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 20
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've heard the explanation on the amendment and I will have to give a chair's ruling.
The amendment attempts to remove proposed subsections 8(1) and 8(1.1) in clause 291 of the bill. The effect would be to revert back to the existing text of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, which provides for a payment of $500.
Since the bill provides for a decrease of these payments, this amendment, if adopted, would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is therefore inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. As I think Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie mentioned, this ruling applies to both BQ-7 and NDP-18. The amendments are inadmissible under the rules.
Are there any challenges to that? Everyone seems quiet. There's no challenge?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
He's a very polite member of Parliament. I'm less polite.
The government should be doing this. The government could provide a royal recommendation on this. It's outrageous that it is choosing to slash benefits at such a critical time, particularly when it has been so amazingly generous with Canada's big banks and Canada's billionaires.
It's an outrage, quite frankly, so yes, I will challenge your ruling on that basis. A government that actually cared about the people affected by COVID would not be doing this.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Polite or not, Mr. Julian, you speak from the heart.
Ms. Dzerowicz, there's a challenge to the chair, so I'll take that up first and then go to you.
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on the chair's decision?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yes 9; nays 2)
Jerry Dias
View Jerry Dias Profile
Jerry Dias
2021-05-20 12:51
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’m pleased to be here today to provide input on the budget implementation bill. My name is Jerry Dias, and I'm the national president of Unifor.
Just as an aside, it's always my pleasure to appear before many MPs I have had some stimulating debates and conversations with over the years. Once I give my presentation I'm going to have to get off the call. I'll be speaking to the Prime Minister very shortly on a variety of things, but also I have my national executive board meeting going on as we speak and I'm going to get to that once I'm finished with the Prime Minister.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Unifor has advocated for governments at all levels to put policies in motion to build a fair, inclusive and resilient economic recovery. We call it our “build back better” plan. This year’s budget and the first budget implementation bill show the government is at least on the right track. There are a number of items in the bill that are a good start but need some improvement.
These are the items I will bring to your attention today. First, I want to address the minimum wage. Reinstating the federal minimum wage and increasing it to $15 an hour is a long overdue move. It will significantly impact more than 67,000 people working in the federally regulated sector, but $15 an hour is no longer adequate. The truth is that we’ve been calling for a $15 minimum wage for many years now. It may have been enough five years ago, but it's certainly not enough today.
Frankly, the government was talking about implementing this in 2019, and even then it would have been somewhat short. The minimum wage should be set at 60% of the median wage for full-time workers. This was the recommendation of the government’s own expert panel on modern federal labour standards. Following this policy would set the minimum wage at $16.73. Government should be adjusting the minimum wage annually by inflation or by the average annual wage increase, whichever is higher, and establishing a federal low-wage commission to monitor the impact of low wages on workers and the labour market.
Second, I want to address the employment insurance and recovery benefit extensions.
Extending the wage subsidy program is an important step in keeping workers employed during this tumultuous time. The ramp-down rates make sense in many circumstances, but for the hardest-hit sectors, such as air transportation, this change can make the difference between a worker keeping their job or not. We recommend increasing the top-up rate for companies with significant, persistent revenue decline, as they may not be eligible for the Canada recovery hiring program because they are not yet ready to hire new workers.
The executive compensation rule for publicly traded companies should be applied for all wage subsidy support received in 2021, and not just what is received after June 5.
The extension of the Canada recovery benefit and the temporary changes to employment insurance are important. Together, EI and the CRB have illustrated the incredibly important role income support plays in stabilizing workers' lives and the need to fix our currently broken EI system with permanent reforms. We recommend some additional items to strengthen the positive effects these programs can have, including reducing the qualifying hours from the current 420 to 360, and maintaining the minimum benefit rate at $500, while increasing the income replacement rate.
Third, the budget takes an important step in stabilizing employment at airports by reducing some of the negative effects of contract flipping. We support the change and encourage consultation on the regulations in order to ensure all workers are protected by it. In order to further reduce the negative effects of contract flipping, government should extend successor rights.
Fourth, implementing the digital tax on digital giants and extending HST to streaming services are important steps to creating a level playing field and ensuring that large, digital corporations are paying their fair share. We're very concerned that the laws put in place will result in the digital giants not paying their fair share. That outcome would be unacceptable.
Fifth, the modest changes to OAS acknowledge that the current retirement security system does not provide adequate income for retirees, but it is not enough. Government should be exploring innovation in providing defined benefit plans for workers instead of looking to modest changes for the worst off and annuities that mimic retirement security provided by a DB plan, but deliver less.
Finally, the nod to the importance of Canada-made, zero-emission vehicles through tax incentives is incredibly important and a worthwhile endeavour. I will take a moment to remind folks that we do not yet build ZEVs in Canada. We have to keep this in mind as we consider ways to encourage consumer adoption, but we don't need millions in public dollars subsidizing imports. If we want to build this industry in Canada, and I think we do, all policies, including the development of charging stations, must move in lockstep with our industrial development plans.
Thank you. Kaylie will look forward to taking your questions.
Once again, thank you all very much for your time today.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think it's good to think in terms of counterfactuals here. If we hadn't had these emergency supports introduced, we would have had entrepreneurs, including women entrepreneurs, left on their own to fend for themselves.
I take your point. I won't go into the substance of what you articulated earlier. We have limited time, again, but I do think that we need to acknowledge that these programs have helped people, including women business owners, in a very real way. They have provided a lifeline. I've seen in my own community where women business owners have utilized the wage subsidy. Their workers have utilized the CERB and later the CRB. Would you acknowledge that?
Nancy Wilson
View Nancy Wilson Profile
Nancy Wilson
2021-05-18 17:32
CERB, absolutely. CERB and CRB, 100%. CERB was very much designed for individuals and self-employed individuals. CERB and CRB were a real lifeline. If you want me to acknowledge that those financial programs helped businesses, including some women-owned businesses, it's acknowledged, absolutely acknowledged. It's on the record.
I am not arguing against those programs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist. I'm arguing about including, adding or extending programs and designing programs that will help the most number of business owners.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all our witnesses for coming here today. That includes the departmental witnesses. We hope your families continue to stay safe and healthy.
Congratulations, Madam Freeland, for shattering that glass ceiling as the first Canadian woman to present a national budget.
Now, the context of that national budget is that Canadians are suffering through an unparalleled crisis. At the same time, we've seen Canadian billionaires increase their wealth by $78 billion. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have not been able to return to work. Yet Bill C-30 slashes, in just a few weeks' time, as the third wave crashes on our shores—the most devastating wave yet—the CRB from $500 a week to $300 a week. At the same time, it does nothing to address the fact that Canadian students are having to pay back student loans during a pandemic.
Will the government accept amendments to ensure that the CRB is not slashed from $500 to $300 in the midst of a pandemic and that students get a debt moratorium so that they are not having to pay back student loans in the middle of this crisis?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Julian, thank you very much for the question and for your continued advocacy for low-wage workers and students.
Let me start with students. I do believe that this budget provides unprecedented support for students and young Canadians, with more than $5 billion in support for young Canadians. It includes support in three things, actually, in the Canada student grant—in extending to 2023, as I said in my remarks, the interest moratorium and also in lowering the amount and raising the income threshold at which Canadian students need to begin repaying their loan after they graduate. That is real support for our young people, and they deserve it.
I'm happy to talk about the CRB later on, if you would like. I see that you're wanting to speak, Mr. Julian.
Mr. Chair, maybe I've run out of my time for an answer.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I will be a bit repetitive. I didn't get answers in the first round, so bear with me.
My first question is about the slashing of the CRB. We have the third COVID wave. The variants are tragically taking hold. I'm wondering what the analysis of the finance ministry has been of the impact of reducing the CRB from $500 a week to $300 a week in July. How many people, at this point, do you assume will be on CRB if the third wave increases? What is the range—the highest level, with a tragic escalation of the third wave, and the lowest level?
That's my first question.
Pierre Céré
View Pierre Céré Profile
Pierre Céré
2021-04-22 17:19
Beginning in September 2020, the government introduced programs to replace the Canada emergency response benefit, known as CERB, including the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB. Administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRB provides income support to those who are not eligible for employment insurance, or EI, meaning, self-employed workers.
The second thing we have learned is this. Last year's collapse of the EI program—a serious situation—is mostly due to the numerous cutbacks made in the 1990s, specifically from 1990 to 1996, under two different governments. The past 25 to 30 years have been spent under something of a leaden blanket. All that time, the government had the EI program in a straitjacket, if you will, to keep the program from doing its job. We saw what happened last year.
Without the emergency measures put in place in the spring of 2020—CERB, the Canada emergency student benefit, the flexible EI regime, the CRB, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS—we would have seen misery in our towns and villages, as our grandparents saw in the 1930s. The support measures have helped people not only pay the bills and keep their heads above water, but also inject a considerable amount of money into the local economy. The government has been there to help people and avoid what could have been even worse.
To our knowledge, this is the first time in the country's history that a government has responded so strongly to support its population in the face of such a serious crisis. The government introduced streamlined programs, while covering sectors previously overlooked by the EI program. It is, in a way, a true social Marshall Plan that the government has put in place since last year.
Some elements have yet to be fixed. First, the administrative delays for EI are still very long. Second, the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada work in silos. The poor communication between the two agencies is resulting in longer wait times and mistakes.
In addition, a March 2021 study by the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, suggested avoiding a premature withdrawal of support programs, while underscoring that the lessons learned from the crisis provide an excellent opportunity to review the EI system, including its role as an economic stabilizer. I don't say this kind of thing often, but the IMF is right. Until the crisis is over and as long as EI is not reformed, support programs to help self-employed workers must continue. The measures in Monday's budget appear to move in that direction, but the changes to EI need to go beyond temporary fixes.
The government has had time to make up its mind. When it comes to EI, no stone has been left unturned, every problem has been identified and all the solutions have been on the table for 25 years. Now is the time to permanently reform the system.
A crisis like the one we are experiencing can become the necessary trigger to rethink the importance of our social safety net. It happened in the past, during the dirty thirties and after the Second World War. This crisis should lead us to rebuild the foundation of the EI program, with two objectives: expanded coverage for self-employed workers, with better access for seasonal and precarious workers, indigenous communities and part-time workers; and improved protection.
Something else we must reflect on is the environmental transition and the need for determined actions. This COVID-19 pandemic may just be a big rehearsal before the next crisis, the climate crisis. We have huge challenges ahead of us and we must be up to the task.
We believe that this government has demonstrated its capacity to initiate such a shift and that it can do so by reaching out to constructive opposition and civil society.
Thank you.
Philip Hemmings
View Philip Hemmings Profile
Philip Hemmings
2021-04-15 17:22
Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance.
This presentation draws largely on the OECD economic survey of Canada that was published on March 11. Our report is generally positive about the suite of economic policy measures that was introduced in 2020 and the subsequent evolution of those measures. The initial policy response was viewed as being appropriately rapid. The steps taken were also seen as having performed a reasonably good job in ensuring income support to those households and businesses most severely affected.
Canada was ranked as having one of the largest packages of fiscal support in an international comparison the OECD made in autumn of last year. Canada's package at that time, when we added it up, was worth around 13 percentage points of GDP. Other countries with large fiscal packages in this comparison were Italy, Germany, Australia and Japan. We'd also underscore that prudent fiscal policy in Canada over past years has helped provide scope for this sizable fiscal support.
Canada's menu of support has become more targeted, which is welcome. Notably, there has been the transition from the Canada emergency response benefit to the more focused benefits, including the Canada recovery benefit, the CRB. To be sure, there will be scope for technical improvements to some of these schemes that are still operating. For instance, our report flags that the 50% clawback rate of the CRB could perhaps be dissuasive to individuals in returning to employment.
Our report emphasizes that for the time being, a focus on keeping these supplementary channels of support open is appropriate to help economic recovery. Financial assistance for households should ensure gaps and support are covered. For businesses, continued focus is needed on nurturing their recovery.
It is worth emphasizing, I think, that, even with the retention of supplementary support, the very large deficit generated in 2020 will partially unwind. The shift back from blanket support suggests smaller outlays. Also the recovery process itself, unless reversed by another shock, will bring deficit reduction through revenue increases and diminished spending demands.
The crisis has raised a question as to whether the safety net provisions available in normal times are adequate. The recent commitment to introduce automatic tax filing for simple returns, partly so that more low-income households receive the tax credits as well, is welcome. In addition, permanent change to income support may be required to make social safety nets more reliable, timely and effective. This is challenging to implement. Our report suggests that one route would be for provinces and territories to upgrade their safety net welfare provisions, possibly with financial assistance from the federal government.
In principle, a guaranteed income scheme offers another solution; however, our report concludes that such a scheme is likely to be overly expensive and may reduce incentives to work. While support programs should remain on offer while the economy is fragile, a clear and transparent road map for preventing a spiralling public debt burden is needed. Canada's past record in federal deficit and debt suggests that, to date, broadly defined fiscal rules have worked adequately; however, a more precise rule may provide a useful anchor for reining in the debt burden. Our survey and previous ones have specifically suggested the introduction of a numerical debt-to-GDP target.
Finally, I think it's worth underscoring—and this is something emphasized in our report—that a successful post-COVID economy also requires structural reforms that do not necessarily involve direct fiscal costs. To help the business sector, our report urges faster progress in particular on the removal of non-tariff barriers between provinces. It also supports continued attention to the competitiveness and quality of telecommunication services. In addition, it identifies scope for improving business insolvency processes. For households, the report advocates the creation of more affordable housing through measures that encourage the building of more homes, for instance, through lighter planning regulation.
This brings my introductory comments to an end.
Thank you.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
So we're going to keep that in mind as we move forward with the CRB, the Canada Recovery Benefit, which is the continuation of the CERB.
Mr. Paquet, did you want to respond to that as well?
Judith Coates
View Judith Coates Profile
Judith Coates
2021-04-01 16:06
It's nice to see you again, honourable Chair, and also committee members. Thank you so much for inviting us to present today.
We provided a PDF of our presentation, if you would like to follow along with that.
There are over 24,000 travel advisers in Canada, and half of us are independent travel advisers. What that means is that we are small business owners. We are self-employed and the majority of us are sole proprietors.
The two key pieces of information we want to give you at this point are that 100% of our revenue comes from the commissions we earn from our travel suppliers and that 85% of all travel advisers are female. We know that women have been the hardest hit in this pandemic, and our industry is no exception.
We have been told that we're all in the same boat, but we don't believe that's true. We believe we're all in the same storm, but in many different boats, and we believe that our boat is sinking much more rapidly than a lot of other boats out there.
Part of that is because of our delayed revenue stream. We're not like an industry that sells a product and gets paid a commission cheque the following month. In our line of work, it takes between five and 11 months from when a customer makes a booking of a trip until we actually get paid for the work we have done on that booking.
If we want to assume that travel restrictions would be lifted by the end of June, and if a client came and made a booking on July 1, we would not receive any revenue from that booking and the work we've done until as early as mid-November of this year, or, more realistically, as late as June 2022.
Our first reality is that we have been without revenue for one year. We know it's going to take five to 11 months from the resumption of travel before we start to see any revenue from future bookings.
We are asking the government for sector-specific aid, because we know that the CRB is not meant to be a long-term band-aid solution. There are other countries that are already in their second round of sector-specific aid for their travel advisers, and we believe that Canada needs to follow suit.
Here's another reality. Even though we have been hindered from earning any revenue, we are business owners. We have been continuing to operate our businesses and are as busy as ever, because we are supporting our clients. When they needed to be repatriated to Canada, we were there to do that for them. When they needed assistance with their cancellations, we were there to help them. As they have been issued their future travel vouchers, we have been processing those for them and we are continually reworking those files. As they have needed assistance with insurance claims, we have been busy providing that assistance.
Although we have been quite active in our businesses, the reality is that we are slipping through the cracks because, other than the CRB, only a very small percentage of independent travel advisers have been able to receive any funding from the federal government. The CRB was designed to put food on our table and help us pay the rent, not pay our business expenses.
There's another piece to our puzzle, and that is that we know the airlines need financial assistance. They are the backbone of our travel economy, and we need them to be financially viable. We also support the option of consumer refunds. However, in November, when the former transport minister announced that airlines would not receive any bailouts unless consumers were given refunds, there was a huge trickle-down effect. WestJet and WestJet Vacations, and then Air Transat and Transat Holidays issued notices to us saying that our clients would not receive a refund until we paid back the commissions that we, the travel advisers, earned on those bookings.
In some cases, those commissions were earned by us in 2019. They have already been taxed, and there's no way that we can pay them back, nor do we believe that we should be paying back those commissions, because they were revenue earned for services we provided to those large corporations.
We need assurances from the government that bailouts will only be given on the condition that travel advisers' commissions are protected. We're asking for the government to set up a fund in the amount of $200 million to facilitate this. Until travel restrictions are lifted, consumer confidence will remain low, and we believe that if the government is going to continue to impose these restrictions, aid must be given immediately to our sector.
We're asking for your support for commission protection, first of all, to ensure that bailouts will only be given on the condition that our commissions are protected. Commission clawbacks are forcing many travel advisers into bankruptcy.
The second thing we're asking for is sector-specific aid for independent travel advisers to help keep our businesses afloat. Please ensure that our businesses, and we, won't continue to fall through the cracks.
Thank you very much.
Pascale St-Onge
View Pascale St-Onge Profile
Pascale St-Onge
2021-04-01 16:21
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
First, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak about your work on emergency measures during the pandemic.
The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, or FNCC, represents approximately 6,000 members in 80 unions. The federation also works closely with cultural unions, including the Union des artistes, the Quebec Musicians' Guild and the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, to name but a few.
Together, our organizations represent more than 25,000 workers in the media, arts and culture. The FNCC represents both salaried and self-employed workers. Two weeks ago, the FNCC and its partners published a new and very troubling report on the situation of self-employed workers in the cultural sector. In short, the precarious situation that artists, creators and tradespeople in the cultural sector have faced for many decades, combined with the shutdown or increased complexity of activities resulting from the pandemic, has left our members in psychological and financial distress.
Of course, the living arts have been particularly affected by the health measures and closures. However, the entire cultural sector has been severely shaken. Now, just as venues have reopened in Quebec, it seems that we are entering a third wave.
I must point out that the average annual income of self-employed cultural workers doesn't exceed the low-income cutoff for a single person in Quebec. In 2017, this cutoff was $24,220. In 2019, none of the cultural activity areas reached this cutoff, not even the film and video industry.
This precarious financial situation and the weak social safety net available to self-employed workers make them very vulnerable during crises and slumps, which is the case for most of them. When surveyed between December and January, 64% of our members showed signs of high or very high psychological distress. This cannot continue. In this survey, we asked our members what they thought their net income would be in 2020, just from their work in the arts. Sixty-three per cent of the 1,500 respondents indicated that their net income would be less than $10,000, while 15% indicated that it would be less than $19,000. Also, over 40% of the members we surveyed are considering leaving the cultural sector.
Based on these data, we can make a few observations. First, 67% of our self-employed members have received the Canada emergency response benefit (CERB). Without it, many would have ended up with nothing to pay for their rent and food. This measure was most appropriate in providing direct help to cultural workers. Second, only 34% of cultural workers registered for the Canada recovery benefit (CRB). There appear to be a number of reasons for this drastic decline, including the fact that certain criteria, such as a job search, which was required even when the entertainment industry was still shut down, are not realistic in the cultural sector. Also, because of the fear of having to pay money back, when few of them have any savings, many don't take the risk. That being the case, the CRB should be extended for as long as this crisis lasts, and ideally, the administrative burden should be minimized to facilitate access.
Finally, apart from the CERB and, to a lesser extent, the CRB, few programs have reached artists, creators and tradespeople directly. A social safety net is needed for self-employed workers for whom intermittent work is part of the trade or profession. It is absolutely necessary to introduce an income replacement mechanism, without which it will be very difficult to remedy the precarious position of our artists and tradespeople. Need we remind you that without them, there is no culture? Improving the socio-economic living conditions of self-employed cultural workers must be a priority in all the measures that governments are considering.
As for the specific support programs for culture, such as the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada or the Canada Council for the Arts, generally speaking, these funds have been neglected and very rarely indexed for decades, which means that the entire sector was already in a difficult financial situation, and even more so for francophone content. Of course, the money is helping the sector, but it will need a lot of support in the coming years.
In closing, I'd like to take a few seconds to talk about the media sector. We reiterate the importance of placing government-wide advertising first and foremost in our Canadian media, whether in our newspapers or magazines, on television, radio or digital media. This sector was already severely disrupted by the fiscal, legislative and regulatory inequities that exist between them and the web giants.
The government must do everything it can to protect professional journalistic information, especially during these times of pandemic and misinformation, as well as our original cultural production, given that Canadians are spending more time than ever in front of screens.
The wage subsidy has also helped many media companies maintain jobs. It should also be extended for as long as necessary.
Mr. Laflamme and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your presentations. You're a very interesting panel of witnesses. Ms. Slater, Ms. Coates, and Ms. Wilson, the situation in which you and your colleagues find yourselves makes no sense. Hopefully the government will find ways to help you. The documents you have provided us with are full of solutions. We want you to be heard.
Mr. Siddall, you are the president and CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I want to applaud you and thank you for the work that you have done. I wish you all the best in the future. I also want you to thank all your teams, who have worked very hard during the pandemic. I can't resist coming back to a topic you raised on May 19, almost a year ago. At that appearance, we talked about forecasts. I told you that many economists were expecting real estate prices to rise. Of course, I hope your forecasters have learned from this crisis. It is always difficult to make forecasts. That said, thank you again for all the work you have done.
Ms. St-Onge and Mr. Laflamme, when you come to testify here, it is always troubling. You are saying that two-thirds of self-employed workers in the cultural sector are in a state of psychological distress. Only one-third of them apply for or have access to the Canadian recovery benefit (CRB). This is very troubling. It must be further noted that self-employed workers as a whole are facing difficulties. The president of Travailleurs autonomes Québec mentioned the same problem with respect to the CRB. She also reminded us that, whenever there is a small problem, an investigation is launched and it takes months to resolve the matter.
If your members are facing the same problem, can you elaborate?
Do you see a connection between the very high rate of psychological distress and the lack of resources in existing programs?
Results: 1 - 15 of 20 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data