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.

Canada Labour Code

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was one of the examples where somebody would not get a chocolate chip cookie from mom. I am just teasing.

I guess I will answer the question, and the question is really an easy one to answer. If the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are so friendly with labour, why did only one Liberal in the entire caucus vote for Bill C-241? That is a really easy question, so I will answer a question with a question. Why do they not support skilled trades?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the amazing folks of Essex. I give all my thanks to God for giving me the opportunity.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I lost my momma. If the House would allow it, I would like to share a few words before I dive into Bill C-58.

Mom would text me during question period to say, “Christopher, you are not wearing a tie today, so you must not be speaking.” Mom would also text me to say, “Christopher, stop chewing gum”, “Smile”, or “Christopher, wake up.”

The little things in life get us through, and the real little things in life were mom's chocolate chip cookies. Mom was known on the Hill for her chocolate chip cookies. However, if a member did something bad, I would get a text saying that the member would not be getting a chocolate chip cookie that day.

She was a servant. She served beyond belief. She is the great reason I am where I am, and why I am who I am.

Although those texts have come to a very abrupt end, after she spent only 13 days in hospital battling cancer, her legacy lives on. If my dad and my brothers Jeff and Kim are watching, I want them to know that Helen, our momma, is in the House of Commons with us all here today. As I promised momma at her bedside, I will make her proud and live to serve. I love her. I thank the House for indulging me.

Bill C-58 has two main elements. First, it would ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, such as banks, airports and telecommunications, but not in the federal public service. It would replace an existing, albeit much more limited, prohibition on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

Second, Bill C-58 would amend the maintenance of activities process to encourage not only quicker agreement between employers and trade unions on what activities should be maintained in the case of a strike or a lockout, but also faster decision-making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in this connection. The provisions of Bill C-58 would only apply to federally regulated workers. If enacted, the provisions of Bill C-58 would enter into force 18 months after royal assent has been received.

It brings forward a lot of questions and a lot of discussion. I would start by saying that I am very proud to be the shadow minister, the critic, for labour. I have travelled across this country, literally from coast to coast to coast, speaking with both unionized and non-unionized workers in places such as Halifax; St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Vancouver, at the Port of Vancouver; and Montreal.

I have been across this country, meeting with both unionized and non-unionized workforces, their management teams, and the folks with their boots on the ground. What I hear all the time is them saying, “Just let me go to work. I want to go to work. I don't really want to be on strike. What I really want to do is have a good-paying job so I can ultimately feed my family, put diapers on my babies, fill their little mouths with pablum and afford to buy my wife some flowers. I can't do that when I'm on strike.”

At the end of the day, we have seen an unprecedented amount of strikes across this country over the last number of years. Every time I turn around, we are dealing with another strike. Why is that? One has to really wonder if it is the cost of living. Is it the cost of food, which our workers cannot afford? Is it the high interest rates? Is it the carbon tax on fuel and food? Is that the reason why? It always goes back to the same question: Why are we seeing an unprecedented amount of strikes? We have to believe that it is due to inflation. It is due to the cost of living, as well as uncertainty, no doubt.

I will speak quickly to the topic of the Stellantis battery plant in Windsor. One good thing about Air Canada is that it is almost always delayed, which allows me more time to speak to my constituents back home when I am at the airport.

Last night, I spoke to someone at IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said what the problem is. We have an amazing workforce here in Canada of electrical workers. They are bringing them in from Manitoba and Alberta. They are there in Windsor. They are literally in Windsor to start to work. However, they are very concerned about all of the folks potentially being brought in from South Korea to do all work. In the past, those workers did all the work at tier 2 and tier 3. They have done all that work. He said he understood that 10, 20 or 30 people may need to be brought in to program the computers, but the rest of it they already know how to do.

Then I spoke to the carpenter's union, and they said the same thing. They have the whole workforce there. Why are folks being brought in from other places to do the work that they, quite frankly, are trained to do?

The part of this bill that is somewhat confusing to me is that it is only for federally regulated workers. It does not apply to federally regulated public sector workers. If the government is going to tell businesses that there will be no replacement workers, why would the government not do it for itself? It makes one wonder.

We have had amazing, amazing yields in southwestern Ontario this year from our farmers. Some of the highest bumper crops that we have see in a long time. About 90% to 92% of our grain is exported. If we cannot get the grain onto the ships and overseas, we have a major issue, and we have a major issue right now.

There was just an issue on the Great Lakes, which, by the way, got solved. It is like what was reported yesterday in the news about No Frills. The issue with workers at No Frills was solved yesterday, just like at the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver. How were they solved? They were solved at the table through democracy. There is always a solution when we speak. There is always a solution when people come to the table to have good, fair, strong, respectful dialogue. That is how things get solved.

Because I sit on the transport committee, am a bona fide farmer and was a businessman, my concern is that this potential legislation could drive fewer jobs for the country. It is a matter of fact that this could drive potential Canadian business investment away from Canada, which would ultimately mean fewer jobs.

Ironically, at 9 a.m. tomorrow, I head to the Senate to do my darnedest to get Bill C-241, my private member's bill, through committee. Bill C-241 is a bill that would allow the writeoff of travel expenses for both unionized and non-unionized skilled trades workers. I do not know of anyone in the House who would disagree with me when I say that Canada is absolutely in a major housing crisis, and Bill C-241 would allow the mobility of our skilled trades, both unionized and non-unionized workers, to travel across the country.

I look at Stellantis and the entire project, the upwards of $50 billion for the three battery plants, and I know one thing for sure: We need skilled trade workers at those sites. However, I also know that we need to build homes from coast to coast to coast. Hopefully, tomorrow the Senate will give us the green light, so to speak, and Bill C-241 will get through the Senate to support our skilled trade workers.

For clarity, for anybody watching at home, and I am sure a lot are watching me, this is only for federally regulated workers. This does not dive into the provinces and their regulations.

This is going to sound goofy, but during the Port of Vancouver strike, a message was left at my office, and I called the gentleman back. He said he owns a coffee shop, but he cannot get any cups for the coffee, so he will have to shut his doors because he ordered the cups from overseas. It sounds small and insignificant, but that is one more business that shut its doors, is not paying taxes, that is not employing people or laying them off. It is one more business that Canada is, quite frankly, bleeding.

There is nothing more important than our labour force. My father always said it best. Someone can have the greatest widget in the world, but they cannot build it and they cannot sell it without people. There is not a business I know of that is not about the people, and they only ever will be.

The answer is very simple: Get to the table, get the folks at the table and have a conversation. Deliberations have worked in the past. That is where the answer lies.

In closing, I will just finish with the following. I come from the business world but I also was boots on the ground. In my role as shadow minister for labour, I met some pretty extraordinary folks. I think about the folks at the ILWU out in Vancouver, who treated me with so much respect when I visited them two or three times. I think about the folks out in Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. I think about the folks in my own backyard in Essex. Again, it is resounding that it is only about the people.

There is only one way that we are going to rebuild Canada, that Canada is going to be built, that we are going to have enough homes, that we are going to have the manufacturing and we are going to be on the front line in leading-edge technology, and that is with people. However, they need to be Canadian people. They cannot be folks from overseas who are taking away the jobs of Canadians.

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to celebrate my mother and allowing me to have a bit of freedom in my speech today. I am so darn passionate and compassionate when it comes to our labour force and it means the world to me.

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-241, as I understand it, was an NDP bill before the member, thankfully, took it up and brought it forward again and it was passed. That is what we should be doing: supporting tradespeople across the country who have to travel. Any other business people can charge their travel expenses.

As the member mentioned, we will need more tradespeople to do all of this work. Not only do heat pumps have to be installed, but homes also need to be retrofitted to make sure they are properly insulated. That is one of the first things that need to be done. I just finished doing that in my house, and now I am going to turn my thoughts to the heat pump part. We will need tradespeople for that, and sometimes it is difficult to find enough tradespeople because they are doing a lot of work in this regard.

Yes, we should be training tradespeople to do that. There is a program for it at Okanagan College in Penticton. It is one of the leading sustainable building trades programs in the country. We have to support people going into those programs and then once they come out.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion this morning about heat pumps. I have not yet heard anybody bring up the installation of heat pumps. There is a portion that goes outside the house and a portion that goes inside the house, and then there are pipes underground. Not that long ago, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-241, regarding a deduction of travel expenses for skilled trades. As we need heat pumps across the country, we will not have people to install them.

All but one Liberal member voted against Bill C-241. The NDP was good enough to vote for it. Would the member agree with me that, indeed, the Liberals should have voted for Bill C-241?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

What I heard you say is “remove the gatekeepers”. I have heard that before.

Ms. Rahmati, you spoke about natural disasters and having to pick up a workforce from Ontario, for example, and get them out to B.C. for wildfires or floods. Of course, my bill, Bill C-241, the mobility tax deduction, which has now passed the House of Commons and gone to the Senate, will help get people to these places.

Then there was talk about new training models, as well. I'm a big advocate that we need to start our training in the school systems in the early years, because the same children who play with Tonka trucks in a sandbox at three and four for some strange reason are told at five, six and seven that they need to be doctors, lawyers and—Lord forbid—politicians or they are nothing.

Are these new training models what you're talking about specifically? What, specifically, are you speaking to?

Canada National Parks Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today. I want to, first, thank all my colleagues who have spoken on this bill in the previous hour of debate and this hour of debate. I have much gratitude for them getting to know my area.

This area is the traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of first nations, which includes the Ojibway, the Odawa and the Potawatomi. As appropriately put, this is part of reconciliation. This is a story that is very important because it shows that we can do better.

For my part, I am thankful for the timing of this taking place. One of my heroes is Chief Duckworth. I want to thank Walpole Island First Nation as well. Chief Duckworth from Caldwell First Nation was left out of the consultation for the Gordie Howe bridge. We got to know each other when I invited them to come down to the community benefits, where they did not receive any invitation. We crashed the event together; I would not go in without them. The council let them in. That was the start of a very good relationship with Caldwell First Nations. More needs to be done, but it is a good start.

It is also a great tribute to my past mentor, Senator Earl "Boots" Scofield, who was a Métis senator. He also flew 17 missions in World War II in the bubble of a Mosquito bomber.

I want to quickly thank Janet Sumner and Dave Pearce from the Wildlands League, who have also been partners from the start and amazing heroes of mine. I thank the City of Windsor Council, and Mayor Dilkens, Councillor McKenzie and Councillor Francis in particular. Mayor Dilkens has been instrumental in this. I am grateful for the work that we have done, because this has included our region. The city has been at the forefront, giving up land, and that has been important.

I want to thank Lisa Gretzky, in my provincial Parliament, my colleague for Windsor West, who has always been wonderful to work with. She has been very involved in this. I want to thank MPP Andrew Dowie and also Minister Piccini in the Province of Ontario, who authorized the transfer of land that is coming up.

Of course the Friends of the Rouge are important. The Unifor Environmental Committee with Mark Bartlett, Rick Labonte, Ric St. Denis, Dave Cassidy and others were huge with this.

There is Green Ummah, who have gotten young people involved. There is the Friends of Ojibway, Claire McAllister, Paul Pratt and Mike Fisher. There is Save Ojibway community group. There is Jonathan Choquette from the Wildlife Preservation Canada, and John Hartig, another hero of mine. He is an American who has a Canadian part of his heart.

There is Bill Rousel, Phil Roberts, Derek Coronado, Frank Butler and the Citizens Environmental Alliance. We also have the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup and Windsor Essex Bike Community.

I want to again talk about some of the MPs here. The member for Essex has been instrumental in this, which is very important because the land that he represents is very close to this. I want to thank him for this, and his Bill C-241. It has been fun working together. It is hard to say “fun” in this place sometimes, but it does happen.

I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for coming on board. We will need his support in the Senate, as well as for the whole area and this House.

I want to thank numerous ministers that I have had discussions with, even though originally there was a difficulty in getting the government onside. I am glad it is, and look forward to the vote. As well, I thank the Conservatives, Bloc and Green and the two Liberals who voted for it earlier. It is very important.

I do want to say that there is one person who has been a custodian and who sometimes gets overlooked, Peter Berry at the Port Authority. He is a hero. He is actually a former service person from Canada's military, and served in Bosnia. He is very much a hero.

I want to thank Parks Canada staff. I cannot say who is watching right now, but I think people are watching, including my partner, Terry Chow, my good friend, Jeff Mussen, and of course my daughter and son, Alex and Wade.

I want to quickly note Mo Peer and Melanie, the lead in my office, as well as Darlene, Eva, Farah, Heather and Myrna.

I cannot get through everything, but I do want to conclude soon. I want to say that we have been consulting on this a long time. There are so many other people I wish I had time to recognize. Please forgive me if I did not say someone's name.

The reality is we have done consultations for thousands of people. There were public meetings, interactions and a whole number of different social events and other things that brought us to this point. I am looking forward to us working together further.

I am going to read a quick poem to close things out. It is from Marty Gervais, a historian in Windsor, who is very much part of the fabric of our history. There are also four other persons who helped collaborate on a book. It is called Pathway:

I don't know where this pathway leads as I walk alone.
Trees keep me company, offer shelter from wind, and there is sunlight enough to soften shadows, to warm me as I continue deeper into the mystery of this Ojibway day.

The reason I mention that is because tomorrow is Earth Day, and a new chapter starts for this with this vote on Wednesday.

I want to thank all of the members who have been supportive of this process as we went forward because it is not about us. It is about the next generation. That is what is amazing.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to participate virtually in the House this afternoon.

The first thing I would like to do, with your indulgence, is to wish my lovely wife Allison happy birthday. She is incredibly sweet and young. I love her dearly and I want to celebrate that.

Second, I want to congratulate the member for Windsor West for getting the bill this far. The member and I have worked tirelessly on this together. It is a fantastic example of collaboration and how working across the aisles we can certainly get things done for our regions. I know how influential he was with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-241, and it has been an honour to work with him on his private member's bill, Bill C-248, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada specifically.

This has been a fantastic example of collaboration from all levels of government, which is enormous. I know our constituents continually ask us to not always fight in the House and to try to get along and find common ground. It puts a big smile on my face on a Friday to know that really good, unique things can get done when we work together.

As an example, our provincial government has come to the table. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been amazing in making sure that this comes to fruition, along with MPP Andrew Dowie, from Windsor—Tecumseh, who has also been very influential in the conversation and bringing those folks together. I really want to celebrate and thank them.

I have had many conversations with Mayor Dilkens, the mayor of Windsor, who is very much in support of this private member's bill, along with the mayor and councillors of LaSalle. It is a win-win for our community, so I thank them.

I want to thank our first nations: Chief Duckworth of the Caldwell First Nation, in collaboration with the Walpole Island First Nation.

Then of course there were amazing community consultations and a ton of outreach. People have literally been so vital in this conversation and I just want to thank them so much for that.

I will be very prudent and say that I am happy the Liberals changed their mind, because twice they voted against this. I am not sure what changed, but I am certainly happy they recognize that this is going to lead to huge opportunities for tourism, our economy and the health and mental health of people in our regions of Essex, Windsor—Tecumseh, Windsor West and Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

I have done my due diligence. I have spent countless hours in discussions with mayors, in community consultations, and with stakeholders. There were two things that were always top of mind. One is to make darn sure that our corridors and arteries, Matchette Road and Malden Road, remain open so that the folks who need to get back and forth to Windsor to work in our automotive sector and our new battery plant that is coming up do not encounter a big blockade that does not allow them to get back and forth to work early. They are putting in countless hours at these businesses and we should not have the major arteries, which are the major roads, blocked so they cannot get back and forth from their place of residence.

Equally, I have spoken many times on the importance of getting Canadians active. We have been basically stuck in our home for three and a half years due to COVID. It is time to get active, to get out on the trails, either a biking or hiking trail, or spend time with family and mother nature. This park has white-tailed deer, raccoons and the endangered eastern fox snake, which I really hope does not cross the path in front of me when I go out to this new park. We have the Gordie Howe International Bridge set to open up in 2025, which perhaps can connect with this urban national park. There is going to be a walking path on the bridge.

The tourism opportunities here for our region are absolutely vital. It is huge for the area, let alone the economy and what it is going to bring to our small businesses, hotels and restaurants, all those who are offering their services.

This is a really good, very well-thought-out private member's bill. Again, I am very happy to be supporting this.

Let me also say that this does not affect private lands. It will have zero effect on those lands that are surrounding it today. This bill uses existing federal-provincial lands that already exist. All it is doing is taking the existing green space and bringing it all together, which is enormous. It is protecting the environment.

Essex, Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh is a very small area. We are surrounded by three bodies of water, Lake Erie, the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair. Property is at a premium, to say the least. When we can give opportunities for folks to get outdoors, to get active, to spend time with their families away from our televisions, then I think we need to enhance that. We need to celebrate it. We have to do everything possible to ensure that we are doing our due diligence on that.

Tomorrow is Earth Day. What a fitting day to be talking about a private member's bill that is actually protecting some 800 acres in Essex that would go a long way to ensuring that our feathered and furry friends are protected.

I understand this bill is to be voted on next Wednesday, and I really hope that it gets passed. Equally, I am hoping that we can somehow, in some way get it to the Senate as quickly as possible, to get their support. Would it not be remarkable if we could get it through the Senate and allow these folks to start taking advantage, again, of this urban national park?

The greedy side of me says, along with Bill C-248, I also hope the Senate talks about Bill C-241, which is my private member's bill. Maybe they could push that through at the same time.

Conservatives will be voting in favour of Bill C-248. Again, I want to celebrate and congratulate the member for Windsor West. It has been an honour to work alongside him. This is only positive for our region, specifically for Essex, Windsor West, Windsor—Tecumseh and Chatham-Kent—Leamington. It would enhance the lives and mental health of people going forward.

Income Tax Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-241 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from March 21 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 third time and passed.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they say it is a marathon, not a race. Tonight, I think we got halfway through the marathon. Tomorrow could be a really monumental day for skilled trades across Canada. If the bill is passed in the House, it will go to the Senate. People will be one step closer to building Canada, the economy, and quite frankly, their own careers.

First and foremost, Bill C-241 is a common bill for the common people. It makes common sense, something that does not happen a lot in this House.

I want to thank God because without him, this opportunity would never have existed. I thank him so much for this opportunity.

I want to give my thanks to the Bloc Québécois for their amazing remarks this evening and to the member for Windsor West for really understanding this bill and what it can do for skilled trades across Canada. My thanks to those members.

I want to thank Tommy Helgun from the carpenters union, who was down from Windsor. Truthfully, he is one of the curators of this bill. He was here this evening. I got a chance to speak to him before this. I really want to say thanks to him and Karl Lovett from the IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; really, really awesome. Nancy Yan helped me get to this spot as well; she knows who she is. I thank all the various trades across Canada that I have spoken to over the last year or so while scripting and tweaking this bill, ensuring that it is actually doing the work that it is designed to do. To each and every one of them, I send my thanks.

I am not one who says anything other than let us get the darn job done and fast forward this as much as we possibly can.

This afternoon, I had a chance to speak with our leader. I filled him in. I really want to give my thanks to the leader of the official opposition for being very influential on this bill. I know that back when he was the shadow minister for finance, I went to him for his thoughts. He said to make darn sure that it is a tax deduction and there is no limit on this, so that folks, workers and skilled trades across Canada do not have a limit on how many hours they should be working per year.

I guess the question in the House now is: Why does the Liberal Party not support skilled trades? I do not understand, to save my soul, why it would not support them, but apparently it does not. Tomorrow is a fresh, new day.

It has only ever been and will only ever be about the people. One can have the greatest widget in the world, but one will not build or sell it unless one is surrounded by the greatest people. Our skilled trades are exactly who will build this amazing country called Canada. Equally, however, they need our support.

I truly do not care who gets the credit. If the government wants to take my bill, Bill C-241, and put in the legislation tomorrow, I am good with that as long as our skilled trades get the support they deserve and need.

Again, it is a marathon; it is not a race. My phone is on, and my door is open. If the government will reach out to me and have a conversation about how to enhance this, perhaps in the Senate when it goes there tomorrow thanks to the amazing Bloc and NDP support, I am all ears. Let us just support our skilled trades.

In closing, I will say this one more time: It has only ever been about the people. Unless we support the ones who fix our bridges, build our roads and keep our electrical system going, we have nothing.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to debate Bill C‑241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with regard to deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons.

Bill C‑241, which is sponsored by the member from the Ontario riding of Essex, is at third reading stage. It seeks to amend “the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence.”

From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this small but extremely worthwhile initiative. In my opinion, most members agree on this bill. We could settle this this evening by taking a vote by a show of hands. Honestly, I find this a bit tough from a procedural perspective. We know that everyone will vote in favour of the bill, but there is a process to follow, even though we know the outcome will be the same at the end of it.

The tax benefit being introduced by Bill C‑241 responds to a request made by Canada's Building Trades Unions, which represent more than half a million construction workers across the country. These people work in more than 60 trades and professions and generate 6% of Canada's GDP. That is significant.

As we know, in Quebec, the construction industry is an extremely important sector of activity. We are talking about investments of nearly $53 million in 2019. We are also talking about 264,600 direct jobs generated per month, on average, or one out of every 20 jobs in Quebec.

In Canada, salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. I believe and the Bloc believes that it stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are far from their primary residence. It is simply a question of fairness.

The scope of Bill C-241 is essentially fiscal, but it is also economic, because it addresses labour shortages and, by extension, inflation. When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must cover them themselves. With a family to support, additional expenses for travel can obviously become quite burdensome and undermine a worker's incentive to accept certain contracts from time to time.

Inflation was 6.8% in 2022, the highest since 1982. In 1982 it was 10.9%. We need only think of the extreme volatility of gas prices. The price of a litre of gas in Quebec last June was $2.20, enough to bankrupt any family that has to travel a lot for work.

As I was saying, the tax deduction introduced by Bill C-241 is a concrete and effective measure to encourage the mobility of workers in the construction sector. It is an incentive to return to work. We believe that.

According to a recent poll by Canada's Building Trades Unions, 75% of skilled trades workers say that a tax deduction will give them access to more job opportunities.

Given the current inflation, this is the right time to bring in this tax deduction that will help alleviate the financial burden for tradespeople. This tax incentive promises to provide a solution to the labour shortage, and therefore reduce Quebeckers' and Canadians' dependence on government programs such as employment insurance.

Calculations have shown that Bill C-241 could save the federal government approximately $347 million.

I want to make it clear that we are not reinventing the wheel with Bill C‑241. Other countries, such as the United States, have had a similar tax deduction for quite some time. In short, it is a targeted, relevant and timely measure that has been proven to work on the other side of the border. It would be difficult for all parties here in the House to oppose this bill.

I made a correlation earlier between the tax deduction proposed in Bill C‑241, the job shortage and inflation. The Bloc Québécois members believe that addressing the labour shortage will help ease the inflation that is increasingly affecting and worrying our constituents.

The pandemic forced many people out of the workforce for health reasons and exacerbated the labour shortage in some sectors, including the construction trades. This shortage is hindering the economic recovery, because it results in forced closures, lost contracts, significantly reduced investment in our businesses and overworked employees.

Today's inflation stems in part from an imbalance between supply and demand: Supply is limited because of the labour shortage, but demand is stable and growing. Reducing the labour shortage in a specific sector, as Bill C‑241 seeks to do, could potentially fix the imbalance between supply and demand, in addition to reducing inflation as I was saying earlier.

Consequently, in my opinion, it was ill-advised and counterproductive of the Liberal government to try to create one million jobs in budget 2021 without including effective mechanisms to deal with the labour shortage.

The Bloc Québécois has been taking the labour shortage seriously for a long time now. During the last election campaign, we proposed plenty of solutions: recognizing experienced workers; transferring the temporary foreign workers program to Quebec; investing in research and development; investing in the digital transformation; and creating tax credits for new graduates who move to the regions for work.

In summary, the Bloc Québécois has always been an ally of tradespersons who make an essential and invaluable contribution to Quebec's economic prosperity. Bill C‑241 introduces a targeted and appropriate tax measure that will ease the financial burden of tradespersons while addressing the labour shortage and inflation.

For all of these reasons, once again, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑241.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate here this evening. Bill C-241, sponsored by the member for Essex, is an excellent bill that the NDP will be supporting. I am also pleased to be in the same area as the member, and I think it is a good example of how we can bring forth responsible and solid legislation that not only reflects on our area, but also impacts the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, I cannot get the last 10 minutes back from the previous speaker, but I can say that the member sponsoring the bill has been open to meeting with the government and ministers on an open basis. He has approached the Liberals very responsibly, trying to get them to come on board. Quite frankly, I think the only reason the Liberals do not support it is because it is not their idea. It is as simple as that.

I am going to go through the specifics of why the bill is important, but a lot of people would see this as a housekeeping bill in many respects. I want to point out that this is a modest tax credit and a piece of legislation with an approach that should be, in a minority Parliament, a bipartisan way to get some stuff done for Canada. I commend the member for coming forth with the bill right away. He was selected high in the order, and we only get a certain amount of opportunities and time. It is like winning the lottery.

This is not a going-through-the-motions type of bill; it is going to provide a tax credit. We know there are many tax credits out there for other individuals and corporations. It is unfortunate that we do not have this one, which is to allow for travel-related expenses for work done at least 120 kilometres away from a skilled trades member's place of residence. In Windsor and Essex County, which includes LaSalle, Tecumseh and Kingsville, even the Chatham-Kent area in southern Ontario, there are often different times where we might have a flux of employment in the auto industry, or other types of trades that go up and down. We also have many workers who will fly out to Alberta, to the oil sands, or fly out to other places to do skilled trades work. This is a modest tax credit to help them in that process.

These individuals are self-employed in many respects, although they often belong to unions, like LiUNA, which is a very good union, and Unifor, which is another good union. At times, they are individually contracted to go out to different places, and the cost can be quite significant. The previous speaker from the Bloc mentioned a really good point on the inflationary costs that have gone up for travel, and other things of that nature. I think that is an excellent point. This keeps people working all the time and stops them from having to go on unemployment. It also encourages young people to have more stability. It is a challenge to work abroad. There is a lot of stress when it comes to family and raising young children.

These measures are controllable. The person has to provide receipts. There is full accountability for the expenses taking place. I looked at some of the other tax havens, the types of taxes and tax credits we have for people. I will focus on a couple of them to show how unfair it is for these workers to not be able to write off a few business-related expenses for their travel when it is helpful for our country. We have a corporate dividend tax credit, a tax credit for the oil and gas industry, and a stock option deduction for taxes. We have a number of different businesses taxes that businesses can write off, which even include private boxes for sports tickets, concerts, vacations, office parties, and deductions for executive pay. If members can believe it, all those things are a tax deduction, but they are not for skilled trades workers.

We are also trying to get more women and diversity into our skilled trades, but they cannot get the same deductions we can for an office party. It is outrageous. For the government to complicate this, or make it more difficult than it seems, is irresponsible. I do not know why the Liberals cannot just get behind the bill. It is unfortunate. The bill has a history in this House. Former New Democrats for Hamilton Centre have brought this forth, including past members Chris Charlton, David Christopherson and Wayne Marsden. Now our current member for Hamilton Centre, who is doing an excellent job on this, and the member for Essex have pulled this together, and I think it is worthy of being brought forth on its merit alone.

We have done this before. In the last Parliament, I worked with the member from Saskatoon when I had a private member's bill on single-event sports betting, and because he got selected higher, I took it off the Order Paper and gave it to him. He took it and did a wonderful job, and the legislation got passed. It affected the reduction of organized crime, and now we have an accountable process. It is a good example of making Parliament work. I think the bill before us should be seen with the same type of lens.

I do not know why government members would want to oppose this legislation. Some of them argue it is redundant. Some of them argue it is not good enough. It is ridiculous. Those arguments are shallow and vain, quite frankly, because if there is still a problem, it can go to the Senate for some amendments. Members can be creative and suggest something or show something that is wrong with it in a concrete way, rather than just trying to wind the clock down on the process.

When we get an opportunity in the House of Commons, it is like winning the lottery. For people who do not know, we are like ping-pong balls in many respects. The process is that we get drawn randomly, and if a member gets selected in the top 40, they at least have some hope of actually getting their bill through the entire process in a regular Parliament. However, in a minority Parliament, it is even more shallow, because if we do not have a five-year term, if it is a shorter term, a member would not be able to get their bill through. Even the last bill I did, again with the member from Saskatoon, who did an excellent job of working on the bill with me and others, came into effect within only a couple of days of the election, because the Prime Minister refused to do it. It took outside lobbying efforts to get him to finally officially authorize it and bring the legislation into force, a couple of days before the last election.

It is hard enough, and my point is that we all have a collective responsibility to use these opportunities as best we can. The member did not choose something like “happy groundhog month” or something very shallow like that. This legislation is well thought out. It is legislation that has been in the House before. It is not going to break the Bank of Canada. In fact, it passed the test of mettle in being proper and with due diligence, by the Speaker's ruling. This is one of the things that should be noted. We actually have unions behind the bill as well. Canada's Building Trade Unions has been supporting this tax deduction for a long time. Operably, it is really good. I mentioned LiUNA and Unifor as well.

Again, what we are talking about here is for a long period of travel, 120 kilometres, where a worker would be able to deduct a little bit of that cost. We have all seen, in the last number of months, and the last couple of years really, the rate of inflation going up. I could not think of anything that had more appropriate timing than this. In fact, it merits the government stealing the legislation if it wants to actually impress upon getting something done for workers at this particular time.

If the government is saying that we cannot afford this for skilled trade workers, then why would we not stop letting people write off private boxes, and stop corporations from deducting office parties and other nonsense like that? This is something that could go right to the worker.

Again, it would go through our accounting process, which is already established, and so the legislation would not create another bureaucratic arm or process. It would actually be an amendment to our current tax code, which is commendable in the approach it is taking. It is responsible and could actually be triggered right away.

I feel passionately about this. There are two things that are behind the bill. First and foremost is that a member has sincerely brought forth legislation, which has had a number of versions in the House in the past and is very much amenable to a bipartisan approach and working together. Second, it is very effective for tradespeople. It has a direct correlation to the economy and how we can actually protect workers and enhance opportunities for them and their families, and it has a social justice element as well.

To conclude, there are a lot of other tax things out there that are a bunch of nonsense and that really should be reviewed, eliminated or at least discussed, whereas this is extremely responsible. I hope the bill before us receives the proper weight or at least the government looking at what it can do, and that we can move it to the Senate and go from there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation.

I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year.

The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note.

Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs.

Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of the them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference.

We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government.

We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate.

The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry.

We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income.

We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points.

When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs.

Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual.

When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program.

I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑241, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence.

As the granddaughter of a mason and niece, sister and sister-in-law of carpenters, this is a sector of our economy that I am rather familiar with.

From the outset I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑241 and I will be talking about it today first from the perspective of the construction industry, then from the perspective of the current economic context and finally in the context of the labour shortage.

First, let us not forget that this is about one of the recommendations from Canada's trade unions that represent more than half a million construction workers in Canada who are members of 14 international unions. These people work in more than 60 trades and professions and generate 6% of the country's gross domestic product.

Salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. It stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are located in a different region or province from their primary residence. It is a question of fairness.

Growth rates and infrastructure investment often vary from one region to the next, and this results in labour shortages. The labour shortage is one of the main impediments to economic recovery. One way to address rising prices is to tackle this shortage.

When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must pay out of pocket. For workers with a family, additional expenses for travel can be very high and can impede the worker's mobility.

This tax deduction is a concrete and effective means of enhancing the mobility of construction workers.

In addition, according to calculations, this would save the federal government approximately $347 million. Other countries, such as the United States, allow a similar tax deduction for skilled labour under the Internal Revenue Code. These employees can deduct the cost of meals, travel and lodging for temporary work away from their place of residence. This type of measure would promote return to work and address labour shortages at the same time. It would also reduce reliance on government programs, such as employment insurance.

As mentioned earlier, the costs associated with travelling to a job site far from home can impact a worker's decision to accept that contract.

Coming back to inflation, it reached 6.8% in 2022, the highest it has been since 1982, when it hit 10.9%. It bears mentioning, however, that the inflationary surge appears to be coming to an end. After peaking in June at 8.1%, it stabilized for a few months and then fell 0.6% to 6.3% on an annualized basis in December.

Price increases have been uneven. In 12 months, food prices rose 9.8%, gas prices rose 28% and the consumer price index, excluding gas and food, rose 5.3%. Since essentials like housing, food and gas have increased the most, low-income earners have suffered the most.

Two weeks ago, the Bank of Canada announced its eighth rate hike, increasing it to 4.5% from 0.5% a year earlier. Higher interest rates benefit those with savings, but cost those with debt. Young homeowners who bought their first home in the midst of the real estate price boom are likely to have some challenges. Since they are usually the ones who take out variable rate mortgages, they will quickly see rising rates on their mortgage payments.

Inflation is a major concern for consumers and cannot be ignored. A Scotiabank survey conducted in December shows that the rising cost of living tops the list of financial concerns for 50% of Quebeckers.

That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill, in May 2021, to help attract new graduates to the regions and encourage them to stay there. With that in mind, it is important to implement measures that protect the population in general, particularly the most vulnerable, such as seniors. When it comes to seniors, the Bloc Québécois is still calling for the government to increase old age security by $110 a month for all seniors aged 65 and over.

Like all other workers, skilled workers are facing higher costs on everything. I will come back to that. According to a recent poll by Canada's Building Trades Unions, 75% of skilled trades workers agree that a tax deduction will give them access to more job opportunities. With inflation the way it is, the time is right to implement a tax deduction to help ease the pressure on some workers' wallets.

At the top of the list of costs that might stop workers from agreeing to travel far for work is the cost of gas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has pushed the price of oil to levels not seen in eight years. Even though the price of gas is coming back down, its current volatility and unpredictability are enough to dissuade workers from going too far from home to work. It becomes unfair.

What is more, this tax deduction can certainly help deal with the labour shortage in one sector in particular. The pandemic forced many people out of the labour market for health reasons and it exacerbated the labour shortage in certain sectors. It is important to act quickly to support the sectors that have been hard hit by this labour shortage.

This shortage is a significant impediment to economic recovery. It results in forced closures, the loss of contracts, the cancellation of investments in our businesses and overworked employees. It can even limit opportunities to improve the working conditions of current employees. The pressures related to the shortage of workers will be felt until at least 2030 in Quebec especially because of the aging population. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a suite of measures to alleviate labour shortages across Quebec. In its 2021 spring budget, the government promised to create at least one million jobs. Creating jobs when there is a shortage of workers really makes sense.

The Bloc Québécois was already concerned about the labour shortage. It made some good proposals during the 2021 election campaign. We proposed seven concrete measures to help fix the problem. First we must value experienced workers and increase, from $5,000 to $6,500, the amount of employment or self-employment income that is exempt when calculating the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. That is in the bill that I introduced last week. I look forward to debating it here in the House with the other parties.

The GIS is intended for people aged 65 and over with relatively low incomes. It complements old age security, but the GIS decreases rapidly as income increases. The first $5,000 earned, however, does not affect GIS amounts. We propose to increase this exemption by $1,500.

The temporary foreign worker program must also be handed over to Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is calling for the program to be repatriated to Quebec, which is in a better position than anyone else to identify the specific labour needs of businesses within its borders.

Another trend that is emerging in Quebec is the digital shift. Businesses are increasing their efforts to accelerate the digital shift. This is one way to increase productivity and get around the problem of the labour shortage. This is another area that needs to be addressed. We need to support and assist SMEs in that shift. It is about competitiveness.

Tax credits for research and development also need to be improved to stimulate innovation. We are also suggesting creating a new tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for recent graduates in the regions, to a maximum cumulative amount of $8,000 for recent graduates working in designated regions.

In closing, I want to present some figures on Quebec's construction industry, which is very lucrative but has labour shortage issues. That is why the Bloc was quick to propose several solutions, because there is no magic bullet for solving the labour shortage. We need to approach the problem from various angles. The importance of Quebec's construction industry cannot be understated. This is as true from an economic point of view as it is from a job creation point of view. We are talking about investments of nearly $53 billion in 2019. We are also talking about 264,600 direct jobs generated per month, on average, or one out of every 20 jobs in Quebec. It also generates thousands of other jobs in other sectors.

To conclude, the Bloc made an intervention through my colleague from Joliette at the Standing Committee on Finance during debate on this bill. My colleague pointed out to the government that, since this is a private member's bill, the government tends not to propose any amendments, particularly in terms of including safeguards for certain provisions and thus reassuring the parties on the interpretation or application of a given bill. In the end, no amendments were proposed, and the bill passed without amendment on division in only about 15 minutes.

I want to say one last thing in closing. As members can see, this bill reflects the current context in which the construction industry is facing many challenges. Given how important this industry is to the economy, we need to look into this problem and help the industry find solutions to the labour shortage. This bill is one of those solutions.

The House resumed from February 13 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 third time and passed.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, skilled trades are a key component of Canada’s workforce and are vital to the strength of Canada’s economy. Skilled tradespeople are critical in maintaining essential sectors, like our health, water, electrical and food systems. They literally build bridges and critical infrastructure.

The demand for skilled tradespeople is high. It is expected to remain high over the next decade or more as Canada’s economy recovers from eight years of the Liberal government. For far too long, many blue-collar private sector workers have found themselves to be an afterthought of politicians in Ottawa.

Our country is facing a shortage in over 300 skilled trades, and the numbers are showing that this will only get worse. Each job that is unfulfilled is an uncollected paycheque that could help a family get ahead.

By 2028, Canada will need to have over 700,000 new tradespeople in place. Some of the challenges that we face today are very different from the challenges we will face in the future and are different from what our leaders faced decades ago. We will have new problems and we will need new solutions.

Action must be taken to address the concerns regarding the shortage of skilled tradespeople, which is far beyond the scope of the bill that we are discussing here today, just as action must be taken to fix the concerns of those who proudly work in the trades today.

That is why we are supporting Bill C-241. Every step to promote trades and make the environment less cumbersome and more appealing to new entrants is a step in the right direction. We must support Canada’s workers and the unions that represent them. The inability to do so would hold back local businesses from growing. It would delay roads, public transit and schools. It would make it harder to improve the health care system and would contribute even more to the rising cost of living that families are battling every day.

After generations of being left behind by the government, it is time to earn trust and build the bridges that will get the bridges built.

During the last election campaign, many residents in my riding spoke to me about the importance of supporting Canadian skilled tradespeople. One simple way that we can do that is by allowing travel expenses to be tax deductible.

Why is this a good first step? The answer is very simple. Many of our skilled tradespeople live and work in rural and remote communities. One of my colleagues has made the suggestion of making the range 120 kilometres because, for some people in my riding, it can take them an hour and a half just to get from their home to the shop to get their trucks. Given that my riding is over 5,000 square kilometres, I can say it is actually a very conservative estimate of how long an individual may have to travel to get to work.

In fact, I spoke with one person who worked as a welder in Arkona, which is a small town in a fairly central agricultural community. They told me it was routine for them to get up at 4 a.m., drive an hour from their home to the shop to load up their truck and prep their crew. They drive another hour and a half south to the morning job site, and then drive an hour northeast for the afternoon. After a long and tiring day, they would drive another hour back home to repeat a similar schedule six days a week.

We are talking about support in this bill for those who work some of Canada’s toughest jobs and who are the most essential workers.

Let me put this in perspective compared to other professions where people can receive tax deductions for travel for their jobs.

The Dewalt or Milwaukee white-collar tool salesperson, who has to travel to remote areas to sell the tools to the building trades workers, will get a government-paid tax credit for their travel. However, the blue-collar IBEW electrician or the UA pipefitter, who has to travel to the same remote job site to put in long hours working and using those same tools, does not get any tax relief from the government for their travel.

Tradespeople work very hard to support their families and have to put forward significant out-of-pocket expenses to be able to perform and remain competitive. The government needs to do more to support our nation’s working men and women. Those are the men and women whose jobs are making them have to shower at the end of the day, who are raising families and who are building the future of Canada.

Inflation and the cost of living have taken their toll on tradespeople just as much as, if not more than, they have for nearly every Canadian. Let us take a quick look at the price of gas for someone, like that welder, who travels 400 kilometres in a day.

The average price of gas is around $1.40 per litre right now. Like most tradespeople in rural Canada, they drive a truck. For those members across the floor who have urban ridings, driving a truck is absolutely necessary for rural tradespeople. It is actually an essential tool for the performance of jobs, especially in our rural areas, not something that can be easily phased out to suit the agenda of the finance minister’s friends in the WEF.

This person's truck has roughly a 700-kilometre range, so they need to buy gas twice a week or more. With a 120-litre tank, they are paying over $250 a week or more in gas, and about $16 of that is carbon tax. I think it quickly becomes clear to what a great extent a travel deduction will amount to large savings that will keep these tradespeople in business. If only we could remove some of the other non-essential impediments.

A similar travel deduction is already available for corporations and self-employed workers in other industries. Passing Bill C-241 would equalize the playing field and incentivize tradespeople to take contracts farther from home, which would be beneficial for smaller communities that have trouble attracting skilled labour. More tradespeople travelling would help generate more spending, which is especially beneficial for smaller and remote communities.

Many tradespeople travel long distances for work, and I am talking about leaving their homes and flying somewhere, sometimes even to another province, across the country or to northern areas to get to a job site. Often they are gone from their families for long periods of time, sometimes even months at a time. I cannot imagine being away for months at a time without being able to see loved ones.

Those of us sitting in the chamber know what it is like to leave our families to come to work for just a week. Imagine leaving our families for weeks. I know I would miss my family if I were gone for weeks, and I know from talking to some of these workers over the last number of weeks that it is a hardship on them. It is a struggle for their families to be apart. Sacrificing time with their kids, spouses or partners in order to try to provide good incomes to support their families can be very difficult, but they make sacrifices every day.

Imagine someone being responsible for paying their own transportation, accommodation and meals to get to a job site, while having to travel with their own tools. There is no other option to receive a tax credit to help offset any of these travel costs. Workers are more likely to take jobs closer to home, and not necessarily in their trades, when they are not compensated.

Travelling as a tradesperson is extremely hard on families. A tradesperson would be able to use some of their tax credit to fly home to see their family, for instance for a long weekend, or even fly their spouse and family to be with them for a period of time in the town where their job site is. Imagine the economic spinoff of that in those small towns.

This bill is not controversial. This bill would help keep families together. It is a pro-worker, pro-jobs, pro-paycheque and pro-worker-mobility bill, all of which is needed to keep Canada going. I am pleased to see that this drive is being acknowledged and even supported by other parties in the chamber.

Despite our differences, I think we all want to keep Canada going and we all want to do what is best to support our Canadian workers. We want to encourage young people to follow their passions, enrol in skilled trades and move beyond the tired mentality that the only way to succeed in life is to acquire multiple degrees.

Do members know that a Red Seal certified tradesperson makes over $68,000 a year? With years of experience, depending on available jobs, they can make well over $300,000 a year. That is comparable to or even exceeds what is expected from a university master's degree. Unfortunately, only one in 10 high school students is considering a career in trades. Something needs to change, and I look forward to a productive discussion about what can be done to make improvements.

Starting with the bill we are debating today, Bill C-241, I have heard, from the NDP side, some suggestions that the travel distance be lowered to 80 kilometres. From the Liberal benches, the ask has been made to have the bill include greater deductions for tools and equipment. I have heard a number from the Bloc say they will take the bill as is and support it.

All of this is fantastic, not only for workers but also for my colleague, who I know has been very open and transparent in his excitement. I will echo his excitement on behalf of my constituents. This bill would have a tremendous impact on tradespeople and their families. Let us roll up our sleeves, get it done and bring it home.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to join the House today from Hamilton Centre in support of this bill at third reading. I extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Essex. We had quite some time joking around about the fact that he got to be an honorary New Democrat while presenting this private member's bill, Bill C-241. I think he even promised to wear an orange tie, although I am not quite sure that I have seen that in the House, but I have done my best today.

I wanted to make sure that as New Democrats we get a chance to set the record straight today. This bill has been proposed five times since 2006. The then hon. member Chris Charlton for Hamilton Mountain introduced this bill in 2006, 2008 and 2013. In fact, she had introduced Bill C-201 in 2013, which was crushed by a Conservative majority. I will give the hon. member for Essex the benefit, because I know from his remarks that he was not elected in 2013. However, I will note that the Conservative leader, the hon. member for Carleton, voted against it.

We, as New Democrats, continued to fight alongside the building trades, and in 2021 this was introduced by my dear friend, the always honourable Scott Duvall from Hamilton Mountain, and of course myself. In 2021, one of my first orders of business, and a promise I made to our Hamilton-Brantford Building Trades Council and all of its affiliates, was that I would pick it up and run with it in Bill C-222.

As pointed out by the previous Liberal member, there is only a small difference between what the government has introduced and what this bill provides with respect to distance. Members may recall in the previous reading that this was an issue I brought up. It was clear that in our bill, Bill C-222, we had suggested that the 120-kilometre radius was too far. It would have excluded too many people, particularly those who had to commute through hours of traffic in the GTA. In our bill it was 80 kilometres. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer had run those numbers, he would have seen that more people could have taken advantage of the deduction in our proposal. One of my regrets is that it was not carried through during its time at committee.

I acknowledge and give credit where it is due to the organized labour of Ontario. These are the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, Canada's Building Trades Unions, the Hamilton—Brantford Building & Construction Trades Council, the people I worked with and the people we are all familiar with, such as the recently retired Pat Dillon here in Ontario. Throughout his entire 20-year career he worked on this. He was dogmatic across all parties that it was something that had to happen because of the general fairness imbued in the bill and the differences identified among the corporate, the Bay Street and the management classes of the country. They got to travel around the world and deduct all of that. That privilege is not extended by the CRA to those who actually build wealth and generate true value in this economy, which is the working class.

I want to make a correction, and will do so even perhaps to my own embarrassment, but it certainly needs to be said in the House. It has been said many times that MPs get to write off their travel. That is not true. An MP's travel is covered by our members' budgets, so it is a very different scenario. I hope that we would ensure that what is good enough for us would be good enough for the working class.

I call again for the same spirit from our new-found socialist Conservative friends who are looking to extend these rights and privileges to the working class. Keep that energy up when it comes to things like dental care and pharmacare. These are things that we, as members of Parliament, have the privilege of receiving and some of us for our entire lives. Let us be clear. There are members in the House who speak about work and working class issues in a completely abstract way, because they have never actually worked in the private sector. That is a fact.

While I do not know the history of my friend from Essex, I am grateful that in his trips to the airport he was able to engage in a dialectical materialism with the working class. It identified that the real-world conditions of the working class and the contradictions of the class considerations provide a general unfairness in how we treat our blue-collar workers compared to the white-collar management class in this country. A person, such as a real estate lawyer or a developer, can fly across the country and write all of that off. However, the worker who actually builds that wealth and who constructs the actual material does not get the same consideration. It is indeed one of the inherent contradictions of our tax code and our general economy.

To go further, to talk about the exploitation of the building trades workers, the hon. member for Essex brought up the notion of affordability in housing. This is an issue that comes up in my community when I am talking to folks about the issues of their housing costs and how far away their ability is, through their wages, to purchase the things they make. This is indeed a perversion of the capitalism and the impacts of capitalism in this country that divorces the working class from the end product of their labour. It is an alienation of the working class. It is an estrangement of labour.

In the example I used, the building a house metaphor, while the cost of building the house varies between provinces and because of factors like materials, currently the housing construction costs range between $120 to $250 per square foot. If we were to average this out, it would be about $185 per square foot or approximately $370,000 to build a 2,000 square foot home in Canada. That is twice as much, and sometimes three times as much, as the average market cost. StatsCan listed the average Canadian house price in 2022 at approximately $704,000.

The average salary I could find of a union carpenter is about $70,000. That means it is 10 times as much, or 10 years' worth of work, for the person who builds the house to be able to purchase the house. The surplus value of their labour goes to people who have never swung a hammer in their entire lives. It goes to the banking class, the Bay Street class, the developer class and those who go to Doug Ford's family weddings and pay to increase their access to construction within provinces like Ontario. The money and the obscene profits that are made never make their way to the working class of this country.

It is the ultra-elite and the well-connected, those who have political ties, those who would seek to keep wages low and recall the Bank of Canada calling to keep the wages of workers low while the costs continue to run amok. It is shareholders, private investors in the investing class in this country, who are the ones taking the surplus value of workers' wages. It is not because workers are fighting for higher wages.

Under this economic system of private ownership, society only has two classes. These are the property class, or those who have access to capital, and everybody else. The workers are suffering from not only impoverishment but also from exploitation and estrangement from their work. That is why this very meagre private member's bill, Bill C-241, is literally the least we can do in the House to acknowledge that there is a general unfairness in our tax system.

I hope the hon. members from the Conservative Party, who crushed this bill some 10 years ago, who now have found their way in supporting this private member's bill, will keep that same energy up and understand it is the working class of this country who creates the value. That is who we should be prioritizing in the policies of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I had the opportunity to do so earlier, I would like to begin by once again congratulating the hon. member for Essex for Bill C-241. This bill was worth introducing and debating in the House, and I think it is important, since it will give us an opportunity to discuss the reality of tradespeople, a reality we do not discuss enough in the House.

We address all sorts of theoretical questions in the House. We talk about families struggling to make ends meet, and it is important that we do. We also talk about the ultra-rich. However, we do not talk enough about tradespeople, the middle-class, the people who work so hard to build our country.

I will therefore take this opportunity to speak in more detail about a tradesperson I know well and who was born on July 15, 1941, in Hochelaga, Montreal. He was one of seven children, so he had six brothers and sisters. He did not grow up in Hochelaga, but in Pont-Viau, Laval, because his father managed to get a job at Frito-Lay. Chips lovers will recognize the name.

His father was a labourer and had seven mouths to feed in addition to his wife’s and his own. That requires a lot of work. At the time, working-class families were large, and this was a family of nine. Families lived in small apartments, with one, two or three bedrooms. Ultimately, they took what they could get. Children did not have their own room: there was a room for the girls and a room for the boys. There were a lot of people in each bedroom.

This skilled tradesperson got married later on, on June 30, 1962. Let us get back to the issue before us, skilled trades. He began practising his trade in 1956 at the age of 15, and worked hard on construction sites. He and his wife had four children, only three of whom reached adulthood. He found time outside his work hours to take care of his children and to be a hockey and baseball coach. He worked for more than 40 years on construction sites as a skilled tradesperson before retiring in 1997. He then continued to work as a plumber for more than 10 years.

The person I am talking about is my grandfather. I was well aware of his situation, since he was still a tradesperson when I was a child. When I went to his house, even if I was not supposed to, I would go into his garage, a real treasure trove. It was incredible to see all the tools and equipment he had. I also remember the smell of oil and iron. It was amazing.

My grandfather worked on many large construction sites. The Conservatives are going to like this: He worked on the many gas pipelines built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. He also worked in the petrochemical facilities in Montreal East. At the time, we needed advanced technology and facilities to be able to put gas in our cars. He worked on a number of hospital construction projects across Quebec, and built high-rise housing units on Île-des-Sœurs.

He also worked on a major construction site that had an impact on Quebec, and many people remember it in both a positive and a negative way. It was Montreal’s Olympic Stadium, a huge project that cost a lot of money and took us a lot of years to pay for. However, it was a symbol of pride at the time, since we were hosting the Olympic Games in Quebec, in Montreal, which was an extraordinary feat. My grandfather worked on the Olympic Stadium as a skilled tradesperson.

He also worked on the Port of Montreal facilities, which, with the growth of Montreal, always had to be expanded. Workers were needed to build the infrastructure and make sure it would withstand the passage of time. He also worked at the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu military base.

I listed a few projects to show that tradespeople work all over the place on any number of projects. These are assets and infrastructures that will remain standing for a long time, and people will be able to use them and rely on them even after I am dead.

Plumbers and other skilled tradespersons do not have it easy in their day-to-day work life. For instance, they have to move large and heavy pipes made of various materials such as concrete, steel, iron or copper. PVC pipe is more common these days, although that has not always been the case. It took strong arms to carry them. We are not talking about three-foot pipes, either. They were really something. Tradespersons have to move things like pipes, toilets and sinks. Anyone who has ever carried a toilet or sink knows how heavy they are.

These people do physically hard work and they generally work outside. Think of the people who build high-rise apartments. Workers on construction sites sometimes work inside, but they often work outside, sometimes at -40°C. The work still has to be done, even if it is freezing cold. Workers get used to it, and they work hard.

They do not just work in winter. There is also summer. When it is 30°C or more and they are working indoors, in an enclosed space, with the boilers running, and they need to run pipes and the welding machine adds even more heat, that is even worse. The workers have to put up with that kind of heat while they work, and it is not easy.

Welding in a heat wave is not the easiest thing to do. We do not say it often enough, but sometimes there are problems on the construction site. Maybe the engineer made a mistake with the blueprints, or some delinquent snuck overnight and had fun taking apart half of what was built. Then workers have to redo the work that took them weeks to do in the first place.

Another aspect of the plumber's trade is that they bring their own tools to the site. Sometimes the tools are stolen, so they have to buy new ones. That is an expensive proposition. To do good work, they need high-quality specialized tools.

Take, for example, replacing old pipes. The pipes in our houses transport water, and the pipes that run from our toilets and showers contain hair and feces. When a pipe is removed, what is inside may come out the ends. Sometimes, workers go home smelling bad, with traces of pee and poo on their clothes.

The job is not always a pleasant one. Sometimes, workers need to work in four feet of water or in spaces so tight it is difficult to crawl through. Pipes need to be changed even if there are insects and rats down there.

The working conditions are not always ideal, but the job is really important, and it makes a difference. It is work that needs to be done, and it is vital to every structure.

Every time we turn on the tap, water comes out because a plumber was there before us. Every time we go to the bathroom, we can do so comfortably because a plumber was there before us.

Sometimes there are time constraints, and workers have to work overtime. They do not necessarily work a 40-hour week. Sometimes they work 72 hours in a row because the work needs to be done. They work, they are tired, they do not see their children. They leave early in the morning when it is still dark out and the children are still in bed.

That is the reality of tradespeople. They come home filthy in the evening, with dirt under their fingernails, and they still smell even after they have washed two or three times. They cut themselves, burn themselves and suffer workplace accidents, but they still have to work, so they get over it. Sometimes, they damage their health.

My grandfather is a hero in my eyes. He is a tradesperson. He helped build Quebec. Now others are following in our forebears' footsteps. They are building the Quebec of tomorrow.

Bill C-241 is for these people. I think that the people who built Quebec would have been happy to see such a bill. They would have felt valued. They would have felt that there are members of Parliament who are listening to them and asking what they can do to help them in their work and their lives, based on their reality, so that their difficult and demanding work might be better compensated, valued and recognized. Just talking about it in the House today is a major step, and for that, I would like to thank the hon. member for Essex.

Obviously there are all sorts of considerations at play. Earlier I mentioned all of the construction sites my grandfather worked on. Most of them were in the greater Montreal area.

I also have another grandfather who was a lineman and who worked on almost all the hydro dams in Quebec. He worked hard, in cold weather and sometimes difficult conditions, deep in the woods.

These people built Quebec, and I am very proud of them. We need to talk about them and stand behind them.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑241. Business people taking the jet or driving a Mercedes or a Cadillac should not be the only ones entitled to deduct their travel expenses. I think that ordinary workers who commute far from home for work, who work hard and earn their paycheque, should also be eligible for and entitled to deductions.

We stand behind our workers, and I thank the member for Essex again for his bill.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C‑241.

As my hon. colleagues know, this bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespeople to deduct travel expenses if their job site is far from their place of residence.

Our government is already well aware that the health of the Canadian economy depends on the ability of rapidly growing sectors and businesses to attract the workers they need to grow and succeed. That is why we have already created a new labour mobility deduction in budget 2022. Canadians will be able to file their income tax returns for 2022 starting next week.

As of next week, when they do file their tax returns, Canadians will be eligible, for the first time, for a new deduction of up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses through our labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople.

Our government shares the very same goal as the member for Essex. The labour mobility deduction that is now in place by this government is carefully and effectively targeted at achieving its objective. It provides greater clarity than Bill C-241 on the definition of core concepts as well. For example, Bill C-241 does not define “travelling expenses” or “construction activity”. It also uses the term “tax credit”. I have looked, but I have not seen that as a defined term in our tax laws.

The bill would also introduce fairness issues between tradespersons and indentured apprentices and other employees. That is because it would provide the former with tax recognition for long-distance commuting, while considering it a non-deductible, personal expense for the latter group of people.

The bill also requires no minimum period for relocation, places no limit on the number of trips or the amount of expenses that could be deducted in a year, and makes no allowance for trips that might span multiple tax years. Unlike Bill C-241, the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople that our government put in place includes safeguards that contain its scope and cost and ensure that it provides fair and targeted support where it is needed most.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated the incremental cost of Bill C-241, taking into account the fact that an existing deduction is already in place for the same purpose. The PBO's analysis reflects the fact that if Bill C-241 is passed, taxpayers will have to choose between the two options. This would result in substantially similar deductions being available to taxpayers for the same purpose and, in turn, would likely result in administrative challenges for the Canada Revenue Agency and confusion for tax filers, particularly given that the 2022 tax filing season will begin soon, as I mentioned at the outset.

Bill C-241 has no cap and a slightly different threshold for distance, and the PBO estimated only a small incremental increase in support as a result of this new measure, but this would actually come at a prohibitive expense in terms of introducing ambiguity and confusion for tax filers and administrators.

At the same time, by delivering targeted and effective support to help offset labour mobility expenses, our labour mobility tax credit is building on other important measures. Let me take everyone through them very quickly.

The moving expenses deduction, for example, recognizes costs incurred by workers who permanently move their ordinary place of residence at least 40 kilometres closer to their place of business or employment. There is also the special and remote work sites tax exemption, which allows employers to provide board and lodging benefits to employees on a tax-free basis at these work sites. There is also the Canada employment credit, which recognizes work-related expenses in a general way. For the 2022 tax year, this employment credit provides a tax credit on employment income of up to $1,300.

In budget 2021, we also took targeted measures to support apprentices by allowing them to acquire work experience and to make sure that employers can choose from a pool of skilled workers.

In the same budget, we allocated $470 million over three years, starting in 2021-22, to Employment and Social Development Canada to establish a new apprenticeship service.

This service helps 55,000 first-year apprentices in the red seal construction and manufacturing trades access opportunities for small and medium-size businesses. Employers can receive up to $5,000 for first-year apprenticeship opportunities to pay initial costs, including wages and training costs.

Moreover, to promote diversity in construction and manufacturing trades, this incentive is doubled to $10,000 for employers who hire under-represented individuals, including women, racialized Canadians and persons living with disabilities.

To prepare skilled workers to enter the job market, the Government of Canada spends approximately $90 million a year to provide 60,000 grants to support apprentices.

In conclusion, the labour mobility tax deduction achieves the objectives of Bill C-241 without its risks or shortcomings, and there is really no need to take my word for it. One need only listen to Canada's Building Trades Unions, CBTU, which stated, “Budget 2022 included a historic win for Canada's skilled trades workers with the inclusion of the Labour Mobility Tax Deduction for Tradespeople.” It also said, “Canada's Building Trades Unions is proud of securing tax fairness for skilled trades workers through the Labour Mobility Tax Deduction for Tradespeople (LMD).”

With that goal achieved, Bill C-241 is not only problematic but also redundant. I would therefore encourage the House to withhold its support for this bill in favour of allowing the labour mobility tax deduction to support Canadian tradespeople and apprentices as they begin to file their taxes in the coming weeks.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, every day when I step into the House, it is like stepping onto the ice in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup series. I just want to thank the folks of Essex. I want to, once again, thank Tomi Hulkkonnen from the Carpenters Union and Karl Lovett from IBEW for helping me script the bill and for giving me guidance and understanding of what it really means in support for our skilled trades folks.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who seconded this bill and who will be speaking to it later on.

Before I dive into the bill, my dearest condolences to the Gaffan family back in Kingsville. Jim Gaffan was the mayor of Kingsville for a long time. He passed away just a couple of weeks ago. He was a staple in the community as a local barber. If people needed to know something, they would go to Gaffan's Barber Shop. Mr. Gaffan was a man whom I very much looked up to. He was a man of the people, and I hope to at least bring some of his happiness forward. Again, my condolences to his family.

Bill C-241 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. As I have said before, I like to call it the “fair travelling tradespersons bill”. It went to committee. I understand we did not break a record, but I believe it to be true that we were very close to breaking one. Today, I get 15 minutes to speak, but in committee it passed in 17 minutes. Therefore, if I draw this out for two more minutes, somehow we probably would have broken a record.

The reason is that there were no amendments to the bill. This is such a simple bill. The only frustrating thing about this is that because it is so simple, because it is the right thing to do and because it has the support of the majority of the House, I am talking 15 more minutes, 15 more minutes that we are not looking out for our skilled tradespersons.

I was caught at the Billy Bishop Airport for an extended four hours on Thursday night on the way home. I ran into a young man named Colin. He lives in the Windsor area and travels to southern Alberta for work because he can make a lot more money in the skilled trades to feed his family back in Windsor. I asked him how long he had been gone for. He said it had been 30 days and he was excited to get home to see his young daughter. I said, “Wow, you had to work for 30 days.” He said, no, that he worked for 10 days, then he was off for two, then he worked for 10 days and was off again for two days.

I realized it is a long way to travel, but I asked him if he was able to get home to see his daughter. He would have loved to have gotten home to see his daughter, but he could not afford the cost of the flights. When he would go home after 30 days, the money for that flight was money that would pay for her diapers, her pablum, her medicines like Tylenol. He said that Facetime was as good as I got.

If that real story does not tear at the heartstrings of each and every member of the House and to understand why Bill C-241 would be so impactful for our skilled tradespersons who travel across the country to build our infrastructure, quite frankly, I do not know what would.

If that story does not get the House, maybe this one will. I was again at Billy Bishop Airport around October or November of last year. I ran into a gentleman named Andrew. He works in the mines in Timmins. He asked me for a picture with him. I do not know why. My wife does not even want pictures with me. I had a good conversation with this gentleman. He does not have a family but he has a girlfriend. He actually Facetimed his girlfriend while I was there and introduced me as her member of Parliament. I did not think too much about it. Shame on me

When I arrived at Billy Bishop Airport to fly back to the House for the first week, a young woman came up to me and said my name. I asked her how she was. She wanted to thank me for my private member's bill, which she hoped would go through. She then asked me if I knew who she was. I told her she looked familiar but I was not too sure. That is when she told me she was Andrew's girlfriend and that she was on her way to Timmins. I remembered that I had taken a picture with him. I asked her if Andrew could not get home and she said that it would cost him too much so she decided to go see him.

These are the real stories of the ones who we expect to build our roads and energy system, to turn our economy and get that engine moving again to make our country green. They are the very ones who sacrifice so much, but we forget about their loved ones. If we want to really incentivize our skilled trades, it is as simple as giving them the opportunity to be back with their loved ones.

We continue to talk about the lack of homes or the shortage of them across our country. We know that the cost of a house is out of this world, but that is purely because we do not have enough. I am quite sure that all 338 members of the House have heard this time and again from their business owners, that if we gave them more people, they would put out twice as much product. Quite frankly, they do not have the people.

We are far past the stigma of being in the skilled trades. We now understand that it is not only okay to be a plumber, a boiler maker, an ironworker or an electrical worker but it is a fantastic living that brings home a lot of money for families and puts tons of food on the tables of Canadian families. Now that we are past that the next question is how we get those people to the jobs. How do we give the support to those folks to get them to those jobs?

Right before Christmas, I travelled to Nova Scotia. I met with people from CANS, the Construction Association of Nova Scotia. They said to me that to build roads and hospitals, all these projects, they needed people. They said that for the first time Nova Scotia was was not exporting its folks; it needed to import skilled trades. I hear this across the country. They said that my private member's bill, Bill C-241, which is not mine but the people's bill, would get people to the right place at the right time.

I think about Windsor. I think about the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the amazing workforce that is building that bridge. At the same time, a $5-billion battery plant is being built in Windsor. As such, when I met with representatives of the IBEW in Windsor, they said that they would need thousands of people in Windsor to build this plant, let alone the bridge.

The point is that this is as simple as doing what each and every one of us talks about all the time: building our economy, building our infrastructure and being fair.

Recently, I met with representatives from WEST, which I had never heard of before. It does some pretty unique and amazing work based in Windsor. It trains mostly young women, a lot of them immigrants, on skilled trades. By the way, it is the only organization of its kind in Canada. I asked where they go once they are trained, and they said that they try to find them a job locally. I said it cannot be hard to find them a job locally. They said it is certainly not hard to find them a job locally, but many of them have roots and family in other parts of Canada that they want to go to, so if the job is here, they cannot be with their family. Kudos to WEST for doing what it is doing and recognizing the potential of our immigrants, specifically women.

I really want to stay bipartisan here, because I believe that through working together in the House we can do something really special and unique. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party at committee for supporting this bill going forward.

I realize that there has been a tax deduction for mobility expenses by the Liberal Party for $4,000. I have heard that time and time again, and it is a great start. However, as I mentioned before, a businessperson can jump on a plane in Windsor and fly back and forth to Calgary, Vancouver or St. John's, Newfoundland as many times as they want and write off those expenses, such as hotels, meals and travel. To suggest that a skilled tradesperson can write off only $4,000 of travel expenses for maybe a couple of months' worth of work is putting a price on the heads of those in our skilled trades that is totally unacceptable and certainly does not go far enough.

In closing, this is a common-sense bill for the hard-working, common people. It has been a year-long journey, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and I now realize the number of people whose lives and families would be impacted by this bill. It is so far-reaching and so unique. Other parties have introduced very similar legislation in the past, and now is the time to finally get it done. Let us bring it home. Let us expedite this process so that we can get the proper folks at the proper place fairly.

I will end this speech the way I ended my last one, because I truly believe it in my heart of hearts: If it is good enough for members of Parliament to write off their travel expenses, their apartments and their meals, then it better darn well be good enough for our skilled trades folks.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, what a great way to start a Monday morning. The House has just allowed me to speak to something that is very near and dear to my heart. I spent a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears on this. It has been a journey. I think it was back in March when I first spoke to Bill C-241, my private member's bill.

I want to thank the folks of Essex who have allowed me the opportunity to stand in the House and represent them—

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for that very thoughtful answer.

I have about one minute left, so I'm going to dive into the last question I have for you.

We all agree there's a severe labour shortage across Canada from coast to coast to coast. It's specifically in our skilled trades. I think about the Gordie Howe bridge and the remarkable folks, both men and women, who are working so diligently to finish the busiest international border crossing in North America. When that is done in 2025, Minister, those folks are going to need a home.

My private member's bill, Bill C-241, will allow these same trades folks to travel across the country, go to the new Gordie Howe bridge, wherever that may be, and write off their expenses.

Minister, what are your thoughts on that? Would the Liberals be supporting this when it comes back for third reading?

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

I would like to thank the finance committee clerks, Alexandre Roger and Carine Grand-Jean; legislative clerk, Marie-Hélène Sauvé; analysts, Joëlle Malo and Michaël Lambert-Racine; committee assistant, Lynda Gaudreault; all committee staff; interpreter services; and all members of the finance committee.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be incredibly brief.

I just want to, first and foremost, say thank you to each and every person outside of these chambers this evening, both unionized and non-unionized folks, who for well over a year have brought so many suggestions and opportunities to discuss exactly what's needed on the ground for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to not only enforce, but to enhance our skilled trades across the country.

I guess it's about as simple as this: Bill C-241 is a very simple bill. It's black and white. It will help build our country. For those who support it, I say thank you from the bottom of my heart on behalf of skilled trades.

For those that are on the fence and who think perhaps that some wording should be amended, let's pass this today. Let's get this done. Let's get it back to the House to get it voted as quickly as possible, so that we can build the proper infrastructure for Canada. That's exactly why C-241 is so important.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 71 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee is meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute it when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

To help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241, I would now like to welcome our witnesses. From the Department of Finance, we have Lindsay Gwyer, director general of the tax legislation division at the tax policy branch. With Lindsay is Mark Maxson, the director of employment and education of the personal income tax division at the tax policy branch.

I'll inform all members that the witnesses have been tested for today's meeting. The tests have been passed for their mikes and their sound systems.

We are going to move on to the bill.

(On clause 1)

Shall clause 1 carry?

I see a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Chatel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are done. Congratulations, members. I'm glad everybody is doing so well.

Members, I want to bring this to your attention: We talked about our next meeting on Monday around Bill C-241. On Wednesday we are looking at fiscal federalism. The clerk has some witnesses from you, but if you want to put forward more witnesses for the clerk to invite.... This would be for next Wednesday's meeting on fiscal federalism.

Is that correct, Mr. Clerk? Perhaps you can let the members know where we are, in terms of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie. That does conclude our questions.

We want to thank the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, and Kristina Grinshpoon. Thank you for your testimony and for the many questions that you answered here for our study.

Members, as I have your attention, the clerk has published a notice of meeting for Wednesday where we will be going over clause-by-clause consideration. If all goes well there on Wednesday, we would then move on Monday to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241.

Members, I ask that, if you do have any amendments for Bill C-241, can you get those in by Thursday at the noon hour? I think everybody's good with that.

Thank you members. Shall we adjourn?

We're adjourned.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kirsch.

In the last round of questioning, Mr. O'Rourke mentioned having a major labour shortage specifically to mariners, but we know that to be true across all sectors in all of Canada. Can you expand on or weigh in on mechanics? I realize that it's one thing to have a shortage of pilots, but those same pilots certainly can't fly the planes to do all of the important rescue if we don't have the mechanics.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-241, coming up here very shortly. It's for travel deductions for skilled trades. Is that something that would help our pilots in the north?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say I agree with just about everything that Mr. Blaikie just said. I would rather be spending this meeting actually hearing from witnesses about the fall economic statement. I absolutely agree that we always have a shortage of time in the House, so we always have to really think about how we're spending our time. I want to say a huge thanks to Mr. Blaikie for putting forward his thoughts.

This isn't me trying to stroke your ego or anything; I genuinely appreciate your comments.

I'll be making a few comments as well, and if people feel that we could take a break for a few minutes and maybe try to find some sort of resolution, I would love to do that.

I'm going to start off by agreeing that we put forward a serious fall economic statement. My colleague Yvan Baker has mentioned a number of things that are included in it, whether around the student loans or additional initiatives to help Canadians to buy their first home, or paying the Canada worker benefit more frequently. I'm also a very big supporter of the two per cent tax on shared buybacks. Our business investment in Canada is abysmal; it's about 50% of where the U.S. is at. The C.D. Howe Institute has written about this. They're literally screaming from the top of their lungs to say we have to do more to encourage business investment. Ten years of having historically low interest rates has not produced more investment and research and innovation, and it's done nothing for our wage increases across this country. The fall economic statement has proposed some good measures, and I think those deserve a hearing and a serious consideration.

Another thing that's really important for me is immigration levels. There is a section in the fall economic statement that says:

To support the processing and settlement of new permanent residents to Canada as part of the 2023-25 Immigration Levels Plan the government has committed $1.6 billion over six years and $315 million ongoing in new funding.

I'll tell you, we have a massive labour shortage. I know that we're all talking about the economy slowing down. This is happening not just in Canada but around the world. But I'll tell you, I was listening to a few economists and they were saying that 10 years ago we would have one in seven retirees, so seven workers for every one retiree. We are now at one retiree for every three workers. If we want to continue to have a healthy social welfare system in this country—with child care, health care, EI and pensions—we need to make sure we are replenishing our workforce, and having additional dollars for immigration is a key part of that strategy and an important segment of the fall economic statement.

I also agree with what Mr. Blaikie has said. While it's not something that I think we should get used to, my understanding is that last year at around this time, in 2021—and I was on the finance committee then—we actually did the same thing we're doing right now. We voted on the ways and means motion for the fall economic statement. We started with the prestudies, and that was something, because at that time the Conservatives had encouraged us and said that they wanted to hear from witnesses as soon as possible, and that's exactly what we want to do right now. There is no desire to circumvent any process, to not be transparent, to do any bait and switch, or not to follow some sort of a democratic process.

We're short on time. We are very anxious to try to get as many supports out to Canadians as soon as possible. We've just given 11 million Canadians a doubling of their GST credit. We are trying to finalize—and hopefully the Senate will do it soon—the dental care benefit as well as the housing benefit. Then hopefully the fall economic statement will pass and there will be additional supports for Canadians. We know life is tough for Canadians right now, and we know they need these additional supports. These are targeted, measured, smart supports that have been suggested in the fall economic statement, and the only way we can know whether or not these are good ideas, whether this is a good plan, is if we get to the prestudies, get some witnesses in, and have them provide some feedback on this.

There are a lot of other things I could say about some of the unfortunate comments from the Conservatives.

The Liberals, and I would say our government in general, have supported the middle class right from when we were first elected in 2015, from implementing the Canada child benefit, to lowering the taxes on the middle class to increasing the OAS and the GIS. I could go on and on, but there have been a number of measures. The Conservatives, every single time, did not support those measures. We say it in the House of Commons all the time. We say it in question period all the time. It bears repeating for those who are listening here and who don't usually listen to question period.

I think I'll end here. I think Mr. Blaikie was mentioning that there's some openness in terms of let's get going on the fall economic statement. Then there could be some consideration around moving forward on Bill C-241, as well as moving forward on hearing from our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and from the bank governor.

I'd also say to you that we have pre-budget consultations that I think we also have to make sure we are moving forward on. We do have another budget that's coming up in the spring. We have, I believe, around 700 people who have put in submissions. I know many have asked to sit before us, to stand before us or to speak before us, and I think it's important for us to try to make sure we find some time. That won't happen before Christmas. This is just to say that there are a lot of things fighting for our time.

I 100% agree with Mr. Blaikie, and anyone else around the table who agrees with this, that we should just get going and find a way forward.

Mr. Chair, that's the end of my comments for now.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the issue at hand, which is how the committee is going to conduct its business over the next several weeks.

However, I thought I might start just by sharing some observations about things that have been said around the table today. I note that one member in particular expressed concern about wasting time, and I'm wondering if people who are watching at home or who will consult the record at some point in the future will feel that we've done a good job of taking to heart any meaningful concern about wasting time. It was my frustration at the end of the last meeting that we didn't come up with a plan for what to do at this meeting, and it's an ongoing frustration that we're sitting around the table blowing off steam, which is not an illegitimate thing to do around Parliament Hill, but it has its time and its place. I'd rather be blowing off steam in the context of a productive study of something and not on a kind of open-ended conversation about what we're going to put on the agenda for subsequent meetings. It seems to me that that's not the level at which we should have intractable disputes around this table.

I'll start by signalling that and saying that I'm anxious for us to come to some kind of conclusion on what the path forward is going to be for the committee because I think we'll be doing more productive work, which will include an exploration of many of the same questions that members have been exploring here today, if we're doing it in the context of a proper study. I note that some members said that the legislation isn't out of the House. That's certainly true. They say that they don't feel ready to undertake a study. I would say, given the number of comments made about the content of the fall economic statement and the legislation that's already been tabled in the House, it seems to me that members around this table are in a pretty good position to start talking about the content of the bill. In fact, they are talking about the content of the bill. My question is this: Why can't we just do that in the context of a study of the bill? Then it would actually count towards our formal study and the conclusions that we will ultimately draw, whatever they may be, about the legislation. We could be doing that, and not only could we be doing that in the context of a formal study, but we could do that with the benefit of having people at the table other than just ourselves, whether those are Department of Finance officials or whether they're stakeholders from Canadian society who have legitimate concerns about the content of the bill. I think we'd be having a better conversation if their input was part and parcel of what we are doing here today, and it could have been if we had come to some kind of agreement sooner about how we want to proceed with the study of the bill.

I accept the frustration that certain members have about the idea of a prestudy. I don't think it's a great habit, but I'll say that, in my experience around this table in this Parliament, we have often been short on time. It has often been a complaint later by the same folks who exhibit reticence to have prestudies that we don't have enough time for fulsome study.

Just so that there aren't any misconceptions, I'm talking specifically about the Conservatives here who don't let debate collapse on certain bills. Then when it comes to committee, we engage in these kinds of long, drawn-out conversations about what we're going to study or whether we're going to study it or whatever, and then there are usually certain deadlines. I would say, particularly when it comes to government legislation around a budget or a fall economic statement, there are market-moving things in those bills that are going to have real consequences. I would say in the case of this bill that we're talking about the pandemic dividend, an increase in the corporate tax rate for financial institutions and the elimination of interest on student loans. Those are things that ought to be in place for the next tax year, and there's a limited amount of time. We're beginning a five-week clock within which that legislation has to be passed or it won't be in place for the following year. Not only will it not be in place for January 1 of the following year, it also won't be in place until well into the next year because Parliament won't sit until the last Monday in January—that's when it will start up again.

So, there is a reasonable time frame there. I think that it behooves committee members to be concerned about it, and that means certain things for the passage of the bill through committee, so it make sense for us to start studying it now.

Here's a little procedural advice for members around the table: It's impossible to amend the content of a bill at second reading, so the concern that somehow the bill could change, not only radically but even just minutely, is unfounded. I hope members will receive that as information about the parliamentary process. There are three types of amendments that you can move at second reading. You can have a hoist amendment, you can have a reasoned amendment and you can have a motion of instruction at committee. Those are the three kinds. None of them change the content of the bill, which was previewed in the ways and means motion on the Friday following the economic statement.

Members who aren't sure where the NDP stands on that will know that we voted in favour of that ways and means motion, which contained an almost identical version of the bill. You have to get approval of the ways and means motion in order to be able to table the legislation. We voted for the ways and means motion. It contained substantially the content of the legislation. Members can expect that the legislation will find its way to this committee table, one way or the other, with the support of the NDP.

To certain members, that appears to be a contradiction. I don't think so at all. It is not a contradiction to support things that you don't think go far enough, or that don't contain things that if you had your own druthers would be in there, when you think there are other good reasons to support it. There are some things we're supporting in there. New Democrats support the share buyback. We support the pandemic dividend. In fact, that was one of the items that was in the supply and confidence agreement. We felt that it was very important that financial institutions that benefited substantially from public funds during the pandemic, something that the Conservative leader loves to talk about, should be made to pay some of that money back. That's what the pandemic dividend is about.

I have been shocked, frankly, at the silence of the Conservative leader on an initiative that is meant to take that very same public money he likes to complain about out of the pockets of financial institutions and deliver it back to Canadians. It's not so that it can go to government largesse—there are real concerns about largesse when it comes to this government—but so that it can go to fund things like the GST rebate. That had all-party support, I might add, and was something for which New Democrats were fighting for a long time. It wasn't clear when Bill C-30 was initially tabled that Conservatives would support it. They finally did, and I appreciate that. That was a good thing. But we also believe you need to have money to pay for it.

I hear Conservatives talk about government getting a lot of money and government largesse. Other times they talk about the fact that the government still has a large deficit and a huge debt. Well, where do you think paying down the deficit is going to come from if it ain't going to come from revenue?

When we're talking about things like the pandemic dividend that directly target the people who got away with more money than they should have in order to bring it back into government coffers that don't have a balanced budget, that's called tackling a problem. It's not called largesse. It's not called socialism. It's not called whatever other kinds of propagandist terms people would like to use. It's good policy. It's about actually figuring out a way to solve the problem instead of trying to complain your way into government without actually proposing any real solutions.

That's why we're willing to support this legislation. It's because we think there are things in there that will actually make a difference. We recognize that this support has to be timely in order for it to make a difference to Canadians, which is why I'm willing to put aside my normal reservations about prestudies and get on with it. I'd like to hear from other people across the country about what they think about that legislation and see if there are opportunities to make it better, with enough time to actually make it better, instead of just complaining more about how we didn't have time to make it better. That's a responsibility of members of this committee in order to be able to get on with it.

With all due respect, it's not the same as private members' bills, which are important. I support a lot of the private members' business coming to this table. But it's not as though, because we're going to engage in a prestudy for a major government bill that involves one of their two basic financial documents for the year, all of a sudden Pandora's box is going to get opened up and we should be prestudying every piece of legislation that comes through the House. It's a different kind of bill with a different kind of consequence and a different kind of timetable.

That's why I'm prepared to support a prestudy at the table. I'm also prepared to do it in a way that offers Conservatives some of what they said they want around this table, including a prompt return to the study of Bill C-241 after we have concluded this business. I do think it's important that this table takes private members' business seriously and does so in the right way. I'm happy to add that to the mix if it means we can get some agreement. I think that would be a very good thing.

I also note that the Conservatives have a motion—it may not yet be formally on notice, but it has been talked about at this table—with respect to inviting the finance minister again and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I have expressed my willingness to support that. I think that's a good thing.

But this meeting is a meeting where we could have been doing some of that stuff, and I am frustrated that we're having another meeting and we're all chit-chatting about the many things we'd like to do around this table and not doing any of it.

Let's figure out how we move forward. If there's a way to include in the motion returning promptly to Bill C-241, if there is a way to have an agreement that will deal promptly with the motion that the Conservative finance critic has put forward at some point and then scheduling a time to deal with that, that's great, but let's create a package that allows us to have a plan for the next nine meetings that we have between now and Christmas so that we're actually doing work and we're getting these things done.

There is enough time for people to get enough things done that matter to them that I think we can work this out, but we're going to have to do better than we've done today, or we're going to burn another meeting on Wednesday, and all the more the shame. It will be hard to take people seriously when they're complaining about how fast things are moving and how little time they've had when we've burned up two meetings talking about how to schedule meetings. It's ridiculous.

That's where I'm at. Those are standing offers. I hope that people around the table will take me up on them and that we'll find a resolution today so that we can do real work on Wednesday, because I tell you, if I show up on Wednesday and we're doing more of this, my mood is going to continue to degenerate, and it ain't going to be fun, not for me and not for anybody else.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Another characteristic in the table here is the nature of the eligible expenses. Under the current provision, eligible temporary relocation expenses include—I think these were mentioned—transportation expenses of one round trip, meals during the round trip and temporary lodging, and under Bill C-241 it is expenses incurred for travelling to and from the job site.

Again, what would be the practical difference? Is it that under Bill C-241 you could have a job that's relatively far from home but still within commuting range and you could deduct some of those expenses?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I just want to continue on down the table here.

When we talk about the distance calculation under the two laws, there are some additional conditions for what's currently in the statute, including relocation to a temporary work location, being away from your ordinary residence for at least 36 hours and residence at a temporary lodging.

Again, I'm thinking about somebody who's working on a project in Portage la Prairie, say, who is commuting daily out of Winnipeg. They're travelling over 120 or even over 150 kilometres from their home in order to do to a job. The Roquette pea plant was a big job in the Portage la Prairie area for a while. I know a number of guys who were working on that job for a couple of years. Under Bill C-241, they would have been allowed to deduct those expenses to travel to that site, but under the current statute they would not because they would not be away from their home for 36 hours and they're not residing in temporary lodging? Is that a fair characterization of the difference between the two proposals?

[Lindsay Gwyer]

I'll start with the point on double deductions. Both deductions would, as I mentioned earlier, apply in very similar circumstances. There are restrictions on both with respect to what can be deducted and with respect to what has been deducted under other provisions of the Income Tax Act, so the same expense would not be able to be deducted under both of the deductions.

In terms of being able to go and travel abroad, as I mentioned there's no restriction in Bill C-241 as to where the workplace needs to be located. Bill C-19, the existing law, does require that the work location be in Canada. That's there to address the issue of someone going to work in another country and claiming the deduction.

Then on the last point, the existing law sets out specifically what travel expenses would be acceptable: the travel expenses relating to one round trip, so costs of a flight or of gas or of whatever means by which the commuting is done; the cost of meals incurred on that round trip; and then, potentially, temporary lodging if the person maintains their existing lodging in their ordinary place of residence.

Those are the ways those concerns are addressed through the deduction that was passed in Bill C-19.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will begin by reiterating my full confidence in the way you are managing this committee.

In the first hour of debate, our esteemed colleague Sophie Chatel raised a number of concerns about this bill. As I said earlier, our goal here, all of us together, is to improve the bill and to make sure that it fulfils its objectives. I wanted to check with you to see if you had any comments on that.

Among the points raised, our colleague said that if Bill C‑241 were to be passed, there would be a double deduction, given that Bill C‑19 has already been passed. We know this and we need to find a solution to this problem.

She also said that a worker could claim expenses for travel to the United States if they go there to work. I would like to hear your comments on this. If we wanted to limit this type of expense in the event that a person went to work abroad, how could we proceed? Again, if you don't have an answer immediately, you can provide one in writing to the committee.

Also, the Income Tax Act states that if a supervisor gives an allowance for a worker's travel, they cannot claim those travel expenses. However, what if it is not an allowance, but some other form of expense payment? Do you think this could open the door to some abuse? If so, how could the bill be improved to avoid such abuses?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses here. I appreciate it. I have just a few questions.

In my testimony, I mentioned that CBTU did a study—commissioned a financial projection—which estimates that Canada-wide implementation of a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction would save the federal government an estimated $347 million annually.

Subsequently, Bill C-222 was introduced—or perhaps it wasn't even introduced. This is Mr. Green's bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a legislative costing note on Bill C-222, which is very similar to Bill C-241, on April 5, 2022, estimating the cost of this measure. In 2022-23 it's $117 million, and its five-year cost is $522 million.

Does it not make sense to keep the money in the pockets of the skilled trades workers if the government's going to rake in $347 million and it's only going to cost them $117 million a year?

Mr. Maxson.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is Bill C-241 any different in that respect or would it likely operate in the same way?

[Mark Maxson]

This is again a place where the CRA would have to ultimately interpret the language, but one possible implication is that the language under the existing deduction is explicitly intended to say that you moved closer to the work site. You found temporary lodging that was closer to the work site than your home was. In Bill C-241, if the work site is at least 120 km away from where you live, travel to and from the work site is deductible.

It's unclear to me whether this means that, if you have lodging near the work site, you can deduct your commuting expenses back and forth from your temporary lodging to that work site. That might be 15 kilometres, because that work site is 120 km away from your home. I don't know if that's the intention or not, but that would be one possible difference. The existing deduction is only for travel between your home and the work site.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It is possible that the CRA could adopt the same regulation as is identified in Bill C-19 as a way of interpreting what's in Bill C-241.

In terms of minimum required distance, I think that one's pretty straightforward. There is a slight difference in the distance, but we're talking about a 30-kilometre difference.

Another main characteristic is the distance calculation method. In the table, it says that, under the existing law, it's calculated on the one hand between the ordinary residence and each temporary work location or, on the other hand, between each temporary lodging and each temporary work location, whereas in Bill C-241 it's calculated between the ordinary place of residence and the job site.

Are there any practical implications for those differences?

[Mark Maxson]

I guess I can give a first answer, but others may wish to jump in.

In terms of practical differences, it's challenging to lay out the concrete implications. One of the difficulties in terms of lacking some definitions is that essentially it means that the Canada Revenue Agency will be required to put forward interpretation and guidance as to what the different terms mean, and that's not something that we can do ourselves.

As an example, Bill C-19 defines “construction activities” and Bill C-241 does not, so in the case of Bill C-241, the CRA would have to put forward guidance in terms of exactly what that means. Whether it ends up being different in certain cases is hard for us to say, and that would be true of certain other undefined terms as well. That's a potential confusion for the taxpayer question—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't think there's a lot to say that hasn't already been said, but I do think that one of our tasks here is to try to appreciate the differences between what was passed in Bill C-19 and what's proposed in Bill C-241.

Thank you to our committee analysts, who prepared a pretty decent table that lays them side by side. I want to walk through that table while we have the government's own tax experts here so they can give us a sense of what these differences in the table will mean practically for folks who are filling out a tax return.

In terms of characteristics to compare between the two acts, first in the table are conditions related to the taxpayer. In the Bill C-19 version, you have to be an eligible tradesperson—earn employment income as a tradesperson or apprentice in the construction activities referred to—and then there's a regulation that defines that. In Bill C-241, you have to be employed as a qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice for construction activities at a job site.

Is there any real practical difference in those two definitions that the committee should be aware of?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Leblanc, Mr. Maxson and Ms. Gwyer, thank you for being here to answer our questions.

Mr. Leblanc, thank you for your preamble, first of all. I thank all three of you for all the information that you have subsequently provided to the committee.

The purpose of a committee's work is to improve bills, to make sure they meet their objective and to amend them as necessary to make them the best they can be in the end.

So I was a little surprised when you said at the beginning of your presentation, Mr. Leblanc, that the bill referred to several terms that were not defined. Obviously, in our role as legislators, we work with a team of legal experts. So if these terms are not already defined in the Income Tax Act, for example, it would be preferable that they be defined in the bill. If senior officials feel that there are problems with the definitions, it would be important for your team to provide the committee with the technical details in writing, such as the terms that would benefit from being defined and the definitions that could be proposed. In this way, we could propose amendments as needed to improve and clarify the bill.

I also have a message for the government party. It is important in the culture of committee work to take bills from members of the opposition parties seriously. I think it is best to assume that if the bill goes to committee, it can just as easily be sent back to the House afterwards. If the government party finds that a bill has problems in its technical aspect or its applicability, it is in committee that negotiations should take place with a view to amending and improving it. This is why work on bills is done in different stages in the House of Commons.

It would be nice if Mr. Leblanc could clarify in writing to this committee what major problems the Department of Finance sees with the technical aspects and applicability of this bill, as well as provide definitions that could be added. Then, between meetings, all parties could consult on whether or not Mr. Lewis and colleagues think it is worthwhile to adopt such clarifying amendments. That would make for a better bill and quicker passage.

Also, Mr. Leblanc and other colleagues have raised the issue of double deductions. Of course, when Mr. Lewis introduced his bill in the House, the budget implementation legislation had not yet been introduced. Obviously, work could have been done in parallel. It is a collateral effect if you end up with two competing pieces of legislation where the deductions can add up. I am sure that is not the purpose of this bill, given that it was tabled in the House before the budget implementation legislation was introduced.

In that regard, it would help us if Mr. Leblanc and his team could formulate an amendment for us that we could introduce to ensure that, if Bill C‑241 comes into force, there will be no possible double-dipping, given the measure contained in the budget implementation legislation.

I know that I have made many comments and that my statement also contained many requests, but I now have a technical question, which is not easy to answer.

I imagine that this is not the first time in the House of Commons that two similar bills have been passed in a reasonably short time that open the door to a double deduction, when that was not the intention in the first place. To your knowledge, has this ever happened in the past? If so, what solutions have been provided by the House or its committees to remedy it?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

As policy-makers we try to have every safeguard possible for the individuals we're talking about, and those are the construction workers. At the end of the day, we talk about our labour market, and we even talked a little bit about education, the lack thereof in K to 12 and the trades' being incorporated into the education system. Your answer obviously puts a flag up to ask how we can eliminate those possibilities, and there are many other cases with this bill. I think it's great that we brought this forth and we're moving in this direction, but no cap on the amount of expenses is a very interesting thing. If you travel on Prince Edward Island, the 120 kilometres pretty nearly takes you from one end of the island to the other.

Are there any additional safeguards with Bill C-19's labour mobility deduction that aren't included in Bill C-241, and could you elaborate on those? Could you give us a list of those items that you're aware of that could present challenges?

[Mark Maxson]

Maybe I can take this question.

As my colleague was indicating, there is a general rule in the tax system in Canada that limits deductions for employees to a greater extent than for self-employed workers. Part of the rationale behind that is that there is an expectation that employers are generally going to provide employees the tools necessary to do their jobs and are going to take on some of those costs on behalf of their employees in many cases. Certainly in this context, we've understood from stakeholders that these are often workers who are not employed by a specific employer, but who are rather perhaps moving from a region where they normally work with one or more employers and then taking on a job with a new employer in a different region. In that circumstance, that new employer may not necessarily be providing reimbursements of travel expenses. They may or may not, depending on what they feel they need to do in order to attract the workforce necessary.

The bill doesn't specifically place any constraints on whether employers do or do not provide that assistance, but both Bill C-241 and the deductions that are currently in law do prevent someone from receiving an allowance for travel and also claiming the deduction. The existing deduction passed through Bill C-19 also includes a restriction that there can't be any reimbursement that is, in law, different from an allowance. Bill C-241 doesn't include that language, but it would be a question of interpretation for Canada Revenue Agency to work through what would happen in that type of situation.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a very interesting discussion and an interesting bill to hear about. Coming from a small island, I know that travel for work is really important. I think it's important for all parties, as it was put in the BIA, which is extremely important. I was very glad to see that.

I want to continue on somewhat with what Mr. Lawrence said with regard to the larger corporations or the employers. Maybe I'll go to Mr. Leblanc.

In your opening remarks, you spoke about the differences between Bill C-241 and the existing labour mobility deduction that was implemented through Bill C-19. One area that I'm particularly concerned about is the lack of protections that would prevent possible double-dipping by those corporations, by receiving compensation through an employer and via the tax credit. I guess my concern—in line with Mr. Lawrence's on the opposite side—in particular is that employers may choose to cut back on their compensation pre-emptively on the assumption that workers will access this benefit as well.

Am I understanding the legislation correctly? If so, could you elaborate?

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

I think there are differences between the bills, and I think you've been talking about some of them over the last hour. In what is currently law, there is a $4,000 limit, which was considered reasonable by the government, versus there being no limit proposed. We think the safeguards that are in current law will allow for a more solid measure.

The other thing I'd reiterate is that if Bill C-241 passes, you will then have two deductions in law. That will raise issues.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify the statement that it was a tax credit. That was in fact incorrect with respect to Bill C-241.

I'm sharing my time with Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.

[Lindsay Gwyer, Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Both the existing labour mobility deduction that was implemented through the Budget Implementation Act and this deduction in Bill C-241 are deductions, so they're both amounts that an employee deducts from income and not tax credits.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

I'll turn it over to one of my colleagues, but I also want to emphasize that what we have in the tax system currently is a deduction. It's not a credit, if we are reflecting back on the last hour. Just as Bill C-241 is proposing a deduction—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have just one quick question. I don't see in Bill C-241 where it says that it's a tax credit. In fact, it adds proposed paragraph (q.1) to subsection 8(1), which specifically says that the deduction is permissible as long as the claimant does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of the act.

I just want to see if you want to clarify that remark, because this is not a tax credit. This would be a tax deduction under this act.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all members of the committee for inviting us to be with you today on this very important topic.

It was really interesting to hear the debate and the discussion over the last hour. I think it underscores the importance of this policy issue, certainly, in the current labour market context and the value of the member's contribution in bringing this bill forward.

Maybe I can just start by reiterating what the current law of the land is. The current tax system has a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople.

In Budget 2022, the government proposed a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, similar in form and intent to the measure that Bill C‑241 seeks to introduce.

On June 23, 2022, Parliament passed Bill C‑19, which included amendments to the Income Tax Act to create tradespeople's mobility deductions, as proposed in Budget 2022.

Again, it's part of the current tax system. In fact, the Canada Revenue Agency is currently finalizing forms and administrative procedures, including guidance, to allow taxpayers to claim the labour mobility deduction for the 2022 tax year this coming spring. This is the time of year when the CRA is getting everything together so we can be ready for filing season.

Compared with the deduction that would be enacted by the bill you are considering today, Bill C-241, the labour mobility deduction that is already in law provides greater clarity on the definitions of some concepts and includes safeguards that contain its scope and cost. For example, Bill C-241 doesn't define travelling expenses or construction activity and uses the term “tax credit”, which is not a defined term in law. The bill also requires no minimum period of relocation, places no limit on the number of trips or the amount of expenses that could be deducted in the year and makes no allowance for trips that might span multiple tax years.

If Bill C‑241 were enacted, taxpayers would be using two substantially similar deductions that serve the same purpose. This would likely cause administrative difficulties for the Canada Revenue Agency and create confusion for tax filers, especially since the 2022 tax filing season will soon begin.

Once again, thank you. We will be happy to answer any questions that members may have on this or other elements of Bill C‑241.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel.

We want to thank you, MP Lewis, for coming to the finance committee and for bringing your bill to us, Bill C-241. Thank you for your testimony and for your answers to the many questions here today. Thank you very much.

Members, we're going to suspend now before we move into panel two.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to each committee member.

It's certainly an exciting day. We've been waiting for this for an awfully long time. Thank you for being all ears at least for the first five minutes. Let me tell you what a strange feeling it is to be on this side of the desk and not on that side of the desk.

Again, I'm extremely excited for the study of Bill C-241. I love to call it the fair travelling tradesperson's bill. What's neat and unique about this is that I don't know anyone around this table who doesn't have trades shortages, labour shortages, in their ridings. We've been hearing it for a number of years now. Quite frankly, it's only getting worse.

It brings me great pride to say that I have met with numerous trades folks, from the carpenters to the sheet metal workers, from masons, crane operators and electricians to water, plumbing and gas fitters. You name it, and I've probably met with them. I have yet to find one union and/or non-unionized group that doesn't completely endorse this private member's bill.

To really simplify it, if I'm a businessman today and I leave Windsor and fly to Calgary, I can write off my airplane flight, I can write off my hotel, and I can write off my meals. There's no cap on how many times I can fly to Calgary to get business done every year. Unfortunately, for our union and non-union skilled trades folks, the ones who are expected to travel across Canada to build our roads, to build our bridges, to ensure their electrical grid is solid and to work in our mines for our critical minerals, they can't do that today. This bill is the fairest way that we can get them to get moving.

If we look across Canada, yes, there's a major labour shortage, but we also have folks such as the incredible folks who are down at the Gordie Howe international bridge, which will be the largest and the busiest international bridge in North America when it's completed. Of those folks, 54% are not local to the area. They've come in from out of town. In 2024 or 2025, depending on when the bridge is completed, they're going to need a home. I'm quite certain that there are many projects from coast to coast to coast for which these incredibly skilled trades workers could fill those voids and could fill those gaps. It's time to give the skilled trades workers, the skilled trades force, all of the tools—pardon the pun—they need to travel across the country and build our country and our infrastructure.

I guess it's as simple as this. I don't know of anyone around this table—committee members, we as members of Parliament—who can't write off their own expenses. If it's good enough for the folks who are around this table, then certainly it's good enough for our trades folks.

With that, Mr. Chair, I only used three and a half minutes because I truthfully want to dive into the questions. It's a very simple bill. I'm looking forward to entertaining questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I will call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted on Wednesday, June 8, 2022,the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act related to the deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House Order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. As for interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, just before we move on to our witnesses, I have a quick note. We will be setting aside 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss our schedule when we come back from our constituency week.

Now we will introduce our witness. We welcome the MP for Essex, Mr. Chris Lewis. He is the sponsor and author of this piece of legislation.

The floor is yours, MP Lewis, for your opening remarks.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Johnston and Professor Tremblay, the skilled trades issue is really important, especially getting women involved in the skilled trades. Parliament just referred Bill C-241, from the member for Essex, to committee. He's my neighbour. The bill is for a tax credit for skilled tradespeople who have to travel further distances. Where I'm from in Windsor, Ontario, oftentimes our skilled tradespeople have gone to Alberta or other places, and it's added a bit of a cushion in terms of expenses, etc.

I wonder what your opinion is on this bill, because it will go to a committee. I'd like to see it passed. It's another bit of a bump for those who have to deal with travel costs, especially for young women involved. There are extra costs that they have in such a profession, and they're often still the primary care person for their children.

Ms. Johnston and Professor Tremblay, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Income Tax Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Chris Lewis]

Thank you, Mr. Strickland.

In our final 35 seconds, could you quickly talk about temporary foreign workers and the impact Bill C-241 might have on helping them, perhaps?

[Chris Lewis]

Excellent. Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, back to Mr. Strickland. You had touched upon cross-border mobility. Ironically, in my riding of Essex, we have a new battery plant coming. We have the Gordie Howe bridge, which will be.... Well, the Ambassador Bridge is already the busiest international border crossing in North America, with huge amounts of trade, but I know they're having a tough time getting skilled trades workers there to complete these projects.

Could you touch upon how Bill C-241 may enhance getting more skilled trades to our area to build this infrastructure that's so desperately needed?

[Chris Lewis]

Thank you very much.

To build off of your testimony, you had mentioned about three million workers in North America who are represented. I do believe it to be true that another 350,000 skilled trades workers will be needed by 2025 in Ontario alone.

In and through Bill C-241, I'm a really big believer that if we're going to build Canada back—if we're going to build our bridges, sewers, electrical systems and the homes that we all agree we desperately need—we have to get skilled trades and get skilled trades moving.

In and through the introduction of Bill C-19, there was an introduction from the government. It's a great start, but it has a cap of $4,000. That $4,000 could equate to a month and a half or two months of travel. Under C-241, my private member's bill, there's no cap because if we are going to have our skilled trades moving to various areas across the country, I believe that they should not have any restrictions. As a business person myself, there are no restrictions as to how many times I can get on an airplane, stay in a hotel or have a meal out of town.

I'm curious, sir. Could you expand on how exactly you think this would perhaps be more beneficial to the legislation than Bill C-19?

[Chris Lewis, Essex, CPC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here at the finance committee for the first time. I'm excited to be here.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony. I think it was fantastic.

Mr. Chair, through you, all of my questions will be for Mr. Strickland this morning.

Mr. Strickland, I would start off with a quick comment. Thank you for the work you do through Canada's Building Trades Unions. As you're very well aware, I've been working incredibly closely with a lot of the various unions, like the carpenters' unions, the construction labourers' unions, the IBEW and LiUNA. I believe you're aware, sir, of my private member's bill, Bill C-241.

Are you aware of that bill, sir?

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. Before starting my intervention on Bill C-8, I will say that we have heard in the House that a couple of Canadian hockey icons have passed away. Ironically, when I was writing my speech, I got a text message saying that coach Greg Lanigan, who was from my riding and who was absolutely instrumental in my hockey career and building me to whom I am today, passed away on Monday. Coach Greg Lanigan will be in heavens' hockey hall of fame, at least in my books.

I will go through about five or six points here on Bill C-8. I will go through them in order, and I am reading all of this directly off of the summary sheet from that bill.

The first point is on the northern resident deductions. It says part 1(b) would:

expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving all northern residents the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses even if the individual has not received travel assistance from their employer;

As I continued to go through Bill C-8, I did not see a deduction of travel expenses for skilled trades workers. I did not see that. I did not see a bill that could have simply been, quite frankly, infused into the budget, which is Bill C-241, my private member's bill, which would have a complete deduction of travel expenses. It makes one wonder, if we are going to give a $1,200 travel expense deduction to northern residents, which is great, would it not make sense, if indeed it is so important to pass this bill, to make sure that we recognize the skilled trades and those folks who are going to build back Canada.

The second point is on part 1(d). The bill proposes to:

introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.

At least in Essex, and I just happen to be a bona fide farmer myself, Bill C-8 does not speak to those farmers who are still going through challenging times. As an example, dairy farmers in my riding are still waiting for compensation from the CUSMA deal. Therefore, why do we delay, as we are quite often accused of doing? Bill C-8 does not even consider all the issues.

The third point is housing, which is something that has been talked about an awful lot in the debate of Bill C-8. In the summary, by the way, I do not see where it says that young adults would be able to afford a home or find a home. Nowhere in there does it say that a hard-working young man or woman can actually find a home, let alone afford a home. The bill states:

Part 2 enacts the Underused Housing Tax Act. This Act implements an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians.

That is a measly 1% tax. Here is an idea that may be a little bit crazy: Why not give support to municipalities? We could give to support to municipalities such as the municipality of Lakeshore in my riding, which has had to turn away major investments from major hotel chains because it has no stormwater capacity. Why not give major investments to the town of Essex and hamlets such as Colchester and McGregor so they could build the proper sewage systems and, all along the way, build capacity for homes? They are taking it from lagoons, and they are building plants.

Some might say it is because that falls under provincial jurisdiction. We all know there is only one taxpayer, so as opposed to pointing the finger at all of this unused property, let us give it to the municipalities. Let us give them support so they can build hundreds and hundreds of homes.

The other crazy one might just be that perhaps the government should tax itself 1% on unused property because we have a lot of federal buildings that are underused, and there are probably a bunch more now because of all the people who have not come back to work.

The fourth point is denied EI benefits. Bill C-8's summary states:

Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.

Just like many other members in this House, I can say in confidence that my office is completely inundated with phone calls about citizenship, about passports or the lack thereof, about EI claims and about tax returns. Before COVID hit, for the four months of what I guess I could call “normalcy” as a member of Parliament, but I am not sure we can, we got return phone calls to our office helping us out along the way. Now, even our offices cannot get return phone calls.

Instead of coming up with ideas for the Employment Insurance Act, and instead of spending money on proof of vaccination for federal employees, why not get them back to work? That way, our offices could actually get answers on citizenships, passports, EI claims and tax returns, and we could actually help our constituents. I got a phone call from Sarah from Canada Post, who is still off work. By the way, she is a letter carrier. She works outside, and she still cannot go back to work. This is not brain surgery. They need to get back to work.

Regarding homelessness, mental health, opioid abuse and suicide, we all know the stories. We all have them in our own backyards. I know in the town of Kingsville, homelessness is on the rise. Again, we have all these federal buildings not being used. Perhaps that would be a great start for affordable housing.

If we want to talk about support. I recently spoke to the Canadian Mental Health Association of Windsor Essex and its members told us that they are completely burnt out. In Bill C-8, which is so important, where is the funding for mental health issues and more staff?

Finally, with regard to a just transition, I spoke to a gentleman from IBEW earlier this week, and he told me that some 700 coal jobs will be eliminated very shortly in the Regina area. Where in Bill C-8 does it talk about training for these 700 folks, so they do not lose their jobs forever and they can just transition into another clean energy project?

In closing, and I think I have laid it out pretty well, Bill C-8 would spend a whole bunch of money, but it would get very little accomplished. Those who need the greatest support have, one more time, been walked past and left behind, all while the remaining Canadians are left holding the tax bill.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much.

Committee, thank you for the honour of being here today. It's my first time at the environment committee, so it's pretty cool.

My first question is to Mr. Rousseau. You mentioned a couple times.... In my capacity or portfolio as shadow minister for labour for the Conservative Party of Canada, I'm listening with very keen interest to all of your remarks. I think they're fantastic, so I thank you for your remarks.

You mentioned a few minutes ago that it doesn't seem as though the government has really come to the table. I introduced a private member's bill last Wednesday, Bill C-241, specifically for tradespersons. In your last remarks, you mentioned tradespersons and what they need. It's a deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons.

You mentioned you'll do whatever you can do to help out our trades folks. Would you be open and willing to putting a letter of support forward for this bill?

Income Tax Act

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber today to introduce my bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to allow a deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. By 2025, Canada will need an additional 350,000 tradespeople to fill this void. I look forward to working with all parties in this place to pass this important legislation and give the necessary support for our tradespersons across the country when they must travel for work.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)