Finance Committee on April 11th, 2024

[William Robson]

I, like many economists, think a price on carbon used alone would be a very effective way of discouraging emissions, but the problem is we've layered so much else on top—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What I'm getting at is that if we use that logic, we're saying that every time the price at the pump goes up because of some kind of oligopolistic behaviour by the oil companies, we're harming productivity in Canada.

I'd like to get to the other price on carbon, which is the output-based pricing system.

The Canadian Climate Institute has argued that this aspect of the price on carbon is driving investment. If we need more investment, and more innovative investment, is that not a good lever for increasing our productivity?

[William Robson]

I think anything that is sector-specific is a bit troubling. You didn't ask about this particularly, but it came up earlier that we have very large subsidies for certain types of investment in energy, so you're effectively picking winners. Since every dollar has to come from somewhere, I am concerned about that.

If we went to a pure carbon-pricing system and used the output-based measures to limit the impact on our competitiveness, I think that would be good.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You know that Europe, for example, is bringing in carbon border adjustments, and if we don't have a price on carbon, we'll be penalized in that market. I can't see how that will help our productivity.

The United States is increasing investment through the Inflation Reduction Act. It's pumping billions and billions of dollars into green tech.

I guess we're doing the right thing when we attract battery plants to Canada by using large production subsidies, and I guess you would agree with that.

[William Robson]

No, I wouldn't agree with that. I think the U.S. is compromising its fiscal future in all kinds of ways. It's actually worse than us—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But everyone is saying they're doing so wonderfully. You said yourself, Mr. Robson, that they're in overdrive and they're doing great and their productivity is so much greater than ours.

Also, oligopolies have been blamed for our productivity problem. Do you think a more competitive banking sector in Canada, with more banks, would improve Canadian productivity overall?

[William Robson]

I'm in favour of what was said earlier about open banking. I think more competition in general is a good thing, including in financial services.

What concerns me—and we saw it recently in the grocery discussions—is that people aren't that eager to come into the Canadian market. It's a tough market to operate in. I think policy uncertainty has something to do with that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Understood.

Another point that has been made with respect to productivity is that the highest productivity is in the cities. This is not to take anything away from all the innovations happening outside the cities, but that's where the incubators are, where the software companies are and so on and so forth. The argument has been made that zoning policies—and this links to the housing crisis—are making it hard for labour to migrate to the cities to work in the more productive industries. There was an article about this in The Globe and Mail last week.

Do you not think, therefore, that it's wise for our government to be focused on incentivizing municipalities to make their zoning laws more flexible so that more people could be living in the cities, where the higher-paying, more productive jobs are?

[William Robson]

I can save some of the time I used up earlier by just saying yes to that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Robson. I enjoyed our discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Scarpaleggia.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's MP Ste-Marie's time.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

Out of respect, I did not interject, but you have at numerous times, interrupted questioners, Mr. Chair, when they were spoken over. I know Mr. Scarpaleggia is a new member here. He spoke over Mr. Robson numerous times. You can check the Hansard or confer with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I didn't hear crosstalk, and nobody brought up—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Perhaps you could remind Mr. Scarpaleggia, as he is a new member here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, I did not hear any crosstalk. There was—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Actually, that's not true. Please confer with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There was a good flow.

We're going to MP Ste-Marie now for six minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead with a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

There was indeed.... That's just an untruth. You can check the Hansard on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're going to MP Ste-Marie now for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to the witnesses.

My questions are for Ms. Labelle, from Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi. However, before I go to her, I would like to comment on Ms. MacEwen's presentation.

Ms. MacEwen, thank you for your presentation. I particularly enjoyed the moment when you talked about how important it is to shut down tax loopholes and tax havens. That's the purpose of the project advanced by the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development, the OECD, and by the G20. Unfortunately, that project is advancing slowly. In the meantime, I appreciated the fact that you support the idea that it is important to tax the web giants. The fiscal inequity isn't that there's a specific tax for those giants, but rather that they monopolize a large portion of the world's wealth by using tax havens to avoid paying taxes. Until we can make what is immoral illegal, I welcome that tax with open arms.

I now turn to Ms. Labelle.

Ms. Labelle, you raised a point that concerns the injustice that occurs when women return from maternity leave and don't have access to employment insurance when they lose their jobs. As you said, the minister can simply amend the act by regulation. Personally, when I first questioned the minister about this, it was in 2016, when I challenged Mr. Duclos.

Would you please repeat how many women that affects in Canada every year.

Also, why do you think the government isn't acting?

[Fanny Labelle]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

According to our figures, it affects approximately 3,000 women a year.

I'm going to do a little unemployment 101 here. To access benefits, you have to accumulate working hours, which is absolutely fine, since people contribute to the employment insurance program by working.

Generally speaking, it's still mainly women who shoulder most family responsibilities, and it's women who take long leaves. They combine maternity benefits and so on, virtually all parental benefits. Then those women receive benefits for nearly an entire year. If they lose their jobs during their maternity leave, they have no hours of insurable employment once their maternity leave is up. They also have no opportunity to access replacement income or regular benefits, the ones you're entitled to when you lose your job.

On the other hand, if a woman goes back to work but doesn't accumulate the 700 hours, she's entitled to nothing. Right now in Montreal, to qualify for regular benefits, you must accumulate 700 hours of work, which represents 5 months of employment. If, for some reason, these women lose their jobs before they've accumulated the required number of hours of insurable employment, they don't qualify for regular benefits.

Since 2018, Mouvement action-chômage de Montréal has represented six women in a case that will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal once they have won in the general division of the Social Security Tribunal. The Mouvement has made representations to certain elected members of the present government who were reelected in the last election. A response that the Mouvement received was that the government would nevertheless allow the Employment Insurance Commission of Canada to file its an appeal in this case. The general division clearly ruled that the present provisions discriminate against women.

By failing to act, the government has encouraged a Montreal community group with a very small budget but considerable conviction to take this fight to the Federal Court of Appeal. The hearing should be held in approximately eight months, depending on timelines.

Why is the government refusing to act? That's a very good question that I can't answer because I don't think there is any good reason not to act. The government claims it's feminist and sensitive to strictly feminine issues, but it refuses to do anything.

At the annual employment insurance form organized by Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, Mr. Boissonnault was challenged about this case, and he said he wouldn't look into the matter as long as the case was before the courts.

We think this is ridiculous. The case has been before the courts since 2018. All it would take is a simple amendment to the act, which could very easily be done. I think this is an issue that the entire House of Commons could agree on in order to improve the lives of 3,000 women a year.