Finance Committee on July 20th, 2021

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

Well, thank you very much. I want to thank Mr. Boudria and Mr. Milliken for their clarity today as well.

I want to ask a question of Ms. Robinson and Ms. Bissonnette. In the Department of Finance press release that was put out yesterday—after 527 days, as my colleague from the Bloc said, of fighting this bill, and 20 days to have said why, if it were such a good bill, they didn't vote for it in the House—the caption reads “clarifies taxation for intergenerational transfers of small businesses”. The Deputy Prime Minister is acknowledging that it's law. Everybody knew that except their own caucus. I think it's nothing new to say that.

However, there's still doubt here. I've already had phone calls on that. They're saying, “Well, we know it's law now”, but the release also has that “forthcoming amendments are intended to make sure that it facilitates genuine intergenerational transfers and is not used for artificial tax planning purposes.” On the word “genuine”, I want to ask my colleagues in the agriculture field, because this applies to all small businesses. The government wanted to remove the other 97%, other than farming and fishing, from the bill in the Senate in that regard. The use of the word “genuine” leads me to believe that the government doesn't believe that a lot of these transfers are genuine, and that it believes there may be some hidden agenda behind them. So does “not used for artificial tax planning purposes”, when the government knows full well that CRA can audit anyone at any time.

The questionable part of this whole thing about introducing amendments and introducing the bill is that it also states that these would apply as of the later of November 1 this fall or the date of publication of the final draft of the legislation. My question to you is, do you think this will ever happen? The later could be another two decades away, or six years or four years. I see this as a very open-ended opportunity for the government to continue what it's done for the last six years, which is nothing in this regard.

I think the four points in this statement it put out yesterday also lead to a great deal of misunderstanding—by the government in this particular case, not the finance department—about how these businesses are the same as any other small businesses, that farming and fishing are the same as any other small business. They're talking about the stripping of wealth in these small businesses, but they're only referring to that if it's a family farm or a family business, not one that's sold to a complete stranger. These things are very concerning to me, as a former farmer and farm leader in western Canada, or in all of Canada, for that matter.

I just wonder if you could comment on those points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're getting into the details of the bill. I would say, Mr. Maguire, if you go back and look at the record on Ms. Bendayan's words, I think that was spelled out pretty clearly there from a government perspective. That will be in the record.

Who wants to take a stab at that question?

[Mary Robinson]

I will, Wayne.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mary.

[Mary Robinson]

I think you're absolutely correct, Mr. Maguire, that it's not black and white. It's still a bit grey. It certainly causes me concern.

Julie was asked earlier if there would be confidence in telling someone to move ahead immediately with a transfer intergenerationally. I personally would be quite nervous of it. I think we heard Mr. Boudria speak to the idea of November 1 or the later publication. I am not a parliamentary expert by any means. I'm a farmer. I rely on my financial advisers. I hope there's great clarity given to accountants as they guide these multi-million-dollar transfers that happen, with the implication of hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to be paid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you for that.

We'll turn to Ms. Dzerowicz for the last round. Then we'll adjourn until the next panel this afternoon, with Finance. We should be able to get some clarity then.

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My colleague, Mr. Gerretsen, would like to speak for the last minute of my questions. Could you make sure to cut me off, including the answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. I don't mind at all cutting you off at four minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay. No problem. Then I have a lot of time.

I want to thank you for convening this session today, and I want to thank all my colleagues for making it out today. It's actually nice to see people in person.

It was quite clear from the news release put out yesterday by our government that we're committed to implementing Bill C-208. We're also committed to protecting the integrity of the tax system.

Ms. Robinson and Ms. Bissonnette, as we are intending to bring forward these amendments, what messages would you send to the federal government as our officials work on these amendments? That's the first part.

Second, Ms. Robinson, you made a very clear plea to make sure that officials connect directly with grassroots farmers. Are there any other groups we should make sure to touch base with?

Maybe we could start with Ms. Robinson, follow with Ms. Bissonnette, and then transfer whatever time I have left to Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mary Robinson]

In regard to grassroots consultation, we represent farmers. I probably shouldn't speak for industries outside of farming. I'm not familiar with them the way I am with agriculture.

I think it's incredibly important for government to speak with farmers and understand, because it is such a capital-intensive investment. It's perhaps not very well understood by people outside of agriculture, and sometimes in particular by people who live in large urban centres, which seems to be most of government and bureaucrats. We would appreciate great consultation with our members on that.

At this point, I would defer to Scott Ross to speak on the other point, if that's okay.

[Scott Ross, Assistant Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mary.

To the question, I think one message we would convey is that succession, as I think Ms. Bissonnette said earlier, is not a clear-cut and one-size-fits-all process for Canadian farmers. We highlighted the need for dialogue because it is a very complex process that can take a lot of different forms. It's not really a matter of just answering a couple of questions and ensuring that those are respected. I'd suggest it's having a very engaged dialogue with not only farmers but also the myriad farm advisers who are involved in succession planning. That's everyone from succession planning specialists to accountants and legal counsel as well.

This is a very involved process, with a lot of capital involved, as Mary said. I think it's about getting all the right voices in a room and making sure all those perspectives are informing that discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Bissonnette, did you want to add anything?

[Julie Bissonnette]

Yes, thank you.

I certainly agree with Ms. Robinson and Mr. Ross. As I said earlier, criteria have already been put in place in Quebec, and things seem to work. We really have seen no evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we should start by looking at what is being done there. We heard that recommendation often during the consultations on Bill C‑208.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there is no reason why farm transfers should be affected by the criteria, given that tax evasion is not the purpose of business transfers.

Of course, we hope that the safeguards will not add barriers to future transfers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you.

I should add as well here that we didn't have room for another witness. I know—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, do I still get the last minute there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, you have the last minute.

I just want to add on this point, because we've heard from the agriculture sector, but I do know Dan Kelly from the small business sector had asked to come before the committee, but we couldn't handle a fifth witness on this panel. I'm sure he and the fishing community as well would be saying that they absolutely have to be consulted as well on the points outlined in the press release going forward. I don't want that to be lost because we have just agriculture here. That has to be assured as well.

Mr. Gerretsen, you have about a minute and a half.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for you, Mr. Milliken. I'm a big fan of your work. Your work has come up a couple of times in this room today, in particular in discussions around parliamentary privilege and finding Parliament in contempt.

In that vein and following on the questions of Mr. Kelly, I want to go back to a ruling you made. I believe it was back in 2010, and I'm reading from The Canadian Press here, “Milliken ruled Parliament had a right to order...”. This is in regard to the breach of parliamentary privilege over the Afghan detainee documents. You ruled that Parliament had “a right to order the government in December to produce uncensored documents to members of a special committee examining allegations that detainees transferred to Afghan custody were tortured.” You said that the order was clear and procedurally acceptable, but you acknowledged that it had no provision to protect sensitive information within the material.

Here's where your ruling differed from one that has been referenced recently in this committee, which occurred recently in the House of Commons. You said specifically, during the lengthy ruling, that you called on House leaders, ministers and MPs to find a “workable accommodation” to satisfy all parties “without compromising the security and confidentiality contained”. You made it very clear that you respected and the House respected that confidentiality that was a requirement through other statutes and other laws. You saw the need to encourage members to find accommodation.

In fact recently, when a similar situation happened in front of the House of Commons, the House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, stood up and tried to find accommodation, yet there was no willingness from the other parties to see that. I'm curious as to whether you can comment on why you thought it was so necessary to have that accommodation seen and to find that compromise so that the confidentiality could be protected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Milliken, I will allow the question because we've had it from both sides. If you could give a fairly concise answer to that question, then we will adjourn until the next panel.

[Peter Milliken]

Well, I thought the thing to do was to have these documents reviewed by a panel of members in secrecy so they could choose which ones should not be made public, because making them public would cause a breach of national security. That was the purpose of it. My understanding was that the group met in private and in secret. They were sworn to secrecy and they did some of this work, but I never had the result. Parliament was dissolved before they ever announced anything from their findings, so I never heard a word. I don't know what happened. Parliament was dissolved, so the Speaker's ruling went out the window. When the new Parliament met, that was another issue. It wasn't raised, as far as I'm aware, but then I was gone and retired. It was just one of those things that happened.

Because the members were sworn to secrecy, when I would ask one of them, “What's going on? Are you having meetings on this?”, they said, “I can't tell you anything, sir. We're sworn to secrecy.” I just don't know what happened. I never did hear it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you for that, former speaker Milliken. We're getting into a little parliamentary history here, and that doesn't hurt any of us; that's for sure.

With that, we say thank you, Ms. Bissonnette and Ms. Robinson and the people with both of you, and thank you, Mr. Milliken and Mr. Boudria. Thank you for appearing today and for answering our questions, and for having a bit of a lively discussion at times.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.