Evidence of meeting #73 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was measure.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Suzie Cadieux
Pierre LeBlanc  Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Trevor McGowan  Senior Legislative Chief, Legislative Review, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jenna Robbins  Chief, Employment and Education Section, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

We will go to three minutes for Mr. Deltell and Mr. Grewal, and then we'll go to clause-by-clause after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Deltell.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam, gentlemen, it is very pleasant to speak with you.

I would like to go back to the comments of my colleague from Sherbrooke.

A major sticking point always arises in discussions of tax credits. Based on the amount of the credit, the income, and the tax rate, it may be less beneficial to have that credit if it results in a change in tax bracket.

My question is somewhat delicate, but I ask you to consider it. Would it be appropriate to amend the bill to limit potential revenue and thus to prevent people with more modest incomes from reaching that sticking point? In short, these questions of limits and taxable income should not prevent us from achieving the objective of this tax credit.

5:05 p.m.

Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Pierre LeBlanc

That is a good question. Consequently, a decision will have to be made on it.

Certain targeted measures are designed to encourage an activity among certain groups. Sometimes these involve people with low or modest incomes. Ultimately, those people must decide. In a way, the criteria complicate the measures slightly, but not that much. A tax credit is likely to encourage some people more than others. As Ms. Robbins said, several factors must be considered when someone decides whether to take a course. Perhaps the financial aspect is more important for people with low incomes. In those circumstances, compromises must be made.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

In other words, this could be analyzed in order to provide the best possible support for those we want to help, rather than maintain the situation as it currently stands. The sticking point may not arise over the most advantageous solution. Is that correct?

5:05 p.m.

Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Pierre LeBlanc

Yes, I think we could do that. We discussed it. It is not easy to make predictions, to determine exactly how people will react to such a measure. It would be even harder to predict how people would respond to it based on their income levels.

That is a good question.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you both.

Mr. Grewal, you have the last question here....

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

I just have a question in regard to your calculation of costs. Can you please explain something?

I understand there's a $17-million projection, on an annual basis, in terms of costs. Earlier Mr. May suggested that if, let's say, you take last year's participants in a course such as this, more than 50% is actually paid for by businesses or employers. Did you factor that into this $17 million? If you didn't, did you do that because of the earlier concerns about the policy in that even if an employer pays, there actually isn't a restriction in the way the legislation would be worded to say you can't claim it even if someone else pays for it?

5:05 p.m.

Chief, Employment and Education Section, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jenna Robbins

Yes, certainly.

First of all, we started with similar assumptions or the same assumptions as the honourable member did, and it is based on 1.8 million adult Canadians in a year taking training. That doesn't consider that maybe some of them have their training paid for by an employer. That's consistent with the way the bill is drafted. Certainly if there was tightening of the bill to limit the credit to cases where there was an out-of-pocket expense that was not reimbursed, that would reduce the cost.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

Then even if it reduced the cost, let's say even by half—just to make sure I understand, because some people are saying it's a $15 credit, and I've heard a $17 credit—it's only a credit for those who owe taxes. In terms of the inequality that my colleague mentioned earlier, it's only those who actually owe money who would receive either $15 or $17?

5:10 p.m.

Chief, Employment and Education Section, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jenna Robbins

Yes, that's right.

Our cost assessment takes into account that it would only be those who are taxable who would claim the credit. That works out to about 65% of the general population. We've applied that to this cost estimate.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

Thank you to the officials from the Department of Finance for appearing and answering questions on Mr. May's Bill C-240.

With that, we will turn to clause-by-clause consideration. I would just say to the committee that we have clause by clause and we have two motions by Mr. Albas, and then drafting instructions in camera for the analysts.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to put forward a motion. May I go ahead and read it?

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We're into clause-by-clause study. Is it related to the bill?

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Yes, it is. It's related to Bill C-240.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Do you want to distribute it before reading it? Do you have copies?

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

I have a couple of extra copies.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, read the motion.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

It reads:

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 26, 2016, the Committee has considered Bill C-240, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit — first aid). Whereas the Committee is generally supportive of the intent of Bill C-240 and feels that efforts to encourage individuals to complete first aid courses should be commended there are questions that arise about which Canadians would receive the benefit of the measures, as the tax credit is non-refundable and this can only be claimed if you have income; the cost to federal, provincial and territorial governments to administer the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act; the extent to which federal, provincial and territorial tax revenues would be affected by the proposed measure; the extent to which this type of measure should be designed only following extensive consultation with tax experts, first aid providers as well as federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments; whether these measures would realize the proposed aim of increasing first aid training participation when 67% of Canadians have already taken a first aid course (Red Cross, Ipsos Reid, 2012); the fact that existing policies mandate knowledge of first aid in the workforce, and all provinces and territories have legislated workplace requirements for employee training in first aid; Therefore, in light of the above noted details of the proposal in Bill C-240, be it resolved that this Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-240, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit—first aid).

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

All right, the motion is in order. It's up for debate. The debate should really be on the “be it resolved” section and not the details in the other sections, if I can put it that way. I think we could quibble over some of those, but the debate would be on the

be it resolved that this Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-240, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit—first aid).

Who's on?

Go ahead, Mr. Liepert.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Well, I'm not surprised, but I must say I'm extremely disappointed that this motion comes forward at this time.

First, we all know that this bill was referred to this committee some four months ago now, or pretty close to it, and on several occasions members of the opposition attempted to get the bill before the committee so that we could study it and not leave this particular member hanging out there. I will put on record that we in the official opposition wanted this particular bill before the committee many weeks ago, and to bring it forward was continually refused.

I don't understand where the resistance comes from, other than that this is a top-down direction to members of this committee from the government side, who are not prepared as a government to allow members to speak freely, to do things freely. The idea is that if it doesn't come from the Prime Minister's Office, then it obviously is not good enough to be supported by this government.

I am extremely disappointed, then, that the government members on this committee left their own colleague hanging out there for four months, knowing full well that they were going to move this motion whenever it came forward.

If I were a member of a caucus that treated me like that, I would probably be pretty damned upset—

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Ron, I don't want to interrupt, but I think the debate should be on the merits of the motion rather than accusations of what may or may not happen in the various caucuses. I'm going to restrain committee members from getting into the politics of each caucus.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Let me get back to the motion, then.

I would like to ask the member proposing this motion why members of that side of the committee decided to hold this off until now, when they knew this was going to happen all along. Why did they delay for four months in bringing this motion forward, when this could have happened a long time ago? Quite frankly, they wasted our time at this committee, knowing full well that this motion was going to come forward.

I'd like an answer from the proposer of this motion.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Dusseault, you're next on the list, and then it's Ms. O'Connell.