Finance Committee on May 21st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Falk will follow Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian, you're up.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for the compelling testimony. I certainly hope that you and your families are staying safe and healthy during this pandemic.

Ms. Dhillon and Ms. Cardona, thank you so much for bringing your reality to Ottawa. It bursts the Ottawa bubble about what is actually happening on the ground.

My first question for both of you is this: How much money is this government giving to the owners of Pacific Gateway? What has been the impact on you and your family of the owner basically trashing the collective agreement, and what is your message to Mr. Trudeau today on the issue of making sure workers are actually supported during this pandemic?

[Elisa Cardona]

We have been trying to figure out how much the federal government is giving the hotel, but they are keeping that very secret. The number we've heard is between $500,000 a month and over a million dollars a month.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

A million dollars a month...?

[Elisa Cardona]

Yes, a month. That's what people have heard through the grapevine, but we haven't been able to get real information on that because the government and the hotel have refused to give that information to the union.

What was your other question?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

What is the impact on you and your family and what is your message for Mr. Trudeau today?

[Elisa Cardona]

It has impacted everybody's family. I don't have a mortgage, but I know many of my co-workers do, and they're on the verge of losing their homes. I'm living on a day-to-day basis financially because, as much as I appreciate the EI and CERB, those subsidies are not enough with the Vancouver markets these days.

The message I would like to give Mr. Trudeau is to please follow through with having a feminist recovery. Women are suffering. We are getting the brunt of it. We use our wages to help our community as well, because we do the grocery shopping and everything. Please reconsider subsidizing a hotel that is breaking all the rules.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Ms. Dhillon, it's the same question.

What is the impact on you and your family, and what is your message to Mr. Trudeau today?

[Kiranjit Dhillon]

My message to Mr. Trudeau is to stop giving millions of dollars to our owner when we are losing jobs. This is such a hard time for everybody. Some ladies have been working for more than 40 years in the hotel. They are really close to retiring, and I don't think they can find another job somewhere else.

Please, Mr. Trudeau, stop giving them the subsidies.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

Now I'll go to Ms. Travis.

We've seen this government intervene repeatedly. In fact, last June, they presented legislation that would have put people in jail if they made a mistake and wrongfully applied for the CERB. We saw CRA demanding repayment at Christmastime. We found out that CRA is now, again, for emergency benefits that go to regular families, trying to force the victims to pay in the case where somebody has fraudulently misused their SIN to apply for somebody else's CERB. However, we've seen big businesses act with impunity. We've seen them pay dividends. We've seen them with massive executive bonuses.

Your message today, Ms. Travis, from what I understand, is that what we actually need is to ensure that collective agreements are respected, that the wage subsidy actually goes to protect jobs and that it should be retroactive. Is that a fair summary of the powerful message you're bringing today?

[Michelle Travis]

Yes, that's right.

The Globe and Mail has done a series of stories about the problems with the wage subsidy program. I think the idea of the wage subsidy makes a whole lot of sense. We don't have a problem with employers getting access to that program. The problem is that it was described as a way to keep workers attached to their jobs. We don't see that happening. We've seen employers use it selectively. Maybe they use it to cover management or maybe they just cover a skeleton crew. In other countries, we've seen that they've used it to make sure the workers stay attached and that money is flowing through to workers who need that. It's really critical to keep that connection.

We understand it's going to be a while for business to come back in the hotel sector. Now another subsidy is coming and we are concerned that there are going to be no restrictions or controls on who is able to qualify for that. There are some limited restrictions, but in terms of whether they are going to be able to access that subsidy after they've eliminated their staff and replaced them with less, will they get a hiring subsidy for the replacements? That's a problem.

Regardless of whether they're in the union or not, we've seen this affect hospitality workers across the board. Non-union workers started losing their jobs last year. Elisa referred to this. In union contracts, you may have 12 months of recall in your contract, but we don't bargain contracts with a pandemic in mind. We've asked all of our employers to consider extending the amount of time workers can come back to their jobs to get through the pandemic.

We know the work is coming back. We want to make sure that those workers who've invested 10, 20, 30 or 40-plus years of their lives in these hotels will have the first shot at getting their jobs back. We think that's fair. It doesn't cost the government a dime. It's the decent thing for employers to do. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of employers use the pandemic as an opportunity to get rid of long-term staff and drastically roll back the economic gains they've made over years. That shouldn't be happening. We don't want to see government programs used to benefit them and not help workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for that interchange.

We'll go to Mr. Falk for a five-minute round, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. There were some very interesting stories. I want to get to several of you in the five minutes I have.

I want to start with Kara and Céline.

You've talked about the merits of a national day care program. I just want you to know that I live in and represent a riding of 19,000 square kilometres. I have many small communities in my riding. My constituents avail themselves of child care through the use of neighbours, family and friends. I'm just wondering how you think a national day care program would provide my constituents with choice.

[Kara Pihlak]

Ted, the dream of the national program is to make it accessible to large cities, medium cities and the small rural cities that you are speaking of. We envision that the home child care that's currently running will be a part of the program, so small houses with four or five children will be involved in this national program and also be supported. The idea is that it will provide choice because it will support all sizes of—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's not the way it's been presented, but okay. Thank you for that answer.

I think it's going to take away choice and there won't be fair compensation for folks who are outside of the program, which is being presented as a national program.

For my next question, I'm going to go to—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

One can quarrel with points in the budget, but as I mentioned before, these are just outright falsehoods that we continue to hear—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Look—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's not a point of order.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just hold on now. There are three points of order here.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I let it go last time, but Mr. Fragiskatos has to stop insulting members of the committee because he doesn't like the questions they ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kelly, that isn't a point of order. We're into debate here.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It goes to the decorum of a meeting.