Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 1234
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
Are some political parties still receiving the wage subsidy currently?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-08 12:52
I can't confirm that information because I don't have it.
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
Okay.
On the agency's website, you can see the list of employers who received amounts, but not the amounts that were paid to each employer. I imagine that section 241, which you just mentioned, explains why it doesn't show that information.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-08 12:53
That's right. The registry is an exceptional transparency process provided for in this section of the legislation. The agency worked within the parameters of the legislation and in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner—
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think all of the witnesses present here today understand the urgency with which I'm calling for greater transparency and accountability for all those who received money from taxpayers' public coffers for their operations.
In fact, I want to commend my friend Ms. Vignola for pressing on that issue. I would agree that all parties should be open and transparent about what they received, as should all companies.
I have one question, and I don't even know exactly where it lands. Under these current scenarios.... Actually, it's not even a question. It's probably a comment, because I don't think anybody could answer it fairly anyway.
Following up on Ms. Vignola's line of reasoning, it is very probable that many members of the House of Commons received dividends off the backs of the Canada emergency wage subsidy.
Anybody who invested in Imperial Oil and some of these other companies likely received dividends. I want to note the way in which this transfer of wealth happened. Many members of the House of Commons, likely and probably, through their investments, received dividends. That's something that could be the topic of future studies or exploration, if at all possible.
I'll conclude my remarks, before giving my time back, to state that while the intentions were good at the outset, the controls put in place that allowed major corporations to take advantage of this program, I believe, were a risk. I also believe the program ought to have had greater instruments of control to ensure that workers weren't laid off permanently and to ensure that the money wasn't siphoned off to CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends.
Éric Paquet
View Éric Paquet Profile
Éric Paquet
2021-05-25 16:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Thank you for inviting me. With me today is Jean-Michel Ryan, chair of the board of directors of the Alliance de l'industrie touristique du Québec and owner of Ski Sutton.
We welcome the measures for the tourism sector in the 2021 federal budget, but with some reservations. I would be remiss if I did not mention the significant funding allocated to Destination Canada for tourism projects implemented via regional agencies, as well as the funding for festivals and events, which will continue to play a major economic role in urban centres and regions alike, all across Canada.
We believe, however, that the relief efforts aimed at supporting the industry since the early days of the pandemic will not help keep key businesses alive should the financial support decrease in July and later disappear before the borders are reopened. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS, and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, or CERS, have literally been lifelines for Canada's tourism businesses. The third wave of the pandemic has had significant repercussions. What's more, a plan to reopen the border is lacking, and restrictions governing public gatherings and travel are ambiguous. Tourism businesses remain at risk of having to rely exclusively on local clientele during the upcoming summer months, which will reduce their revenues significantly for a second consecutive summer.
Already overburdened with debt in an effort to keep their heads above water and facing a sharp decrease in cash flow, or lack thereof, businesses will not be able to generate enough cash during the summer season—just a few short weeks—to make it through another winter. How will CEWS and CERS support seasonal tourism businesses if the subsidies are reduced in July and eliminated in the fall? Seasonal businesses will need the support more than ever in the fall. Would it not be more appropriate to extend the programs as needed, since they will no longer be available to businesses once revenues return to normal?
The federal government has been there from the early days of the crisis, offering relief to Canadian businesses. The relief was helpful but remains as essential as ever. We are asking the government to maintain the existing programs in response to the unique needs of hard-hit tourism businesses.
First, the government should extend CEWS and CERS for as long as they are needed by the tourism industry. It should keep the same program conditions in place and make lockdown support available to tourism businesses that are most affected. We believe that keeping the current terms and conditions of these programs in place exclusively for tourism businesses represents a low risk for the government. Over 95% of the economy has recovered, and only sectors that are the most hard hit—like tourism—would remain eligible for these programs. To further mitigate the risk for the government, we are also proposing that the eligibility threshold based on lost revenues be increased to 30%, as was the case when the programs were initially implemented.
Second, the government should adopt an exit strategy for these programs based on a border reopening plan. Tourism will gradually pick up as soon as an announcement is made regarding reopening the border. However, a period of preparation will be necessary to bridge the gap between the reopening of the border and the gradual return of tourists in the context of business meetings, cruises, international events and the like. These relief measures will remain indispensable and should be available to cover the transition period, providing the predictability required for a successful recovery.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryan and I would be happy to answer questions.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's time, Michael.
Before I go to Mr. Falk, just on that question on the wage subsidy, what percentage are you looking at in terms of subsidy? Is it comparable to what was in place? Second, how critical is the timing of that to do your planning?
That's for whoever wants to answer, Mr. Ryan or Mr. Paquet.
Éric Paquet
View Éric Paquet Profile
Éric Paquet
2021-05-25 17:44
Yes, we want the subsidy rates to stay the same as they are now. We are recommending that the current rates be maintained at 75% for as long as the programs are needed until the crisis is behind us. Regardless, businesses will not qualify for the supports unless they experienced a drop in revenue. Once revenues return to normal and the pandemic is behind us, the government can implement an exit strategy to wind down the programs.
Jean-Michel Ryan
View Jean-Michel Ryan Profile
Jean-Michel Ryan
2021-05-25 17:45
I'd like to add to what my colleague said, if I may.
We want the rates to be maintained at least for 2022. Even once the border reopens, it will take some time before international tourists return to Canada and Quebec.
Something else we are worried about is an outflow of Canadians going abroad. That would create a vacuum and make it hard for the industry to get back on an even keel. That is why, all along, we have been focused on 2022. We are recommending the programs be extended until at least 2022, to give us time to figure out how we are going to get through the crisis and come out the other side.
Michelle Travis
View Michelle Travis Profile
Michelle Travis
2021-05-21 12:51
Hi. Thank you for the invitation to address you today. I'm with UNITE HERE Canada, the hospitality workers' union.
I'd like to address the new Canada recovery hiring program and the extended wage subsidy proposed in the budget.
When launched, the government said the wage subsidy would keep workers attached to their jobs with a furlough until working. The proposed hiring subsidy is also supposed to make it easier for businesses to rehire laid-off workers or bring on new ones. The problem is that these programs aren't designed to help workers. Without tighter conditions, the new hiring subsidy could reward bad corporate behaviour and bypass the very workers it's intended to help. We've seen too many hotel employers in our industry use the wage subsidy and then fire most of their staff anyway.
While government is proposing a clawback for public company executives under the wage subsidy program, there's no clawback for private employers. For example, three companies tied to the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown have used the wage subsidy program but have terminated the majority of their staff in recent weeks. Other hotels that used the wage subsidy—Sheraton Ottawa, Pan Pacific Vancouver—also terminated much of their workforce rather than agree or commit to bringing them back when the pandemic crisis is over.
Michelle Travis
View Michelle Travis Profile
Michelle Travis
2021-05-21 12:52
Okay, thanks.
You're going to hear shortly from workers from the Pacific Gateway Hotel, a federal quarantine site, whose owners are named in the CEWS registry. They recently fired over 70% of their staff.
We want to know whether employers like these are going to be eligible for the federal hiring subsidy. Unless the government adds clawbacks or restrictions, we think the answer to that is yes.
We think laid-off workers need a pathway back to their jobs. The new hiring subsidy should prioritize rehiring laid-off staff before making outside hires, and the clawbacks for public subsidies should apply to private sector employers as well. The government should consider working with provinces on worker recall provisions, like those adopted by the State of California and other jurisdictions, to ensure workers who faced pandemic layoffs are first in line to get their jobs back.
We think that would go a long way to ensure a just and feminist recovery.
Thank you.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
Now I'll go to Ms. Travis.
We've seen this government intervene repeatedly. In fact, last June, they presented legislation that would have put people in jail if they made a mistake and wrongfully applied for the CERB. We saw CRA demanding repayment at Christmastime. We found out that CRA is now, again, for emergency benefits that go to regular families, trying to force the victims to pay in the case where somebody has fraudulently misused their SIN to apply for somebody else's CERB. However, we've seen big businesses act with impunity. We've seen them pay dividends. We've seen them with massive executive bonuses.
Your message today, Ms. Travis, from what I understand, is that what we actually need is to ensure that collective agreements are respected, that the wage subsidy actually goes to protect jobs and that it should be retroactive. Is that a fair summary of the powerful message you're bringing today?
Michelle Travis
View Michelle Travis Profile
Michelle Travis
2021-05-21 13:25
Yes, that's right.
The Globe and Mail has done a series of stories about the problems with the wage subsidy program. I think the idea of the wage subsidy makes a whole lot of sense. We don't have a problem with employers getting access to that program. The problem is that it was described as a way to keep workers attached to their jobs. We don't see that happening. We've seen employers use it selectively. Maybe they use it to cover management or maybe they just cover a skeleton crew. In other countries, we've seen that they've used it to make sure the workers stay attached and that money is flowing through to workers who need that. It's really critical to keep that connection.
We understand it's going to be a while for business to come back in the hotel sector. Now another subsidy is coming and we are concerned that there are going to be no restrictions or controls on who is able to qualify for that. There are some limited restrictions, but in terms of whether they are going to be able to access that subsidy after they've eliminated their staff and replaced them with less, will they get a hiring subsidy for the replacements? That's a problem.
Regardless of whether they're in the union or not, we've seen this affect hospitality workers across the board. Non-union workers started losing their jobs last year. Elisa referred to this. In union contracts, you may have 12 months of recall in your contract, but we don't bargain contracts with a pandemic in mind. We've asked all of our employers to consider extending the amount of time workers can come back to their jobs to get through the pandemic.
We know the work is coming back. We want to make sure that those workers who've invested 10, 20, 30 or 40-plus years of their lives in these hotels will have the first shot at getting their jobs back. We think that's fair. It doesn't cost the government a dime. It's the decent thing for employers to do. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of employers use the pandemic as an opportunity to get rid of long-term staff and drastically roll back the economic gains they've made over years. That shouldn't be happening. We don't want to see government programs used to benefit them and not help workers.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Côté, in your presentation, you mentioned that the government was extending support programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, but reducing the rates. The Canada emergency wage subsidy includes support to hire workers. However, the rates are decreasing.
Could you comment on the extension of these measures with reduced rates? Could you repeat your criticisms of the rent support and what should be changed?
Jean-Guy Côté
View Jean-Guy Côté Profile
Jean-Guy Côté
2021-05-21 13:40
Thank you very much for the question.
To a degree, the extension is still very well received, because the pandemic is not actually over. Restrictions are still in effect, especially for non-essential businesses. You have to understand that retail is not a uniform industry. The challenges facing some sectors are greater than for others.
Flexibility will always be a challenge. We are asking for flexibility in reducing the rates rather than a mathematical calculation, as it is in the budget. Certain retail sectors or other economic sectors are experiencing problems, so it is important to keep the programs going a little longer.
In addition, we must always keep in mind that support for hiring is an excellent initiative. Nevertheless, Quebec and certain regions of Canada will have to deal with a labour shortage. There may be a shortage of employees as, with the reopening of restaurants, some restaurant employees who came to work in the retail sector will return to their first loves. Retailers will be faced with a fairly dynamic challenge as they must fill their stores and keep their businesses going.
Results: 136 - 150 of 1234 | Page: 10 of 83

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data