There can be, of course, a top-up of CERB of up to $1,000. However, they were very specific in the last communication on May 8 that no SUB could be used, period.
Here's how ridiculous the ruling is. Generally workers would end up on EI to a maximum of $573.00 a week. In the auto industry, for example, we have workers who, over and above that, are topped up anywhere between $400 and $600 a week. If I'm a skilled tradesperson with a $2,400-a-month top-up, $1,000 doesn't do it, if I qualify.
What I really can't get my head around is why the government would stop corporations from paying a contractual obligation. We've had, for example, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler reach out to the federal government to say that they don't understand, that they want to pay, and that it's their contractual obligation. The government's argument was that somehow by allowing SUB to be paid on top of CERB, it would push companies to lay people off to push some of the cost onto federal government.
The fact of the matter is that telling the companies they don't have to pay anything is an incentive to lay people off, because now there's no cost at all, including the payment of the SUB.
It's a foolish strategy.