Evidence of meeting #47 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me come back to you, Mr. Céré. You were saying that the blind spots in division 36 of part 4 of Bill C-30 were taking us back to the status quo. Unless I'm mistaken, you mean this would be a return to the Axworthy reform of the 1990s, right?
Spokesperson, National Council of Unemployed Workers
That's right. The employment insurance system, as it is called today, was reshaped through austerity measures in the 1990s under the Mulroney government until the Axworthy reform, which reduced the protections of the employment insurance program. The program was literally put in a straitjacket and has never been released, except during the current crisis.
However, the temporary measures that are being put in place and partly renewed starting in September leave two major blind spots: the benefit period is too short, which is one of the devastating effects of the Axworthy reform, and the calculation of the benefit rate is based on a variable divisor based on the unemployment rate, which was inspired by a study done by the Forget commission in the 1980s, which wanted to annualize the system to lower the benefit rate in the calculation.
In the budget implementation bill, the government is announcing that it will return to the status quo in September. This is clearly unacceptable in the current crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people across Canada will suffer.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
So it will mainly be people who are in seasonal or other sectors that will have more difficulty getting back on their feet, such as the major tourism industry.
Spokesperson, National Council of Unemployed Workers
That's right.
There are also all those who have temporary jobs. That's a lot of people. Some people find themselves unemployed between two contracts. I'm also thinking of all those who have part-time jobs, who have trouble accumulating hours of work and who will find themselves unemployed, with very short benefit periods. All of these people represent about 35% of the labour force, according to official Statistics Canada data.
So, here, the government isn't fulfilling its obligations to the public in this regard. I will quote the Liberal member for Hochelaga—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, both. We'll have to go to Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Vis.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Céré, could you tell me quickly how many people you think will be affected by these budget cuts to the EI program. You mentioned hundreds of thousands of people, but do you have an approximate number? It's important.
Spokesperson, National Council of Unemployed Workers
Currently, the number of EI claimants is approximately 2.3 million. I mentioned the fact that 35% of the workforce is in precarious employment. So it quickly becomes hundreds of thousands of people. That's a lot of people.
There are also all indigenous communities that are landlocked in EI administrative regions where the unemployment rate may be lower than it is in the communities. The people from the Assembly of First Nations have mentioned this. The official unemployment rate often does not reflect the reality, that is to say, the adjusted unemployment rate, or what is called the underutilization of the labour force. There may be a lot more unemployment in some parts of the EI administrative regions, but people are going to end up with a divisor that is very—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Céré, but I'd like to ask another question. Thank you.
Mr. Neumann, I have a final question to you.
You've been a long-time advocate of a job strategy prioritizing domestic procurement. How important is it that the federal government actually start to take these things seriously and get them right?
National Director for Canada, National Office, United Steelworkers
I think it's crucial.
If you look at what's happening in the U.S. in regard to the $2 trillion dollars, and if you look at my testimony in regard to the “Buy Clean” report, Canada has an advantage. If you look at aluminum, steel, lumber, you see we have the lowest carbon emissions of anywhere in the world. That's something the government needs to pay attention to.
As far as procurement is concerned—and I'm sure that each and every one of you knows this—why are we in this country still today building bridges with Chinese steel? If you want to look at the carbon footprint, why are we bringing rebar in from China to build the Site C dam? The list just goes on and on.
When we talk about the investment in rail—there is a $15-billion investment—one question I ask is, where are they going to source the material from? Why aren't we sourcing that material from our places here, where we produce it? It's crucially important that it contain jobs, contain good living wages for workers who work in those particular industries.
The government has it right. You have a friend in the U.S. in regard to the environmental issue. I think there is a much better alignment of the Prime Minister and the current president in the U.S. Buy America is going to become a big thing, and I can assure you that our union is going to be working on both sides of the border, as we've done before under the Obama-Biden administration. We got an exemption, and that's what needs to be done.
We have a main advantage, and that is the environmental impact. The fact is, about buying green or buying clean, that's what the government needs to pay attention to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you both.
Mr. Vis, you may take three minutes, and Mr. McLeod will wrap it up.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to pick up with Mr. Lee where I left off.
One of the recommendations of your organization talks about the federal government providing leadership—and you have touched on this already a bit, but I think it's really important to emphasize—on the key challenges to new construction—zoning restrictions, density limits and Nimbyism—for all forms of housing, including market housing.
Further, what role can the federal government play in this? These are uniquely municipal or provincial issues, but we're hearing more and more that the federal government needs to step up to the plate to provide the leadership.
Can you give us some more concrete examples, please, about improving supply for new homes in Canada?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association
Making sure that we know what the communities of Canada should look like in the future is a really important role of the federal government. It addresses Nimbyism. It addresses density.
There have been a few questions about the rapid housing initiative. Our modular construction council members have been heavily engaged in it. I think it's quite a success story. It also shows that where there's a will, there's a way.
Many projects are going through really quickly. We talk about seven years to get land ready, but when there are a few dollars available and we're trying to address some important affordable housing needs, all of a sudden projects are happening at record speed. If we can do that, in collaboration with municipalities, for the rapid housing initiative, surely there are opportunities to do it for market rate housing, which would include houses that the average Canadian can afford.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Just to clarify, you're suggesting that the federal government use, say, infrastructure dollars to incentivize the creation of more supply in order to get homes built more quickly.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association
Exactly. There is a huge opportunity. The federal government makes big, important commitments to infrastructure. There is no reason these can't and shouldn't be tied to the housing Canadians need.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
You've also touched upon supply. Concerning the federal lands initiative, has there, from your understanding, been any movement on the part of the federal government towards providing a list to homebuilders or to the non-profit sector in housing to say where the federal government owns land and where it can be used for developing new homes?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association
I think there has only been a little bit of movement, from my knowledge at least, on that front, but we can look into it more. It is an obvious and big opportunity. The federal government does own lands in many very opportune places that would be great for providing all forms of housing for Canadians. It is a really great opportunity to pursue further.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll turn to Mr. McLeod for three minutes. Then we will have to conclude.
Michael.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, everyone, for your presentations today.
My question is for the Canadian Cancer Society. First of all, I really appreciate the work you do and everything you've done over the last while on the issue of cancer. I come from a very large family. The issue of cancer has been something that has plagued us, as it has most big families.
It's even more challenging when you come from the north. For us to get a diagnosis or any kind of checkup, we have to go to Alberta. For anybody to get any kind of treatment, they have to go to Alberta. It's not like walking across the street to get a doctor's test. It's expensive, it takes a lot of time and it really puts a lot of burden on the families. It was really good to see what the budget has for support, increasing the time to 26 weeks.
You mentioned that you would have liked to see a 50-week period. Can you explain how you came up with that number? It does make a lot sense for many of us who are in the remote areas, but I'd like to hear your side of it.
Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society
Thank you for the question.
We were supportive of at least 26 weeks, which is what has been included in the federal budget. We were pleased to see that as a starting point. We know that claimants exhaust the 15-week mark that currently exists. About three-quarters of claimants took at least an additional 26 weeks off of work.
When we talk about 50 weeks, 26 weeks is a strong start, but we know that the average length of treatment and physical recovery for breast, colon and rectal cancers, three of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, exceed that 26 weeks—26 to 36, 37 and 47 weeks respectively. We also know that the overwhelming majority of Canadians support an extension greater than the 26 weeks to 50 weeks. Polling conducted in March 2021 showed that 84% support extending the employment insurance sickness benefit up to 50 weeks, and four in five Canadians would do so despite the cost to themselves or their employers.
Any additional extension beyond 26 weeks would also be very welcomed by the Canadian Cancer Society. We know that all parties have supported an extension. We welcome continuing this discussion and moving this file forward.