Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for joining us. I also want to thank them for emphasizing, in their presentations, the role of their employees.
Like you, I believe that it would have been worthwhile, given the current circumstances, to hear from representatives of Walmart or other major American chains. I want to highlight your transparency, your honesty and your way of presenting your perspective. Perhaps your discussions led to easier decisions. However, I can see that each of you has implemented a very independent decision-making process.
I now want to address the working conditions of employees, particularly the conditions identified on Monday. It was pointed out that, in the 1970s, a job in a grocery store constituted worthy work. A grocery store employee earned enough each year to be able to purchase a house. The Teamsters Canada representative said that 50% of employees represented by the union earn minimum wage. Many grocery store workers therefore have precarious jobs. They are mostly students and part-time workers who have limited or no group insurance and pension plans. In other words, these aren't middle-class jobs.
Many of these front-line workers are working women. In this context, we're not talking about pay equity, and we acknowledge that these jobs are precarious. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that these jobs are an essential service. In reference to what my colleague Mr. Erskine-Smith just said, I want to point out that the chief executive officer of Loblaw, Mr. Weston, stated the following:
I continue to be a strong believer in a progressive minimum wage and would support any government-led effort to establish a living wage.
We still need to know what constitutes a living wage. Should this living wage enable a worker to at least buy a home? According to “BILAN-FAIM Québec 2019,” 13.5% of the public earns minimum wage, and people aged 18 to 64 use food banks.
Would you be comfortable knowing that some of your grocery store employees use a food bank in order to eat? I find the irony here a little shocking.
From a legislative standpoint, to provide a better framework for your measures and to ensure equal competitiveness—this expression was used on Monday—would the government need to issue an order in council—this wouldn't be an agreement between you, but a government obligation—to ensure that salaries are increased and that this step is taken?
I'll conclude by saying that Costco initially pays its employees $15 an hour. However, after six years, it can pay them $28 an hour. In the long run, there are benefits to providing a more worthy wage. The whole recruitment process must be very difficult because of the precarious nature of the jobs.
In short, would you be open to the idea of an order in council that would further require companies such as yours to increase the wages of their employees?
I want to hear from the Metro representative first.
