House of Commons Hansard #240 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The question is on Motion No. 5.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #408

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 6.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #409

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare Motion No. 6 defeated.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #410

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting, and I apologize for breaking the hearts of so many members.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to address an issue that I raised in the House regarding the government's attack on farmers through its proposed changes to tax planning measures that it introduced this past summer.

While the government has finally come to its senses and made some necessary changes, I still have some very serious concerns. When the government held consultations on and announced these measures—during the busiest time of the year for farmers, I might add—farmers across Canada were scrambling to understand what the changes could mean for their family farms. During a round table in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, it was suggested that the changes being proposed would have a considerable impact on AgriInvest, a program used by a number of farmers to set money aside for a rainy day.

On three different occasions in the House, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about how the proposed changes would effect the passive income that farmers across Canada have saved in their AgriInvest accounts. Not once did the parliamentary secretary even mention the term “AgriInvest” in any of his answers. He simply dismissed the very serious and real concerns of farmers. I suspect he does not know a thing about AgriInvest.

I can say that farmers did not and do not appreciate being treated like tax cheats or having to fight tooth and nail to have the government finally listen to them. To have a representative of the government not even address a very real and serious concern about a specific federal program, in my mind and the minds of many, is shameful.

Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary went so far, in one of his answers, as to address the new Canadian Agricultural Partnership, which actually cuts the AgriInvest program. Under the new agreement, beginning in 2018, the maximum limit for farmers to contribute will be reduced by $500,000. In addition, the new agreement will see a $5,000 decrease for matching contributions from the government for AgriInvest accounts. Therefore, not only is the government limiting what farmers may contribute to their accounts, but it is also decreasing the amount of support farmers may receive from the government.

It is very disappointing to see the government make cuts to a tried-and-true program like AgriInvest. This is an important program that allows farmers to create a safety net for themselves with their own money, to save for a rainy day, or to invest in new equipment. In response to these changes, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Keith Currie, said, “We need those safety net programs...to be as good as they can be to help support us.” Furthermore, when asked about the changes to AgriInvest, Mark Brock, chairperson of Grain Farmers of Ontario, said, “With the exception of Crop Insurance, AgriInvest is the only program, within the suite of risk management programs, that works well for our farmer-members...”.

Given all of this, I would like to ask the government whether it actually understands how AgriInvest works and why it would make AgriInvest a target of taxation and then a target for cuts.

I want to make one point on this before I sit down. The Government of Canada, through the agriculture minister and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, actually encouraged farmers to do this and then pulled the rug out from underneath them. Is that really fair? I do not think so.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jean-Claude Poissant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am pleased to address this issue because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the high priority that our government places on Canada's dynamic agriculture and food industry.

I want to begin by reassuring the House that hard-working small business owners, including family farmers, are not the focus of the government’s proposed tax changes involving private corporations. I particularly want to reassure them that the proposed changes will not apply to AgriInvest income. AgriInvest is a savings account in which producers receive matching contributions from federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Producers can use their AgriInvest accounts as they see fit. Government contributions are taxed only when producers withdraw funds from their savings account.

Under the existing tax system, investment income placed in an AgriInvest account is treated as active business income. The government intends to continue with that approach. In other words, the tax treatment of AgriInvest will remain unchanged.

Our priority is to ensure tax fairness while avoiding unforeseen consequences for hard-working farmers. During the consultations, we heard that the proposed measures regarding the lifetime capital gains exemption and the conversion of income into capital gains could be bad for farming families, particularly as they might prevent farm owners from passing on their business to their children.

We want family farms to stay in family hands. That is why the government will not be moving forward with the proposed measures to limit individual access to the lifetime capital gains exemption or regarding the conversion of income into capital gains. In the meantime, farm owners will continue to be eligible for a lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $1 million for farm property.

We want farming families to succeed. That is why the government will continue to support programs like AgriInvest. We will continue to make sure all family farm owners can pass on the fruits of their labour to the next generation.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague across the way trying to respond to this. However, I can say that the farmers in my riding are very unhappy with the cuts to AgriInvest, and they do not at all feel like they have been consulted. Farmers across Canada do not understand where these cuts are coming from.

Earlier I quoted the Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie. When he was asked about consultation on changes to AgriInvest, he had this to say: “There really wasn't any consultation on it. There wasn't any discussion amongst the provincial agriculture ministers.” Furthermore, Mark Brock, chairperson for the Grain Farmers of Ontario, said, “It seems to fly in the face of co-operation when...they start monkeying with the programs before we even get to the review process.”

It has been a common theme for the government to keep farmers in the dark. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to come clean as to why these cuts to AgriInvest were made and if he would commit today to reversing them when the government launches its full review of risk management programs.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude Poissant Liberal La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to reassure the House that hardworking small business owners, including owners of family farms, will not be affected by the government's proposed corporate tax changes. Our priority is to ensure tax fairness while avoiding unforeseen consequences for hard-working farming families. The government will not be changing tax measures aimed at helping family businesses grow, create jobs, and innovate.

Last week, the government announced its intention to help small businesses even more by committing to lowering the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 9% by January 1, 2019. Farmers and small business owners, who are the backbone of our economy and our main job creators, will be able to reinvest the additional federal tax savings in growing their business.