TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-18 Sitting 139 Showing 1–4 of 4

The debate covered a broad omnibus bill with a wide range of tax, spending, and regulatory changes. The limited discussion focused on concerns about farm succession planning, and degenerated into partisan bickering and arguing about unrelated Speaker rulings.

Official Hansard ↗

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:25 p.m.

“Steve Cooper wants to give his farm to his nephew. The government takes too much money when someone gives their farm to a nephew instead of a kid. That punishes family farms. Change the rules so the government takes less money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the troubling implications for family farms and the ability to pass family farms on to the next generation. For generations, family farms have fed Canadians and the world, and those farms are passed on, with great pride, from one generation to the next. Generally, if a farm is passed from a father or mother to a child, it is passed on a tax-deferred basis. Unfortunately, under the current rules, if it is passed to an extended family member, such as a niece or nephew, it is fully taxed under the capital gains rules. The result has been that, over the last 20 years, more than 57,000 family farms have been lost. That hurts family farmers in my community, such as Steve Cooper, who brought this issue to my attention in the local media. He wanted to pass his farm on to a nephew but could not do so because of the dramatic tax implications. The problem will only compound in the future because right now the average Canadian farmer is in their mid-fifties, and fewer than one in 12 has a successor under the age of 40. This is data from Statistics Canada. That means that farmers are getting older; they do not have a next generation, potentially, in line; and they are struggling with the succession of their farm. The result is that we are losing family farms in my community and across Canada. I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to consider looking into the rules around the Income Tax Act to change this so family farms could be passed on to the next generation in an extended family, without tax implications. The response at the time was an acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to speak with the Minister of Finance and to come back to the House to inform us. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here today, so I would like to ask him if those conversations have been had, what the result of those conversations was, and whether they have a solution or proposal that they will bring forward to the House in the fall sitting to address this issue.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 3:30 p.m.

“I don't have much to say about family farm succession plans. But here's a story about giving workers shares in a grocery chain in the U.K. We did a thing on that in the last budget. Maybe that kind of thing could work for farms too sometime, I don't know. It's late and I want to go home for the summer.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here in the very last moments before the House rises for the summer. I know that there are a large number of farms in the member opposite's riding. There are farm succession plans all across this country, and farmers do struggle with succession, so I understand the issue the member is speaking about. We have done some things recently, in the spring economic update implementation act, on this front with capital gains exemption. It applies only to employee ownership trusts and worker co-operatives, but I think it highlights where the government is open to looking at options for succession to make it easier to hand down businesses. In this case, the one I am referencing is employee ownership trusts, which is a model I have advocated for. Worker-owned co-operatives will get the same tax treatment. It is a measure I have supported from day one because it offers owners of businesses that are small- to medium-sized, or they could be larger, the opportunity, when they want to sell the business, to protect those businesses and also to hand them down to workers. This creates wealth-building opportunities for frontline workers in a grocery chain, for example. There are many examples in the U.K. For example, Waitrose is a company run by John Lewis Partnership. It is a good example of how employee ownership trusts can create a shared equity model where frontline workers get to participate in the proceeds of the company. I think it is similar to a model that could be applied to farms in this country, although I do not know of any workup of the details on that at this point. I thank the member for bringing this up. I think it is an important consideration.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:30 p.m.

“I don't like that ruling. It gives the majority too much power. I want the rules to stay fair for everyone.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing what the government proposes in the fall. In the last minute I have, I would like to comment on the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. I appreciated the Speaker's ruling but I was deeply disappointed by it. First, on a factual basis, the Speaker indicated in the ruling that there was only supposition that certain members of the government may have had privileged information about the timing of amendments. I would suggest to the Speaker that the fact that they submitted amendments is evidence enough that they had that information. Second, the Speaker made this point: “Both the minority and the majority have rights; however, primacy cannot be given to both.” That was the quote the Speaker used. That was not the issue. The issue was the level playing field and primacy being given by the Speaker's ruling to the majority. I am troubled by the precedent that the Speaker's ruling may have set for giving the government the ability to deny members of the House, of any party, their participatory rights in the submission of amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“I want taxpayers to spend $31,000 per apprentice. I don't like how you vote. I want more tax money for many programs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that it has become apparent in the House, through question period and many of the proceedings, that the Conservatives claim that they are about protecting and supporting vulnerable people, but in fact, they just seem to use those people's hardship for political gain. They see them as a political opportunity, whether it is young people, seniors or other vulnerable people. We have seen them not support measures such as the groceries and essentials benefit. They mocked the Canada summer jobs program, which offers 100,000 jobs. They just voted, again, against Bill C-30, which is offering skilled trades apprenticeship supports of $31,000 in total for each apprentice. We have cut taxes in a number of areas, including income tax and the consumer carbon tax. We have suspended the excise tax on fuel. We have cut the tax on first home purchases. We have offered enhanced tax deductions for businesses in research and development and for buying new machinery and equipment. If the hon. member really is for tax cuts, why did he just vote against seven new tax measures that will help with affordability for Canadians? It does not make sense to me. That includes Bill C-30, this afternoon at third reading, which the member voted against.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates