Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changes

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is about the Liberals breaking their promise, on which they voted with the NDP in March, to end CEO stock option tax loopholes, the elimination of offshoring, and the inequalities that are about $800 million a year. I wonder if the member shares the frustration with me about this narrow scope that is being brought forward by the government today. I would ask him to speak on that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That is an excellent question and an excellent comment, Madam Speaker.

The consultations were held in the middle of the summer. They were too short and too hastily put together, and they wrapped up yesterday.

We are asking the government to hold more consultations, but also on the broader issue of tax evasion.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about tax fairness for the farmers and small business owners in my riding.

My riding of Essex is a rural riding with five municipalities, where towns are filled with small businesses, and the space between them is filled with gorgeous farm fields. We have some of the richest soil in Canada and the largest amount of acreage under glass in our greenhouse sector.

The hard-working people in Essex are very angry and confused by this consultation by the Liberal government, which is now officially closed. These are hard-working people who have now been told that they did something wrong, that they are tax cheats, or that they were intentionally not paying their fair share.

Paying our fair share is something that is deeply important to New Democrats. Fighting for fairness is the foundation of all of our work. Fair share is a phrase that we use with pride about our contribution to our communities. We pay taxes to our government so that we can collectively take care of each other.

Canadians place trust in the government to fairly distribute the wealth of our society so that we all benefit from services that keep our communities healthy and thriving. This is a basic tenet here in Canada. It is one of the things that I love about Canada. I ran to become an MP to protect and fight for our social services and for their equal delivery.

This is why so many people in my riding are also very proud to pay their taxes, to pay their fair share. They work hard for their families, their communities, their family traditions, and their family businesses and farms. They pay their fair share and they work to pay for the health of their community as well.

This summer when the consultations started, there was a lot of rhetoric being thrown around by the Liberal government about tax fairness. People in my riding were being told that they were cheating the system, that they were taking away from the community they love and helped to build, where they were raised and where they raised their children, instead of adding to it. Not only did they feel targeted by this language, but they were using a system that was in fact perfectly legal and one that they had been encouraged to use to grow.

They understand and support tax fairness, but the main question I get is why the Liberals brought in only these proposals in which they they are only looking at small businesses. Where was the consultation on CEO stock option loopholes, or the consultations on how we end offshoring and snow washing? The Panama papers came up quite a bit.

I understand why farmers and small business owners are angry. What I cannot understand is the Liberal government limiting the scope and the time of this debate in Canada. The government has many opportunities to bring forward real and tangible tax fairness.

I believe in tax fairness, but real tax fairness, not this limited version being proposed by the government.

Real tax fairness could have come when New Democrats stood in the House in March and introduced a motion to eliminate tax havens and the CEO stock option loophole. Why should CEOs be able to hide their salaries and stock options to keep from paying their fair share? The NDP proposed the elimination of the tax break on stock options used by rich CEOs, a loophole that costs the government and communities $800 million per year.

The government voted in favour of our motion but has done nothing to address the issue. I heard Liberals talking about the provisions in the budget that they brought forward, but they do not eliminate the loophole, and these are very different things.

Real tax fairness could have been accomplished by the Liberals if they had passed my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-274. This legislation would have helped small business owners, like farm and fishing businesses, transfer between family members. We have a system in Canada where farmers pay less tax if they sell their family farm to a stranger than if they sell it to a family member. How on earth is that fair? Again, the government, which says on a constant basis how much it cares about farmers, voted against the bill, which would have made it fairer to succession plan, something that Canadian farm families are struggling with across the country.

I recently spoke with a farmer in my riding who told me that he and his wife had taken on payments to be able to buy the farm from his parents. They have a 16-year commitment to do this, and now they are very worried that they have made the wrong decision and will pay the price for the government's complete lack of understanding about farm management. This is not a multi-million dollar farmer. This is a family that is teaching its children how to farm and keeping our community in fresh local food.

Now, instead of using viable options to make our tax system fairer to tackle the real and serious problem of inequality, the government has put forward consultations, which are now over.

Income inequality in Canada is a real and serious issue for all. Recently, the census revealed that Canada's level of income inequality has worsened over the past 12 years. Due to past government inaction, the richest one per cent of our population has seen a 14% rise in median income. According to the census data, the richest one per cent now earns 6.8 times more than a worker earning Canada's median wage of $34,204 in 2015. The changes that the government is consulting on would do nothing to alleviate this gap. In the Windsor Essex area, the United Way says that about one-quarter of our youth live in poverty, which means that in 2013, 19,900 children under the age of 17 lived in families where the income was less than $17,000 per year.

We need to address this gap and work hard to close it with a serious effort. That is why this consultation must include all avenues to do that, not just the narrow scope of the measures the government is proposing. In fact, the Liberals' promised to address these inequalities in their platform, but these measures are so limited in scope that people are learning once again that the Liberals say one thing during an election and never follow through.

If the Liberals are serious about helping small businesses, then where is the small business tax reduction, something that all parties in this House committed to during the campaign? We are two years into the government's mandate and have still not seen that proposal come forward, despite the fact it would be so incredibly important to the 98% of businesses in this country that are small- and medium-sized businesses. If the Liberals are serious about helping small business, then when is this helpful proposal coming forward? Where is the legislation to ensure that business owners can see the tax reduction they were promised and, quite honestly, they were moving forward on and basing their future on? Therefore, it is another broken promise to our most important job creators. No one in Canada thinks that the Liberals are standing up for small businesses.

I want to talk about the consultations for a minute. These consultations released a tidal wave of misinformation that has only scared and worried people across the country. The government caught Canadians off-guard, leaving many small business owners in Essex wondering about the vague language and implications of the proposals, and many others are confused by the complexities of the reforms. I heard some Liberals today in the House talking about whether the NDP would vote on this. To my knowledge, there is nothing to vote on at this point. We do not know what will be proposed. We have a vague understanding, but again small business owners and farmers are confused by these proposals.

The Liberals launched the consultations in mid-July and, as of yesterday, the consultations are over. How could the Liberals not have realized that this time of year would be problematic for farmers? This is harvest season, and many farmers will not be able to get to their accountants or tax planners in time to get detailed advice on how the potential changes to the tax system could affect them. When I travel in my riding, I see all the tractors running at full speed. It has been very tough for those farmers to connect because they simply have had to be on their farms during this critical time.

I also do not understand why the government has decided to rush the consultation process. Surely, it makes sense for the Liberals to post their proposals and wait for honest, well-thought-out feedback. Why do they not give everyone the time to study the changes? If the Liberals are serious about tax fairness, then they will expand the scope, extend the deadline, and have a true comprehensive review.

That is why I move, seconded by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that the motion be amended, (a) by deleting the words, “will have a drastic negative impact on small and medium sized local businesses,” and replacing them with the following, unfairly target small businesses while ignoring the largest abuses of Canada's tax system; and (b) by adding after the word “measures” the following, and to expand the consultations to include measures targeting large corporations, loopholes for CEOs, and tax havens.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip, or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we cannot accept the amendment the member has brought forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The acting whip has indicated that there is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her genuine proposed amendment to the motion today. However, as my colleague said, this motion is something that is very important because of the feedback we have heard from across Canada, which my colleague spoke to as well.

When trying to make some of these profound tax changes that will be detrimental to farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and professionals across Canada, I think it is disingenuous for the government to say there was legitimate consultation over 72 days. When we made similar tax changes more than 40 years ago, those consultations took more than two years.

Does my colleague agree that the Liberals are clearly trying to ram something through without legitimate consultation and will she support our motion to extend the consultation to January 2018?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do think it is incredibly important that we talk about this consultation process that has happened, because we see the Liberals opening consultation processes in a lot of different ways. The problem is that they are all over the map. None of them actually creates a space in which people can have that fulsome conversation. We see multiple hearings, a whole summer spent on electoral reform, and then we have these changes coming in the dead of summer, with folks trying to scramble to be able to deal with them. The government is really inconsistent when it uses the term “consultation”.

In this particular case, an extension to the time period is more than warranted. In fact, it is necessary for people to be able to bring their issues forward so they can be responsibly heard by the government. In these consultations, the government must not just say that it is listening, but actually listen and actually allow people to participate, including the farmers in the fields right now who are not able to participate in this process right now.

Something that small businesses do across our country quite well is that they affiliate with larger groups and join together in their efforts. However, again, this very short time period did not allow them to be able to go to their membership in a way that would benefit all small businesses and bring that forward. Therefore, the extension is important.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great amount of respect for my colleague for Essex, but I am very troubled by what she said in her speech.

The fact of the matter is that this government lowered taxes on the middle class and increased them on the top one per cent, which is something that the NDP voted against. However, more directly to a comment that the member made, we also lowered the small business tax rate from 11% to 10.5%, which is another thing the NDP voted against. Therefore, I think it is extremely unjust to stand there and accuse the government of doing something, and insist that it do something else that it in fact has been doing all along.

Will the member now vote to make the system more equitable, in particular when it comes to income sprinkling, so that people will pay their fair share of tax like those who do not have the luxury of being incorporated?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it galling, to be honest, that the member talks about how amazing it is that they lowered the small business tax by 0.5% when they promised 2% to Canadians. This very narrow scope and very short time period are not serving small businesses. I support tax fairness, the NDP supports tax fairness, and we need to ensure that taxes are being fairly distributed across our country. It is important.

My question is about the CEO stock option loopholes that the Liberals have still not eliminated. If they are serious about repatriating some of that money, why do the 1% get a pass from the Liberals and they put this narrow scope on their proposed measures so that only our communities, farmers, and small businesses are impacted? If the Liberals are serious about tax fairness, they cannot put a microscope on a tiny piece, and cannot ignore very real solutions that have come before the House. That is exactly what has happened in this Parliament.

We have Liberals who are talking out of both sides of their mouths on tax fairness. Tax fairness requires a comprehensive approach. It cannot be this limited scope. An extension of the time and scope of the consultations so that we are talking about true tax fairness is incredibly important to all Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Foothills.

Today we are debating the motion by the official opposition calling on the government to continue the consultations, which is quite reasonable. The consultation process to this point was launched by the government July 18 and went to October 2. If we were to look at a calendar, we would see that it was during the summer. It was announced during the summer after people had made plans and when Canadians were busy doing what they do in the summer. Surprise, there are these consultations and the position paper by the government. If we look at when these consultations were held, particularly in the fall, it was often when the people who were not on holidays were at work. That is when the consultations were held. A neighbouring riding had the consultations in the middle of the week at three o'clock in the afternoon. That is when hard-working Canadians are at work. We are not talking about people living on trust funds, but hard-working Canadians.

Throughout the whole process, there were questions about whether this was a genuine consultation. I fear not. Also, through this process, hard-working Canadians have been called tax cheats. The Liberals have said that they want a healthy middle class, and yet they are attacking them. They want tax fairness, yet the wealthiest Canadians, some of them sitting in this House, are exempt from what is being proposed. It is not hurting wealthy Canadians, but hard-working middle-class Canadians.

During this process, if we go through the bafflegab and look at how the Liberal policies are affecting Canadians, we see from a report that came out at the same time that the vast majority of Canadians are actually paying more tax and have less money in their pockets than under the previous government. The policies and consultation are disingenuous.

As October 2 end-date of the so-called consultation period approached, the number one thing I heard from my constituents was that they did not believe the government was listening. They believe this will go ahead anyway and that the consultations were just lip service or smoke and mirrors.

In our local newspaper, there was an article by a neighbouring Liberal member of Parliament that reads, “So far, I have heard from constituents including small business owners and incorporated professionals”—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to call for quorum.

I think this is a very important subject for Canadians. Members of the NDP and the Conservative Party are present, and I think that my colleague's speech is very important. I would like a count to be taken please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have quorum now.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to have enough Liberal members in the House so that we have true consultation and consideration.

To go back to the letter written to the local newspaper by a neighbouring Liberal MP, the letter said:

So far, I have heard from constituents including small business owners and incorporated professionals, hearing their concerns and proposals for moving forward. We had two townhalls with participation by 60 persons,

—so approximately 30 at each of these town hall meetings—

and have received emails, letters, phone calls, and held individual meetings.

Key themes have emerged through these consultations. The first thing that residents...indicated to me is that they believe this consultation period is too short for such broad reforms.

He went on:

Continuing these consultations for a longer period could exacerbate the current air of uncertainty for small business owners. The current due date allows our Government to deliver a framework for the new system to allow business owners time to plan for any changes ahead.

In other words, it is going ahead. There is confusion, and they do not want to exacerbate that. Well, where did the confusion come from? It came from the ill-advised, poorly created policy of taxing unfairly against one part of our economy, the hard-working Canadians in small businesses. That is where the uncertainty comes from.

I am going to tell a little story of some of the constituents I have heard from.

One of them is Tamara Jansen. She is a small business owner, together with her husband. They have had the business for over 30 years. When they started off, it was very small. It is today one of the biggest greenhouse companies in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove. Tamara Jansen and her family expected they would be able to roll over the company to the next generation, to their children.

For the first five years, she got no salary. The salary for her husband, Byron, was just enough to live on. They kept reinvesting everything back into the company. They now have a very successful company that hires a lot of people and provides a very good agricultural products to the community.

At some time in the future they would like to be able to retire and pass the business on to their children. It is always nice, a dream, to be able to pass a business on. With what is being proposed by the government, they would not be able to do that. The tax structure for them to pass it on to one of their children means that they are talking about a tax rate of up to 93%. It sounds impossible. It is impossible to grasp how the government would do that. However, taxation would be far lower if a foreign entity bought them out. This kind of taxation discourages families from passing on a company they have built up over decades to the next generation. It stops that.

Tamara Jansen and I did an interview. It is available on markwarawa.com and on YouTube. I encourage people to watch it.

Another interview I did was with Scott Johnston, who is the past president of the chamber of commerce. He is a corporate lawyer and represents a lot of small businesses. We are hearing from across Canada and in my constituency that people want more consultation.

I think back to 2004, when I was first elected here. It was not my party leader, Stephen Harper, who voted for me. He was running in his own riding. It was the constituents who voted for me and got me here. In 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2015, it has always been the people of Langley—Aldergrove who have elected me and sent me here to represent them and be their voice in Parliament. I believe that is fundamentally our responsibility. I know how the constituents of Langley—Aldergrove want me to vote and the voice and message they want me to bring, and it is to say here, today, now, to extend the consultation period.

How long should it be extended? The proposal of the official opposition is to extend it to January 31 and to start true, genuine consultation. To every member in this House, I can pretty much guarantee that it is the same message that they are hearing: extend the consultation.

I have a question for my Liberal friends. I respect them, and they are in a very tough position. Their leader, the Prime Minister, is telling them how to vote and providing the script and talking points on what they are to say to the media and to their constituents, which is “We are looking out for you. We are looking out for your best interests. We want to build the middle class.”

In reality, the Liberals are hurting the middle class. I encourage my Liberal friends to ignore what the Prime Minister is saying, represent their constituents, and vote to extend the consultation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the official opposition, because when I canvass my constituents, a vast majority, 95% of them, believe that where we can improve our Canadian taxation policy and system, we should do just that.

The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, and in fact the cabinet and the caucus of at least this one party, recognize that what is important to Canadians is not only to give the middle class a tax break, not only to have additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, but also to deliver tax fairness. That is what the government is doing.

Why does the Conservative Party vote against tax breaks for Canada's middle class? When it comes to tax fairness, they vote against that too. Why?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member, speaking for the government as the parliamentary secretary, is regurgitating the jargon, the Liberal nonsense. The real question he should be asking is this: will his Liberal colleagues listen to their constituents?

I will repeat what his Liberal colleague said about themes that have emerged during the consultation:

The first thing that residents...indicated to me is that they believe this consultation period is too short for such broad tax reforms.

My question for the member is, will he listen to his constituents? Will he encourage his Liberal colleagues to listen to their constituents? The message to each of us is clear: “Extend the consultation period”.

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

Madam Speaker, we in the NDP totally agree with the member's call for extended consultation. That is what I am hearing too from my constituents, whether they are doctors, farmers, or businessmen. They all want that consultation period extended.

However, they are also asking why the government is picking on them. Why has the government not kept its promises to cut down on the tax loopholes for CEOs, the offshore tax havens? Why is the government picking on the little fish instead of the big fish?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government says it is tax fairness, but as the member points out, it is not tax fairness. The government has not kept its promises. The Liberals have not lowered small business taxes, as they said they would during the 2015 election campaign.

It is important that a government keep its promises, represent all Canadians, and create an economy where jobs are being created and taxes are being lowered so that we have a prosperous future. That is exactly the opposite of what the government is doing. It is hurting the very people it says it is there to help.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, back in the 1960s the Carter commission lasted for over four years. This Royal Commission on Taxation went on for four years. The royal commission made dramatic tax recommendations and changes, and it has been over 40 years since there has been such an overhaul. How on earth could the government suggest that four months would be adequate for what was difficult for the Carter commission to do in four years back in the 1960s?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. To do it right takes time, true consultation, and true expertise, and the experts—the accountants and legal experts in our country—are saying that the government is wrong in doing what it is doing. To ram it through and say it has heard enough, that October 2 has come and gone, that it is done and is going to move ahead really is disingenuous and disrespectful to Canadians, and to call them tax cheats is shameful.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his intervention on this issue as well, and for all the hard work that he has done to raise awareness about these unfair tax changes.

One of the things that concerns me most with this entire debate and what has transpired over the last four months is whether the Liberal government meant to try to depict small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and professionals across Canada as tax cheats, people who live in gated communities who are somehow circumnavigating the system and have secret bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and are not paying their fair share.

It is obviously clear that the Liberal members have not met my constituents: the rural doctor who takes that midnight call, the small business owners who work endlessly hour after hour to ensure their businesses are successful, the farmer who works the 16-hour workday during the harvest to try to get his harvest in the bin, the cattle rancher who braves the bitter cold at night during calving season. These are the small and medium-sized enterprises that these tax changes will hurt.

It just goes to show how out of touch the Liberal government is with actual hard-working Canadians, our small business owners, our entrepreneurs, our risk-takers, and our job creators, who it is always proposing to help. However, they are the ones that these tax changes will absolutely hurt.

Today I rise to speak on behalf of my thousands of constituents who have voiced their concerns about these unfair tax changes. Their first questions have to do with why the government is trying to do this so quickly, why it is trying to devastate small businesses, and why it is trying to take away the family farm.

Our motion today is quite genuine. Will the government extend the consultation period to January 31, 2018? To try to make these substantial changes in just four months is simply impossible. How can it say that it is listening to Canadians when a vast majority of our farmers and ranchers are in the fields during harvest? Many of our professionals and small business owners simply are not paying attention to these things during their busy summer season.

I know we are not asking for too much with the motion we have put forward to the Liberal government. If the government is confident that these changes are not going to hurt small business, if it is confident that the changes being put forward are not going to end the family farm, if it is confident that these changes are not going to hurt our professionals and impact access to health care in rural communities, then it will not oppose extending this consultation period to truly hear from Canadians.

That is not what the Liberals have done so far, nor is it what I think they will do. I think that later on this afternoon they are going to vote against our motion, despite massive opposition from Canadians across the country. The Prime Minister and the finance minister have been quite vocal and quite open. They fully intend to move ahead with these tax changes, regardless of what comes out of the consultations over the last 72 days.

The government gave us two days at committee and four months to consult with respect to these massive tax changes. The last time it happened, 40 years ago, it took four years to make similar changes to our tax code. Why the rush? Why is the government in such a hurry to get these things done?

My constituents have asked me that every single day. Why the panic? Why the extreme rapidity to try and get these things done? The only answer I can come up with is it needs the money now. It is that simple. It sees an opportunity to try to make its balance sheet look a little better. It is certainly not balanced, but it may be a little better. To do that, it is going to rob our small businesses, our farmers, our ranchers, and our professionals. That is just not right, and it is disappointing that this is the answer that I have to give to my constituents.

We have heard over and over again from the finance minister that he is out there listening. Well, I have had phone calls and emails from small business owners and professionals across the country. I will give members a great example. Two business owners in Nova Scotia, one who has a sporting goods store and the other who is a rural doctor, went to see their Liberal member of Parliament to discuss these tax changes. Do members know what the response was when they went to his office? It was a closed door. They were told that the member of Parliament was not taking meetings on this issue.

A chamber of commerce in Nova Scotia invited two Liberal members of Parliament to a town hall to talk about these tax changes. It was a great opportunity for those Liberal members of Parliament to stand up in front of their constituents, their small business owners, the ones they profess these tax changes will not hurt, and explain how this would not impact them, but they did not show up.

The Liberals talk about how much they have been listening to Canadians for the last four months. I am not sure what their definition of listening is when their constituents cannot even get in the front door or have a meeting with their member to talk about their concerns, or at least have an opportunity for that Liberal member of Parliament to explain these tax changes to them and maybe address some of their concerns. Therefore, for the Liberals to say that they are listening is false.

Who is listening is the Conservative Party, the official opposition. We have held town halls, community meetings, and round tables in every single province in this country. I have held several in my riding. It is unanimous. People are concerned. They are worried that they will lose their small businesses and their ability to sell those businesses to the next generation. Our farmers and ranchers are worried about how they will be able to maintain the legacy of their family farms. Those are the things we are hearing.

Our Liberal friends across the way have said over and over today that the people they are hearing from have no concerns about these changes. I do not know who they are hearing that from. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the National Cattle Feeders' Association, and the Canadian Medical Association have all spoken out in opposition to these tax changes. That is a fraction of the ones we have heard from. I am sure if members asked all of us on the Conservative side, we could give them lists of groups and professional associations, agriculture associations, small business groups, and chambers of commerce across the country that have spoken openly in opposition to these changes. The first thing they are asking for is more time to understand these changes.

I have heard from several accountants and tax lawyers that 70 days is simply not enough time for them to possibly understand every scenario, every situation, and every ramification that could come from these tax changes. These are the people who will have to talk to their clients and explain the implications for their livelihoods. If the professionals who deal with these changes to our tax code every single day do not understand them, how can we possibly expect the average Canadian to try to live with these changes?

More than 80% of the small business owners we have heard from are in opposition to these tax changes. However, I would also like to talk about my farmers and my agricultural community. They are looking at this as another blow in losing their family farms. They talk about the carbon tax, eliminating the deferral on cash grain tickets, and now these tax changes. It will be almost impossible for them. We on the Conservative side do not think the government should be punishing those who are working hard to be successful, to grow a business, and to create jobs. We should be celebrating them, thanking them, and ensuring that they have every tool possible to be successful.

As Conservatives, we will not support these tax changes. We are asking our colleagues to extend the consultation period to at least January 31, 2018.

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

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker just said that the Conservatives will not support these tax measures but then said that they would like to consult for another four months. What is the point of consulting if they already know that they will not support them?

My question relates specifically to the fact that the consultations that are going on right now are with respect to the passive investments. After the consultations are complete, we will have an opportunity to see draft legislation and comment on that.

We have already had a lot of consultation. The parliamentary secretary said earlier that one of the biggest concerns, which has been identified by some of my constituents, is that people have been planning for years using mechanisms that were legitimate. They are worried about them being pulled out from under their feet. However, the parliamentary secretary said earlier that this would not be the case, that it would only be from this point moving forward. What is so bad about seeing the legislation so that we can start to really debate it instead of continuing to try to confuse Canadians?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, does the member know what can happen during a consultation? Things can change. As of right now, we will not support this, but if you extend the consultation, maybe you can actually listen to Canadians--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask if my colleague could listen to Canadians and make some changes that Canadians are asking for. That is what happens with genuine consultation.

To answer his question, it is great if he is saying that it is not going to impact the passive income that is already there. Well, if people are worried about having the rug pulled out from under them, why do they think it is okay to pull the rug out from under them later down the road? That stifles their ability to save for retirement, save for maternity leave, and save for a down year. That is what that passive income is there for. They use it, so why would the member think it is a good idea to take it away?