Finance Committee on June 12th, 2008

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I do have the firefighters' position and I have read it. It certainly is articulate with respect to the firefighting portion of your bill. But you also have ambulance technicians, and you have a category of a person who assists in the search and rescue of individuals or in other emergency situations. There appear to be three categories of people: ambulance technicians, firefighters, and a person who assists in search and rescue of other individuals.

Certainly CAFC's position is well articulated with respect to firefighters, and it may even be representative of the ambulance folks' position, but the way your bill is drafted leaves a whole opening with respect to other persons.

So the question I have—and I'll try to bring it to a practical situation—is that if a child disappears this weekend in the Gatineau and 100 volunteers show up to look for that child and they accumulate hours, and then the next weekend some other child disappears in the Ottawa area, could these persons, in theory, qualify for this kind of deduction?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I certainly think not, because what I think the bill is fairly clear in is that it really is emergency first responders, whether it's fire, police, ambulance, or, as you say, search and rescue.

Emergency first responders, regardless of the occupation they're in, are on call. It's not like where a child goes lost in a community and you put out a notice asking people to volunteer to help.

They are documented; they're on a list. The answers that the fire chiefs gave maintain that the record-keeping would have to be under a municipal authority. That might be delegated to a fire chief; it might be delegated to the head of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, or whatever.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But that's not the way the bill reads. It says “a person who assists in the search or rescue of individuals”. It doesn't restrict it to a particular category of people who are somehow or another affiliated with a municipality.

Let me just bounce the question back and forth between you and Mr. Gingras, because I think we might arrive at some view on that.

What's the department's view on that third category of individuals?

[Yves Gingras, Chief, Employment and Education, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

As I indicated last time, the terms used in the bill are general and have never been interpreted. Usually, the interpretation is done by the Canada Revenue Agency. They have not yet interpreted these general terms.

In a Statistics Canada survey that looked for data on the number of volunteers, the people were asked to identify themselves. What they had in mind when they said they were volunteers was not really very clear. So, the application is still a little fuzzy.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes.

The department, in my experience, always stretches the numbers of people that could possibly or potentially apply; they multiply it by a number, and come up with this astronomical cost of a bill. That is just routine procedure.

What I am concerned about is that there seems to be sufficient vagueness in the bill to actually support the position of the department that pretty well anybody could accumulate, over the course of a year, 100 hours' worth of looking for people. It seems to me that the wording “assists in the search or rescue of individuals” means that it's not a first responder issue, but simply a matter of I showed up, I assisted, and I accumulated hours.

I don't want to be unfair, but that seems to me—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think, Mr. McKay, though, that the finance department employee said that the CRA does interpret these—and that's their responsibility as well as that of the Department of Finance. We've been clear throughout all of the discussions on this bill that it should be interpreted as first responders in emergencies. I believe the department had calculated figures on that basis at an earlier hearing, and that is the intent of the bill.

I found with the Department of Finance that they don't broaden it; they narrow it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fine. I don't mean to interrupt, but I want to follow the rules.

The bells are ringing. It's a 30-minute bell. We need unanimous consent to proceed. If we get unanimous consent, we will proceed; if not, we will....

Is that okay? Fair enough.

I see unanimous consent to proceed. We will proceed for another 15 minutes, and then we'll break.

Okay, go ahead.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

How many minutes do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You have a couple of minutes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

A couple of minutes? Fifteen minutes?

The issue here is one of definition. If you're trying to get the bill through, and if you mean first responders, why don't you say “first responders” in the bill?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't believe that interpretation is necessary. I think the intent is there, and all of the discussion has been along that line. I think it's covered off in the bill already by what the Department of Finance had said previously.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Gingras, is it reasonable to presume that somebody who is responding to the loss of a child will get volunteer hours in one jurisdiction, and in another jurisdiction may not?

[Yves Gingras]

Again, from the Department of Finance's perspective, it is not clear. I am sorry, I cannot be of any more help to you on that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay.

Is there any ambiguity in the phrasing “search or rescue of individuals”? Is that an understood concept for the purposes of law?

We're drafting law here. We're not, as it were, making ourselves feel good.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think not, and I think you also have to look a little bit at....

Certainly we're drafting law; I recognize that. But as I said in my earlier remarks, if we do not support in some way those volunteer emergency workers out there and give them recognition, then I can tell you there's going to be a huge cost down the road, because they're just not going to be there to do the job. We can quibble over the finer points—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That may or may not be true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Crête, you have seven minutes.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Easter, my congratulations for having brought forward this bill.

Mr. Gingras, I would like you to answer the question that Mr. Laforest asked last week. Would the $1000 amounts that were not taxed at the outset continue to be untaxed? In a nutshell, what is the department's position?

[Yves Gingras]

We can confirm that the proposed section 60.04 of the bill states very clearly that no deduction could be claimed if an amount has been paid and excluded. So it is exclusive. It is one or the other. The deduction is not on top of the amount excluded.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Does that mean that the first $1,000 would remain untaxed and that, thereafter, an exclusion is possible for the next $1,000 if 100 hours of work has been done?

[Yves Gingras]

No. The act maintains the exclusion for the first $1,000, but, if a payment of $1,000 is made and the exclusion comes into effect, a choice is out of the question. You cannot choose either the exclusion or the deduction. With an exclusion, there would be no deduction. The way it is drafted, there would be no deduction on top. At the moment a payment is made, no deduction is possible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Even for the first $1,000?

[Yves Gingras]

Yes.

Under section 81(4) of the current act, if a payment is made, it is not possible to choose.

It is not elective.

As soon as a payment is made, the exclusion applies.

Section 60.04, that the bill will create, would automatically prevent a deduction. It is not possible to add a deduction to an exclusion that is already being made.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

For tax purposes, at that point, a payment of more than $1,000 does not exist.

[Yves Gingras]

That is the intent of the current exclusion.