1,040. Will she have to turn down that job in order to qualify for the student CERB?

[Benoît Robidoux]

Yes, based on the regulations that are public as of today, the threshold for the income exemption is the same as for CERB. It's $1,000. In principle, if you earn more than that, you are not eligible for the benefit for that four-week period. Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Well, I would urge the government to take into consideration flexibility in that instance. It serves as a disincentive for this individual, to actually have to turn down her job because she's $40 over in qualifying.

Now, we're in a situation where there are efforts to have people return to work. In some instances, I'm already hearing concerns from constituents about workplace safety and protective equipment and so on, and the lack of protective equipment and so on. If, in those circumstances, people refuse to return to work because they don't feel that it is a safe work environment, would they still be eligible for CERB?

[Benoît Robidoux]

That's a very interesting question. I will first mention that before CERB, after CERB and as CERB exists, there's a labour code process for a refusal to work because you believe you are in danger, or you will put someone else in danger, so there's a process with the employers. Through that process, an investigation takes place. For federally regulated employees and employers, it's the federal government that would look at this inspection. In fact, it's a labour program that is within ESDC that would do this. I have to say that what is important to note is that through the process, the worker should be paid by the employer.

I think at the end of the process, if it's viewed that it is, effectively, dangerous to work and you don't want to go back to work, you're totally eligible for CERB, but someone effectively needs to use that protection through the labour code. In a situation like that, this is what our workers should do.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Then you have to file a complaint and then wait for the outcome? In the meantime, do you have to keep on going to work?

[Benoît Robidoux]

No.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Then as soon as you file the complaint, then you are able to not go to work, and still—

[Benoît Robidoux]

Through that process, and now in most provinces and at the federal level, you could withdraw yourself from the work while the investigation is going on. If it's found at the end, for example, that there was no danger, the employer could not impose penalties or anything like that, so the employee is protected through that process of investigation, and that person should be paid. Being paid suggests that the CERB is not an issue at that moment. It's at the end of that process.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right.

In terms of going forward with CERB or with the student CERB, and so on, as the economy struggles to recover, what work is being undertaken so when people run out of the CERB, or they were not qualified for EI and that's why they got CERB, they will be supported once their CERB runs out and they're not able to get employment because the economy is slow in its recovery?

[Benoît Robidoux]

This is in fact in the department, and for many people in the department this is basically what we do every day now. We're thinking about the exit strategy. We're thinking about, as you just said, what happens to these people, and what the timing will be.

The government just announced extensions to the wage subsidy, which reflect the analyses of whether it is time to get out of it, or there is something to be done.

As you know, the student benefit was done through regulations to a large extent, including the parameters that would allow us to really adapt better ways, if we needed to adapt for the summer, without going to Parliament for legislation, which would be a bit more complex and take longer.

In a nutshell, I would say we spend a lot of time thinking about the return to work and the transition of the economy within this COVID period. Those things occupy a lot of our time and our thinking.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you. I hope the government will come forward with some sort of programming, because a lot of people will be in a lot of trouble if not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Shields for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will defer my time to MP Albas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Albas, go ahead, please.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I wasn't going to be coming up, but MP Turnbull raised my interest on a few things.

Now, we have reports that public servants are not looking into cases but are actively ignoring potential fraud by ineligible people when it is obvious. That is not doing checks later; that is ignoring the issues that are right in front of the public servant. Conservatives aren't saying dig into every case. We're saying that when it's obvious that someone is not eligible, they shouldn't ignore that, and they should look into that. We're not saying slow down the system. We're saying ensure that the resources go to the right people.

The CERB Act clearly requires eligibility, yet you've said here that a memo has authorized the department to not verify eligibility. How do you justify an internal policy that is inconsistent or contrary to the will of Parliament?

[Benoît Robidoux]

I could turn to Cliff Groen after this about the memo, but the memo didn't say not to look at any integrity issues. It said to look at only the critical and essential integrity issues at the entry, because if we had continued to do what we do on the EI system, where essentially most of the files are looked into, it would have been impossible to do as an adjustment to the integrity framework at the front end. It was not abandoning any checks and balances at the get-go. That's what the memo was saying. It was not directed this way, clearly.

I will ask Cliff—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

No, I'll ask the next question, please.

You said that no political direction was given. How is that possible? Are you saying that the department makes the rules, not Parliament?

[Benoît Robidoux]

I'm not saying that. The government gave clear direction that the priority was to provide the benefit to Canadians. We needed to adapt our system to do that, and we did. I'm not saying—