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.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dehejia, I have a quick question with regard to inflation. Obviously consumers are feeling the pressure at the pumps, and that creates all sorts of spinoffs into the economy as people charge higher rates.
Do you believe that now is the time for the government to introduce a temporary reduction in the GST on fuel?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Carleton University, As an Individual
Yes. That's a one-word answer, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Well, that was quick. Thank you very much.
Now we'll move to the Liberals again for a quick question and one answer, with MP Dzerowicz.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank everyone for their excellent testimony.
My question is for Ms. Long.
Ms. Long, I want to say a huge thank you to you. I very much appreciate your experience and your testimony today, and your exchange with my colleague Mr. Blaikie.
As someone who has worked quite heavily on the immigration file for the last six years, I'm very familiar with the express entry system and its failings. Even before the pandemic, we had huge job needs, so we had labour shortages. What happened was that so many industries were not able to bring key workers in legitimately because the system didn't facilitate skilled or semi-skilled workers coming in. After the pandemic, we now have this huge need in so many different sectors, and I suspect—and you mentioned this as well—the minister was probably trying to ask how we can address these huge labour shortages very quickly.
I'm going to ask you a similar question, and you'll probably have to write the answer in since we don't have time for a response. If we had to move forward with this legislation—assuming it's going to move forward—and there is anything we could do, how do we give the minister the flexibility and speed they need, but with the proper oversight that is needed? It might not be parliamentary, but there's some sort of accountability mechanism that we could put into place.
If you could kindly put some thought to that, it would be really appreciated.
12:55 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
Yes, I'm happy to do that. Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
Mr. Chair, I would like Mr. Beauregard to explain to us in 30 seconds why this is an important issue.
Mr. Beauregard, what message would you like to send to the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which are also going to be studying the issue about the importance of reforming the appeal process? We were all surprised to find this reform included in Bill C‑19.
What message would you like to send to the government to ensure that the reform meets the objectives that were set?
12:55 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you for your question.
Right off the bat, I would say that it doesn't have much to do with the initial project announced in 2015.
The request to address the matter separately was made because the social partners were supposed to have been consulted, but were not. The union, the employees and the employers were not consulted.
We believe that these consultations are important. That's why we are asking that they be done separately.
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Beauregard.
Thank you, MP Chabot.
Now for our final question and answer, we have MP Blaikie.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beauregard, many unions have told us that they wanted changes to the Board of Appeal to be addressed separately from Bill C‑19, that certain changes be made to ensure that members of the board would all be part time, that the appeal board should report to the Employment Insurance Commission, and not just the chair, and that there be a right to regional representation and to in‑person hearings, among other things.
Do you feel that it would be preferable for these changes to be included in the bill, or addressed separately from the bill?
12:55 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you for your question.
If the changes are made, that's all well and good, but I think that further changes need to be made to employment insurance.
I don't think it would prevent us from having a discussion about it. So why not remove this part of the bill? It would allow for a full analysis of the issue.
If there are changes to be made, they could be addressed in a separate analysis that would include all aspects of employment insurance.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
We want to thank our witnesses. On behalf of the committee, we thank you. I know you came together in a very short order, with limited time, and we thank you even for any technological issues that we had today. The questions were great and the answers were greater. We appreciate that. On behalf of our committee, our clerk, our analysts and interpreters, and all of those who helped bring us together, thank you very much. We want to wish you a wonderful day.
Members, I need your attention, and we can release the witnesses now. Thank you, everybody.
I do need members' attention just for a little bit. The clerk did distribute budgets for these current studies on Friday at 12:50 p.m. so you would have received an email. Now I want to see if there's any discussion—
1 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I move for unanimous consent to let the two budgets as presented proceed.
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal