Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 1410
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-05-06 17:02 [p.6821]
Madam Speaker, it is great to see some of my colleagues having a good laugh, some good discourse and a level of levity, despite the challenging circumstances.
I am very pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. I had the chance a couple weeks ago to speak to the budget writ large, and I am going to use my time here today to highlight some investments that may not be the headlines, but which I think are extremely important to what the budget represents in terms of major proposed programs.
I will start with the continuation of the emergency measures. Nova Scotia was not under lockdown two weeks ago. We had not suffered from the third wave that other jurisdictions in the country had. Right now we have over 1,000 cases in the province, which seems relatively small, but per capita it is quite significant.
These measures really matter. The government, by continuing the emergency wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the Canada response benefit, the suite of programs, until September, with the ability to extend it under the legislation, illustrates that this is extremely important. I think I would be remiss if I did not start from that basis. Our government is committed to getting Canadians, individuals and businesses through the pandemic, and that is extremely important.
I want to talk about biomanufacturing investments. The budget would allocate $2.2 billion toward these types of initiatives. We know that coming into the pandemic. I think all parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians and countries around the world, on the other side of the pandemic, are going to be asking themselves what the key industries we will need to make sure we have domestic capacity. Whether it is for an event like COVID or some other type of event, the country needs to have that capacity.
For me, one industry would be agriculture, but of course, biomanufacturing is important. Our government has made investments throughout the pandemic. We are committing to making sure this does not happen again.
I look at companies in my own riding. For example, in Windsor, Nova Scotia, there is BioVectra, which has its base in Prince Edward Island, but which also has a presence in my riding of Kings—Hants. I think of BioMedica. These are the companies we can build, and we can continue to nurture that local expertise to make sure we have the capacity in our country in the days ahead.
Long-term health care was something I heard a lot about during the height of the pandemic, particularly when the reports from the Canadian Armed Forces were presented on the conditions in Quebec and Ontario. We need to be able to create national standards. We need to do better in this domain.
Yes, it is the domain and the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the federal government has shown leadership on health care initiatives, and it is really important that there is $3 billion in the budget to help support those standards. This is on top of the fall economic statement, which had a billion dollars allocated directly to the provinces. Of course, my colleagues and others have talked at great length about the programs that have been put in place, such as the safe restart program, to help support provinces. I wanted to highlight that for Canadians who might be watching here today and, indeed, my own constituents.
We know that the cost of the pandemic has been significant, and our government, from day one, has said we will be there with individuals and small businesses. The deficit is about $355 billion this year alone because of that support, which we determined as a government was a better path than the economic scarring that would come of not intervening in a positive way.
It is important that this budget helps create and drive economic growth to make the spending we have taken on during the pandemic sustainable over time, so I want to take an opportunity, and hopefully my colleagues will listen with intent, to talk about some of the important measures in the budget that I think need to be highlighted.
I wrote in September 2020 about regulatory modernization and regulatory reform. This is an important element for small business and businesses across the board. I tip my cap to my predecessor, Scott Brison, who was president of the Treasury Board during the last Parliament. He served with great honour and respect in Kings—Hants for 22 years, and I consider him a mentor and a friend.
He took a great leadership role in the last Parliament on regulatory reform, and we are committing to build on that success in this budget with $6.1 million dollars allocated to continue efforts on that front at the federal level. I think that is extremely important.
Regarding interprovincial barriers to trade, estimates suggest that we could be losing somewhere between $50 billion and $130 billion to our economy every year because of internal barriers to trade. We would be allocating $21 million over the next three years toward trying to reduce those barriers and have co-operation between provinces and territories on harmonization of standards. We have a lot to gain in efficiencies and economic outcomes by working within Canada, and of course this is building on the success our government has already had in the last Parliament.
I talk about this a lot, but it bears repeating. We have an emerging wine sector in Kings—Hants. We have world-class wines. We know that the excise exemption that was created under the late Jim Flaherty in 2007 when he was the finance minister has been important to the success of our 100% Canadian wine industry. I am very pleased to see our government has committed $101 million over the next two years to help support the industry.
Of course, that is on the heels of the existing excise exemption being deemed not trade compliant. I look forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture and my colleagues to help keep driving those initiatives to support the sector in the days ahead. The ability to create interprovincial trade would allow small businesses in my riding of Kings—Hants to take advantage of that.
It is very difficult for consumers in Ontario or Quebec to enjoy some of our wines. I would encourage my colleagues to look at some of the many vineyards we have in the area. I am happy to provide recommendations. We need to be able to break down those barriers. I am proud our federal government got rid of any type of barriers at the federal level. I hope my provincial or territorial colleagues who might be watching can also take some leadership in easing and facilitating trade across provincial and territorial boundaries.
I do not think the Canada Small Business Financing Act has warranted a lot of conversation in this House, but I want to highlight some of the elements that are there. We know, particularly in rural communities, the importance of small businesses and what they mean with respect to providing jobs and opportunities for people in our communities. We are committing to expanding the loan eligibility under the Small Business Financing Act and increasing the maximum loan amount to $500,000 for non-real property loans.
We are also opening up opportunities for non-profits and charities. I have spoken at great length about the important role our volunteer sector plays, particularly in rural Canada. I am very pleased to see it will have access to financing under this mechanism as well, and a new line of credit option.
We will help reduce credit card merchant fees. How many of us are paying cash right now? Not a whole lot of people. I am the type who still likes to have a bit of cash in my wallet, but more and more people are using credit or debit cards. Our government is committed to help reduce the merchant fees associated with online or credit card transactions. I see this as a very positive step. I know there are restaurants and many different retail businesses that will welcome this type of thinking.
I also want to talk about the $1.9 billion for what is the national trade corridors fund. I sit on the agriculture committee, and I consider myself an advocate in this House for agriculture-related issues. This national corridors trade fund is crucial to helping make sure we have important links to get our many wonderful Canadian agriculture products to export markets. I am very pleased to see this.
Also, there is additional money, over $500 million, for the borders to improve trade and travel. I think about the chicken producers who talk about spent fowl at the border. This money could go to support those types of mechanisms to protect our supply-managed industry, which I know is so important to so many members in this House and, indeed, to many Canadians.
I will finish with three quick points.
One is around significant investments in the aerospace industry. In Kings—Hants, Halifax Stanfield International Airport is just outside my riding boundary, but we have thousands of jobs in my riding that are tied to the aviation industry writ large. I am very pleased to see those types of investments in the budget.
I often talk about my riding in the context of agriculture, but in the same sense we are a coastal community. We are home to the highest tides in the world. The $300 million over the next two years for small craft harbours is extremely important.
Finally, there are historic investments for indigenous communities. I have three indigenous communities in my riding I am proud to represent. I am also proud that our government is continuing on its legacy and good work around reconciliation.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-06 17:17 [p.6824]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-30.
Before I start, I want to acknowledge and thank the voters for putting together a minority Parliament. I came here during the majority government in 2002. I have experienced majority governments for the Liberals and the Conservatives, as well as minority governments. I have found that this Parliament, at least, has been much more flexible and cooperative in many respects than the previous government, which had a large majority. At that time we heard that a lot of the things being proposed in this budget were unattainable for Canadians, such as child care and increases to employment insurance.
I am proud of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and others at the finance committee. With all of the presentations that have taken place, they have consistently come forward, arguing for better programs, investments and choices than we currently have. I became a New Democrat a little bit before Jack Layton, but when we got with Jack, we were more into proposition than opposition.
We are proud to have influenced this economic situation and challenges for Canadians, in bringing the Liberals to some action on items that we had been told could never be done. We were told there were not the finances for them or that they were bad for the economy and all sorts of different things.
During the majority government we had before, very little got done. A lot of things were put off. I think now we see much more activism in the base of Parliament. At times there is high drama, but definitely, as a minority Parliament, we have gotten more accomplished than we did in the previous government where getting any of these things done was often mocked. I point to the increased supports for small businesses, the wage subsidy and the CERB, all of which were basically left out of the initial response to the pandemic, including student debt. I could not say how many times I have stood in this chamber and argued that interest should not be applied to student debt because it is an investment. Interest would bring on further debt. Debt also delays family experiences because people have to put off life decisions. As opposed to paying down the interest on loans from the banks, that money could be going to investments for people's futures and also to our communities.
The problem that we have with some of the issues in this budget is that they do not get rid of the problems for the future, but just kick them down the road a little bit. The increased benefits for seniors are a good example: They are divided between people who are 65 and people who are 75, and division is not what we need now with COVID-19.
I look at what this arbitrary age division would mean for my constituency in Windsor, Tecumseh, Essex, and all the regions around us, as we have a significant senior population. We have a lot of people with health issues. The ecosystem that we are a part of includes the pollutants drifting from the United States as well as from our own industrial base, and means that the risks to people's health are much higher than elsewhere. We have scientific evidence of this. One of the reasons I got involved in politics at the federal level was the Gilbertson and Brophy report, in which the Chrétien government at that time tried to hide a government study showing higher rates of cancer, thyroid issues, respiratory issues and all kinds of issues for infants. All of those different things came to light.
What I am suggesting is that the age factor for seniors really makes no difference. The risk factors are almost the same. The government is dividing those people. I do not know why, when what we are having to invest is pennies in the overall scheme of things. That money, for the most part, goes to paying for rent and food. It goes into the local economy. It allows people to live with dignity. It often goes for medications. We still do not see a pharmacare element to this bill, which is unfortunate. When we look at the investments we also do not see dental care, which is really crucial.
That is why New Democrats are continuing to present the government with options they can look at. The U.S. administration under President Biden brought in a wealth tax. Many other countries have done that as well. There are, quite frankly, winners and losers under COVID-19 for a lot of different reasons. Part of that is public policy.
For good reasons different businesses have had to close or amend their business practices. It has been very challenging for them, through no fault of their own or anybody else, but to prevent the spread of COVID they have lost their regular income. That is why these employment subsidies are important. Other businesses have emerged from this and have really done quite well. We do not hear about insurance companies having problems because business is very lucrative right now.
We can see from the work done at the industry committee that the telco giants have done exceptionally well during this time. I will give some credit to them: There have been improved incentives for consumers, but the volume of products that have gone out has risen exponentially, as have their profits and their responsibility to help offset some things right now.
There is no petroleum monitoring agency in this budget. Gas pricing, the hosing of consumers and the lack of accountability are still significant problems in Canada because we do not publish the rack pricing the United States gets. There is less accountability for that in Canada. A petroleum monitoring agency was supposed to be brought in by the Paul Martin regime, but it was never fulfilled. A motion passed in the House of Commons that it was supposed to be established. It was created, then it was defunded, and then when the Conservatives took power it was off the books. It languished and was in the works for a long time. It took us years to even try to get it. That was an oversight of a basic thing. As a result, people pay more out of pocket.
There are still significant public subsidies for the oil and gas industry. In one of my first speeches on this issue, about a decade ago, I listed 17 different ways an oil and gas company could get a subsidy from the federal government at the time. Some of that has been reduced a little, but it is still not anywhere near where it should be. It is interesting that the U.S. taxes worldwide profits and Canada does not. The current administration in the U.S. is going to be introducing higher corporate taxes. If we do more subsidization, the profit margins will be higher here, so we will be sending dollars to Washington, so to speak.
We have to look at these things. There is no doubt about tax havens, as we have seen in the news again today. How ridiculous is this? How many times do people have to suffer through the inappropriate taxation policies we have now? People who can afford accountants and lawyers, and who squirrel money away, are seen as clever and capable. They get away with it, whereas in Windsor and Essex region the working class cannot afford those types of services to hide money and to pay less than other people. That is where there should be a significant improvement in this budget.
New Democrats have called for not only an investment in people, but also in green transportation infrastructure. In my area, the auto sector is significant and we fail to see much improvement in this budget. There are some vague references, but no measures to get results. There is still no Canadian national auto strategy. Last week, Ford Motor Company announced more funding for battery and electric vehicle production in Detroit and the surrounding area, which has eclipsed my area and the entire country. Detroit and the surrounding region have almost tripled or quadrupled all of Canada's investments in green auto infrastructure and strategies for battery and electric vehicle manufacturing and production. This is important, because a transition is taking place. If we look at jobs in the production of parts and all of the different components, we are losing more of that market share. What is unfortunate about that is we are also losing out on the growth of the industry beyond the auto sector by having that innovation take place.
Canadians are also worried about the passing on of debt, and how to finance it. That is why New Democrats have provided some solutions, such as a significant luxury tax, not just for boats and cars but for other things as well. Right now, real estate speculators for foreign investors are sitting on empty land and are getting away with using our tax haven system. That is a problem. As we look at this budget implementation act part one, keeping in mind that part two has to be done in the fall, Canadians can count on New Democrats to try to make things work here in this chamber.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.
I would like to take some time today to talk about the relationship between Canada and the United States, the trade relationship specifically, because it is germane to the discussion we are having as it relates to understanding what the relationship is like between Canada and the United States and how important it is to both countries.
I will remind members that no two nations are dependent more on each other for their mutual security and prosperity than Canada and the United States. We are stronger together, and as recent history has shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can rely on the strength and security of that relationship between Canada and the United States, and the supply chains that exist.
Canada and the U.S. have one of the largest trading relationships in the world, and I will provide a few trade figures that underscore the sheer scale of our cross-border trade.
In 2019, bilateral trade in goods and services totalled $1 trillion. That is more than $2.7 billion in trade every single day. Our level of economic integration is unique. Approximately 76% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are inputs used to make goods in the U.S., and in addition to what we sell to the U.S., contains on average roughly 20% American content. We make things together and value together.
Canada is the number one export market for most U.S. states; 32 in 2019 and 2020 to be more precise. Approximately 75% of Canada's goods export to the U.S. The U.S. is the single greatest investor in Canada. In 2020, the U.S. stock investment in Canada was $457 billion, representing nearly half of all investment in Canada, and Line 5 is part of this relationship.
Our enduring trade relationship, starting with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989 and continuing with NAFTA in 1994, has been a model for success in the world. We renewed our commitment to the commercial relationship with the coming into force of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. This new NAFTA addresses modern trade challenges, reduces red tape at the border and provides enhanced predictability and stability for workers and businesses across the integrated North American market. These outcomes strengthen our commercial relationship, promote new opportunities for Canadians and support our collective economic prosperity.
Crucially, the new agreement preserves virtually duty-free trade in North America and ensures continued predictability and secure market access for Canadian exporters to the United States. Under the agreement, Canada and the U.S. offer trade on similar terms, and bilateral trade is generally balanced. These outcomes reinforce integrated North American supply chains and help enhance our competitiveness globally.
Importantly, the new NAFTA also incorporates new and modernized provisions that seek to address 21st century issues, including digital trade, small and medium-sized enterprises, good regulatory practices and binding obligations on labour and environment. The new agreement supports inclusive trade with outcomes that advance interests of importance to gender equality and indigenous peoples.
The U.S. represents an especially attractive market for Canada's under-represented exporters, including women, indigenous and racialized peoples and LGBTQ entrepreneurs. We are pleased to have implemented an agreement that preserves the elements of NAFTA that are most important to Canadians and are fundamental to support cross-border trade and investment, such as the NAFTA chapter 19 binational panel dispute settlement mechanism, the cultural exemption and the provisions on temporary entry for business persons.
Our unique relationship with the United States was recognized in a “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership” announced by the Prime Minister and President Biden on February 23. The two leaders committed to work closely together in many areas, including launching strategies to strengthen that relationship and supply chain security. My colleagues across the government and myself are working with our U.S. counterparts to strengthen and advance our integrated bilateral supply chains in areas critical to growth and seeking other ways to continue to build together.
This collaboration contributes to the North American competitive advantage on the world stage, which, in addition to CUSMA, is bolstered by our integrated energy market, long-standing foreign policy and security co-operation, and is resilient and well-balance in the supply chains. Canada and the U.S. can be competitive internationally with an integrated North American market.
Despite continued collaboration and success, there are always going to be challenges such as those with softwood lumber and what we are seeing today. U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber, for example, are unwarranted and unfair. This long-standing trade irritant distracts from the strong commercial relationship with the U.S., hampers current efforts and economic recovery, and harms workers and communities across Canada as well as U.S. consumers and home builders.
Canada remains ready to work together with the United States to find durable, mutually acceptable negotiated outcomes to this dispute. In the meantime, Canada will continue to vigorously pursue its challenges of U.S. duties under NAFTA chapter 19, CUSMA chapter 10, before the WTO.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought into focus the complexity and deep integration of medical supply chains between Canada and the U.S. Our collaboration allows for smooth flow of personal protective equipment across the border and into the hands of health care workers in both countries. It is important to keep our integrated supply chains working and ensure that products can flow across the borders unimpeded.
Canada is a trading nation with the U.S. and is by far the most important export destination. Approximately 80% of new exporters are SMEs that export to a single market, and almost 70% of new exporters choose the U.S. as their first export destination. The U.S. is a proven testing ground for new exporters and established ones piloting a new product or service.
Most Canadian exporters active in overseas markets originally began their exporting journey in the U.S., and the markets remain attractive to new exporters, particularly as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic both limits international travel and exacerbates the risk of faulty business decision-making in unfamiliar cultural environments.
This is a challenging business environment. Canada's Trade Commissioner Service in the U.S. is continuing to adapt and bring new service offerings to support Canadian companies of all sizes. E-commerce and related technologies are playing a critical role at this time and this will likely accelerate in the coming months. The Trade Commissioner Service is committed to supporting our companies to take advantage of this shift to digital trade by helping more exporters access online e-commerce platforms and helping our digital start-ups access the U.S. and other major players in a global and tangible economy.
To briefly summarize, Canada and the U.S. enjoy one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. The continued safe operation of Line 5 supports this for both nations. Our government is deeply committed to further building on this foundation as we continue to keep our people safe and healthy from the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic and work toward our mutual economic recovery and growth.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to join this debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have done everything necessary to protect Canadians’ health and safety, to help businesses weather the storm and to position our country for a strong recovery. After 14 months of uncertainty and hardship, Canadians continue to fight COVID-19 with determination and courage.
Right now we are being hit hard by the third wave, but we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. More and more Canadians are getting vaccinated. The recovery is around the corner. The bill before us today would implement our plan to finish the fight against COVID-19, create jobs, grow the economy and ensure a robust recovery from which all Canadians would benefit.
The budget I presented to the House on April 19 contains further details about the plan. The budget focuses on middle-class Canadians and seeks to help more Canadians join the middle class. It is also in line with the global shift to a green, clean economy.
This plan will help Canadians and Canadian businesses heal the wounds left by COVID-19 and come back stronger than ever.
This budget meets three fundamental challenges. First, we must conquer COVID. That means buying vaccines and supporting provincial and territorial health care systems. It means enforcing quarantine rules at the border and within the country. It means providing Canadians and Canadian businesses with the support they need to get through these final lockdowns.
Second, we must punch our way out of the COVID recession. That means ensuring that lost jobs are recovered as swiftly as possible and hard-hit businesses rebound quickly. It means providing support where COVID has hit hardest: to women, to young people, to racialized Canadians and low-wage workers, and to small and medium-sized businesses, especially in tourism and hospitality. When fully enacted, this budget will create, in total, nearly 500,000 new training and work opportunities for Canadians.
Third, the major challenge is to build a more resilient Canada: better, more fair, more prosperous and more innovative. That means investing in Canada's green transition and the green jobs that go with it, in Canada's digital transformation and in Canadian innovation, and it means building infrastructure for a dynamic, growing country. This budget invests in social infrastructure and in physical infrastructure. It invests in human capital and in physical capital. It invests in Canadians and it invests in Canada.
Vaccine campaigns are accelerating, and that is such a good thing, but we need to vaccinate even more Canadians even more quickly. Thanks to plentiful and growing vaccine supply, that is something team Canada can get done working together. This legislation proposes a one-time payment of $1 billion to provinces and territories to reinforce and roll out vaccination programs.
Canadians should take advantage of our increasing vaccine supply and, when it is their turn, go and get the first Health Canada-approved vaccine available to them. I was vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine nine days ago at a Toronto pharmacy, and I am so grateful I was able to be vaccinated when it was my turn.
COVID-19 has placed extreme pressure on health care systems across the country. The pandemic is still with us and Canadians do need help urgently. That is why we propose to provide $4 billion through the Canada health transfer to help provinces and territories address immediate health care system pressures.
These funds are in addition to our unprecedented investments in the health care systems during the pandemic, including the $13.8 billion invested in health care under the safe restart agreement.
A full recovery from this pandemic requires new, long-term investments in social infrastructure, from early learning and child care to student grants to income top-ups, so that the middle class can flourish and so that more Canadians can join it.
COVID-19 has brutally exposed what women have long known: Without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work outside the home. A cornerstone of our jobs and growth plan is a historic investment of $30 billion over five years, reaching $9.2 billion annually in permanent investments when combined with previous commitments, to build a high-quality, affordable and accessible early learning and child care system across Canada.
Within five years, families everywhere in Canada should have access to high-quality child care for an average of $10 a day. This will help increase parents', and especially women's, participation in the workforce. It will create jobs for child care workers, more than 95% of whom are women. It will give every child in Canada the best possible start in life. Early learning and child care has long been a feminist issue. COVID has shown us that it is an urgent economic issue as well.
As we make this historic commitment, I would like to thank the visionary leaders in Quebec, and in particular Quebec feminists, who led the way for the rest of Canada. I am very grateful to these women.
Of course, the plan also includes additional resources for Quebec that could be used to provide further support for its early learning and child care system, a system that is already the envy of the rest of Canada and, indeed, much of the world.
We also recognize the continuing need to bridge Canadians and Canadian businesses through this tough third wave of the virus and into a full recovery. To date, the Canada emergency wage subsidy has helped more than 5.3 million Canadians keep their jobs. The Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support have helped more than 175,000 organizations with rent, mortgage and other expenses.
The wage subsidy, rent subsidy and lockdown support were set to expire in June 2021. Bill C-30 extends these measures through to September 25, 2021, for a total of $12.1 billion in additional support. Extending the support will mean that millions of jobs will be protected, as they have been throughout this crisis.
To help people who still cannot work, we also propose maintaining flexible access to employment insurance benefits for another year, until fall 2022.
We also plan to extend the number of weeks for certain major income support measures, including the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiver benefit.
We are providing an extra 12 weeks of benefits to recipients of the Canada recovery benefit, which was created to help Canadians who are not eligible for employment insurance.
Bill C-30 also proposes extending the Canada recovery caregiver benefit by 4 weeks, up to a maximum of 42 weeks at $500 a week. This will help when the economy begins its safe reopening.
For caregivers who cannot find a solution, especially those who take care of children, the employment insurance sickness benefit will be extended from 15 to 26 weeks.
Canada's prosperity depends on every Canadian having a fair chance to join the middle class. Low-wage workers in Canada work harder than anyone else in the country and for less pay. In the past year, they have faced both significant infection risks and job losses. Many live below the poverty line, even though they work full time. We are Canadian, and this should not be acceptable to any of us.
Through Bill C-30, we propose to expand the Canada workers benefit to invest $8.9 billion over six years in additional support for low-wage workers. This will extend income top-ups to about a million more workers and will lift 100,000 Canadians out of poverty. This legislation will also introduce a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage.
Young people have made extraordinary sacrifices over this past year to keep us, their elders, safe. We must not and we will not allow them to become a lost generation. Bill C-30 would make college and university more accessible and affordable. This legislation will extend the waiver of interest on federal student and apprentice loans to March 2023. Waiving the interest on student loans will provide savings for the approximately 1.5 million Canadians repaying student loans.
In the past 14 months, no one has felt the devastating health effects of COVID-19 more than seniors. They deserve a safe, secure and dignified retirement. We therefore propose a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021 to old age security recipients who are or will be 75 or over in June 2022.
Bill C-30 also includes a permanent 10% increase in the old age security benefit for people aged 75 and over as of July 2022.
Small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy. Lockdowns, though necessary, have hit them hardest. To heal the wounds left by COVID, we have to put a small business rescue plan into action as well as a long-term plan to help them grow.
In addition to extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, we also have to make sure that [Technical difficulty—Editor].
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues for their patience with my Internet difficulties today. I apologize and I do really appreciate their forbearance.
Small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy and of every main street in Canada. Lockdowns, though necessary, have hit them hardest. To heal the wounds left by COVID, we have to put a small business rescue plan into action as well as a long-term plan to help them grow.
In addition to extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, we also have to make sure that the hardest-hit businesses pivot back to growth and stay on track.
Bill C-30 proposes the new Canada recovery hiring program, which will run from June to November and make it easier for businesses to hire back laid-off employees or to hire new workers. We also intend to invest up to $4 billion to help up to 160,000 small and medium-sized businesses buy and adopt the new technologies they need to grow. We will encourage businesses to invest in themselves by allowing for the immediate expensing of up to $1.5 million of eligible investments by Canadian-controlled private corporations in each of the next three years.
Small businesses need access to financing in order to invest in people and innovation and to have the space to operate and grow. That is why Bill C-30 enhances the Canada small business financing program through amendments to the Canada Small Business Financing Act. This will mean broader eligibility and increased loan limits.
In 2021, job growth is green growth. This budget sets out an ambitious and realistic plan to help Canada get to net-zero emissions, and it puts in place the funding to achieve our 25% land and marine conservation targets by 2025. At the same time, we will make targeted investments in transformational technologies, helping our business growth and making us more productive and competitive around the world.
The hard and essential work of reconciliation continues. This budget commits to investing $18 billion over the next five years to narrow gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, to support safe, healthy communities and to advance reconciliation. We are committing to investing $6 billion to improve infrastructure in indigenous communities.
Bill C-30 earmarks $2.2 billion to flow through the federal gas tax fund, renamed more appropriately the Canada community-building fund, to communities across Canada. Cities and towns have faced steep revenue declines because of COVID. This funding will help them maintain and build the local infrastructure on which Canadians depend.
Collaboration with all levels of government across Canada has been and will continue to be the cornerstone of our team Canada response to this pandemic. Together, we will finish the fight against COVID and together we will come roaring back.
Bill C-30 is essential if we are to activate our government's recovery plan as presented in budget 2021. Our people and our businesses cannot do without the support measures in this bill. This bill takes unprecedented steps to stimulate future growth.
This plan is about people. It will make a measurable, positive, tangible difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. It is about making concrete, targeted commitments to heal the wounds of COVID, to get us all back to work and to put us on a long-term path toward growth, prosperity and a clean, green future.
I urge all members to join me in supporting the speedy passage of this essential legislation.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech, which was interesting. My speech will be along the same lines as his, as it was all very sensible.
In his speech, my colleague said that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, is not partisan. The bill does not belong to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois.
In fact, since there were no questions and comments following the remarks by the previous speaker, I would like to point out an oversight. I believe it was an oversight. Perhaps not, but I hope it was.
He mentioned some of the previous versions of this bill intended to facilitate the transfer of family businesses. Yes, the hon. member for Bourassa did in fact introduce legislation to facilitate the transfer of family businesses when he was in opposition a few years ago. Yes, it is also true that the former member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Guy Caron, had also introduced legislation to facilitate the transfer of family businesses.
However, my colleague may have forgotten that the member speaking right now, in other words me, also had the opportunity to introduce Bill C-275, which sought to facilitate the transfer of family businesses. I introduced it at roughly the same time as my former colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. In fact, as we were announcing the introduction of this bill, my former colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques thought it was such a good idea that he quickly introduced his bill as well.
There was a bit of a friendly competition about doing the right thing. We wanted parents who want to hand down their business to their children to stop being penalized. This only makes sense, because it is good to see a family's achievement carry on.
Now it is the Conservatives' turn to introduce a similar bill. At the time, when they were in government, the Conservatives were against it, but now they support the cause. Of course we are very pleased to see that, but we are still disappointed to see that the current Liberal government does not seem to want to support the bill. It is hard to understand. How is it that when the Liberal and Conservative parties are in the opposition they want to do the right thing, but when they are in power they do not? That is quite disappointing, to say the least.
When this type of bill is introduced, many people pay attention to the ongoing debates. When the bill was introduced, and then when we began debating it, I immediately alerted certain businesses in my riding as well as some people I went to school with who also wanted to take over their family businesses. After seeing so many bills fail, they were all excited and hoped that this one would come to fruition.
In the meantime, after so many bills failed to pass in previous parliaments, the Quebec government decided to act. Quebec changed its tax legislation to allow the transfer of family businesses. It would seem that the federal government is frozen and incapable of moving forward. When either the Liberals or the Conservatives come to power, everything suddenly stops and fails to move forward.
I am making a heartfelt plea, which I believe echoes the pleas of the people who have been contacting me. They want to know what progress has been made on this bill and whether it will pass. Sometimes I tell them that even if my bill does not pass, some measures might well be included in a budget. In several economic updates and even in some budgets, the government stated that it would work to facilitate the transfer of family businesses and that it would examine the legislation to make certain improvements.
Once again, the government is giving people hope. People are thinking that maybe the government is finally going to do something. It is disappointing, because year after year there is always a holdup. Is it an administrative problem or does the bill run counter to some kind of interest? I do not know who would have an interest in preventing families from passing their business from one family member to another.
Passing a business on to the next generation is not easy. It is rare. People often say that it is difficult to transfer a business and to encourage their children to take over the family business. When their children do want to take over, why are we stopping them from doing so? Why would we financially penalize those who pass their business on to family members but not penalize those who do not? Why is it more profitable to sell one's business to anyone other than one's own children?
For example, I could sell my business to a stranger and make more money. There are many parents who have to think about that option. Obviously, all parents want what is best for their children, but when they see that passing their business on to their children could, in some cases, cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, many of them have to stop and think about whether doing so is financially viable for them. Not all business owners have millions of dollars put away. Often these business owners invested in their business thinking that they would use it for their retirement. They therefore want to be able to benefit from it.
This is creating quite the dilemma for people. If they pass their business on to their children, then they may have to forgo their retirement. It is really disappointing to see that this situation has not yet been resolved. That is why I wanted to speak today, to bring to light this issue, this problem.
We also have to look further ahead. What happens when there is no one in a family to take over the business? The owner has to seek out someone else, approaching businesses or people who are already well established, such as a competitor, a bigger company. That is what poses a problem.
Family farms can disappear when they are taken over by larger farms. I have nothing against large farms, by why not let small businesses exist and prosper, run by people who are working for themselves and being their own boss? I think that would be nice. However, we are faced with a bill that hinders that possibility.
If we let farms disappear, if we let small businesses disappear because there is nobody to take them over, we are making other people think it is not easy to start a business or start a farm. Ultimately, if we want to allow those transfers, if we want to avoid seeing mega-businesses and mega-farms that are held by shareholders and operated by absentee executives and managers who live who knows where or are very far away from the customer, the consumer, we have to be flexible and attentive to this concern.
I studied accounting. Business owners and I are not the only ones saying we are frustrated. We are also hearing that from accountants, accounting students and professors, who have been saying for ages that the government is not interested in listening or understanding. We were hearing it back in the early 2000s, when I was in university. Professors did not understand why the government was not doing something about this issue. All the students were appalled to learn that, by law, this kind of capital gain was considered a dividend, which meant at least twice as much tax had to be paid on that gain. Financially, that hurts. Like it or not, money influences these decisions and affects the young people who would like to take over.
As I see that my time is almost up and I do not want you to interrupt, Madam Speaker, I will conclude with a heartfelt plea. I implore the government to finally listen to the wishes of the business world, small businesses, members of the House and members of the Standing Committee on Finance and to do the right thing by supporting and passing this much-needed bill.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to be standing virtually in the House and speaking to Bill C-208. I would like to thank the member for Brandon—Souris for being the sponsor of this bill. He is the latest in a fairly long line of MPs who have been trying to achieve this legislative proposal.
I was present in the 42nd Parliament when my former colleague, Guy Caron, brought in Bill C-274, and I remember his passionate speech in the House of Commons during its second reading. He was trying to illustrate the reasons why that legislation was so important. It was great to witness that speech, but ultimately it was very disappointing to see the vote results when the Liberal government at the time used its majority to prevent the bill from going any further.
I am glad to see this time it has been different, by virtue of the fact that we are in a minority Parliament and the opposition used its combined numbers to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance where it had a good airing. We got to hear from many witnesses, and ultimately the committee decided to send the bill back to us for our final consideration. It is my sincere hope that this bill will be sent off to the other place and that we can look forward to royal assent, hopefully in the near future.
When Bill C-274 was being considered in the previous Parliament, I had a meeting with the Port Renfrew Chamber of Commerce. I was given a 10-minute speaking spot during their AGM, and when I talked about Bill C-274 at that time and about what we were hoping to do, I got unanimous positive feedback from the members of that chamber. For those who do not know, Port Renfrew is on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island. Many people there depend on fishing for their livelihoods. They are either commercial fishermen or are in sport fishing, so they have small fishing corporations. To have the ability put forward to transfer their businesses to family members really meant a lot to them. There was overwhelmingly positive feedback. I ultimately had to give them bad news, but here we are with a real opportunity to try to bring about some positive change.
This bill is pretty much tailor-made for the types of small businesses that exist in the riding I represent, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Like so many members before me, I want to acknowledge the pain and suffering that small businesses have gone through over the last year. I think it is incumbent upon us not only to have support programs to help them through the pandemic, but also to bring about long-term systemic change to important statutes such as the Income Tax Act, so that we can make their business operations and their succession planning that much easier.
My riding is dominated by farming as well. Here in the Cowichan Valley we have a beautiful climate. It is, I think, Canada's only Mediterranean climate and we have a very long and storied agricultural history. We have generational family farms here. Some have the fifth generation of a family farming the same plot of land. If we can bring about legislative change that makes succession easier and gives them peace of mind, I think we are doing a good thing.
I also want to give a shout-out to the five chambers of commerce in my riding: Chemainus, Cowichan Lake District, Duncan Cowichan, Port Renfrew and WestShore. They have all been incredible advocates for their members. I have been staying in touch with them quite consistently over the last year and their feedback during this pandemic has been invaluable in helping me, as a member, advocate on their behalf in Ottawa to make sure that the federal government's policies and programs are reflecting their needs.
I will concentrate mostly on family farms, given the nature of my riding and the fact that I am the NDP's critic for agriculture and agrifood. When we look at family farms, we are looking at $50 billion in farm assets that are set to change hands over the next 10 years. History has shown us that roughly 8,000 family farms have disappeared over the last decade.
The National Farmers Union has done an incredible report on the status of Canada's farms, called “Tackling the Farm Crisis and the Climate Crisis”. It not only looks at agriculture in the context of climate change, but also the financial footing that many farms are on and how shaky it is. According to the NFU, Canadian farm debt has doubled since the year 2000. That is in 21 short years. It was listed at $106 billion in 2019.
Many farms have to chase income from off-farm work, taxpayer support programs and other farm sources. That is just a reality for so many small farms. What is really concerning is that we have lost two-thirds of our young farmers since 1991. The family farm is pretty much being systematically destroyed in Canada, and we need to put measures in place that are going to help.
Why is Bill C-208 so important? The owners of small businesses, family farms and fishing operations who want to retire want to be able to sell to their children because it is often their children who have been brought up in the family business and on the family farm. From a young age they have learned the culture of the business and what it does, and they often have a lot invested in that business continuing to succeed. The next generation often has very important ideas about where to take that business.
When parents decide to sell their business to their children, the difference between the sale price and the price originally paid is currently considered a dividend, but if they sell their business to an unrelated individual or corporation it is considered a capital gain. Unlike capital gains, a divided does not include the right to a lifetime exemption and is taxed more heavily. We can make a measurable improvement in allowing families to pass on businesses that might have been part of a family for generations to their children, making it easier for that work to get done.
I want to recognize the work done at the Standing Committee on Finance. I appreciate the witnesses who appeared. Many of them also appeared at the agriculture committee. We heard important testimony from the CFIB, the Grain Growers of Canada, L'Union des producteurs agricoles and, of course, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been such an incredibly important voice for farmers from coast to coast to coast.
They noted at committee that the average age of Canadian farmers is now above 55, and the opportunities these businesses face will carry into the next generation. It is a sector in which the vast majority of businesses remain family owned, and maintaining the financial health of those businesses across generations is critical. At committee, the CFA very clearly said that it supported Bill C-208 because it would ensure that real family farm transfers could access the same capital gains treatment as businesses selling to unrelated parties, rather than treating the difference as a dividend that was taxed at a higher rate and not being able to access the lifetime capital gains exemption.
We have an important opportunity before us. During the vote at second reading, I was sad to see that 145 Liberal MPs voted against this bill. Two Liberal MPs supported it. It is my sincere hope that when this bill comes to a final vote to be sent to the Senate, Liberals can finally see this as an important opportunity and can represent the interests of small businesses, family farms and fishing corporations by making this much-needed change to the Income Tax Act and doing right by their constituents.
I, for one, will be proud to vote in favour of Bill C-208 and send it on its journey. I look forward to the day when we can finally see it receive royal assent.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-05-05 18:24 [p.6708]
Madam Speaker, what a privilege and honour it is to speak to Bill C-208. Not often in the House do we find a private member's bill that has all-party support, and this is one of those unique situations.
For many small business owners, business succession is an important factor to consider when planning for the future. This is no surprise. When they spend so much of their time and energy pouring hour after hour into running their operation, what happens to the fruits of their labour when it is time for them to retire or move on matters to them.
However, surveys tell us that only about half of small businesses have a succession plan. I suspect that is because they are caught up in the day-to-day running of their businesses. However, whether they are thinking about succession early on or are confronting succession decisions near the time of transition, somewhere along the line these entrepreneurs face a frustrating reality: It is more expensive to sell an incorporated small business, or a family farm or fishing enterprise, to a family member than to a stranger.
What is behind this? When a business is sold to a family member, it is considered a dividend. When sold to a stranger, it is considered a capital gain and is eligible for capital gains exemption. In its simplest form, when selling to a family member the tax rate is higher for the seller than when selling to a stranger. That tax rate is significantly lower.
This is not right, and it is not fair. About half of small business owners are hoping to sell or transfer their operations to family members when it is time for them to move on. If members have spent even a little time around family-run businesses, the “why” becomes clear. Sometimes kids are raised in the business and learn the ropes at a young age. They come to know the ins and outs of the business better than anyone. They put in the time, they know the customers and they are established figures in their communities. When the time comes for succession, they are an obvious option for so many reasons.
This is where Bill C-208 comes in. It seeks to achieve tax fairness for business succession by amending the Income Tax Act to level the playing field. It would allow a small business owner the same tax rate when selling their operation to a family member as when selling to a third party. It would correct the injustice within the act that unfairly punishes individuals when they sell their qualifying small business, farm or fishing operation to their own family.
During the finance committee's study of the bill, Brian Janzen, a senior tax manager with Deloitte, gave an example to help members understand just how stark the financial difference currently is between selling to a family member and selling to a stranger. He said:
Right now, if you have a $1-million business and you sell your shares—in a restaurant, let's say—to your neighbour, you will walk away with after-tax proceeds from a $1-million sale of about $971,000. That's only $29,000 of leakage....
There are various ways to sell your shares to your kids under the current regime of section 84.1, but I'll just use the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that your kid sets up a holding company, or holdco, and buys your shares from you. In Manitoba, that will cost you $466,000 because of the deemed dividend. That's a difference, between the two scenarios, of $437,000. That's just crazy.
He is right. That is crazy, especially when we consider the value small business continuity can have in our communities. Small business owners have often built strong relationships with their customers over the long term. They have employees, whether a couple or a couple dozen, whom they care about and have invested in. They are plugged into their communities in multiple ways. Whether by supporting local food banks, sponsoring sports clubs or donating to construct a new community centre, small businesses are there.
Handing that over to a stranger, perhaps someone from out of town, may not be the best situation for the business owners or their communities. When they have built something and invested plenty of sweat equity in their operation, it is understandable to want to hand it off to someone who can carry on that legacy.
Robyn Young, president-elect of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, told the finance committee about her experience of purchasing the family business from her parents. She said:
When my parents decided to sell their business, they received an offer from a large direct writer. They ultimately chose to sell the business to me and my brother, because it was important to them to keep the business they had built within the family. They also wanted to ensure that their clients would continue to receive the same expert advice and personal touch they had come to expect.
She went on to say:
Family-run brokerages are the pillars of the community and the lifeblood of the economy. They serve and support their communities in good times and bad by creating employment and donating time, money and other resources.
These are the considerations for many small business owners looking at succession planning. There needs to be a level playing field that empowers owners to make the best choice for them and their communities.
The current inequity is a reality that impacts a variety of types of small businesses, but I want to take a moment to talk about farm families specifically.
Agriculture is incredibly capital intensive, and as Scott Ross of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture told the finance committee, “effective succession planning is critically important, particularly for a sector that will transfer tens of billions of dollars in assets to the next generation in this decade alone.” Uniquely, the agriculture sector continues to be one where the vast majority of farms, even though they are incorporated, still remain family owned. This has considerable advantages for all Canadians since, as Mr. Ross highlighted, “studies show that family farming encourages sustainable growth, environmental stewardship and increased spending within one’s local community, not to mention its contributions to the social fabric of rural Canada.”
I share several commonalities with the bill's sponsor, the member for Brandon—Souris. For one, we were both elected in the same 2012 by-election. More importantly for today's discussion, we both have “farmer” on our resumes. We are very familiar with the immense benefits that farming and agriculture provide to the communities we represent. By passing Bill C-208, the House can acknowledge the tremendous contributions that our farmers make and can help ensure tax fairness for farm succession.
Throughout debate on this bill, we have heard some members suggest that this change will just benefit the rich or create opportunities for tax avoidance. I want to address this head-on because that is a mischaracterization that finance committee testimony swiftly put to rest.
The bill includes tax-avoidance safeguards mandating that the family member who purchases the operation must maintain their shares for a minimum of five years to avoid penalization. As Deloitte senior tax manager Brian Janzen confirmed, “This bill is helping the lower end of the small business community. It is not helping the huge, rich companies, even if they're family owned.” He also told the finance committee that Bill C-208 has enough guardrails to prevent tax avoidance, even as he urged vigilance so that tweaks could be made if required.
Like all colleagues, I wanted to make sure that the bill did not providing an undue benefit to large corporations. I therefore asked Mr. Jansen very specifically about those concerns. He said it did not benefit large corporations, “partly because of the guardrails you have in this bill, but also because for the larger companies...section 84.1 and the capital gains exemption didn't even come into play. The numbers are big enough that this is just...not material to the larger private businesses. This is really helping the small private business.”
It is clear that this bill strikes the right balance between providing tax fairness and preventing abuse. I encourage any members who feel differently to review the testimony before the finance committee. They will see experts addressing these concerns and urging the bill's swift passage.
There were 145 Liberal members who voted against this common-sense bill at second reading. Meanwhile, members of all the opposition parties supported it, and so did two Liberal MPs. I sincerely appreciate the two Liberal members who voted in favour of this bill. They recognized the positive impact that it would have on their constituents. I hope that the testimony we have heard since that time will help other Liberal MPs better understand why they ought to lend their support to Bill C-208. Their constituents deserve tax fairness.
I want to wrap up by saying thanks to the member for Brandon—Souris for introducing this pertinent legislation. His efforts are going to make a real difference in the lives of many small business owners and farm families. We have seen iterations of this bill brought forward by multiple parties over the years, and this goes to show that there is cross-party support for this bill. It is time to get it over the finish line.
I invite all my colleagues to support small business and vote in favour of Bill C-208. Let us get it passed and get it to the Senate. Hopefully it will deal with it as expeditiously as the House has. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to speak to this bill at third reading stage.
At its annual general meeting, the Syndicat de la relève agricole d'Abitibi-Témiscamingue called on MPs from the Abitibi-Témiscamingue area to support Bill C-208 and to actively contribute to its passage before the next election. That is my role today in bringing debate to a close at third reading.
The resolution of the Syndicat de la relève agricole d'Abitibi-Témiscamingue speaks of fairness when transferring agricultural farms. At present, when an individual sells their shares in their small business or family farm corporation to a family member, the difference between the sale price and the initial purchase price is treated as a dividend. However, if the business or corporation is sold to someone other than a family member, this transaction is treated as a capital gain.
Bill C-208 would give small businesses, farming families and fishing families the same tax treatment whether they sell their business to a family member or a third party. The economic landscape of our region is made up of a growing number of incorporated farms and family fishing corporations, which is why the Syndicat de la relève agricole d'Abitibi-Témiscamingue adopted this resolution, and I am here to honour it.
I had the opportunity to take part in the debate on this bill in November 2020, and I remember that my presentation centred on the fact that, incredible as it may seem, a business owner is currently better off selling their business to outside shareholders than to members of their own family. As I said, under the existing legislation, the transfer of a business to a family member is treated as a dividend and not as a capital gain, unlike a sale to a third party. As a result, owners are not entitled to the lifetime capital gains exemption if they decide to sell the business to their children.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-208. For several years now, my party has been calling for measures to encourage and facilitate the transfer of family businesses, especially in the agriculture and fisheries sectors. I would also like to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who had the opportunity to speak before me and who introduced Bill C-275 back in the day.
The Bloc Québécois has been calling for measures to encourage and facilitate the transfer of family businesses for over 15 years. For Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois and myself, business succession is important. It is also important for our SMEs in general, but especially for family farms in the regions, like the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Perhaps we will soon have the opportunity to speak of Bill C-208 and its consequences in the past tense, a thought that fills me with excitement.
The existing legislation makes no sense at all. What is prompting the Liberal Party to vote against Bill C-208? They are raising the possibility of tax abuse and tax fraud, but we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer questioned the amount of money that the Liberal government estimated would be lost, calculating that it would be tens or hundreds of millions instead of billions of dollars. Speaking of losses, I still do not understand why the government is not cracking down on tax havens.
I would like to share the comments of a farmer from my riding, a friend of mine named Simon Leblond, who was the president of the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec when I was working for the union. With regard to the transfer of family farms, he said that it is important to maintain a large enough pool of farmers to maintain services for farms and, more generally, to ensure the vitality of the industry, make it known to those outside the world of agriculture, and ensure interest.
Farmers face major challenges, and I think it is important to point that out. Some of the challenges faced by farmers in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and everywhere else include land grabbing, farmland financialization, the whole issue of income security, vet services for farm animals, crop insurance and agricultural drainage. These are major challenges, and improving access to land and quality of life for Quebec's young farmers is one way to ensure a future in agriculture for Quebec's youth.
The more people we have who are willing to take over farms, the more services we will be able to provide. It is a cycle, but unfortunately that cycle has been broken. I hope that we can get that cycle going again and that we will see more and more young people taking over farms. Land prices, quota prices and new forms of agricultural production are leading to higher costs every year, and the red tape is becoming increasingly cumbersome, making it harder and harder for farmers to access land and operate their business. As politicians, we have a responsibility in that regard. I repeat: It is not right that a business owner is better off selling the business to a third party than to their own family members.
The Government of Quebec included measures in its 2016 budget to facilitate the transfer of family businesses in the primary and manufacturing sectors. A change to Quebec's Taxation Act relaxed the rule that prohibited the seller from using the capital gains tax exemption. Quebec has addressed this issue, while the federal government still lags behind, or at least it was lagging until now. I remind members that the Parliamentary Budget Officer assessed the cost of these measures, and his figure was lower than what the federal government was claiming.
I want to get back to the speech my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made about Bill C-208 at second reading. I want to make a little aside, though, and I want to acknowledge and commend our colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, for his leadership. I would like to congratulate the Conservative Party for its leadership in this debate, because Bill C-208 has been given priority on two occasions at third reading. That is why we are debating it today. I hope that we will be able to vote on this bill by next week so that it can be sent to the Senate and then get royal assent. That would be the blessing that so many have hoped for. I will give some examples soon, but I just wanted to mention that.
The member for Berthier—Maskinongé said:
...what we are really talking about are small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. We need to keep these businesses alive and make sure they survive. We need to make sure that these small businesses can keep going and that they are not put at a disadvantage where they will end up being bought out by big corporations. The survival of these small businesses is directly connected to the survival of our regions. This is why I am appealing to all of my colleagues.
I second my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's appeal because the Bloc Québécois stands for human-scale enterprises.
I also want to say that I got to be part of the debates that took place when Bill C-208 was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. On March 9, Julie Bissonnette, a dairy farmer in L'Avenir and the president of the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec, and Philippe Pagé, the FRAQ's general director and mayor of Saint-Camille, had this to say:
Bill C-208 is significant for young farmers because we believe it will encourage the transfer of farms to family members and go a long way towards correcting tax unfairness, while supporting a strong farming community.
As an organization whose mission is to protect the interests of the next generation of farmers and improve conditions for those starting out, it has taken a clear position. The FRAQ representatives also wanted the committee to know that some young Canadians are seeing their dreams evaporate because of ill-conceived tax rules. They said:
The numbers speak for themselves. A business that is transferred to a family member is six times more likely to succeed than a business transferred to someone outside the family. What's more, 70% of all entrepreneurs in Quebec would prefer to keep their businesses in the family. Even today, selling a business to a related party is the preferred way to transfer a farm. Our tax system should support all young farmers, no matter their path to business ownership, something the system does not currently do.
Marcel Groleau, from the Union des producteurs agricoles, echoed these comments. During the same meeting, he mentioned the pride that comes from completing a successful transfer, saying:
Some 98% of the country's farms are family owned and operated. That business model is a source of pride for Canadians. Family farming promotes sustainable growth, environmental stewardship and reinvestment in local economies.
He added:
According to a 2017 study by the Business Development Bank of Canada, nearly 40% of small businesses will be transferred or sold by the end of 2022 as owners near retirement.
There is an urgent need for action. Obviously, the reference to subsection 84(1) of the Income Tax Act is one of the things that needs to be revised. The act has not evolved to reflect the context and the demographic pressure that applies to farms.
I also want to mention the support of Daniel Kelly, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and was quite happy to express CFIB's very favourable position on the bill. I should note that 17% of business owners are seriously considering shutting down, that Bill C-208 would facilitate business transfers and, most importantly, that it is time for a resolution and for significant action.
I will conclude by recalling two points raised by Mr. Groleau, who shared some data from the Commission de protection du territoire agricole, Quebec's farmland protection commission. He pointed out that everything is documented and that we are seeing an increasing number of transactions involving farmland being carried out by investors rather than by producers. The investors' interest lies in renting out the land while they wait to potentially do something else with it.
The devil is in the details, and it will be important to move on in order to meet the needs of the next generation of farmers.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a very important bill that would positively impact countless farmers and small business owners across Canada if passed.
I want to sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, for introducing the bill to Parliament and making so much progress on this issue. I am fortunate to work with my Manitoba colleague, who gained my profound respect for representing his constituents in an exceptional manner throughout his tenure as a member of Parliament.
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, would provide tax fairness for farmers and small business owners across our nation.
This may surprise most Canadians, but selling a farm or a small business to an unknown third party receives better tax treatment than selling that same business to a family member. The current structure of the Income Tax Act penalizes farm and small business owners from transferring their operations to a member of their own family. This discrepancy in tax treatment can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in more taxes if sold to family as opposed to a stranger.
For example, imagine a couple who has owned a local auto repair shop in Manitoba for decades and is ready to retire. These owners have worked hard to support their family and community and their business is now worth $1 million. The couple is approached by a multinational auto repair company that has no roots in the community but wants to buy the business. If owners were to sell their business to this unknown third party, they would incur $29,000 in taxes.
Their son is also interested in buying the local business as he looks to raise a family and make a living in the community in which he grew up. However, if their son were to purchase the same company at the same price, his parents could pay up to $466,000 in taxes, a tax difference of $437,000.
Now the couple who owns the auto repair shop must make a decision. Do the owners sell to the multinational company and maximize their retirement fund or do they sell to their son and keep the business in the family? Why should small business owners be placed in a position to choose between sacrificing their retirement fund or sacrificing the word family in their family business? The answer is obvious: they should not.
However, thousands of business owners spend their entire careers operating their businesses with the expectation of passing it to their children. They do not realize the staggering tax difference they will be indebted with until they part ways with their business. This puts retirement and business plans at risk.
The constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is built on the foundation of small business and agriculture. These sectors are the lifeblood to the vibrant rural communities of our region. I was raised and spent my entire life in rural Manitoba. I understand how these businesses support our communities and the families within.
Last year, I spent a year touring rural Manitoba to meet specifically with small businesses to hear their priorities and concerns. One of the most prominent things I heard was the concern of what the future would look like in rural populations as aging and younger generations moved to urban centres. Many rural communities rely on a single business to provide a good or service.
I think of the No. 5 Store in the rural town of Riding Mountain, located between the community of Neepawa and Ste. Rose. This family run business is the only supplier of essential goods and services to the Riding Mountain community. Locals rely on the No. 5 Store for their everyday essentials like groceries and mail.
Small businesses like these provide families with goods and services needed to successfully make a living in rural communities. If businesses like these close their doors, communities suffer.
Large multinational companies will never replace the locally owned family businesses that are the engines of rural Canada. Family owned small businesses are what give rural communities their identity. We must support them in transferring their businesses to future generations so they can endure. Without small businesses, rural Canada evaporates.
Agriculture is another pillar to our country and to the region I represent. Family farms contribute immensely to the social and cultural fabric of rural Canada. However, by 2025, one in four farmers will be 65 or older and over 110,000 farmers are expected to retire within the coming decade. This means thousands of farmers will be transferring their farm operations as they retire.
I should remind the members of the House that farmers are the people who have a strong connection to the land. They care deeply about keeping their farm in the family in the hopes of watching their children take the same care of the land in the manner they did.
There something to be said about the family farm. The family farm is not just a business, it is not just an operation; it is generational and sentimental. It is a way of life for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their families. The family farm is an ideal and it is an ideal worth preserving. However, it is clear that agriculture is approaching a demographic revolution and as parliamentarians, it is our duty to support such a massive transition to ensure the future prosperity of Canadian agriculture.
Unfortunately, under the current tax regime, farmers are unable to transfer their family farm to the family without experiencing unfair tax treatment. As parliamentarians, we need to work creating more sustainable rural Canada through job creation and economic prosperity. Bill C-208 would do that.
Bill C-208 would keep the family in the family business. It would provide a future for the family farm. It would create fairness for countless Canadians as well as preserve the rural communities that are the bedrock to our nation.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-05-03 19:35 [p.6569]
Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member from the NDP.
The budget outlines an extension to the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy. I have heard from quite a few constituents, especially in the seasonal tourism sector, who have found this extension to be not nearly enough. It leaves them at a disadvantage in terms of their businesses being able to recover. I am curious if the member from the NDP has any further thoughts or comments on that.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, this is a major problem, because what we see with the budget is the Liberals basically doing a victory lap. They are going around saying, “Hey, we beat COVID”, so they can wrap up all of these programs that the NDP forced them to put in place in the first place, because things are going great.
I need to caution this government on the victory-lap mentality it seems to have with this budget. We are in the midst of a third wave that is deadlier than the previous two. We are seeing variants coming from various parts of the world that are strongly worrisome, because they seem to be outpacing the very slow acquisition of vaccines.
We need to make sure that all of these programs continue for the tourism sector, as the member pointed out, and for a wide variety of other sectors that will be profoundly economically damaged if we start to see the cutbacks that the Liberals are forecasting. In nine weeks they are going to start slashing programs, and this is simply not the time to be irresponsible. It is simply not the time to do a victory lap. It is the time to take care of Canadians and make sure that supports are in place.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-05-03 20:37 [p.6577]
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about small businesses and some of the challenges that owners are facing.
Dave Ball, who owns VanIsle Wine and Beer Makers, got a CEBA loan. Five months ago, the government announced the increase to the CEBA and he applied for it. Now, there is a technical issue and he cannot get the increase. Here we are five months later, he cannot get the increase and we hear that there are 60,000 business owners in the same position. We have written to the minister, we cannot get a reply. There is no hotline for Dave to call to get information about his application. In fact, we have been asking the government to increase the CEBA loan from $60,000 to $80,000 because we are in the third wave where many business owners are struggling for their businesses to survive.
Could my colleague share whether he has constituents in the same situation, who have applied for the CEBA loan extension but cannot get an answer as to whether they are going to get it? Does he think that we should increase the CEBA loan for those business owners who need extra help, especially those in hospitality and tourism and those being impacted most greatly by the pandemic?
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2021-05-03 20:38 [p.6577]
Madam Speaker, my hon. B.C. colleague from Courtenay—Alberni also reminded me of another thing.
Absolutely, I have heard the exact same thing. We are failing small business owners and we need to do more for them.
The member reminded me of something I failed to mention in my speech, and that is the opioid crisis in British Columbia. We are facing dire times, not only here in our province but right across this country, and this budget fails to do anything for that. We need to do better for those who are struggling with mental health and addiction, and this budget falls short.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-04-30 11:44 [p.6468]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have abandoned start-ups and new businesses when they need help the most. Jennifer, who owns tru MOVEMENT dance fitness and yoga in my riding, had just signed a lease and invested over $30,000 in improvements when the pandemic began, and she has since been left without any support. She has had no rent support, no wage subsidy and no help at all because her business started after the pandemic began. Just like every other business owner, she has had to close her doors to protect public health.
With nothing for start-ups in budget 2021, will the government admit that it failed new businesses and immediately expand its support programs to help people like Jennifer?
Results: 136 - 150 of 1410 | Page: 10 of 94

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data