Bill C-241

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons)

This enactment amends 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.

Income Tax Act

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved that Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying what an absolute honour this is. I am feeling completely privileged beyond belief. This is kind of mind-boggling, because while it is one thing to get to the House, it is another thing to be fortunate enough to be so early in Private Members' Business. It really, truly, is quite a remarkable day, and not just a remarkable day for me, but perhaps for close to a million trade workers across Canada.

I would like to first say thanks to the folks of Essex, who elected me to represent them. Without their support, I certainly would not be in this place today bringing forward this private member's bill.

Secondly, I would be very remiss if I did not say thank you to Tomi Hulkkonen. He is from UBC Local 494 from Windsor. When I ran for the very first time to represent Essex, he asked me to bring this private member's bill forward. Apparently, he has been working on this for some 11 or 13 years.

I gave him my word that, if indeed I was elected, and if indeed I was up early enough in the PMB process, I would bring forward this bill, so I am proud to bring it forward. I am proud that I could actually keep my word to Tomi.

My bill, the people's bill, the trade worker's bill, Bill C-241, is an act to amend the Income Tax Act, specifically to add a deduction. This would not be tax credit but a deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. I also like to call it the “fair travelling tradesperson's bill”.

It is a very, very simple bill. It really is. It talks about three things. The bill reads:

where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer

(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,

(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and

(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act

Throughout this process, I have spoken to a number of trade associations, a number of trade unions, the managers and the leaders of such, and I have yet to find one that does not completely endorse this bill, which tells me that there is a huge void that needs to be filled. It also tells me that we have been walking by an opportunity to support trades and tradesfolks.

By 2025, Ontario alone will need an additional 350,000 tradespeople to fill the current need. As is often the case, tradespersons can be expected to travel long distances from one job to the next, far from home. With inflation at a 30-year high and during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, this bill is a common-sense proposal for hard-working Canadians.

When it comes down to it, this legislation is basic fairness for tradespeople. I made a commitment to the tradespeople in my riding to bring it forward, and that is exactly what I am doing.

In my opinion, this bill is, quite frankly, so simple. I want to tell a few stories of the folks that I have been speaking to along the way, because I really believe that their stories bring out the magic of what this bill will do for everyday Canadians and their families.

First and foremost, I want to speak to Canada's building trade unions. They have been very good in helping me navigate through, or stick-handle through, if one is a Canadian hockey player, I suppose, what exactly was needed.

CBTU represents members who work in more than 60 different trades and occupations and generate 6% of Canada's GDP. Their industry maintains and repairs more than $2.2 trillion in assets. Their work is not just done on site, but in facilities that provide modules or other components that are incorporated into the larger structures they work on. Once those structures are built, they are employed in renovation, maintenance and repurposing.

It goes on to say, under “Getting People to Work”, and this is a really neat one. This is really an important point:

Depending on private and public investments, at different times certain regions will have more employment opportunities than others. These conditions lead to a necessity for skilled trades workers to temporarily relocate or travel long distances for projects to meet the needs of the market. As projects are completed, workers will then return to their permanent residence....

...With families to support, temporary relocation costs can prove too burdensome for workers, contributing to increased reliance on programs like Employment Insurance and exacerbating labour shortages in certain regions.

As the Canadian economy transitions to net zero, the federal government needs to implement travel supports for workers in the traditional oil and gas sector.

It goes on to talk about addressing inequality in the Income Tax Act. It says, “In its current form, the Income Tax Act is an inequitable tax policy.” This is a very important point:

Today salespeople, professionals and Canadians in other industries can receive a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodations when traveling for work. The same option is denied to skilled trades workers who work on jobsites that are in different regions or provinces from their primary residence.

I have a few stories, and these are real stories, that I received in emails.

The following is an example of an apprentice. His name is Theo. He states, “As a carpenter apprentice, I travelled from Windsor to Timmins, Ontario, for several months in order to work at construction projects in remote parts of northern Ontario. I spent thousands of dollars of my money on gas, food and hotels, and I was not able to get any assistance for it. I also put a lot of kilometres on my car in this time and it wore out and depreciated a lot, which affected my ability to get ahead. I gave up a lot of time from family and friends in order to work. There is a lot of work opportunities in remote parts of Canada and a tax deduction on travel expenses would help apprentices like myself to travel to better work opportunities.” I love the word “opportunities”. He continues, “I hope that this bill passes and that all members of this Parliament support Bill C-241.”

Another email states, “Canada provides excellent opportunities for construction workers on projects that are often far away from places they call home. Canada has been built by skilled trades people that have left families and communities to travel to opportunities to work on projects that may not be available close to home. Canada is experiencing record labour shortages and it is crucial that Canada's assets with the workforce mobility removes the barriers to travel that currently exist.” That was from Tomi Hulkkonen, president of the Essex and Kent Building Trades Council. He went on to say, “Please note that the Carpenter's Union, Local 494, fully endorses this bill, as well as is willing and able to speak on this bill if asked if it goes to committee.”

This was a cool one. It says, “So, do we have a labour shortage in this country?” This was sent by another gentleman whose name is Russ. He writes, “I say we currently have a shortage of political will for fairness and mobility for the Canadian skilled worker. Today all of this can change if you vote yes to support the Canadian skilled worker in this non-partisan bill, which I fully stand behind and support. Your constituents have elected you to do the right thing for this country and contribute to our society, both ethically and morally. We are not asking for a payday or a handout. All we are asking for is fairness. Our country can have the skilled workers needed if the shackles regarding mobility can be released for the Canadian skilled worker.”

I have just a couple more.

Jaret is an electrician from Windsor with two young boys. He has been forced to travel across Canada, leaving his home province of Ontario, in order to provide for his family. If the stress of being away from home is not enough to deal with, imagine not being around to guide one's children while they are growing up. With all that added outside pressure, it would only be sensible to allow construction workers dealing with the same issues to be able to write off their travel expenses.

Peter, the executive director of the Construction Labour Relations Association of Manitoba, says, “You well know all major infrastructure construction projects in Manitoba's history have always relied on workers travelling from another province to supplement Manitoba's skilled tradespersons labour supply. The same can be said for every province across Canada. Promoting mobility by eliminating the current travel expenses for our construction trade workers is simply sound economic policy with a strong sprinkling of common sense. On behalf of the many construction contractor employers who I represent, I am dedicated to working with you and Russ and others who will support this critical and timely national incentive.”

I could continue with more testimonials, but I know my time is running short.

As we heard today in the House, the price of fuel, the price of hotels, the price of food and inflation all lie on the backs of the very tradesfolks who are building and have built this country, and they will continue to be the builders of this country in the future. To put that extra burden on them is absolutely unfair.

This is a fair bill that would leave money in the pockets of tradespeople and give back to the skilled trades, which have been walked past for many years and ignored. These workers are expected to travel across Canada to build our bridges, to build our roads, to build the homes that we all know we have a major shortage of in this country, and to keep our electric system moving. It really should be a no-brainer to, at the very least, send this bill to committee to be studied.

The neat thing about this bill is that it covers tradesfolks from coast to coast to coast, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to across Canada. It would not just help one area. It would help the entire country. If it looks like I am smiling a little today, it is because I am kind of excited to introduce a PMB, but the second reason I am smiling is that we have a major opportunity to do something huge for Canadians and for our skilled trades workforce. We can truly give them the support they not only deserve but need going forward.

As my time comes to an end, there are two last things I would leave members with. I suppose if there was ever a time for all parties to come together, become completely bipartisan and know what we are doing is right, it is now. Yes it can be studied, but knowing that what we are doing is right kind of puts a smile on my face.

I will leave one last thought. I do not know of any member in this place who does not get reimbursed for or write off their travel expenses. If that is good enough for members of Parliament, then it should darn well be good enough for the tradesfolks.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question with respect to the presentation given today, and I do appreciate it. It is great work, and I do support the direction that the member is taking with the bill and I am hoping to see it sent to committee.

You mentioned travel—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask the hon. member to address his question through the Chair.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member with respect to travel.

The member mentioned travel, but how about tools? We have a maximum deduction for tools listed under the CRA. Is there any thought given to adding to this private member's bill to include not only travel but tools of the trade as well? That could be anything from big vehicles and machines all the way down to the hammer, screwdrivers and things that tradespeople use on a daily basis. Is there any thought given to include that in this private member's bill?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the member brings that up, because it has been brought up to me a number of times in my discussions here over the last couple of years, and that has been asked for. The truth of the matter is that, although I am a person who loves to ask for the world, I was trying to keep it simple to get something passed to help tradespeople out. By all means, when the bill goes to committee, if the member would like to make a suggestion for that, I am all ears. Whatever we can do to help them, to move the trades forward, I am all about that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the hon. member is in good form today. He seemed very excited to present his bill. In fact, he sounded very much like a New Democrat, and I will tell members why.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Take that back.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will tell members why.

The New Democrats, in 2006, first introduced this bill under Chris Charlton, and then again in 2008, in 2013 and in 2021. In fact, my private member's bill is very much like this one.

I will ask the hon. member, who has been in such good form with strong New Democratic talking points, why is it that, in determining the distance, he made it a further distance of 120 kilometres rather than the 80 kilometres that we have prescribed year and year again?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the question of why I moved it from 80 kilometres to 120 kilometres, I heard somebody say “inflation”, which is why I could not help but laugh. However, at the end of the day, it goes like this: I am open to discussion at committee, and I am open to ideas.

Why did I think of 120 kilometres? Typically speaking, depending on where one lives, some have access to a major highway and some do not. I thought it would be about an hour and a half from home. It seems to me that if I am an hour and a half from home, which is three hours of travel every single day, I am probably going to want to stay out of town.

If I can get the support of the NDP, heck, I will call myself an NDP for one day for that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a question for my colleague, but I would like to congratulate him.

We are often critical of bills that do not suit us, but when they do and they make sense, it is important to acknowledge that.

I am pleased, just as my NDP colleague pointed out earlier, to see that the Conservative Party, or at least the Conservative member for Essex, has suddenly discovered the virtue of standing up for workers.

It will be my pleasure to work with him on Bill C‑241. I will have the opportunity to say more about that in my speech later.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. There was no question, but it certainly sounds as if there is at least an appetite and potentially a flavour to move the bill forward, and that means a lot.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and indeed my neighbour, and I congratulate him for introducing this private member's bill.

We have talked a lot in the House about labour and labour shortages, and it is a no-brainer to link a potential change here to addressing that. I would like to give my hon. neighbour the opportunity to comment on how he feels the impact of the bill would play out on labour shortages, particularly in the trades sector and indeed help our whole construction industry and other industries.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington, who is my neighbour and my friend. Our ridings match up, and this is a huge envelope of opportunity for local trades. I know it would be beneficial.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure, a great honour and a privilege to rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Halifax West.

It is always a privilege, a pleasure and an honour to rise here on behalf of the residents of Halifax West. I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this important issue forward.

We committed in our platform to move forward with introducing a labour mobility tax credit to allow workers in the building and construction trades to deduct certain eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses and give them a tax credit on a yearly basis. I am proud of that commitment, and I do hope to see progress on it soon.

I want to take this opportunity today to reiterate the great value of the skilled trades for Canadians. Skilled trades workers literally build our cities, homes and communities. They master their craft, upgrade their skills, train the next generation of their trade and help fill our labour gaps while providing for their families.

We think the best way to address the skilled labour shortage and help small businesses grow is to invest in our tradespeople by giving them a tax break on travel expenses for work.

I am pleased to continually champion and highlight skilled trades and the wide variety of career options, which are in high demand. We need people of all backgrounds to choose these trades to fuel our economic growth and recovery. The people of my communities in Halifax West know that very well with all the new construction in our cities and in our neighbourhoods.

There are many ways to encourage people to enter the skilled trades. We can use our place in public life to highlight the value of the trades. We can make it easy to learn how to get into a trade. We can provide appropriate supports for those who want to pursue training, and we can invest to improve and expand the opportunities available, including for under-represented groups of Canadians who should also see a future for themselves in the skilled trades. Our government, I am proud to say, is doing just that. I will note that this is work that I was so proud to be involved in during my time as Nova Scotia's provincial minister of labour and advanced education.

To highlight the value of skilled trades workers and the supports available to build a successful and fulfilling career in the trades, our government recently launched an advertising campaign to promote the skilled trades as first-choice careers for young people and diverse populations. The campaign website, Canada.ca/skilled-trades, provides Canadians with information about what the skilled trades are, how to become a tradesperson and what financial supports are available to them while in training.

Two years ago, we announced the Canadian apprenticeship strategy, which paved the way for a new apprenticeship service. It will help first-year apprentices in eligible Red Seal trades get the hands-on experience they need for a career in the skilled trades. I also know first-hand from my days as a provincial minister of the great support and funding the Government of Canada provides to provinces and territories to help them raise awareness about careers in the trades.

Our government is investing nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship supports through grants and contributions, loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding, and support for the Red Seal program. That is a major investment and part of that is programs like the union training and innovation program.

Last week, I visited the Building Trades Advancement College in my riding to announce funding through that program to two local skilled trades unions. In fact, they brought this bill forward to me, which is why I am happily rising today to speak to it.

I was there with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 39, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625. I was fortunate to see first-hand how federal dollars were being put to work securing the equipment and materials that our skilled trades workers need to upgrade their skills and train the next generation of workers. This included a spider crane, a scissor lift, electric conduit benders and many other pieces of equipment and training stations that this funding helped provide. That is one of many ways we support our skilled tradespeople and their livelihoods.

All this is to say that I will use my position here to stand up for the skilled trades, advocate for skilled trades workers and help to celebrate the trades generally to those considering what to do with their futures.

In addressing the bill today, we all know that the nature of the construction industry requires skilled trades workers to travel to project locations as they arise. Sometimes there is not enough work locally and travel is a necessity to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. The people of my province and my region understand that necessity well, although I have to note how far we have come in terms of our success, growing our own local economies and giving people the opportunity to stay and earn a living in their own communities.

When tradespeople have to travel to work and when expenses are not covered by their employer, they have to pay out of pocket for their travel expenses. Those costs can run high and at times make it prohibitively expensive to travel for a work opportunity. In fact, Canada's Building Trades Unions reports that 70% of building trades workers have had to pay out of pocket for work-related travel expenses.

For other Canadians, the Income Tax Act allows for a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation when travelling for work. However, currently that option is not available to skilled trades workers who work on job sites in different regions or provinces from their primary residence. That is a discrepancy that calls for a policy solution. The status quo effectively penalizes people who are willing, ready and able to work and whom we need to build back our infrastructure, improve housing supply, address local labour shortages and support our recovery. We have an opportunity to correct that here and to put more money in the pockets of workers. This type of support is something that skilled trades workers support. It is one of many ways we can make working in the skilled trades more attractive.

In debating this bill, I do have a few questions. Some of them may have been raised in the questions leading up to this.

First, the bill would allow tradespeople 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 from their ordinary place of business. That distance is greater than some other proposed minimum distances and it certainly is greater than the one proposed by Canada's Building Trades Unions. I look forward to receiving more detail on the rationale or thinking that was used in selecting that number.

Second, I note that the bill does not contain precise definitions, perhaps most notably, of travelling expenses. We need to see greater clarity here because we know workers do not end up paying for just their transportation. They sometimes have to pay for accommodations, meals, etc. Therefore, I look forward to more clarity on that.

Third, I note that the bill does not include safeguards that contain its scope and cost. For example, there is no minimum period of relocation and no cap on the number of trips or on the amount of expenses that can be deducted in a year. I look forward, when the bill comes to committee, to hearing testimony from witnesses and so on to get a bit more clarity on that part of the bill as well.

Overall, I do appreciate what the member's bill is trying to achieve. Providing skilled trades workers with tax relief for the necessary travel that they must do for work is an important step that we can and must take. I expect that our government will move forward with a new labour mobility tax credit for workers in the building and construction industry. It would be an additional tool to support our hard-working tradespeople. I look forward to seeing this bill when it comes to committee.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C‑241, which was introduced by my colleague from Essex. Let me start by saying that I think this is a very interesting bill.

Whenever we debate a bill, people get the impression they have to read through a lengthy tome in an attempt to understand all the clauses and the ins and outs. It scares them. In this case, however, the bill is less than a page long, so I think we can all take a good look at it. Short bills can sometimes be very efficient and within everyone's grasp.

This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling long distances for work. This is an interesting idea.

Specifically, the bill amends subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act to apply to a taxpayer employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an apprentice in a construction activity at a job site located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence. The taxpayer must also be required to pay those expenses for travelling to and from the job site and cannot be reimbursed for them.

On the face of it, all this makes sense. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑241.

This bill was recommended by Canada's Building Trades Unions, which represent half a million workers. It is worth noting how interesting it is that this bill is supported by the labour movement, because it is rare to see a Conservative member introducing a bill that the unions are happy with. We will take it while we can.

In Quebec, which is what the Bloc Québécois is interested in, one in 20 jobs is in the construction industry, which is no small thing, since that equates to about 260,000 people. This bill could certainly cover other sectors, and many people will be able to deduct part of their expenses for travel over long distances. Basically, it will be very beneficial for them, and they will be very happy that a bill like this passed.

A deduction for travel expenses is not something unusual or unheard of. As others mentioned earlier, parliamentarians get to deduct their travel expenses, such as accommodation, meals and mileage, when they travel long distances. We benefit from that. It would not look good for us to tell others that they are not entitled to this, and it would send a rather odd message.

Other categories of workers receive the same kind of treatment, including salespeople who work on commission and certain professionals who get these same benefits. However, tradespersons are still not entitled to this benefit, which is surprising in 2022.

Construction sites are often located hundreds of kilometres from their homes. I am thinking specifically of two tradespersons I knew quite well and still know quite well because they are part of my family. I am talking about my two grandfathers.

My paternal grandfather worked as a plumber on construction sites for years. He worked on the Olympic Stadium, military bases and office towers. He did plumbing work on many different construction sites during his career, but he was not entitled to this kind of deduction. I am sure that he would have loved to have such perks.

People working on a job site far from home often do not see their families for many hours or even days at a time.

Also, having to incur that kind of expense to get to the job site can be demotivating. In a tight labour market, when people are struggling to find work, some people might decide it is worth paying for gas in order to travel 200 kilometres to work, because they need the job.

At the end of the day, it is also a matter of fairness. It costs them a lot of money to do their job. Not all employment contracts provide money for people to travel and do their job. Some employers will agree to provide accommodation or meals, while others will pay for mileage, but that is not the case for everyone. I think we need to give this opportunity to those for whom this is not the case.

I mentioned my grandfather. Back in his day, this might have allowed him to go and work on sites much further away. He was not able to do so, because he wanted to stay relatively close to home.

I could also talk about my other grandfather, who was also a tradesman. He worked as a lineman for Hydro-Québec for years at some very remote sites. In fact, I think he worked on just about every large dam in Quebec.

This could also benefit people from large urban centres who move to regions where there is often a shortage of expertise or a labour shortage. When a major construction site is launched in a region, and between 5,000 and 10,000 workers need to be hired all at once, this cannot be done with a snap of the fingers. In bigger cities, however, more workers are often available and are easier to find nearby.

Conversely, people who live in the regions, who want to be able to stay there but would like to have access to jobs or contracts in large urban centres, may need to take the travel factor into consideration. Staying in the region is therefore obviously an obstacle for them.

In short, I think this is good for everyone. It is just as good for workers in the regions as it is for workers in major cities. It is good for both big and small projects. Things obviously often need to move more quickly with big projects and, in this case, it would be more visible.

Another point is that there is a labour shortage right now. Because there is a shortage of workers, some businesses in the regions might be looking to hire workers but not finding any. Some construction projects might not get done or might take longer to be completed.

Having additional motivation in the form of this tax deduction would encourage people who would not normally accept these types of jobs to sign a contract. They will go because this tax measure makes it worthwhile, because they will get assistance and because we are acknowledging that taking on this job will come with expenses.

It is interesting because this plays a role in the current context of the labour shortage. There is a need for workers, and we have to find incentives for people to accept contracts. All the better if we can find ways to help them make that decision.

We can also consider those people who accept a contract that takes them very far away from their family for a long period of time. It is already a major sacrifice to not see their family for days or weeks at a time, to miss out on time with them and to be on their own. I think getting a little bit of assistance is fair compensation for travelling.

Other countries provide a similar incentive. For example, the United States has a tax deduction for tradespersons. It is a good example of a market that is quite comparable to ours, so I do not see why we would decide not to implement it here.

I think that inflation is something else we need to consider. People are talking about it more and more. Inflation is high. Prices are rising. Our first thought when this happens is that groceries are getting more expensive, so it is costing more to feed ourselves. Restaurants that took out loans during the pandemic lockdowns will have to raise their prices if they want to be able to pay down their debt. Otherwise, some of them will not survive. Hotels were closed, so accommodation costs will increase as well. The price of a litre of gas has gone up a lot, so travel expenses are also going up.

If we could help workers by letting them deduct all these expenses, it would also be a big help.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel the need to begin my comments by recapitulating the words of the hon. member for Essex, who shared that he would happily call himself a New Democrat to get this PMB passed, if even just for a day.

I am glad it is in the Hansard. As I shared in my question to the hon. member for Essex, the New Democratic Party has been in the Hansard on this very bill five times since 2006. I am going to take a moment to recapitulate. The first was in 2006, Bill C-390, under the always hon. Chris Charlton, and then again in 2008 as Bill C-227, introduced by the hon. Chris Charlton, and in 2013, as Bill C-201, again by Chris Charlton. When Chris Charlton retired, she handed it over to a working class hero from Hamilton, the always hon. Scott Duvall, who introduced this same bill in 2021 as Bill C-275.

I have the honour, being from Hamilton, to continue the working class values of our city and our party by introducing Bill C-222. The hon. member for Essex was in fine form, using his newly found New Democratic talking points to sell this very bill in the House. I give the hon. member for Essex the benefit of the doubt, because the hon. member for Essex was not elected in 2013 when this bill was last introduced under Bill C-201, but when it was up for vote in second reading, it was the Conservative Party with a majority that crushed this bill.

We have had 15 years of work on this bill. We have had six years where the working class people of this country could have benefited from these types of tax considerations. The hon. member is quite right when he says he wants for working class people what we have in the House as MPs when it comes to writing off some of our travel expenses. I would go one step further, and I would suggest that all MPs in the House ought to carry the same spirit by wanting for others what we ourselves have in here when it comes to dental care and pharmacare and pensions.

Here we are. The challenge we have is that the newly found New Democrat, in his New Democratic talking points, showed the disconnect that he has with the building trades because the example he gave in his answer relating to the distance, using his county of Essex, suggesting that an hour and a half travel is about 120 kilometres, tells us that he has never spoken to skilled tradespeople in southern Ontario. If he had, he would know that people from Hamilton could sit in traffic for three hours just on their way to Toronto, which is 60 kilometres away.

He is quite right that skilled tradespeople have fought for this over decades. Let us be clear. He was right when he says this is a bipartisan and non-partisan issue. This is not a win for the Conservatives who found their new working class values under their previous leader. I will remind them, though, that their previous leader from Durham, in 2014, did vote against this, as did their interim leader, as did the hon. member for Carleton. All of them voted against this. Why now?

I would put to the House that it is because the Conservative Party uses working class issues and working class people in the same way that one would use a pair of old dirty sneakers. They only bring them out when it time to cut the grass, to pretend that the grass is green on the other side, when it is clear that this bill comes up short by lengthening that distance and excluding so many people from areas like my city and Hamilton Centre.

I am going to take my time, but I am going to give credit where credit is due, which is in the organized labour of the Ontario building trades council, of the Canada's Building Trades Unions, of the Hamilton-Brantford building trades council, the people I work with, people like Pat Dillon, who for his entire career worked on this, for 20 years, and in fact was successful under their previous leader to have this implemented into darn near all the platforms.

Following in the spirit of the New Democratic Party, we saw willingness from the government side to finally give lip service to this. Why it failed to act on it until now is beyond me, but in the spirit of moving things forward to improve the material conditions of working-class people in this country, I am happy we are here. Our Parliament works better when we work together for working-class people.

To Pat Dillon, and Pat's retirement, I suspect that many members from all parties showed up to honour Pat in that moment. Let today be his victory. Let future votes on this be his victory, when hopefully we get to a place where this bill covers all the aspects that it needs to cover. Let this be the victory of Mark Ellerker, from the Hamilton-Brantford Building Trades Council, who I have had the privilege of working with since my time as a city councillor. He has always fought with the building trades, not just for organized labour but for unorganized labour too, because the notion that what is good for the manager or the salesperson in tax considerations absolutely must be a tax fairness question that is applied to all working-class people, whether it is for their travel expenses or their tools, which was a very appropriate point brought up by members on the government side. I encourage the government's side to bring these types of real considerations for working-class people into their legislation, into their throne speeches and, most importantly, into their budget.

Lastly, I want to once again thank my good friend, Stuart McLellan, from IBEW Local 105. We would have long conversations about the ability for workers to travel where they do not have to do that calculus. The truth is that not all collective agreements have within them travel expenses. The ones that do not are limited by them. They have to go out of pocket.

Let us be clear about one thing. It is not MPs, it is not entrepreneurs, it is not CEOs or big developers who create value in this country. Value in this economy is only built by working-class people. It is taken by the ultrawealthy. In this respect, when we talk about those members who are being considered in this space, and they talk about how 120 kilometres might look like an hour and a half to them, those members should sit in traffic from Hamilton to Toronto, or from Montreal to anywhere, for that matter. They should know that travel time is not just a tax expense that can be written off. It is time away from family. It is a sacrifice that has to be made as a worker in order to put food on the table and to pay the rent.

Let us get this bill right for Pat. Let us get this bill right for Mark and Stuart, and for all of the incredible working-class people across this country who truly put value in this economy and are truly building this country.

With that, to my temporary and honorary member of the New Democratic Party, I congratulate him on his private member's bill and I am happy to stand and see that be reflected in the Hansard today.

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

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member for Hamilton Centre, so I ask him to take this in the good spirit it is intended. That was the angriest agreement I have ever seen in my life, but I know it comes from a great sense of deep passion in the member. We appreciate his support and look forward to discussions in committee. If we can improve this bill, obviously we will.

I have a couple of notes to make. I would like to thank the acting speakers for filling in for the Speaker. I would like to wish the Speaker all the best going forward, as his health struggles are public. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Speaker. We know he will pull out strong and continue to be a great Speaker in the House.

I would like to enter into the substance of our discussion today, and that is Bill C-241, which was put forward by my friend and hon. colleague from Essex. I would like to start by saying he is extremely well-raised. He has two great parents in Kim and Helen, so a shout-out to his parents, because without them we would not have the member for Essex and this legislation. I thank Helen and Kim very much.

Let us talk about Bill C-241. I want to start by providing some context for this legislation. We are, undoubtedly, facing an affordability crisis. One of the chief drivers of this affordability crisis is inflation. What we really have is an inflation tax. We are actually in the midst of one of the largest tax increases in Canadian history.

Through spending, both necessary and unnecessary, and increasing spending going forward, we have run greater and greater deficits. In fact, we have deficits larger than we can finance without the help of the Bank of Canada. Through the Bank of Canada, $400 billion has been put into our economy. It is a basic axiom of economics that when we have more of something, and in this case 400 billion dollars' worth more, it devalues it, and that has the effect of increasing the price on everything else.

Canadians across this country are facing an affordability crisis. Then we add on top of that the carbon tax. I had the privilege of asking the Governor of the Bank of Canada what the inflationary impact of the carbon tax was. Strangely, he did not know the answer right off the top of his head. That is something I would have thought he would have been aware of. However, he was kind enough to provide a written response, where he said that fully 10% of the inflation we are facing today is because of the carbon tax.

It is in that context that I would like to discuss Bill C-241. Everyone is facing challenges, and perhaps none more than the workers and the people the member for Hamilton Centre spoke so eloquently about. They are the folks who are struggling up, sometimes from the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and who are struggling to hang on. They are hoping to get up to that next level to get to the middle class. When we look at Bill C-241, it is those people, among others, that this legislation is going to help.

What would this bill do? It would put skilled trades employees on equal footing as giant corporations. As self-employed individuals, it would allow them to deduct the expenses associated with travel to their job sites. This is the exact treatment a corporation would receive. If a corporation paid for this travel, it would get to deduct this expense. However, through an oversight, which is what I will generously call it, tradespeople have been disadvantaged and do not get that same right.

Tradespeople are literally building our communities brick by brick. They are the ones who are putting in HVAC systems. They are the electricians who are wiring our world. We would literally be in the dark and the cold without their skilled trades, so why should we be disadvantaging them?

We need more skilled trades. As the member for Essex said, we will need a minimum of 350,000 new skilled tradespeople just in Ontario alone in order to meet the growing demand. We need to attract more people to this field. It is great work, but it is hard work.

The work means that one does not often go to a standard office. People do not go to the same place to work every day, because once a building is built, it is built, and it is time to move on to a new project. These are not located right next to their houses, and they do not have the option to relocate next to that project.

We have individual tradespeople, whom we increasingly need more of. We have people who are the salt of the earth working every day to build our community. What have we done to them? We have disadvantaged them economically just because of the way they choose to arrange the legal status of their work relationship. If they chose to be self-employed, they could deduct things. As an employee, they cannot. This is the very definition of inequity.

With the time I have left, I would like to go over a couple of stories. One of them is about Mitch. Mitch is a young electrician's apprentice doing a great job wiring commercial buildings all over the province of Ontario. He is currently living in his parents' house in the basement. He cannot afford a house because the cost of housing has doubled. When I talked to him about this legislation, he said it would be fantastic because with gas at $1.70, driving 200 or 300 kilometres away from his parents' house every day is quite expensive, and he is not able to save for a house. This bill might give him the opportunity to do so. We would make a difference in people's lives.

I would like to talk to members about Tommy. He is an HVAC apprentice who is working to gain experience. He wants to gain his Red Seal. He said to me that he drives 150 kilometres to work and does not mind it because hustling and hard work are what our country was built on. He knows that is what he has to do to get ahead. However, with the recent change in gas prices and the expenses of life, he is close to losing hope because he is not establishing the goals he sought for himself. It is not his fault. He is working hard. He is doing what we have all told him to do. It is just that the price of everything has gotten so expensive. This would be a break for Tommy, and he is excited about this legislation going forward.

The other individual I would like to talk about is Dennis Fedrigoni. He is the owner of Fed Air Systems, a commercial HVAC company in the wonderful city of Vaughan. He does HVAC all over the province, so the gas bills for his employees are absolutely astronomical. He is asking for a break not so much for himself, although he certainly would appreciate it as it would allow him to hire more skilled people into his business, but for his employees, who are struggling to get by.

I am really pleased by the fact that it appears as though all of the parties are signalling their support for this legislation, which I think is terrific. This is a common-sense solution. This is an area where politics should not get involved. We should not be looking at parties, whether they are NDP, Conservative or Liberal. I deeply believe that every one of the 338 of us wants to do what is right. We want to do what is best for Canadians and Canadian workers.

I thank the House. I look forward to this legislation getting to committee. Once again, I thank Helen and Kim for raising such a great son.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be here today to participate in the debate on Bill C-241.

I am a pretty pratico-pratique kind of person, and I am not going to beat around the bush. I am really happy that my colleague across the way brought forward this legislation. My father and my brothers have worked in the field of construction, and I am very interested in the piece of legislation my hon. colleague brought forward. I have not decided yet whether I am going to support it, but I will be speaking with the member across the way to get a bit more information from him, because I have a couple of concerns and questions.

To that point, I just want to say that when it comes to the tradespeople working in Canada, throughout the pandemic they really stepped up. I know the demand for tradespeople to work across Canada has boomed, whether it be in the construction industry, in plumbing or in electricity. I want to commend the member opposite for supporting the trades and supporting those who are making sure that our economy continues.

I am not going to speak for very long on this bill. I just wanted to let the member know that I am looking forward to speaking to him to determine whether I will be supporting it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Essex on his Bill C‑241. Before speaking to this bill, the Bloc Québécois did its homework and its research, and I can tell the member that we will vote in favour of this important bill.

As members know, Bill C‑241 amends 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.

Subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (q):

Tradesperson's travel expenses

(q.‍1) where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer

(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,

(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, and

(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act;

This bill acts on recommendations from Canada's Building Trades Unions, the national voice of over half a million Canadian construction workers, members of 14 international unions who work in more than 60 different trades and occupations and generate 6% of this country's GDP.

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, which may in part explain why the labour shortage is particularly acute in certain regions. The labour shortage is one of the main impediments to the economic recovery. One way to address rising prices is to tackle this shortage. Improving labour mobility can help alleviate the 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. Additionally, it has been calculated that this measure could save the federal government a net amount of $347 million.

Other countries, such as the United States, allow this type of tax deduction for skilled workers. Under the U.S. internal revenue code, these employees are entitled to deduct the cost of meals, travel and accommodation for a temporary job that is far from their residence. This already exists.

Such a measure would encourage employees to return to work while also addressing labour shortages and reducing dependence on government programs such as employment insurance.

Allow me to provide some clarification on what is already available. An employee can only deduct expenses that are specifically provided for in the act. Generally speaking, employees may claim expenses if their employment contract requires them to pay their own expenses, if the employee is regularly required to work away from their employer's place of business, and if they do not receive a non-taxable allowance for travel expenses. The employer must certify that the employee's working conditions enable the employee to deduct certain expenses.

Commission employees may deduct all their expenses, except capital expenditures, professional dues, and memberships in sports or leisure associations, up to the amount of the commissions received. This limit does not apply to depreciation and interest with respect to an automobile.

Tradespeople are entitled to a tax deduction of up to $500 per year for the purchase of new tools acquired as a condition of their employment. However, the first $1,257 of such expenses, or $1,215 in Quebec, is not deductible.

As I have previously mentioned, the cost of travelling to a job site far from the worker's home can influence their decision to accept a contract. Inflation is high, so travel-related costs are also soaring. Just look at the price of gas.

This new deduction will make a real difference for workers who have to travel for work. According to a recent poll by Canada’s Building Trades Unions, three-quarters of skilled trades workers say that a tax deduction will give them access to a greater number of job opportunities. With inflation the way it is, this is the right time to implement a tax deduction to help ease the pressure on some workers' wallets.

I will illustrate the absurdity of the current situation and how Bill C‑241 can correct it. Currently, someone who sells rebar or conduits for the construction of a new building can deduct their work-related travel expenses, meals and accommodation from their income, yet that option is unfairly denied to the skilled trades workers who install the rebar or conduits. That is unfair. With Bill C‑241, this option would also be offered to those workers.

The bill will therefore help reduce the labour shortages in some sectors, and the Bloc Québécois is proposing a suite of measures to alleviate labour shortages across Quebec. We need to increase the productivity of Quebec businesses, produce more with less, let Quebec manage the foreign worker program, and encourage seniors who want to remain in the workforce by eliminating any tax penalties they may face. I also have a number of other suggestions. For example, we are also proposing that the temporary foreign worker program be transferred to Quebec. We are very satisfied with Quebec's training model.

We are proposing all of these things, and we fully recognize that Bill C‑241 will help address the labour shortage, ease the burden on workers who need to travel far from home, and make the tax system a little more fair. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this bill, Bill C-241. I want to thank the member for Essex for putting this forward. I would also like to thank him for reaching out to me about my private member's bill and his private member's bill. I have been here for a while, but at the same time, it was really nice to have the member take the initiative. He deserves a lot of credit for that because we all get busy here in our own little worlds, and it was nice to get the reminder with a conversation. His bill is really exciting, and I believe my bill is really exciting, and the fact that two members who are such close neighbours got pulled in the first top 10 of the PMBs is something I have not seen in my years here. We are actually going to have the votes on the same day as well.

His bill is very important for workers not only in Essex but also in Windsor, Windsor—Tecumseh, a number of different municipalities in our general region and across this country. What excites me about this is that our former member Chris Charlton from the NDP in the Hamilton area had introduced this bill originally, and there have been others. Most recently, the member for Hamilton Mountain introduced this bill, which had a bit of a variation to it. He proposed 80 kilometres with respect to travel distance for skilled trades getting a tax deduction. This bill proposes 120 kilometres, so there is a minor difference between the two that can be worked out at committee.

I do not understand how members cannot support the bill going to committee. It blows my mind. I am in the same boat with my bill, Bill C-248, which proposes to create a national urban park for the constituents of Windsor and Essex County, and to protect 130 endangered species for all of Canada. To find reasons not to support this bill is kind of twisted and bizarre, quite frankly, because these things can be sent to committee to be identified and examined. In the past, the Liberals have supported some of this legislation, so I would be shocked if they did not do it here.

I think the member for Essex deserves credit for doing this in very much a complementary way with respect to what we want to see this Parliament work toward in the next number of years. If it stays together and goes together, this is a bill that can get passed.

What is important is that the skilled trades people who the member is trying to help are men, women and sometimes new Canadians who need to get the support that businesses already receive. Some of the largest corporations can write off all kinds of things, from sports, entertainment and booze, basically anything they want. What we are talking about here is helping people in the skilled trades, which we have a shortage of, with travel costs to get across our country. This also indirectly helps build the bonds of this country.

I know that when Windsor had high unemployment rates, many of the skilled tradespeople would fly out every single day to Alberta and Saskatchewan where they were needed, which built bonds among Canadians. The extra stress, the pain of the loss of contact with their families and the loss of income with the things they are doing should be identified. There are small but significant gestures for those workers.

I would suggest as well, when we look at this issue, that we are trying to get more women involved in skilled trades, so this small tax deduction would help them and their families, especially as they primarily raise the children. That would be another thing to look at with respect to this bill, so the people who we want to fill the void and the ever-increasing gap would actually get a bit of benefit here.

The member for Essex has a bill that has been lurking around the House for a bit here and there in different ways. He has presented it in a way that builds co-operation and support. He has done so in a way that also connects his local community and the rest of the country, and it is about more than just those individuals getting something. It is also about nation-building.

The timing for the member's bill could not be better, knowing that right now we have to fight to keep and retain employees in Canada. I can tell members that, for all the studies at the industry and international trade committees that I sit on, we have heard testimony after testimony about Canadians getting poached internationally. That is something that is taking place right now, so this is a very good step, because it shows those workers that their country needs and wants them.

It also shows new entrants who are getting into this business that they are going to get some extra financial support because they often have to purchase their own equipment, tools and training. These are all things that continue in these professions, and it is very important to have those skills in our community. That is why I think the bill is also about the community because it is better to have these skilled trades.

Who did not go around in their neighbourhood and try to get help from a skilled tradesperson to do their deck, to help them on the driveway, to get a home renovation evaluated as they go through building permits, and have family and friends pitching in for all kinds of different things and doing all the right work? That community capacity building is part of having skilled trades there. Bricklayers are needed everywhere. There are all kinds of metalworkers who are necessary. It goes on and on. Carpenters are needed. We have seen that all those organizations, whether independent or unionized, want to support this type of legislation.

When a member of Parliament puts forth a private member's bill, if they can do one that connects priorities in their community with the rest of the country, it is an important thing to do. I have seen other members present bills in here with no hope of actually pushing them forward, just kind of pushing buttons on things to try to get people excited. They know their bill is doomed to failure but present it because they want to make a point. However, this is a bill we should be fast-tracking because of its history and the way that it is being presented to us in the House of Commons. Also, we can move it toward the Senate.

I know that the government has been doing some work on skilled trades or some things that look like they are pretty good, but they are taking a while to wind themselves through the system. Here is something controllable that we have right here, and that is why I really like this bill. It is because it does not try to solve everything that we have to do all at once. It looks at a policy that has been advocated by professionals and those in the system, so it has been around and it has that type of support. It is just going to elevate that issue more quickly and it will be one of the boxes we can check off right away.

This bill should actually get unanimous consent to go to committee at the very least. It is one that has been around the table many times in different ways, and I was glad to see it presented here because my people in Windsor and Essex County, as I mentioned before, have had to travel to other places for work and may have to do so again. We are booming in many respects right now. We have some good developments that have taken place because we have worked really hard and laid the foundation. Part of that is because of the quality of labour and skill sets that we have. We are actually winning jobs and contracts because the quality of the people we have living in the Windsor, Essex and Tecumseh area is attracting not only domestic investment but foreign investment.

That is another thing that the member for Essex needs to be supported on here. If we can build up the skilled trades in this country, other communities are going to receive better investments, because the shortages of skilled trades are not just here in Windsor and Essex County and the rest of Canada but across the globe, so that is critically important.

As well, Windsor West is the fourth most diverse community among urban cities in Canada. A lot of our history is tied to skilled trades coming into this country. My grandfather, Fred Attwood, served in the Ark Royal in the Royal Navy and in the merchant marine. Then he worked for Hiram Walker. I am lucky to have in my garage his tools from Hiram Walker from when he retired there. They did a nice thing for him, as a gift, and presented it in a box and everything.

I look through the tools once in a while. I can see that he had to buy all those different things. I would go over to his house every Sunday and cut the lawn and hang out and listen to the stories of the Second World War and do gardening and a number of different projects with him, and I did not realize until later on that he had doubles and triples of different tools because he used them at work and at home, and that was a considerable expense.

We know, as members of Parliament, that when people are travelling, often they have to buy a second or third toothbrush because they did not remember to bring things with them and they are racing to get to the airport or a job or an event or whatever it might be. It is no different for some of these men and women who are in the skilled trades, because it is also very important for them to get to emergency situations as well. This is how this bill is very appropriate. It would help to take care of some of those things that otherwise would be a burden on the family. In reducing stress and giving more support, especially as the industry is transitioning for the future, this bill meets all of those check boxes, so I want to thank the member for Essex.

I was very happy to be able to be here in person to speak to this bill today. One of the reasons I stayed to do so is that the member for Essex showed courtesy and respect by reaching out to me to work on our legislation together, and he should be commended for that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my full support for Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Before I begin, I would like to commend my colleague for Essex for introducing this great piece of legislation. The bill clearly shows his commitment to serving his community and working-class Canadians.

We must first recognize the essential role of Canada's hard-working tradespeople. The trades are the cornerstone of our economy and we must support the workers in this critically important sector. In my province of Manitoba, the trades and construction represent 21.3% of all Manitoba workers. The bill would have a positive impact on many tradespeople across my province and across our country.

Bill C-241 would allow for qualified tradespeople or indentured apprentices to claim travel-related expenses for their work. This legislation would allow tradespeople to claim travel for work at least 120 kilometres away from their residence. Currently, corporations and self-employed individuals enjoy the benefit of claiming eligible travel-related expenses.

If a corporation incurs transportation expenses for business operations, it subtracts these expenses from taxable profits. The bill would extend these benefits to the trades so that tradespeople have equal treatment.

I would like to tell members about a licensed electrician working in my constituency. She is forced to travel a long distance for work because there is no substantial amount of construction work in her area. She needs to travel to pay her bills. Money is already tight and she now has to foot the bill for travel, accommodations and food. She realizes that not every worker has the same struggle while travelling for work. Although business workers and construction workers both travel, not everyone will be reimbursed for their work expenses. It should not matter if a worker is in a suit or a hard hat: they should both be fairly reimbursed for their work.

Bill C-241 is important for all of Canada, but it is even more important for rural Canada. As an MP who proudly represents a rural region, I understand the challenges of travelling long distances to get from point A to point B. There are not many short trips and cheap gas bills for rural Canada.

I was in Dauphin last week and met a constituent named Jeff Hockridge. Jeff recently opened Hockridge Trade School. Over the past few months, he has been working hard to offer training services for heavy equipment operations in the Parkland region of Manitoba. Jeff and his team are working to support the next generation of trades and are teaching the skills that are among the most desired in our country. Jeff understands that operating a business in rural Canada carries additional burdens that make it difficult to work in the skilled trades.

Most notably, operating in rural regions requires a significant amount of travel among various communities. This means that tradespeople are often required to travel long distances for their work. This travel is unavoidable and tradespeople must bear these additional costs to simply do their jobs. When Canada's tradespeople incur more costs, they take home less for themselves. They take home less money to support their families and they take home less money to reinvest in their communities.

Bill C-241 would also help address our nation's current economic challenges. Canada is in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and goods and services are becoming unaffordable for millions of Canadians. One of these essential goods is fuel. With gas prices reaching record levels, Canadians, especially rural Canadians, deserve a break. The bill would ensure that tradespeople enjoy the same taxable benefits as corporations and self-employed individuals for travel.

Bill C-241 would decrease the financial burden of transportation and by extension, allow tradespeople to sign up for jobs farther away from where they live. Canada is facing a labour shortage and I believe, as parliamentarians, we must work to fill these gaps. Canada's trades industry is one of the sectors most impacted by the national labour shortage.

In my province of Manitoba, the trades sector will account for the highest number of vacancies over the next three years. If we want to attract talent in Canada's trades, we need to support these Canadians in their field of choice. It is no secret that the trades offer excellent careers through highly skilled, highly paid positions. We must ensure that they are treated as such. Workers in the trades must be appropriately compensated for their skills and their work. We cannot wait any longer to train the next generation of skilled tradespeople.

Bill C-241 would help address the national labour shortage and help folks like Jeff increase student enrolment in Canada's trades. Bill C-241 is a pro-worker, pro-jobs, pro-paycheque bill. This bill would provide the support that tradespeople need. This bill would help grow the skilled trades sector.

It is no surprise that trade unions around the country have expressed their widespread support for this bill. They have been advocating for these measures for years. The working class people of this country have often fallen through the cracks, and it is time for the government to step up.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank my colleague from Essex for his great work in drafting this bill. Bill C-241 recognizes that working class Canadians are the backbone of this country. At a time when Canadians are experiencing significant financial hardship, when they deserve a break and when our nation is in desperate need of skilled trades, we must address these challenges. I urge members of the House to send this bill to committee so it could be further studied.

It is important to hear expert testimony on this legislation so we, as parliamentarians, could better understand the positive impact it would have on Canadian trades. I will be proudly voting in favour of this legislation, and I encourage all other members of the House to do the same.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here to talk about Bill C-241, which was introduced by my hon. colleague from Essex. This bill amends the Income Tax Act to allow tradespeople and apprentices to deduct travel-related expenses from their income.

As my hon. colleague, the member for Joliette, pointed out, we support this bill. It can be described as a common sense bill, because it directly addresses the issue of fairness. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of it.

Under this legislation, tradespeople can deduct travel expenses:

where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer:

(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,

(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and

(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act;

Let us talk a bit about the construction industry. It is a very important sector in Quebec, both for its contribution to the economy and for its value added. Houses and buildings can be built from scratch. Without this industry, we would not have our magnificent House of Commons, for example. In 2019, $53 billion was invested in the construction industry and 264,000 direct jobs were created on average every month. In Quebec alone, one in 20 jobs are in this sector, and thousands of jobs in other sectors are linked to the construction industry.

This bill is being introduced in a particular economic context marked by a labour shortage and inflation. Inflation is now Quebeckers' main concern. It affects the cost of housing, staple foods and, of course, gas.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed a number of measures to give some relief to workers struggling with the rising cost of gas. In this very specific context, Bill C‑241 would help tradespeople do their jobs and be compensated for these expenses and the rising cost of gas, which is quite fair. If they travel for work and agree to take on a contract far from where they live, it just makes sense that they be reimbursed for the expenses they incur on the job.

Inflation has multiple causes, one of which was government spending during the pandemic. This spending was necessary and we supported it, but it may be partially responsible for today's inflation. In addition, the shortages of essential equipment created backlogs in a number of industries. Supply chain issues, the unfortunate war in Ukraine and the labour shortage also contributed to the significant inflation problems.

The labour shortage is boosting wages, but it is also creating a problem in the construction industry. It is a vicious circle. There is a shortage of workers for job sites. The construction industry cannot find people to take on jobs that are so important to our economy.

We think that this bill could help tradespeople do their jobs and accept contracts far from home, which is essential for many remote communities.

At the same time, tradespeople are forced to turn down contracts far from home because they would have to spend hundreds of dollars just to get to work. It is clear that, in many cases, they are forced to turn down these contracts. They are often forced to reluctantly apply for EI because they cannot find a contract near their home and cannot see themselves spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on gas just to get to work, given the exorbitant price of gas today.

Ultimately, this bill will not only help address the labour shortage in this industry, but it will also enable people to accept new contracts, which could reduce the EI benefit envelope. These are significant numbers. For example, the government could save $347 million in EI benefits thanks to this bill.

We believe that this bill will be able to constructively and concretely deal with economic issues such as gas price inflation and labour shortages.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed several solutions to the labour shortage. More specifically, with regard to immigration control, we have asked for a transfer of the temporary foreign worker program to Quebec. Who better than Quebec to know what it needs?

We also proposed greater integration of older, more experienced workers.

We also suggest supporting technologies designed to increase flexibility for the workforce. We know that is one solution. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, technologies that make work more flexible are one of the most important solutions to the labour shortage. Another solution is to eliminate entry barriers for employees. One entry barrier is the cost of accessing these contracts.

That brings us back to this bill. If we make it possible for workers in the construction industry to accept these contracts without the entry barrier of the cost of travelling to the job site, then we are helping to solve the serious labour shortage problem.

We also proposed solutions to inflation. They do not necessarily target inflation directly, since the Bank of Canada, which is independent, is doing that already. Our solutions seek to protect the people who are struggling because of inflation. We proposed help for dealing with the housing shortage. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is actively working on that. We proposed help for families and individuals who are having difficulty because of inflation.

What really matters, as I said, is finding a way to make the labour market more flexible by letting more workers in and giving workers who are already in the market access to jobs or contracts. As everyone knows, we want greater equity, but we also want to tackle labour shortages for an industry that really needs workers, the construction industry, which is especially important in Quebec.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start out this way: They often say the best way to sell something is to have everybody else sell it on one's behalf. To each and every one of the speakers today in the House, including my hon. colleague across the way for just telling the truth, I thank them very much. I really appreciate it. We look forward to everybody's support, but I certainly appreciate today's support from the NDP, the Bloc and, of course, my Conservative colleagues.

A gentleman by the name of Eric Nevin was a friend, conservationist, avid angler and hunter. He was a man of many jokes and a man of many skilled trades. He passed away yesterday, and I want to say my condolences to Suzie and his family.

I want to give congratulations to Anthony Leardi, who is the newly elected MPP for Essex, and to Andrew Dowie, the newly elected MPP for Windsor-Tecumseh. I bring them up specifically because I know how hard they campaigned on skilled trades. I heard it time and again. I saw it. They understand the importance of it for our region. Just as the hon. member for Windsor West spoke about, this is much larger than just Essex, Windsor West or Windsor-Tecumseh. Bill C-241 is truly Canada-wide.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank the member for Carleton. When the member for Carleton was the shadow minister for finance, I went up and spoke to him about this and asked him what his thoughts were. He said to make sure, whatever I did, to make it a tax deduction. I want to thank the member for Carleton and I also want to congratulate the member for Carleton, as it is his birthday today.

I have to thank Canada's Building Trades Unions. I have had extensive conversations with many of the CBTU union heads, and quite frankly people on the ground. They have been instrumental in helping me to gather information, and to understand what the real needs are and how to make this bill that much stronger. Specifically, and I have mentioned him before, I thank Tommy Holkenin for being, I will say, a thorn in my side, but he was probably one of the best thorns there could have been to make sure we brought this forward, as well as Carl Lovett. I thank both gentlemen so much.

We do not have to look very far when we go to the new Gordie Howe International Bridge. I visited there last week, and I had an opportunity to meet with who I call the “boots on the ground”, and the amazing folks from a variety of skilled trades. To see the work they are doing is absolutely remarkable. Further to that, come 2025, they are going to need a place to go. We have lots of jobs across Canada, and we need to be doing work now to ensure that their travel expenses are taken care of when the new bridge is built.

Thanks to each and every member in the House. I am super excited. This is a great Friday.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:09 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:09 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-241 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #139

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)