Evidence of meeting #36 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Would you also favour, perhaps, considering other measures? A lot of employers who approach me say 5% of their employees are temporary foreign workers; so 95% are Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
Is it fair for the government to say, for a certain maximum percentage of employees, use temporary foreign workers, to thereby ensure that the vast majority of people the employer is hiring are Canadian?
Prof. Christopher Worswick
I think that is a good idea. It's something I've considered. I don't know what the percentage is, but I think in situations where 100% are temporary foreign workers, I would think that would raise alarm bells. This might be a questionable enterprise in this regard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My time is up. I will cut myself off, as I do others.
I want to thank you very much for being with us this afternoon and contributing to our discussion on Bill C-31.
Colleagues, we're going to take a break for a couple of minutes. Before I do, I've passed around the budget for Bill C-31. Could I have someone move this budget?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's moved by Mr. Cullen.
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you so much for that.
We'll suspend for about five minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We're continuing our study of Bill C-31.
I apologize for the heat. We are endeavouring to address that.
I want to welcome our second panel. Speaking as an individual, we have Ms. Sandra Nelson. From the Canadian Museums Association, we welcome back Mr. John McAvity. From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we have Mr. Gregory Thomas. From the PEI Mutual Insurance Company, we have Mr. Blair Campbell. From the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, we have Mr. Sean Reid.
Thank you so much for being with us. You each have five minutes maximum for your opening statements, and then we'll have questions from our members.
We'll begin with Ms. Nelson, please.
Sandra Nelson As an Individual
Thank you.
We sit before you today as proof that the TFW program is broken. I am Sandy Nelson, and with me today is Shaunna Jennison-Yung. We are two waitresses from Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
Further to our brief, which you have already received, the following points highlight our concerns.
First, an employer such as ours can simply restructure his business and discharge all staff and keep only the people he wants by saying, “We offered jobs and they didn't want them.” Clearly, in our case, jobs were not offered to us. We believe all staff did not receive the notice of discharge. If it were the case, was Service Canada notified? Were new LMO contracts applied for? Were ROEs issued? This, to us, is a blatant abuse of the federal guidelines. The same guidelines state that TFWs or LMOs should be laid off first in times of work shortage.
Second, I myself in January 2014 lost 20 hours a month to the then TFW, and was told she needed her 40 hours per week.
Third, there's the question regarding TFWs coming here to do specific jobs. Is it not against the rules to have someone hired as a waitress or server to then work in housekeeping while the restaurant is under construction, without a change to the contract? As well, a TFW cook is dishwashing part-time and has taken hours from a Canadian dishwasher to ensure that her 40 hours a week are filled. This particular Canadian is now getting, at most, nine hours a week.
On the hotel side of the business, is it not against the rules to have housekeepers going to the bosses' homes to do chores such as yardwork and cleaning? Also included in their duties is the cleaning of bosses' vehicles. This is paramount to slavery. As contract workers, they simply oblige.
Next, we would like to discuss the LMO itself. Shaunna saw first-hand a Canadian applicant who was applying for a prep cook job sit and wait to speak to the boss for an hour. The applicant seemed qualified and was eager for a job. After talking with the boss, the young man left. The boss, Harry, then tossed the application aside, explaining to Shaunna that the job had to be posted in order to get an LMO for a brother-in-law of a current employee from the Philippines. This was the norm, as people did apply for jobs in all categories at the hotel, including housekeeping.
There needs to be safeguards for Canadians such as us. The media was a last resort for us, as we first contacted labour standards, human rights, program integrity services, and the office of Jason Kenney. We did meet with Dustin Duncan, our local MLA, and although he would do what he could, his hands were tied.
There needs to be more information readily available to Canadians regarding the reverse discrimination they may be experiencing in their workplaces. There needs to be more than a telephone number to report abuses. Even a lawyer can't help in regard to this program, since it is a federal program and there are no laws and no legislation to address these issues.
We believe as well that what our boss did in the discharging of all employees was done at this particular time to indeed protect one TFW who had just recently obtained landed immigrant status. The other employee, a cook, who was discharged along with us has been here for approximately seven years and still has only landed immigrant status, which for him is good enough. He could become a citizen, but as he says, he has an open permit to work for five years, and the only right he hasn't got is the right to vote. We don't know how many keep just their landed immigrant status, but that should be an interesting statistic to know.
We believe the reasons more people don't speak up include not knowing what their rights are, no one to actually handle complaints, and having others turn it into a racist issue.
It has been quoted time and time again that the government will not tolerate employers who hire foreign workers when Canadian workers are available and willing to do the same jobs. Yet here we are. The province has started an investigation, and for that we are grateful. However, they can do nothing as it pertains to this program. We have yet to hear from any person from Jason Kenney's office, even though there is to be an urgent investigation.
There must be a tightening of these rules immediately. We sit before you today maintaining that this program is severely broken. We hear talk of stiff fines, suspensions for rule breakers, and severe consequences for abuse. Where is it? We dare anyone to read our brief and tell us that our former employers did not break the rules. As Canadians, we feel unwelcome in our own country. This is unfair not only to us but also to the vulnerable temporary foreign workers now in this country.
I would like to add that we did get an e-mail from Jason Kenney's office on May 13 regarding our e-mail of April 7. As noted in the letter, no information will be divulged due to privacy issues. None of our questions will be answered, and it is apparent that we will not be interviewed or be part of this investigation. We cannot understand why we as complainants would not be part of an official investigation process.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Nelson.
We'll now hear from the Canadian Museums Association.
John McAvity Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the interests of time and temperature, I will try to be under the five-minute line.
We are very pleased to be here. I'm John McAvity, the executive director of the association. We have approximately 2,000 not-for-profit museums and galleries all across Canada. They welcome about 60 million visitors each year, so they're enormously important and spread out, from large metropolitan cities to small rural communities. They're also extremely popular and are viewed very favourably by Canadians. In fact, according to studies, 96% of Canadians believe museums contribute to a better quality of life.
I believe I speak on behalf of all of our members when I say that we were very pleased with the federal budget of February 11, which protected the museum programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage and also at the Canada Council for the Arts, programs that are vital to the well-being of our country's museums. There are, however, two other issues that we would like to bring forward to you today.
The first is division 11, which amends the Museums Act of Canada in order to transfer responsibility for two programs, the virtual museum of Canada and online works of reference, to the Canadian Museum of History. Particularly, we are concerned that there was a lack of consultation. We did not see this decision coming, and there are a number of subsequent questions that we are awaiting clarity on.
As a national museum, the Canadian Museum of History is a world-class institution that adheres to the highest professional standards. We applaud its mandate of raising the profile of Canadian history and have no doubt about its capacity to deliver on these programs being transferred to it.
Our concern refers to clause 193, in which proposed subsection 9(3) states:
The Canadian Museum of History may support other museums or organizations that have a purpose that is complementary to its own
On the positive side, the transfer of these programs does represent an opportunity to renew and broaden these programs, integrating new forms of technology and helping the programs move forward. We do not want to see these programs be narrowed. We want to ensure that our nation's heritage is not restricted to historical artifacts or archival materials, as per the museum's role, but also through art, science, oral history, and other forms of culture. We argue for the very broadest definition possible.
I should also go on to talk a bit about the virtual museum of Canada, because it is an important program that supports museums across the country and teaches them the process of developing online exhibits as well as helping to digitize museum collections. We need to ensure that it and the other program being transferred are inclusive and accessible to the whole community.
A second matter of concern to our community is the recent changes to the cultural property review board in this budget. This is a very valuable program that assists in the protection of cherished historical items and encourages the growth of private giving in Canada. In the last two reported years, the board's permits and actions resulted in over 34,000 items of outstanding significance and national importance, valued at over $178 million in tax credits, being saved for the public good in our museums and galleries.
On February 11, the federal budget effectively closed down one donation model that some taxpayers had used. Some had used favourable tax treatments, fluctuations in values, and exemptions from capital gains to their advantage, all very legal activities. These shelters are now ineligible under the program. Some professionals are wondering what further changes may be coming.
The next part in Bill C-31 sees the authority of the cultural property review board being transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to a new administrative tribunal. Again, there was no consultation. We were not aware of this change.
We are wondering where all of this is leading. Assurance is badly needed for the integrity, openness, and long-term stability of the cultural property review program.
We thank you for your time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much for your presentation.
We'll now hear from Mr. Thomas, please.
Gregory Thomas Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
We welcome this opportunity to present to you on behalf of our 84,000 supporters across Canada, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Canada's oldest and largest taxpayers' advocacy organization.
We realize the first-ever appearance by the leader of the official opposition to a parliamentary committee is a tough act to follow.
I understand that it's now mandatory to lead with some Latin, so I'd like to say boni pastoris est tondere pecus, non deglubere. The emperor Tiberius advised his regional governors that it is important to shear the flock of sheep and not to slaughter them, in reference to taxation policy.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
So we bring you that reminder in the spirit of the day and in the new spirit of reviving classical languages at the Commons committee meetings.
With regard to the debate around the future of Canada's supply of workers, we remain troubled that since the financial meltdown of 2008 the average Canadian couple—each partner earning $50,000, at least—between them and their employers, they're sending $934 a year more to Ottawa in employment insurance payroll taxes than they were at the onset of the recession. We think that Parliament ignores the fact that this money is coming right off people's paycheques. It is diminishing their disposable income and it is making it more difficult for a consumer-led recovery that generates employment and prosperity. It makes it tougher for Canadian families.
We think that the absolutely first order of business with family-friendly tax relief in the coming budget has to be getting these payroll taxes back in line and getting this program under control. By the government's own projections, the government is expecting to bring in at least $4 billion, and possibly $5.5 billion more, in employment insurance payroll tax revenue than goes out in benefits. Yet, for every dollar of payroll tax revenue that's collected, the government is spending 11¢ on administration.
How does this affect Canada's labour markets? We just heard a story today of a boat maker in New Brunswick who moved to Maine. He cited employment insurance regulations as one of the biggest aggravating factors. A young person today can work 26 weeks in any major Canadian city, whether it's Halifax, Moncton, Calgary, or Vancouver, and they won't even get their contributions to the EI fund back. People who are working and making a working person's wages don't even get their contributions back. Yet in some of these economic regions, someone can work the identical number of hours and get $17,000 in EI benefits.
Well, no wonder we're having a hard time filling job vacancies in Canada, when, depending on your postal code, you can get $17,000 in benefits, while someone living in a major city where there is work gets nothing. They don't even get their contributions back. It's an injustice. We urge this committee to tackle that issue.
Conservative
Blair Campbell General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, PEI Mutual Insurance Company
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I for one will not be complaining about the heat, after the winter we've had in Prince Edward Island.
General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, PEI Mutual Insurance Company
My name is Blair Campbell. I'm the general counsel and corporate secretary for Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company. I come to you in this capacity, but I also sit on the executive committee of the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
I'm here today to address division 14 of part 6 of Bill C-31. It provides, in part, rules to enable the conversion of mutual insurance companies to capital stock companies, which is otherwise known as demutualization. I come to you to express grave concern over this decision and to explain the impact that these rules may have on our companies, and in particular on rural Canada.
Our company, Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company, is one of 100 mutual insurance companies serving in the property and casualty insurance market in Canada. Our company, like many of our sister mutuals, was formed by farmers between 100 and 175 years ago out of need in the farming sector and for rural property owners to provide insurance that was not adequately serviced by stock companies. Mutuals are still relevant today in rural Canada. Most of our companies are based in small Canadian towns. We have boards that consist of local farmers and business people. We serve local residents, make decisions locally, and serve the needs of many rural Canadians.
Our companies were founded on principles of mutuality and sharing. They were not formed based on capitalistic principles or ideals of individual property rights. As mutualists, we believe the assets of a mutual insurance company are a common good. They are indivisible. The surplus of our companies has been built up as security for the policyholders over many generations. This surplus was not accumulated to become the property of a particular generation. Members of the company do not have any direct or even notional ownership rights in the assets of the company, as when they leave, there is no payment of a share in the company. The surplus is held for the policyholder's benefit while they are a mutual policyholder.
The best example of proper disposition of the surplus of a mutual is in Quebec with cooperatives. When they convert, the assets of the cooperative will stay in the cooperative federation or system. As well, in France, if we are looking for precedent, policyholders voting on a demutualization proposal must also vote on the disposition of the surplus, which must be to a continuing mutual company or companies, or charity.
A demutualization decision by the policyholders of the day will be made out of self-interest. It won't be made out of acknowledgement of the sacrifice or contribution of prior generations, or the interests of future generations that will be served by mutuals. If enabling laws are made, our companies will be at risk of conversion for the purpose of expansion of existing stock companies with predatory ambitions of growth. Mergers and acquisitions professionals will become skilled in lucrative practices, converting mutual companies to stock companies.
I would just give you the example of the life companies. When the rules were made, the life companies served 50% of the life insurance market—life companies are different from our property and casualty companies—but now they serve less than 5% of that market.
It may be impossible to monitor and defend against the predatory and greed-based motivation in the examples I've given you. We are at the precipice of a decision that may have the effect of gutting the mutual industry in Canada. This will have irreversible effects on our companies and the cost of insurance services provided to Canadians, especially rural Canadians.
General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, PEI Mutual Insurance Company
It's valid for government to say no to the circle of self-interest and refuse to create enabling laws. It is preferred that no enabling rules be established, but if there are to be enabling rules, it is vital to get them right. These decisions should receive the highest level of scrutiny within the company with supermajority quorum and approval thresholds. In Ontario there is a 90% requirement on this question.
The surplus of the company should remain in the mutual insurance system. Questions on the demutualization should be addressed by government as opposed to deferring to the courts. Not passing disrespect to the courts—I have the utmost respect for them—but politicians with public input are best suited to set public policy, especially in novel areas of the law, as opposed to deferring to courts.
Finally, government should pass a law requiring that all policyholders of a mutual are considered a mutual or voting member of the company. That will solve the problem with 4% of the mutuals where they have gotten themselves into a distorted ownership picture with a narrow mutual ownership situation. There is one company of 800,000 policyholders that suggests that they have 1,000 mutual policyholders. They have $1.6 billion in surplus, and this company is the principal driver of these rules.
Thank you.
Conservative
Sean Reid Vice-President, Federal and Ontario, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have covered a lot of ground on this panel already, I can see. I will cover a couple of topics, but I've also heard in previous sessions a lot of discussion around temporary foreign workers. I'd be happy to talk about that in the questions, if need be.
It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada to share our perspective on Bill C-31.
PCA represents and supports progressive unionized employers in Canada's construction industry. Our member companies employ approximately 30,000 skilled tradespeople, unionized primarily by the Christian Labour Association of Canada.
In western Canada, where we account for about 40% of all natural resource industry construction and where provincial regulations best support the hiring and training of young workers, registered apprentices comprise over 35% of the total PCA workforce. Despite our leadership in the recruitment and development of new tradespeople, PCA member companies, like most companies in Canada's construction industry, continue to struggle to find enough workers to meet growing demand. This is particularly pronounced in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
It's in this context that l want to express PCA's strong support for the measures within part 6 of Bill C-31, and to share our thoughts on how these measures fit into a broader plan for addressing Canada's workforce development challenges both today and into the future.
It starts with promoting and enabling skills training and apprenticeship in Canada. There are numerous barriers to entry for Canadians considering a career in the trades. These barriers include cost, proximity to employers and training providers, and family circumstances.
The Canada apprentice loan announced in the 2014 budget is a welcome step towards tackling some of these issues. For many of our prospective employees, the loan will help cover a variety of hidden costs of transitioning from a low-opportunity career path or occupation into the skilled trades—the cost of new tools and equipment, transportation costs, and income supplementation during technical training, just to name a few.
It's our hope that once implemented, this program will be flexible enough to accommodate someone who decides to change trades early on in their apprenticeship journey. At the same time, the program should maintain enough focus to facilitate improved completion rates.
While these sorts of investments in apprenticeship will help the longer-term landscape, they will not help our companies address the immediate acute skills shortages we are experiencing in certain regions and occupations. We must also look abroad to fill those gaps.
PCA supports the balanced approach of the federal government reflected in Bill C-31 pertaining to immigration. Our members are particularly excited about the potential of the express entry system, not only for recruiting high-demand tradespeople, such as heavy equipment operators and welders, but also hard-to-find corporate professionals, including engineers, project managers, and estimators. We'll continue to work closely with the federal government on the development and implementation of this new system.
I do want to highlight one other area around which we believe more can and should be done; namely, to better facilitate the mobility of workers in Canada from regions of high unemployment to regions of low unemployment. One solution that we believe the federal government should take a closer look at is the creation of a work travel grant or a lump sum training and mobility grant accessible through the EI system. Mobility grants allow a person who is unemployed in one area of the country to utilize future employment insurance benefits in the form of a lump sum payment in order to relocate to another area of the country where workers are needed. The funds advanced from the EI payments would then be used to fund job search, training, and relocation costs.
In conclusion, PCA thanks the committee for this opportunity to share our views on Bill C-31. I'd be happy to take any questions you have.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Colleagues, the first four members will have seven-minute rounds.
We'll start with Ms. Sims, please.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much, Chair. It is a pleasure to be here today.
My questions will be directed toward Ms. Jennison-Yung. I want to thank both Ms. Nelson and Ms. Jennison-Yung for appearing before us today, but more so for their courage, more so for their courage.
When the story broke of what happened to you—it's a story that's reflected, by the way, from coast to coast to coast—I can tell you that you became well-known household faces. Everybody knew the story. It galvanized Canadians and pointed out to them the kind of abuses that do exist.
After the story broke, the Minister of Employment and Social Development was quoted as saying:
Our message to employers is clear: We will not tolerate any abuse of the temporary foreign worker program....to ensure that Canadians are first in line for available jobs and to ensure that employers do not take advantage of foreign workers.
In this context, I have a series of questions for you. I would really appreciate yes or no answers, because time is very limited.
Did the minister blacklist your employer?
