44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's second reading debate on private member's bill, Bill C-240. As we know, the bill would provide an exemption from capital gains tax in respect of donations to charities resulting from certain arm's-length dispositions of real estate or private corporation shares.
At the onset, I would like to make it clear that I support the intent of the bill, which is to say that I support and encourage the making of charitable donations. However, the bill is problematic in how it aims to achieve this.
First and foremost among my concerns is that the proposed measure in the bill is regressive. This means that it would primarily benefit a particularly small class of high-income individuals rather than encouraging charitable giving by the broader public. More specifically, it would disproportionately benefit those who are holding private corporation shares or real estate other than a principal residence, which is to say, higher-income Canadians. That makes the bill unfair and puts it at odds with our government's goal of cutting taxes for the middle class while raising them on the top 1%.
For example, we have increased support for families and low-income workers through programs such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, which have helped lift over one million Canadians out of poverty since 2015, including 435,000 children. We have also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for low-income single seniors and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption, and we are increasing old age security for Canadians aged 75 and older in July 2022.
We will continue to examine ways to improve the tax and benefit system to ensure that it is well targeted and fair. However, providing a tax break that disproportionately benefits the wealthy is not in keeping with this approach. What is more, the measure is poorly targeted at achieving the bill's goal of supporting charitable donations. The proposed measure could in fact result in a windfall gain to donors without actually increasing the amount of their charitable giving to charities. That is because donors could simply substitute their existing cash donations to charities with donations of private corporation shares and real estate in order to receive greater tax benefits.
Considering the significant flaws in this proposed legislation, it is important to bear in mind that the Government of Canada's tax support for charitable donations is already recognized as being among the most generous in the world. The primary mechanisms for delivering this tax support are the charitable donation tax credit for individuals and the charitable donation tax deduction for corporations.
For the 2019 tax year, individuals are estimated to have claimed over $11 billion in such donations through this provision, with federal tax assistance on these donations amounting to approximately $3 billion. At the same time, corporations are estimated to have donated $3.1 billion through this provision, with federal tax assistance of approximately $655 million.
In terms of the charitable donation tax credit for individuals, the tax assistance received through the CDTC more than offsets any paid tax on the income used to finance the donation for the vast majority of individuals who donate more than $200 a year. The CDTC provides a 15% credit on the first $200 of annual donations, and for most donors, the CDTC provides tax assistance at 29% on the portion of donations over $200. What is more, donors with incomes subject to the 33% marginal rate can also claim a 33% credit on the portion of donations exceeding $200 made from this income.
In addition to this federal tax assistance, all provinces and territories have charitable donation tax credits, with the average provincial credit being approximately 17%. In fact, total combined federal-provincial tax assistance averaged out to be around 46% on donations above $200 in 2019. For donors with taxable income in excess of the highest rate, tax assistance on donations would be around 50% in most provinces and as high as 54% in Nova Scotia and Alberta.
Moreover, the government already offers special incentives to encourage donations of important assets such as publicly listed securities, ecologically sensitive land and certified cultural property through an exemption from capital gains tax for most such donations.
When the exemption from a capital gains tax is included, the total tax relief provided on such donations can be as high as 81% when provincial incentives are added. The charitable donation tax credit can generally be claimed up to 75% of the donor's net income in a year. Unused donations can be carried forward for up to five years, or up to 10 years in the case of ecologically sensitive land.
Unfortunately, Bill C-240 may actually undermine the effectiveness of the tax incentives provided under the ecological gift program. That is because currently the only type of real estate donation that is eligible for the full capital gains exemption is ecologically sensitive land that has been certified as such by Environment Canada and donated to certain qualified recipients to ensure conservation.
Under the proposed measure, this targeting of support to donations of ecologically sensitive land would be blown wide open. That is because under this proposal, donations of the proceeds of the disposition of real estate to any charity would receive the same tax assistance, and this could introduce a perverse incentive for potential donors to simply sell their land to a third party, like a real estate developer, and donate the proceeds to any charity thus avoiding the ecogift certification and valuation process. In short, it could result in a donor getting the same tax benefit from turning ecologically sensitive land into a parking lot as they would get from donating it to an entity that would preserve and protect it.
The measure is also expected to be costly. In February 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the cost of this measure to the federal government would be approximately $778 million over five years. That is a lot of money to dedicate largely to wealthy Canadians at a time when we are working to rebuild from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Supporting Bill C-240 would almost certainly increase the pressure on government to also provide special exemptions for donations of other types of property, such as virtual currency or cash gifts made after tax income.
Such tax changes would ideally be undertaken through the budget process, which enables the government to fully consider trade offs, balance priorities and undertake new fiscal commitments only to the extent that they are affordable. A private member's bill like Bill C-240 does not afford us that scope.
These serious shortcomings must be weighed against the generous and effective incentives for charitable giving that are already in place to encourage people to donate more to charities across Canada by reducing the after-tax cost of giving. Having done so, our government simply cannot lend its support to this private member's bill.
I am thankful for the opportunity to make that and my position clear on this issue.
1194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-240. This bill will affect an important industry in Quebec, specifically non-profit organizations, or NPOs, and charities that we have all worked with as citizens and in our work as members.
We are all well aware of the important contribution they make to our communities. I commend the enormous amount of work that these organisations do every day in conditions that are not always easy. I thank them for it. I want to take a moment to commend the leadership of the team at Le Passage de l'Aurore hospice. It is important for every RCM in our region to have this kind of end-of-life facility.
Charities receive significant support, totalling nearly $4 billion annually, through the tax system. Canada's tax incentives for charities are among the most generous in the world. Can we do even more in this area to help that sector thrive? I believe we can.
I also believe that piecemeal measures, which are often simplistic solutions, are no substitute for serious policy reform. In any case, it is high time that we prioritized the problems faced by NPOs and charities.
Tonight we will essentially debate a measure to exempt donations involving private shares and real estate from capital gains tax.
Let us review the history of this tax measure. Since 2006, the government has introduced a number of measures to boost charitable giving and cut red tape for the charitable sector. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance also studied the taxation of charities and NPOs, and this measure was among the recommendations in its February 11, 2013, report. This would benefit charities of all types, from hospitals, universities and cultural groups to the vast network of United Way–funded social service agencies across Quebec.
The measure was first introduced by the government in the 2015 budget. At that time, it was described as a way to unlock more private wealth for the public good. However, the exemption of donations involving private shares and real estate from capital gains tax was never implemented, as the Liberal members opposed it.
In 2019, the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector concluded that the measure proposed in Bill C‑240 was positive overall and recommended that it be adopted. Did the pandemic finally manage to convince us that this sector of our economy is fragile and that action is urgently required?
There continues to be an urgent need to increase the financial resources of charities and NPOs. It is vital that we examine the real needs of charitable organizations and NPOs.
My criticism of this bill is that it once again avoids finding a comprehensive solution that would provide these organizations with greater predictability in the longer term. It does not address all the problems to identify potential solutions.
At first glance, I do not see any serious problems with this new provision. However, I want to stress that better social policies and an adequate response to the problems of an aging population must be implemented in conjunction with the modernization of our tax system for charities.
Social inequalities exist, and the government's declining contribution to health care has a lot to do with that. The Bloc Québécois wants the government to increase the main provincial transfer so the provinces can make long-term plans for providing services to their people. This is just basic respect for the Canada Health Act.
Let us look at the changes proposed in the bill. Simply put, it would change the Income Tax Act to provide the same tax treatment as for donations of shares. Like other members of the House who commented on the consequences, I think we can look to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers. That should not be far from the truth.
We have a report here from the PBO stating that donations of real estate and private corporation shares could rise from $2.9 billion to $3.9 billion, an increase of $981 million.
I encourage my colleagues to look at part two of the Department of Finance's 2021 report on federal tax expenditures, and more specifically the table on page 33, which shows how much it costs the government for each of its existing measures for charities and non-profits.
I have a lot of questions that the finance committee could look into when studying the bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's budget model does not give any indication of how effective this measure is.
Are these new donations? Will this measure encourage more people to donate private corporation shares or real property? Would this simply add a benefit for donations that the organization would have received either way?
From a tax fairness perspective, tax credits for charitable donations are meant to recognize the public value of charities and to encourage donations. These tax credits are designed to encourage more donations, not to financially incentivize certain taxpayers to structure their affairs in a manner that minimizes their tax liability.
I think it is particularly important to ensure that this does not become an excuse for the government to shirk its social responsibilities.
We must not lose sight of technological change. That is hard for someone to do when they cannot afford it. My colleague from Joliette gave us his perspective on what we have heard from charities, as he has met with representatives from that sector of the economy.
As part of my role in the Bloc Québécois, what I have been hearing in my meetings is that the resources for organizations are limited, and that this is hindering the adoption of digital technologies, including software, hardware and data. As well, organizations are not always able to hire or train the required staff.
However, not‑for‑profit organizations are key partners in the delivery of services to ensure the health and well‑being of our community. Without access to critical technology such as computers, teleconferencing platforms, or a stable broadband connection, the ability of organizations to reach and serve their communities remains limited.
This reality was laid bare by the pandemic and restrictions on the ability to deliver programs in person. When it comes to the day-to-day needs of charities, they will need to be able to gain access to new technologies to help them with their work and to keep up with the demands that come with the digital age.
In closing, with the COVID‑19 pandemic, I would say that charities, especially those providing vital services to vulnerable individuals and communities, began expressing more directly what they needed from governments to survive and continue their work. Non-profit organizations have played a critical role during the COVID‑19 pandemic, but many are experiencing financial losses and facing increased demand for services. They need help to be able to continue providing critical programs and services.
Once again, we too often see the government disengaging from its mandates. In many cases, when we talk about people's needs, especially in the charitable sector, it should be the government's responsibility to provide the services that people need. Instead, they have to turn to a sector that often has fewer resources. In the end, it is the people in the various communities who suffer. I therefore encourage everyone to be generous, because that is a win-win for everyone in our society.
1258 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak on this important bill from my great colleague.
The COVID-19 pandemic has hit Canadian charities extremely hard. Today I am happy to stand in the House and discuss a measure that would see the potential for a new revenue stream for our struggling charities across the country. Amending the Income Tax Act to provide an exemption from capital gains tax in respect of certain arm's-length dispositions of either real estate or private corporation shares to charities is an extremely important measure to see implemented. The bill would see to it that the proceeds of any arm's-length sale would qualify for exemption if donated within 30 days of disposition. The value is, of course, determined in the market by the sale and is not determined by the seller.
Each of us in the House has a charity, or in fact several, that would be near and dear to our own hearts. About 10 years ago, I created a not-for-profit organization called The Josie Foundation. That is one that is very near and dear to my heart, along with so many others. It is important that we understand just how difficult it was for charities to raise funds as they normally would because of the pandemic and the strain that it put on charitable organizations.
The importance of charitable organizations in Canada is without question, and we want to remind all people of the importance of volunteerism. Many hard-working Canadians volunteer their time. They get on the charities that are near and dear to their hearts and whatever charity they are working on benefits our country in a great way. All members of the House and every political party in Canada inside these walls would agree that we must do anything we can to help charities. This bill would increase the amount of charitable giving by incentivizing donations through this tax measure. Again, Canadian charities need all the help they can get right now.
I will note that this measure was proposed in the 2015 budget by the Stephen Harper government, but in the 2016 budget, it was confirmed that the Liberal government did not intend to proceed with this measure. With this bill, we are trying to address the downturn in charitable giving that has been a trend for a while and was exacerbated during the pandemic. COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the charitable sector with the inability to raise funds at events, as well as donors being less likely to donate because they were personally struggling financially. When we add the concept of inflation to the mess and the problems charities are having raising funds, there is a really poor situation for the charities in this country.
With inflation running rampant, the financial struggles to Canadians are rising. In turn, this is putting more pressure on household disposable income, which is driving down available donation revenue. It should be noted that the charitable sector represents $151 billion, or 8.1% of Canada's GDP. Currently, the Income Tax Act allows for this tax treatment for the proceeds of the sale of publicly traded shares. This bill would provide similar tax treatment for the sale of private shares and real estate. The Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector recommended the government implement this measure as a pilot project in June 2019 in its “Catalyst for Change” report, recommendation 34.
People at home and potentially people in the chamber are wondering whether the bill seems to disproportionately favour those who are high-income earners. The answer is that it is important to note that not a single donated dollar remains in the hands of the donor. Each dollar benefits the charity that receives it. This bill would make these donations more affordable for donors, no matter what their income level is. It is very good for charitable organizations. Many small business people are not necessarily high-income earners, but would be incentivized to make donations if they did not have to pay the capital gains tax associated with the sale of their businesses.
As to whether the nature of the tax is regressive, this is something that could be ascertained through expert testimony at the finance committee if the bill were ever to pass. We know we have to pass this bill.
If this bill does not pass, the people in every charitable organization in the country are going to feel sad, but they are also going to feel ashamed. Government members and parliamentarians know that this is the type of bill that each of us can represent. It transcends partisanship. We can look at this bill and each of us can understand how important it is for us to help this sector.
Another question that people might have is how the benefit flows from the tax incentive to the charity. When business owners decide that they wish to sell shares in their businesses, under this bill, proceeds from the sale of those privately held shares would qualify for a capital gains tax exemption if donated to a charity by the donor within 30 days of the close of the transaction. It is great news for charitable organizations. For the purpose of clarity, the shares of the donor's company could not be donated, but rather the proceeds derived from the sale of those shares could be donated. This mechanism helps avoid any valuation ambiguity, as the sale must be an arm's-length sale for the purpose of value.
Some may wonder how often people gift shares and how often people gift real estate, in particular outside of a will. The bill would not incentivize gifting private company shares or real estate. Rather, it would incentivize the donation of the sale proceeds derived from the sale of private company shares or real estate. One example is important as it pertains to real estate. Someone who invested in a small apartment building or a duplex several years ago is now retiring and decides to sell the place. Currently, when they sell, they will be required to pay capital gains tax, which would be roughly the equivalent of 25% of the increase in value of the property during the period of time it was owned. Under Bill C-240, those proceeds could be donated, in their entirety or in part, to a charity of the donor's choice and the donor would receive an exemption from the tax. In the end, we would incentivize somebody to be more charitable in our country, which would benefit charitable organizations.
Some might ask about the benefit to cost that is associated with this legislation. Someone correctly pointed out that a Library of Parliament report references two different types of tax costs. The first is the tax cost related to the forgone capital gains taxes. As I mentioned earlier, this equates to roughly 25% of the actual gain. The second cost is the cost due to behavioural change, as the goal of the bill is to increase charitable giving. Additional charitable tax receipts would also be issued. This is a win-win all day for charitable organizations, for the people who benefit from the great work of charitable organizations and for our great country when we put forth legislation such as this that would actually make a real difference in our society.
The federal tax costs related to the issuance of tax receipts may vary based on the amount of the contribution and individual income, but my understanding is that the cost is roughly 25% to 30% of the contribution. This, too, could be clarified by testimony.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to bring forth this insightful commentary. I would be happy to meet with any members of the House, but I want to say again that Bill C-240, sponsored by my great friend from Winnipeg, is the type of bill that every political party can be proud of and that every member of the House can support. They are not supporting a political party here. They are supporting every charitable organization in this country, and we will proudly take all of their support. We need it. This is good for Canadians.
1388 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:31:27 p.m.
- Watch
Continuing debate. I see no other interventions, so I recognize the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley with his five-minute right of reply.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would just like to say I am sorry I cannot be there in person to speak to the bill I have introduced, but I want to thank every single member of Parliament who has spent so much time studying this bill and making arguments. I realize that there are many positive arguments and there are some questions around the bill. That is why I think it is very important that a bill that could have such a profound effect on charities across the country be studied in committee.
When I say “charities”, I want to be clear that I am talking not just about charities; I am talking about the people who these charities serve, and what I have been saying throughout this whole process is that when charities are hurting, real people are hurting. This bill can help charities get back on their feet and help Canadians get back on their feet.
The idea of the bill came from Mr. Don Johnson, who I am sure many of the members listening know has been advocating for this. He advocated the tax change that led to the exemption for publicly traded securities, and he has advocated this change. I worked with him very closely.
I have to say there is broad stakeholder support also, and I ask every member to consider what institutions in their own ridings could benefit in a great way from this change. I know Imagine Canada has endorsed the bill, as have Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Special Olympics. Many charities have endorsed this bill, because they are in a situation right now where they have been affected in two ways. It is kind of a double whammy, when it comes to charities. They were hurt tremendously during the pandemic, and now the cost of living crisis is making it almost unaffordable for people to make contributions to charities.
With this bill, I do not need to go through the numbers. They have been reiterated in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Everybody is aware of them, but the reality is that the amount of money donated to charities would exceed the cost to the government in all cases. I disagree with a fact one of the members from the Liberal bench said: that this was just a tax break for the wealthy, or something to that effect. Most small business people are not wealthy people. Some people just own a duplex or a small apartment building. It does not make them wealthy.
This bill highly incentivizes charitable giving at a very efficient tax cost to the government. It is not a new idea. It piggybacks on the concept of the donation of publicly traded securities. It was introduced in 2015 in the budget, which passed. All I am really asking is that we not let this bill die here. I am just asking that we let it go to committee, bring expert testimony and ask all the questions that have been asked in the House.
If members who have reservations about the bill are still concerned about it when it comes back to the House, they can vote against it then, but I do not think it would be fair to the people who would benefit from this bill to essentially kill it right here, when it comes up for a vote next week. I really do not.
This bill deserves the attention of the finance committee. It was, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, a recommendation in the Senate report on charities just a few years ago. It is an idea that is worth every member's consideration in the House.
I just want to say, on the issue of regressivity, that it is also another issue that could be debated at committee. I personally do not think it is regressive, because the reality is that whoever is making these donations does not get to keep any of the money. Every single dollar would go to charity, so I do not know how someone, whether they are wealthy or not, when they are parting with every single dollar, is being benefited other than that they are being incentivized to give.
Those are my general comments. I want to again thank everybody for their serious consideration and thought on this bill. I ask members to please vote for it.
With that, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
748 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:36:14 p.m.
- Watch
We will wait for a second here.
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 readopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that there be a recorded vote.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:36:57 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 8, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are united in their support for Ukraine and their condemnation of the horrific and appalling illegal war and genocide being perpetrated against Ukrainians by Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. Canadians want Canada to support Ukraine and Ukrainians. Canadians want their government to act, and time and again it has promised to act. It has promised to sanction Putin and the oligarchs. It has said all the right things about backing Ukraine. The government has once again made grand announcements about supporting Ukrainians fleeing the war and seeking refuge in Canada. However, like so many other pronouncements the government makes when it comes to support for Ukraine and Ukrainians, it is missing the mark.
For three months my fellow New Democrats and I have been calling on the government to impose sanctions on Putin and the Russian oligarchs who are financing this illegal war, yet we know now that, while the Prime Minister was making these announcements, millions of dollars were being diverted. Millions of dollars that should have gone to Ukraine and used to support Ukrainians settling in Canada was taken away from the country.
The government has missed the mark when it comes to humanitarian support. From the beginning of this illegal war, I have called on it to commit to working with Canadian organizations already on the ground, organizations that have the connections and experience to ensure that our humanitarian response is effective. Canadian organizations such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canada-Ukraine Foundation have to do their own work. They have to fundraise separately to get humanitarian aid where it needs to go in Ukraine.
Now, once again, when it comes to supporting Ukrainians fleeing the war, we now have yet another example of the government making big promises while again missing the mark. The Ukrainians fleeing this war are incredibly vulnerable and deeply traumatized. I met with many Ukrainians fleeing the war in Ukraine when I travelled to Poland and the border towns. What I saw was heartbreaking.
I could not help but think of my parents, my children and myself in those situations when I saw those who were fleeing that violence. They are seniors, children, women, and mothers who are trying to find a safe haven for their children. They need housing, health care, child care, financial support, social supports, and to know that they will be safe and secure for the long term. Instead of providing these things, instead of living up to those promises, the government is providing work permits, work permits for seniors and women who cannot leave their children. The problem here is that the government either does not understand the issue or does not want to understand the issue.
These refugees are refugees from conflict and need to be treated as such. They need to be named as refugees. They need to receive housing, financial support, and a path to permanent residency and citizenship if that is what they desire. Refugee status would give Ukrainians the chance to actually find refuge in Canada, but the current government is not granting them that status. Why not? It is because, if it acknowledges that these women and children are refugees, it would be obligated to support them, so instead the Liberals pretend. They pretend that Canada is giving refuge to these beleaguered and traumatized women and children. They pretend that Canada is living up to its promises. The Liberals pretend to care, and this is sickening me. It is time they stop pretending.
Will the government finally commit to providing real support for Ukrainian refugees?
600 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to respond to the hon. member's questions because I do not need to pretend we care. We do care. Canada is firm in its support of Ukraine.
Ukrainian immigrants are an important part of Canada's cultural history, and we continue to support the courageous people of Ukraine. As part of our commitment to support those fleeing Russia's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, our government has put in place immigration measures to help Ukrainians fleeing the war find safe haven here in Canada.
The Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel program is an accelerated temporary residence pathway that is designed to help Ukrainians who are seeking safe haven in Canada while the war in their home country continues. Between March 17 and May 25 of this year, IRCC received just over 259,000 CUAET applications, of which more than 120,000 have been approved. As well, between January 1 and May 22, more than 35,455 Ukrainian citizens arrived in Canada at our land and airports of entry. These arrival statistics cover all Ukrainian passport holders, including returning Canadian permanent residents of Ukrainian origin.
On April 9 of this year, the Prime Minister announced a series of additional measures to help Ukrainians find a safe haven in Canada. Working closely with our partners, including provinces and territories, settlement organizations, and NGOs across the country, we have implemented these key support measures. While Ukrainians are not coming to Canada as refugees, we are working hard to make sure that they have the travel support, transitional financial assistance and settlement services they need so they can come to Canada and thrive in their communities.
I am extremely pleased to announce that the third federal charter flight, which was carrying 319 Ukrainians, arrived moments ago in Halifax. This is in addition to the two other federal charter flights, one to Winnipeg on May 23 and one to Montreal on May 29. We have had the great honour and pleasure of welcoming Ukrainians in our communities. We have helped more than 900 Ukrainians travel to Canada.
These charters were available to Ukrainian nationals and their family members who are approved through the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel program. As well, those arriving on the charter flights who do not have suitable arrangements have been provided with temporary accommodations for up to 14 nights. In the coming weeks, we expect to expand the measures to include Ukrainians who arrive under the CUAET programs in other Canadian cities and who have no other confirmed accommodations.
We have also put in place the necessary supports so Ukrainians and their families can thrive in their new community after they arrive. Starting today, June 2, Ukrainians arriving in Canada under the CUAET program are also able to receive transitional financial assistance. The benefit, a direct one-time payment of $3,000 per adult and $1,500 per child 17 years and under, will help Ukrainians and their families meet their immediate and basic needs, such as transportation and long-term housing, as they settle in their new communities and look for work.
Ukrainians arriving under the CUAET program, as well as those who were already in Canada when the war broke out, are also receiving vital settlement program services, and these services include language training, enrolling children in school, and employment counselling and mentoring.
We will continue to be there for our Ukrainian community, and I am happy that I was able to answer the question.
584 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that did not answer the question. Frankly, I made it very clear in my question that it was not how many are coming here; it was about providing the support for them when they are here. This is basically the answer of thoughts and prayers. The government is so good at promising things and delivering absolutely nothing for the people who need them.
Canada's resettlement agencies and Ukrainian organizations in Canada have been raising the alarm for weeks now that we are headed towards a crisis unless the government changes course. Because Ukrainians are not considered refugees, they are arriving in Canada without access to the support networks that they need. The Ukrainian Canada Congress national president has noted that Canada is failing Ukrainians.
It does not have to be this way. The government could act today, right now, and make this right. It should not leave it up to donors. It should not leave it up to sponsored flights. The government should grant Ukrainians refugee status and give resettlement agencies and Ukrainian organizations the support and tools they need to assist Ukrainian refugees.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:46:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member again for her questions, because that allows me to tell her exactly what we are doing above and beyond what I have shared with her.
When we talk about the services that we are going to continue to provide on March 30 of this year, we are also extending settlement program services, which actually are typically only available to permanent residents, to make them available until March 31 of next year. This will help with housing searches; language training; information about orientation to life in Canada, such as helping children enrol in school; information and services to help access the labour market, including mentoring, networking, counselling, skills development and training; activities that promote connection with communities; assessment of other needs Ukrainians may have; referral to appropriate agencies; and services targeting the needs of women, seniors, youth and LGBTQ.
We will continue to welcome Ukrainians seeking refuge from Putin's war as quickly and safely as possible.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the chance to come back to a question I asked of the Prime Minister about a month or so ago.
I asked the question because it was on long-term care. Back in 2019, when I was knocking on doors in my community, I heard concerns from neighbour after neighbour, both those who had a parent in care and those who were caregivers, about the crisis they saw as a result of decades of underinvestment.
It is an example of how the pandemic really only made things worse, because if we fast-forward to 2021, we all know that the crisis in long-term care exploded in the pandemic.
In my community, for example—and I have shared this story in the House before—I will not forget anytime soon speaking with a woman who was sharing how her mom had been waiting in hospital for a bed in long-term care for three months. As she told this story, I could see the tears streaming down her face.
I also spoke with a personal support worker who shared, and she was being honest, that “I am not giving four hours of care a day; I am lucky if I am able to give four minutes of care a day.”
It is obvious that this crisis continues in long-term care, and we are not out of the woods yet. In fact, in the most recent numbers I have available on the wait times for long-term care, in the summer of 2021 there were still 52,000 people on the wait-list.
Last year, we heard in the Liberal platform and from the Prime Minister himself that billions of dollars were being promised for long-term care. He shared the words that nothing was off the table when it comes to addressing the crisis in long-term care, but if we fast-forward to what was in the budget, and I looked right through it, long-term care was only mentioned once, and when it was mentioned, it was only about funds that were previously allocated.
There was also no mention of the safe long-term care act, despite this being part of the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals, one of the few really key new items.
This is what prompted my question to the Prime Minister at the time and my continued concern when it comes to addressing the crisis.
To offer some ideas on what could be done, we need look no further than what the former member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Paul Manly, had proposed in Motion No. 77. He proposed eliminating the wait times; paying long-term care staff adequately for their work, and providing benefits and paid sick leave; implementing a basic care guarantee that would ensure that we have a minimum of four hours of regulated personal care per day for every resident; taking the profit out of long-term care and transitioning long-term care facilities to non-profit and co-operative management structures; and introducing a safe long-term care act modelled after the Canada Health Act to be sure that it establishes national standards for care and staffing.
In the Prime Minister's response, he shared that the government is working with provinces and territories.
Tonight, for the parliamentary secretary, I have three questions I would love to hear more about.
First of all, does he and the governing party recognize that the crisis in long-term care continues?
Second, when, specifically, will the governing party follow through on what they have already promised: tabling the safe long-term care act?
Finally, if he can provide an update as to whether work is being done with provinces and territories, exactly what work is being done?
637 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Kitchener Centre for his work on this file and his dedication to seniors living in his riding and across the country.
Many seniors have faced significant health, economic and social challenges due to COVID-19, which has really laid bare the systematic challenges in Canada's long-term care system. As soon as COVID-19 exposed some of these challenges in our long-term care system, our government was there to help the provinces and territories with additional PPE, with the armed forces in the long-term care facilities in Quebec and Ontario and with much more.
Our government has also stressed the need for permanent, long-term solutions for long-term care facilities so that the Canadians living and working in them are safe and treated with respect and dignity. Key to achieving that level of safety and comfort are national standards for long-term care.
I would remind the member opposite that in March 2021, the Standards Council of Canada, which is a federal Crown corporation, the Health Standards Organization and the Canadian Standards Association announced that they would be collaborating on the development of two new complementary federal long-term care standards. That was a result of work from our government. Their collaboration with stakeholders across the country has focused on addressing the delivery of safe, reliable and high-quality long-term care services, the design and operation of long-term care homes, and infection prevention and control practices in long-term care.
For HSO's standard, this means resident-centred care practices: a respectful team-based environment, a healthy, competent and resilient workforce with healthy working conditions, and strong governance practices and operations. For the CSA group standard, this means cleaning and disinfecting processes, waste removal, HVAC, plumbing, medical gas systems and the use of more modern technology in care systems. We expect that the final release of those standards will be done at the end of this year. Budget 2021 also included a $3-billion investment to support the provinces and territories in their efforts to apply these standards and ensure permanent changes are made.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to highlight the challenges in long-term care, including gaps in infection prevention and staffing. I believe that answers the first question my colleague asked, which was whether we recognize that this crisis is continuing. The answer is yes. Our government has made significant investments, including $4 billion to help the provinces and territories improve the standards of care in those facilities. In addition to that, there is $41.9 billion in cash supports to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer.
Canadians can rest assured that we will keep working hard with the provinces and territories so we can fight COVID-19 together. That includes in our long-term care facilities.
On the campaign, we also committed to investing an additional $25 billion over five years to better support the health care system and provide better mental health services across the country for seniors. The provinces and territories will now receive over $47 billion through the Canada health transfer in 2021 and 2022, with the territories getting $500 million, to help them prepare for outbreaks of COVID-19. To date, our government has spent more than eight dollars out of every $10 in this country to fight the pandemic.
There were a couple of other questions. When will the tabling of the safe long-term care act commence? I believe that work is under way. We are working expeditiously on that because it is a priority for this government. I do not have any updates on work with the provinces, but I look forward to the next round of questions from my friend and colleague from Kitchener Centre.
638 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:55:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary not just for his kind words, but for actually answering the questions that were offered this evening. I think a respectful approach and a discourse that feels exactly like that are what we should see more of in this place.
I understand that he might not be able to share more about when the safe long-term care act would be introduced, so I wonder, with this final bit of time we have available, if he could share his reflections on why no new funds were allocated in the most recent budget, recognizing there is a crisis we are still in. Is there more specificity he can offer for what would be in the safe long-term care act? What can all parliamentarians do to advance it more quickly, recognizing that a crisis requires urgent action?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:56:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while I know that it is challenging for Green members to appear at committee, I would invite the member to the health committee at some point. Work is under way. We have been addressing human resources in health care, which is related to this challenge. I would also highlight what I said in a previous round, which is that we are investing $3 billion through budget 2021 to ensure that standards for long-term care are applied and that permanent changes are made.
We all agree that people living and working in long-term care deserve to be treated with respect and dignity in a safe environment. Our government has invested in immediate solutions while supporting efforts to permanently correct what needs correcting in the long-term care system, not only to better protect against a future pandemic, but to make every single day a day of safety and good living.
We owe this to our seniors in the country. They built this country. We are grateful for this country. It is a great place to live, and we owe them a life of dignity and respect. That is what we are achieving together by collaborating in this place.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 6:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the adjournment debate tonight to address concerns raised by constituents in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap and shared by Canadians across the country regarding the government's continuing attacks on manufacturing jobs and the tourism sector.
The government was asked if the finance minister understands that her high-tax regime will do nothing but kill jobs in the manufacturing and tourism sectors, and the response was, frankly, unacceptable. In his response to the question, the parliamentary secretary stated, “to make sure that we have the resources needed to invest in Canadians and help our economy continue to recover from the pandemic, we are ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share.” This shows just how out of touch this government is with reality. The Liberals do not realize that their tax-and-spend policies are killing jobs in small businesses and tourism sectors.
The government did not do an impact analysis of its proposed new surtax before it proposed the surtax on vehicles, vessels and aircraft. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did undertake such analysis, and he concluded that the proposed new surtax will result in over $2.8 billion in lost sales over the next five years, a 15% reduction, which will devastate Canada's car manufacturing sector, boating sector and aerospace sector.
It is not the wealthy who are going to pay for this tax policy; it is the workers in the plants no longer building these products and the rental and charter companies that do not have new vessels coming into their rental fleets. This new surtax will cost Canadian workers in Canada's tourism sector and peripheral sectors and supply chains whose jobs are being put at risk. These are the people who will pay for this government's damaging and short-sighted legislation.
As Canadian workers break free from the stranglehold of the pandemic and businesses struggle to recover, only the Liberals would conceive that imposing such a tax on sales that support good manufacturing jobs right here in Canada is the right path forward. This surtax will drive jobs and contracts out of Canada and make purchases more expensive for Canadians, because the new surtax will not just tax specified items, but it will also tax the sales tax on the purchase, another tax on tax by this government.
Many charter vessel fleet operators rely on individual purchasers to invest in new vessels to renew their fleets and sustain standards that will attract tourists from across Canada and around the world. If those vessels are not renewed and up to standard, customers from here in Canada and abroad will take their money elsewhere, the U.S. for example, and support tourism, jobs and incomes there.
The resultant loss of investment, plus the spinoff loss of rental, tourism and service revenues, will far outweigh any benefits the government thinks it will rake in from this new tax. The government and its new surtax will hurt Canadians who need the jobs the most as Canada recovers and tries to dig itself out of the debt hole of the government's reckless spending abandon.
I want to know, and Canadians want to know, this: How can the government be so callous and continue to force this new surtax through Parliament to inflict harm on hard-working Canadians?
559 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 7:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap for raising this question of the luxury tax this evening in adjournment debate. As we all know, taxes help pay for the government programs and services that all Canadians depend upon, and they provide a social safety net on which all Canadians can rely. The usefulness of this social safety net was very obvious during the pandemic.
While many Canadians have sacrificed a lot to keep our economy going through the pandemic, we also know that some of the wealthiest have done quite well. We believe that it is only fair to ask those who can afford to buy luxury goods to contribute a little bit more. That is why the government followed through on its commitment to introduce a tax on select luxury goods in budget 2021.
Our government proposed in budget 2021 the introduction of a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail price of over $100,000 and on new boats over $250,000. It is estimated that by this measure we will increase federal revenues by $654 million over five years starting in 2021-22. I would like to reassure my colleagues that the luxury tax only applies to boats above a quarter of a million dollars and has an effective rate less than 10% for boats less than $500,000.
I think we should also all be mindful that the $250,000 price threshold is 3.3 times the median household income in Canada before taxes. We also have seen recent reports the demand for luxury goods is strong and has continued throughout the pandemic. We are definitely not targeting middle-class Canadians with this measure. We are simply asking those who can buy these luxury goods to make an additional contribution.
I understand that my hon. colleague is concerned that the luxury tax will negatively impact the tourism industry in his region. However, I would like to reassure him that families that are renting or chartering new houseboats in the Shuswap region would only bear a very small portion of this tax, as it would be spread out over all the charters over the useful life of the houseboat.
Finally, the government is not implementing this new tax alone or blindly. Canadians have been consulted about it, and the draft legislative proposals were released in March of this year. Subject to parliamentary approval, this tax would come into effect on September 1, 2022.
I look forward to following up with my hon. colleague if he has any further questions or comments.
438 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 7:03:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this answer that the member does not understand, and his government does not understand, that it is not the wealthy who are going to be suffering the implications of this tax. It is the jobs that are going to be lost because of the loss of sales.
Some $2.8 billion in lost sales is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has identified will be the loss directly from this proposed tax. It just shows that the government has not looked at the final numbers to understand what it is going to do for job creation and job continuity in the country.
I hope that the member can do better in his one-minute response now than he did in his previous response.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 7:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will do my best. I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues and the hon. member that this government has been there to support Canadians as we navigated through the pandemic and taxes are necessary to pay for the social programs that Canadians depend upon. We believe that it is only fair that those who can afford vessels worth more than $250,000 contribute a little bit more than others.
In conclusion, I would just state that previous Conservative governments recognized that taxes are what pay for the government programs that are essential for Canadians, particularly vulnerable Canadians. As I have said many times in the House, I grew up in social housing. I grew up in a co-op, and those co-ops would not have existed if it were not for good tax structures similar to the ones that the Mulroney government brought forward with the GST. We would not be here today without that good Conservative idea of the general sales tax.
In closing, I would like to thank former prime minister Brian Mulroney for bringing forward the GST, and we are following up with this luxury tax because Canadians rely on these services more than ever.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
