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 74
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 Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the Main Estimates 2021-2022 and the Treasury Board Secretariat's Departmental Plan 2021-2022.
I am accompanied today by some senior officials in my department, whom I will briefly introduce. They are: Glenn Purves, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Roger Ermuth, Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Sonya Read, Acting Assistant Secretary, Digital and Services Policy, and Tolga Yalkin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Workplace Policies and Services.
The 2021-22 main estimates seek funding for the continuation of previously approved programs and services, as well as investments to support Canadians through the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish essential conditions for a successful economic recovery. These investments include economic support to Canadian citizens and businesses, vaccine funding, expanded support for pandemic-related mental health tools, virtual care and many others.
The main estimates provide information on $342.2 billion in proposed spending for 123 organizations. This can be further broken down into $141.9 billion in voted expenditures and $200.3 billion in statutory expenditures already authorized through existing legislation. Some $22.7 billion is related to the COVID-19 pandemic response. This includes just over $10 billion for the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.
I would like to point out some significant changes in statutory spending from last year's main estimates. These include payments to individuals under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, which I just mentioned. Other changes of those are updates to major transfer payments, notably benefits for the elderly and the Canada health transfer, and increased climate action incentive payments published in the 2020 fall economic statement.
The main estimates exclude certain items listed in the 2020 fall economic statement which do not require annual parliamentary approval, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and employment insurance.
For my own department, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the expenditures listed in the Main Estimates 2021-2022 include $3.7 billion for items such as government contingencies, government-wide initiatives, paylist requirements, the operating budget carry forward, the capital budget carry forward, and expenditures related to compensation.
The remainder of the Treasury Board Secretariat's expenditures are to continue to enhance the clarity and consistency of financial and performance reporting and to support the government's response to the pandemic.
The budget also contains a little more than $3 billion for our responsibilities as an employer. These are payments with respect to public service pensions, benefits and insurance, including the employer's contributions to health insurance, salary insurance and life insurance premiums.
The department's expenditures will also be used to prepare the public service for the future, in matters such as diversity, inclusion and accessibility, and to ensue compliance with the official languages legislation.
The funds are also used for negotiations with public sector unions, and to lead the implementation of the Pay Equity Act. These activities are described in more detail in the Treasury Board Secretariat's departmental plan 2021-2022, which, as I understand it, has piqued the committee's interest.
Departmental plans play a fundamental role in the expenditure cycle by outlining and describing organizational priorities linked to the funding sought through the main estimates. The departmental plans set out the objectives and expected results for departments and how they will achieve these results throughout the year.
In the case of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I would like to highlight a few of these commitments. For 2021-22, the secretariat will support the government's COVID-19 pandemic response by providing additional guidance to departments for implementing policies, programs and initiatives related to the response.
In collaboration with Finance Canada, the secretariat will also track the impact of the government's fiscal response to inform and support decision-making and investments going forward.
Other important objectives include reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal operations and recruiting people to the public service from communities across Canada.
In addition, the secretariat actively works to support the creation of healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces, and to speed up government efforts to achieve a public service that is representative of the Canadian population it serves.
My department is also committed to efforts to reform regulations in order to help Canadian companies be more competitive, to improve transparency, to reduce the administrative burden, and to harmonize regulations.
These reforms will be undertaken with the assurance that we will be protecting the environment and the health and safety of Canadians.
In conclusion, the priorities set out in the secretariat's departmental plan and the investments requested in the main estimates reflect the priorities of our government and of Canadians.
We continue to prioritize the way these estimates are presented, with extensive explanatory documentation which is readily accessible to parliamentarians and Canadians alike online.
Thank you again for your kind invitation to speak with you today. My officials and I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
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 Han Dong Profile
Lib. (ON)
Like you, I look forward to seeing what will be in the budget on April 19 to support small businesses further.
Last March, Canadians realized that the EI system just wasn't designed to handle the unprecedented pandemic we were facing. That is why the CERB was created, to support what I think was eventually eight million Canadians who had lost their jobs.
In September of last year, we transitioned back to a simplified EI program and created the Canada recovery benefit for those who did not qualify under the previous EI qualifications.
Based on the input from your membership, how would you say the flexibility within the Canada recovery benefit will create more incentive to work? Have you heard anything back from them on that?
Corinne Pohlmann
View Corinne Pohlmann Profile
Corinne Pohlmann
2021-04-15 17:21
As I mentioned, the one thing our members found difficult was that you could get a maximum of $500 per week through the CRB or the simplified EI system, and for some of them that has presented a real challenge as they have tried to attract people back to work, especially businesses that often rely on part-time workers, for example. That has been the one measure within the CRB and the temporary EI system that has been a real challenge for smaller companies, because some people were able to earn more not going back to work than going to work, since they might work only part time. I think those are some of the things we really have to think about before we move forward with making any permanent changes that may reflect some of those things.
View Han Dong Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's very interesting.
In your opinion, what are the benefits of having Canadians receive EI regular benefits as opposed to the CERB?
Results: 1 - 15 of 74 | Page: 1 of 5

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

For more data options, please see Open Data