Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 616
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for being with us today.
Before I get to my questions, I want to recognize the important work that senior officials and all employees at the Department of Finance have done during the pandemic. This committee met often, and we regularly heard from department officials. They have done incredible work to save the economy. I want to commend them and thank them again for all their hard work.
My questions are for Mr. McGowan.
After yesterday's news release and Ms. Bendayan's earlier comments, everything was clear in my mind, but the answers, details and clarifications you gave Ms. Dzerowicz confused me. Therefore, I'm going to ask you the same question.
Since Bill C‑208 received royal assent in June, the provisions in Bill C‑208 have applied in the case of parents who sell their farm or family business to their son or daughter. Is that correct?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:22
Right now that is absolutely correct. What I was saying with respect to the government's July 19 announcement was that while the government has announced its intention to provide additional conditions that may need to be met at the end of a consultation process, those new conditions would not apply before November 2021. Right now the rules in the Income Tax Act that were amended by Bill C-208 are the law and can be relied upon.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Okay. That's fair enough.
Could we then discuss those specific amendments that are being brought forward and that were in the newly released press release in which clarification was provided? It's my understanding that the government said that parents could already sell to their children on a tax-free basis, using a lifetime capital gains exemption, before this Bill C-208 was brought forward. Is that true or is that false? I believe it was in a speech from Mr. Gerretsen, actually, when he was discussing Bill C-208.
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:33
That's correct. The amendments relating to Bill C-208 apply only where an individual sells shares to a corporation owned by their child or grandchild. On a direct sale of shares from a parent to their child, the anti-avoidance rule in section 84.1 would not apply, to cause there to be a dividend. In fact, assuming all the conditions are met, the lifetime capital gains exemption can apply to eliminate tax—or up to the lifetime capital gains exemption limit anyway—on any gains.
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for clarity, Mr. McGowan, I want to go back to a question that one of my Liberal colleagues asked you earlier in this area. You said that the current plan and the message to the small business owners is that Bill C-208 will be in effect, unaltered, until November 1. Can you confirm that any small business transfers to family members that take place between today, or even June 30, and November 1 will not be subject to retroactive application of any further amendments?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:59
Yes. That was the government's announcement, that whatever conditions would be introduced in a later bill, which again would have to go through Parliament, those restrictions or conditions would not apply before November 1. From now until October 31, at a minimum, the law as enacted by Bill C-208 would apply.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
Before I turn to Ms. Bendayan, nobody has talked about the four points in the press release. I think I can say in all fairness that nobody on this committee, and I think no parliamentarian, wants to see a law used for tax avoidance.
Are the points you outlined or that the minister outlined in her press release to target what they see as the dangers of, as I think it says in the press release, “surplus stripping”? Is that what it's mainly targeted at, and not the genuine aspects of intergenerational transfers, which bring fairness and equity under the tax system to selling intergenerationally versus outside the family?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 15:08
The idea in the July 19 press release was to provide a set of four issues that would need to be considered in the course of developing a rule to help distinguish between genuine transfers of a business to the next generation and more contrived tax planning that does not in fact result in the transfer of business to the next generation. The idea would be to develop a set of rules in order to help distinguish between the two cases and ensure that the benefit provided, which is to say the non-application of the anti-avoidance rule in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act, is available to intergenerational transfers of a business but only in the appropriate circumstances.
These four bullet points are just the sorts of things that would typically need to be considered. Of course, for a view of a fully fleshed-out set of rules, Quebec has some. They deal with a lot of the same points, although maybe not conceptually ordered in the same way. One is the control of the company that carries on the business going to the next generation: whether or not the parent can retain ownership in the company after the transfer and what type of ownership, whether it would be preferred shares, common shares and things like that; whether there's a particular timeline involved for the transition of the involvement in the business between the parent and the child; or whether it's just a more general requirement that the parent can stay on in order to transfer their knowledge to the child. Finally, it's the level of involvement of the child after the transfer of the business: whether or not they have to maintain an economic interest through shared ownership for a particular period, or whether they need to be actively involved in the carrying on of the business itself.
These are all issues that need to be considered and developed in the course of developing a rule that appropriately targets real intergenerational transfers.
Jessica Reid
View Jessica Reid Profile
Jessica Reid
2021-06-08 11:05
Good morning, Madam Chair and committee.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about the importance of including children with incarcerated parents in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to provide recommendations to protect their rights, support healing and ultimately help break the cycle of intergenerational trauma and criminality. After witnessing the devastating impact of parental incarceration as an educator, 10 years ago I developed KIP Canada. Currently, we are one of the only organizations in this country that specifically provide support for children who've been affected by their parents' involvement in the justice system. As a practitioner, educator and researcher, I've seen the desperate need for policy changes to better support the over 370,000 innocent children who are affected in Canada.
For decades, children of incarcerated parents have been referred to as the invisible and forgotten victims. Despite the ripple effects of parental criminality on children's well-being, economic security and developmental outcomes, these children have yet to be recognized and supported as victims of crime in Canada. However, these effects are consistent with the bill's definition of a victim.
First, we must recognize and acknowledge that parental criminality often occurs in the context of intergenerational trauma and systematic oppression, where marginalized children are disproportionately impacted and are exposed to mental health and substance-use concerns, poverty and other adverse childhood experiences that only exacerbate the effects on their well-being. Parental criminality has consistently resulted in children enduring emotional harm, stigma and isolation.
Researchers have found that one in five children are present at their parent's arrest. In many cases, children witness weapons being drawn at their parents and their homes being raided. Due to the nature of this trauma, children often experience post-traumatic stress symptoms, separation anxiety and even developmental regression. Moreover, children grieve the loss of their parents, as they have difficulty maintaining contact during incarceration because of the financial, geographic and policy barriers that currently exist.
Scholars have now identified parental incarceration as an adverse childhood experience due to the lifelong impact it has on development and well-being. Specifically, research has shown that children who are separated from an incarcerated parent before the age of 18 years old have an elevated risk of mental health concerns, physical illnesses and negative developmental outcomes throughout life. Without support, it is estimated that children with incarcerated parents are four to seven times more likely to come into conflict with the law. These highlight the importance of recognizing children impacted by parental incarceration as victims in the bill and providing effective support to mitigate their effects.
Consistent with research, our programs and supports at KIP Canada have demonstrated the impact of providing early intervention and support for the unique needs of children affected by parental incarceration in Canada that are guided by their voices and based on trauma-informed, strength-based and anti-oppressive practices. In particular, counselling, after-school and mentoring programs, peer support groups and family visits have been effective in supporting children and youth at all phases of the justice system. Overall, these supports have been instrumental in enhancing their well-being, developing protective factors, and yielding positive outcomes while reducing the cycle of intergenerational criminality.
Based on research, practice, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and our youth advisory, we have five recommendations.
One, include the children of incarcerated parents in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
Two, consider the best interests of children of incarcerated parents, as they identify them to be, at all phases of the justice system.
Three, amend policy to reduce barriers and enable children to maintain contact with their parents, such as by lowering age restrictions.
Four, invest in early interventions tailored to the unique needs of children of incarcerated parents.
Five, improve communication and collaboration between the justice, child welfare, education and mental health systems to increase access to wraparound support for children and families.
In Canada, every child's life and trauma should matter, yet children of incarcerated parents remain the forgotten victims. It's time for us to recognize the significance of the trauma associated with parental criminality and effectively respond by including these victims in this bill and providing the support they deserve. This proactive response would help to address the effects of intergenerational trauma, reduce systematic barriers and support the healing for the invisible victims, while being one of the most effective crime prevention strategies that our country can invest in.
Thank you.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam. I have just started my timer.
First of all, I thank both witnesses.
Mr. Berkes, I was starting to think you were a committee member and not a witness, as you've been here so frequently. I say that kiddingly, of course, but really as an expression of gratitude because your evidence every time, and today is no exception, has been very helpful. Thank you for that. I know how hard it is to give up time to do this.
Ms. Reid, thank you for coming today and for being the champion of an issue that is, to say the least, incredibly challenging. You are a lone voice on an issue that doesn't get a lot of support, but it's gaining more momentum thanks to you.
Other members of the committee might not know this, but Ms. Reid, as part of her effort to try to raise awareness on this, has prior to the pandemic made an annual pilgrimage to Ottawa from Toronto, which doesn't sound that impressive until you learn that she did it on foot. She did it several years in a row to try to raise awareness and raise money for the issue. Thank you for everything you're doing. It has been challenging.
One of the reasons it's challenging is that we're talking about victims and their rights. People automatically associate victims with people who have been the victim of a crime, but “victim” has a broader definition. If you look at the definition of “victim” in this legislation, in my view—and you don't have to convince me—it should also include the children of people who have committed crimes. That's why you are here today.
The problem with that is it automatically has a negative connotation, because somehow you're on the wrong side of an issue, and I understand that. When we talk about giving special rights to special crimes, for example, and other related things, to me that focuses on the crime and not the people, and it's the people we need to focus on. That's what you are doing with your cause.
What do you have to say to the people who say we shouldn't be even talking about families of people who have committed crimes as part of this discussion?
Jessica Reid
View Jessica Reid Profile
Jessica Reid
2021-06-08 11:36
I hear you. Including children of incarcerated parents or those who have parents who come into conflict with the law is not to take away from those who are direct victims, but actually to understand and to be more encompassing in terms of the label of “victim” and how it's defined in this bill. By recognizing the impact that it has on the children, we will actually strengthen and help to reduce crime in the future. That will help the healing that does exist and needs to occur, so that we can change the statistics that currently are plaguing our country.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's good. Thank you.
One of the big issues we face is to try to do exactly what you just said, and that's to stop repeat offenders and try to stop things at the source. In my opinion, this would be a good example of that.
Mr. Berkes, I'm curious to know what you think of the idea of including this group of people within the definition of “victim” in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
Jody Berkes
View Jody Berkes Profile
Jody Berkes
2021-06-08 11:37
Madam Chair, generally speaking, my comments are less related to overall concepts and more to the functionality, but in terms of the question that has been asked, it's a really important one.
At the end of the day, my personal view, which I'll insert here, is that everyone involved in the criminal justice system, from the judge down to the jurors down to the alleged victims down to the defendants, is a human being. Government needs to understand the toll that the system takes on all the parties: judges, jurors, Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, complainants and defendants. I am all for trying to assist whomever is involved in the system with the type of supports that will help them recover from whatever trauma they faced as a result of the alleged offence: the defendants from the trauma they faced that caused them to commit the offence, and the jurors and people who work in the system who have to observe the aftermaths of the offence.
To answer the question directly, yes, I would support expanding supports by including children of defendants as victims.
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
I think it's important, too, because one of the aspects of the word “victim” in this context is innocence, whether it's stated or implied. I think the children of the people we're talking about are clearly in that category.
To go back to you, Ms. Reid, much of the time you're dealing with children of single parents. Can you explain the greater impact it has when you're dealing with a child whose only parent has been incarcerated—a child who is completely innocent and has played no part in the crime whatsoever?
Jessica Reid
View Jessica Reid Profile
Jessica Reid
2021-06-08 11:39
In terms of children whose parents are involved in the justice system, for many children sometimes both parents are, so they end up in foster care, which also magnifies the effect, but even in a single-parent household they experience financial strain in the home, so there's a lot of emotional stress that children have to face and go through.
Many of them are living in communities where there are limited resources to support them as they navigate the challenges in our systems: formal education systems, our health care system and our justice system. It's so important to recognize the ripple effects that this has on the children and on the family as a whole. By recognizing the impact that it has and by connecting them to resources, we can actually help to break that cycle, which is so very important.
Results: 1 - 15 of 616 | Page: 1 of 42

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data