Finance Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Bryan.

We'll turn to the first round of questions and to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleague from Cambridge, Mr. May.

I do not know whether you can answer me, but, based on your research, how many additional people will benefit from this tax credit?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

This is a question that has been asked a number of times. We've tried to extrapolate what we could expect from this initiative. We know that hundreds of organizations across the country offer this training. I know anecdotally that quite often those courses run at half capacity. The capacity for us to accommodate the growth is there.

As to how many people would take this up, that's a question I simply would not be able to even speculate on. This is a measured response to this issue. I hope I've been clear throughout this year that I don't expect this bill to result in millions more people rushing out to get this training; I think this is a first step.

When we did the research for this bill, we learned very quickly that there has never been a bill like it before in 150 years, according to the parliamentary library. There has never been an emphasis given to this training, so I don't know that we can answer that question, because this is all uncharted territory.

If your question is more along the lines of tax credits being an incentive, I think that they are. I think it's a modest incentive to those who are considering the training but might be on the fringe in terms of whether it's affordable for them or not.

Non-profit organizations subsidize these trainings right now; they are kept at very low cost. Trainers themselves can demand up to $1,000 to $1,500 for their services, and quite often organizations such as the Y are offering a break-even sort of proposition to provide these trainings. It's in response to recognizing that when somebody does this training, they're not doing it for themselves; they're doing it for everybody else.

I think it's laudable for the government to support that effort.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In your estimation, the government will forgo $14 million under this measure, will it not?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Yes.

First of all, I should apologize for not responding in French. My French is significantly worse than your English. I apologize for that, but I am taking lessons.

The estimate that we calculated was based on the number of people who are currently taking these courses. In other words, what would the cost have been to the government if this had been available to folks last year? The numbers are sound. As I said, we don't expect to see a lot more people taking this course.

What I would really like is for this to be a message, for it to get attention and be put into a light such that people say, “Yes, I took it when I was a kid. I haven't taken it in years. I probably should recertify.” It's a fact—and yes, it's important—that a third of Canadians have never taken it, but the fact that only 18% of the other two-thirds have a current certification is the key. That's the issue, and I think something like this could really have a huge impact on it.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In regard to that, sometimes when you set up a new incentive, you're trying to figure out whether it would encourage more people to take it. Would it also lead to companies perhaps not taking it as often?

I guess I'm wondering whether, if this non-refundable tax credit were applied, it would it be enough of an incentive to encourage people who would not otherwise think of taking it to take it. As well, would it be a disincentive for companies that currently offer it? Would they say, “We don't have to pay for this anymore; you, as the individual, take it on”?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

That's a great question.

To answer the first part, yes, I believe there's an element of the people in this country who are really making tough decisions in terms of spending, and every little bit helps. If this could move them in that direction then, yes, I think that's worthwhile.

To answer your question about whether or not employers would in fact stop offering this training, as I said, more than half of Canadians get it through work. This is a great question. We had not received that question until recently, and so we did the digging. We actually went out and talked with stakeholders. Every single person we spoke with, every single organization from medium-sized businesses and non-profit organizations to very large auto manufacturers that might be in my riding....

Companies offer this kind of training for two reasons. One is that they can do it at a much cheaper rate and, as I said, take a break-even approach to it. If you can get 20 people in a first aid course and it only costs $1,000 and the course usually costs $100 for an individual, there's a saving of $1,000. Even if you have your employees go out and take it on their own and you're paying them for it, which is the case in a lot of situations, it would actually cost the company more than if they offered it themselves.

The biggest issue, though, and the biggest reason we heard back is that a lot of organizations want to control it. The emergency training is site-specific, and it's integrated into a whole health and safety approach. We've met and talked with organizations, and they emphatically said, “No, we would not.” They encouraged me and they said, “This is great for individuals; this wouldn't impact us positively or negatively.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Go ahead, Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. May, for being here. Congratulations for bringing forward a private member's bill that doesn't designate a particular day for some heritage something or other and actually is quite progressive, in my view. In fact, it aligns with a lot of things that our Conservative government has done over the past few years that the current government has kind of decided to roll back. Good for you for bringing forward a tax credit, which is something that our party has always favoured.

I can't help but wait with enthusiasm to see what direction the PMO has given the majority members on this committee on how to vote on your bill, because I do recall in the House that you didn't get a lot of support from your front bench. I just want you to know, before we get to our vote, that Conservative members on this side of the table are going to be supporting your bill because it aligns quite nicely with many of the things we brought forward in the past number of years, which is what we should be doing: encouraging people to do the right things with tax credits rather than tax handouts.

When you ran your numbers, it sounded to me as if you were assuming that almost the maximum number of people would take this course all at the same time or all in the same year. Is it fair to say that the numbers you're putting out there are not an annual amount but are probably for literally the lifetime of this bill? I'd be curious to know, because it's one thing to say that if everyone took this training, it could cost in the range of $14 million. Obviously not everyone is going to take the training in year 2017, so the actual cost to the federal treasury on an annual basis, I suspect, would be considerably less than what you mention. Is that fair?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

There are two points to that. One, yes, I would agree that it's going to be significantly less than what I've prepared here, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. When we calculated that amount, that took into account the number of people who took it in a calendar year, so it is annual. If you do the math, it's based on the total number of people who have it over a three-year period.

Different training programs have different expiry dates, but on average it's three years. They say you need to recertify every three years. What I've done here is given you numbers that are based on the number of people who, over the last three years, have been certified. Whether it's all in 2015 or all in 2016 or all in 2017 I don't know, but you're right that it would be significantly less than the projected numbers.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

My second question is this, and I believe I'm correct in saying this. If there were two members of a household and only one was filing income tax, the one that wasn't filing income tax would not be eligible for this credit. Is that fair?

In other words—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Yes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Have you thought about—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I'm not an accountant. It's a non-refundable tax credit.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

But it could only be applied to the person filing income tax. If you had one member of the family working, would the spouse, as an example, be able to...?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

On the question about spouses, I'm going to say yes, they would be eligible because the research we undertook was about the question of children. If a youth took this, would the tax credit be worth anything? Yes. The answer is that it would be indirect. The parent would then take that tax credit and be able to use it.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I've finished, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Liepert.

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. May, thank you for your efforts on this file. We always want to encourage good habits and actions among our fellow citizens, and the tax credit is one of the means the government can use to do that. Thank you for your work on this issue.

As you know, the government is reviewing all tax expenditures. That was announced in the last budget. The federal government is analyzing every tax expenditure and assessing the relevance of certain tax credits.

Are you aware of that situation as you propose a new tax credit today?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

When I was elected last year, one of the first things we did when we came to this House was to pull numbers out of a hat, and I pulled number 28, which is both a blessing and a curse, because you're up right away. You just have to go.

Yes, I am fully aware that the government is reviewing all the tax credits and the entirety of the tax code, but no, I would not have been aware that this review was in the works when we were drafting and tabling this bill.

As a legislator who has been elected to make a positive difference in the lives of constituents and all Canadians, I think this PMB is an excellent tool to draft, propose, and enact to better lives.

I believe the department should pay attention to ideas like Bill C-240 as a way to improve the tax code during this review. This is going to be an interesting process. How this will work out, I don't know. Quite honestly, when we tabled this bill, a lot of the folks around this table were still trying to find the washroom, but we were writing legislation. I'm very proud of what we were able to accomplish in a very short period of time.

It is what it is. Things change, and we have to roll with those punches.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

The government wants to use tax credits to encourage certain behaviours. In a spirit of fairness, every Canadian should be able to benefit from this tax credit. If it is implemented as it stands, people may think they are all entitled to it. Many would undoubtedly be surprised to see they do not qualify for it since it is non-refundable.

My question is quite simple. Why did you decide that this tax credit would be non-refundable? If it were refundable, many more Canadians would be able to claim it. The people we want to take courses are those with lower incomes, but they will not be able to claim this tax credit because it is non-refundable.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I agree 100%. However, I am here presenting a private member's bill, and the rules around private members' bills are very specific. If I were to be here...well, number one, I wouldn't be, because it would have been ruled out of order because it would have required a royal recommendation if it involved a refundable tax credit. Again, I'm trying to pass a piece of legislation while working within the rules and the scope that are available to me. I would be ecstatic if the minister chose to come to me to say, “We're going to do this and we'll give you a royal recommendation for it.” I don't see that happening, to be quite honest.

As I said, we drafted a good bill. We've drafted a bill that is within the scope. I've seen a lot of bills over this last year that have the sentiment, that have a good intention, but are drafted poorly, and they had to be voted against, whether because of jurisdiction or because they were outside the scope of a PMB. We've all seen them, right? This is drafted to pass.

When I asked my staff, I said, “Let's brainstorm about ideas.” We had four buckets: is this something that is good for Cambridge? Is it something that's good for Canada? Is it something that I can hang my hat on and it makes sense for me to be presenting? Finally, can it pass? At the time, we had checked off all those boxes.

I agree with you, but unfortunately it's outside my capacity as a private legislator.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you for being frank on the subject. I know the circumstances in which you had to work in drafting your bill.

We would be much more in favour of these kinds of measures if they were refundable. That is our overall position on the subject. They have to reward behaviours that we encourage, of course, and the majority of Canadians must be able to benefit from them. However, I acknowledge the circumstances you had to work in.

You have briefly addressed the following question. Businesses could decide to stop paying the tax credit because it would be more cost-effective to let their employees take care of it. Those employees could then claim the credit. Then these measures might benefit businesses more than employees. In my opinion, however, businesses are probably in a better position to pay for this kind of course than part-time workers earning $15 an hour.

Have you considered, in connection with this tax credit, that the cost of these courses could be transferred to taxpayers rather than be borne by businesses?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Yes, and I have a couple of clarifications.

For one thing, businesses will not qualify. They already have the capacity to write this kind of training off as a training expense, so that already exists. That's why a lot of businesses offer their own training.

However, there are a couple of things. In both Ontario and Quebec—and I'll be honest that we didn't go beyond those two in terms of research—whether it be a WSIB in Ontario or what's called CNESST in Quebec, there is legislation at the provincial level saying that if you require your employees to have first aid, you have to ensure that they have it. That's why a lot of the organizations that are faced with this legislation in their workplace do this training. They can ensure not just that it's done and that they can check off the box that all these employees have it and they have it on time, but they also know the quality of it and they know that it's certified and they know that it's site-specific.

What my bill is attempting to do is to reach that third who have never taken it, whether they be senior citizens, whether they be students, whether they be stay-at-home moms, whether they be individuals who for whatever reason work or maybe don't work, or work in an environment where this type of training is not afforded to them. That's who I'm trying to target with this bill. We have to make some ground on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Ouellette.