Debates of Sept. 25th, 2017

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the summer, the Liberal government announced the proposed tax hikes on Canadians small businesses and farmers. If it thought it could quietly pass on these tax hikes without anyone noticing, it is and it was wrong. Since its announcement, it has been bombarded by small business owners and farmers who are fed up with its insulting tone and language. They are fed up with a government that consistently raises their taxes and wastes money. They are really fed up with a finance minister that essentially calls them tax cheats, which is insulting at best.

Small business owners and farmers deserve some respect from their government. After all, they are the backbone of our economy. They are good, hard-working, honest people who are being demonized by the Liberals just to pay for their out-of-control spending. The local business owners and farmers in my riding are middle-class Canadians who put their time, effort, and sweat into paying the bills and their employees before they pay themselves in many cases. They are not big multinational corporations, they are our neighbours, and the Liberals are targeting them with massive tax hikes, and threatening the jobs in our communities that are sustained by local business. What is most infuriating about the Liberals' plan is the hypocrisy found in their talking points, which state that their tax hikes are fair.

Westman farm families are furious and want me to do everything in my power to stop these reckless tax hikes. There is nothing fair about their taxes being hiked while the Liberals shield large multinational corporations. There is nothing fair about how the Liberal government wants to make it more difficult for farmers to sell land to their own children. There is nothing fair about farm families needing to record every time that someone feeds the cows or runs to the field with a meal. There is nothing fair about them working around the clock during harvest and the Liberals ending the consultation period on October 2.

There are some significant tax changes being proposed, and no one, not even the Liberal backbench MPs, fully understand the long-term consequences. For example, the Liberals want to restrict farmers from sharing income with family members and limit certain forms of savings in the business. Through their changes, they will make farm operations more vulnerable in bad economic times and less able to innovate and grow. Through the proposed changes to the capital gains rules, it would be far more difficult to transfer the farm to the next generation. Westman farm families deserve better than this, and I will fight the Liberal tax hikes every step of the way.

My question for the government is straightforward. Will it push back its October 2 deadline so that Canadian farm families have a fulsome opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, helping businesses grow is central to the Government of Canada's bold plan to create an economy in which all Canadians can have confidence in their future. However, when some people pay less than their fair share of taxes, it undermines that confidence. That is what we want to address, because an unfair tax system is a burden on all Canadians.

As part of our consultations on the proposals to address the tax planning strategies involving the use of private corporations, the government is taking steps to ensure that no one is paying any more or less than their fair share.

Canada has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, with a combined average small business income tax rate of 14.4% across the federal, provincial, and territorial levels, or the lowest in the G7.

Our low corporate income tax rates leave businesses with a higher after-tax income, which supports business growth and job creation.

Since the release of the consultation paper, the government has received comments from business communities, tax advisers, commentators, farmers, and other Canadians. We are addressing the chief concerns that have been raised since the launch of the consultations and dispelling some of the myths regarding this important policy issue.

Let me be clear on a few points. The changes proposed will in no way restrict businesses from paying salaries to family members or others who are productively contributing to their businesses, nor will they restrict who is allowed to incorporate as a business. They are not targeted at certain groups or professions. Doctors and other professionals who are allowed to incorporate will continue to be able to do so, and to enjoy the many benefits that incorporation can offer. Changes relating to passive portfolio investing will have no impact on private corporation owners who reinvest their retained earnings into the business each year.

The problem we are addressing is that the current system is encouraging wealthy individuals to incorporate to pay less tax. These strategies are all completely legal, but that does not make them fair. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Our proposed changes will protect and maintain the ability of small businesses to succeed and create jobs while ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the height of hypocrisy. I used that term in my presentation to the member across the way.

Some of the first words out of his mouth were that the government wants a system that will help businesses grow. As I pointed out, this does not help any business grow. A 73% tax rate, by the time they draw the funds out of the corporation to pay their personal tax and corporate tax, is not fair to anybody, and this measure is hitting the very middle class that the government says it is out there trying to help.

It is hypocrisy at its worst. Does the member think it is fair that we will lose doctors in our rural areas, or even from Canada, and that we will have a brain drain? I have listened to young doctors who have just graduated, who are saying that if the government forces these tax changes through, they would not bother incorporating in Canada but will just move across the border and go into the States, despite the fact that they do not want to.

This is a terrible situation. Farm families are having to sell their operations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, our current tax system has some inherent inequities that we want to address. There are loopholes that we are trying to close. Some of these inequities push certain individuals in Canada to incorporate themselves and use corporate entities to access tax benefits that the vast majority of Canadians listening to us do not have access to.

We think that we can do better and that we can make our tax system fairer. That is our objective, while keeping the small business tax rate low, the lowest in the G7, and keeping the tax rate for the middle class low, and asking everyone to do their fair share.

Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here again to raise the issue of the ethnic cleansing facing the Rohingya community in Burma. This is an issue that I understand we will now be discussing at greater length tomorrow in the context of an emergency debate. I am grateful for that opportunity. However, this is something that I will raise every opportunity I have, regardless, because I think it is that urgent.

In all of our minds, very clearly, we can see that it is ethnic cleansing. This was a process by which citizenship of Rohingya people in Burma was denied, and progressively more and more pressure was put on them in every possible way. This is nothing new, even though it may be a situation that is new to many Canadians, since it is only now really getting the media coverage and attention that it deserves. This is something that has been going on for a very long time, something that we have been raising in question period and in other ways for a very long time.

We have asked the government to do more in response. We are at a critical phase right now, in that the Burmese military has launched this terrible new assault, which seems to be their effort to complete a process of ethnic cleansing that has been going on for a long time. This terrible policy is something that requires our urgent response.

I want to quote, as I did earlier, Amnesty International's crisis response director, who said:

The evidence is irrefutable--the Myanmar security forces are setting northern Rakhine State ablaze in a targeted campaign to push the Rohingya people out of Myanmar. Make no mistake: this is ethnic cleansing.

During the summer, I went to Berlin and I visited a concentration camp for the first time. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, so any time I see instances of ethnic cleansing around the world, it hits close to home for me personally. I think what strikes a lot of people when we see those sites of historic atrocities is that they are often inside urban centres or close to urban centres, and people could have seen and did see many of these atrocities happening. They could see from tall buildings, perhaps, at least into the edge of concentration camps. They could see people being marched to trains for deportation.

We look at those scenes and we wonder why people who could see these things did not do more to respond to them. Today modern technology, news media, and the Internet play the same role that tall buildings in close urban centres played historically, in that again we have terrible atrocities and ethnic cleansing happening, and we can see that it is happening. Too often, I think, governments in the west fail to respond adequately.

I want to ask some specific questions to the government on this issue.

First of all, I asked this earlier in question period and did not get an answer. I want to ask the question again. What is the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion doing? It is tasked with addressing these issues in some form. Has that office been at all engaged with this situation?

Second, has the government engaged directly with the military leadership? We know that after having repeated calls from the opposition, finally the government called Aung San Suu Kyi, but we also need the government to engage with the military leadership in Burma, especially commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing, and raise these issues specifically and with a strong emphasis.

I also want to ask why we could not have responded faster and earlier. As well, is the government committed to a sustained response? Since this issue may not remain in the media for long, is the government committed to a sustained response?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I once again want to applaud my colleague for raising this issue. He and I have had various conversations and exchanges on this important topic in the chamber, and I applaud him for his passion on this issue. We can tell from his speech that this comes from a deeply rooted belief in speaking up against human rights violations, particularly when it comes to what we are witnessing today.

I will not disagree with him. The reports we are getting describe a horrific situation. Acts of ethnic cleansing are taking place. The world needs to stand united in condemning it and in helping find a way to end it and address the legitimate grievances that have led us to where we are.

Our government has been engaged on this issue for a while, prior to the latest escalation. The previous minister of foreign affairs visited Myanmar last year, or perhaps it was earlier this year. In his visit, he had a chance to raise this issue and express our government's concern about the underlying issues of the Rohingyas and the fact they did not have rights, and they still do not have rights today. They do not have access to citizenship rights nor access to civic institutions.

When Aung San Suu Kyi visited us in late spring, the Prime Minister personally had the opportunity to speak with her directly on the issue. I had a chance to meet with her as well, alongside the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We raised this issue with her. We told her that Canadians had deep concerns about the ongoing situation and we encouraged her to find a way to resolve them.

With the recent horrific escalations that gave evidence to the fact we were witnessing ethnic cleansing, our government took a global leadership role. There is not a government around the world that has taken the leadership role that our Prime Minister and our government have taken. Our Prime Minister spoke directly to Aung San Suu Kyi and reminded her of her moral, legal, and political responsibility to speak up against such atrocities and to do everything in her power to end it. He called on her to work with her military to stop the atrocities. Then he wrote her an open letter, which was shared with the public. The letter speaks clearly for his firm words and his clarity on his intention and desire to see her government immediately stop these horrific acts.

We did not stop there. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been meeting and talking to like-minded countries to find a way for the global community to stand up and work on finding a way to end this horrific situation. Also, we have been adding to humanitarian aid to help alleviate the suffering of the Rohingyas, especially the ones who have been displaced to Bangladesh. I personally spoke with the high commissioner of Bangladesh and reiterated our commitment to work with his government to alleviate the suffering of the Rohingyas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his sentiments. In light of the urgency of the situation, it is important that we as the opposition challenge the government around specific issues of response where we think more can be done.

Respectfully, the parliamentary secretary said that no other leader had done what Canada had done. Actually, many leaders have contacted and engaged with Aung San Suu Kyi, and many did not wait as long as our Prime Minister did.

The other disappointment was the fact that there was no mention in the Prime Minister's UN speech about the Rohingyas. Many other world leaders did mention the situation of ongoing ethnic cleansing. Our Prime Minister did not. Perhaps the format does not allow for answers to these, but I hope we will hear answers at some point from the government on what the office responsible for this is actually doing, the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, and the extent to which it is willing to engage directly, not just Aung San Suu Kyi but the military leadership that is directly involved in this issue.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleague for his intervention and his passion on this issue. We welcome suggestions and ideas on how we can do a better job in confronting this horrific situation.

There is no justification for what the Rohingya are facing. There is more to be done, and our government will continue to be engaged on this file. We will continue to find ways to alleviate the suffering of the Rohingya. We will continue to pressure the Myanmar government and the military to stop the suffering and to find a way to address the underlying causes.

I want to close my response by asking my hon. colleague to do the same of his leader. I have yet to hear from the leader of the official opposition what he thinks of what is happening. I hope my hon. colleague puts the same pressure on his leader.

Taxation

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to address my question to my learned colleague, the parliamentary secretary. It is an opportunity I relish. In my humble opinion, there are many people here who know a lot more than I do, but I appreciate this time to share my thoughts.

I previously asked why the government cut grain tickets in budget 2017. It was a minor line that cut the grain tickets. The tax deferral program was an important tool farmers used to deal with cyclical changes in their income. It is a really important piece.

The government has taken another step toward making life harder for farmers and ranchers. Its proposed tax changes are going to make it impossible economically to sell the farm to a family member. It would cost more to sell the farm to a family member than to a third party. It is going to really kill those family generational farms because of the economics of the selling.

With regard to income sprinkling, farming is often a family business. It is important that farmers pay their adult family members income they have earned. Farmers are going to be subjected to a paperwork nightmare. They will have to prove to Ottawa bureaucrats that their adult family members are performing a reasonable function. That means that they will have to track every minute their family members work and what they did during that time to prove that it was reasonable. That could be running to town for a part when it is needed when something breaks down. It could be the person buying the groceries and the time accounted for when they are making the lunches for the people out doing the harvest. It is going to be a paperwork nightmare.

On passive investment, the government's plan to tax income saved within a private corporation at a higher rate is also going to hurt Canadian farmers. Farm income can vary enormously from year to year. Fluctuations in international prices for beef and grain occur constantly.

Then there is the weather. In the northern Prairies, there can be an early winter, lots of rain, or lots of snow. This year the southern Prairies are very dry. From year to year, it is very hard to predict the crops farmers will get and the return.

Grain farmers operate their business on at least a two-year basis of cost and income. A grain farmer makes a contract with a shipping company to ship the product in one year and often gets paid the next year. Holding passive investments in their corporations is how the family farmers save for leaner years. In the years they do not get paid, they need those savings.

On top of eliminating grain tickets, the government is ripping the safety net out from under the feet of Canadian farmers. These changes will mean that eventually there will be no family business left to farm.

Will the government now commit to reinstating the grain tickets and cancelling the proposed tax reforms so that family business farms in Canada still have a fighting chance?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that our government is working hard to create the right conditions in rural communities for farmers and agricultural businesses to compete in Canada, and indeed, around the world.

For generations, agriculture has made significant contributions to Canada's economy, food supply, environment, and culture.

Today, agriculture and agrifood represent a $100-billion industry. Canadian food and beverages are found on store shelves around the world. Canada is the world's fifth largest exporter and breaks new records every year. The agriculture and agrifood industry employs 2.2 million Canadians, which represents one in eight jobs. We are the first to recognize how important that industry is.

In order to maintain Canada's strong position, budget 2017 included several measures to support an innovative, competitive, and sustainable agriculture and agrifood industry. As part of the government's overall strategy to attract and retain high-quality business investments in high-growth sectors such as agrifood, budget 2017 allocates $200 million over four years to support research, development, demonstration and adoption of clean technologies in Canada's natural resource sectors.

Agribusinesses will be eligible for funding under the new five-year strategic innovation fund, which has a funding envelope of $1.26 billion.

We will also continue to work with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that the agriculture and agrifood sector is strong and innovative.

This is in addition to the government's current work with provincial and territorial governments to develop the next agricultural policy framework to be launched in 2018.

The government is also undertaking a number of important initiatives to support Canada's farmers and food processors, including launching a full review of rail services across western Canada; creating a $10.1 billion trade and transportation corridors initiative that will invest in gateways and ports to help get agrifood products to market; successfully completing the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and making ongoing efforts to expand market access for Canadian agrifood producers throughout Asia; eliminating tariffs on a broad range of agrifood processing ingredients, covering approximately $700 million in annual imports, to strengthen the competitiveness of Canadian agrifood manufacturers at home and abroad; and investing $500 million to support the expansion of broadband networks in rural Canada and $2 billion to support rural infrastructure, including roads and bridges, making it easier for Canada's agrifood producers to connect to markets in Canada and internationally.

We recognize the important contribution that rural communities make to our economy and are committed to helping the Canadian agricultural and agrifood sector achieve its goals. A strong rural Canada makes for a stronger economy overall.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a lot of the positive things my colleague said.

With two days' notice last week, using social media, I booked a room for 100 people to talk about this, and 250 showed up. There were 250 people with two days' notice. They were upset and very disappointed, and the grain tickets came up. The grain tickets, if changed, are going to have a reactionary effect in the transportation and shipping industries. Why did the budget include that one little piece to cut grain tickets, given that we recognize the multi-year operation of farms as far as income and costs are concerned? They brought up that one little piece. Why can the government not drop that one little piece?

Grain tickets have nothing to do with taxes, nothing to do with anything the government does, but are important to farmers from year to year to do their business. These do not draw a penny or cost a thing, but will create problems for the producers, the transportation system—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work with farmers.

As I said, we will keep working with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that the agriculture and agrifood sector remains strong and innovative. That includes investing $30 million over the next six years to support cutting-edge research in agricultural genomics in priority areas such as climate change and the identification and prevention of biological threats to agriculture.

As well, as part of the federal infrastructure investment, we will provide $41.5 million to support the rehabilitation and modernization of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency research stations and laboratories.

We are and will continue to support the agricultural and agrifood sector in Canada and the millions of Canadians it employs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.)