44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. My question is about the part of his speech concerning the “bad”, namely the luxury tax.
My colleague was right to say that the Minister of Finance is too busy doing the Prime Minister's job, given that she is Deputy Prime Minister. We get the impression that a lot of corners were cut in Bill C-19. The proof is that dozens and dozens of pages have been cut from this poorly drafted bill.
Does my colleague think the same thing should happen with the luxury tax, even though the principle may seem fair?
This 170 pages is all about taxing producers rather than consumers. It needs to be removed and reworked.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great speech and his excellent work in committee. I do have a question about amendments to the luxury tax. He made a reference to David Chartrand, the machinists' and aerospace workers' representative who came and asked us to support the amendments I proposed. My colleague voted against those amendments. I was very surprised that my NDP colleague voted against amendments that unions asked for. I did not know what to make of that.
Did my colleague have to vote against because the NDP has an agreement to support the Liberal government?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier how much consultation the government has done, especially on Bill C-19.
Yes, I would agree that consultation was fairly extensive. The problem, however, is that the general consensuses that came out of those consultations are not reflected in the bill, as if there had been no consultation. For instance, the section on employment insurance was removed. The same should have been done for the luxury tax and several other aspects, such as the Competition Act.
When will the government start actually paying attention to consultations and ensure that they are reflected in budget implementation bills?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in Bill C-19 misses the mark. Rather than targeting wealthy people who are buying private jets, it taxes Quebec's aerospace industry. My Liberal colleague knows this. Two weeks ago she promised “to ensure that this does not hurt our manufacturers”, but since then, her government has voted against all of our amendments that would fix the problem.
Taxing the rich is fine, but taxing the flagship of the Quebec economy instead is out of the question.
When will the Liberal members from Quebec get to work and protect our aerospace sector?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑19 is about to be passed. It will hurt the aerospace industry. That is why the Bloc Québécois is reaching out to the government. We suggest passing Bill C‑19 but not applying the luxury tax to aircraft right away. The government does not realize how much its ill-conceived measure will impact our businesses. It should, at the very least, take the time to study that.
Will the government agree to this reasonable compromise on behalf of our businesses and their workers?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:23:31 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:24:02 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
The motion is carried.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:38:10 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The House leader of the official opposition.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:38:38 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Essex on his Bill C‑241. Before speaking to this bill, the Bloc Québécois did its homework and its research, and I can tell the member that we will vote in favour of this important bill.
As members know, Bill C‑241 amends the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence.
Subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (q):
Tradesperson's travel expenses
(q.1) where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer
(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,
(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, and
(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act;
This bill acts on recommendations from Canada's Building Trades Unions, the national voice of over half a million Canadian construction workers, members of 14 international unions who work in more than 60 different trades and occupations and generate 6% of this country's GDP.
Salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. It stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are located in a different region or province from their primary residence. It is a question of fairness.
Growth rates and infrastructure investment often vary from one region to the next, which may in part explain why the labour shortage is particularly acute in certain regions. The labour shortage is one of the main impediments to the economic recovery. One way to address rising prices is to tackle this shortage. Improving labour mobility can help alleviate the shortage.
When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must pay out of pocket. For workers with a family, additional expenses for travel can be very high and can impede the worker's mobility.
This tax deduction is a concrete and effective means of enhancing the mobility of construction workers. Additionally, it has been calculated that this measure could save the federal government a net amount of $347 million.
Other countries, such as the United States, allow this type of tax deduction for skilled workers. Under the U.S. internal revenue code, these employees are entitled to deduct the cost of meals, travel and accommodation for a temporary job that is far from their residence. This already exists.
Such a measure would encourage employees to return to work while also addressing labour shortages and reducing dependence on government programs such as employment insurance.
Allow me to provide some clarification on what is already available. An employee can only deduct expenses that are specifically provided for in the act. Generally speaking, employees may claim expenses if their employment contract requires them to pay their own expenses, if the employee is regularly required to work away from their employer's place of business, and if they do not receive a non-taxable allowance for travel expenses. The employer must certify that the employee's working conditions enable the employee to deduct certain expenses.
Commission employees may deduct all their expenses, except capital expenditures, professional dues, and memberships in sports or leisure associations, up to the amount of the commissions received. This limit does not apply to depreciation and interest with respect to an automobile.
Tradespeople are entitled to a tax deduction of up to $500 per year for the purchase of new tools acquired as a condition of their employment. However, the first $1,257 of such expenses, or $1,215 in Quebec, is not deductible.
As I have previously mentioned, the cost of travelling to a job site far from the worker's home can influence their decision to accept a contract. Inflation is high, so travel-related costs are also soaring. Just look at the price of gas.
This new deduction will make a real difference for workers who have to travel for work. According to a recent poll by Canada’s Building Trades Unions, three-quarters of skilled trades workers say that a tax deduction will give them access to a greater number of job opportunities. With inflation the way it is, this is the right time to implement a tax deduction to help ease the pressure on some workers' wallets.
I will illustrate the absurdity of the current situation and how Bill C‑241 can correct it. Currently, someone who sells rebar or conduits for the construction of a new building can deduct their work-related travel expenses, meals and accommodation from their income, yet that option is unfairly denied to the skilled trades workers who install the rebar or conduits. That is unfair. With Bill C‑241, this option would also be offered to those workers.
The bill will therefore help reduce the labour shortages in some sectors, and the Bloc Québécois is proposing a suite of measures to alleviate labour shortages across Quebec. We need to increase the productivity of Quebec businesses, produce more with less, let Quebec manage the foreign worker program, and encourage seniors who want to remain in the workforce by eliminating any tax penalties they may face. I also have a number of other suggestions. For example, we are also proposing that the temporary foreign worker program be transferred to Quebec. We are very satisfied with Quebec's training model.
We are proposing all of these things, and we fully recognize that Bill C‑241 will help address the labour shortage, ease the burden on workers who need to travel far from home, and make the tax system a little more fair. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill.
1084 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
