Evidence of meeting #136 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was productivity.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses.
I only have one minute and one question, so I will ask Ms. MacEwen a question.
Yesterday we heard from Sean Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He was talking about the labour requirements that were included in the fall economic statement as they related to the clean economy investment tax credits. He said that it was a gold standard for us to put in some labour requirements around wages and to provide apprenticeship training.
I want to get your thoughts about whether you agree this is a gold standard and a model for moving forward.
April 11th, 2024 / 1:55 p.m.
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I think it's a great start. However, it ignores office workers and feminized workers, so I wouldn't call it the gold standard. I think it could be improved by considering workers who don't do heavily male-dominated work. There is a lot of feminized work and there should also be wage protections for those workers.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Labelle, would you please say a few words about how important it is to increase the benefit rate in order to address inflation?
You may add a few more comments in conclusion, if you wish.
1:55 p.m.
Administrator, Board of directors, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi
What's certain is that we're seeing, in our offices, people who are losing their homes and now have to use food banks because they're receiving only 55% of their income, which in many cases isn't even enough to cope with inflation. They're finding it hard to make ends meet. In our view, this benefit rate is virtually criminal. It must absolutely be raised.
I would add one comment in closing. We've been repeating the same words since 2015. So I hope my appearance here will help all MPs pursue this issue further in the House of Commons. Protection in the event of loss of employment is a right, not a privilege. All workers contribute to the employment insurance fund and should therefore have better protection.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
I want to give my last time to you, Ms. MacEwen. We're debating Bill C-59 now. We have a budget coming Tuesday. What advice would you give the federal government in terms of something you'd like to see done to help spur our economy?
1:55 p.m.
Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees
In general, I would like to see them rely less on market incentives to try to nudge behaviour. That doesn't really work very well. Specifically, I would love to see the parental benefits change. It's very simple. It doesn't cost that much and it would make a huge gender difference.
Also, I would like to see more investment in public housing, in truly affordable not-for-profit housing, so that the percentage of the market where people are paying too much for groceries, paying too much for rent, paying too much for everything and are not seeing their wages increase sees some relief. There is no profit to be made there; you just can't. A profit-seeking company simply cannot provide it at a level that's affordable for that segment of people.
Since housing is a human right and since having that housing security will allow you to increase your productivity in the labour market, go back to school or things like that, I think that's a really important long-term change.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Davies.
Thank you to our excellent witnesses.
Members, don't get up yet. We still have a few things that we have to address.
To our witnesses, thank you for your testimony and for being with us at committee. Have a great rest of the day. Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Administrator, Board of directors, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi
Thank you very much.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you.
Members, the meeting this afternoon will be in room 320 of the Wellington Building.
As well, members, with regard to the deadline for amendments, the clerk's email from March 19 explains the process for the amendments. The clerk has indicated that the legislative clerks need a certain amount of time. We're asking that amendments on Bill C-59 be set for 5 p.m. on Monday, April 22, if everybody is good with that.
1:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay.
I failed to do this when we had the minister in for main estimates. For me to be able to report main estimates to the House, we had to actually vote on the four main estimates. I'll go through those quickly.
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Vote 1—Operating expenditures, grants and contributions..........$4,563,721,864
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$90,816,159
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$145,198,781
Vote 5—Authority for amount by way of direct payments to the International Development Association under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act..........$1
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND REPORTS ANALYSIS CENTRE OF CANADA
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$50,288,770
(Vote 1agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,244,352
(Vote 1agreed to on division)
Thank you.
Shall I report votes 1 and 5 under the Canada Revenue Agency; votes 1 and 5 under the Department of Finance; vote 1 under the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and vote 1 under the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to the House?
1:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal