Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 3 of 3
View Mark Eyking Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Mark Eyking Profile
2015-06-18 18:04 [p.15322]
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak on Bill C-661, introduced by the member for Joliette.
I must first state that the Conservatives were speaking about how much they were supporting agriculture, but what we have seen over the last few months is pretty bad.
Two things that they have done are pretty bad. First, we have seen members from that party speaking against supply management, which is one of the pillars for agriculture in this country. Second, there are big cuts in the budget to business risk management, the tools that farmers need when they have bad years. That has been cut by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is very disappointing to see the Conservative government do that.
In speaking on this bill, I will be basing my remarks on my personal experience as a farmer and on the importance of maintaining family businesses. In the context of this bill, the main objective is to treat siblings like any other family members by exempting them from the anti-tax avoidance measures by amending the Income Tax Act. We are supporting that.
The reality is that even if farmers have the opportunity to give part of their farm value to their children or grandchildren without income tax consequences under the Income Tax Act of Canada, they still need to maintain sufficient investment income to ensure a healthy retirement. This is also necessary if a farmer wants to provide for their other children who are not actively involved in the operation, and the same goes for fishing families on the east coast, the west coast, and in central Canada.
Even though Canadian agriculture has changed so much, the family business is the cornerstone of the industry. Canada's agri-food sector accounts for 7% of Canada's GDP and over two million jobs. That is one job in eight. While primary agriculture accounts for a small share of the total economy, about 2%, it is at the heart of the agriculture and agri-food system and has grown over 1.5% per year since 1997.
Agriculture and fishing have drastically changed, and we need to make sure that legislation governing these industries is able to keep up with the rapid pace. In 1991, there were 280,000 farms in Canada. In 2011, that number had fallen to 206,000. However, the average size of Canadian farms has grown tremendously, from an average of 200 acres to 800 acres. In that same time period, the average age of a Canadian farm operator has risen quite dramatically, going from 48 years of age to 54. It varies across the country, but that is the average.
Urbanization, an aging population, globalization of the economy, and consolidation throughout the agri-food chain have brought fundamental structural changes at the farm level. More specifically, the need to develop new markets and to comply with consumer demands has required an adaptation of production structure and practices within the agriculture sector. Although this adaptation creates new opportunities, it poses many challenges to our young farmers and fishers.
Over the next decade, we are going to be seeing a lot of these family businesses being passed down from one generation to the next. Given the extremely harsh economic context, this bill being debated today is crucial to helping ease those transfers to other family members. Between 1991 and 2011, the number of farmers under the age of 55 fell 42%, from 265,000 to 150,000. In that time, the number of older operators increased, as I said before.
Quite simply, the Canadian farming and fishing population is aging. That does not mean there are not a lot of young people who want to get into it, but the road map there is very difficult. There are now fewer and fewer young people to replace these retiring farmers and fishers. This situation is worrisome, as young farmers guarantee the future of agriculture and play a key role in rural economic development. Many other activities in rural communities depend on the agricultural sector, including fishing, milling, hardware, processing products, and even transporting. Many of the people we see driving down the highways every day are people involved in the whole agri-food sector.
The federal government has an important obligation to improve its programs and policies to keep young farmers in the industry. By supporting the bill, we are trying to ensure that the Income Tax Act does not discourage the best-qualified person in the family from taking over the business because of tax implications.
Agriculture is more and more capital intensive. Producers have to invest in buildings, machinery, and other equipment to become more efficient and to satisfy consumer demand for low produce prices. We also see many times that in many farming operations it is not just for maintaining prices but is for food safety.
I have been travelling across the country visiting farms over the last year. It is amazing how modern these farms are, how they have HAACP in place and cleanliness and tracking of everything they are doing on the farm. This all costs money.
Market conditions also contribute to increasing the value of assets, such as land and quotas. This can cause some challenges for young farmers, as the rise in asset values are not always covered by sufficient income. It is one of the lowest returns when we look at the amount of capital spent on a farm. Many times these young farmers are operating an enterprise to put food on the table with a fairly low return.
Some agriculture sectors are doing a little better, especially with supply management, which the Liberals brought in many years ago and which we are going to stand behind 150%.
Thanks to the supply management policy governing agriculture production in Canada, farmers enjoy an environment of stable and predictable milk prices and poultry prices with the formula they have in place. The supply-managed industries collectively generate $25 billion in GDP, $5 billion in tax revenues, and over 300,000 jobs. That is just in supply management alone.
Despite these favourable conditions, under this system intergenerational transfer is difficult. When there is a need to plan for succession, numerous cases have been reported of farmers not being able to find the right arrangement to meet the expectations of the exiting farmers or of the new entrants.
I think if there was a return, a lot of people would probably think it was a good occupation and an interesting occupation and would be inclined to pursue it.
The best way to keep young farmers in the industry is to make it profitable. Farming is a lifestyle, not just an occupation, but at the end of the day, farmers still need to make money. We do not expect our health professionals and many other people in our society to work for free, and we cannot expect the producers of our food to do so either. Young farmers are not going to invest millions of dollars in something if they do not know if it is going to produce a return. Supply management provides that to them and gives them stability. As I mentioned before, business risk management is very important.
I think we can all agree that there seems to be a growing disconnect between the general population and agriculture.
Young farmers also know perfectly well that agriculture faces numerous challenges related to the increasing cost of products, as I mentioned before, reduced margins, trade and marketing issues, et cetera.
I commend groups such as the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum and the Canadian 4-H Council for their efforts to educate, energize, and empower the next generation of Canadian farmers and agriculture leaders. However, these groups need a comprehensive federal policy targeting young or new farmers to make it feasible.
That is not to say that this shift in the agricultural sector should diminish the importance of maintaining smaller operations. There are also many small successful farms, and the government should be doing more to help those operations as well. Small operations as well as big ones can contribute and can work together.
I am very much in favour of the motion. It would be another tool in the tool box to help farmers get through. For those farmers who work so hard and put so much into their farms, many of them 60 and 70 years old, the only return they can get will be through the implementation of this bill.
This is the last half a minute of what is probably my last speech in the House. I am glad I am doing it on agriculture. I am a farmer from Cape Breton, and our family has a farming business.
I would like to thank all my colleagues, and I wish them well through the summer and in their future endeavours. I thank all the staff here who have done so much for us and have kept the place going, the staff in our whip's office, who keep us here all the time, and of course, my colleagues here tonight who stayed with us for the last shift.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2013-05-31 10:53 [p.17458]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget implementation act, as well as amendments that are now before the House.
The Liberals continue to oppose Bill C-60 for two key reasons: this legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it continues to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives’ wasteful spending.
At committee, the Liberals put forward several constructive amendments to help address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen and give decent consideration to these amendments. They refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever, despite the growing evidence that Bill C-60 is in fact deeply flawed.
To give an example of just how flawed the legislation is, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, took the almost unprecedented step of writing to the members of the finance committee and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passes without amendment. He said that the legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada. This is what he told us in his letter:
We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act….may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our corporation’s governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation.
He further stated:
“[The bill]…may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter and compromise the Corporation’s independence.
This could potentially embroil the government, our corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.
We have also heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs in order to protest the way in which Bill C-60 threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada.
Unlike the government, Canadians understand that the CBC/Radio-Canada was originally set up as an independent crown corporation in order to shield it from political interference. While the government appoints the board of directors and determines the overall budget of the CBC and Radio-Canada, this cultural crown corporation has always had the independence to determine who should work there and how much they should get paid. This legislation effectively removes that independence.
Canadians have been clear. They do not want politicians to punish reporters or journalists from the CBC and Radio-Canada for asking any of us uncomfortable questions. In an effort to be constructive, Liberals tried to provide the Conservatives with options in order to address these concerns. We proposed a constructive amendment that would have excluded the CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures of Bill C-60.
We also proposed an amendment that would have simply yet clearly protected the independence of CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures in this bill so that the government could avoid a potential legal showdown, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason and consider these amendments. They seem to have become completely deaf to the concerns of Canadians.
George Smith, a professor at Queen's University, who has also served as a chief management negotiator for the CBC and Radio-Canada, also appeared before the finance committee and was clear that the changes in Bill C-60 are not just bad for labour, they are bad for business. This is what Professor Smith predicts will happen under this legislation:
Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In sum, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where in my considered professional opinion it will become totally dysfunctional.
In addition to threatening the stability of CBC/Radio-Canada, one of Canada's most cherished cultural institutions, as well as endangering labour relations, this legislation actually raises taxes on Canadians. In fact, in each of the last four budgets, the Conservatives have raised taxes on hard-working, middle-class Canadian families. Their latest budget raised taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over the next four years and a number of these tax measures are included in Bill C-60. Bill C-60 actually attacks Canada's rural and small-town economy with a tax increase on credit unions.
View Robert Chisholm Profile
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives continue to show they just do not understand Atlantic Canada. Now they are denying EI benefits to more than 180 people because they work for family members. Atlantic Canada and our many fishing communities are built on family businesses and they should not be penalized. Not everyone can work for a large corporation.
Why will the government not start helping fishing communities instead of trying to punish them?
Results: 1 - 3 of 3

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data