“Our tax laws make it too expensive for farmers to pass their land to nieces or nephews. Because of this, Canada is losing family farms as farmers get older. I want to know if the government has a plan to fix these tax rules this fall.”

“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.”

“I disagree with the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. The government had inside information about when to propose changes to a bill. The Speaker gave the government an unfair advantage over other parties. This ruling hurts the right of all members to suggest changes to legislation.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 4 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →