Bill C-208 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act in order to provide that, in the case of qualified small business corporation shares and shares of the capital stock of a family farm or fishing corporation, siblings are deemed not to be dealing at arm’s length and to be related, and that, under certain conditions, the transfer of those shares by a taxpayer to the taxpayer’s child or grandchild who is 18 years of age or older is to be excluded from the anti-avoidance rule of section 84.‍1.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation), be read the third time and passed.

Income Tax Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will have the final vote on my private member's bill, Bill C-208. The purpose of this bill is straightforward. It will level the playing field by giving families the exact same tax treatment when they transfer their businesses or operations to their children as when they transfer it to a stranger. It would result in more locally owned and operated businesses, the type of businesses that are deeply involved in their communities and provide steady employment for countless individuals.

Bill C-208 sends a message of hope to young farmers who want to carry on what their families started. No longer will parents be given the false choice of having to choose between a larger retirement package after selling to a stranger, or a massive tax bill after selling to a family member, their own child or grandchild.

I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-208 and bring tax fairness to the Income Tax Act for all qualifying small businesses.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every year, hundreds of farms are closing down in Quebec. It is obvious that there is an urgent need to encourage the next generation of farmers. However, the federal government is making it more profitable for a farmer to sell their business to outside shareholders than to their own family. The farmer can either sell their land to a third party and secure a decent retirement, since the sale will qualify for the lifetime capital gains exemption, or sell it to their family and forgo a comfortable retirement.

Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to rectify this situation that the Bloc Québécois has opposed for 15 years now. Bill C-208, which aims to facilitate the transfer of businesses, will be put to a vote. I personally co-sponsored this bill, because the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of initiatives that are good for Quebec farmers. That is what being reliable is all about. This vote will be a moment of truth for the future of farming in Quebec, and I urge all parties to truly support the next generation of farmers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2021.

As I always remind my constituents, I am Beauce's representative in Ottawa, not Ottawa's representative in Beauce. That is why I would like to share with the House my many concerns about this budget and the changes that I would like to see made for my constituents and all Canadians.

The fact that the government took two years to announce its budget is unbelievable. One would think that, since the budget took two full years to develop, it would not have so many glaring problems, but it is important to remember that this government is constantly embroiled in scandal and other types of distractions.

Since coming to Ottawa during the last election, I have seen how complicated it is to work in federal politics. Everything moves at a snail's pace. It is extremely discouraging to have such good intentions but to feel as though this government never makes any progress.

As the associate shadow minister for rural economic development, I examined the budget carefully, and there are many things I would like to talk about today.

I would like to start by talking about the labour shortage that is affecting Quebec businesses. Business people across the country have found very creative ways to keep their businesses afloat during these uncertain times. Unfortunately, in rural areas, even before the pandemic, it has always been extremely difficult to fill all the available positions. The government should expand and enhance the existing temporary and seasonal worker programs to help fill the gap for these businesses.

The government also needs to cut the red tape associated with hiring. In some cases, businesses have to deal with three different departments to bring in the workers they themselves recruited in foreign countries. Current departmental wait times are destroying our businesses. The government cannot keep using the pandemic as an excuse. It is time for these ministers to stop gearing up for their next election campaign and start getting to work on these files.

Secondly, I want to talk about something that I have been passionate about for many years and that is public transportation in rural areas. The problem is that the money is simply not there. When the government promises to provide funding to the provinces, most of that funding ends up in major urban centres. With the population aging, keeping seniors in their rural municipalities could be easier with access to a public transportation system that would give them greater autonomy. In the absence of such transportation services, seniors choose to move closer to hospitals and health care centres for a better sense of security.

We see the same thing with newcomers. They also need transportation. In the context of a labour shortage, many businesses are recruiting foreign workers. It is the employer's responsibility to secure transportation to the workplace for employees with temporary work permits. However, these employee have no means of transportation to get to medical appointments, the pharmacy or the grocery store.

Public transportation in rural areas would help these workers and their families better integrate into their host communities. Without public transportation, students have no choice but to own a vehicle, carpool when possible, or live near post-secondary institutions, which are often located in major cities. For rural areas where about 20% of the Canadian population lives, a per capita contribution is not appropriate. Commuting distance should be a criterion for contribution. This approach would support the provision of transportation services in rural areas.

I would now like to quickly address a fairness issue that is not mentioned at all in this budget. It involves the current state of the Income Tax Act when it comes to the transfer of a family business. Currently, the reality for business owners is that it costs them more in taxes to sell their business to a family member than to sell it to a third party.

The current act unjustifiedly disadvantages operators who wish to pass on their family business to their daughter or son, leaving owners to decide whether to keep their life's work in the family or sell it to the highest bidder.

As everyone knows, Beauce is all about small business, and I would like to share an example from my riding. Eddy Berthiaume of Les Escaliers de Beauce in Saint-Elzéar was forced to make the difficult decision I just explained to the House. As the owner of half the business, Eddy is a hard worker who devoted years and years to building his business. When he was ready to retire, he decided to sell his shares in the family business to his children. Unfortunately, he was unfairly forced to pay thousands of dollars in transfer fees.

The worst part is that his business partner sold his half of the business to a third party and had to pay next to nothing in taxes. Why is that unfair? That is just one of many examples of how the government is leaving this country's small businesses out in the cold. We do not need a government that is willing to grant exemptions to some Canadians while penalizing hard-working families like the Berthiaumes.

I therefore hope all parties in the House will support the Conservative Party when it is time to vote on Bill C-208 tomorrow.

I now want to talk about high-speed Internet access and, in particular, the quality of cellular coverage in rural parts of Canada. This is the biggest problem that continues to put rural and remote communities at a disadvantage.

More and more Canadians are required to work and learn from home, so stable and reliable Internet and cellular connections are crucial. The Liberal government has completely bungled this issue, which has lagged for years, through five different programs and three departments.

Fortunately for Quebeckers, our provincial government presented a real plan with dates and objectives to get all homes connected by the end of 2022. The federal plan was so bad that the province implemented its own plan and simply asked the federal government to share the costs. Other parts of Canada are unfortunately quite far behind. We do not need more talk. We need action on this urgent issue.

Budget 2021 does not contain a single initiative to help improve cellular networks in rural areas. In some parts of my riding, people are finally getting access to a decent Internet connection. However, if they walk five minutes down the road, they lose any reliable connection to the cellular network, which makes no sense.

When can we finally hope to have a plan that works from this government to connect all Canadians in rural areas? We need the government to show leadership. It cannot continue to sit on the sidelines and wait for the big telecoms to take the initiative and solve this problem.

Another file that I am very passionate about is our agriculture and agri-food sector, a very important part of Canada's rural economy. This sector has been neglected by the Liberal government for years. To improve the economic development of Canada's rural areas, it is essential that the government help fund not just farmers on the ground, but the entire food chain.

When I was the associate shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food for the Conservative Party, I tried to get the minister to listen to me, but it seems that her hands are tied by a Prime Minister who does not believe in this sector. I still sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which released a complete report on business risk management programs. Unfortunately, nothing has changed.

It is essential to improve the business risk management programs for agricultural producers. The minister proposed a few changes to the program on condition that the provinces and territories share the cost. Unfortunately, some provinces cannot do that right now because of budget constraints. The minister is probably happy to wash her hands of it and say that she tried. However, agriculture and agri-food need to be considered as a real driver of Canada's economic recovery.

In closing, this budget is nothing more than a campaign tool for the Liberals, who are throwing money around without a real plan. I hope that, before the next election, Canadians will clearly see that the Liberals are just trying to buy votes with this budget.

Income Tax Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have outlined all the details at second reading, third reading and previous iterations of this bill, so I will not go into those right now.

Tonight, I want to begin by thanking all those who have helped get Bill C-208 to this point. Without my Conservative colleagues trading the speaking spots for their private members' bills, we would never have gotten to third reading before the summer recess. I am immensely thankful to them for that.

For my colleagues from Prince Albert, Saskatoon—Grasswood and Regina—Qu'Appelle, I am eternally grateful for their support and assistance. For that support, I want them to know we are on the cusp of passing the legislation and sending it to the Senate.

I have spoken to numerous MPs over the past year about the importance of correcting this massive injustice within the Income Tax Act. The purpose of this bill is straightforward. It will level the playing field by giving families the exact same tax treatment whether they transfer their businesses or operations to their children or to a stranger. It will result in more locally owned and operated businesses, as has been outlined by many of my colleagues who have spoken to the bill, the types of businesses that are involved in their communities and provide steady employment for countless individuals. It will help keep farms and fishing operations in the family as well as any other qualifying small business.

Bill C-208 would send a message of hope to young farmers who want to carry on what their families started. Most of all, it would bring tax fairness to the Income Tax Act. No longer will parents have given a false choice of having to choose between a larger retirement package by selling to a stranger or a massive tax bill because they have sold to a family member, their own son, daughter or grandchildren. Every single community in Canada will be positively impacted by the passage of the bill.

As I said in my speech two weeks ago, there is bipartisan support for the legislation. I want to recognize and thank not only my colleagues from Provencher and Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for their kind words and informational speeches, but also the members of other parties for their speeches and support at second reading, third reading and at committee as well as all the witnesses who gave testimony.

In particular, I want to thank my colleague from Malpeque, who also happens to be the chair of the finance committee, who announced he would be voting in favour of Bill C-208. I thank him for his kind presentation in the House today as well.

While I know my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North, and I know him very well, is well-intentioned, I found that during his speech a on the legislation a couple of week, his comments were quite off base. I know, had he taken the time to read the evidence and testimony provided at the finance committee, he would have known his speaking points and the concerns given to him by the finance department were all truly addressed.

For my Liberal colleagues, who, for the most part, all voted against the bill at second reading, I know the process. I know the party whips and the powers that be have likely told them to vote against the bill. However, I implore them to listen to their constituents who want this legislation passed, review what the tax experts have said and reach out to their businesses, farms or organizations in their ridings and ask them if they support the bill. I can assure all my colleagues that if they do reach out, they will find almost universal support for Bill C-208.

Once and for all, we can finally resolve this long-standing problem that countless families have had to endure when selling their businesses or operations to their immediate children or grandchildren.

I look forward to the final vote next week and kindly ask all my colleagues to support the bill, thus allowing for the debate in the other place and passage of it into law.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, 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.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, 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.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, 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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to get the opportunity to speak a little further on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding transfer of a small business, a family farm or a fishing corporation, which is sponsored by the member for Brandon—Souris.

As members know, Bill C-208 is now at third reading stage. How did it get here? Simply put, Bill C-208 has had considerable debate in the House and was referred to the finance committee, which I chair. I will make a few comments on what witnesses had to say before committee in a moment. The finance committee referred the bill back to the House without amendment.

Bill C-208 has a long history, and it criss-crosses the political landscape. It was first introduced by the current member of Parliament for Bourassa, a Liberal, two parliaments ago. In the last Parliament, the same bill was brought forward by Guy Caron, an NDP member. Now, in this current Parliament, it is sponsored by the member for Brandon—Souris, a Conservative member.

This long history, across all major political parties in the House, certainly shows that there is a need to bring fairness and equity from a taxation perspective to the transfer of family farm corporations, fisheries enterprises and small family businesses. Quite honestly, it is long past time that this problem was fixed.

During an earlier discussion at third reading, it was suggested by the government spokesman that just maybe the bill could provide opportunities for tax avoidance. I would agree that tax avoidance is a legitimate concern. However, I must point out that at the finance committee we heard from 17 witnesses, and every opportunity was given to address the concern of tax avoidance. We called on the public and Finance Canada to provide witnesses and propose amendments, to anybody who had those kinds of concerns.

I certainly appreciate that the assistant deputy minister of the tax policy branch and the senior director of the tax legislation division in the tax policy branch appeared and answered questions, and their comments appear in the transcript for the finance committee for anybody who wants to see it. To be fair, they did outline some concerns, especially as it relates to what is called “surplus stripping” for the purpose of tax avoidance.

Where does that leave us? On the one hand, we have concerns being expressed by officials, and I do take their concerns seriously. On the other hand, we have a broad section of witnesses who expressed a serious and immediate need for a way to transfer a small business, farming corporation or fishing enterprise without facing unfair taxation when transferring to a family member. We do not see amendments to the bill that would fix this alleged problem.

I would even agree with those who might say that private members' bills are not the best vehicle to change tax policy. They are not. However, we simply cannot allow this inequity disadvantaging intergenerational transfers to family members to continue. It is time to accept the only change that is on the table to fix the problem, and that happens to be Bill C-208.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Brandon—Souris, gave about the most concise and clear example of this inequity in the tax system. He said:

The second example was a father wanting to sell his farm to his son to fund his retirement. If the father were to sell his farm to a stranger, he could use his capital gains exemption on the sale, resulting in an effective tax rate of 13.39%. However, if the farmer sold his farm to his son, that sale would be recorded as a dividend rather than a capital gain, and the farmer would pay 47.4% in tax. That is a huge difference, and I think we can all agree that it is completely unfair.

The second quote is from Ms. Robyn Young, president-elect of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada.

She said this:

In closing, this is an issue of equity and fairness. Business owners should not be penalized for selling their business to a family member. Tax implications should never be a consideration when making the decision to sell a business to a family member.

There were many other good witnesses I could quote and make the point on this serious inequity, including the UPA, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, other farming and fishing organizations, the tax manager at Deloitte, underwriting companies and more, but I think members get my point.

The backbone of many communities are small businesses, farmers and fishermen. Those who can pass a business down from generation to generation create the history and the character of many of our communities in the country. We need to give every opportunity for those families to make that transfer.

It is absolutely true that during this pandemic the federal government has been there in every way possible to support Canadians, businesses, farmers and fishermen. Tax policy, however, should not cause a disincentive to transfer to the next generation. Tax fairness should be the cornerstone on which to encourage intergenerational transfers. This bill would move tax policy in that direction.

Finance Canada, and the government for that matter, always have the option to put forward corrections in a ways and means motion if concerns expressed before committee do arise in reality. That, in itself, is a safeguard. They have the ability to do that fairly quickly through a ways and means motion. However, farmers, fishermen and small business owners, with respect to the unfairness of this taxation system, have been waiting for this change for years.

We have to put the shoe on the other foot. Instead of having those families that want intergenerational transfers sitting in the wings waiting for something to happen, we have to pass this bill and put the shoe on the other foot. If there is a problem, then government has the ability to fix that problem. I am encouraging others to recognize this problem.

I, for sure, will be supporting Bill C-208, and I hope others can do the same.

The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation), be read the third time and passed.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her speech.

This is lavish spending at a time when we are accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit. Does my colleague not think that there are things missing from the budget, such as the health transfers, money for seniors as of age 65, and the agriculture sector?

My question for the parliamentary secretary has to do with that last point in particular, but it might take me a minute to get there.

A few hundred million dollars in compensation is on the table for processors. That is not a lot. As far as foreign workers are concerned, the biggest investment is in inspections. That is not what the sector needs. It needs support. The government should be increasing money for foreign workers, rather than decreasing it starting in June.

That brings me to farm succession planning. Since we are talking about the future, economic recovery and ensuring food security in this country, can my colleague explain why the government put absolutely nothing in the budget about transferring farms or transferring small businesses in general, even as it seems to be getting ready to vote against Bill C-208?

I would like her to say a few words about that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

There is probably no one who is better placed to take over a business than the children who have grown up with the family business, obviously.

Economic statistics for Quebec and Canada show that business succession plans fail in 70% of cases, and that only 10% of business owners are able to find a buyer. Apart from Bill C-208, which seeks to correct the current unfair provisions for business succession, what other factors that fall under federal jurisdiction are impeding the transfer of businesses to a new generation?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

As you probably know, Bill C-208 was debated at third reading at the House of Commons yesterday, which means that things are moving along. I can be quite critical of the way the Conservatives use the House, but on this issue I believe they are showing leadership and are working to ensure that the bill is quickly passed before an election might be called.

Once the federal government finally decides to make changes to eliminate this barrier to business succession, what will be the benefits for the new generation of entrepreneurs?

Income Tax Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-208 on the transfer of small businesses, family farms and fishing corporations between family members.

It is no secret to members in the House that the New Democrats definitely believe that the ultra-rich and wealthy ought to be paying their fair share, and we have done a very good job of making a case for that in this Parliament. We have proposed some concrete measures for how that might be done.

We have also been champions for small businesses in Canada. We know they are the backbone of the Canadian economy, with 80% of the jobs in our economy created by small business owners. We appreciate farmers and fishers and what they contribute to the Canadian economy and to the world, with all the food they export outside of Canada the world over.

These are important industries. The businesses within them, whether it is a farm or business, are developed by families and become part of the family. Those families are known in their communities. As the former member said, they have relations with suppliers and others within their communities. Being able to pass that family business on to their children is important. It is important for the family from an identity point of view and from the family's economic point of view. However, it can also be important to communities as well, that sense of stability and to ensure that the people who are employed at those businesses and people who do business with those businesses continue to enjoy those relationships and the economic benefits of them. This is why I am quite pleased to stand in support of the bill before us.

Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North talked about the NDP's concern for tax evasion, and he is absolutely right. We can talk about tax havens. New Democratic members have had private members' bills before the House, members who are serious about taking action on the biggest tax evaders. However, some of the small businesses in our communities, and I think of a small business I know, a sign company that a husband and wife developed over 30 or 40 years, want to pass the business to their children. They are not the people who are shunting money out to the Barbados, Cayman Islands and other such places.

The fact is that if business owners choose to sell to their children, under the current tax rules, they will pay considerably more than if they sell to a complete stranger, so there is a principle of fairness here. It just does not make sense that by selling a business that is the life's work of a family within the family that it would be penalized and have to pay more. That is what we are trying to address here.

I think the member for Winnipeg North misunderstands the bill, frankly, when he mentions the capital gains exemption. Of course, the very point of the bill is that if people are selling to immediate family members, they do not benefit from the capital gains exemption. That sale is not taxed as a capital gain; it is taxed as a dividend. The whole point of the legislation is to allow those family members to benefit from the very capital gain lifetime exemption to which the member for Winnipeg North was speaking.

I think some members do not necessarily expect that when the member for Winnipeg North gets up to speak, that he will have a very detailed knowledge of what he is speaking about, but that is no excuse for his government, or the ministry or other members of his party for that matter. They should hold themselves to a higher standard and really come to have an appreciation of what is in the legislation.

Why, when the New Democrats are so concerned about tax evasion, do we support the bill? There are a couple of things.

One of measures in the bill is that to get this different tax treatment under capital gains as opposed to dividends, the family member who receives or purchases the business has to continue to be the owner of that business for five years as opposed to the current two years. That is my understanding. It is meant to promote the idea that if the sale is happening, it is happening because someone within the family genuinely wants to take over the business, not just flip it for sale. Therefore, if within those five years, the business is sold again, then it is retroactively treated as a dividend sale and taxed appropriately, taxed as it is under the current legislation. At that point, it is not about successorship within a family, it has become something else.

One of the things that gives me comfort is that the bill is not the product of one political party that might have a particular agenda. A former NDP member of Parliament, Guy Caron, developed this private member's bill. He put a lot of work into it. As the NDP finance critic, he was someone who did excellent work on tax evasion and was very concerned about it. It was one of the things that motivated him to get into politics. He did that not just as an amateur within politics who was assigned the finance portfolio, but he did it as somebody who worked as an economist his whole life prior to getting into politics.

He understood very well not just the issue of tax evasion but also the particular dynamics of the bill. He sought to craft a bill that really would honour the idea of being able to pass a business down within generations of a family and to do that in the right way, so it did not just become a loophole or an excuse to evade taxes, something the New Democrats fiercely oppose.

Those are some of the elements, both concretely within the bill with respect to what the legislation would do but also where the legislation comes from, that give me confidence that this is not about introducing another means for tax evasion into the tax code. It really is about settling a fundamental unfairness, where people who spend their lives pouring their heart and soul into a business and make it a success, whose children have oftentimes been part of that success, and then want to ensure it gets passed on within the family and can do so without paying a large financial penalty. This also helps to ensure that these assets for our communities stay in local hands.

Sometimes the only people with the capital to buy a business are foreign investors, which sometimes happens, whether it is with small businesses or with farms. Either large corporations or foreign investors purchase these things. It makes more sense for the family, if the differential is $400,000 or $500,000 as we have heard in some cases, to come to the decision that it is in fact better off not doing what its heart wants to do, which is to keep that business or that farm within the family, but to make a more hard-nosed financial decision about the family's best interests. This would allow families to take off the table the factor that makes it far more profitable for them to sell to a stranger than to keep it within the family.

Those are some of the issues at play. As I said, this is something that New Democrats believe in, but it is also part of a package of advocacy that New Democrats have brought forward for a long time, and particularly within this Parliament. I have been really impressed with our small business critic, the member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni, a former small business owner himself, He was right out of the gate when the pandemic began, advocating for a 75% wage subsidy when the government said it would only be 10%. He knew how important it was to get beyond just covering payroll costs and providing wage replacement. He was the loudest voice out of the gate for the need for a commercial rent subsidy. He has been advocating for an extension of the Canada emergency business account loan program. We saw a small extension in the most recent budget. We are glad to see that, but there is more work to do.

The New Democrats believe in small business. We are advocating for small business. We see this as part of a package that is important for small business and farmers, so they can keep all the hard work of their families with in their families when the time comes to pass that business on.