Finance Committee on May 24th, 2022

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is the time. Thank you.

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Now we'll have questions from the Bloc from MP Garon for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gilbert, you ran out of time during your opening statement.

In 30 or 35 seconds, is there something you would like to add concerning division 32 of part 5 of the bill?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Thank you.

The questions you asked earlier actually brought me back to this, but I'll nevertheless restate our position on the subject.

Employment insurance is a complex world. We need to take action on this aspect, and so should others.

In addition to that, the boards must truly be tripartite, and not just when an individual is heard before three board members. Their tripartite nature must be apparent throughout the entire appeal process. Members must be appointed upon consultations with people in the region, not solely on the advice of the chair of the Employment Insurance Commission.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

I understand.

If I may, I would add that we were nevertheless promised something in 2015 and that it was announced to us in 2019. What we see today are half measures compared to what was advertised.

Do you think that an omnibus bill, by which I mean this budget implementation bill, is the right tool to introduce this reform in circumstances that force us to consider it hastily?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Thank you for that question.

Frankly, no.

The budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill that contains many statutory amendments. Without seeking to involve ourselves in the management of employment insurance, if we're going to do a good job of representing workers regarding the application and amendment of these statutes—I'm speaking for them this morning—the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques believes it would be appropriate to conduct an individualized examination of that reform, if I may put it that way—

[Jean-Denis Garon]

You mean a distinct examination.

[Maxime Gilbert]

Yes, “distinct” is the word I was looking for. Thank you.

We feel we've been playing this game for years now. Despite our constantly repeated demands to government after government, we're ultimately stopped in our tracks. The object of our demands seems elusive. We think we're getting somewhere, and when we seem to be approaching our goal, the mirage vanishes and the result falls short of expectations.

Yes, sir, we think it would be appropriate to conduct a distinct examination of this division of Bill C‑19.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

Thank you.

[Maxime Gilbert]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Garon.

Now we go to the NDP and questions from MP Blaikie for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilbert, the changes to the board of appeal proposed in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 raise the broader and more general issue of reform of the employment insurance program.

Do you think this bill is a missed opportunity for the government to institute other necessary reforms of the employment insurance program?

Generally speaking, what changes to the plan do you think are necessary?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Thank you for your question; it's a broad one.

Actually, as regards missed opportunities, I'll expand on the answer I gave Mr. Garon earlier.

The bill is an imperfect response to the proposed changes to the board of appeal which were a pressing concern for labour associations and representatives. However, we actually could have waited for that response to be given in a much broader and more comprehensive context.

In our view, you can't have one reform without the other. When ineligibility and disqualification cases arise, they'll necessarily result in challenges that will have to be heard by the employment insurance boards of appeal or by the Social Security Tribunal.

If those appeal bodies aren't operating optimally or at a level appropriate to the workers' situations, we'll be constantly running around in circles. This is addressed in the joint demands of the union federations and other labour representation organizations. A lot of work would have to be done on eligibility issues, if only on the method for recording the number of insurable hours, eligibility criteria and so on.

During the pandemic, with the Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB, and the changes made to the employment insurance program during that time, which, if my memory serves me, will remain in force until September 24, the current criterion is 420 hours. We think that threshold should be retained rather than raised.

To prevent certain individuals from falling victim to the system's deficiencies or from being unable to qualify because they work on a part-time basis or have irregular work schedules, we suggest that a new criterion be used based on the number of weeks of work that, in one way or another, will result in the same contribution rate, the same amounts of money contributed by workers. This would harm neither the Employment Insurance Commission of Canada nor the Treasury Board. There would be ways to provide better eligibility guarantees for workers.

Furthermore, when overpayments are made, we would like each recovery amount not to exceed the amount of one week's overpayment to avoid overpenalizing workers, for whom these are considerable amounts, whereas they're negligible for the commission.

Those are the main suggestions that immediately come to mind.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

[Maxime Gilbert]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Now we will hear from the Conservatives.

MP Albas, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to yield my time to Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

I have some questions for the people from the Green Budget Coalition.

If my understanding is correct, we should normally price carbon properly, and that would urge the oil companies to reduce their emissions. Using their own funds, they would have to invest in technologies that reduce their emissions. However, what we see in the budget is $2.6 billion of public spending on unproven carbon capture technologies.

Do you think this $2.6 billion, which will total $13 billion over five years, could be considered a government subsidy to the oil companies?

[Tom L. Green]

Yes, we do consider it a subsidy.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

The U.S. Congress and other authorities are talking about excess profits generated by the oil companies.

Do you think those businesses could afford to finance their own investments in technologies designed to reduce emissions?

[Tom L. Green]

Yes, I think that's their responsibility and that it would work if properly regulated.

Of course, since carbon pricing affects businesses in the industrial sector, only a very small portion of their emissions will be affected by carbon pricing since we have a system for major emitters.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

The budget also includes $121 million of public funding, once again, to develop small nuclear reactors. We produce unconventional oil in Canada, particularly in Alberta. So a great deal of energy is required to increase production.

Do you think the $121 million earmarked for small reactors falls into the category of subsidies for oil companies, if only indirectly?

[Tom L. Green]

It may be indirect, but instead I'd like to emphasize that the cost of renewable energy has declined sharply in recent years and continues to fall. The International Energy Agency has declared that renewable energy is now the cheapest energy in history. It makes no sense to allocate these sums to small reactors. We don't yet have a model that works, and, as we know, electricity will be very expensive.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

If I correctly understand you, you're telling us this is both a subsidy and a bad investment of public funds.

[Tom L. Green]

It's definitely not what we would recommend.