Canadian Heritage Committee on March 21st, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I think there's a consensus that we'll invite the additional witnesses.

I guess the last one is that there were tax experts who were proposed by the Library of Parliament. Is that the same scenario?

[The Clerk]

The motion that was adopted by the committee referenced tax experts. There were no names of tax experts provided to me, or none designated as such. The chair requested that the Library of Parliament prepare a list of tax experts for the committee's perusal, to decide if there is anybody on that list they wish to invite.

It's at the discretion of the committee whether we continue with the list of witnesses who have been proposed or whether we include some of the ones from the list who were proposed by the Library of Parliament analysts. I would encourage you, if you do have any questions about the witnesses, to speak to the analyst who prepared it.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Are there any comments from the analyst?

[Gabrielle de Billy Brown, Committee Researcher]

I believe the document is clear enough. One thing I would like to point out, and it's in the document as well, is that CARFAC and Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels held a meeting last week on taxes for artists, but it was more about how to do your taxes. They had specific guests from CRA and Revenu Québec. We can invite the same people. It's not clear whether or not they would be able to speak to the Status of the Artist Act precisely, but they might have other experts they can suggest at CRA and Revenu Québec.

It's for you to decide whether or not you want to invite them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

Are there any comments from the committee?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a quick question.

From your perspective, what would be the benefit of listening to them?

[Gabrielle de Billy Brown]

In this case, this was prepared at the request of the chair because the motion mentions tax experts.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Right.

[Gabrielle de Billy Brown]

I think that Mr. Champoux will be able to speak to his motion.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I do indeed find the proposal interesting. However, we would have to make sure that these people are experts and that they are used to working with artists.

I know that there are specialists in the field, and the library's analysts could recommend some to us. Experts could also be recommended to us by artists' associations, which are very well versed in this area. This could help us with certain files and provide interesting insights, as well as enriching the report a little more for the benefit of our analysts.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Our esteemed clerk would like some direction as to whom we should invite.

Go ahead, Monsieur Champoux, and then Mr. Bittle.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The question was indeed whether the witnesses proposed by the library are subject-matter experts, particularly in the area of self-employed cultural workers.

I'm quite comfortable with the proposals if we make sure that the witnesses are very competent, very well versed in this subject. They could answer direct and specific questions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I guess the horse has been let out of the barn in terms of being specifically focused on the Status of the Artist Act, as we've gone well beyond that with all of our witnesses, as was pointed out by Mr. Uppal. But we're really getting beyond things if we're inviting tax experts back to discuss a study on a piece of legislation that doesn't deal with the tax code.

I don't know; if the committee wants them, we won't put up a fight. It's about whether it's beneficial to the study, I guess.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The study on the Status of the Artist Act is indeed somewhat broader than the act itself. Perhaps it wasn't clear in the request. Some of what we are studying touches on artists' situations and their tax status, since their reality is different from that of other self-employed workers in more traditional sectors.

At the outset, the requested study could have gone beyond simply reviewing the Status of the Artist Act. I admit that, in this sense, it is a bit beyond the scope.

As we saw earlier, by the way, the concerns of groups we heard from often focused on eligibility for employment insurance and the issue of more lucrative and profitable years that pay better than others.

So these experts can bring some interesting insights. Even though their participation goes a little bit outside the original parameters, I think it's still relevant.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Louis, go ahead.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It is only now that I understand the list that was sent out. Today's testimony has helped me understand what this list represents. Do we have to make a decision now? I want to give people as much time as possible to get witnesses, but do we have to make this decision now? The study itself seems to be moving a little bit away from the motion. Now that I understand where we're going, it would be a little easier for me to research these associations.

When are you suggesting that we make these decisions?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I will confirm with the clerk.

Go ahead, please.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Louis, of course it's the will of the committee, but the way I'm seeing the next two meetings unfold, they would be on March 30 and April 4.

The decision does not have to be made today. It could be made at a later date. The less time we give witnesses, the less ideal it is to get them before the committee, but there is still a significant amount of time between March 30 and April 4. If the committee could come to a decision by the next meeting or shortly thereafter, depending on whether you would like to see the individuals on the 4th or on the 30th, that would be very helpful to me. Just make that known whenever it's convenient to you.

I would need some direction as to whether or not you would like everyone on the list, or a couple of organizations on the list, in addition to other witnesses already on the witness list. However you would like that done, I'm happy to oblige as soon as I know what your will is.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Uppal, go ahead.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

In discussion with tax experts.... We have a couple of proposals that came from the witnesses on the type of tax proposals that can be put forward. I'm assuming tax experts could give advice on what might be best for artists. I think there may be some value there.

I would be very interested to know if we have witnesses who can then say how much it's going to cost the government. I understand that tax proposals might be best for the artists, but then, ultimately, how much would that cost? That won't be the tax experts; that will be someone else with different expertise. I think we need to see both sides of that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

To provide our clerk with some direction, what is the will of the committee?

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Let's delay. We'll come back Wednesday, give her directions from there, and then we'll move on.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Is that the will of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.