Finance Committee on April 9th, 2020

[W. Brett Wilson]

Four minutes is not enough.

Clearly, in terms of policy, we've been struggling with what the possible impact is on Bill C-69, and of course the tanker ban has created some concern. There's a belief that several hundred miles of our Canadian coastline are the only important miles, or the only miles at risk, when of course all of Newfoundland and the St. Lawrence Seaway feel fully protected, fully protected because they are.

We need to think about the tanker ban. We need to think about access to port. We need to think about how infrastructure projects are moved forward. Bill C-69 terrifies people. We have no proof at this point in time that we have a thoughtful mechanism for moving forward. So that's a challenge. That's not meant to be a partisan comment. That's an industry fear factor. We've yet to see....

Certainly with Teck stepping away, people will say that the price of oil is what scared them away. No, the process clearly scared them away. There were threats to their people. There were death threats to their senior officers. There were all sorts of things happening that were just wrong.

We need policy that's pro-industrial expansion and infrastructure development.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Can you quickly speak on how this industry has been helpful to the indigenous people, particularly in Alberta?

[W. Brett Wilson]

I've been involved with indigenous negotiations many times, but there are a number of relationship opportunities. There are equity investments. There are royalty returns. There are people being hired to work.

David Tuccaro is one of the most successful aboriginal leaders ever, and a close friend of mine, out of Fort McMurray. He built several hundred-million-dollar-a-year businesses. There are opportunities abounding.

I'm working very closely with six of the first nations around my hometown of North Battleford. Everything is about jobs and investment opportunity. That's really what it comes down to. There are so many places. The aboriginal people want to work. They don't want handouts. They want to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll end that round there.

Before I go to you, Sean, I'll just ask if people could stay on the line for a few minutes afterwards. I want to outline where we think we're going next week on panels and to have a very quick discussion on where members might want to go that's different from what I'm thinking.

Mr. Fraser, go ahead for four minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps, in the interest of time, I will ask a couple of questions in a row to our guest from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and let him answer as he sees fit.

First of all, thank you for your kind comments on the rollout of some of the programming. More importantly, thank you for identifying certain gaps that demonstrate that there are still areas we need to work on. We'll continue to work on them to support people who need support.

My questions are really around some of the social protections for workers, or protections against abuses by employers who may avail themselves of the emergency wage subsidy. I do expect most of them to be honest and trustworthy business operators. However, there are a couple of suggestions you made that I'd like you to elaborate on.

The first is the corporate governance restrictions around share buybacks, around executive bonuses for companies that are, in fact, relying on this.

The second is on features we could put in legislation around transparency to ensure that people have access to the information about who has applied.

Finally, there is the point you made around making sure existing workers have their jobs protected, or that they don't see a wage loss.

If you could, perhaps, offer as much detail as you can, in probably the three minutes that remain, on what specifics we could introduce to ensure these goals are achieved, I would be greatly appreciative.

[David Macdonald]

On the transparency, I think it is important, certainly for larger businesses—I mean for a $100-billion program—that we have a decent idea. If a business is over a particular size, you know, you could evaluate that, say, on the revenue that the government disclosed that they received in support through the program. I don't think that in and of itself, simply publishing a list.... The other thing that I think is worth pointing out is that lists should be made public after the crisis has passed, in terms of those companies and their assets and credits and so on, but in terms of an accounting of the crisis after the fact.

That transparency alone I doubt will be enough to weed out some bad actors who will attempt to continue to have their executive bonuses and continue to engage in shareholder dividends and share buybacks. I think it's important that, beyond that, the government put in place a monetary cap in terms of aggregate compensation, not purely a salary but including and most specifically related to bonus payments for executives. You could set that at, say, a million dollars for most of the top-paid executives in Canada. A million dollars makes up about their salary portion and then, you know, the average pay is around $10 million, but the rest of it is all bonuses.

You could set a dollar amount or you could say something like no bonus payments will be made to executives over this period. That would probably accomplish something similar although there might be some gaming in terms of them increasing their salary.

The other thing you may want to specify is that the companies having 75% of their payroll being paid for by the federal government should not be in a position to pay that money out or to pay excess money out in terms of dividends to shareholders or in terms of continuing to conduct share buybacks over the period of the receipt of the wage subsidy. Those would be pretty straightforward in terms of incorporating and you could just trust that companies are doing it and verify afterwards. That's certainly the case with the Canada emergency response benefit. You're trusting workers to be honest when they apply, and hopefully CRA is going to verify after the fact.

The federal government at this point seems to be encouraging employers to make up the additional 25% over and above the 75% the federal government would contribute, but there are no explicit conditions on that. I think doing that is probably a mistake. I think there should be conditions under certain circumstances that employers be required to make up the other 25%, and specifically that workers who are on the job working who are not furloughed, but who are working, do not see a pay cut as a result of this.

I fear what will happen after is that workers will see a pay cut of 25% as they move to the emergency wage subsidy and then, as the crisis clears and the wage subsidy is removed, there will not be an automatic increase in their pay back to what it previously was and they will suffer a 25% reduction in pay through no fault of their own.

I think it would be worthwhile to put some conditions on when only 75% of an employee's previous wage would be made and when employers would be compelled to make up the other 25%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

With that, we will have to thank our witnesses.

Thank you both, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Macdonald, for taking the time to come before committee to outline your concerns, your constructive criticism and your advice. We appreciate that very much.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Prior to adjournment, the Chair read the following text:]

I will turn now to committee members, As some of you may already know, earlier today, our colleagues on the health committee were able to successfully conduct their proceedings using the new video conferencing solution that has now been put in place. The results were positive and, as a result, our clerk has now made the necessary arrangements so that our committee’s next meeting on Thursday, as well as most of our meetings going forward, are now expected to take place using this new video conferencing solution.

I am told that the experience in setting up the health committee meeting has further confirmed the importance for all meeting participants to test their connections and microphones in advance of the meeting. I would therefore ask all members to consider reserving a few minutes of their time in the coming days to work with the teams from the House that are contacting them to assist them in testing their connections, to help reduce the chances of technical issues during our meetings.