Thank you.
What people particularly appreciated about the CERB is that a great deal of effort went into simplifying the process and that a somewhat unusual eligibility criterion of $5,000 in income was introduced. The rationale is slightly different from the employment insurance program. It is also a shortcoming in the current employment insurance program to which we have been objecting for a number of years. The criterion has given many part-time workers access to the CERB.
Another positive feature of the CERB is that it has helped the self-employed, who in fact make up more than 15% of Canadians. The vast majority of them would not have been eligible for employment insurance because, in many cases, they do not pay into the plan. Even today, the system is not tailored to them. For us, this is a positive measure, but it also proves quite clearly that the employment insurance system needs a complete overhaul. This is something that we will have to consider later, because it has still not been done.
On the other hand, we note that some irritants arise from the CERB, including the question of voluntary leaving, which is still not allowed under the law as we understand it. In our opinion, this is a step backwards because it is permitted under certain employment insurance rules, subject to certain conditions, of course. One of the conditions involves health and safety. When health and safety are at risk, voluntary leaving is allowed. It is not allowed in this instance, and in our view, that clearly puts certain employers' workers at a disadvantage.
I know that this is not the case everywhere in Canada, but in Quebec, we are starting to talk more and more about lifting the lockdown. We get the impression that this could give an undue advantage to some workers, especially since, to our knowledge, the wage subsidy rules are not very restrictive for employers when it comes to protecting their employees. They could take advantage of them to chip away at certain working conditions.
In addition, we welcome the subsequent expansion of the CERB. I am thinking specifically of the addition of workers in seasonal industries. I am also thinking of all the people who had suffered significant financial losses, but continued to receive a modest portion of their usual income. We can also add people who recently reached the end of their employment insurance benefits, and were faced with a job market that was almost non-existent in some sectors.
We can only deplore the fact that it took the government a little while to add these people to the original program. This has caused a sense and a period of uncertainty, particularly among people in areas where, of course, seasonal work is important.
We were a little disappointed with the CERB for students, which provides a smaller amount than the CERB. We have been very involved in the debate around this issue. It seems that certain things were not taken into account. For example, given the minimum wage in Quebec, $1,250 represents, roughly speaking, part-time employment income for three days a week. That is not the kind of job most university students are looking for at this time. These are mostly students with modest incomes who need to earn an income in order to continue their education. We found the rationale that this would be some kind of disincentive a little bizarre. That is not what we see with the majority of these students, who are struggling to study and working hard to get there.
What we also object to with the CERB is that there are still no legal regulations. To give you a concrete example, we still do not know whether there would be any recourse for someone who has been denied the CERB. It really bothers us because we sometimes need to represent people.
We are concerned that we do not know whether or not a recourse mechanism is in place and that, if there is, we are unaware of it.
We also deplore the continued shutdown of Service Canada offices across the country. Of course, we are not asking that the offices reopen completely and normally, but we consider it an essential service that must be provided to the public.
It should be noted that the unemployed who are most likely to turn to this type of service are the most vulnerable groups in society. They include low-income individuals in remote areas with limited Internet access—I must say that in Quebec, we are still experiencing difficulties in that respect—as well as people with little education and seniors who have trouble with digital technology.
I will conclude my presentation by saying that MASSE was also quite disappointed with the government's lack of consultation, particularly with our agencies, both from the Minister's office and from Service Canada. We understand that the situation was urgent and that decisions had to be made quickly. These were major measures that needed to be implemented quickly, and we understand that very well.
We have read that the emergency programs will only last a few months, but the recession is coming and it will hit hard. However, we hope that, moving forward, the government will set up measures to consult with civil organizations to help it reflect on future programs.
I will simply conclude by thanking you once again for your invitation to appear, on my behalf and on behalf of all our member groups.
Of course, I will be happy to answer any questions about my presentation or other aspects of employment insurance that I did not have time to address today.