Finance Committee on Oct. 26th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's not a point of order.

Member Baker has the floor.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Actually, I did allow for exactly the same amount of time. That time passed, and that's when I interrupted. The time elapsed and the question had not been answered.

I'm going to ask that the question be answered, Mr. Terrazzano. It's just a question of fact. I heard you say to Mr. Lawrence that you do not support increases to the EI and CPP premiums. Is that correct?

[Franco Terrazzano]

The government should not have raised carbon taxes and payroll taxes. If all that drives you to drink, the government is also taking more money from you every time you go get that bottle of Pinot to enjoy with your—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. Your time is over.

These increases in EI premiums and CPP premiums are needed to ensure—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is not an appropriate way to address.... I believe we should be cordial and respectful. These witnesses have spent their time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We should be cordial and respectful. I agree. But it is the member's prerogative and it is the member's time.

Go ahead, MP Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have been cordial and respectful. I've just been enforcing the time, as you were so concerned about, Mr. Lawrence.

The increases in premiums for EI and CPP are needed to make sure that when people lose their jobs, in the case of EI, or when our seniors retire, the funds are there to ensure that they can collect their pension or, in the case of EI, their EI. The effect of not increasing those premiums, with the demand for EI and CPP, would mean that when people retire or lose their jobs, they would not have the funds needed to collect EI. The funds wouldn't be there certainly to keep up with their needs but also with inflation. That would apply to CPP as well.

Are you concerned about that?

[Franco Terrazzano]

What I'm so concerned about are so many Canadians who, in the private sector, just took it on the chin for two-plus years while the people who are supposed to be their representatives gave themselves pay raise after pay raise after pay raise, and not just that; they raised the carbon tax, raised payroll taxes and raised alcohol taxes. They then played word games with Canadians, using magic math, when the government's own independent budget watchdog shows that the cost of these tax hikes, like the carbon tax, is costing the average household hundreds of dollars this year even after the rebates.

I'm concerned with the tax hikes. I'm concerned that all of this burden is falling on those hard-working Canadians who lost their jobs during the pandemic while members of Parliament gave themselves pay raises, while 300,000 bureaucrats received pay raises, and while failing Crown corporations gave out bonuses and pay raises during the pandemic.

So I'm very concerned about the tax hikes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. I've heard you.

So what I hear is that you're not concerned about the pensioners and the EI recipients who wouldn't receive the funds. That's what I've just heard you say. It sounds to me like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is actually not supporting the very taxpayers who would struggle the most in an inflationary environment in the circumstance where they retire or lose their jobs. I think that's really, really disappointing.

I'd like to move on to—

[Franco Terrazzano]

I'm glad you brought up—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That wasn't a question.

I'd like to move on, now, to Mr. Fogel.

Mr. Fogel, you raised something I'm deeply concerned about. You actually raised a number of issues I'm very concerned about.

You talked about literacy around social media—this is what I understood from you, and please correct me; don't let me put words in your mouth—and the importance of making sure people can properly understand what they're reading and know how to interpret it and how to contribute in the most constructive and respectful way possible.

First, am I correctly characterizing what you're advocating for? Also, could you talk about how we can execute the program you're suggesting?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I think you gave a fair characterization.

Allow me, Mr. Chair, to give an analogy.

Without offering any comment.... When the decision was made to legalize cannabis use, it very soon became apparent to the government that there was something they had not anticipated. There was a set of concerns about safety, in terms of, for example, the use of cannabis, cannabis and alcohol mixtures, and the different action of edible cannabis products as opposed to those that are inhaled. They recognized there was a need to undertake a sustained, serious and comprehensive public education campaign to sensitize Canadians, especially a particular demographic—not coincidentally, the same one with the highest number of users of social media platforms—to the risks and proper use of cannabis products, in order to ensure their safety.

We're suggesting that the ubiquitous nature of social media today requires that we provide that same kind of sensitivity training and education, so people using social media platforms are aware of what constitutes bullying—what the code words and messages are that target individual groups and seek to marginalize them.

I think most Canadians, if they were aware of certain language, emojis or what have you triggering that kind of reaction, would self-manage to ensure they distance themselves from and not use, amplify or share those kinds of messages, because we cannot put everything in a legislative process that seeks to punish or codify social media use.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Baker. That's the time.

Now we'll move to the Bloc and MP Ste-Marie for six minutes.

Members, 5:42 is when we will break so everybody can get out to vote and then get back. Thank you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being here and for their very interesting testimonies. This was particularly true in the last exchange. We always learn a lot in the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr. Caron, thank you for your presentation. You sent the committee your recommendations and your brief on the consultations. You have briefly presented them, and I'd like to come back to them, but in reverse order.

Your final recommendation is that there be no further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. I would remind everyone that during the negotiations leading up to the last three agreements, namely the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the new Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, it was market share of supply-managed products that were used as bargaining chips. That's unacceptable, of course.

Another of your recommendations related to this calls on the government to honour the commitment it made in the last budget to provide full compensation to dairy producers in response to the loopholes created by CUSMA. Could you explain why that hasn't been done yet?

[Martin Caron]

Thank you for your question.

We mentioned this compensation as a reminder that there was only a note about it, but nothing in the budget. So, we expect that in the next budget or when the budgets are reviewed there will be the amounts set aside and that we'll be able to agree on the groups that will be compensated.

Supply management or collective marketing makes it possible to have farms in every rural community in Canada. Today's food safety concerns make it all the more important to have such systems and to ensure the availability of quality products for Canadians.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

There should be an economic update in the coming weeks. If not, a budget implementation bill is typically tabled in the fall, as well as an economic update implementation bill. So there will be a number of opportunities to consider your recommendation this fall, and we hope it will happen.

Can you now explain your other recommendation to create a personal silvicultural savings and investment plan for forest owners? Is it because the timber harvest cycle is long?

[Martin Caron]

The cycle is, indeed, very long.

I'll try to put it in layman's terms. If forestry producers had access to a savings and investment plan, they could put the income from their logging operations in a tax-sheltered savings account. They could then use that money to fund forest management or reforestation that they would then do. The principle is there, and it's well understood; it just needs to be applied.

In addition, if we want to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, we need our forestry producers to work on forest management.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What you are saying is very clear. I hope you've convinced the government to adopt this measure.

I'm now going to link your other recommendation to a bill we passed before the last general election, in the early summer of 2021, if I'm not mistaken. This bill deals with the transfer of farm businesses or farms to children and is intended to make it less disadvantageous to transfer those assets to children.

This bill has been passed, but transactions still can't be made because the government refuses to share the terms with the chartered professional accountants, who then refuse to proceed. After all these months of waiting, this bill really needs to be implemented.

You recommend eliminating or limiting the taxation of capital gains on the gifting or sale of certain farm assets at low cost to a nephew or niece. Is that done on family farms?

[Martin Caron]

Absolutely.

I think all of us around the table understand that farm business assets have grown significantly. The average farm in Canada is worth $3 million or more. That gives you an idea of the investments and assets.

It's incomprehensible that there are no supports in place to help parents transfer their businesses and farms to the family. We are disadvantaged by this type of transfer. Yet 56% of farm transfers are between parents and their children.

There are three elements that need to be put in place, including control of equities and percentage assets. Given the value of the assets we have in our businesses, it's very important that parents remain present to financially support the business, especially in the context of inflation such as the one we are currently experiencing. It's just a matter of sustaining our businesses.

We're not asking for a lot of money. We're just asking for a change in the way things are done and for some balance.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Let's hope that this is well understood. It's important that the family business model, especially in agriculture, maintains a human dimension.

Farm businesses with gross annual revenues of less than $50,000 would need a tax incentive when purchasing equipment. I imagine that equipment prices are high. So, if I understand correctly, businesses need a boost to upgrade their equipment and increase their productivity, right?

[Martin Caron]

I would like to point out to committee members that this $50,000 represents the gross income of 40% of farms in Canada, or about 83,000 farms. They need to be given a boost.

An investment in agriculture and agri-food is an investment in the food security of Canadians. It's important to invest in rural communities and the economy as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Members, before we suspend, we're going to go to the NDP for a couple of minutes. We're then going to suspend and go off to vote. We will be back, and we will continue with the NDP at that time.

I believe MP Davies is with us in the room.