Evidence of meeting #50 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was co-op.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Yes. That's an excellent summary of what it took us five minutes to present. That's precisely what we want.
As you just said, it's a very specialized area, and we think that it requires a separate analysis.
My headset went wonky in the middle of my presentation. I apologize if the sound isn't very good.
12:35 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
It's mainly a problem for the interpreters.
I understood you because I speak French.
What we have here in division 32 of part 5 does not in any way correspond to the 2019 commitment, or to the announced reform of the Social Security Tribunal.
12:35 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
You're absolutely right. At the outset, we were told that a reform was planned. We were also told that the tripartite structure would return to the way it was before. That's not what's being proposed now. We believe there is a problem with it, and that's why we're asking questions.
The analysis needs to be done elsewhere. There's a reason why consideration was being given to returning to the former way of doing things, and that's what we would like to study. We think that this needs to be done somewhere other than in the study of this bill. That would be the best way to proceed. As you pointed out, it's too specialized.
And although a promise was made, it has not yet been kept.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Chabot. That is the time.
Now we will move to the NDP and MP Blaikie for two and a half minutes, please.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
Ms. Long, I just wanted to circle back to our previous conversation and ask if you have some thoughts or reflections on what an appropriate public process for determining occupational streams or other kinds of groups might be within the express entry system. What do you think a transparent, accountable, appropriate process would look like in allowing for some flexibility, but also limiting the opportunities for abuse, whether intentional or not?
12:40 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
If I could provide a vision for an occupation-based program, first of all we'd need to discuss whether or not that is even a good thing. If so, then there should be a process where different industries have a transparent process as to their input and whether or not we require occupations for a specific industry. Right now we don't know where the researchers and the minister are getting their information from. If they have their own internal researchers, which they claim that they do, where do these researchers get their information? There are a lot of problems with that.
There are also a lot of problems with the predictability of the system. We have a lot of people who spend years and years trying to apply, and if all of a sudden every single month the occupations change, then how do they even know whether or not they have a good chance to apply? It's not a game to people; these systems affect people's lives to the core for their families, and we can't just play games with their lives. This system should be in a bill of its own, properly debated with immigration experts from around the country, and the government should answer to what kind of system it envisions for an occupation-based system.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you MP Blaikie.
Now we'll hear from the Conservatives for five minutes of questions. We have MP Stewart up for five minutes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions are for Professor Dehejia.
I appreciate all of the witnesses coming in today, and it's great to have the professor back with us as well.
Professor, obviously we're looking at the budget and the BIA process. When I first got here back in September, the government at the time was blaming inflation pretty much predominantly on the global pandemic. Sometimes inflation would be blamed on other global phenomena, and recently the blame seems more pointed towards the war in Ukraine—although that's only been with us for a short time compared to the pandemic itself. The pandemic was primarily blamed for issues like supply chain issues, shortages and inflation in particular, and now the war is blamed for those.
In your opinion as an economist, can you speak to, number one, those insights from the government on where the blame falls, if any? Also, perhaps look at some glaring missteps in this budget that most certainly could have given Canadians some relief in their pocketbooks.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a broad question. I would say the following.
The claim that our inflation problem is a global problem, is a half-truth—you can call it a cop out—because we had high inflation long before the war in Ukraine. It's not all just a supply side issue or caused by the pandemic.
Last fall, I was warning that inflation was ticking up towards 3%, 4%. Ultimately, the cause of high inflation is monetary. We've had very loose monetary policies for the last 10 or 15 years, and that is now showing up in high inflation. Couple that with a large fiscal deficit, which again gets monetized by the central bank—the central bank buys all those bonds—that puts cash in the system. They've been very slow in starting the so-called QT that they say they're now planning to do. It's very slow.
Couple together fiscal profligacy, very loose monetary policies and really, I think, perhaps an unrealistic road map in this budget, making rather rosy assumptions about growth that may not pan out, and we'll have a worse fiscal deficit.
I'm worried about both of those things, Mr. Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, professor.
Obviously, it seems like there's a level of complacency within the government with respect to inflation. Following up on your points, I should stress that the government seems somewhat oblivious to the struggles of average Canadians, as it further drives the divide between rural and urban. I see that here in my riding, which is very rural. We have very few options for plugging in electric cars. I think my riding is a couple of times the size of Prince Edward Island, and I might have two, maybe three, places to plug in. It would take many hours to drive around my constituency.
In my riding as well, Northumberland County for the most part, the median income is $34,500 per year. Food and fuel prices are forcing families to make hard choices they never had to make before. Do you believe that it's time that this government remove its punitive carbon tax on fuel in Canada to give low and medium-income families relief at the pumps and at the grocery store? Would this reduction take some of the pressure off of inflation?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I do think so. I think there would be several benefits to slashing carbon taxes. One, as we've seen, is that we are in a very energy-insecure world. There's a war going on right now in Ukraine, and it teaches us that we can't be complacent about this. We actually have made-in-Canada energy, so we would not only be helping consumers by giving them lower prices at the pumps, but that would also feed through to lower food, transport and travel costs. It's good in terms of most sectors of the economy, but it will also be less punitive to our oil and gas sectors.
I'd say, all told, there are families that I know and that you know that really can't make ends meet. Families on fixed incomes or low incomes simply can't pay their rent and buy food, so we are in a real crisis. I must say, I'm surprised and disappointed that the government doesn't seem to be more concerned about this, Mr. Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, both.
Now we'll hear from the Liberals. We have MP Baker for five minutes, please.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to begin my questions with our representative from Access Copyright.
Just speak to the government action on the extension of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years. Could you speak to why this is important for creators and for Canada's international reputation.
12:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Access Copyright
Absolutely. The international norm now is life-plus-70. It has been for a long time, so all of Canada's major trading partners have been at life-plus-70 for a very long time. Canadian rights holders are at a disadvantage when in Canada the term of protection is shorter than what it is in the rest of the world, so this will allow Canadian creators to be more competitive and Canada to be more competitive in the cultural sector.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Can you talk a little bit about the impact on those among my constituents who might be watching this and who aren't close to the cultural sector? We're all beneficiaries of it, of course. How does this impact creators and how does this impact our economy? Could you speak to that a bit?
May 24th, 2022 / 12:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Access Copyright
Sure, it extends the time under which a creator and the estate of the creator, as well as the producers of the works, will be able to monetize and get return on their investment. This is absolutely critical to ensuring that there is continued investment in creative works.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks very much, Ms. Levy, for your time here.
I'm going to switch over, if I may, to ask Mark Agnew a question about the investments in zero-emission vehicles charging infrastructure.
Can you talk a little bit about the importance of that and what you think the impact of that is on some of your members who are in that industry or seeking to grow within that sector, or in sectors that are adjacent to it and would be beneficiaries from the expansion of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and the expansion of the use of zero-emission vehicles by Canadians?
12:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
There are a couple of different things that most readily come to mind. Certainly I would be happy to send more information to the member in writing afterwards.
One, for instance, as everyone is going to be going out at some point in the coming years to think about electric vehicle purchases, is that we're still at a relatively small market share right now. So even a small increase will still be a relatively large jump compared with where we are today.
I think there's going to be even greater and more reliable needs to generate electricity to power these electric vehicles as demand goes up. That's probably a cleaner way to put it. How are we going to have that grid capacity in place?
As events in Ottawa have shown over the weekend—a lot of us are still without power—how do we also have resiliency in that infrastructure? The events this weekend have really brought home that point for us to think about quite clearly.
Of course, how do you make it cost effective? I think, for the average family out there, a lot of these vehicles are not cheap. Certainly when we were looking at cars recently, for where we are in our stage of life, a lot of these vehicles are not cheap, particularly if you're talking about vans, for instance. How do you make this more cost effective? Is the current tax credit sufficient? I think there are a lot of people who would take the view that we need to have greater investments to support uptake by Canadians.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Sure, and let's say that uptake was there, what's the economic opportunity? I'm thinking about the members you represent. What's the upside for them here, whether they're the folks helping manufacture the cars, providing the hydro infrastructure or whatever? Talk to us a little bit about the economic benefits for your members.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I don't have a number in front of me as to what the benefit is, but certainly, we have an opportunity to attract manufacturing jobs to make electric vehicles here. We need to make sure, at the same time, that we have the regulatory environment, the tax environment and access to labour as well. For us to be able to seize an opportunity, it's not just about assuming it's going to land in our lap; we do have to do our homework and get our own house in order to make that happen.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Yes, absolutely, and not everything involves the government providing direct cash assistance. Regulatory reform is something that the government can do at no cost to the public purse, but it's an absolutely tangible way in which we help the business environment improve.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, both.
Members and witnesses, we're pushing up close to the end of our meeting. I need a few minutes at the end so that we can have a discussion and look to adopt the two budgets that were sent to you by the committee clerk.
We'll have a rapid round here with it's a quick question and a quick answer. We'll start with the Conservatives for a question and one answer.