Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
You are saying that, under the new act, an obligation to declare a payment would exist from the moment it is made.
12:05 p.m.
Chief, Employment and Education, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
No, the act stipulates that, as soon as a payment is made, it must be excluded. As soon as a person receives a payment, the $1,000 exclusion must automatically apply. The effect of the bill would be to prevent the deduction. No deduction will be added to what is there at present.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
So, to be clear, what are the benefits of this bill for these people?
12:05 p.m.
Chief, Employment and Education, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It provides nothing for those who receive a payment and who automatically have the right to an exclusion. It gives those who work as unpaid volunteers the right to a deduction of between $1,000 and $2,000.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Easter, for coming today and at least giving us a few minutes here to talk to you about it.
First of all, I want to be clear on this and understand it. The previous bill was virtually the same—except four numbers have now been changed, or doubled—yet you voted against it in the House and Mr. Dion voted against it in the House. What's changed between now and then?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
There have been very substantial changes, because the bill that was voted against in the House actually only dealt with paid volunteers.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Have you read them carefully? Because I'm trying to find the changes.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I've read the interpretation of both bills. And the fact of the matter is that the bill we voted against in the House only applied to paid volunteers. And what we have been trying to do with the previous Bill C-273 and this one is to deal with those unpaid volunteers who are out there.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
To follow up a little bit on Mr. McKay's question, the Red Cross was here last week. I think you might have been in the room. They're under the impression that they'll get the tax advantage also, based on the very same example Mr. McKay brought forward.
Are you telling me today that the Red Cross is confused, that they're not going to be able to qualify for this, based on the current wording in the bill without any amendments?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm telling you that based on the bill and the work that is yet to come from interpretations by the Canada Revenue Agency and the others—that is, based on the intent of the bill—it would only apply to emergency workers and first responders.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
By the way, my father was a volunteer firefighter. He's too old to do it now, but he was a volunteer firefighter in his community.
Do you not think it's fair that volunteers should have a clear understanding of what this bill's intent is and who it's intended for, which could be done through amendments we haven't yet seen?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think they do have a clear understanding. You seem to be confusing the issue, but I believe there is a clear view on the intent of the bill and who it applies to.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Well, I think your colleague on the other side there is also somewhat confused, based on your interpretation of things.
There were ten points that were put out by the CAFC. They were in the audience the last time, and this is why I think we need more time on this bill. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs believe that the definition is--I'll quote them--“overly open-ended”, and that “fire services generally regard the emergency services as compromising emergency first responders”.
In their own words after last week's meeting, they recommend that there should be wording changes to clarify the definition, based on this bill. Do you agree with their approach and their response?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
What I agree with is the response that they had given to the questions, which I think clarifies who it applies to. I've seen those remarks they made last week. I don't believe there need to be further amendments to the bill. I believe it can be handled now, and I would see going to further amendments as a delay tactic, given where Parliament is, to prevent this bill from becoming law and putting into place assistance that is necessary for those unpaid volunteers out there.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I don't have much time, Mr. Easter.
I feel for you, because I've sat in that seat on a private member's bill myself.
Do you have Bill C-273, the previous bill, with you?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Does anybody happen to have Bill C-273 with them?
I would like Mr. Easter to point out where the wording changes are between the two bills.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Could we get that? Are we coming back after these votes, or what are we doing?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
My proposal is to suspend the meeting, and then to come back after the votes for 15 minutes or so, to see if we can get to clause-by-clause.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative