Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 87
View Brigitte Sansoucy Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all of the witnesses for their contribution to the work of our committee. I'd like to point out that they all referred to the need to reform our employment insurance system, particularly its eligibility criteria; this is especially the case for women, who are in the labour force, although only a third of them have access to the program at this time.
My first question is for you, Mr. Roberts. You pointed out that precarious employment can affect any field of activity and any age group. In Canada, we even see an increasing number of people who work full time but are nevertheless in poverty and are new clients at the food bank.
Like many Canadians, we believe that the harmonization of salaries in sectors under federal jurisdiction would be a first step in eliminating precarious employment. The president of your organization, Mr. Hassan Yussuff, stated that the minimum wage should be set at $15, so that someone who works full-time is not under the poverty line despite that. Could you explain how that measure would help to reduce precarious employment?
Chris Roberts
View Chris Roberts Profile
Chris Roberts
2019-04-04 11:58
If I understood you correctly, in particular, what impact could the $15-an-hour minimum wage, the return to a federal minimum wage, have? That's being studied by the expert panel of course.
I think there is good evidence to show that a significant number of low-paid workers in federally regulated private sector industries would benefit from restoring a federal minimum wage at that level. I think it would have an important impact on bringing up standards and wage floors in regional economies where the provincial minimum wage is lower than that. I think it would send an important signal to other jurisdictions that the federal government is committed to strong wage floors.
For all those reasons—and I think other reasons that the expert panel will study in terms of the likely employment impacts—there is good reason to believe that there will be few, if any, negative employment impacts. There are just good reasons for workers in banking and in airports and other places to set that wage floor at $15 an hour.
View Kerry Diotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Where do I start? There are so many avenues.
Ms. Nord, there's been talk this morning about a $15-per-hour wage, as one of the solutions to precarious employment. I know in Alberta it has had a devastating effect. A lot of businesses end up closing, particularly the food and beverage businesses.
What's your view on going towards something like that?
Leah Nord
View Leah Nord Profile
Leah Nord
2019-04-04 12:32
Again, I think it fundamentally comes back to addressing the problem that doesn't have a multi-faceted answer. I think the chamber—I wouldn't want to speak for all of them unequivocally, but we would have a number of questions around that. Are we talking about minimum wage?
Leah Nord
View Leah Nord Profile
Leah Nord
2019-04-04 12:33
Yes. You can imagine what that might do to employment. We talk about precarity of work. You might have a higher hourly wage, but what are your total hours? These are business costs that are real. I think we have to look at how we address the problems, absolutely, but we would be very concerned in the business community. Again, there is a cost issue. There's also a jurisdictional issue. Where you have jurisdictions across the country, you have an urban-rural divide as well. I think this pushes upward costs that would really have to be analyzed in order to take it forward.
View Kerry Diotte Profile
CPC (AB)
I know that in Alberta, they found that it made work more precarious, because suddenly restaurateurs could not.... In order to pay that $15 minimum wage, they cut a worker. They laid off one or two people. They were forced to do that. It had the reverse effect.
Leah Nord
View Leah Nord Profile
Leah Nord
2019-04-04 12:34
It doesn't have the benefits of being off.... Again, it's always the data and how we look at it and how relevant...but we would have a number of concerns absolutely therein.
Philip Cross
View Philip Cross Profile
Philip Cross
2018-11-06 9:07
Thank you. I always appreciate the opportunity to address the finance committee, and particularly today I embrace my role as the token economist. I think economists should always address the finance committee.
You're going to hear a lot about social policy this morning, which is all well and good, but it is worth remembering that during financial crises such as in 2008 or government fiscal crises such as gripped Greece in 2015, social policy was quickly put aside for the larger imperatives of stabilizing the economy and government finances. We cannot take the latter goals for granted, but we must always keep in mind the need to create the conditions where growth and prosperity can flourish.
October's turbulence in global financial markets was a reminder—almost 10 years to the day after the full-scale eruption of the great financial crisis—that the business cycle will never be tamed no matter how much governments manipulate monetary and fiscal policy and regulation. A recent cover story in The Economist asked how bad the next recession will be. This is not scaremongering, just an acknowledgement that the business cycle will always be part of market-based economies. Given the inevitability of recessions, governments should adopt policies that reflect this reality.
The risks in the global economy are escalating with trade wars, high debt levels in China, banking instability in Italy and so on. One cannot predict the incident that will provoke a repricing of risk in financial markets, but the end of the experiment with zero or even negative interest rates will be disruptive. Turbulence in the global economy favours nations that take out some insurance against these risks through high savings, budget surpluses and structural reforms to boost long-term growth.
Canada today is not one of those nations. ln fact we have become one of the most indebted nations in the world, while our productivity has fallen steadily as business investment lags.
lt is short-sighted to be running a fiscal deficit nine years into an expansion. Past experience with the business cycle and the current fragility of global financial markets suggests that the next recession will be sooner rather than later. Therefore, it would be prudent to keep some margin of fiscal stimulus in reserve for when it will make a difference. Most studies find the fiscal multiplier is much higher during recessions than when the economy is growing.
There is no reason for Canada to be smug about its fiscal condition. The overall picture of government indebtedness in Canada is as bad as in the EU or the U.S., and the outlook is deteriorating with the rapid aging of our population.
The auditors general of both New Brunswick and Newfoundland have declared their finances on an unsustainable track, with analysts openly speculating when these provinces will default and go bankrupt. The fiscal problems of Newfoundland and New Brunswick today are a reminder of the severe fiscal challenges facing most provinces. The federal government cannot ignore these incipient fiscal crises, as a provincial bankruptcy inevitably will require federal aid.
The fiscal struggles of these provinces have many causes, but a prime contributor was large energy investments that went wrong. This is a reminder of the fundamental importance of energy to Canada. lt is our largest industry in terms of GDP and our leading export, and by itself it accounts for nearly half of business investment. Without reliable and low-cost energy, people cannot thrive in Canada's immense, cold and dark land mass.
What does Canada have to show for all this debt? lt certainly has not bought higher growth. Since the 2008-09 recession, three times Canada has briefly reached year-over-year growth of 4%, raising hopes that recovery was reaching take-off speed. Instead, each time growth subsided to below 2%. The same thing is working out now, with the Bank of Canada forecasting real growth of 2% for 2018, not much more than population growth of 1.4%.
Slow growth has persisted despite unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus, both here and throughout the major industrial nations. At some point policy-makers must admit the ineffectiveness of these policies and the futility of continually applying them.
As long advocated by the Bank for International Settlements, better policy would have focused on increasing the determinants of long-term growth. Many of these policies would not cost the taxpayers a cent, such as expediting the approval of pipelines, reducing interprovincial trade barriers and having less regulation. Canada has done the opposite, as reflected in declining investment and productivity in recent years.
Frustration with slow growth has driven some governments to attempt to legislate higher incomes. They have failed. The most recent example is Ontario's sharp increase in minimum wages, which was intended to raise the wages of low-income earners. Instead, labour income growth slowed in both the first and second quarters. This reflected fewer jobs in Ontario and wage restraint for other workers, as employers wrestled with keeping their overall wage bill under control.
Ontario's experience contrasts with the U.S., which showed how policies that boost business investment and GDP have succeeded in raising labour income. Amazon's recent announcement that it is voluntarily implementing a $15 an hour minimum wage demonstrates how a buoyant labour market is the best and only lasting way to raise wages.
Not all social progress results from government social policy initiatives.
Thank you.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
The idea that it will weaken the opportunities for investment here.... What about existing businesses? People who would advocate for the changes would say it's just for federally regulated employers, but the CFIB claims there will be pressure on provincial governments to follow suit. Therefore, obviously the majority of workplaces would be regulated by the same kinds of rules. The comments were that they think it will harm the opportunity for existing businesses to make profits.
Would you have concerns about that as well and do you think that this kind of thing...? You talked about minimum wage increases, about other things. Obviously at some point there's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Do you think this is the kind of policy that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back? In other words, will it put some small business operations right out of business or ruin their ability to be able to make a profit?
Philip Cross
View Philip Cross Profile
Philip Cross
2018-11-06 9:39
I think the record shows that when one jurisdiction adopts certain policies it does increase the pressures on others. We've seen that with the increase in minimum wages, for example.
I think there are two hopeful reasons when looking at business investment these days. One is the successful resolution of the NAFTA negotiations, which removes a large cloud of uncertainty from the business environment in this country. The other is the change of governments in Ontario and Quebec. I would have had more concern six months ago about adopting these policies, given the governments in power in Ontario and Quebec at the time. We'll see. I think the Ford administration's willingness to roll back some of the labour legislation is positive for business investment in that province.
In Quebec we don't know yet. On paper it's quite encouraging that, instead of the usual coterie of academics and lawyers, half the cabinet in Quebec under the new CAQ government is made up of people who either operated a small business or were senior executives in a business. We probably haven't seen that in decades, such a cabinet that so clearly understands business concerns, but it's early days. We haven't seen that play out so it's too early to say in what direction the CAQ government will go, but I would be encouraged.
Angella MacEwan
View Angella MacEwan Profile
Angella MacEwan
2018-09-25 9:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. On behalf of the 665,000 CUPE members who work hard and deliver quality public services in communities across Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
I will summarize our main recommendations from the written report that CUPE has submitted to the committee, and I'll propose a bit of a twist on what the federal government can and should do to foster a competitive economic environment.
While it's not often appreciated this way, investment in public services plays a very important role in improving any nation's productivity and competitiveness. For example, it's been estimated that each dollar in public infrastructure investment generates an average of 17¢ per year in cost savings to Canadian businesses. Improvements in public health have increased productivity by at least 20% across OECD countries. A post-secondary degree increases individual earnings and presumably productivity by about 40%, and increased educational attainment is responsible for about 20% of overall growth in productivity in Canada.
Public investment in child care provides a social return of two dollars for every dollar invested. It significantly increases employment and economic output, and it pays for itself through increases to government tax revenue. Improved universal public pensions, which this government introduced at the beginning of its mandate, increase economic growth and generate more jobs, because they generate more demand for lower-income families. They improve productivity by reducing barriers to labour mobility during your working life.
For years we've been told that we need to lower corporate taxes, cut back public spending, deregulate, privatize and sign more international trade and investment treaties to create a competitive business environment, and that this would lead to prosperity for all of us. But what we've seen as a result of this policy prescription is a growing concentration of wealth at the top, dwindling productivity growth across industrialized nations and mostly stagnant wages in Canada. If you take out Alberta from wage growth, everyone else's wages have stagnated. Even organizations that have commonly advocated for the previous measures of lowering corporate taxes and deregulation are now starting to rethink their approach.
We think it's time for a new paradigm for productivity and competitiveness, one that focuses on people. For example, the research shows us that improvements in health care are responsible for about 25% of the increase in labour productivity in industrialized countries in recent decades. It makes sense that workers are more productive when they have their basic needs taken care of, when they have high-quality post-secondary education that they can afford, and when they don't have to worry about bridging the gap in their families' various care needs. This is why CUPE recommends several measures to restore the social wage in Canada, which will boost productivity, competitiveness and well-being for all Canadians.
The first is to establish a national, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan. We recommend that it be developed with the provinces and territories to make sure that all Canadians have access to safe and effective prescription drugs, with a national formulary and an arm's-length federal agency to manage the plan.
We recommend that the federal government commit to sufficient long-term funding to establish a national early-learning and child care framework, working with the provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, that will ensure universal, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all Canadian families, and we recommend that in this budget, we invest at least a billion dollars toward that aim.
This is a bit of a higher goal. We recommend that you create a dedicated post-secondary transfer to the provinces, increasing transfer funding by 40%, and work with the provinces to reduce and eventually eliminate tuition fees for post-secondary education.
We recommend a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. Again, that increases demand for low-income families. It supports local communities and increases economic output. We recommend a modernized fair wage policy that applies to all federal contractors. The federal government should set the standard in establishing fair wages and good work.
We recommend converting the Canada Infrastructure Bank to a truly public infrastructure bank that uses only the lower-cost public funding, and convert federal funding for more costly P3s into funding for publicly financed and operated infrastructure.
We recommend that you level the playing field for national businesses and tax foreign e-commerce companies like Uber, Airbnb, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon and Google on the business that they do in Canada. It's only fair and it would generate about $1 billion in tax revenue.
Finally, I would submit to the committee that Trump's tax cuts are a short-term “sugar rush” for the U.S. economy and are likely to be either undone or result in significant cuts to public services in the U.S. Either way, there is no rush to follow the United States down a path that has seen large U.S. corporations continue a trend of short-term stock price boosting through, for example, share buybacks, and has not seen any significant investment in physical infrastructure or in workers.
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Hassan Yussuff
View Hassan Yussuff Profile
Hassan Yussuff
2018-04-30 15:32
Thank you, sir.
Chair and honourable members, good afternoon.
First, on behalf of the three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-74.
We want to commend the government for two recent improvements to the working income tax benefit, WITB, now renamed the Canada workers benefit, CWB. The first of these improvements expanded WITB as part of the Canada pension plan enhancement. The second improvement is proposed in Bill C-74. In total, there will be nearly $1 billion of annual investment coming into effect in 2019 that will increase the maximum benefit and expand the number of workers who will receive these benefits. The government estimated that these enhancements will lift about 70,000 people out of poverty, and will encourage a greater labour market participation.
We're also pleased that the Canada Revenue Agency will automatically enrol low-income tax filers who are eligible for the benefit. This will improve access for low-paid workers. The government estimates that an additional 300,000 low-income workers will receive the CWB in the 2019 tax year.
We also have several recommendations to further improve the benefits.
First, receiving EI benefits should not cause the CWB to be reduced. Currently, the CWB is gradually phased out based on net income instead of on earnings. This means that EI beneficiaries can be eligible for the Canada workers benefit. Workers have earned these benefits by paying EI premiums, and their EI benefits should not reduce their CWB.
Second, low-income workers should be able to get the CWB more frequently through the year. Low-paid workers need the CWB in periods of low or no earnings. However, only half of the anticipated benefit can be paid in advance. In our view, the CWB should be changed so that 100% of the expected benefit can be paid quarterly, instead of having to wait for tax time. This would be similar to other transfers like the GST tax credit.
Third, it is important to keep in mind that this is still a very modest benefit. In 2015, 1.2 million working-age Canadians received the WITB, with an average annual benefit of only $807 per household. Many recipients of the benefit will continue to fall below the poverty line. More money should, therefore, be allocated to the Canada workers benefit to provide higher benefits and to phase it out more slowly. We believe that no worker in Canada should live in poverty. In particular—shamefully—full-time, full-year workers earning minimum wage in Canada could be earning at or near the poverty line. This leads to my final point.
The CWB alone is simply not enough. It must be part of a broader tool kit to eliminate working poverty in Canada.
As the 2018 budget noted, over the past four years, lower and middle-income workers have had their wage prospects stall while the CWB remains essential. Therefore, we must strike new wage and workplace standards and combat precarious work. This should take a three-prong approach.
First, we need to strengthen the labour standards of the Canada Labour Code, which we hope we will do this year. This will include the creation of a new federal minimum wage. A $15 federal minimum wage is long overdue. The federal government also should enact measures to ensure equal pay protection for part-time, temporary, and contract workers within the federal jurisdiction.
Second, there is still a gap between the number of Canadians who want to join a union and the number of Canadians who are actually represented by a union. The best and the most effective way to raise wages and fight precarity is by giving these workers a voice in the workplace. This means strengthening the labour laws to enable workers to join a union.
The third prong is simple. Attack the joblessness and unemployment by creating decent jobs. The CLC urges the government to invest in the bold economic transition to a low-carbon economy. We have an historic opportunity to respond to the climate crisis and generate decent jobs—green jobs—through the ambitious program of energy investment, public transit, and home and building retrofits. There are many job options here waiting to be tapped. If we reduce the labour market slack and address underemployment, wages will begin to rise.
Finally, I want to say something about the improvement to the Canada pension plan in part 6 of this bill. The CLC welcomes these enhancements to the survivors pension and other benefits. With respect to the child rearing and disability dropout, we believe the government hasn't properly researched the impact on women and workers with a disability. We therefore recommend the committee ask the Department of Finance to provide detailed modelling of the drop-in provision that's in the bill in regard to the CPP enhancement, for the committee members.
I want to thank the committee members for the opportunity to be here today. I will answer on behalf of the congress any questions the committee wishes to pose.
Thank you so much.
Kathy Ouellette
View Kathy Ouellette Profile
Kathy Ouellette
2018-04-26 8:45
In 2000, the Maison des métiers d'art de Québec, the MMAQ, created the Materia Gallery, located on the ground floor of its eight-storey building, in the heart of the Saint-Roch neighbourhood, in Quebec City. At the time, there were no presentation venues for crafts in Quebec. By adding a public gallery to its premises, the MMAQ opened itself up to the world by attracting the attention of passersby, but also by allowing master craftspeople who came from all over to showcase their work and make it known.
In 2003, the Materia Gallery became the Centre Materia, an artist-run centre overseen by a board of directors operating at arm's length from the MMAQ's board of directors. Materia's sustainability is due, even today, to the considerable financial support from the MMAQ.
Materia's mission is to spread and promote research and creation in crafts, nationally and internationally. As the only Canadian artist-run centre for fine crafts, Materia is working to highlight the work of the biggest creators, as well as emerging artists, by presenting it in a professional context. Material is becoming a unique site for presenting and interpreting current fine crafts. Over the years, the excellence of events presented at Materia has contributed to changing mentalities and opening up perceptions on crafts.
Since its creation, the centre has presented the work of nearly 600 craftspeople selected by juries of their peers. At a rate of five or six exhibits a year and a number of satellite activities, such as conferences, seminars, videos and publications. So far, Materia has coordinated over 100 exhibits and welcomed nearly 70,000 visitors. Altogether, that represents direct benefits of $680,000 for artists, be it in copyright royalties, exhibition fees, professional fees or sales. The impact on the community is not only monetary; it is direct and daily on all types of users.
The main challenge, for Materia, has to do with operational funding. Some artist-run centres that are recognized and supported for their mission, but others, such as Materia, are recognized but are not supported. For nearly 18 years, the centre has been hoping that its mission would finally be recognized by the Canada Council for the Arts.
We occasionally receive funding for projects from the Canada Council for the Arts. That funding is certainly essential, but it focuses on the short term. Strong strategies with a sustainable impact on a community are not built in a hurry.
According to Mana Rouholamini, of the Canada Council for the Arts, last year, the money allocated to projects increased by 224%, while the money allocated to operations increased by only 55%.
I am the director of an artist-run centre that employs four people, three of whom are permanent employees. As the general director, I have a bachelor's degree, and my salary is $29,700. The project coordinator, who holds a master's degree in museum studies, earns $22,300 annually. The person in charge of the public and set-ups, who is a technician with a college degree, earns $15,600.
It is extremely difficult to retain staff. On average, general directors remain for 3.4 years, coordinators for 1.4 years, and those in charge of the public, 0.6 years.
Those staffing changes considerably slow down the centre's development and make it difficult to establish stable connections. Because of those changes, canvassing is almost non-existent and organizational functionality is precarious, not to mention the cost and time spent on hiring and training staff.
The solutions adopted to balance budgets have the least impact on the quality of exhibits. In those conditions, it is practically utopic to hope to unlock an organization's full potential.
The anemic funding and the non-indexing of subsidies to operations have direct impacts on the centre's sustainability.
In Quebec, in May 2018, minimum wage will increase by 6.6%. Artist-run centres cannot increase their prices to make up for the losses. The impacts will be felt on workers involved in cultural fields, be it through reduced work hours or job cuts.
Finally, in our opinion, increasing the money provided for operations and the number of centres entitled to those subsidies is critically important. Financial assistance for the mission confirmed over several years—for example, three years—would enable artist-run centres to plan their cultural offer more adequately and take the long-term into account. Most importantly, it would greatly improve the quality of life of passionate artists and cultural workers.
Samuel Meyer
View Samuel Meyer Profile
Samuel Meyer
2017-12-04 15:42
Thank you.
Hello, everyone. My name is Sam Meyer, and I work in operations for an architectural millwork firm that specializes in the manufacturing of custom case goods and wood products for various commercial, industrial, and institutional industries. We are a family-run business that has been in operation for over 30 years.
In recent years we have been facing increases from various areas of our business, and the threat of higher and increased charges continues to roll in. This is coming from the provincial and federal levels, and encompasses everything from material surcharges, hydroelectricity, minimum wage and vacation time increases, to CPP and payroll taxes. It is becoming a lot more expensive to operate a business in the province of Ontario, and the opportunities to recoup these costs are diminishing.
On the material purchasing side, we have faced various increases from different levels. We have started to see carbon charge lines as well as delivery surcharges on almost all orders we receive. This was not prevalent in years past, and it is becoming harder to predict the shipping and supply costs of the various materials we bring in.
The millwork industry is dealing with varying quality, availability, and cost issues with a lot of our materials and supplies. With the latest anti-dumping ruling, brought in on imported Chinese plywood, all imported materials are slated to increase in the near future. These are unforeseen costs and not allowed for in our original quotations. We are not able to request a change for the increase in material costs.
For some of our projects, green building credits are being pursued by architects and designers through material specifications that include low or formaldehyde-free boards and certified lumber and panels. Suppliers who can supply these materials are becoming more difficult to find, especially for small orders. For example, just this past week, we required 50 sheets of material for a small part of a project and our suppliers came back stating we must order many times that amount. They said we needed a minimum order of 300-plus sheets, which is about six lifts. This not only throws the project material cost way up, but reduces our revenue, and above all, it is wasteful, given the fact that we might not be able to use this material again for other projects and must either dispose of the 250 extra sheets that aren't needed, or tie up needed square footage to store this material in the hopes that we can use it in the future.
Millwork product specifications are generally established and reused by designers and architects, some of whom have limited knowledge of wood properties, gluing, finishing, etc. This situation is problematic as we have noticed that designer specs are often of poor quality or are outdated. Unrealistic specifications force millwork companies to redesign the products ordered and then finish the technical details of designs. This additional work translates into unforeseen additional costs. All architectural millwork companies should be required to follow the strict guidelines set out by the Architectural Woodwork Manufacturers Association of Canada, or AWMAC for short. This would help to eliminate outdated and redundant specifications, allow for fairer pricing, and give the end-user a better quality product.
As we are members, we feel this would bring up all quality levels to realistic expectations, and projects would be quoted on the same level by competent competitors. This would result in fairer pricing for a better product.
On the operational expenses side, we have seen increases from various sectors and areas. The cost of hydroelectricity has just been reduced as a provincial rollout program to assist with this expense. However, we have already seen increased charges, and received letters stating further biannual increases are slated for the near future. We are being forced to use hydro as our main source of power, and penalized for that, as there are currently no cost-effective alternatives for our high-voltage industrial power needs.
We would appreciate being able to contribute to a healthy environment. However, we are lacking the resources to be able to do our part as a small business.
Recently, we received notice that the minimum wage is increasing. It has gone from $11.40 in May of this year to $11.60 this past October, and will increase to $14.00 an hour as of January 1, 2018. This is a large increase in a short time, as we sometimes quote our work upwards of a year in advance, using the current labour rates. All our contracts are binding, and we do not have grounds for increases once contracts have been signed. This is now a bottom-line hit that cannot be recovered.
This also causes a trickle-up effect. Everyone higher up in the company has said they feel entitled to a pay increase, no matter what their current pay rate is. Also, as of May this year, there were additional mandates for vacation time pay, as well as paid emergency days off. Vacation time pays are increasing from two to three weeks, and emergency days are now an additional mandatory paid two days off.
We are all for the fair treatment of our employees. However, as previously mentioned, this is another bottom line hit that cannot be recouped.
The millwork industry is currently dealing with a shortage of labour. Part of the problem results from the fact that jobs in this sector tend to be low-paying. Apprenticeship programs do exist but most training is still done in-house. There seems to be an increasing threat to the trades as a whole, as our high school system continues to push students away from attending trade schools and colleges, and gears them towards universities and professional degrees. There's a disconnect between what our schools are teaching and what we as companies can offer.
Our schooling system promises high dollar payouts. The reality is much different. On a recent visit to another local kitchen cabinet manufacturer, there was a presentation by a professor from the local college in that area and he stated a case where students can expect to earn upwards of $35 an hour, with a pension and full benefits, just for finishing their program. This reality is grossly overstated, as a qualified cabinet-maker of equal skills can expect to earn about a half of this amount, just out of school.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you all for your time, for allowing us to share our challenges and experiences operating as a business in the wood manufacturing sector in Ontario. We are positive and hopeful that we can resolve some of the challenges I've outlined and work together towards a better and stronger country from all sides.
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 87 | Page: 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data