Finance Committee on May 17th, 2023

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

I also want to confirm this with you, Ms. Nicholls. You talked about individuals in mental health crisis coming to the food bank and looking to access medical assistance in dying.

Conservatives have been accused of gaslighting or even making these stories up, but you can confirm today that people are indeed coming to food banks to end their lives.

[Meghan Nicholls]

We operate a home delivery program for people who are truly homebound and can't go to their food bank. Many of them have disabilities or are seniors. As we have built relationships with those folks, providing service to them month over month, some of them have chatted with us when we have called to see how they are doing and to talk about their order. They have said that they can't go on like this and have expressed that they are looking into those options. It has happened a number of times over the past year. We've invested in more mental health supports for our staff because of the impact it has on them when they engage in those conversations.

No, it's not a made-up story. That is something we are encountering.

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

Thank you.

In talking to the food banks, which are doing a marvellous job in my riding as well, some of the great folks who work there have said, and I believe you said the same on the record, that one of the differences now as opposed to before is how many individuals are employed and are working. Obviously, inflation has to be a driver there. The inflation that we've seen over the last couple of years is driving that.

The other issue I would put before you for your consideration, which wasn't mentioned but I believe is important, is that we look at the effect of clawbacks and taxation.

Imagine this. This is an actual case scenario. There's a couple and each of them earns $30,000 a year, so there's a total family income of $60,000. You mentioned the rent costs and food costs. You know what those are. They're paying in taxes close to $10,000. Let's say that mom or dad is offered an overtime shift. They'll get a total of $500. Between clawbacks and taxation, they will pay $249 of that back to the government.

Could you see the fact that low-income Canadians are often paying back half the dollars they earn...? These are folks earning $30,000 a year who are paying a 50% marginal effective tax rate. Could you also see that impacting their ability and effecting their food security?

Let me make it simple. If you're giving up 50% of your dollars, don't you have fewer dollars for food?

[Neil Hetherington]

Yes. Let me be clear.

Taking your example of $60,000, and maybe they have a couple of kids. The average two-bedroom apartment costs $3,063 in the city of Toronto. That's about $36,000, so you have $14,000 left over, because $10,000 of it went here. That is why we are seeing so many new people coming to the food bank who have income driven from employment primarily. In Toronto, that went from 15% to just under 35%. In the course of 18 months, it made that rise. These are individuals primarily with precarious employment, so part-time jobs.

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

Thank you very much for your testimony.

I believe it's clear on the face of it that this Liberal record of increased inflation and the cost of housing is driving people to the food banks. I have seen the lineups outside the food banks in my own riding. This is confirmed here. It's shameful, this Liberal record. It is hurting the most vulnerable people. We need to get back. We need a Pierre Poilievre government to drive down the cost of living to stretch out paycheques.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members and witnesses, we now have Kate Walsh from Canada's Building Trades Unions with us. We are going to allow Kate to make her opening remarks, and then we'll get back to the questions.

Ms. Walsh, go ahead, please.

[Kate Walsh, Director of Communications, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you, Chair. It's good to be here.

Thanks for the opportunity to address the committee on the recent federal budget and Bill C-47.

My name is Kate Walsh, and I'm the director of communications with Canada's Building Trades Unions. I may or may not be joined by my colleague, Rita Rahmati, who is the government relations manager for CBTU.

CBTU represents 14 international construction unions, with over 600,000 skilled trades workers from coast to coast.

Budget 2023 provided some significant support for middle-class workers, and I appreciate the opportunity to highlight some of these policies here today.

Last year's budget included the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople, which has helped tradespeople this tax season, allowing them to travel to where the work is and to deduct those related travel expenses from their income. It's a policy that was welcomed by our industry and something that makes a meaningful difference to Canada's skilled tradespeople.

Included in this year's budget, and the subsequent implementation act, is the doubling of the tradespeople tool deduction, from $500 to $1,000. Again, that's putting money right back into the pockets of the skilled tradespeople who build our country. We support this measure and hope that all parties will vote in favour of this component of the budget.

Also committed to in budget 2023 are five investment tax credits to support the economy's transition to net zero, which are linked to one of the strongest definitions of “prevailing wage” in Canadian history. In order to receive the highest level of these investment tax credits, employers will need to provide good labour conditions for workers, which includes paying the prevailing wage and meeting apprenticeship requirements.

The definition of “prevailing wage” will be based on union compensation, including benefits and pension contributions from the most recent and most widely applicable employer collective bargaining agreements in that region or corresponding project labour agreements. Additionally, 10% of the tradesperson hours worked must be performed by registered apprentices in Red Seal trades in order to receive the maximum credits. Tying these incentives to a prevailing wage that includes union compensation will raise the standard of living for all workers, maximize benefits for the entire economy and create a legacy of good-paying, middle-class jobs throughout this transition.

When the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes over $300 billion in clean energy tax incentives for energy infrastructure projects and increased tax credits of up to five times more where certain labour conditions are met, we knew that Canada needed to respond with strong investments of its own. With commitments first announced in the fall economic statement and expanded on in budget 2023, Canada is now on a similar path.

The building trades look forward to continuing to work with the federal government to operationalize the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements tied to these monumental credits. We'll also continue to advocate for these credits to further incentivize good jobs by increasing the delta when good job requirements are met and decreasing them when these workforce requirements are not met, so that the public dollars spent on these credits go back into good jobs and supporting working families.

As Canada transitions to net zero and we move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, Canada's energy demands could double by 2050. We need to build clean energy infrastructure in Canada that grows our manufacturing base and creates opportunities to grow our middle class, all while meeting our net-zero goals. Many of the commitments in budget 2023 will help us do this, but there's more to be done.

We need just transition legislation tabled and the launch of the sustainable job secretariat to map out our energy needs and the needs of the workforce so that no worker is left behind. We need to ensure we have appropriate labour market information data to plan the transition. We need to continue to address labour availability through investments in training—for instance, through the union training and innovation program and programs to recruit and retain equity-deserving groups—and make changes to our immigration system to bring in more skilled trades workers.

Budget 2023 includes significant policies that support our economic transition and building trades workers across Canada.

On behalf of our 14 affiliated international unions, thanks for the opportunity to present. We look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Walsh.

We're glad you were able to get on. We're looking to see if we can get your colleague, Ms. Rahmati, on.

Members, we'll go back to questions now.

We're going to the Liberals and MP Chatel, please, for six minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to talk about health. I'm a member for the Outaouais region, where we have the longest waiting lists for surgery and the lowest nurse to population ratio. Our emergency rooms are overflowing. We have one of the longest waiting lists for a family doctor. Wait times at the emergency room are also the worst in Quebec. We have a shortage of doctors and specialists, and when we have them, they can't do their work because they are short-staffed.

That's why I was very pleased that the budget included nearly $200 billion for the provinces. Of course, we were talking about the Conservatives' solutions, which involve cutting spending. That would be extremely irresponsible and damaging. I believe it would lead to the death of many people in my riding and across Canada. Why would they cut spending? To provide tax relief to corporate polluters in Canada. Well done, what a great policy.

I want to go back to the budget and additional investments. How can they help the provinces meet their urgent health care needs?

I would ask Dr. Lafontaine to answer first, followed by Mr. Staples.

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

I might begin and I'll answer in English.

I think it's interesting this juxtaposition that we have in the social determinants of health. You have food banks and you talk about health care. I hope members appreciate that the driving factors for unemployability are deeply tied to medical access, and the ability to have food security is deeply tied to the demands that happen on health care.

I believe these investments take us back to 2003 where, around that time, there was a health care shortage that was happening across the country. If you look at the analysis the Canadian Medical Association recently performed on the amounts of health transfers—which we'd love to submit—this is the largest nominal increase in supplementary investment since 2002-03. Those investments triggered refocus by federal, provincial and territorial bodies to make interventions in health care that changed the trajectory of things like primary care.

The wait time alliance came out in 2007. We had folks sitting around tables talking about how we actually improve primary care, how we improve access to patients' working environments for providers, and, as a result, things actually did get better. I was in the middle of residency training in 2008 as an anesthesiologist and I remember things actually getting a lot better as far as the accessibility of patients to surgical services is concerned. Why are we here now? It's because in 2014, the wait time alliance was quietly wound down and all the partners got up and started working in their silos again.

I think your question speaks to the requirement in this funding cycle to really focus on making sure that people around the table.... We have to have discussions that we're unwilling to have. We have to be very blunt about the crisis that's happening in our communities across the country. Patients in Quebec and other places in Canada, they deserve action. I do think that this can be a triggering event that leads to the same type of transformation. It looks and feels very similar to the last cycle that we just came out of.

[Steven Staples]

Thank you.

I would like to just add to the comments of my colleague that we hear this all the time from doctors, and particularly nurses. One of the major concerns of our members is the agencies that nurses are moving towards. Quite understandably, they have better working conditions. They have better pay in some cases, yet our public dollars are going to agency nurses and it drains.... Where do these nurses come from? There is no magical machine to find nurses and doctors and people. They're coming from the public hospitals. That's where they're coming from.

This question was debated vigorously through the Cambie case in British Columbia. All the evidence was weighed and Justice Steeves clearly said that increased use of private for-profit facilities increases wait times, increases disparities and poaches health care professionals from our public system, whether it be family doctors and specialists or otherwise.

This is why we focus so much on the privatization of this and the increased reliance upon agencies and private for-profit clinics. It's a major problem. We need to improve working conditions. As my colleague, Pat Armstrong, always says, “the conditions of work are the conditions of care”. If we have good working conditions, we will get the good care. If not, we will see an exodus of people and it will make the problems worse.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

With respect to the federal government's additional investments in health care, in your opinion, to ensure that the additional funds are used as effectively as possible, should the provinces be required to meet certain conditions or expectations, Dr. Lafontaine?

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

Yes, absolutely. I think the budget includes some of those front-end conditions. With the bilateral funding, there is the requirement for recognition of credentials. That takes us a step closer to pan-Canadian licensure, which is a necessary step to starting to resolve some of these problems.

To sign on to the Canadian health transfer, there was the requirement to participate in data sharing that was depersonalized and to possibly move toward persistent patient IDs, which are a necessity to start tracking patient utilization across the country.

You then have discussions surrounding benchmarks and other things. I think the benchmarks really have to be focused on two things. The first is access to care. If that is not achieved, we are focused on the wrong thing. The second is improving work environments, which is tightly linked to access.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel.

Now we're going to the Bloc and MP Ste-Marie.

For everybody's knowledge, we have Ms. Rahmati on.

Welcome to our committee.

It's over to MP Ste-Marie please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to remind my esteemed colleagues that the historic compromise of the federation was to establish a federation, not a legislative union. It was decided that the provinces would manage certain powers, and the delivery of health care is one of them. I want us to have better health care in Quebec. When I vote in National Assembly elections, I make sure that I vote for a party that will work towards that.

According to the Constitution, the federal government's role here when it comes to health care, the historic compromise, is to properly fund it. That's not happening right now; it's a matter of fiscal imbalance. That's why my party is fighting tooth and nail to resolve this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having said that, I want to thank my colleagues for letting us have a few meetings like this to hear from witnesses, who are raising very important issues. At the end of parliamentary sessions, I always get the impression that the government is in a bit of an ivory tower. It's good to face reality and the heart-wrenching testimony we're hearing today. I'd like to thank the witnesses for accepting our invitation on such short notice. I also tip my hat to the clerk, who organized all of this. It's a remarkable job done in an incredibly short amount of time. I'd also like to thank the whips of the various parties for clearing up the schedule so that we could hear from the witnesses, as we are doing this afternoon.

My questions will be for Mr. Céré.

Thank you for accepting our invitation on short notice, for running to get a headset and for being here with us. Your testimony was very much appreciated.

I'd like to discuss four topics with you. I'm going to have more than one round; I don't think we're going to get to all four in one round.

First, I'd like to come back to the long-awaited and much-promised reform that's not happening. That was the purpose of your testimony.

Second, there were significant deficits during the pandemic. The government was there and paid down the deficits, except for the deficits in the EI fund. Because the law requires that the EI fund be balanced every seven years, the workers who pay into it are being forced to eliminate the deficit. The government is taking $17 billion out of their pockets. In my opinion, if that doesn't change, it will be impossible to reform the system. Something should have been included in Bill C‑47 to deal with that. However, there's nothing there.

So I'd like to hear your comments on those two things, but I want you to know that I'll be asking you later about two things in Bill C‑47. First of all, it's just an extension of the EI spring gap pilot project, which you talked about. That's in part 4, division 35. Next is part 4, division 38. I don't know if you've had time to look at the reform of the Social Security Tribunal, but it's essentially what had already been proposed and what's being repeated here.

However, first, let's talk first about the obligation to balance the EI fund and the government's refusal to pay down the deficit resulting from the pandemic, and then about the long-awaited reform that's not happening.

I'm listening.

[Pierre Céré]

Thank you, honourable member.

You're right, there is a deficit in the employment insurance fund, a crisis deficit. This isn't the first time in its history that the unemployment insurance or employment insurance fund has run a deficit following a crisis. The premiums paid by workers and employers fund the EI program and will therefore reduce the deficit.

According to last fall's economic statement and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the deficit could be eliminated by 2026‑27, through a minimum increase of 5 cents a year to the premium rate, which would bring it to $1.83. That way, the deficit would be eliminated in a few years.

Instead, in this budget, we see what appears to be a gift to employers. Even though that was not what was announced last year, the decision was made to freeze the premium rate at $1.63. As a result, the government is depriving itself of revenue that should be paid into the EI fund and, in this case, that would be used to pay down the deficit. The government is also depriving itself of revenue going into the EI fund because there are maximum insurable earnings. In other words, that's the maximum salary at which people pay into employment insurance, which is indexed every year by a few thousand dollars. The last time, from 2022 to 2023, it was increased by only $1,200.

This isn't a gift to workers, because we have just limited, frozen, their benefit rate. It's a gift to employers because they also have to pay into employment insurance. They lobbied hard against the reform, changes and increasing the premium rate. By the way, we currently have the lowest contribution rate since 1982, so in 40 years. In other words, we're depriving ourselves of revenue when we could resolve this with some new revenue and a little imagination. A number of solutions were brought up during the consultations. We could improve this program, get it back on track and fix the social safety net.

I'd like to conclude by saying that we believe the Liberal government has given in to the Conservative rhetoric with respect to improving this program that plays a key role in workers' lives.

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

I have a number of other questions, but I will wait until the next round to ask them.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll now go to MP Blaikie in the NDP for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

I want to start by saying a big thank you to all of our witnesses. There's no shortage of wisdom around the table. It's very much appreciated. The fact that it's coming later in the process than it should have is the fault of folks around this table and not the fault of our witnesses.

I take the point about the correlation between employment levels and food bank use as well as social determinants of health. Some of our witnesses earlier talked about the various income support programs that exist right now in Canada, whether it's the Canada workers benefit, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada child benefit or, potentially, the Canada disability benefit, although I think the government seems to be taking a very long time and hasn't really announced any of the details.

If we get an adequate Canada disability benefit now, we're going to cover a lot of pockets of a demographic that requires different kinds of financial assistance, but we're doing it in a lot of disparate ways with different outcomes. It seems to me that a guaranteed livable basic income would be a more efficient way of delivering the kind of income support we need to have. Of course, we'd like to see people employed, but we know that people living with disabilities can't always get the kind of employment they want or that will sustain their families. We know that, for many seniors, employment isn't an option, or certainly not full employment. It can be difficult to get work post-retirement.

I wonder if folks from the food bank, Ms. Nicholls and Mr. Hetherington, want to comment a little bit on how Canada should treat the question of income support in order to ensure that folks do have enough income to be able to afford the necessities of life, whether that means food or housing.

[Neil Hetherington]

We support at a very minimum the continuation of the study on a guaranteed income. We are an evidence-based organization. Let's follow the evidence.

In the absence of that now, we are fully supportive of the Canada disability benefit and cannot urge the government enough to continue the journey that you collectively are on with all parties, to get that passed with regulations that are meaningful and to provide for those who find themselves in that situation.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Nicholls, would you like to comment?

[Meghan Nicholls]

There were early reports on the guaranteed basic income pilot in Ontario of the difference it was making to food bank users in the community, and we were disappointed to see that cancelled.

I would join my colleague to say that, yes, we would be interested in seeing the different models of that kind of program and how they could apply in the different circumstances people face across our country.

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

I want to compare that approach of the guaranteed livable basic income with the idea of broad-based tax relief.

New Democrats proposed the doubling of the GST rebate, because that was something we thought we could get this government to agree to, which was an important component of any proposal we would make. However, we recognize, first of all, that it's temporary. It's ultimately inadequate. It's not a permanent fix by any means.

When we compare that with a proposal for broad-based tax relief, our challenge is that it means.... If you raise the basic exemption or you cut taxes at a lower bracket or you cut the sales tax, that will mean that the highest income earners actually realize the most benefit.

When we're talking about the need to invest in health care, when we're talking about proposals for a guaranteed livable basic income as opposed to broad-based tax relief.... When you do the broad-based tax relief, what you actually end up doing is delivering more money into the hands of the people who are able to do discretionary spending, which raises demand in the economy and drives inflation, and you don't deliver the same amount of help to people at the lower income spectrum.

I wonder if your organizations have done some thinking about comparing the approach of a guaranteed livable basic income, as one example, with the model of providing general tax cuts, which tend to disproportionately benefit the wealthy.