SoVote

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/2/22 5:20:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the evening is getting short, so I want to offer the member an opportunity to comment further on pairing. Like the member who spoke before, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, I also have not liked the fact that a hybrid Parliament has allowed for a reduction in accountability and transparency in this place. I have seen things get worse. I was elected in the same year, in 2015. I would like to hear from this member how we could perhaps use pairing more to achieve the flexibility so that members in this House could go to family commitments or take care of dependents who are seriously ill while also ensuring that we are able to perform the duties that our constituents sent us here to do. Pairing has been around for hundreds of years. In fact, it was during World War II that hundreds of members sometimes would be paired for particular votes because they had duties outside of this House.

164 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Jun/2/22 5:21:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pairing has a long history, but it does not have a long history of being used in a very flexible way. When there is a procedural vote and it is more of a last-minute vote, I wish the best of luck to all of us to sort out a pairing mechanism to accommodate the members who need to be accommodated. It is fiction that pairing gets us to a place of flexibility that we need to get to.

81 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Jun/2/22 5:21:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for his speech. He brought up several worthwhile ideas, especially with respect to private members' bills, for which there is a kind of lottery. I would like to hear his thoughts about question period and the fact that the government asks itself questions. Does my colleague think that this is an appropriate or useful practice? Does he think it could be replaced by something else?

76 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Jun/2/22 5:22:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not certain that I am in a position to say we should replace question period. Question period has existed far beyond my time in Parliament, and for good reason. It can be used incredibly effectively. It can be used to effectively to prosecute a case; it can be used very effectively to put issues on the agenda; it can also be used very effectively to raise specific constituents' concerns. It can be used effectively, but is it used effectively very often? Unfortunately, no. I do not think we should be looking at replacing it wholesale, but I do think we should be looking at ways to improve it. I actually tend to agree with the comments from NDP colleagues in particular, and I think there was even agreement on the Conservatives' side, in relation to the way we conducted ourselves typically in committee of the whole, where it is a back-and-forth. It is not for the cameras but to engage and have a real debate.

171 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Jun/2/22 5:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. My question was misunderstood, so I did not get the right answer. Perhaps I could clarify. I was not talking about question period as a whole. My question was about when members of the governing party ask their own government questions.

46 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Jun/2/22 5:23:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in that case, I think I answered in the course of my comments, but I and others would be able to put pointed questions to the government in question period if we were able to be accommodated via the Speaker and not the whip's office.

48 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/2/22 5:24:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in support of us doing what we can to ensure that Parliament is inclusive and ensure that we maintain hybrid Parliament in particular. Although there are many involved in parenting, we know that women are often those who are taking on a lot of those primary responsibilities in child rearing, and we know that right now that only 30% in Parliament are women. That number needs to increase. We need to do what we can to ensure that becoming a member of Parliament is successful. We have a lot of skills out there, and we need to do what we can to encourage that. We are still in the COVID pandemic, so we need to make sure we have access to do our jobs through this pandemic. I am wondering if the member could share with us today what actions he will be taking to ensure that his colleagues in the Liberal Parliament are on board with maintaining a hybrid system so women and all those with many skills in our government—

181 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/2/22 5:25:22 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member has the opportunity to answer in 15 seconds or less.

13 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Jun/2/22 5:25:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know many colleagues have seen probably first-hand the importance of virtual Parliament in my own life, because my kids are often on the screen. I am a better father. I am also a better parliamentarian and certainly a better husband. I have spoken to colleagues about this, and I will continue to speak to colleagues on all sides of the chamber, but especially on my own side.

71 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Jun/2/22 5:25:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are three reforms to the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees that the House should consider. First, the Speaker's right of recognition should be restored. The Speaker has effectively lost the right of recognition during many proceedings of this House: during debate, during Oral Questions and during other proceedings of the House. That right of recognition has been replaced by the list system, managed by the whips and House leaders, which has effectively displaced the Speaker's authority. During most of the proceedings of this House, in order for a member to speak, the member's name has to be put on a list to speak by the House leader or whip's office, but too often members do not have a voice in the House because they cannot get on the list, which is submitted by the House leaders and whips to the Speaker and the computer screen in front of you, Madam Speaker, to determine who gets to speak. The House should do away with the list system and replace it with a system established and controlled by the Speaker. That system should have two principles: First, all members who wish to speak should get to speak; second, time allocated to individual members who wish to speak should be distributed as equitably as possible to those members who wish to speak. As I understand it, in the U.K. Parliament, members who wish to speak, whether to a bill or during Oral Questions, go through a system established and controlled by the Speaker. For example, all members who wish to speak to a bill get to speak, because the time allotted for debate is divided by the number of members who wish to speak. Those members go to the Speaker, rather than through their whips or House leaders, to indicate that they wish to speak. For example, if four hours are allotted for debate on a bill at second reading and 40 members have indicated to the Speaker they wish to speak, the 240 minutes are divided by the 40 members. Thus, six minutes are allotted to each member to speak. In that system, members who wish to speak get to speak, which is more fair and more equitable than the system we have. I hope all members of this House will take up this idea of restoring the Speaker's right of recognition and thereby restoring a more equitable distribution of time for members in this House to speak. The second area of reform the House should consider is standing committees. In 2002, the Standing Orders were changed, a move supported by then finance minister Paul Martin, to address the democratic deficit by replacing the appointment of committee chairs with their election. Unfortunately, that well-intentioned change has not worked out in practice. While technically committee members can elect committee chairs, they are effectively appointed, 21 by the Prime Minister and four by the leader of the official opposition. That is because the moving of a nomination of a member for chair is done in public, and the whips use that fact to ensure that only the member whom the Prime Minister or the official opposition leader wishes to be chair is nominated for the position, with the result that the member is acclaimed as chair. One way to fix this is to require a secret preferential ballot on which all the names are listed of committee members of the recognized party from which the chair is to be selected. That way, no nominations for chair take place, and the 12 members of the committee decide on a secret single preferential ballot who will be chair. To make committees more effective, a second reform should be considered. The House should consider distributing the 25 chairs of standing committees in a way that is proportionate to the recognized parties in this House. Currently, the ministerial party has 21 out of 25 chairs and the official opposition has four out of 25 chairs. The NDP and the Bloc have no chairs of standing committees. This is not proportionate to the standings of the various recognized parties in the House of Commons and does not reflect the Parliament that Canadians elected back in the 2021 election. The House should also consider a third change to committees so that committee members would be elected by members of their respective recognized party caucuses. These elections on a secret preferential ballot could take place at the same time that the House meets to elect the new Speaker. Taken in totality, a secret ballot preferential election of committee chairs, a secret ballot preferential election of committee members and the proportionate distribution of standing committee chairs among the recognized parties in the House would have the effect of making standing committees much more independent of party leaders, particularly the Prime Minister, with a greater ability to hold the government accountable to a much greater degree. I will add that these reforms were enacted by the U.K. Parliament a decade ago and they had been adopted to a great degree of acclimation. By all accounts, they have been a great success, and they have strengthened the committee system. The third area of reform the House should consider is to take away the Prime Minister’s power to make key appointments in this place. The clerk of the House of Commons should be appointed by the Speaker and not by the Prime Minister. In other Westminster parliaments, the clerk is appointed by the Speaker on the recommendation of a committee of MPs that has vetted various candidates. In fact, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, that is exactly the process that is in place, as is the case in the U.K. Parliament and in the Australian Parliament. The Sergeant-at-Arms should also be appointed by the Speaker, rather than the Prime Minister. Most importantly, the majority of the members on the Board of Internal Economy should not be appointed by the Prime Minister, either directly or indirectly, but rather elected by the members of this House on a secret ballot. Members of the ministry, as well as officers of the House on both sides of the aisle, should not be eligible for the majority of positions on the BOIE. In other words, the majority of members on the BOIE should be backbench members of Parliament elected by their peers on a secret ballot vote. Those are three areas of reform the House should consider. First, restoring the Speaker's right of recognition by empowering the Speaker to establish a new system whereby members get recognized, a system that is controlled and managed by the Speaker. Second, reforms to committees that will make them more independent of party leaders, particularly the Prime Minister. Third, remove the Prime Minister's power to appoint the clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the majority of members on the BOIE, and giving that power, through an election, to members of Parliament. I have a couple of final comments. It is my view that the rights and privileges in this place are increasingly attaching to recognized parties, rather than to the 337 individual members of this House. For example, members who are not members of recognized parties cannot sit as a regular member on a committee. Another example is that routine motions at committee increasingly divide time among the four recognized parties on a committee, rather than among the 11 members. As a result, some members get way more time on committees than others do. This has created a two-tier system. Those who are members of recognized parties have greater rights than those who are members of non-recognized parties in this place. We have also created a two-tier system within recognized parties in this House. Those who are under the good grace and favour from the party leadership get to speak when they want, get on committees they want, and so on. Up to the 1960s, for over 100 years, our parliamentary conventions attached rights and privileges to individual members elected to legislatures and parliaments across the land, rather than to parties. With the establishment of recognized parties in this House in the 1960s, rights are increasingly attached to the parties rather than to individuals. It can be argued that this has subverted our constitutional order, which was clearly set up to recognize the individual member as the primary organizing entity and the party as secondary. This is an issue we all need to be thinking about as we contemplate reforms to this place to strengthen our parliamentary democracy. Finally, hybrid Parliament must end. We must end hybrid Parliament when we adjourn in June. While we may continue with the voting app, we need to return to full, in-person Parliament when Parliament resumes this September. It is vitally important for this House and its committees to go back to full, in-person sittings to ensure that we, once again, strengthen our parliamentary democracy and ensure that we pass along this institution to our children and grandchildren stronger than we inherited it.

1524 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Jun/2/22 5:36:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I really appreciate the comments from my friend and colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills today. He is a beacon of experience and knowledge in this place, and I know that, of all members of the House, he is always fighting for a more equal chance for all. My questions have to do with two inalienable features that govern all of our lives, and they are time and space. First, I would like to know his thoughts on a secondary chamber for things like late shows and PMBs, creating a menu of options for members to consider and choose from when entering this place for debate. We spend a lot of time in Ottawa, and I feel that would make it more efficient. It is not just June that I am talking about. Second, toward the end, the member got to the point of virtual Parliament. The member and I can drive here. We live close. The member opposite is just one riding north of mine and it is about four or five hours to drive. However, colleagues across this House do not have that luxury, so I wonder what his considerations are for members with young kids and members from places like Yukon, the northern territories and northern British Columbia.

217 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/2/22 5:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, which had to do with a secondary chamber, I support the idea of the creation of a secondary chamber. I know in the Palace of Westminster they have Westminster Hall, which is often used for parallel debates that cannot take place in the main chamber. With respect to the House schedule over the year, I do not support reducing the number of days this place sits. If we eliminate Fridays, we have to tack on additional weeks of Monday to Thursday. We already sit fewer weeks than any major legislature in the west. The fact is we sit less today than we did half a century ago. We reduced the number of weeks that we sit to 27 about 40 years ago. The U.K. Parliament sits to the end of the third week in August and then only takes a short three-week recess before it resumes around the same time that we do. The U.S. Congress has similar lengthy sitting times. We cannot reduce the amount of time we sit, because that reduces the accountability of the executive branch of government to the legislative branch, and in Canada that is the only accountability mechanism. Canadians do not directly elect the prime minister or the ministry here. They are appointed based on the confidence convention from this legislature, and we need to ensure that this legislature sits as much as possible in order to ensure accountability.

247 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/2/22 5:38:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I am convinced that he was a great artist in a previous life; he really used some very constructive and creative words in his speech. I want to address one of the last parts of his presentation. He would like to see the Clerk, the Sergeant‑at‑Arms, and the members of the Board of Internal Economy appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Speaker still comes from a political party. How can my colleague be sure that this would result in more neutrality and objectivity?

101 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/2/22 5:39:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, currently, the Prime Minister appoints the Clerk and the Sergeant‑at‑Arms of the House of Commons. Clearly, the Prime Minister is more partisan than the Speaker of the House of Commons. If the Speaker of the House were granted this power, then I am sure that it would enhance the neutrality of these two roles on Parliament Hill.

63 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/2/22 5:40:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated all of the examples the member for Wellington—Halton Hills cited from the mother Parliament. There are a lot of lessons that we can draw from them, and I think he would agree with me that time is our most valuable currency in this place. I would be curious to hear the member's thoughts on Fridays. I agree we should keep Fridays, but maybe there is an opportunity to pass the 2:30 p.m. mark to give members of Parliament the option for more space to debate private members' business. Maybe we could devote some time to take-note debates. It would be there as an option for members who were willing to participate. I also liked the member's interventions on the summer. May and June are silly season because we are trying to cram eight sitting weeks into a nine-week space. It would do a lot more for our sanity if maybe we spaced every two sitting weeks with a constituency week but went into the summer. We could have more time, but try to keep our sanity. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

197 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/2/22 5:41:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am open to eliminating Friday sittings. There are approximately 27 Friday sittings, so if we were to add five or six weeks to the parliamentary calendar to sit until the end of July or even the middle of August, I would very supportive of that. If we sit Monday to Thursday for, let us say, 32 or 33 weeks of the year, I would be very supportive of it. Whatever changes we make, we have to make sure that we do not reduce the number of sitting days of the House, which I believe is too few to begin with.

103 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/2/22 5:41:58 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:42 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 51(2), the matter is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

62 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/2/22 5:42:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C‑240, which was introduced by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I had the opportunity to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. All of his interventions were a testament to his commitment, diligence and thoroughness. This bill is no different. Bill C‑240 is the latest version of Bill C‑256, which was introduced during the previous Parliament and was, itself, a newer version of a measure that the Harper government had presented in its last budget in the spring of 2015. This measure unfortunately never took effect because the Liberals withdrew it when they came to power. Bill C‑240 would amend the Income Tax Act to provide an exemption from capital gains tax in respect of certain arm's length dispositions resulting from the donation of real estate or private corporation shares to charity. Bill C‑240 would apply to gifts of real property if the donation is made to a qualified donee within 30 days of the disposition of the property to an arm's length third party. We at the Bloc Québécois naturally support the principle of Bill C‑240. I first heard about this principle from the former leader of our party, Gilles Duceppe, who put me in touch with Mr. Johnson, who is sort of the driving force behind this bill. I had a chance to discuss the principle with him on a few occasions. I also had the opportunity to talk with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley about all of Mr. Johnson's work and his commitment to this issue. Coming back to the principle of Bill C‑240, right now, when a taxpayer donates a building or privately held shares to a charity, the taxpayer is presumed to have disposed of it at fair market value and must pay tax on the capital gains they have earned. Then, they receive an official receipt for the amount of the donation, also at fair market value. Since a wealthy taxpayer's tax rate is generally higher than the tax deduction associated with a charitable donation, which is capped at 75% of net income, the taxpayer ends up paying some tax on their capital gains, even if they did not actually pocket the gains. Under Bill C‑240, all real property would be subject to the same tax provision that already exists for ecologically sensitive land that is donated, for example, to nature conservation organizations. Since all charities provide valuable services to the community, we believe it is only fair that the donations they receive be treated in the same way for tax purposes. Also on the subject of fairness, donations of shares in private companies would now be treated in the same way as donations of shares in publicly traded companies, which are already exempt from capital gains tax. At first glance, this seems fair. As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle. However, this bill needs to be studied closely in committee since it raises questions about both effectiveness and fairness. With respect to the effectiveness of providing funding for charities, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that passing this bill could result in the government losing out on $775.5 million in revenue over five years. In return, however, donations of real estate and shares in private companies would increase from $2.9 billion to $3.9 billion. That means the government would be paying $775 million to generate an additional $981 million in donations. However, it is not clear whether these $981 million in donations of real estate and private corporation shares would be entirely new donations. It is possible that some of them would have been made anyway, but in some other form. The elasticity model used by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to assess the impact of the bill does not make this clear. If some of that $900 million in donations would have been made anyway, it is possible that the measure will cost the government more than it brings in for charity. That is something that the committee will obviously have to seriously consider. Also, the $775 million over five years in lost government revenue is quite substantial. According to the government's tax expenditure statement, the capital gains tax exemption for donations of shares in publicly traded companies represented a $105 million shortfall in 2021. Adding private corporations and real estate would increase that by 150%. According to the most recent data I could find, total charitable donations deductions were about $4 billion in 2021: $3.2 billion for individuals, and $725 million for corporations. All of this should be taken into account when the bill is considered in committee. There is also the issue of tax fairness. The reason we have tax credits for charitable donations is to recognize the public value of charitable organizations and to elicit donations. Anyone who makes a donation gets a receipt that will reduce their taxable income. If the tax credit is to fulfill its role, it must be neutral, no matter the nature of the gift. If some donations generate greater tax benefits than others, the tax credit will incentivize certain taxpayers to structure their affairs with tax avoidance in mind, rather than eliciting more donations. We must, at all costs, prevent this from becoming a tax avoidance technique. Consider the relationship between the capital gains exemption and the depreciation of a property. Every year, the owner of an income property can deduct a portion of the value of the property from their income during the time they own the property. At the same time, as the book value of the property continues to diminish, the capital gain realized at the time of sale is higher. With Bill C‑240, this capital gain would become tax exempt. Will the taxpayer have to pay back the amortization tax deduction that they received while they owned the property? If so, that is fair. If not, Bill C‑240 might open a tax loophole for those who invest in real estate. That is something else that will have to be looked at in committee. Given that we know that the price of housing is skyrocketing, a measure that would encourage investors to outbid everyone else does not seem optimal to us. However, in our opinion, all of this could be resolved in committee. This does not change the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑240 at second reading stage. In 2019, the special committee on the charitable sector in the other place concluded that the proposed measure in Bill C‑240 was positive overall and recommended adopting it. Once again, I want to thank the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his bill and all his work as a parliamentarian. I also want to acknowledge Mr. Johnson's commitment and all the work he has done for this cause. I look forward to Bill C‑240 being studied in depth in committee.

1228 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/2/22 5:50:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, as was said earlier, we are here today to debate a private member's bill, Bill C-240, that really focuses on exempting real estate and private corporation shares from capital gains tax when the proceeds are donated to charities. I have worked in charities for a good part of my life. I really appreciate and respect the profound work that these organizations do in our communities. Whether it be helping newcomers to Canada, which was the charity I was a part of for eight years of my life, whether it be helping people who are looking for opportunities in terms of employment, or whether it be organizations that support people who are struggling in ways so profound that we cannot imagine in this place, they do profound and important work. When I look at Bill C-240, I am a little disappointed. There is so much that could be done to support charities, but the bill would do such a small portion, and it would really allow the wealthy of this country more control of where their tax dollars end up while requiring other Canadians to make up the difference of that tax bill. I think that is something we need to reflect on. We know that, across the country, the ultrarich are not paying their fair share. The top 1% earners across the country are not paying their fair share, and everybody else is. Everyday folks such as those across my riding of North Island—Powell River are paying their fair share. In my riding, for example, I think of the Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural Society. Its members are working so hard, because their family members across the sea are suffering profoundly. One of the things they are doing is having regular rallies. People are donating to the cause, and they are helping out in every way they can. Not too long ago, I was at an event. One of those incredible volunteers stood up and talked about their plan to cook perogies and some traditional food that they would sell to raise funds, because they wanted to make sure that they did all that they could. I think of the Hardy Bay Senior Citizens' Society, whose members really do a lot of work. They work with over 200 people in the community, and they have a huge membership. They also support many people, such as by serving food to the elderly, especially during COVID. These folks were out there making sure that people who had any mobility issues got the supports they needed. They took food to their homes and supported them in every way they could. I think of the North Island Seniors Housing Foundation. This organization is one that I am profoundly proud of and am actually a member of. What I know is true is that this federal government does not support housing for seniors, and rural and remote communities across this country are really struggling to keep seniors in their communities. Seniors are coming out and saying, “We need housing that will let us stay in our community where we have our social infrastructure, and where we have all the people we know here in the community who will help us.” They do not want to be sent away, which is what is happening right now. We are seeing elderly people who, as they age, instead of staying in the warm companionship of their community, are being forced far away because that is where the accessible housing is. They lose all of those connections. I think of the Campbellton Neighbourhood Association in my neighbourhood of Campbell River. It is doing profound work to make the community and that area more recognizable, acknowledging the history of it in our community and really showcasing the spectacular opportunities that are there. I also think of PRISMA in Port Hardy, which does amazing work in bringing international musicians to our region and really celebrating the beauty of music in our community. When I look at the bill before us, it would not do what I would like it to. It really focuses on making sure that the ultrarich get another tax break. I do not know how many they need. I cannot believe that we are spending our time trying to find easier ways for them when we know how many people are suffering, especially with inflation. We know that people are looking for help. They are living paycheque to paycheque and are not able to get ahead. Even now, it is getting harder and harder for them. They are going to the places where there are food banks and where there are opportunities. We need to find ways to support those organizations. The bill is a small one, and would not actually address those areas of concern across the country. Again, it would allow the very wealthy, who are able to give away a substantial amount, to decide what charities are valuable instead of really looking at what is happening across our country and making sure that the supports go where they are desperately needed. We know that half of the top 10 billionaires have foundations in their family name. That comes from Canadians for Tax Fairness. Although charitable organizations perform valuable work, they are a poor replacement for adequately taxing the rich and can reduce tax revenues by more than they distribute. We need to look at this critically. I will not be supporting this bill, and I hope we will have more meaningful discussions about how the people in this country and the charities that serve us so well get the supports they need to do the work they must do to support everyday Canadians.

956 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/2/22 5:56:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-240

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. I would like to first commend my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for introducing this important bill in Parliament. I know my fellow Manitoban has done some tremendous work over his personal and professional life to improve his country. Bill C-240 is an addition to his great work. It is for those reasons that I am proud to call him my colleague and seatmate in the House of Commons. Charities contribute immensely to the social, cultural and economic well-being of Canada. There are over 85,000 registered charities in Canada that collectively employ 2.4 million Canadians and contribute 8.4% of our nation’s GDP. However, the reality is that charities have experienced some of the most devastating impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. When charities are hurting, so are Canadians. In a previous debate, my colleague noted that Canadian charities lost $10 billion during the pandemic alone. That is $10 billion less for the community foundations that improve the towns and cities we call home. It is $10 billion less for the education charities that grow young minds and provide hope for a better future. It is $10 billion less for the wildlife charities that lead critical research and deliver habitat conservation. It is $10 billion less for the arts and cultural charities that fuel vibrant communities. It is $10 billion less for the food banks that so many Canadians now depend on. Now with a cost-of-living crisis sweeping across our country, I fear that charities will continue to suffer from the reduced disposable income available to Canadians. It was just yesterday when the Bank of Canada significantly raised interest rates in an attempt to control record inflation. When Canadians are paying significantly more in debt payments, they cannot afford to donate to local charities at the end of the day. Canadian charities have filled many gaps in our society that government could not fill. I think of the Community Foundation of Swan Valley, which recently contributed to early learning centres in Swan River. I think of the Touchwood Park Association in Neepawa, which contributed immensely to providing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. I also think of the Dauphin & District Community Foundation, which continues to support recreational services in the parkland region. I could speak endlessly to the thousands of projects and initiatives that charities are responsible for in my constituency alone, but now is the time for the government to step up and support Canadian charities. Bill C-240 would significantly help Canadian charities through a simple change to the Income Tax Act. 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 to a charity. This change would directly fuel a significant amount of new donations to Canadian charities year after year. Imagine a local business owner, an accountant, for example. An accountant owns a practice in their local community, and after years of hard work, the accountant decides to retire and sell the business. The owner sells the business for a $100,000 in profit and chooses to donate a portion of the sale to a favourite local charity. Under the current Canadian legislation, the accountant would be subject to a significant tax on the profit of the sale. In this case, the accountant would have to pay a capital gains tax of $25,000, assuming the absence of an exemption. This means the business owner would have $25,000 less to donate to a local charity, and the government would have $25,000 more to spend on who knows what. Bill C-240 would eliminate this tax bill if the accountant decided to donate the proceeds to a Canadian charity. The accountant would then have a choice between sending the money to the government or donating the money to a Canadian charity. I hope we can all agree that money is better spent when it is used in our local communities, as opposed to being sucked away in the black hole of government. The private sector can play a key role in supporting the work of charitable organizations, and Bill C-240 would enable it to do this. Too often, governments believe they have the answers to all of our problems, when in reality the citizens of our country are more than capable of addressing the needs of society. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that Bill C-240 would increase charitable donations by nearly $1 billion over a period of five years. That is a significant number. Members of the House have an opportunity before them to forever increase donations to Canadian charities. I see no reason why they would oppose such a piece of legislation. Thankfully, this concept is not a new one. Previous Liberal and Conservative governments have initiated great work on this idea. The capital gains tax on gifts of publicly traded securities to Canadian charities no longer exists because of government action. Bill C-240 attempts to further this initiative with the exemption for shares of private companies. I can assure members of the House that there are many business owners who would rather give their money to charity as opposed to the government if they had the choice to do that. This bill would not incur any new government spending. It is simply taking the tax money that was on its way to the government’s coffers and putting it into Canadian charities. As the PBO report showed, for every one dollar the government forgoes under Bill C-240, approximately $1.26 goes to charity. This is a very noteworthy benefit. As an MP who proudly represents a rural region, I would be remiss not to mention the particular importance of charities in rural Canada. Charities are the foundation to the well-being of small and rural communities. It is very common for Canadians living in small towns to contribute to multiple charitable organizations. The limited services available in rural and remote communities emphasize the important role that charities have in supporting the people within them. Philanthropy is alive and well in rural Canada. Rural Canadians step up to help their neighbours and communities when needed. Charities turn this mentality into results. It is for reasons like this that I have no doubt Bill C-240 would have an amplified impact in rural Canada. In conclusion, Bill C-240 would directly support more than 85,000 registered charities in Canada at a time when they need support the most. It would incentivize more Canadians to increase support for the charities of their choice. There is a reason that so many high-profile charities and non-profit organizations have supported Bill C-240. I encourage members of the House to speak directly with charities in their local ridings to hear what this bill means to them. If they do so, they will hear the stark realities that Canadian charities are facing and the importance of creating an environment that incentivizes more giving. Once again, I would like to thank my colleague from Manitoba for introducing this important piece of legislation. I was proud to jointly second Bill C-240 and can assure him that I will be in voting in favour of this legislation. I encourage every other member of the House to do the same and send this bill to committee, where it can be further studied. As parliamentarians, I believe we should hear expert testimony on this legislation to better understand the positive impact it would have. Canadian charities have supported so many of us in so many ways. It is time for us to support them. Bill C-240 would enable us to do that.

1331 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 80