Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you very much.

We'll open up the round of questions with Mr. Seeback.

You have six minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Lana, it's nice to see you again. I think the last time we met was in Ottawa. We certainly talked about softwood lumber and about how important that and the auto sector are. I do have another question to ask you, though.

In doing some research over the last little while, I discovered that in 2025 there were 126,000 unemployed skilled tradespeople in Canada. At the same time, the government issued 125,000 temporary foreign worker permits in TEER 0 to 3, which includes skilled trades and skilled labour. I've asked the government to conduct an investigation into this. I've asked two ministers to do this. They haven't committed to doing that.

Do you think it's something that would be important to do, given that those numbers seem to line up exactly and we are having a bit of an employment crisis in Canada, with unemployment at 6.9% and our economy now in recession?

[Lana Payne]

Thank you very much for that question.

It's incredibly important for programs like the temporary foreign worker program that there are ongoing checks, balances and evaluations of these types of programs that have been introduced. For too long, I think what we have seen is a misuse of the program in many cases while, at the same time, too many jobs have been allowed to be filled by temporary foreign workers that could be filled by Canadians.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have or don't need to have a healthy and robust immigration system in Canada. I believe that we do. The reality is, when we set up the kinds of conditions and rules we do around programs like the temporary foreign worker program, we're almost setting it up for failure and abuse. Without ongoing inspection, auditing and evaluation of that program, we're going to have problems in terms of what you've just described, that not every decision being made is a good one.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

One thing I also discovered was that consultation with unions prior to the issuance of temporary foreign worker permits was removed by the Liberal government in 2018.

I've asked ministers if they would restore that, because I think it's a great safety check. There's been no commitment to do that. I assume that you would support that.

[Lana Payne]

Absolutely.

In many workplaces, we have had ongoing dialogue with employers who may be availing themselves of this program. We do have cases where it may be challenging in some parts of the country to attract labour or, because communities are small, they don't have enough of a labour force to fill some of the jobs in those communities.

Really, that should be a dialogue with the employer and the union. They should be part of these kinds of decisions as they're being made. Of course, I believe that the government has a role to play there too, in terms of making sure that the union is aware of this.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Another thing that I've found deeply troubling has been the offshoring of tech jobs.

I know that Unifor is part of the Canadian Telecommunications Workers Alliance. Recently, 115 specialized network operator positions were eliminated in Canada. They were outsourced, I believe, to India. Not only are these high-paying, specialized jobs by a Canadian telecommunications company, but there's also a security aspect to it. These people had access to very high-level security information on Canadians.

Would you be looking for something in the budget to stop the offshoring of jobs like this?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. We have a comprehensive number of recommendations in terms of what we would like to see around the telecommunications sector and tech jobs that are being outsourced to other countries.

We have to consider two things right now. One is that we certainly have Canadians capable of doing this work. Many of our members do this work every single day. Two, we have to be aware that other jurisdictions in the world may not have the same privacy rules and regulations and laws or the same kind of concern for Canadian data. A lot of this means that our data is being dealt with in other jurisdictions of the world right now.

For those reasons, given the moment we're in and the entire discussion that we've been having around Canadian sovereignty and what that means, that also needs to apply to the data of Canadians. That means shoring up and firming up the kinds of rules and regulations that apply to telecommunications corporations in Canada in terms of what they can and can't do.

Let's be clear. We have created an environment for telecommunications companies in Canada where they are supported. They have limited competition in Canada. As a result of having those benefits, I would say to you that the trade-off here is strings attached to that, and those strings happen to be and need to be good Canadian union jobs.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think I have about 30 seconds left. I have one last thing.

Regarding the consultations that are going on with respect to changes to the Canada Labour Code by the Liberals, the rumour I'm hearing is that certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially in supply chains, will be made essential services, thereby removing the right to strike. I think that's also deeply troubling. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

[Lana Payne]

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but there's probably not enough time, with 30 seconds, Kyle. I hope somebody else comes back with that question.

I would say to you that our union has been very clear.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Ms. Payne. You can probably answer it in the next round.

Next, we have Ms. Church for six minutes.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think it's Madam Martin.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

That's my bad. It's Ms. Martin for six minutes.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I would like to thank the witnesses for their important work.

My questions are also for Ms. Payne.

I want to acknowledge the important work your members do. I know that many of your members have been particularly hard hit in this time of tremendous uncertainty for the Canadian economy. Thank you for the work you do on their behalf.

I want to zoom in a bit on your recommendation number 23. That relates to making permanent the temporary changes to employment insurance and temporary special measures under the work-sharing program. Can you elaborate for us a bit on what these programs have meant for Canadian workers and why you think they've been an important enough intervention that you would like to see them continue?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. Thank you, Danielle, for that question. I really appreciate it.

We have a list of probably 30 individual recommendations around what we would like to see happen to the employment insurance program, but some of the temporary measures have been very helpful for sure. In the case of work sharing and what it allows us to do, I would like to see more companies use the work-sharing element of the program. It allows us to save jobs.

For example, we have engaged the work-sharing program in the forestry sector, which means that we're not depleting the workforce. We're sharing the work over a period of weeks or months, basically, and we've actually recommended it and used it over time in pretty much every sector where Unifor represents people, that being that we think it's critically important to keep capacity, infrastructure and supply chains going.

Some of the ways we can do that are by making sure that we keep people working through a crisis—we need programs like work-sharing—and supporting this idea of making sure people are staying at work and being productive during an economic downturn, like the one we're starting to see now in Canada.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thanks. To go a bit deeper on that, because I do think it seems to have yielded a lot of creativity, which I think is commendable, I'm wondering, in a universe in which you're recommending that this be made permanent.... Hopefully, we won't be in an economic downturn forever. Hopefully, there is a bit more stability on the horizon. I'm wondering if you can talk to us a little about why you're recommending a permanent shift as opposed to an extension of a temporary shift. How would this help in a permanent way in the foreseeable future of the economy?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. No matter the state of affairs in the world, there are always going to be cycles for sectors of the economy. It may not mean that every sector of the economy is doing well at the same time. There may be transitions that need to be happening. There may be retooling that needs to happen. There could be all sorts of realities for a particular sector that could avail itself of a work-sharing program even when times are economically good.

I think our goal here is to try to make sure we are protecting workers through all of those different periods, whether it's a transition period, a retooling period or a trade war like the one we're going through right now. You can't always predict those, so we need to have them as a permanent feature of the legislation and of the program.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you.

Continuing on this theme about transition, you have another recommendation that relates to a just transition framework for workers in the mining and critical minerals sectors. I'm wondering if you could speak a bit about what you envision there and why you think this is important, particularly in these named sectors.

[Lana Payne]

Yes. I'm going to ask Angelo to also come in here. He's the head of our research department. He will have even more examples.

The reality is that these are sectors that pay very good wages. They're often very much unionized. When you look at how we build transition for those types of jobs, it means that we can't just throw people out the door and expect them to survive on EI.

In looking at how we build those kinds of transition supports, sometimes we are successful in bargaining them, I would say to you. We have done a very good job of that in the auto sector. When we were going through a retooling period, we bargained for really great transition supports for workers. These are sectors.... In the mining sector, particularly, where we have had mines going through a downturn or mines coming to the end of their shelving life, how do we then transition workers and make sure they're protecting their livelihoods through that period? That's why I think there are a number of things we can do there.

I'll have Angelo chip in here too.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

If you don't mind, Angelo, I'll just jump in to ask—if you're going to add anything there—if you could speak a bit about where else this approach might be useful, including beyond the unionized sectors of our economy, given the number of economic transitions we see on the horizon. I'm thinking about AI, for example. I'm thinking about other industries where people are working more gig economy-type jobs and may not have the protections of a union.

Can you just elaborate on whether you see this as a principle that applies in other sectors?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Unfortunately, that concludes your time.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Maybe you can send me an email to let me know. Thanks.

[Lana Payne]

We will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'd just like to thank Mr. Hallan for sitting in the chair for me while I had to go somewhere else.

We'll now continue with Mr. Garon for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. We missed you. Welcome back to your own committee.

I would like to extend my greetings to the witnesses. Thank you for being here and for submitting your briefs.

I'll start with you, Ms. Senneville.

I'll talk about employment insurance. I gather that it's long overdue for reform. A promise was made in 2015, and then the government went from one pilot project to another. It must know by now whether the pilot projects worked. The Bloc Québécois, through Louise Chabot, a member until the end of the last Parliament, even tabled a bill to reform employment insurance.

We're going through challenging economic times right now. We need a program that insures people. It isn't right to have an insurance program that fails to insure 50% of the people who are meant to be insured. No one would sign up for that type of insurance.

What do we need to change in the employment insurance program, and fast? What major changes are urgently needed?

[Caroline Senneville]

Many temporary measures should become permanent, such as waiving the waiting period, suspending the allocation of separation earnings and, of course, increasing the number of weeks of regular benefits.

One issue that remains unresolved is the situation of seasonal workers. Canada is a large country with many regional realities, and there are still—