SoVote

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/22/22 5:07:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand the Conservatives' position on affordability. I was in the House when the Conservatives voted against raising the minimum wage for Canadians, when the Conservatives voted against raising corporate taxes on the windfall profits of corporations making billions of dollars per year, when Conservatives voted against pharmacare that would save the average family in this country over $600 a year and businesses about $700 a year and when Conservatives voted against a dental care plan that would allow Canadians to fix their teeth and not have to pay out of pocket with their hard-earned dollars. Can the hon. colleague explain to me how any Canadian can take the Conservatives seriously on affordability when their record of voting stands so starkly against positive, constructive measures that would help average Canadians actually save money in their real lives?

143 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/22/22 5:08:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member probably is aware, I was elected in 2021, so many of the measures he discussed are not on my voting record. However, I do support my colleagues in fighting for Canadians. I am proud of the Conservative record in supporting Canadians all across this country and fighting for affordability.

54 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/22/22 5:09:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to put a question to our new colleague, who is doing such a great job, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. Is she aware of the recommendations from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that every Canadian must have access to affordable ground transportation? The loss of lives along the Highway of Tears has much to do with the fact that indigenous women and girls are forced to hitchhike. The description of her situation in northern Alberta suggests we need bus transportation and trains across this country.

107 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/22/22 5:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps I misspoke at some point. There actually is a bus service that goes from Fort McMurray down through Edmonton and all the way to Calgary. It is called the Red Arrow, and it is a spectacular service. In my time as an MLA, I took the Red Arrow on a few occasions because it would cost less money, it was a more humane way to travel and it was better for the environment.

76 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/22/22 5:10:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my speech will be the last one on today's motion. I have a question. Why does the official opposition think that the gas tax is the only way to solve the runaway inflation that is currently happening across the spectrum? Anyone who must use a gas-powered vehicle is certainly feeling a little pinch when it comes time to pay. I heard people being interviewed on the radio recently who said that they were going to reconsider their daily use and their trips, and perhaps carpool or opt for a monthly public transit pass. Despite the inconvenience of changing one's habits, I am inclined to say that these are, in the end, good habits to develop. However, some people do not have these options. Our comments on inflation felt at the pump should normally be followed by a dialogue. We should be seeing acts to justify reaching a consensus on such a motion to reduce taxes. However, there has been nothing of the sort. The inflationary phenomenon does not affect only people who use gas. It is hurting other sectors of the economy, too. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about this in reference to housing and groceries, to name but two essential and unavoidable expenses. What they are proposing is relief at the pumps. However, in 12 months, the price per barrel of oil went from $64 to $128. Who pocketed the increase for crude oil? The oil companies did. Who pocketed the refining fees, which have quadrupled? The oil companies did. The shareholders, which include several Russians by the way, are thrilled and are busy filling up tax havens. Who profits from inflation? Again, the oil companies do. Who is against having the oil companies do their part to ease the burden on the public? That would be the Conservatives. They could have moved a motion to that effect and we would have been pleased to support it. However, that is not the case. They are proposing the opposite. If the goal is to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them or—to put it another way—from inflationary increases in the price of gas, then they should draft a motion that would have the oil companies contribute their share, because they are at the root of the problems we are condemning. Are we to believe that the average person filling up their tank realizes not only how much profit the oil companies are raking in, but also the obscene amount of money the government gives to the industry? We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, year after year, no matter which party is in power. I have a hard time believing that the average person would support this. Unfortunately, the official opposition would rather make taxpayers, who are already struggling financially, pay so that consumers can get some relief at the pumps. The opposition would rather that everyone other than oil companies pay. When will the Conservatives stop moving motion after motion that benefits this sector while failing to propose fair measures for all sectors in our society? We are locked into government policies that are all too often designed to make the rich richer. Instead we should be implementing meaningful policies that would focus on real opportunities, the opportunities we need to establish a solid, fair and equitable foundation for society as a whole and that would have a real, meaningful impact for people. The problem of Inflation, which is going up and shows no sign of slowing down in the near future, will not be solved with measures like the ones the Conservatives are proposing. It will certainly not be solved by increasing oil production, as the Conservatives were calling for two or three weeks ago in response to the conflict in Ukraine. What inflation shows us is that the poorest, those on fixed incomes, are the most affected. I am thinking of seniors primarily. There are structural economic weaknesses that must be corrected and that require short-term remedies, but, more importantly, they also require long-term measures. I will try to explain what must be done in the short term. We must stop cutting right now—and not in one or even two months—the guaranteed income supplement cheques of the poorest seniors who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year. At the same time, and not six months from now, we must increase old age security to ensure that seniors maintain their purchasing power in light of the increased cost of living. That is something concrete and responsible that can be done immediately. These are the firm positions the Bloc Québécois has called for for some time now, but such measures have so far failed to materialize. It takes political will to implement long-term measures. There must be follow-through on the fine speeches and the positions we try to present. I will try anyway, as one never knows. I am thinking of the small percentage point of state revenue that the government should permanently allocate to the construction of social housing and that it should send to Quebec, the only province that provides ongoing funding for the construction of social housing in Canada. These monies would make it possible for Quebec to more quickly implement its own programs. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert spoke eloquently about this a few minutes ago. When the government does not use the tools it has to tackle the labour shortage, which is what we are seeing now, obviously we have reason to worry about the future. Our aging population is real, and we need workers. I cannot be the only MP who is getting calls about the never-ending application processing times at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for seasonal or skilled foreign workers, and from businesses that are at the end of their rope. Once again, the Bloc has a real solution that will produce real results. We want to lighten the government's load by taking the temporary foreign worker program off its hands altogether. This would be a great way for the government to lighten its load. This idea makes a lot of sense for those who like common sense. Quebec is already responsible for its labour policies. We have Emploi-Québec, industry committees and expertise on the ground already. This move would obviate the need for a study for every application, and it would expedite the process overall. Solutions and government policies exist to address economic disruptions, some of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Others have talked about this. Going back to the motion we are opposing, the economic argument is used extensively to convince people of the need to continue with the fossil fuel approach. In reality, however, we do not decide the price of oil, as it is set on the London and New York stock exchanges. There is little we can do to limit the fluctuations and price increases. However, it is possible to make the economy more resilient to these fluctuations by reducing our reliance on oil and by accelerating the transition to renewable energies. My colleagues saw me coming, I am sure. The truth needs to be told loud and clear when it comes to the real price of energy and gasoline. The price is much higher than what we pay at the pump. The real price includes social costs, including to our health care systems. Thousands of people die each year from illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially children with lung and respiratory conditions. The real price also includes all the public funds given in subsidies and tax breaks to the oil and gas sector to support an industry that will eventually disappear whether we like it or not. Finally, that price includes the environmental costs occurring upstream during a hyper-polluting extraction that causes environmental damage and downstream when these products are consumed or burned. Everything this industry produces contributes to the climate crisis and our collective destiny. Today is World Water Day, as declared by the UN. I will remind everyone and the opposition of the devastation that this industry is inflicting on regional waterways with the foulest impunity. Now we are being asked to continue enriching this sector even more. Is there no limit to the indecency? As they say, to ask the question is to answer it.

1418 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 5:21:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the issues within the motion that I am sure Bloc members are concerned about is that the Conservatives' proposal could be perceived as something that would take away from provincial jurisdiction regarding the tax on gas in the province of Quebec. Could the member add some further comment? The member made some reference to it, and I would be very much interested in how she perceives the motion from that perspective.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:21:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. He is absolutely right. I did not mention it in my speech, but some of my colleagues did. It is so obvious that the QST belongs to Quebec. No federal legislation will override our QST legislation. It is as clear as that.

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Mar/22/22 5:22:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the environmental impact that future lithium mines will have. These mines will be found worldwide with the advent of electric vehicles. Could she also tell me about the environmental impact that waste from these batteries will unfortunately cause and that will linger for the next 500 years?

70 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:22:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My colleague does not have the good fortune to sit on the excellent House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Last year, I put forward a motion to develop a federal zero-emissions law. From the testimony we heard, we learned that there is a company in Montreal that recycles batteries from electric cars for the purpose of putting them back into new electric cars. The electrification of transportation is moving forward at breakneck speed. Week by week, things are changing and discoveries are being made. At the University of Sherbrooke, they are working on electrolyte batteries that would increase the distance travelled and reduce charging time. There is a lot of research and development going on in this area; it is a beautiful thing. We talk about it sometimes in committee.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/22/22 5:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for what I believe to be a remarkable speech. We have really hit, in many ways, the crux of the issue facing Canadians today, which is the fact that we are not spending enough on those who need that support. We are not even making sure that those who are profiteering are paying their fair share, and the member highlighted that there is a relationship between these two things. Those who profit and those who exceedingly use that profit to do less justice for our tax system are actually depriving those who need it most, including seniors. I was touched by the fact that the member encouraged support in the House for seniors, for example to increase OAS, which is something that constituents in my community have been calling for for decades. I would ask the member to expand for a few moments on how valuable expanding OAS is for ensuring that seniors have the dignity and security they need while moving into this crisis.

177 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:25:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, we could help seniors directly by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. I will make a connection with food, which is a very important issue to talk about. It is often said that seniors living alone do not eat properly and sometimes have to choose between food and medication because inflation is too high. I always put that in the context of the environment. Consider the droughts in western Canada and the wildfires that have caused crop failures and increased the price of food for everyone, including seniors. The consequences of the climate crisis ultimately are that we are paying more and inflation is rising. Fighting climate change involves dealing with everything that is very human, particularly people's health.

134 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/22/22 5:26:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all afternoon, we have heard the various points of view on the motion, which basically aims to help the most disadvantaged. However, I would like my colleague to provide more details about means other than oil that could be used to help the most disadvantaged.

48 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:26:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length just now about social and community housing. I would like to share a very personal story. My son, who is 30 years old, does not have a car, so he does not have to pay at the pump, but he does live in an apartment. He has a hard time making ends meet, and sometimes mom and dad have to help him little. If we had more social housing and community housing, we could help young people like him. Lots of people do not have cars. It does not always have to be about oil, oil—

104 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/22 5:27:13 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the member. It being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. An hon. member: Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

124 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 5:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I have two points of order that I would like to address. I am rising on this particular point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on February 28, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, sponsored by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-237, I note that the bill would exempt Quebec from the national criteria and conditions set out for the Canada health transfer. Section 24 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act sets out certain conditions and criteria for payments to provinces for health transfers: a Canada Health Transfer in the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) is to be provided to the provinces for the purposes of (a) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, and the provisions relating to extra-billing and user charges. Bill C-237 also seeks to amend the Canada Health Act to make a corresponding change to exempt Quebec from abiding by the criteria and conditions for a cash contribution from the government to the provinces for the purposes of providing health care services. The purpose of the Canada Health Act is to set out in section 4 of the act: The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made. Section 5 of the Canada Health Act provides for cash contributions for each province in relation to the Canada health transfer. Section 7 of the Canada Health Act sets out the criteria that a province must satisfy in order to receive a cash contribution. These criteria are more fully articulated in sections 8 to 12 in the act. Section 7 states: In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters: (a) public administration; (b) comprehensiveness; (c) universality; (d) portability; and (e) accessibility. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. The provision of full cash contributions from the federal government to the provinces for health care services is tied to the ability of provinces to satisfy the conditions set out in section 7 of the Canada Health Act and section 24 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. The royal recommendation includes the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund and is tied to the purposes, terms, conditions and qualifications for the authorization of expenditures. Since Bill C-237 seeks to remove the terms, conditions and qualifications of the statutory spending authority, I submit that a new royal recommendation would need to be obtained for the purposes set out for health transfers to provinces envisaged in Bill C-237. Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to impose a new charge on the consolidated revenue fund, change the qualifications or alter the terms and conditions need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. On December 6, 2016, Speaker Regan noted: On May 8, 2008, Speaker Milliken delivered a ruling on Bill C-490, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (application for supplement, retroactive payments and other amendments). While the bill clearly provided for increases in supplements, it also made changes in the manner in which people applied for benefits and the extent to which qualified persons could claim benefits retroactively. In Speaker Milliken’s view, this: ...would alter the conditions and qualifications that were originally placed on public spending on old age security payments when those benefits were approved by Parliament. On December 6, 2016, the Speaker ruled on the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act, maternity benefits. The Speaker stated: In this case, Bill C-243 does not impose any new charge on the public treasury but creates a new set of conditions, relating to the safety of their workplace for their pregnancy, under which pregnant women could have access to benefits related to their pregnancy from as early as 15 weeks before the birth of their child. Though the sponsor of the bill argues otherwise, the Chair is not convinced that the current act allows spending under the circumstances, in the manner, and for the purposes he proposes. This being a circumstance not yet envisioned in the Employment Insurance Act, it infringes on the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation that accompanied that act and therefore requires now a new royal recommendation. This remains the case, even if the total amount of benefits stays the same. Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. A royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister of the Crown on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-237 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation is required and it has not been provided before the third-reading vote, the Speaker refuses to put the question at third reading and orders the bill discharged from the Order Paper. I submit that this is the case before you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-237.

1027 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 5:42:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-215

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this particular point of order in response to your February 28, 2022, statement respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, illness, injury or quarantine, sponsored by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I suggest that the provision in the bill to extend sickness benefits to 52 weeks would seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund not authorized in statute. In instances when there is no existing statutory authority or an appropriation to cover the new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is in fact required. The provisions of the bill amending the Employment Insurance Act would increase the maximum number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits. This increase in the number of weeks of benefits is authorized, once passed, by royal recommendation attached to the bill. The royal recommendation not only fixes the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of provisions subject to the royal recommendation. Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to increase the length of a benefit, change the qualifications or alter the conditions for employment insurance benefits need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Let me draw to the attention of members a few germane rulings on this matter. On April 22, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, removal of waiting period. The Speaker stated: [T]he chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form... On June 3, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, qualification for and entitlement to benefits. In the ruling, the Deputy Speaker stated: On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265... the Chair had concluded that: “It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program... would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized. Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.” Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. A more recent and directly relevant case is to be found in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, additional regular benefits, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, restriction on eligibility, and another Act in response to COVID-19 on March 11, 2021. This bill sought, among other things, to increase the number of weeks of EI regular benefits available by up to 24 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims that were made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. During the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed an amendment that attempted to increase the number of weeks of payments to an employment insurance claimant in the case of prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act. In proposing the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment as inadmissible because it required a royal recommendation. The chair ruled: Bill C-24 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the number of weeks paid under part 1 of that act under certain circumstances. This amendment attempts to increase the number of weeks of payments to a claimant, in the case of prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772: “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment as proposed requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible. A royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister of the Crown on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-215 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that the royal recommendation is required, and it has not been provided before the third reading vote, the Speaker refuses to put the question at third reading and orders the bill discharged from the Order Paper. I submit that this is the case before you with respect to Bill C-215. Precedents clearly suggest that a bill or motion that seeks to incur new and distinct expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized require a royal recommendation.

987 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 5:43:01 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his intervention. I will take that under advisement.

13 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Mar/22/22 5:43:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-240, the supporting Canadian charities act. The pandemic has inflicted tremendous losses on charities and their ability to provide much-needed services to Canadians. The situation is bleak. Canada's 170,000 registered charities have lost $10 billion during the pandemic at a time when the help provided by the charitable sector is needed more than ever. More than four in 10 charities are still facing declines in revenue. The average revenue decline is 44%, and more than half are dealing with revenue declines of more than 40%. Some 42% of charities are facing demands for their programs and services that currently exceed their capacity to deliver. Arts and cultural organizations have been particularly hard hit, with an average revenue decline of 59%. Many charity workers are suffering from pandemic-related stress and mental health issues. Sadly, many of these amazing organizations may not survive. Charities employ more than 2.4 million Canadians and account for 8.4% of this country's GDP. Under normal circumstances, each year charities raise $18.5 billion in donations and contribute $169 billion to our GDP. The charitable sector fills the gaps that cannot be fully met by government or by the market and is a key partner in the delivery of services including health care, education and social services. Sadly, nearly 40% of charities have laid off paid staff or reduced staff working hours, seriously impacting the ability of the sector to provide important services. One study by Imagine Canada forecast a loss of private sector donations of between $4.2 billion and $6.3 billion, with estimates of between 117,000 and 195,000 job losses. When charities are unable to deliver services and programs, it means that individuals do not receive the support they need. That is the bottom line. This could be a person looking for a meal at Agape Table in Winnipeg, a child with a disability in need of special equipment or specialized therapy, someone who is homeless and looking for a place to sleep on a cold winter night, a single mother who cannot pay rent or feed her children, a senior not taking life-saving medications, or a person in so many other situations. Demand for such services is expected to continue to increase in the coming months beyond the ability of charities to service that demand. Arts, cultural and recreational organizations have also reported revenue decreases of as much as 71%. For health organizations, the decline averages 48%. Bill C-240 would deliver long-term, sustainable funding to the charitable sector. Although the government has played an important role in direct funding of charities, with a simple change to the Income Tax Act, hundreds of millions of dollars in new donations could be raised for charities every year. Simply put, Bill C-240 would amend the Income Tax Act to waive the capital gains tax on the proceeds from the arm's-length sale of privately owned shares or real estate when those proceeds are donated directly to a charity. The last time the government made such a bold decision was in 2006, with the removal of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly traded securities. This has resulted in additional charitable donations of over $1 billion ever since. Tax incentives also already exist to encourage the donation of ecologically sensitive lands. This bill is the next step. The example I like to use is of a retiring dentist who is selling his or her practice after many years and may now choose to donate all or a portion of the sale proceeds to a charity. That dentist would receive a waiver of the capital gains tax so long as the donation was made within 30 days of the sale. The value of the shares is established by an actual arm's-length sale in the marketplace. By using that practice, we avoid the valuation ambiguity of an independent evaluation or appraisal. For years, charities across Canada have been recommending that the government unlock more private wealth for public good. The bill provides us all with the opportunity to help charities by stimulating increased charitable donations from the private sector. This bill would highly incentivize charitable giving at a time when it is most needed. It essentially incentivizes the redistribution of wealth to those who need it most. I submit that there is no better time to do this than now. It is estimated that this one change will increase charitable donations by at least $200 million per year. These additional donations would cost the treasury the capital gains tax revenue of roughly 25¢ on the dollar, which is roughly $50 million to $60 million per year. One-time-funding programs like the community services recovery fund and emergency community support fund are important, but represent only a fraction of the charitable sector's needs at this time. The opportunity is now to deliver immediate relief to help Canadians without significant additional costs to a treasury that is already running historic deficits. Existing jobs would be saved. New, permanent jobs would be created, and urgently needed benefits would be delivered. This is not a partisan debate. We all want to help charities. Charities from across the country have endorsed this bill. This broad support includes local organizations, such as the Grace Hospital Foundation in my own riding in Winnipeg, and extends to some of the largest national charitable organizations. This includes the Special Olympics, Imagine Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Diabetes Canada and many others. All stakeholders in the charitable sector are supportive of this measure, as are the hundreds of thousands of small business owners who would like to give back to their communities. A full list of the supportive groups and why they support this bill is available on my website. Removing the capital gains tax on gifts of private company shares and real estate is much more tax effective than direct government spending for charities because the cost is not borne by taxpayers alone. Rather, it is shared by the taxpayers and donors. Not one penny of the donated proceeds would benefit the donor, but would provide major benefit to recipient charities and those they serve. This initiative actually removes a barrier to charitable giving while immediately reducing the donor's wealth for the betterment of their communities. The real beneficiaries are the people who are served by not-for-profit organizations, including hospitals, social service agencies, universities, and arts, culture and religious organizations. This measure was also recommendation 34 in the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector issued in June of 2019, which states, “That the Government of Canada...implement and evaluate a pilot project on the impact on the charitable sector of exempting donations of private shares from capital gains tax.” I want to put on record that laws, as they relate to the charitable sector, are in serious need of modernization. The Senate report also made recommendations for the creation of a secretariat on the charitable sector. This home-in-government approach would provide a stronger framework for discussions and solutions between government and the sector on a wide range of issues. In the 1997 budget, then finance minister Paul Martin cut the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly traded securities by 50% when donated to a charity. In 2006, then finance minister Jim Flaherty followed suit when he removed the remaining capital gains tax on such gifts. The Senate report quotes Ruth MacKenzie of the Canadian Association of Gift Planners noting, “that the elimination of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities has been ‘enormously successful, resulting in billions of dollars in shares being donated to charities every year.’” It is now time for the government to take the next logical step by exempting private shares and real estate. This idea was, in fact, included in the Conservative budget of 2015 by then finance minister Joe Oliver, but it never made it into law before the change in government. I would be remiss in not giving a shout-out to a very special person many members are familiar with, Mr. Don Johnson who has advocated for this measure for decades. Mr. Johnson has said implementing this exemption would be the single most important and tax effective measure the government could introduce to significantly increase charitable donations every year going forward. Mr. Johnson was directly involved when Paul Martin reduced the tax and when Jim Flaherty reduced the tax, and now he has been advocating for this change all along as well. Many members recently received a copy of his book, Lessons Learned on Bay Street. He sent a personalized copy to every single one of us. I am about halfway through it, and I can tell members it is an excellent and very interesting read. He is a fellow Manitoban and a recipient of the Order of Canada. Mr. Johnson made his career on Bay Street and successfully advocated for the current application of this law on publicly traded securities, which resulted in billions of dollars for charities and non-profits. Today, I stand on his shoulders. He has been a tremendous resource for me, and I cannot thank him enough. The bottom line is that when charities are hurting, real people are hurting. Let us do something about it. I ask every member to support this bill. Working together, we can get the charitable sector back on its feet and Canadians back on theirs.

1607 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/22/22 5:54:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on the introduction of his private member's bill. It is always a great opportunity for members to bring forward policy ideas that they are individually extremely passionate about, and I am glad to see that this member has had that opportunity. I wanted to address one thing that I heard the member say in his speech. If I heard him correctly, and I may have gotten it wrong and he can correct me if I did, he said that the cost of this would be approximately $50 million. My understanding from the PBO is that it would be over $750 million with the possibility of getting close to $1 billion. That is my understanding of what the PBO had reported on it. Can the member either tell me that I misheard him or tell me what I and the PBO might be missing?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Marty Morantz

Mar/22/22 5:54:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. I said the $50 million to $60 million was the capital gains tax cost. To the extent that there are incremental donations, let us say it is $200 million a year, there would also be tax receipts associated with that. That analysis was done by the PBO as well, and I think it is in the range of another $50 million or $60 million a year. It is something like that, to the extent that there are incremental donations triggered by the incentivization of giving by the relief of the capital gains tax. The PBO numbers are over a period of time. The annualized cost is roughly $120 million or $130 million, and if we take that over a five-year horizon, that is how we get to the $700 million to $800 million cost. I would point out that the tax cost in all cases, on an annualized basis or over five years, is less than the actual contributions that charities would receive.

177 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 43