Finance Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2022

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

What you say is very interesting.

Are you able to make a comparison with what exists in the U.S.? Have similar measures been put in place in the United States, either at the federal level or in some of the U.S. states? Have you studied this?

If so, do these kinds of measures have the same kind of positive impact as those cited in the organization document you just mentioned?

In short, have any comparisons been made, to see what the positive impact of your bill might be?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you for the question.

I have not personally looked into it. I'm very focused on our Canadian skilled trade workers, on our Canadian skilled workforce and on getting projects done in Canada, so I have not looked into that. We could always look into it and come back to you, sir, but I have not looked into that.

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

All right. Thank you very much.

Your bill focuses on employees in the construction sector. Could it be expanded to include workers in sectors other than construction?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Absolutely. It's been an almost two and a half year journey of meeting with so many folks. I've had so many other people say, “What about me? Can you include me? By the way, what about tools?”, and they add and add and add. What I really believe in my heart to be true is that they need instant relief to get them moving, to get them working. I didn't want to throw so many things into the bill that nothing would pass. I was trying to keep this as simple as possible, so we could have consensus around the table and get them moving. Certainly, this could be added onto in the future.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. That's very interesting, again.

Of course, I don't believe that a person would travel 121 kilometres to do a job that takes 15 minutes. It's implausible, unless the hourly rate is very high. Still, it's a question that was worth asking, in my opinion, because we have to make sure that such a measure will not be abused.

As I understand it, a person who travels at least 120 kilometres for work can claim a deduction for travel expenses. If the person travels twice that distance, say 240 kilometres, there will be more travel expenses for which they can claim a deduction.

In your view, would it have been appropriate to provide for greater deductions, generally, based on distance, or is it your view that 120 kilometres will be sufficient to qualify? The greater the distance to work, the greater the travel costs, so it's all there. Should this have been modulated for a distance greater than 120 kilometres?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have time for a short answer.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'll go very quickly.

To answer your question, sir, I use the 120. I live in a very rural area. Windsor-Essex is very rural. We have access to Highway 401. We can get up and down the 401 in about an hour and a half and that's 120 kilometres. As an example, Mr. Green, who came up and spoke to me afterwards, mentioned that he lives in Hamilton and going 80 kilometres takes him an hour and a half. I don't know that we need to make it any further, because if you're an hour and a half from home, that means you'd be travelling three hours a day, so you're probably going to stay out of town.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Now we are going to the NDP. MP Masse is with us via video conference.

MP Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for being here and for your bill.

We're in the same area. We're on a peninsula, but we also have 40,000 vehicles per day that cross over into Michigan, Ohio and all the way to Florida and Mexico.

I want to allow you to tell us a little about the cyclical issues we face with skilled trades workers. Often with the auto industry and others we have really good workers who are really good, trained professionals, but at times when the retooling of those plants takes place or we have a loss of industry, we want to make sure those individuals can keep their skills and talents in Canada. This bill is a really important piece of that.

I'd like you to focus on that element, because during those times we wouldn't lose workers to other countries. We would keep them in Canada if they could actually stay here, but their families and their incentives are challenged with the potential for work overseas.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Masse, thank you very much for those remarks. I appreciate them.

You know as well as I do that in our area—you're right that we're kind of on a peninsula—we have an amazing workforce, as we do across Canada, but we also see, as you mentioned, that it's cyclical. That's what's happened in the past to the auto industry, which is not just about building a car; it's about all the components that go into it. It's about building the infrastructure, such as the hydro that feeds these plants, for which we need the folks there. When that industry dries up, these folks need a place to go. They need a home. When we have people screaming in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in B.C., saying they need skilled trades, let's give these people an opportunity to get across Canada.

To your point with regard to families, it's not fun having to travel for work. I understand that. I respect that. I personally did it for a lot of years, but it's certainly not fun not getting a paycheque when you have so much to offer Canada. I think we need to celebrate our skilled trades on many fronts, and we have to give them the flexibility to get across this amazing country to build all the infrastructure we will need going forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's actually preferable to importing other trades or having certification that is uncertain. We have these workers and there's a small return for them through your bill. We have all of that capital invested in training them and going through requirements to make sure they have the proper skills. They're actually going to be qualified, versus what foreign labour, which we might actually have to import, would be. I really appreciate this bill, because it actually is a push back against taking a shortcut instead of having this be an incentive.

The fact of the matter is that the incentive goes back to the families. When you actually have a partner who's travelling or working abroad, they have extra costs. These are single-parent homes for that moment. This is what we've grown up with and been a part of in our area. I want you to highlight that, because I think that's really important. Your bill isn't about the individual trying to claim something; it's really about the family.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Masse.

I have so many testimonials here. I won't dive into them, but one that comes to mind is from a gentleman from Windsor specifically. He has worked with IBEW. He wrote me an email. He had to drive up to the Timmins area from Windsor, which is not a short drive. He basically said that, if the wear and tear on his vehicle isn't enough, what about the wear and tear on his family when he's away and the stress of knowing that he has all of these additional costs while he's away?

You're right, Mr. Masse. It always comes back down to compassion, understanding what the problems are and keeping our labour industry mobile. It's also about giving major kudos to those folks who are willing to do the travelling and make sacrifices with respect to their families, and about giving them the support they need.

I do appreciate your bringing that up, sir.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I know the kilometre element has been raised. Are you open to amendments on that?

For every piece of legislation we deal with, we always have scammers, fraudsters and so forth. I can tell you this much. The skilled tradespeople I know in my community, who work in the plants and other areas—especially during times when we've had slowdowns—are not really looking to defraud the government. I'm less worried about that.

You're open to the consideration of amendments.

Again, in my experience, these are not the people who are defrauding Canada. These scenarios that are being presented are very weak compared with the value that we would get for the families that would actually benefit from this type of change.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, sir. Yes, I'm absolutely open to amendments.

What I would really hate to see happen here is this bill getting stalled or crumpled up and thrown in the garbage over a matter of 20 kilometres, for example.

Absolutely, I want to hear from the committee. I would love to hear other ideas. If it's on a few kilometres here and there, which, at the end of the day, is not a lot of money, then it won't be stalled by me. I really want to see this go forward for our skilled trades, our country and our infrastructure.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that and the interventions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time you've given me today.

Thanks, Mr. Lewis, for presenting the bill. I know it means a lot for a lot of people in my region and across this country. Those people need to be working in Canada and not somewhere else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Masse.

Members, with this we're now moving to our second round. In this round, we're starting with the Conservatives. I have MP Chambers for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lewis, congratulations on getting your bill to this stage. It's no small feat.

We talk about supporting workers. We have a lot of federal problems on our hands. I wonder why we keep importing provincial politics every time I turn around in this place. We also have to remember that this is being lectured on by a government that introduced back-to-work legislation for Canada Post workers. They must have a short memory. I get that it's politics, so that's okay.

With respect to people potentially defrauding the government, we do have an organization called the CRA, which is supposed to enforce the tax code. They have lots of auditors, and in fact they're hiring thousands of people every year. I mean, presumably there would be a check in the system if someone was found to have expenses that seemed not to be proportionate to the income declared or there were some challenges. They would be free to be audited as would anybody else. Is that right?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you for the question. I believe you're absolutely right. I would be surprised if they weren't audited. I don't know of anybody, in any sector, whom CRA doesn't audit. I'm certainly quite convinced that they would, but perhaps I'll just take it one step further.

For many of these jobs.... For example, sir, when I met with IBEW in Windsor, they told me that it would not be uncommon on a Friday to get a phone call from a business in Hamilton or Toronto or somewhere else asking for 100 people. That's 100 people in one fell swoop.

Why do I bring that up? We're not talking about one-offs here. We're talking about 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 people at a time. I'm pretty sure that if somebody is getting away with something through CRA, the other 99 are not going to be very happy about it. I have a hard time believing there's going to be fraud to any extent, and I know that the goodness this will do, sir, the benefit of this, far exceeds any potential fraud.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Let's just talk about the existing tax preferences in the system. If a company pays for travel expenses, that company gets to deduct the travel expenses from the company's profit, against the company's net income. Is that right? That's the current system.

What you're seeking to do, or at least what the bill seeks do, is to provide exactly the same tax preference to a different taxpayer, the same benefit that a large corporation or a large company that has resources also gets. Is that about right?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You're absolutely bang on, exactly. That's why I like to call it the fairness bill.

At the end of the day, the company is going to get the writeoff anyway, but there are many companies that actually don't pay for these deductions. They don't pay for these mobility deductions, these travel expenses, so they are paid for out of pocket. That's why we have so many workers sitting at home saying, “It's just too expensive to jump on a jet and go to work. I would just rather stay at home and collect a paycheque from the government.”

To your point, that's it absolutely, sir.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I also appreciate that you're open to amendments. I think that's important to help private member's legislation get through the House.

You've also received legal advice that this bill is different from what the government has also proposed. Is that correct?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's correct, yes.

This bill, in the past, has actually gotten very close to being introduced. I believe in the past it was 80 kilometres, but this has gotten clearance through the Clerk's desk and through the Speaker's office that it is different enough that it could go forward.

I'm happy that, at least in discussions, we're getting very close here. It's been a number of years since this has gotten this far, as far as I understand, so I'm excited for the opportunity to see it through to the finish line.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much. Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Chambers.

Now we go to the Liberals and MP Baker for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.