Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changes

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone here will agree to creating a fairer and more equitable tax system for everyone, and to not target only SMEs and the entrepreneurs that drive our local economies across Canada.

The NDP has proposed extending the scope of this study to include CEOs, multinationals and a study of tax havens. We know that at least $8 billion is lost every year. Sadly, the Conservatives rejected our amendment in that regard.

If the Conservatives do not want SMEs targeted and refuse to include a study of CEOs and the legislation that enables the use of tax havens, what kind of equity does the hon. member have in mind, exactly? Why did the Conservatives vote down this NDP amendment?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the use of what is referred to as tax havens is an international issue, one that Canada alone cannot resolve or change. We must address it with the support and cooperation of 180 other countries around the world.

As for the NDP proposal, as I said, the Conservatives are not opposed to consultation or analysis, but it has to be done correctly. The government held consultations over 75 days, which might be described as rushed. If even more elements are added, we may end up having even less time. That is why the Conservatives are proposing to correctly analyze the government’s poor proposals until January 31. Nothing prevents further debates later on if needed. For now, and until January 31, we must focus on the frontal attack that the Liberal government is waging on our entrepreneurs.

I sincerely hope that the Liberals, who always say they want to continue listening, will vote in favour of our proposal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives are asking for additional consultations. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, he did not believe in consultations. Not only have the Conservatives crossed the floor, but they have also changed their attitude toward consultations.

When it comes to consultations, this government has demonstrated very clearly that it believes in having input from Canadians, whether it is the Prime Minister doing town halls or the Minister of Finance reaching out and consulting with Canadians who are holding town halls themselves. There has been a phenomenal amount of effort and input. This government is taking those into consideration. It is very genuine.

The Conservatives seem to have something against Canada's middle class. This is all about tax fairness. I ask them to think about passive income. Eighty-three per cent of that passive income goes to a very small number of people, those making over a quarter of a million dollars a year. Why do the Conservatives consistently go against Canada's middle class?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, based on the Fraser Institute, the middle class pay $865 more today than they paid two years ago. That is a direct tax to the middle class. The Right Hon. Stephen Harper never made war with small business owners, as the Liberal government is doing right now. We want to listen. Sixty-nine groups from coast to coast oppose that kind of measure.

I am very proud to sit here in the House of Commons with my colleagues from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Beauport—Limoilou, and Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. All six of us are listening to what Canadians are saying about this. That is our job. I hope the government will at least let people express themselves until January 21.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.

I want to begin by saying that I fully support the business owners and farmers of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I grew up with a father who sacrificed hours and hours working on his business when I was young. He had two restaurants and was involved in municipal politics. Spending time with him meant going to the restaurant early in the morning or going to the office. I personally experienced the family sacrifices a father or mother must make for their business. That is why I wanted to speak to the motion we are debating today.

Today, I will explain what we are trying to accomplish and why I will not support the motion.

We know farmers are key to our economy, which is why we want to make sure we get this right, particularly when it comes to the new generation of farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs.

The government will not change benefits in the tax system that are intended to help family businesses grow, create jobs, and innovate. Farmers do so much for Canada. They deliver high-quality food to Canadians and our international customers, provide jobs in rural communities, and boost Canada's economy, while working to safeguard our natural resources.

As I am sure my honourable colleagues know, farming is a 24-hour, 7-day a week business. It is a physically demanding, time-consuming job. It is commendable.

Supporting farmers is a priority for the government and for me, personally. We know that one of the greatest returns on investments we can make is helping the next generation enter agriculture as their career of choice.

As the industry grows, so does the need for additional talented, energetic and well-educated young people. The government is committed to helping this new generation obtain the skills and support it needs to help young people move into good-paying jobs, including many opportunities in Canada's agriculture sector.

A recent informal survey by Farm Credit Canada of 33 post-secondary institutions offering agriculture and ag-related programs confirms agriculture has become a popular career option, especially over the past five years as the industry has grown.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2014, over 12,000 students across Canada were studying in agriculture or an ag-related program. This is great news. A University of Guelph study found that there are 4 job openings for every graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College. The gap has risen from 3 jobs for every graduate in 2012, despite a 30% increase in enrolment over the same period.

Sixty-seven per cent of agriculture companies and 51% of food processors or retailers said they had trouble finding qualified employees, according to the study. The University of Manitoba's School of Agriculture just graduated its largest class in more than 30 years. Similarly, the University of Guelph’s Alfred campus offers a wide range of courses aimed at training the next generation of farmers.

According to Statistics Canada’s Census of agriculture, for the first time since 1991, the number of farmers under the age of 35 increased. Agriculture has shaped our nation and contributes to the health of both Canadians and Canada's economy.

We are talking about a powerful engine of jobs, growth and trade in this country. Today, it is a $100-billion industry, employing more Canadians than any other industry in Canada.

Thanks to our innovative farmers and their commitment to delivering the highest standards of safety and quality, Canadian foods and beverages can be found on store shelves around the globe. Customers in the world’s fastest-growing market, China, can now order Canadian food products with the click of a mouse.

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, it is exciting to reflect on how far our agricultural industry has come. Farmers can now link their tractors to satellites in the sky, and we now have robots to milk cows. This would have seemed like science fiction in 1867.

The future is bright for this dynamic industry, with a growing global middle class looking for products our world-class farmers and food processors can deliver. To continue to succeed, however, the sector depends on continuing to attract young farmers. There are financial hurdles to overcome for many young people to take over the family farm or start their own farm business from scratch.

That is why the government, through Farm Credit Canada, has increased its support for young farmers by doubling the amount of credit available to $1 million from $500,000. As well, FCC has lowered the possible minimum down payment to 20% of the value of the loan which supports the purchase or improvement of farmland and buildings. These are key measures which will help beginning farmers overcome the considerable capital outlay required to start out in the business.

Young farmers also play a key role in the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a federal-provincial-territorial agreement to invest $3 billion to advance our great industry over the next five years. The partnership will focus on priorities that are critical to unleashing the sector’s growth potential, including research, innovation, domestic competitiveness and trade.

The partnership will be a solid foundation for the future of our great agricultural sector. To grow our agrifood trade even further, the budget targets $75 billion a year in agricultural exports by 2025.

As the House can see, the government fully understands that it is in Canada’s best interest to encourage young people to choose a future in agriculture. The tax changes we are proposing will not raise tax rates on farm businesses. They will not affect farmers’ ability to incorporate, make investments or pay family members who work in the farm business.

Our priority is to ensure tax fairness, while avoiding unintended consequences for our hard-working farmers. This is the purpose of the consultation. I realize that there may need to amend the bill once it is introduced, but that is what consultations are for. We provide information, knowing that comments and suggestions will follow. It is not a done deal, as some people claim.

The Minister of Finance indicated that the our government’s goal was not to make it more difficult to transfer family farms. On the contrary, we want to make it easier.

I had the opportunity to speak to many accountants and tax lawyers since the beginning of the consultations. I want to thank each and every one of them who reached out to me. They agree with the government that while legal, converting dividends into capital gains is an aggressive tax strategy. Most of them do not advise their clients to do so. They also agreed that a child who was two days old should not be able to use the lifetime capital gain exemption. Again, the vast majority of entrepreneurs do not do this.

I believe the last point is important for a young generation. Under the current rules, children could use the lifetime capital exemption, which is up to $850,000, without their consent. Let us say they start a business and grow it into a success. By the time they want to retire and sell the business, if the amount of the lifetime capital exemption was all used when they were two days old, they will have to pay the full taxes on capital gains when they retire. That is wrong, and ut is not fair for a young generation.

Some accountants and tax specialists have also raised concerns, and I recognize that the proposal contains certain unwelcome measures. I also know that the Minister of Finance has been listening to and will continue to listen to people’s concerns.

What farmers and entrepreneurs need is certainty in the marketplace. Extending the consultation period would cause more delays and more uncertainty in the market. Realistically, if the Conservatives are going to blast us for launching these consultations during the summer, I do not see how extending them during the Christmas period is going to help.

Lastly, the government’s goal is to make sure the next generation of farmers has the tools, resources and support it needs to succeed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend across the way, he is going to have to do a little better. He just told us that we cannot extend the consultation to January because that would interfere with Christmas. I do not know if that needs a response, but I will clarify.

We have the fall in between now and Christmas. This is precisely the issue, that if the only consultation is over the holidays, that limits people's ability to respond. The Conservatives do not have a problem with the consultation period including holidays, just as long as it is not exclusively during the holidays.

The member has a perspective on these changes and it is one, of course, that I am sure will be hotly debated within his riding. We are hearing from business owners and entrepreneurs that the reality of the system in place gives people the appropriate incentive to be creative and take that risk. We want to make that risk possible without having punitive measures that punish people more.

Could the member at least take this institution seriously enough to tell us why he is opposed to having the entire fall period available to people who want to contribute and put forward their serious concerns?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had listened to the first part of the comment, I said that extending the consultation period to January 31 would only prolong uncertainty in the market. The last thing entrepreneurs need is uncertainty in the market. There are people right now—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

And higher taxes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

The last thing they need are higher taxes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side would only listen, some people right now are waiting on our government to come out with our proposed tax changes. Waiting will not help them. They need assurance and they need certainty. That is why I do not support the motion of the Conservative Party.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that he does not have to convince me of the importance of agriculture, since I am proud to represent a world-renowned agrifood technopole.

What fascinates me today is that my colleague and his Liberal colleagues have to spend all day explaining to agricultural producers that they have nothing to worry about. This morning, I met with a young agricultural producer who is also president of the Haut-Richelieu Chamber of Commerce and Industry. She told me she was worried about the reform.

If people are still worried, they need time to understand. If the Liberals want to explain just how perfect the reform is for them, they should take the time they need. Between July 18 and October 1, agricultural producers do not have time to study the issue. If an agricultural producer who is also president of her chamber of commerce is still worried this morning, it is because we need more time.

If the Liberals want to represent and listen to them, why do they not give them the time to express themselves?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I personally made a number of calls, I spoke with several farmers, and I shared their concerns with the Minister of Finance.

Endlessly extending the consultation period would create uncertainty in the market. The Minister of Finance was clear when he said that it was a consultation period and that this was not a final bill. Once the final bill is introduced in the House, that will give our farmers more certainty.

Although the consultation period ended on October 2, I had plenty of time to share with the Minister of Finance all the concerns and proposals I heard from the farmers I talked to.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell always advocates on behalf of farmers and those in the agriculture sector, and I appreciate that. He is very passionate about this area.

Could he expand on the consultation process and how he has taken this opportunity to consult with his constituents to ensure their concerns have been represented during the process, which has gone on for over 70 days?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have extended the consultation period. I have reached out to local chapters of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I have reached out to dairy farmers. I have held sessions with chambers of commerce. I have called back everyone who has called me at the office. I have listened to their concerns and I have voiced them to the Minister of Finance. It is a simple process. Anyone can do it in 75 days.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this chamber to speak to the recently concluded consultations of our government on the proposal on tax planning used by private corporations.

The Liberals' plan is to make our tax system fair. It has been part of our commitment. We are also trying to do that by growing the economy and putting more money into the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

Since we formed government, we have been focused on the priorities of strengthening and growing the middle class. How have we done that? We have done it by reducing taxes for middle-income earners, which has benefited nine million Canadians. The Canada child benefit is helping lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We have also expanded the Canada pension plan to ensure that Canadians will be better off financially in their later years. We continue to invest in our communities and people, which has resulted in a positive change to the economy.

The Canadian economy is in a resurgence. Economic indicators tell us that since the fall of 2015, the Canadian economy has created over 400,000 jobs. The results of the second quarter indicate that there is growth of 4.5% in the GDP. Our economy is now growing faster than any of the other G7 countries. It is through strategic planning and a forward-looking agenda that we have been able to achieve these results.

As our economy grows, we are committed to ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared by every Canadian. How do we that? Investing in people and the economy should result in a benefit for all Canadians, but all Canadians are not sharing in this wealth. This is where tax fairness comes in.

Individuals who take advantage of the tax system are able to pay less tax than those who earn the same amount and do not, for example, create a private Canadian corporation. Hence, we need to review the system and see how we can make it fairer.

Consultations have taken place, and we have heard from many individuals by mail and email. From the correspondence I have received, I have realized that there is much misunderstanding as to who would be impacted by the proposal. As such, I held a town hall in my riding to listen to concerns and clarify misperceptions and took that input back to the minister.

What is the proposal really trying to do? Contrary to the Conservatives' spin, this proposal would not impact the carpenter, the plumber, the local shopkeeper, or the restaurant. The premise of the Conservatives' argument is disingenuous, because they are misrepresenting who the tax system is really going to go after.

For example, someone earning $500,000 could take advantage of the maximum RRSP and TFSA and be left with an income of $250,000. If that individual wished to reduce his or her tax, he or she could create a PCC, float the money to his or her spouse, and sprinkle the income. Through this strategy, which is legal, the individual would be able to reduce the amount of tax paid. On the other hand, an individual who did not incorporate and who earned the same amount of money would pay a higher tax rate.

Canadians have told us that they want a fair system in which everyone pays their fair share of taxes. The tax system has not been overhauled since the 1960s. It is time to review the system and ensure that it is fair.

As an accountant, when I posed the question to the Leader of the Opposition asking him which specific section he was talking about that would impact the carpenter or the plumber, I realized that he had not really read the legislation. The proposed legislation would only target the 1% who take advantage to reduce their personal taxes, and the contractor, the plumber, and others would not be impacted by these changes.

I can say from experience, having done many corporate tax returns, that the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises, before they even submit their tax returns, have taken advantage of things that are legally available to them. They have taken advantage of expense deductions, like mortgages, hydro, and car. They have taken advantage of capital gains, which is capped at $800,000.

We understand that small and medium-sized enterprises take risks and work hard. We continue to work with them. That is why our government has invested, and continues to invest, in innovation and technology. Small and medium-sized enterprises have taken advantage of these investment programs.

In my riding, I have many SMEs that have taken advantage of innovation funds. We have recognized creative businesses through our career focus by giving them funds to hire university graduates. This is a win-win for both the employees and the employers. We have increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program so that SMEs can hire students at no, or minimum, cost. These are the benefits that small and medium-sized enterprises can take advantage of.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises in the G7. These are advantages that all of them can take. Small and medium-sized enterprises can also take advantage of deferred taxes. We are not going after those.

If anyone reads the legislation, they will know that only the 1% that probably make $250,000-plus will be impacted once they start sprinkling income. That is what the government is trying to do: make the system fairer. This is about individuals who take out the money.

It is important that we have a robust and respectful discussion and that our conversations are not based on misinformation, speculation, or hyperbole, because it does not benefit anyone. The proposal is not going to affect legitimate corporations or restrict an individual's ability to incorporate.

The Government of Canada continues to work to create a healthy and growing economy in which businesses can generate well-paying jobs and where people can have confidence that they can succeed. We are committed to supporting hard-working entrepreneurs as they invest in their businesses, create good, well-paying jobs, buy new equipment, and re-invest in the economy.

We want to ensure that Canada's tax system continues to help businesses, small and large, expand and create jobs. Our actions are to improve the tax rules to ensure that they benefit individuals as well as a competitive corporate tax system.

We do not want any unintended consequences. That is why all this debate and all these conversations are taking place.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment. I do not have a question.

The member talked about having read the proposal, so let us start there. On the issue of retroactive taxation, proposed section 246.1 of the proposal is an extra tax on CDAs, capital dividend accounts. That has been confirmed by tax specialists and tax accountants.

In section 84.1, there is a problem. Tax specialist John Wonfor presented before the committee and said that it is not true that, as the government says, it is not retroactive. Different ministers and the Prime Minister have said different things, saying it is retroactive or it is not. Mr. Wonfor said, “That's not true, because you have to look back at all the transactions and determine whether you have a section 84.1 problem.” The proposal the government has put forward is retroactive, despite all the talk on that side that it is not.

Furthermore, when we go to the taxation of estates, double and triple taxation was confirmed by Allan Lanthier. Allan Lanthier is a fellow of more accounting associations than I can even describe. He is an FCA and a CPA right now. He is also the president of the Canada Tax Foundation. He said, “I was going to say they're murdered by these proposals, which was a bad turn of phrase in the context of post-mortem planning, but yes, they can face tax rates up to 92%. Those are the proposals with respect to section 84.1 that the government's put out for consultation.”

When we read the proposal, they are retroactive, and they punish small businesses, estates, and the family farm.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question shows that there is a lot of confusion. I have had lots of conversations with managing partners. I am an FCPA, and I belong to some accounting firms, the partners of which came to me.

This is a proposal. This will go through the legislative process. It will change. Let us not create hyperbole or speculate. We have to trust that we as MPs will vote to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of fairness, it is very appropriate for different parties within this House to have discussions about which social elevators are preferred and which would be more effective in contributing to equality throughout our country, but this really comes down to an issue of fairness. Is it fair that someone who is unincorporated does not have the same advantages as someone who is incorporated? I wonder if my colleague could speak to the fairness aspect of this and how she sees that this goes to create a fair and level playing field for everyone, especially given the inequalities that have continued to emerge between the haves and the have-nots over the last 20 years.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the tax system has not changed in 45 years. It is high time we changed it. It is high time we recognized the different ways people utilize private Canadian corporations. At the moment, there are 1.8 million of them, and the number is rising. Why is it rising? Is it for people to park their income? If that is the case, then we should look at it, because it really benefits those corporations and those individuals in reducing their tax rate. We have to be mindful that we do not have the haves and the have-nots and we do not have such a large diversification that people are not benefiting from economic growth.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one. The last time there was a fundamental change to this degree of the tax system and tax policy in this country it took seven years. The Carter commission took seven years to investigate and make recommendations to Parliament. This has taken 75 days. Does the hon. member not see that these are fundamental changes to tax policy that would impact millions of Canadians? Does she not agree that we should extend it much beyond the 75 days and perhaps look at this a little bit longer?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a legitimate question. Yes, the Carter commission took seven years. The issue at the moment, as I see it, is that the more we extend the consultation, the more confusion will come up, because everyone is giving his or her spin on it. Let us not give the spin. Let parliamentarians look at the bill in-depth, debate it, and say, “Here is the right thing.” A small and medium-sized enterprise makes $73,000, not what the opposition members are saying would be impacted.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I love hearing the word “fair” from the Liberals.

I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I am honoured to speak today on behalf of my constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London regarding the proposed tax changes put forward and the request to extend the consultations on these proposed changes.

I would like to thank the Liberal government for creating chaos in my community. It was created by the Liberal government and not by anyone else but the Liberal government.

Members of the community, including renovators and home builders, farmers, physicians, family-run businesses, restaurants, and accountants made sure they took time away to come to speak to me about these changes and how they will be negatively impacted.

Today I want to start with some of the highlights from my constituents. I have only brought in about eight of the letters from the hundreds and hundreds of letters have come in. I have had lots of meetings. We have been doing these consultations, and I continue to have consultations.

I would like to begin with a letter from Mike from London, who wrote:

Three years ago I established a new business in London investing significant resources in addition to working the 60+ hour weeks required to make it successful. In March we doubled our warehouse space and employee count double to 4, with us considering adding a 5th person this fall. I question why I am doing this based on the new tax path the federal Government is planning to implement. The returns available to small businesses are just not balanced with the risks faced every day.

Jim, from St. Thomas, is also a well-respected accountant who immediately started reviewing these changes. It wasn't us, but someone who has worked in this field for 35 years who then wrote to me the following:

We continue to feel that the income sprinkling issue in particular is way out of line and potentially just plain wrong in every sense of the word if you can't share your family business income and future gains with a child rearing/non participating or only partially participating spouse. For example is the doctors spouse who runs the office and may or may not be a nurse eligible for equal compensation to the doctor in the future? I'd like to be there when the CRA field auditor says they're not just to see what happens. Or the farmers spouse?

We are also hearing that the new “reasonableness rules” in the Act will override the old administrative policy of the CRA that “any” owner-manager salary/bonus is reasonable. So if dividends paid have to represent a reasonable return, then we are unclear of how to distribute income from a company whether it be by way of a wage or a dividend.

It is funny that we are talking about how the Conservatives have spun on this, but I did not write anything to these people. They are actually writing us, and we have tax specialists writing to us. I have not asked for their insight. As we continue with this, I want to be sure that members of the government know we are listening to the people.

I would like to share three paragraphs.

Hetty is another small business owner. She works in the community. She is widowed and happily just remarried, and we are very proud of her. She works seven days a week at her landscaping business. She wrote me a very lengthy letter, but I just want to read a little excerpt:

Please find attached a couple of letters from me regarding Taxation of Private Corporations. From what I have been hearing, it is really starting to worry me. I've worked my whole life as an entrepreneur and if I can't use capital gains exemptions or realize a profit from the sale of my business then my retirement is looking very dim. I do not have CPP or a pension to fall back on. Small business owners need support in order to realize a decent retirement. I hope that the government is able to stop what they are doing and have some conversations with the business community so they don't unfairly target private small business.

As I continue with this, the letters and emails have been pouring in from Canadian families, but I specifically looked at only the people from Elgin—Middlesex—London, which includes the city of London, the city of St. Thomas, and eight other municipalities, mostly farming communities.

I have Jason and Shelby from Thorndale, who wrote to me:

According to the Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, these proposals will restrict small-business owners, like family farm owners, from sharing income with family members. Changes to capital gains rules will make it more difficult for owners to transfer their farms within the family to the next generation.

This in particular is a concern for multi-generational farm businesses that have incorporated for the purposes of farm succession....

That is something we on this side have heard many times from our advocates. We are here to listen to the farmers. We want to know what is going on.

I can continue, and that is exactly what I am going to do. Members are going to have to listen to me for five more minutes. Farmers in my area are very vocal. If members ever want to hear vocal, come to Elgin—Middlesex—London. They will let the members know what is really happening.

Peter and Sarah from West Elgin shared with me a very familiar story. I too was raised on a farm and I understand the challenges and risks. I was a farmer's daughter. We raised 18,000 turkeys and 2,000 pigs. My dad worked seven days a week, 365 days a year, and that is what he did until he sold his farm in 1996.

However, this is what they have written. He gave me an entire page before it, but it states:

Fast forward 30 years and we have survived almost complete bankruptcy, droughts, crop loss, pig deaths and many other trials and tribulations to create successful cash crop and livestock operations. However, all of this was at a cost. We received no funding to pay for our university educations, no help to open our new businesses. We risked it all. On paper we might look like a successful business but there is no retirement for our parents other than the family farm. As an employer I have no access to EI, I have to pay for my own benefit plan and I have no access to OSAP for my children to attend University. I have no help other than my own blood, sweat and tears poured in 365 days a year and multiple hours a day because that what it takes to raise livestock. I risked marrying a city girl only to have her discover that pigs get shipped out on Christmas Day, that chores need to be done on the weekends and going away for more than 4 or 5 days at a time is hardly possible.

To continue with this, now I have Linda's letter. Linda is a great lady from the city of London. She wrote:

I thought it might be helpful to provide a more personal response to the proposed tax amendments. The amendments are premised on the idea that small business owners are wealthy. To the contrary, many business owners are middle class – the same group of people that this government seems to want to prioritize.

I think that speaks for itself. It is the middle class saying, “Hey, you're not helping us, government.”

I would like to move on to Dan. Dan is a very well-respected financial planner within our own community. He also does insurance. He has studied this. He has not been told about it by me or any other member of the Conservative Party. We are talking about an academic studying this information and breaking it down, so before members say that this is a Conservative spin, this is what Dan, a well-respected person in my community, has written. These are the first top six issues he has:

Federal proposals represent significant tax reform for family businesses in Canada.

Family business owners are the middle class. Family-owned enterprise is the engine of our economy.

I hope everyone realizes that.

It is misleading to equate business owners with salaried employees. I am not sure how many members have been small business owners in this room. However, I have been. I have worked many times for zero dollars. I can tell members that at the end of the day I made sure the employees went home with a paycheque, while I sat there trying to figure out what to do. That is just the life of a small business owner.

Imposing new rule introduces more complexity and uncertainty.

We have heard that time and time again.

Integrating generational businesses makes succession even more difficult.

Those are some of Dan's tactics and issues.

I want to finish with Jonathan. When I looked at Jonathan's letter, I thought, “This guy gets it. This guy really gets it and does care.” He wrote:

I am deeply concerned with the tax proposals released by the Department of Finance on July 18th. These proposed changes, as currently worded, will be extremely damaging for my farm and the farm businesses across Ontario and Canada. These proposed changes, will add uncertainty and complexity to farmers and small business owners across the country. I am particularly concerned with the impact these changes would have on succession planning. It is unacceptable that the government of Canada would make it easier and more beneficial from a tax perspective for a farmer to sell their farm business to a stranger, rather than their own child or grandchild. This type of policy threatens the tradition of the Canadian family farm.

The conduct of this consultation is completely unacceptable. Providing a 75-day consultation period on such complex, and ill-conceived legislation makes a mockery of the democratic process and good governance.

As currently worded, these proposed changes cannot be allowed to move forward. If tax reform is a priority, it must be done in a meaningful consultation with Canadian farm businesses and other small businesses.

I ask that you do not support this process or these proposed tax changes.

As a young farmer, and someone that is now completely self-employed, these changes will de-incentivise entrepreneurial ventures and business owner ship in general.

He carries on about how in Ontario we do not have just the Liberal government to deal with but also the Ontario Liberal government to deal with, so these farmers will now be paying minimum wage increases and paying more for hydro. I really do not know how they are doing it.

All we are asking for today is more time for consultations. The government can say the process is over, but if it is over, why do I continue to get loads of calls from many people still wanting to meet with us? It is because people just found out on July 18 that the government is proposing this change. In the dead of summer, people are busy doing things. Maybe they were doing Canada 150 celebrations, as I was, but we have not given Canadians the proper opportunities to speak.

What the government has done here is totally demobilize the faith of good Canadians. I urge members to vote yes to allow the consultations to proceed for the next couple of months so that all Canadians can have their voices heard.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce, one thing I know from a business standpoint is that we do not like uncertainty, and the periods when we have been consulting with Canadians, just by their nature, introduce uncertainty.

The collaboration we are working on with businesses will help us to move past the uncertainty and look beyond the hypotheticals the member is bringing forward today, toward having some firm policy to discuss in the House. Does she not see that having firm policies versus hypotheticals would be more beneficial for our business community?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I know the member worked for the chamber of commerce, I find it surprising that he is not listening to the people who are members of it. We have seen 99% of Canadians who are members of the chamber vote against this proposal. It is interesting that he is not one of them.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London talked about fairness, because fairness is a fundamental that the NDP is built on. That is why both the NDP and the Conservative Party are calling for the government to extend the period of consultation to make it fair for farmers and other people who have not had time to explore this complex proposal.

I wonder if she would comment on the NDP proposal to also expand this consultation to include real tax fairness, CEO tax loopholes, and offshore tax havens where the government could really get at tax fairness.