SoVote

Gabriel Ste-Marie

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Joliette
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond. My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size. Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?

147 words

Context: House Hansard - 274 - Feb/2/24

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Feb/2/24 10:10:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. The 2017 agreement, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine in the wake of the 2014 Russian invasion. As members know, the negotiations ended in the summer of 2015, just before the election, but the agreement was signed by the current government during the Ukrainian Prime Minister's visit to Ottawa in 2016, and it took effect in 2017. It was negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, but now it seems as though the Conservatives are no longer on board. Why is that and what impact will that have?

112 words

Context: House Hansard - 80 - Jun/2/22

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

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Gabriel Ste-Marie