THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 28, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome all senators, as well as the viewers across Canada, our country, who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, and I am a senator from New Brunswick. I chair the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Forest: Good morning. My name is Éric Forest, and I represent the senatorial division of the Gulf, in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. My name is Clément Gignac, and I am a senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: I am Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: I am Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today, we resume our study of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons), which was referred to this committee on June 8, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
We are pleased to have with us today the bill’s sponsor, Chris Lewis.
[English]
Mr. Lewis is the MP for Essex. Welcome, Mr. Lewis, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for questions by the senators. We’ll start with your opening remarks, and then we will move on to questions from the senators.
Chris Lewis, MP Essex, sponsor of the bill, as an individual: Thank you so much, chair and committee members. I truly appreciate this much more than you know. When I was originally told that I wouldn’t have an opportunity to come in front of the Senate, it kind of broke my heart. I’m a very open and honest person.
I lost my mother a couple of weeks ago, and one of the last things my mother said to me, as I was at her bedside, with an esophagus full of cancer, in the sweetest, softest voice was, “Honey, how’s your private member’s bill going?” I didn’t have the heart to tell her I wasn’t coming to the committee. Each and every one of you don’t realize how much this means to me this morning.
When it went to the House Finance Committee, we got it through committee in 17 minutes. Maybe we could do it in 16 today; that would be even better. Of course, I’m teasing. I know there are a lot of questions.
Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons). Basically, it’s a no capped limit on how much skilled trades can work. Their travel expenses — their planes, their kilometres over 150 kilometres away from their home, their meals and their lodging — are a deduction to travel expenses, but it doesn’t put a cap on such. I have been from coast to coast to coast, literally from St. John’s out to Vancouver and up to the North, meeting with both unionized and non-unionized skilled trades, and I have yet to find one that doesn’t completely support this bill.
Senators, we all know there is a major housing crisis in Canada. The government is doing a lot of work and putting a lot of investment into the housing situation right now. You can throw all the money at the problem in the world, but if you don’t have the people to build the homes, quite frankly, the job’s not going to get done. This bill is really designed to help out and supplement the housing crisis, but also for the electric vehicle battery plants with upwards of $50 billion to get people active to get people to move from location to location.
I think about the place at the Gordie Howe International Bridge in the Windsor area. By 2025, there will be some 6,500 folks who will need another home. We have to get them active and give them a reason to want to go to work to build the next Gordie Howe Bridge, wherever that may be.
I am very much aware of the government’s labour mobility deduction and the cap of $4,000, and I’ve had extensive conversations with various union halls about this. The truth of the matter is that you can burn up $4,000 in just a couple of months. I believe we should not put a cap or a limit on our skilled trades. As a former businessperson, I could jump on a plane in Windsor and fly to Calgary as many times a year as I needed to in order to get my business done, and I think if it’s good enough for business folks, it should be good enough for our skilled trades.
I’ll keep my comments brief because I really do want to hear your questions and I want to figure out a way to get to a solution on this, but I will suggest, most respectfully, senators, that anything shy of an unlimited amount for our skilled trades is, quite frankly, not doing the work that this bill intends and needs to do.
With that, again, I just want to say thank you to each and every one of you, very much, for allowing me at least the opportunity to be a witness here this morning. Thank you for all the service that you do.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Honourable senators, we will now move to questions, and I will first recognize Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here, Mr. Lewis. I have a couple of questions, mostly background information. First of all, with regard to the cap that exists now, the $4,000 — your bill doesn’t have a cap. You did mention it in your introductory remarks. My questions are as follows: Why did you remove the cap? Why is there no time frame? Because the existing section requires the individual to be away for 36 hours. Why the reduction from 150 kilometres to 120 kilometres?
Those are the three precise questions that I have, but just from a general perspective, I’d like to know the general background as to how the legislation originated, who you spoke to and who is supporting the change. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I was trying to take notes there. I had a pen that went dead on me, so if I don’t answer one of your questions, please remind me.
Let’s start with the 150 to 120 kilometres. Geographically speaking, it depends on where skilled trades live. As an example, I live down in the Essex area, and we are very close to the Highway 401 corridor. It’s very simple — well, not simple — it’s generally simple to jump on the 401 corridor and get to your place of work very quickly, depending on where you live in the Essex area. Some folks live right at the 401, and they can be somewhere in an hour and a half.
My thought process on the 120 kilometres is that if you live down where I live, which is in Kingsville, you’re at least 45 minutes just to get to the 401 corridor, and then to get somewhere else —
Senator Marshall: So it’s based mostly on Ontario. I live in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have a lot of workers going to Calgary, so it is much more than the 120 kilometres.
Mr. Lewis: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Why is there no time frame, for example, that the individual has to be away for — right now, it’s for 36 hours, and you’ve had no limit?
Mr. Lewis: That’s a great question. So I’m going to pick on Ontario again, understanding that you’re from Newfoundland.
Let’s suggest for a moment that there’s a person in North Bay who is an auto mechanic, and a piece of critical mining machinery goes down in the far north of Ontario. It’s going to be over 36 hours for them just to get there, and there’s no lodging allowed for it.
Now, if they fall under the 30-hour limit in the middle of the winter, and this critical piece of equipment is down, now you’re shutting down a whole mining industry, but the person has to drive for 100 kilometres just to get to a hotel. By putting an hour allowance on this, you’re really handcuffing the folks that are in the remote areas where a lot of the skilled trades are being done. It doesn’t have to just be a mechanic. It could be a welder or a machinist, and that’s the reason.
I’m really trying to remove the barriers to allow our skilled trades to function the way that they should.
Senator Marshall: Who is supporting the bill? You must have had some discussions? You must have gone through some sort of consultation period?
Who did you consult with? Who is for the bill, and then who is not for the bill?
Mr. Lewis: That’s very fair. I should have said that in my opening remarks. Thank you.
I have the complete support of the Bloc Québécois and the complete support of the NDP. MP Sherry Romanado from the Liberals was gracious enough to support it, but I have no other support on the Liberal side.
Senator Marshall: What about the trade organizations, the unions and the associations?
Mr. Lewis: Of course. Thank you.
To really answer the question simply, Canada’s Building Trades Unions, or CBTU, who represent about 650,000 folks and 14 different unions, I have a letter here in front of me saying, “Congratulations, Mr. Lewis.” I have met with so many unionized and non-unionized skilled trades, and there’s not one that has said no.
There is very strong support from the carpenters’ union. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a very strong supporter as well.
I haven’t found one that’s not supporting it yet.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: First, I commend you on your bill.
I’ve spoken with a number of project developers and organizations about the current labour shortage, and they are increasingly willing to cover workers’ travel expenses just to make sure they have people to work.
Have you done a survey to figure out how many tradespeople there are working? I am from Gaspé, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, and we have a lot of people who work on big project sites. Their employers cover the cost of having them fly in and fly out. Have you done a survey to find out how many people this could impact?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Thank you for the question. I haven’t done a survey personally, but I will tell you the CBTU suggests that by 2025, 350,000 additional skilled trades workers will be required in Ontario alone. I do very much understand what you’re saying.
This bill is not going to cover if somebody is already subsidized for their travel expenses, but these are the folks that are, I would suggest, from a union hall. There’s no work in an area, but they don’t want to leave to go to another location within Canada because the cost out-of-pocket isn’t worth them going there.
Again, 350,000 of those, I don’t know how many. What I do know is that there are 6,500 jobs coming to an abrupt end at the Gordie Howe International Bridge in Windsor. Much will be taken up by the electrical vehicle plant, I assume, but they are going to need a home, and there are a lot of other projects across the country that need to get done.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that the addition of tax measures has made Canada’s tax system very complex. I believe your party’s caucus is pushing for the tax code to be streamlined.
How can we do what your bill is trying to achieve without layering on a second system, given the tax measures that already exist?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much for the question. I would suggest this: There is a reason that we have great bureaucrats in the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. There’s a reason that politicians are not bureaucrats in the CRA.
Other than “Submit Remittance Here,” I don’t know if there is a whole lot that is really clear within the tax code. I’m not a tax person. I’m a common sense person who wants to get skilled trades across the country.
I can only assume, and I can only wish, that they can figure out how they’re going to get a form done. I think the form that was introduced before was T777. Maybe make it a form T778.
My bill is not going to encompass this. That’s for the CRA to figure out. My job, my hope, my dreams are that the skilled trades can build Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Mr. Lewis. It’s a pleasure to have you here.
You introduced your bill on February 8, 2022. The 2022 budget just so happened to be released a month or two later, and there are similarities between your bill and the measure in the budget. The Finance Minister’s measure may have been inspired by your private member’s bill, although there are differences between the two, as Senator Marshall mentioned.
If the $4,000 limit had not been set under the 2022 budget, would you have pursued this with the House of Commons? My understanding is that the $4,000 cap is the problem. Is there something else? If the cap were lifted, would we need to support this bill? The bill seems to overlap with the measure in the April 2022 budget.
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I appreciate that.
Just for clarity — and if I’m wrong, please let me know — Bill C-241, the people’s bill, was introduced before Budget 2022. To your point, I suppose, if the cap was removed, am I hung up on 120 or 150 kilometres? No, I’m not.
What I am hung up on is the cap because I want skilled trades to be able to work — just like business owners can work — across this country. They can jump on a plane as many times as they need to in order to get business done, which ultimately pays more taxes to the government, which allows for more spending. The more the skilled trades work, the more taxes they’re going to pay, unfortunately, as well.
I don’t see a path forward, sir, with regard to removing the cap on the $4,000. I just don’t see that happening. That’s why I think it’s really important that we continue down this path with this discussion and implement Bill C-241. Then the CRA can figure out what they’re going to do with regard to reporting. Again, this bill was introduced first, and I don’t know why there’s a cap on the $4,000, sir.
Senator Gignac: That’s fair enough. Your answer is fair enough. As you know, the bar is very high to amend the Income Tax Act because that happened maybe once in two decades — that an income tax law was amended without the agreement of the finance minister. That’s the reason why we were very interested in having you as a witness, giving your testimony and trying to figure it out. It was related to my previous question.
One aspect that bothers me a lot in your bill is the fact that they have no obligation to stay at least 36 hours. You explained a particular case, which involved a remote area. But I’ll give you an example. My daughter and my daughter-in-law teach and have to travel a lot to replace other people at school. It could be 80 kilometres, and they are back at home in the evening but are not able to deduct from their income their meals or their travelling.
My question is: Shouldn’t there be equity between people working in construction and all other people because no employees are able to deduct their meal and travelling if they sleep or are back at home for the evening? So this is a precedent, and I’m curious to have your reaction regarding that.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I’ve been asked that question quite a few times.
What I try to do in this bill is to keep it as simple as possible and really focus on one location. That would probably be a great private member’s bill in the future for somebody else, maybe even me. I tried to keep it incredibly focused. That’s why it’s such a simple bill. I really wanted to focus on the construction industry, notwithstanding the fact that our teachers, nurses and doctors — many of whom are already supplemented by their travel expenses — are equally important to Canada. No doubt.
You know, my dad told me that you can have the greatest widget in the world and you won’t sell or build one without the people. This is only about people.
As opposed to making this bill convoluted so nobody can understand it, I wanted it to be very black and white and go after one sector, and that is the reason, senator, why it is written the way that it is.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Welcome, Mr. Lewis.
From a practical perspective, I understand what you’re saying about tradespeople and getting things working and built. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, highlighted in his testimony — and we’ve discussed it with other witnesses, as well as the intent — that the goals of Bill C-241 can be achieved by simply amending the existing trades deduction in the Income Tax Act, removing the $4,000 cap and reducing the distance to 120 km. This would avoid the confusion of having very similar tax deductions.
I recognize that you want to get it done and you want to apply it to building trades. But having the ability to simplify and have one law or one bill that would hopefully be acceptable to all parties, including the people doing the construction and building supply, et cetera, I’m just wondering — and I recognize why you’re doing what you’re doing because you want to get it done, but I’m worried about the fact that you have two pieces of legislation, and one is similar to the other one. What’s the benefit of having two pieces of legislation other than that it’s going to cause confusion and problems in terms of execution?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate that. The real simple answer and benefit is perhaps another 10 months of skilled trades workers working. That’s the benefit. A $4,000 cap is a long cry from an unlimited top. So if we get skilled trades folk from St. John’s, Newfoundland, two flights to Calgary to the mines, to the North, to the oil sands, they’re done.
Senator Smith: I do understand that, and I think everybody does. The question I’m asking is if we eliminate the cap and fix the mileage so there’s only — both bills have the same components. Why do you have to have two different pieces of legislation? It will achieve your objective, but it will make it a lot simpler than if people are arguing back and forth, saying, “We’ve got this one and you have that one, and we have to trade this to get that.” How can you make it simple so that it can be executed properly with a maximum benefit? I see confusion coming from having two bills side by side.
Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that, senator, very much. Although I wouldn’t expect anybody to — if you listen to my comments in the House of Commons, what I said the last time at third reading is that I don’t care who gets the credit, I just want the job done. So if there’s a path forward that we could amend the other bill that basically mirrors this bill, I don’t care if it’s called Bill C-241 or what they call the bill; what I care about is where the skilled trades go.
I don’t see that path forward right now, and that’s why it’s so important that we’re discussing it this morning. Quite frankly, I’m quite sure if this bill passes and we get Royal Assent on this bill, the CRA will come back and say, “These are too close and this bill supersedes $4,000.” Of course, people can’t double dip. It’s not my responsibility to ensure that skilled trades are not double dipping; it’s my responsibility to give them an opportunity to go to work.
In the most respectful way, senator, I don’t see an opportunity or a path forward unless somebody around this table tells me that, no, the finance minister is going to walk through the door and sit down at the table and say, “We will scratch this and amend this to make it look like our bill.” I don’t see the path forward. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s the truth.
Senator Smith: You’re talking about reasonableness, right? Does that happen in the world we live in?
Mr. Lewis: That’s all I’m trying to do, sir.
Senator Smith: One other question I had. What about the skilled trades people going into the U.S.? Is there some concern that that could be a problem and cause problems for the legislation to actually function properly?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you for that question. That did come up at the Standing Committee on Finance in the House of Commons as well, and, absolutely, this has nothing to do with skilled trades outside of Canada. This is only for Canadians.
Senator Smith: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Welcome to the Senate. Thank you so much for coming. Your presence is appreciated. I’m trying to understand what you said in your speaking remarks where you talked about affordability in the housing crisis, but in the examples that you gave, you mostly talked about mining, the oil sands and people going to Alberta for work. My first question is: Can you please give me an example on how your bill will help address the shortage of skilled tradespersons in the housing market? Are tradespersons able to give more of their time? How will it happen?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate that. Tomi Hulkkonen was here last week or the week before — the president of the carpenters’ union down in Windsor. Although his union hall right now is incredibly busy at the new electric vehicle plant, when that’s done, these folks are going to need a home. Pardon the pun, by the way. They’re going to need a place to go to work.
We have so many skilled trades in our area, and we’re continuing to teach more. They put on a great program. These folks will be able to be mobile to get to Toronto or out west and build the homes in the Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto areas that need to be built. Being a carpenter, I can say there are a lot of different levels of skilled trades in carpentry, and we’ll be able to get these people mobile to the places that need to be built.
Senator Galvez: Thank you. Let’s say your bill passes, then there is going to be — not a confusion — but, as you said, somebody has to make it clear because there is some overlap. How do you see workers deciding which they are going to file when it comes to filing their taxes, your bill or the new budget implementation 2022 modification?
Mr. Lewis: I see it as very simple. I would be surprised if any of the workers were to use the budget implementation. I think they’d only use my bill, the people’s bill, because it gives them much more flexibility and allows them to work more than a couple of months a year.
Again, it goes back to our amazing bureaucrats in the CRA. They’re going to have to figure it out. They’ve already got a form for this bill, so they can do a form for another bill. That’s up to the accountants; that’s up to the tax folks. This is to get people active and working.
Senator Galvez: In your bill, as you said, you were using simple concepts and it’s a very short bill, and there is no definition. When we talk about tradespersons, actually, there is some wording that should be there — because of the certificates, licences and registrations — to know who will be impacted by this bill and who won’t have the opportunity to use this bill. I was wondering: Who is included in “tradesperson” and why was this definition not in your bill?
You said you’re coming from Ontario. The legislation in Ontario is very specific about who belongs and who doesn’t belong to this tradesperson definition.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. So in the one that was just introduced, “Who is an eligible tradesperson?” This is the way the CRA defines a tradesperson:
For the purposes of the LMD an eligible tradesperson is a taxpayer who has income from employment as a tradesperson or apprentice —
— It is very important to note that my bill also covers apprentices —
— and that performs their duties of employment in certain construction activities. These activities include the erection, excavation, installation, alteration, modification, repair, improvement, demolition, destruction, dismantling or removal of all or any part of a building, structure, surface or sub-surface construction or any similar property.
That, as defined within the act, is already covered within this bill. It’s already there. If you are a bona fide skilled tradesperson — which, generally speaking, comes with a ticket — and/or an apprentice — because we have to get our apprentices moving as well — that is what this bill covers.
Again, in an effort not to convolute the bill and to try to make it simple so that people can understand it, that’s what we’re after with this. Thank you for the question, senator.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for being here this morning. My sincere condolences on the passing of your mom.
I’d like some additional thoughts from you on the following question: Does this legislation inadvertently foster inequality among various professions? I’m referring to other salaried employees whose travel costs are not covered by their employer. Should we not expand this bill to those employees also?
I’m saying that because there are scarce resources across the nation. Could it be viewed as something favourable? We know the housing crisis is extremely important. The intent of your bill is correct, but should we not expand it to other professions and other salaried employees for fairness?
Mr. Lewis: Senator, just for clarification, could you give me an example of which ones?
Senator Loffreda: For example, if we look at other tradespersons, you said the apprentices were included.
Mr. Lewis: Yes.
Senator Loffreda: Getting away from the housing affordability crisis, for example, a salaried employee — an auditor that has to go to his office, for example. Any other profession. There are many other professions, and I can name a few, where they have to travel a certain distance, especially in the regions across Canada, to work because there is a lack of — we can talk about the health system or teachers, for example. Teachers are needed in a certain school, they have to travel a certain distance and the distance is not covered by their employer. Are we not practising some favouritism towards tradespeople?
The housing crisis is essentially a major problem for many Canadians, but many other professions could argue that they’re just as important. Why don’t they have a similar bill or why is it not expanded to them?
Sometimes the professional will charge the expenses to his client, but I’m talking about employees who have to travel. Teachers are a good example. Nurses or doctors who have to travel to get to a certain hospital every single day because that’s where they work. In a region where there are many — I’m trying to be creative, but you get where I’m going on that.
Mr. Lewis: I do. Thank you, senator, very much for the question.
I would suggest to go back to the simplicity of it. I’m not the kind of person who wants to put a Band-Aid on a problem, but I am the kind of person who likes to see things done. The moment we introduce more information or more aspects to Bill C-241, I believe it will be caught in a whirlpool that’s going to go around and around for a long time and nothing is going to get done.
Let’s get Bill C-241 done. The government can introduce legislation to cover the other ones. I would respectfully say, senator, that for an accountant, a lawyer or a doctor, their travel expenses, generally speaking —
Senator Loffreda: I’m talking about employees. Doctors and lawyers can charge their clients. That’s fine. Let’s say an employee — a teacher — there is no client to charge there. They are going to a school; they have to travel a certain distance — similar professions. We can go on and on, it’s not just teaching. You get what I’m saying. Should the bill be for all employees who need to travel a certain amount?
There are certain limitations in the bill, but let’s tackle this one. Why limit it to tradespeople? Yes, the housing affordability crisis is huge, but education is just as important. Health is just as important. It’s extremely important. I’m not talking about professionals because they charge their clients and they have that, but employees in regions. Not in urban centres, obviously. In urban centres, there are ample resources to fill in what’s needed on the supply chains, but in the regions with a certain amount of travel — especially today with the scarce resources, baby boomers eventually retiring, demographics, why not expand it to all employees and define which employees are allowed?
Mr. Lewis: Yes. Thank you very much for your comments, sir. I appreciate it. Again, I am focused on skilled trades in this bill. I respect what you’re saying.
I will suggest, briefly, that I have quite a few friends who went from southern Ontario up to far northern Ontario and abroad. As school teachers, they get major bonuses to move up there, and they don’t have to travel weekly back and forth to school. I have a lot of friends who are nurses as well, and they get bonuses for going to other hospitals.
That would be a great study to be done perhaps at the Health Committee. That would be a great study or a great private member’s bill, but I think we need to stay focused on our skilled trades because we have to get this country moving forward. Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Senator MacAdam: I’m wondering if there were any assessments done on the financial and other implications of this bill. I’m thinking about taxes, labour supply, impacts on the housing supply, all kinds of possible outcomes that could arise as a result of this bill.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you. For clarity, senator, are you talking about the impact to the government coffers, so to speak?
Senator MacAdam: I’m talking about not just the government coffers, but we talked about the importance of these skilled workers working and supporting shortages in housing and other areas. I’m just wondering if there was ever any overall assessment done on the implications of implementing this bill, not just the financial implications but the labour supply and things like that, and how you could get more tradespersons working because these deductions would be there for them. That’s just an example.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, for sure. Thank you, senator, for the question.
I don’t believe we have done one, to be honest with you. The one thing I won’t do is lie.
I will ask respectfully, chair, if I could, I will have my team do some research on that and get back to this committee before you go to clause by clause, if that’s fair.
Senator MacAdam: Sure. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you said in your opening remarks, that only one Liberal member in the House voted in favour of your bill. How come only one Liberal member supported your bill when all the others didn’t?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, senator. What I really don’t want to do today is make this partisan. I heard enough of that yesterday in the House of Commons.
To answer your question, senator, I don’t know why the other Liberals didn’t. I will tell you, I have a very good relationship with MP Romanado, and I, in fact, supported her firefighters’ bill as I was a firefighter myself. I think she believes in my private member’s bill, and I think that’s why she supported it. I don’t know for sure; I do not want to speak on behalf of anybody else, but I was very happy to have the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
Let’s say the $4,000 cap that was introduced in the 2022 budget were removed. Do you have any figures to show how much on average a tradesperson could claim a year if your bill were passed?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: I don’t have any figures on that, other than the fact — and I will tell you, Bill C-222, which was back in 2022, we did a costing on this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a legislative costing note on Bill C-222 on April 5, 2022, estimating the cost of this measure in 2022-23 at $117 million and the five-year cost at $522 million.
I want to point out that they call it a cost, but what’s actually happening is we’re putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians who ultimately will be spending that money. I’m not so sure we can call it a cost, but I’m hoping that’s getting to your question.
It’s kind of difficult for me to answer your question, senator, only because, perhaps, one tradesperson works for three months out of town, the next one works for six months out of town, the next works out of town all year round and it’s really hard to come in for a landing on that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Do you think project developers looking for people to work on their sites could discriminate against local workers on the basis of either skills or rates?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: I don’t believe that there is discrimination. However, I will suggest that with the cost of everything — the cost of materials, inflation and, quite frankly, the cost of labour — they’re looking for ways to cut costs so they can be competitive.
I’d never want to assume that somebody is doing something wrong or something bad; that’s just not who I am. However, people are trying to put food on the table. They’re trying to put diapers on their babies and pablum in their mouths, so people are going to do what they have to do to figure it out. This is one more way to help them out.
I will tell you quickly, senator, I was in Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport about six months ago, and I met a young man who was heading up to Timmins to the mine, and he’s from Windsor, from my area. I had a good chat with him, and he wanted a picture with me. I don’t know why he would want a picture with me, but he did.
About two months later, I was back in Billy Bishop airport coming back to Ottawa, and a lovely young woman came up to me and said, “Mr. Lewis, I just want to say thank you very much.” I said, “Thanks for what?” She said, “I want to thank you for introducing your private member’s bill.” This woman would maybe be 24 or 25 years old. I said, “Okay. Well, you’re very welcome. Where are you heading to?” She said, “Timmins.” I said, “Why are you going to Timmins?” Then I asked her who she was, and she showed me a picture of what her boyfriend sent. She said, “I’m going to Timmins because I haven’t seen my boyfriend in three weeks, and he can’t afford to come home, so I’m going to fly to go see him.”
I know I indirectly did not answer your question, but I wanted to let you know that story. That’s the impact that this bill can have on people.
Senator Pate: Welcome. A number of trade unions have collective agreements that provide for living-out allowances, travel allowances, room and board allowances or similar measures. Depending on the agreement, some measures may not go far enough, but others do cover quite a bit and involve full reimbursement of all reasonable costs associated with room and board when folks have to work away from home, which would seem to be more beneficial than a tax deduction for workers.
I’m curious as to how Bill C-241 will ensure that employers that currently offer travel allowances do not reduce or eliminate them on the grounds that Bill C-241 would allow workers to claim not only the $4,000 under the Labour Mobility Deduction but now all of these expenses as tax deductions?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate the question.
Obviously, as I mentioned earlier on in my remarks, there is no double-dipping here, of course. You can’t claim from one and then use Bill C-241 to double dip.
Senator Pate: Just to make sure, in case it wasn’t clear, this would be: What would prevent employers from changing their policy of full reimbursement and requiring their employees instead to do the tax deduction, which, of course, would not be as beneficial to employees. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent it? I couldn’t see it.
Mr. Lewis: No, but I’m going to assume — I’m not going to assume because I was in business. Many times, when the union halls or non-union halls are bidding on the work, they’re all bidding on the work, and it’s written right in the contract: “Thou shall pay travel expenses; thou shall cover meals and lodging for your employees.” That’s right in the contract itself, so that’s on the employer, not on the individual.
This is for somebody that calls up — I say “somebody” — a business or a project that calls up and says, “I want ten people to go to some place somewhere at an hourly rate, but we’re not covering travel expenses.”
Senator Pate: If I could follow up, I’m curious — because you indicated, and certainly we heard from Canada’s Building Trades Unions that there was support for this bill — as to whether you offered anything else to the trade unions — better wages, better working conditions, any other options — or was it just this measure that you consulted with the trade unions about?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you for the question.
No, I offered nothing else. When I say “offered,” I mean I put nothing else in the bill. This is specifically for a deduction of travel expenses.
Senator Pate: I noted on the website of Canada’s Building Trades Unions that there is no recommendation about Bill C-241 as welcome legislation; although, they talked about the government deduction. They also talked about their priorities for investment tax credits, prevailing wages, sustainable jobs and worker supports. I’m just trying to get a sense of whether trade unions have other priorities that might have ranked ahead of this, if they had been consulted.
Mr. Lewis: I really don’t know that answer, but what I can tell you is that I’m that looking at a letter to Pierre Poilievre on April 18, 2023, from Mr. Strickland of the CBTU, and it says:
Congratulations to you and your caucus, notably Mr. Lewis, on the recent passing of private member’s Bill C-241. The building trades are pleased that your caucus is implementing policies that support Canada’s skilled trades workforce.
Senator Pate: Just to go back to my previous question, then, if, in fact, employers stop reimbursing expenses as a result of this bill, what would your response be?
Mr. Lewis: Stop reimbursing expenses.
Senator Pate: And require that their employees instead claim the tax deduction, which, of course, puts workers at a disadvantage.
Mr. Lewis: I’d completely go back to contracts. Let’s use a government contract as an example. I mean a municipal contract or a provincial contract.
Senator Pate: Do you support government contracts always including expenses coverage rather than requiring employees to do tax deductions?
Mr. Lewis: I don’t write contracts, senator, but I’ve certainly read a lot of contracts in my many years of business, and it’s always in there, line item by line item.
If the premise of your question is about using this as a scapegoat for employers, I don’t believe that to be the case at all. This is for folks who need to get active, who are being called in by either a union hall or a skilled trades shop and who need to get other places where they can’t write off their expenses. That’s what it’s for.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you to my colleagues for all their questions. I will focus on a few items based on what I’ve heard.
Mr. Lewis, my condolences as well on the passing of your mother. I’m glad that you are here today to answer questions about your bill. What I’m hearing, and as I understand it as the sponsor, it’s very focused and targeted. As a former businessperson, you’re wanting to provide tradespeople with equal footing, so to speak, in the work that they do just to get everything moving forward.
If I understand correctly, the Labour Mobility Deduction is a tax credit whereas your bill introduces a tax deduction. Is that correct? If so, can you explain the difference? Why is this important to tradespeople?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate that.
Yes, mine is definitely a tax deduction. As I was doing all the background information, the original labour mobility was a tax credit. After I introduced Bill C-241 in the House of Commons, they actually made labour mobility a deduction. So the $4,000 is actually a deduction, not a tax credit. Originally, it was a tax credit.
Senator Martin: Okay. I’m misunderstanding, then.
Mr. Lewis: No, that’s fine.
Senator Martin: But as you say, it gets to $4,000 pretty quickly, which is why you’re removing that ceiling.
Mr. Lewis: That’s correct, $4,000 and then up to 50% of the wage. That’s pretty concerning. Basically, what you’re telling somebody is only work for a couple of months and then you’d better find something local. That’s what’s happening.
Senator Martin: Right. There were a few questions about the equitable nature of this bill. If I understand correctly, this bill addresses an existing inequality. As you’ve explained, businesspeople can already deduct their travel expenses; there is no cap, time frame or minimum distance imposed.
In essence, this bill is creating a greater degree of equity. Is that correct?
Mr. Lewis: That’s correct. Equality for sure. This puts our skilled trades much more in line — and I’m not here to really pick on the business owners, senator. If I’m a businessperson and I’m travelling all around, trying to create work and trying to get contracts to put food on the tables of my employees, then surely, my employees should be able to go there as well.
Now, I guess it’s just a function of — as businesspeople and as governments — we can create all the work in the world, but if we don’t have anybody to fill the work there, we’re going backwards.
Senator Martin: A lot has been said in this session, but I know what will stay with me are the stories, such as the story of the worker and the girlfriend. I’m sure you’ve met so many people, as you said, across the country, and I’m sure it’s what compelled you to do what you are doing.
Are there any other examples that, again, just clarify why this is an important bill for the people you are hoping to support? I don’t know if there are others you wish to leave us with. This is the final question for you.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much. We did exceed 17 minutes, but it’s been a great meeting.
Are there other stories? Yes, of course. Thank you. I’ve got pages and pages of them. I’ve read many of them in the House of Commons. I guess I could go on and on, but I won’t.
I will tell you a story such as a young man who lives down — I’m sorry to use all local stories, but they’re the people whom I usually see. A young man who goes on to talk about having to drive up to North Bay from the Windsor area and beating up hard on his car in the wintertime, not having money to repair his car; therefore, he can’t go back and forth to work. There is one more that just blew by me.
Senator Martin: In essence, I guess I’m saying that we have to remember the people who will be impacted by this bill. You must have heard all of those. I’m probably out of time.
Mr. Lewis: I’ve got pages and pages of different people here with testimony that I’ve used along the way. I guess I’ll just leave it with this, if I could, please, as I said before.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Like my fellow senators, I want to extend my deepest sympathies for the loss of your mother. You’re right: we want to rise above partisan politics and identify bills that will really level the playing field and make a difference for Canadians.
The cases you’ve mentioned are especially relevant. I was wondering about something. If not for the $4,000 cap, would you not have placed a limit on the deduction amount, or would you still have proposed a cap? Where do you stand on that?
Can your staff give us an idea as to how many workers have to incur these travel costs but are not reimbursed? Where I’m from, the labour shortage being what it is, the vast majority of people are compensated when they have to travel to an employer’s site outside the region.
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate that.
Certainly, we’ll have our staff look at it. Because it’s already under the Labour Mobility Deduction, I’m wondering if the Library of Parliament has already done this study. I’m going to ask my staff to reach out to the Library of Parliament, please, because if it’s done for the $4,000, then it’s basically done for the unlimited.
To your question, senator, again, there should not be a limit on this. There should be zero limit on how many hours skilled trades folk want to work. There is no limit on how many hours anybody else can work. This just becomes a function of where they’re working, how we get them there and making it attractive and somewhat affordable for them to get to that line of work. I respect what you’re saying.
I think it’s very geographic as to how many folks travel and how many don’t. I will tell you, although Windsor is booming now, it wasn’t booming for a long time. They were screaming in the oil sands for folks, and now they’re screaming for people across the country with regard to building homes, so let’s give them the opportunity to work as much as they possibly want to work.
Let’s not forget as well, they’re away from their families. Just like many of us — all of us — we’re out there away from our families. There should be some type of incentive to get them active. Thanks, senator.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. I’m just trying to understand this bill, where this bill comes from.
It is a very similar bill to one introduced by your colleague NDP Matthew Green in December 2021. It referred to 80 kilometres rather than 120, but they have no follow up. More disturbing, from my point of view, has been that it’s very similar to the bill presented in 2013 by the NDP, which had been rejected at that time by the Conservative government in 2014.
Why is it now very important compared to at that time when it was rejected? That’s what I’m trying to understand. As I pointed out in my earlier question, it’s very unusual that we amend the Income Tax Act without the finance minister’s agreement. It’s happened only once in 20 years. So I’m just trying to figure out why we have to proceed this time when it was rejected eight years ago.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much, senator, for both the questions. Number one is I wasn’t around in 2013 or 2014, so I apologize for that. I’m a 2019 political baby, so I do not want to speak on behalf of Prime Minister Harper and his colleagues at the time because I honestly don’t know.
What I do know — and MP Green was very quick to remind me in the House of Commons when I introduced this bill — is that, indeed, it was introduced before by the NDP actually on three different occasions.
So when I brought this private member’s bill forward — again, I don’t care who gets the credit; I want the job done — it went to — I forget what we call them when we send a private member’s bill in, someone can help me here, throw me a bone — to see if it actually can move forward, and indeed it was changed enough that it could move forward. So I’ve spoken to various members of the NDP on this and Bloc members as well. This has been trying to get done, to your point, senator, since 2013. Obviously, there is a big appetite and a large need for this piece of legislation.
Let’s put partisanship aside and just get the job done. That’s what I’m really after, but thank you for the question, senator.
The Chair: Mr. Lewis, we have a short deadline, and there is no doubt that I’ll be asking you for an agreement that you could provide your written answers through the clerk and this is by the end of the day tomorrow subsequently and we will continue the clause by clause tomorrow night.
That said, I would like to remind senators that our next meeting will be this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. in room B45 in the Senate of Canada Building to resume our study on the Supplementary Estimates (B).
[Translation]
We will be hearing from Treasury Board Secretariat and Finance Department officials.
[English]
Mr. Lewis, on behalf of all the senators and the Finance Committee, we would like to offer our condolences for the loss of your mother, sir.
Before closing the meeting, I would like to thank the entire support team of this committee, those in the forefront of the room as well as those behind the scenes who are not visible. Thank you all for your work. This permits us, as senators, to enhance our work also as parliamentarians.
Honourable senators, I will declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)