44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about the fact that the bill is ambitious. Currently, we cannot even fund the heritage sites we have in my riding. Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie came from Sarnia, and his grave is there. It was very difficult even to get money to keep that up. My worry is that the bill is supposed to promote reconciliation, but if it is not adequately funded and we are adding indigenous members to the board, they may start to perceive that they are not actually seeing anything.
Does the member share my concern?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, as I was remarking near the end of my speech, providing adequate resources is such a key component. It is not enough to simply alter the composition of the board or provide direction to Parks Canada; we also need to ensure that the federal government is providing adequate resources to protect our built history and ensure the designated sites have what they need to manage the history in perpetuity. I think that is a real shortcoming in the conversation around national historic sites.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his rather extraordinary speech. It made me want to go straight to British Columbia. In fact, I think the B.C. tourism board should hire him or should send his speech to people to encourage them to go there and see how interesting the historic sites really are. It really makes you want to go there.
Quite apart from Bill C‑23 currently before the House, I think everyone pretty much agrees today on the issues of truth and reconciliation. We have talked about housing, murdered women, homelessness, and the reserves in northern Ontario and Manitoba that still do not have clean water. Many challenges remain when it comes to reaching out to indigenous nations.
What does my colleague think is the priority issue that should be dealt with immediately other than Bill C‑23?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will try. My French is a very early work in progress, but I heard the member's remarks about how much he values the effort, so I will do my best.
He was talking about reconciliation, the need for us to do better and to do more and the opportunity that national historic sites represent in that regard. I do not believe that the bill would go far enough toward realizing the potential of that, ensuring that we are portraying history and recognizing the sovereignty of these nations and the relationship we have as we should. This relationship is in its very early days, and I would have hoped that the bill would go further when it comes to national historic sites.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the comments we heard just now. In terms of the funding that needs to be available for the upkeep of these sites, a lot of sites commemorating the indigenous history of our country really do not have a built environment. I think it is important to create the interpretive centres that would tell us, finally, about the indigenous history of Canada and to provide funding for that necessary part of our national historic sites.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the really important aspects of this work. We often fixate on the built environment, built history, artifacts and these types of things for interpretation. However, when it comes to indigenous history, so much of it is contextual and part of oral history. As such, having indigenous-led interpretation to help understand the context of places that are significant to indigenous people is very important. This deserves investment and attention from the federal government.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. Fortunately, it also has a short title: the historic places of Canada act.
This bill is an attempt to follow up on one of the recommendations from the truth and reconciliation report. Members will recall that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper made an official apology to first nations people for the residential school situations. He then commissioned this truth and reconciliation report, which came with over 90 recommendations. Recommendation number 79 is the one that this act is trying to address. Conservatives absolutely support this. Stephen Harper started it, and so we definitely want to see this come to pass and to send it to committee.
In my talk today, I am going to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with the bill, and as usual, some recommendations on how to fix them.
I will start with subclause 43(3). What happens in the parks part of this bill is that the park rangers would be given new authorities. They would be given similar authorities to what peace officers have. They would then carry out their work. Basically, I want to read subclause 43(3) because it is very concerning. It states:
A park warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under [search and seizure] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.
It would obviously be a violation of section 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to search and seize without a warrant, so the important part of that phrasing is “exigent circumstances”. However, I do not know that a park ranger would necessarily understand that they would normally get a warrant, but if someone were going to be injured or some building were going to be destroyed or something, there may be some urgent circumstance. Moreover, there is no indication of a requirement for training on that. Therefore, there needs to be some training.
The second concern I have with this bill is that it would give additional powers to the minister and to the Governor in Council, which is essentially cabinet, to designate places or to prevent a place from being designated. That is way too much power to give to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I say that because he has a history of doing things to influence the outcomes that he likes or does not like.
For example, in 2022, he decided to put in regulations about migratory birds, which caused a delay in the Trans Mountain pipeline project. He has already said he never wants to see that project built. I would not want a situation where there is some kind of project or natural resources thing that is in the national public interest and the minister has the sole power to decide to designate a heritage place that would become a barrier to that project. We do not need to put that kind of power in his hands. We have to keep in mind that this is the minister who, in his former life, was arrested for his environmental activism. For example, in my riding, I have a heritage site that is where oil was first discovered in North America. I do not ever want to see the minister have the power to decide that is not going to be a designated site anymore. That sole-power thing is a problem, and there need to be checks in place.
Under clause 34, another thing the Governor in Council, which is really cabinet, could do is to make regulations on about 18 different circumstances. This is becoming a chronic problem with bills that the Liberal government brings forward. The Liberals have no detail in the bill and leave it to the regulations later. Sometimes, thinking about Bill C-11, the government knows what the criteria are that it is going to bring forward to the CRTC on what content should be promoted or buried. Even though the opposition has been asking the government to share that for more than a year, it will not do so.
If we look at Bill C-22, the bill about disabilities, it does not say who is eligible, how much they get and when they are going to get it. Those are details that are actually very important in order to approve bills in more than just principle.
We are at the stage where we are approving this one in principle, but the ability for cabinet to make regulations after the fact needs to be much more limited than it is. There needs to be some driver of why it could not be foreseen.
There is also a part of this bill that would increase indigenous representation on the board from first nations, Inuit and Métis, and that is a great addition. There are some occasions when they do not all agree on something. We have seen instances before, like with the Coastal gas project, for example, with the Wet'suwet'en, where 85% thought one thing and 15% thought another. Again, there does not seem to be a mechanism to resolve when the board cannot agree about something, so that would be very important.
Another protection I would like to see in this bill has to do with the issue of cancel culture. We have seen in our country, over the last few years, quite a number of historic monuments that were vandalized, destroyed or forced to be taken down. I think about the Queen Victoria statue. I would not want to get into a situation where somebody is not a monarchist and they become the minister and have the sole power to designate something as “not a site”, for example.
I remember when I was at university in Kingston, there used to be a pub there called Sir John A. Macdonald, and they made them take that away. I do not know if it was officially a historic site, but it was certainly historic in my life. I definitely do not want to see that.
Another thing is that 15 Christian churches have been burned, some of which were historical sites, and the government has not taken any action. How we are going to address the protection of things that are already heritage sites and not try to rewrite history, as it were? That will be an important question.
I also want to make sure the board members who are chosen have the best interests of the country and the people they are representing at heart. In my riding, there are people who are paid environmental activists who chain themselves to the employees' pipelines, etc. It could cause a lot of trouble if those people were on the board of this particular committee. Who is vetting the board members? It says the government is going to choose. If “government” means the Minister of the Environment, who was previously an environmental activist, then I do have a concern there as well.
Let us talk about navigable waters. There is a lot of red tape already in the area of navigable waters. There are federal regulations, there are provincial regulations and there is always a long delay in getting any resolution. Now we would have the Minister of Environment and Climate Change having powers, but what if the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism do not agree? I have raised this point in the questions a few times, but there has not really been a good answer. There needs to be some mechanism to sort out who is on first and who has the prime responsibility. I personally do not think it should be the Minister of the Environment, when it comes to navigable waters. That is clearly something that is a concern of Fisheries and Oceans, unless it is for tourism.
If we think about some of the balancing of priorities, we know that when it comes to designating heritage sites, they are expensive to maintain. In my previous questions, I talked about, in my riding, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie's grave, which was falling into disrepair and it took a really long time to get fixed. We need to make sure there is a plan in place to afford the things we are designating.
I do like the idea of a registry for those locations that are heritage locations. That will be helpful. I think it will also help prevent people from removing things that were at heritage sites, because the reasoning for them being chosen in the first place will be a part of that.
The final concern I have about this is that the government has brought this bill and again is giving more power to the government. Its track record is not great on this. We have seen numerous times that the government has used its powers and it was not in the interest of the people. I think that is why people are losing trust in the democracy and in the current government.
There need to be some protections put into this bill that would allow us to expand and recognize heritage sites, to afford to fix them, to make sure that we are not going to cancel them later and to make sure that it is clear how we sort out conflict.
Those are the main concerns that I have with the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions people have.
1630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate on what I would have thought was fairly straightforward legislation or definitely the principles of it. I do not necessarily agree with the official opposition, but I understand what it is saying. The legislation also has a very significant contribution toward reconciliation with call to action 79. From what I can tell, many of the discussions that have been coming forward could easily be dealt with at committee stage. My concern is to what degree the Conservative Party would like to see the bill passed. Is there an interest on its part to see it passed? As I said, it would be nice to see it passed before the end of the year.
Could the hon. member just provide her perspective, given the importance of the principles of the legislation, on when it could go to committee?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would like to see this bill passed, but the reason we have to raise our concerns in the House at second reading is that my experience at committee has been that the Liberal government pays no attention to comments raised at committee.
Many committees are not televised, so the public will never know what the concerns are with the bill. We need to get them on the record today, and then the government has time to think about what the solutions are, to take my great suggestions, to put them in place and to get ready for committee.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked a lot about resource development. I would like to remind members of something interesting that my colleague from Terrebonne said when she spoke to this bill earlier.
She reminded the House that there is a wonderful agreement between the Government of Quebec and indigenous peoples when it comes to the development of resources in Quebec, and that is the peace of the braves. That was made possible through nation-to-nation dialogue. We need to be careful. Not all indigenous people are in favour of every development project. They are also concerned about the environment and the impact that these projects will have on future generations of their people.
Above all else, the message that I want to send is the importance of nation-to-nation dialogue to ensure that we hear their opinions and concerns regarding the environment. It is important to not necessarily invest only in resources that will further damage their planet, which is also that of their children.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very important to have discussions with the first nations, between nations. It is very good that Quebec has an agreement that allows for these discussions, but the other provinces and territories do not have such agreements.
I do not think it is a win if the government announces that we can designate historic sites, but there is no money to put measures in place. I worry that this will exacerbate the situation.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remark that this is the second speech I have heard today on national historic sites that mentioned the Trans Mountain pipeline. I know there are a lot of people out there who cannot wait for this project to be history. What really got me going was when the member brought up the gatekeeper aspect and mentioned that birds were the gatekeepers. It is the first time I have heard people blame birds for these things.
I am just wondering, similarly to the previous question, if the member would rather get rid of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, get rid of the Fisheries Act and let these developments happen willy-nilly. Is this what she really wants?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I care about the species. I care about the environment.
What I do not like is those who are in power using excuses, such as designating a heritage site that may be just conveniently a heritage site because it is in the way of a natural resources project that is going to be built. Perhaps those in power pick that one bird that could only be in that one place in order to prevent something from going forward. That is the kind of abuse of power we do not want to see. That is why we need protections in this bill to prevent it.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to get on the record, and I would like to see if the hon. member agrees.
I have the Old Durham Road Black pioneer cemetery located in my riding. It is near the terminus of the Underground Railroad. It has been recognized by Ontario, for over 30 years now, as an important historic site for the Province of Ontario. However, it has been rejected in getting national historic recognition, partly because of unique things under the act tied to cemeteries.
I am hoping that during this debate, we would be able to get it amended and have this important Black history site in my riding recognized in the future. Would the member agree?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑241, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence.
As the granddaughter of a mason and niece, sister and sister-in-law of carpenters, this is a sector of our economy that I am rather familiar with.
From the outset I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑241 and I will be talking about it today first from the perspective of the construction industry, then from the perspective of the current economic context and finally in the context of the labour shortage.
First, let us not forget that this is about one of the recommendations from Canada's trade unions that represent more than half a million construction workers in Canada who are members of 14 international unions. These people work in more than 60 trades and professions and generate 6% of the country's gross domestic product.
Salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. It stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are located in a different region or province from their primary residence. It is a question of fairness.
Growth rates and infrastructure investment often vary from one region to the next, and this results in labour shortages. The labour shortage is one of the main impediments to economic recovery. One way to address rising prices is to tackle this shortage.
When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must pay out of pocket. For workers with a family, additional expenses for travel can be very high and can impede the worker's mobility.
This tax deduction is a concrete and effective means of enhancing the mobility of construction workers.
In addition, according to calculations, this would save the federal government approximately $347 million. Other countries, such as the United States, allow a similar tax deduction for skilled labour under the Internal Revenue Code. These employees can deduct the cost of meals, travel and lodging for temporary work away from their place of residence. This type of measure would promote return to work and address labour shortages at the same time. It would also reduce reliance on government programs, such as employment insurance.
As mentioned earlier, the costs associated with travelling to a job site far from home can impact a worker's decision to accept that contract.
Coming back to inflation, it reached 6.8% in 2022, the highest it has been since 1982, when it hit 10.9%. It bears mentioning, however, that the inflationary surge appears to be coming to an end. After peaking in June at 8.1%, it stabilized for a few months and then fell 0.6% to 6.3% on an annualized basis in December.
Price increases have been uneven. In 12 months, food prices rose 9.8%, gas prices rose 28% and the consumer price index, excluding gas and food, rose 5.3%. Since essentials like housing, food and gas have increased the most, low-income earners have suffered the most.
Two weeks ago, the Bank of Canada announced its eighth rate hike, increasing it to 4.5% from 0.5% a year earlier. Higher interest rates benefit those with savings, but cost those with debt. Young homeowners who bought their first home in the midst of the real estate price boom are likely to have some challenges. Since they are usually the ones who take out variable rate mortgages, they will quickly see rising rates on their mortgage payments.
Inflation is a major concern for consumers and cannot be ignored. A Scotiabank survey conducted in December shows that the rising cost of living tops the list of financial concerns for 50% of Quebeckers.
That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill, in May 2021, to help attract new graduates to the regions and encourage them to stay there. With that in mind, it is important to implement measures that protect the population in general, particularly the most vulnerable, such as seniors. When it comes to seniors, the Bloc Québécois is still calling for the government to increase old age security by $110 a month for all seniors aged 65 and over.
Like all other workers, skilled workers are facing higher costs on everything. I will come back to that. According to a recent poll by Canada's Building Trades Unions, 75% of skilled trades workers agree that a tax deduction will give them access to more job opportunities. With inflation the way it is, the time is right to implement a tax deduction to help ease the pressure on some workers' wallets.
At the top of the list of costs that might stop workers from agreeing to travel far for work is the cost of gas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has pushed the price of oil to levels not seen in eight years. Even though the price of gas is coming back down, its current volatility and unpredictability are enough to dissuade workers from going too far from home to work. It becomes unfair.
What is more, this tax deduction can certainly help deal with the labour shortage in one sector in particular. The pandemic forced many people out of the labour market for health reasons and it exacerbated the labour shortage in certain sectors. It is important to act quickly to support the sectors that have been hard hit by this labour shortage.
This shortage is a significant impediment to economic recovery. It results in forced closures, the loss of contracts, the cancellation of investments in our businesses and overworked employees. It can even limit opportunities to improve the working conditions of current employees. The pressures related to the shortage of workers will be felt until at least 2030 in Quebec especially because of the aging population. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a suite of measures to alleviate labour shortages across Quebec. In its 2021 spring budget, the government promised to create at least one million jobs. Creating jobs when there is a shortage of workers really makes sense.
The Bloc Québécois was already concerned about the labour shortage. It made some good proposals during the 2021 election campaign. We proposed seven concrete measures to help fix the problem. First we must value experienced workers and increase, from $5,000 to $6,500, the amount of employment or self-employment income that is exempt when calculating the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. That is in the bill that I introduced last week. I look forward to debating it here in the House with the other parties.
The GIS is intended for people aged 65 and over with relatively low incomes. It complements old age security, but the GIS decreases rapidly as income increases. The first $5,000 earned, however, does not affect GIS amounts. We propose to increase this exemption by $1,500.
The temporary foreign worker program must also be handed over to Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is calling for the program to be repatriated to Quebec, which is in a better position than anyone else to identify the specific labour needs of businesses within its borders.
Another trend that is emerging in Quebec is the digital shift. Businesses are increasing their efforts to accelerate the digital shift. This is one way to increase productivity and get around the problem of the labour shortage. This is another area that needs to be addressed. We need to support and assist SMEs in that shift. It is about competitiveness.
Tax credits for research and development also need to be improved to stimulate innovation. We are also suggesting creating a new tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for recent graduates in the regions, to a maximum cumulative amount of $8,000 for recent graduates working in designated regions.
In closing, I want to present some figures on Quebec's construction industry, which is very lucrative but has labour shortage issues. That is why the Bloc was quick to propose several solutions, because there is no magic bullet for solving the labour shortage. We need to approach the problem from various angles. The importance of Quebec's construction industry cannot be understated. This is as true from an economic point of view as it is from a job creation point of view. We are talking about investments of nearly $53 billion in 2019. We are also talking about 264,600 direct jobs generated per month, on average, or one out of every 20 jobs in Quebec. It also generates thousands of other jobs in other sectors.
To conclude, the Bloc made an intervention through my colleague from Joliette at the Standing Committee on Finance during debate on this bill. My colleague pointed out to the government that, since this is a private member's bill, the government tends not to propose any amendments, particularly in terms of including safeguards for certain provisions and thus reassuring the parties on the interpretation or application of a given bill. In the end, no amendments were proposed, and the bill passed without amendment on division in only about 15 minutes.
I want to say one last thing in closing. As members can see, this bill reflects the current context in which the construction industry is facing many challenges. Given how important this industry is to the economy, we need to look into this problem and help the industry find solutions to the labour shortage. This bill is one of those solutions.
1669 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation.
I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year.
The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note.
Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs.
Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of the them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference.
We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government.
We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate.
The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry.
We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income.
We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points.
When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs.
Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual.
When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program.
I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.
1141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate here this evening. Bill C-241, sponsored by the member for Essex, is an excellent bill that the NDP will be supporting. I am also pleased to be in the same area as the member, and I think it is a good example of how we can bring forth responsible and solid legislation that not only reflects on our area, but also impacts the rest of the country.
Unfortunately, I cannot get the last 10 minutes back from the previous speaker, but I can say that the member sponsoring the bill has been open to meeting with the government and ministers on an open basis. He has approached the Liberals very responsibly, trying to get them to come on board. Quite frankly, I think the only reason the Liberals do not support it is because it is not their idea. It is as simple as that.
I am going to go through the specifics of why the bill is important, but a lot of people would see this as a housekeeping bill in many respects. I want to point out that this is a modest tax credit and a piece of legislation with an approach that should be, in a minority Parliament, a bipartisan way to get some stuff done for Canada. I commend the member for coming forth with the bill right away. He was selected high in the order, and we only get a certain amount of opportunities and time. It is like winning the lottery.
This is not a going-through-the-motions type of bill; it is going to provide a tax credit. We know there are many tax credits out there for other individuals and corporations. It is unfortunate that we do not have this one, which is to allow for travel-related expenses for work done at least 120 kilometres away from a skilled trades member's place of residence. In Windsor and Essex County, which includes LaSalle, Tecumseh and Kingsville, even the Chatham-Kent area in southern Ontario, there are often different times where we might have a flux of employment in the auto industry, or other types of trades that go up and down. We also have many workers who will fly out to Alberta, to the oil sands, or fly out to other places to do skilled trades work. This is a modest tax credit to help them in that process.
These individuals are self-employed in many respects, although they often belong to unions, like LiUNA, which is a very good union, and Unifor, which is another good union. At times, they are individually contracted to go out to different places, and the cost can be quite significant. The previous speaker from the Bloc mentioned a really good point on the inflationary costs that have gone up for travel, and other things of that nature. I think that is an excellent point. This keeps people working all the time and stops them from having to go on unemployment. It also encourages young people to have more stability. It is a challenge to work abroad. There is a lot of stress when it comes to family and raising young children.
These measures are controllable. The person has to provide receipts. There is full accountability for the expenses taking place. I looked at some of the other tax havens, the types of taxes and tax credits we have for people. I will focus on a couple of them to show how unfair it is for these workers to not be able to write off a few business-related expenses for their travel when it is helpful for our country. We have a corporate dividend tax credit, a tax credit for the oil and gas industry, and a stock option deduction for taxes. We have a number of different businesses taxes that businesses can write off, which even include private boxes for sports tickets, concerts, vacations, office parties, and deductions for executive pay. If members can believe it, all those things are a tax deduction, but they are not for skilled trades workers.
We are also trying to get more women and diversity into our skilled trades, but they cannot get the same deductions we can for an office party. It is outrageous. For the government to complicate this, or make it more difficult than it seems, is irresponsible. I do not know why the Liberals cannot just get behind the bill. It is unfortunate. The bill has a history in this House. Former New Democrats for Hamilton Centre have brought this forth, including past members Chris Charlton, David Christopherson and Wayne Marsden. Now our current member for Hamilton Centre, who is doing an excellent job on this, and the member for Essex have pulled this together, and I think it is worthy of being brought forth on its merit alone.
We have done this before. In the last Parliament, I worked with the member from Saskatoon when I had a private member's bill on single-event sports betting, and because he got selected higher, I took it off the Order Paper and gave it to him. He took it and did a wonderful job, and the legislation got passed. It affected the reduction of organized crime, and now we have an accountable process. It is a good example of making Parliament work. I think the bill before us should be seen with the same type of lens.
I do not know why government members would want to oppose this legislation. Some of them argue it is redundant. Some of them argue it is not good enough. It is ridiculous. Those arguments are shallow and vain, quite frankly, because if there is still a problem, it can go to the Senate for some amendments. Members can be creative and suggest something or show something that is wrong with it in a concrete way, rather than just trying to wind the clock down on the process.
When we get an opportunity in the House of Commons, it is like winning the lottery. For people who do not know, we are like ping-pong balls in many respects. The process is that we get drawn randomly, and if a member gets selected in the top 40, they at least have some hope of actually getting their bill through the entire process in a regular Parliament. However, in a minority Parliament, it is even more shallow, because if we do not have a five-year term, if it is a shorter term, a member would not be able to get their bill through. Even the last bill I did, again with the member from Saskatoon, who did an excellent job of working on the bill with me and others, came into effect within only a couple of days of the election, because the Prime Minister refused to do it. It took outside lobbying efforts to get him to finally officially authorize it and bring the legislation into force, a couple of days before the last election.
It is hard enough, and my point is that we all have a collective responsibility to use these opportunities as best we can. The member did not choose something like “happy groundhog month” or something very shallow like that. This legislation is well thought out. It is legislation that has been in the House before. It is not going to break the Bank of Canada. In fact, it passed the test of mettle in being proper and with due diligence, by the Speaker's ruling. This is one of the things that should be noted. We actually have unions behind the bill as well. Canada's Building Trade Unions has been supporting this tax deduction for a long time. Operably, it is really good. I mentioned LiUNA and Unifor as well.
Again, what we are talking about here is for a long period of travel, 120 kilometres, where a worker would be able to deduct a little bit of that cost. We have all seen, in the last number of months, and the last couple of years really, the rate of inflation going up. I could not think of anything that had more appropriate timing than this. In fact, it merits the government stealing the legislation if it wants to actually impress upon getting something done for workers at this particular time.
If the government is saying that we cannot afford this for skilled trade workers, then why would we not stop letting people write off private boxes, and stop corporations from deducting office parties and other nonsense like that? This is something that could go right to the worker.
Again, it would go through our accounting process, which is already established, and so the legislation would not create another bureaucratic arm or process. It would actually be an amendment to our current tax code, which is commendable in the approach it is taking. It is responsible and could actually be triggered right away.
I feel passionately about this. There are two things that are behind the bill. First and foremost is that a member has sincerely brought forth legislation, which has had a number of versions in the House in the past and is very much amenable to a bipartisan approach and working together. Second, it is very effective for tradespeople. It has a direct correlation to the economy and how we can actually protect workers and enhance opportunities for them and their families, and it has a social justice element as well.
To conclude, there are a lot of other tax things out there that are a bunch of nonsense and that really should be reviewed, eliminated or at least discussed, whereas this is extremely responsible. I hope the bill before us receives the proper weight or at least the government looking at what it can do, and that we can move it to the Senate and go from there.
1665 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in support of this excellent piece of legislation from my colleague from Essex, which is a great part of Canada. The good people of southwestern Ontario have gotten behind this hon. member, and our leader, the new leader of the Conservative Party, visited that part of the world. There are lots of skilled trades workers in southwestern Ontario, and a massive rally came together for our leader's visit there. Over 1,500 people came out to hear the positive Conservative message about making sure that work always pays. There are so many people in this country right now working so hard, juggling different jobs, often more than one job, trying to pick up extra shifts and always looking for new ways to earn a little more.
People will always want to do better for their families. People will always want to leave more for their children and give their children the types of things they never had when they were growing up. That is a pretty standard, constant human emotion, especially here in Canada, but with the inflation crisis that the Liberals have created, the need to pick up extra shifts and to have a little more money at the end of every day is even more pronounced, because the dollars people are earning are not going far enough anymore. As the Prime Minister devalues the value of the paycheques people bring home, more and more Canadians are forced to work more, for longer and longer hours, and work harder and harder at their jobs.
Construction workers and skilled tradespersons often have extra costs that office workers do not. We all know that people in the skilled trades have to spend a lot of money on tools, for example, and various governments understand that. The previous Conservative government wanted to recognize that cost for skilled trades workers and brought in special tax measures for tools that skilled trades workers have to spend their money on.
This bill, though, would not be a tax credit. This bill would be a great way to recognize the costs that are often associated with travelling to work by allowing those workers to deduct those costs from their income altogether. If someone goes to a restaurant and pays for a burger, maybe it costs five dollars. We know that the restaurant owner does not have to pay tax on the full five dollars, because that five dollars of revenue first has to go to pay the cost. It has to pay the cost of the meat that is in the burger, the bun and the worker who cooked it and put it together, so the business owner has to pay tax only on the profit from that five-dollar cheeseburger. We are kind of applying the same logic to the skilled trades here. When workers have to travel a long distance, the payment for that work should not ignore the reality that the workers had to pay money out of their own pocket to get where they had to go.
A great example is in the province of Saskatchewan, which I am so proud to represent. We have lots of large-scale infrastructure projects, mining projects and natural resource projects that take place far away from large urban centres. We have potash mines where big companies are investing big dollars. They are desperate for workers to fill those jobs, and there are workers who would love to go and work there, but they cannot relocate their families for a short period of time. They do not want to pull their kids out of school, sell their house and move to, in come cases, a very small town that may not even have housing available to them, so what do they do? They commute. They might rent a place nearby or they might literally drive there and back every day, and they are doing that to work. They are doing that to fill a need in our economy, like a project or a job that needs to get done, and they are doing it for themselves, but their paycheque and the taxes that are charged on that should reflect the cost they had to spend to do the very job they are qualified to do.
This, by the way, happens in the corporate world. Companies that have to spend money on transportation to fly their staff to various parts of the country or to transport materials are allowed to deduct those costs against their revenues and pay tax only on the difference.
I view this measure as tax fairness for skilled trades workers. One point of differentiation between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that every time we hear the Liberals talk about tax fairness, we can be sure of one thing: They are raising taxes. That is literally the only way the Liberals know how to even think about tax fairness.
When the Conservatives think about tax fairness, we think about lowering taxes and getting government out of the way. One thing that has been so inspiring to watch is how the leader of our party is showing Canadians how many barriers and obstacles to growth and prosperity exist all around the country.
We just had a fantastic announcement. The Leader of the Conservative Party announced that a Conservative government would bring in what is called a blue seal program. It would allow highly skilled, trained medical professionals to travel from one province to another, or move from one province to another, to fill a need. For people who have credentials from outside of Canada, credentials would be recognized so they could fill badly needed positions in our health care sector all across the country.
This type of initiative builds on that. This type of initiative to encourage workers to go to where the work is, removing the impediment, the obstacle to prosperity, is an incredible method to get people working and to get big projects built again. This initiative is needed, because the investments that go into a lot of these large-scale construction projects are cyclical. If we build a bridge, we do not need to build another bridge for many years, but another municipality might need a bridge. Our skilled workforce has had to become very mobile and very flexible. Workers need to be able to go to where the work is.
Let us take mining companies, for example. They can only do so much exploration every year. They can only do so much drilling. They can only do so much infrastructure building because of their equipment barriers. They tend to rotate and move around where they focus their investment. One year it might be in Saskatchewan and the next year it might be in British Columbia.
We need to ensure that our workforce can be flexible too and that we remove this barrier. If we do not, there may be a job that goes unfilled. There may be a worker who could do it, but with the salary offered for it, they think that by the time they fly in and out several times a year or drive the long hours, their costs will become more and more significant, as the Liberal carbon tax makes the cost of fuel go up. The worker might say they are not that much better off if they take the job. At the end of the day, by the time they pay for all those out-of-pocket expenses and pay their taxes on the money they have earned, they are not even further ahead, even though they have done all this work and spent all this time away from their family.
This bill removes that barrier, that obstacle, and makes it that much easier for a worker to say, yes, they will take the job and take the skills they have learned over the years and apply them to the job that needs to be done. Everybody wins. The worker wins, our overall economy wins and Canadian pension holders win as Canadian companies do better and better. My colleague from Essex has found a win-win-win solution to help all aspects of our economy with this great initiative.
I cannot say how shocked I am that the Liberals are going to vote against it. I say that and then I realize that I should not be shocked at the hypocrisy. When the Liberals say one thing and do another, it is more disappointing than shocking because we see it all the time. They talk a good game. They like to make announcements. They like to go to conventions full of workers whose votes they are trying to win over. They like to have fancy meetings with the heads of some of the unions. However, when it comes time to actually do something and deliver, the Liberals say no.
The Liberal excuse for saying no is so flimsy. They claim they have another type of solution, but it is not going to benefit workers in the same way this bill would. Because of how my colleague from Essex has designed this bill, it would allow workers to deduct expenses right off the top and would be a massive tax savings for them. However, overall, it would not be that much of a cost to the economy. Instead of looking at it as a reduction of revenue for the government, we should be looking at this as an expansion of the work that is going to be done all over the country. That economic activity is going to lead to even more economic activity.
Once again, I am disappointed but not shocked that the Liberals have said one thing during an election and done another thing after the votes were counted. That has been the story of the Prime Minister and the government. However, the Conservatives have shown the way again. We are showing how we are going to bring home better jobs and better paycheques, and the money left over in Canadians' pockets will go farther when the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister of Canada.
1695 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to debate Bill C‑241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with regard to deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons.
Bill C‑241, which is sponsored by the member from the Ontario riding of Essex, is at third reading stage. It seeks to amend “the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence.”
From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this small but extremely worthwhile initiative. In my opinion, most members agree on this bill. We could settle this this evening by taking a vote by a show of hands. Honestly, I find this a bit tough from a procedural perspective. We know that everyone will vote in favour of the bill, but there is a process to follow, even though we know the outcome will be the same at the end of it.
The tax benefit being introduced by Bill C‑241 responds to a request made by Canada's Building Trades Unions, which represent more than half a million construction workers across the country. These people work in more than 60 trades and professions and generate 6% of Canada's GDP. That is significant.
As we know, in Quebec, the construction industry is an extremely important sector of activity. We are talking about investments of nearly $53 million in 2019. We are also talking about 264,600 direct jobs generated per month, on average, or one out of every 20 jobs in Quebec.
In Canada, salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. I believe and the Bloc believes that it stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are far from their primary residence. It is simply a question of fairness.
The scope of Bill C-241 is essentially fiscal, but it is also economic, because it addresses labour shortages and, by extension, inflation. When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must cover them themselves. With a family to support, additional expenses for travel can obviously become quite burdensome and undermine a worker's incentive to accept certain contracts from time to time.
Inflation was 6.8% in 2022, the highest since 1982. In 1982 it was 10.9%. We need only think of the extreme volatility of gas prices. The price of a litre of gas in Quebec last June was $2.20, enough to bankrupt any family that has to travel a lot for work.
As I was saying, the tax deduction introduced by Bill C-241 is a concrete and effective measure to encourage the mobility of workers in the construction sector. It is an incentive to return to work. We believe that.
According to a recent poll by Canada's Building Trades Unions, 75% of skilled trades workers say that a tax deduction will give them access to more job opportunities.
Given the current inflation, this is the right time to bring in this tax deduction that will help alleviate the financial burden for tradespeople. This tax incentive promises to provide a solution to the labour shortage, and therefore reduce Quebeckers' and Canadians' dependence on government programs such as employment insurance.
Calculations have shown that Bill C-241 could save the federal government approximately $347 million.
I want to make it clear that we are not reinventing the wheel with Bill C‑241. Other countries, such as the United States, have had a similar tax deduction for quite some time. In short, it is a targeted, relevant and timely measure that has been proven to work on the other side of the border. It would be difficult for all parties here in the House to oppose this bill.
I made a correlation earlier between the tax deduction proposed in Bill C‑241, the job shortage and inflation. The Bloc Québécois members believe that addressing the labour shortage will help ease the inflation that is increasingly affecting and worrying our constituents.
The pandemic forced many people out of the workforce for health reasons and exacerbated the labour shortage in some sectors, including the construction trades. This shortage is hindering the economic recovery, because it results in forced closures, lost contracts, significantly reduced investment in our businesses and overworked employees.
Today's inflation stems in part from an imbalance between supply and demand: Supply is limited because of the labour shortage, but demand is stable and growing. Reducing the labour shortage in a specific sector, as Bill C‑241 seeks to do, could potentially fix the imbalance between supply and demand, in addition to reducing inflation as I was saying earlier.
Consequently, in my opinion, it was ill-advised and counterproductive of the Liberal government to try to create one million jobs in budget 2021 without including effective mechanisms to deal with the labour shortage.
The Bloc Québécois has been taking the labour shortage seriously for a long time now. During the last election campaign, we proposed plenty of solutions: recognizing experienced workers; transferring the temporary foreign workers program to Quebec; investing in research and development; investing in the digital transformation; and creating tax credits for new graduates who move to the regions for work.
In summary, the Bloc Québécois has always been an ally of tradespersons who make an essential and invaluable contribution to Quebec's economic prosperity. Bill C‑241 introduces a targeted and appropriate tax measure that will ease the financial burden of tradespersons while addressing the labour shortage and inflation.
For all of these reasons, once again, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑241.
1018 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
