Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

On December 1, 2016, Alice Wong made a statement in the House of Commons on the topic of the Pacific Autism Family Network.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and congratulate the Pacific Autism Family Network that has just opened its new family hub in my riding of Richmond Centre.

With family-friendly spaces created specifically to foster a calm and collaborative environment, the family hub will provide a network of support for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and their families. This organization has been working extremely hard to raise the necessary funds to open the centre, which will serve families across B.C. I was so pleased to join in recently at its ribbon-cutting celebration. I look forward to seeing the success of this facility in our community.

I congratulate all involved.

On November 29, 2016, Alice Wong spoke regarding the time allocation motion of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-26 and the proposed changes to the CPP, as this is not only a very important issue to me personally, but also to my constituents and the very many business owners I have consulted across our country.

The government has failed to recognize the negative impacts this change would have on our economy. The CPP tax hike will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put thousands of jobs at risk, and do nothing to help the seniors who need it.

Let me explain what is happening with regard to Bill C-26. The Liberals are encouraging misconceptions that these changes would help our seniors, our youth, and our businesses. This could not be further from the truth. I have heard from small business owners across Canada who have stated that changes to the CPP will mean that they will hire fewer people. They will opt to spread the workload across the current number of employees to offset the increased cost of payroll. When I hear from our job creators and community builders that further increases to payroll costs will mean they will hire fewer workers, it means we must listen. Our economy cannot afford to lose more jobs.

I met with young entrepreneurs in the summer soon after the proposed changes were announced. Already these young leaders saw what the payroll tax would do to their own incomes and employee paycheques. Our young people are struggling to pay off school debt and make ends meet. Reducing the amount of money they are receiving today will only magnify this problem.

We absolutely need to encourage our young people to invest, but let us equip them with long-lasting tools and knowledge that will empower them to save through many different means.

As I mentioned in one of the questions I asked in the House, a study by the Fraser Institute from May 2016 projected the real rate of return for CPP investors to be only 2.1%. It states, “Canadian workers retiring after 2036…can expect a real rate of return of 2.1 percent from the the CPP”. This means that the majority of our workforce contributing to the CPP is only making a real rate of return that is barely above inflation. To make matters worse, when they withdraw those CPP funds, they once again will have to pay income tax on them.

Finally, I would like to talk about Canadian seniors. My colleagues know that our seniors are very important to me. As the minister of seniors in the former government, I spent five years working with organizations, health care workers, and hearing from seniors themselves on actions the government needed to take to assist them.

One of the primary ways seniors have chosen to save and the option many have found most helpful is the tax-free savings account. Unfortunately, it has now become very clear that the Liberal government did not consult our seniors when they chose to scale back the TFSA. Now the Liberals claim to be assisting our seniors when the reality is that the proposed changes to the CPP will not provide a single cent to our current seniors.

One common argument for these changes is that they will assist some of our seniors in poverty. These changes will do nothing to reduce seniors’ poverty.

In June, a writer of the Financial Post stated:
Whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty. The poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get.

The writer goes on to explain that fewer than 5% of seniors who fall under the poverty line are those who either are not eligible for old age security or who have not applied for the guaranteed income supplement.

It is exactly for these reasons that when I was the minister for seniors in the Conservative government, I empowered the cities to look after homeless seniors and help them apply for OAS and GIS and to administer the funds for them so that these seniors would have food on their plates and roofs above their heads. With the Liberal government, this good policy has gone.

We know that the CPP is not a means to solve poverty, and we know that TFSAs help our seniors save. Why is the government choosing to do the exact opposite of what our seniors need?

Canada’s retirement system is based on three pillars: first, the CPP; then the OAS or GIS; and finally, tax-assisted savings. It is important that each of these pillars is put to Canadians. When we place too much emphasis on one, the system becomes unbalanced and does not effectively serve those who need it.

Canadians are good at saving their money for retirement. McKinsey & Company state that 83% of Canadian households are on track for retirement savings, and the C.D. Howe Institute reports that savings rates have nearly doubled since 1990. What seniors need now is protection from financial abuse, an enhancement of their financial literacy, and the ability to live within their means. What they do not need is a carbon tax, which will increase their cost of living, including heating their homes, buying groceries, and meeting other basic needs.

Let me complete this debate with what I have heard from women entrepreneurs from coast to coast to coast. They want their significant others to be able to share the rewards of their hard work when they retire. A CPP increase will not help them do that. Putting their money into sound investments will.

Young people in Vancouver hope to save enough money to buy their first home. Taking home less money will never enable them to do that.

In summary, the proposed CPP will provide none of the solutions the Liberals claim it will. Instead, our job creators will be forced to hire fewer workers. Our young people will have a harder time paying down debt, and our seniors will continue to be left out of the equation.

I know that members on this side of the House will continue to fight for our job creators and evidence-based policy. I cannot say the same for the members opposite, and I will vote against Bill C-26.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I believe that the Conservative Party has lost touch with Canadians in terms of what Canadians expect Parliament to do. They value our pension programs, whether it is the OAS or the GIS.

Today we are talking about the Canada pension plan. When the member across the way decides to be critical of the government on this initiative, she should be aware that this is an agreement we have with all the provinces and territories of all political stripes. It is only the Conservative Party in Ottawa that thinks it is a bad thing.

Why does the member believe that her party is so offside with what Canadians and all other political entities want?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, what we are doing is not embracing something that is harmful to our economy, harmful to our seniors, and harmful to our young people.

When a policy is drafted, it is not only for the benefit of that specific party but for the benefit of all Canadians. The Liberals have not consulted all the business owners who will be paying into it. They have not considered all the young people who will be paying into it and yet not reaping from it. They have not spoken to seniors, who have told us that this is not exactly what they need.

[Translation]

Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP):
Madam Speaker, indeed, what we are talking about today is extremely important. We meet with seniors in our riding offices all the time. They tell us how hard it is to make ends meet on CPP alone. Sadly, those who get CPP only are living in poverty.

The most recent figures show that 30% of single senior women live in poverty. That is totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, it is often women who end up in this situation.

I want to ask my hon. colleague whether she thinks we should be doing something to improve the situation for our seniors who are living in poverty. We cannot stand idly by. We must do something. What does my colleague propose? The Liberal government proposed measures that are weak and flawed, but does my hon. colleague propose that we do nothing at all?

[English]

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I said in my speech. We need to help those seniors who are in poverty. One reason is that some have not even applied. Second, they are not able to administer their own funds. That is why I empowered the cities to look for these seniors, including women who are in great need and are on the poverty line.

Unfortunately, the current government does not even have a minister who can speak on behalf of the women, on behalf of the seniors, who really need the help. That is exactly why we are fighting against Bill C-26, which would not help those women at all.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague’s opinion in this area, because she was the minister of seniors previously and is now the critic for small business.

I am interested in understanding what impact she sees Bill C-26 having on small business.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, what small businesses would not like to see right now is a payroll tax hike. There are other taxes the Liberals promised to reduce, like the small business tax, but they did not follow up on their promise. Small businesses are having a tough time paying more taxes, and there is now yet another one.

These job creators are not being given the opportunity to reinvest. We are not giving them opportunities to hire more people. These are our job creators. Bill C-26 simply does not help small business people at all.

On November 29, 2016, Alice Wong asked a question to the Minister of Finance and another Member of Parliament regarding the time allocation motion of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I have been in consultations across the nation with women entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs, employees, and employers. What I found is that none of them are happy with the increase in CPP premiums.

The government says that it is good for seniors, but seniors now will not benefit from this new increase by even a cent. When I speak to seniors, they say that they do not even have a minister at the cabinet table fighting on their behalf. When I talk to seniors about how they are saving, they want the tax-free savings account. The current government has cut it down. Statistics show that it is the best way for seniors to save for a rainy day.

The job-killing CPP premium rate increase will kill jobs. Why is the minister killing jobs? Why is he doing so much damage to our seniors’ savings?

Hon. Bill Morneau:
Madam Speaker, I believe that a number of points in that comment should be addressed.

First of all, we have done research on Canadians’ actual situation and where they will find themselves in their future retirement. We know that by increasing the Canada pension plan through savings, we will be able to move from 25% to 33% of their earnings being covered by those savings, making an important difference to them in the future. We also know that over the long term, what this will do is actually enhance our economic outcome. Importantly, we know that 75% of Canadians are in support of this measure, because they recognize the challenge they have saving enough for retirement.

Finally and importantly, this is one measure among many that we are moving forward with for seniors. We have improved the guaranteed income supplement, which is helping single seniors who are in the most vulnerable positions. We have also improved the situation for Canadians in the middle class by ensuring that they are able to get old age security at age 65. These measures together are making a real and important difference today for seniors and they will make an important difference tomorrow as well.

…

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I just heard what the member opposite said and would like to correct her in many ways.

I have been consulting entrepreneurs across the nation. I have been consulting seniors in my own riding and across this nation. I have been speaking and listening to seniors for at least five to six years. This is not what they are telling us.

There is a misconception or misinformation. The Liberal government is trying to say it is good for seniors. No, not a single senior would benefit from the CPP hike.

Then there are the young people. I have talked to and listened to young workers. They do not want this because, after 40 years, they want their own money so they can decide where to put it for the best investment.

The Liberals are not doing anything good for seniors, they are not doing anything for the youth, and they are killing jobs.

My question is, how can you treat our small business people like that?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
I will remind the member to address the Chair and not use the word “you”. It will save a lot of headaches.

The hon. member for Davenport.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz:
Madam Speaker, while seniors may not immediately benefit from this enhanced CPP, I will say that when I talk to seniors, they care about their grandkids, their children, and the future of their families. They love to hear about the Canada child benefit and that we are enhancing the Canada pension plan for their kids. They want their kids to be secure in their future retirements. It gives them great comfort to know that. Therefore, I know they see this as very positive.

On November 22, 2016, Alice Wong spoke on Second Reading of Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, CETA.

I would like to first acknowledge my Conservative colleagues, the Right Hon. Steven Harper, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Thanks to their dedication and hard work over the past few years, this agreement has now been made possible.

CETA will give Canadian firms new and secure opportunities to supply both goods and services to all 28 member states of the European Union. While this trade agreement has many different components, all of which provide immense opportunities for the Canadian economy, I will be focusing my speech on the implications this agreement has on the business and private sectors in Canada.

An early study of this agreement, when it was in the negotiating stage in the last government, indicated that a trade agreement with the European Union would likely result in almost 80,000 new jobs for Canadians. This is exactly what the Canadian economy needs now: jobs. One of the reoccurring aspects of CETA is the agreement to eliminate almost all trade tariffs for Canadian goods and services. It is expected that 99% of tariff lines to the EU will be duty-free once the agreement is fully implemented. By eliminating this type of trade barrier, Canadian producers will have increased access to the EU market and a competitive edge over other global producers who do not have the same kind of trade agreement.

As the critic for small business, I hear this conversation frequently. Business owners want to have better access to global markets. This agreement will help answer that call. What smaller companies will now need to know from the government is how SMEs can become important partners in the supply chain.

To ensure that Canadian businesses are able to effectively operate in the EU market, CETA also includes a regulatory co-operation component. The regulatory co-operation forum will provide Canadian and EU regulators with information to ensure that regulatory measures in both markets are compatible and of mutual interest. This will dramatically diminish the barriers often experienced by businesses entering a new market.

In addition to Canadian-made goods, services such as management, financial, and engineering will have better access to the EU markets. Once CETA has been fully implemented, Canadian service exporters will have the same level of access and be bound by the same regulations as those service providers in the EU.

One of the most important aspects of CETA is the investment provisions. Investment is a critical way to engage with the global economy and stimulate economic growth and job creation. CETA will allow both Canadian and EU investors to capitalize on new opportunities while also ensuring stability and transparency in the market as a means of protecting their investments. There are many reasons why the EU market should wish to invest in Canada, and CETA will encourage such investment.

Although there are many positive and exciting aspects to this agreement, there are also some missing pieces. There have been several unilateral declarations made between member states that have not been agreed to by either Canada or the EU.

Additionally, while there are many positive aspects of the investment chapter of this agreement, there is still some uncertainty. As it becomes clear which provisions in the protection and investment dispute resolution aspect of the agreement will be implemented and which will be removed, I ask that the government be forthcoming on these decisions. It is important that any implications these declarations may have on our industries are explained to Canadian exporters and it is important that the Canadian best interests are maintained.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I would like to also comment briefly on the many opportunities CETA will provide to my home province. Services that are critical to B.C., such as environmental services, communication technology services, and energy services, will have new and unprecedented access to the EU markets and economy.

Just last week I met with a business representative from the aerospace industry and he explained the types of growth CETA will be able to provide to his line of work. B.C. companies understand how important this agreement is and I look forward to hearing of the success they will find in the EU market. As the entire service sector is of critical component of B.C.’s GDP and employs a majority of British Columbians, this sort of competitive edge will greatly benefit the province and my riding of Richmond Centre.

B.C. also represents diverse agricultural and agrifood products from seafood to produce and is known for its high food safety standards. Opening up the market to these producers will encourage further growth and world-class excellence.

I am very pleased that, after all of the hard work done by many over the past few years, an agreement has been made. Although I have noted a few of my concerns on the agreement, I look forward to the many benefits CETA will provide to our Canadian businesses and our country on a national level. Canada will be one of a few countries that has been able to secure such access to the world’s two largest economies, the United States and the European Union, and that is something to be extremely proud of.

My next question for the current government is how we are going to deal with the trans-Pacific partnership, which the president-elect of the U.S. has openly declared that he is going to withdraw from. I have had the opportunity of joining our former prime minister, the trade minister, and the minister of agriculture to explore business opportunities in Asia in a good number of years. I certainly hope that even without the U.S., our government is able to go forward with the TPP and open up an even larger market for all Canadians.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, CETA has been achieved over a number of years. Over the last year it has been a high priority of this government. The minister responsible has visited Europe on numerous occasions, along with the parliamentary secretary and other components of government, to ensure that we get the best deal for Canadians. We believe that the deal we have through this legislation is indeed the best deal for Canadians. It would ultimately assist Canada’s middle class and those aspiring to become part of the middle class, and as one of my colleagues indicated, all Canadians would benefit by this particular agreement.

It is generally perceived that this agreement is a good thing for Canada. It has had years of being at the table with open discussions, transparency, and accountability. It is an issue of accountability during the election period. Provinces are virtually onside with this agreement. Does the member not recognize that in regard to the TPP, something the Conservatives are really pushing, there is a process? There was an election commitment given by this Prime Minister to look at that agreement because we have a great deal of concern, something Canadians also share.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I have been looking for: a commitment from our current government to open even more trade markets. However, during negotiations, we should be aware of some of the barriers that might happen. That is why I mentioned a few shortcomings that the current government has not been able to handle. There is still work to do.

I must give credit to the current government for its hard work and to the whole team that has been working over a good number of years to make this a success. What we are looking for right now are the interests of Canada and all Canadians. This is exactly why, no matter what party we come from, our ultimate goal is to make sure that jobs are created and our interests are protected.

Ms. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP):
Madam Speaker, my riding of Saskatoon West shares some of the same economic indicators as the member’s. That is, there is a large service sector, where many of the jobs are. One thing I am trying to do in the debate today is get more than slogans on trade, such as “new jobs, new prosperity”. We do not get a lot of indicators of what kind of impact it is going to have, particularly on jobs.

My colleague talked about 80,000 jobs being created. I wonder if she could let me know in what area those jobs are going to be created, how soon that will happen, and whether it will happen in the service sector. She needs to explain how that will happen. For small and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of trade deals, they need support to scale up to participate. If she would like to comment, I would appreciate it.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, this is exactly why I mentioned in my speech that the government should encourage SMEs to be prepared to go into this large market. At the same time, we would also like to make sure that all the barriers are gone, because there will be certain labour agreements that allow our service providers to provide their services not only in Canada but in the EU market. Usually those services are not easily accessed if we do not have a good agreement.

This is exactly why I applaud the current government for doing a good job. Now it should follow up. For SMEs, this is a very important step. In my own riding, engineers, accountants, and other financial consultants will have good opportunities to expand their businesses to Europe.

On November 15, 2016, Alice Wong spoke twice on Second Reading of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we all understand that small businesses are job creators and the Liberals broke their promise and increased small business taxes. That is the first question. Why did they break their promise?

The second question I would like to ask is this. They will not help seniors at all by putting a carbon tax on everything. Seniors have to pay for their heating and groceries, and that is most important. The Liberal government has also cut the TFSA. Statistics have shown that it is seniors who save money for their retirement days, and yet the Liberal government took that away.

I would ask why the government has broken all of its promises.

Mr. Ken McDonald:
Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of her question, as a former small business owner, what I found most important was that my customers had the money to avail themselves of my services. We have done that. Through tax cuts to the middle class and the new Canada child benefit, we have put more money into the pockets of people who use small businesses each and every day. That makes small businesses better off, a lot longer than a 1% or 0.5% cut in the income tax rate.

On the issue of seniors, we are working to make the lives of seniors better. As I mentioned in my speech, over $900 will go to single seniors and the most vulnerable with low incomes, as well as the affordable housing program for seniors. In Newfoundland alone, I believe $200 million is allocated for that.

We do care about seniors, we care about the middle class, and we care about small businesses.

…

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to seniors and their families in my riding of Richmond Centre and this is what I have heard.

First, there is nothing in the budget about family caregivers who have to look after their aging parents and grandparents as well as their own children while working. They can then choose to work only part-time, or stay home. That is a loss of productivity. That is bad for economic growth.

Second, there is nothing in the budget to protect seniors from all forms of abuse.

Why is the government not doing anything for seniors and for this specific group of families that has to look after seniors?

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the member for Richmond Centre that all the members from British Columbia, and I can vouch for the member for Steveston—Richmond East, are fighting hard for those seniors and those families in Richmond.

As I mentioned earlier, it was the Conservative government that wanted to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. The government that kept the age at 65 is this Liberal government, and I am very proud to be part of it. I am certain that the member will also be proud when she goes back to British Columbia and talks to those citizens who need the help the most.

As I mentioned in my speech, we also increased the guaranteed income supplement by $947. I am sure that my colleague from Steveston—Richmond East will agree that this is going to benefit all seniors living in Richmond and in my riding of Surrey—Newton and across Canada.

On November 1, 2016, Alice Wong spoke on Second Reading of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague one very simple question. Entrepreneurs across the nation have already told us that this increase in the CPP premium, and everything else, including the carbon tax, will kill their jobs. They will stop hiring people and put those responsibilities onto existing staff. Would my colleague comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Généreux:
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

I have already mentioned a number of times that I am a businessman. Business people have decisions to make. Sometimes, when their business’ very survival is at stake, they are forced to make extremely difficult decisions. When more and more taxes are piled on, there comes a point when they just cannot pay them anymore. The first thing they have to do, in the majority of cases, is not sell their equipment or buildings, but cut their staff. That is how they can reduce their expenses.

I would like to again thank my colleague for her question because it is very important to talk about Canada’s economic development.

On October 31, 2016, Alice Wong asked a question in the House of Commons on the topic of Small Business.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, our small businesses are hurting. CFIB’s October report shows that 61% of small businesses state that higher taxes and regulations are the most significant barriers to allowing innovation and growth in their businesses. Yet, the Liberals continue to raise taxes through both the CPP and their new carbon tax.

When will the Liberals stop punishing small businesses with high taxes and more regulation?

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising innovation, because that is a key component of our government’s economic agenda.

Innovation is so critical for small business, which is why we are focusing on small businesses to make sure we invest in people and give them the skills and training they need to compete in a digital world. We are also focusing on emerging technologies and platforms that will allow them to be part of global supply chains. We are focusing on the small businesses to grow, to be more export oriented.

This is our economic plan on how we grow the economy and create jobs.

Parliamentarians were given until October 14, 2016 to submit a report to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. The following is the report that was sent to the committee.

English (.PDF) / French (.PDF)

October 14, 2016

Report to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform

To the Special Committee on Electoral Reform,

Our office conducted a broad survey of Richmond Centre constituents. Feedback was solicited through Canada Post (via a Householder submission that was mailed to every residence in Richmond Centre), via telephone, and electronic (Internet) submissions. Through each medium, we asked constituents whether they supported holding a referendum to obtain the approval of Canadians before changing the voting system, in addition to other questions concerning electoral reform.

Our office did not elect to hold a “town hall” as we sought to engage as many constituents as possible instead of holding a single event at a single location.

We obtained approximately 1,800 submissions through our solicitations of feedback on electoral reform.

On being asked whether a referendum should be held on electoral reform before changing the way MPs are elected:
89% supported holding a referendum;
9% did not support holding a referendum;
2% were undecided or had no opinion.

Other observations:
In general, the people that supported a referendum were mixed in favour of maintaining the existing system and in favour of changing the system from the existing first-past-the-post system, but both groups desired public ratification via referendum to confirm their desired option.

The people that expressed opposition to a referendum generally cited two reasons: one was the cost of holding a referendum, the other was concerns that a referendum would result in a “Brexit”-type fear.

Recommendation:
The constituents of Richmond Centre are overwhelmingly in favour of holding a referendum before any changes to the electoral system are enacted.

Sincerely,

Hon. Alice Wong, P.C., M.P.
Richmond Centre

On October 26, 2016, Alice Wong presented a petition to the House of Commons. The topic was on a national strategy for Canada’s seniors (Petition No. 421-00813).

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House this afternoon regarding a national strategy for Canada’s seniors.

The petitioners call upon the government to appoint a minister for seniors and to develop a national strategy for seniors.

On October 25, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on second reading of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to discuss the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan in Bill C-26.

As has been mentioned by my colleagues earlier, this change would raise CPP premium rates. This plan would also increase the maximum level of earnings on which CPP premiums would need to be paid. The net result of these changes would be that both employers and employees would have to pay more. Indeed, the CRA has published a table showing that this amount could be as much as $2,200 more, each and every year, and this number would continue to go higher and higher.

Nearly all Canadians would be affected by this expansion. Everybody earning a salary in this country would be negatively affected and would see their paycheques decrease as this payroll tax takes effect. Likewise, employers would see the cost of hiring employees rise.

As a former small business owner, I have first-hand experience in seeing how a business can be affected by payroll taxes, including CPP premiums. During the past year, I have thoroughly enjoyed my role as the critic for small business, holding the government accountable for its actions and inactions. I have heard from entrepreneurs and small business owners from across the nation in round tables and one-on-one meetings. Each time the topic of the proposed CPP expansion is brought up, immediately I hear the same thing: when the cost of hiring employees rises, employers hire fewer people. Payroll taxes, which include CPP premiums, are one of the largest costs for small business owners.

These employers are leaders of our communities and care about investing in their employees. However, if they cannot afford to pay for their employees, they will be forced to either reduce their workforce or increase the workload on their current staff to avoid hiring new workers.

One entrepreneur from Toronto explained to me that she is already feeling constrained by the increasing tax burden on her business. She said that, if the CPP expansion were to move forward, she would have to expand the job duties of each of her current employees rather than hiring new workers to fill the gaps.

Small business representatives from across the country have also added their voices to this conversation, urging the government to rethink this plan. Among them, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, is the most notable. It conducted a number of surveys on its members, asking for opinions and potential business decisions they would have to make, should this expansion move forward. The results are troubling.

These surveys indicate that two-thirds of small business owners believe that this expansion would compel employers to freeze salaries in order to account for the changes. The math is simple. Dollars that would otherwise go into salaries would, instead, go into extra payroll taxes. When we consider the government’s track record of increasing payroll taxes, increasing small business taxes, implementing a nationwide carbon tax, and cutting tax credits, it is no wonder business owners are choosing to hold onto their wallets.

I would not be shocked to see the Liberals finally decide to raise the GST to pay for their spending spree. Who wants to invest in such a high tax environment? One of the arguments being used to support the expansion of the CPP is that it would help struggling seniors. However, the proposed plan would not be fully implemented for another 40 years, which means seniors would not be receiving the help now that the government says they need. I would challenge the government that there are many other ways they could help seniors and the aging population, but the Liberals have chosen to turn their backs on Canadian seniors.

I am going to let the House know what seniors think. The carbon tax would increase the cost of everything, including their groceries and heating their homes. That would be dramatic. That would be devastating to our seniors.

Now that I have talked about seniors, I will talk about our youth, whom the government claims the bill would benefit the most. Our youth benefit from employment, and this bill would make it more difficult for employers to hire our graduates. Young participants in my round tables are more concerned about their jobs, about their take-home money now, instead of paying into something for 40 years down the road.

Not only that, but we are forcing Canadians to invest in a pension plan that offers a low rate of return. According to a well-quoted study by the Fraser Institute published in May 2016, and externally validated by many other organizations, the projected real rate of return for CPP investees is 2.1%.

I will quote from the study:
Canadian workers retiring after 2036…can expect a real rate of return of 2.1 percent from the CPP.

This basically means the majority of our workforce today, contributing to CPP, is making a real rate of return that is barely above inflation. Remember, when people retire and draw funds from the CPP, that amount is taxed with income taxes.

Some Canadians are comfortable with the CPP and the fact that it is backed by the government, but we are given no choice in the matter. CPP legislation forces all Canadians to participate in this low-return investment. The government has made the decision for the rest of the country, regardless of the personal situation for how Canadians want to fund their retirement.

There are other ways that government could encourage Canadians to invest in their retirement. There are already many options available to individuals, including the well-known registered retirement savings plan or tax-free savings accounts. The CPP is only one method of saving, amongst others, but this is a forced method of saving for retirement.

By highlighting and encouraging other programs, Canadians are able to create a retirement financial plan that suits them best and does not solely rely on government to make this choice for them.

At a time when our economy is struggling and many people are unable to find work, such an expansion of the CPP would only magnify these problems. Our job creators would face another burden in their ability to hire new workers, and Canadians would have less money in their pockets to invest in the economy.

I am convinced the government does not want to help Canadians save. If it did, the Liberal government would not have chosen to reduce the amount of money individuals can contribute to their RRSPs or tax-free savings accounts.

Canada has excellent programs that allow Canadians to choose how they want to save their money for retirement. As I have said before, instead of making it more expensive for our small businesses to hire staff and create jobs, we should be minimizing taxes, cutting red tape, and trusting Canadians to make their own decisions regarding how to spend and save their money. I will continue to fight for our hard-working job creators.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has become very apparent is that the Conservatives are articulating why they believe we should not have any sort of a CPP program, from my perspective from listening to them in this debate.

The arguments the Conservatives are using today are the same types of arguments they used when there was opposition to the creation of the CPP. Maybe an appropriate question to ask members of the Conservative Party would be whether the Conservative Party supports CPP, and maybe the member could enlighten this House.

A number of Conservatives are nodding yes. If that is the case, why, then, would they oppose the good work of so many provincial jurisdictions, working with Ottawa and the many different stakeholders, who are saying that now is the time for us to give this increase? It does not take effect today. It takes effect in a couple of years from now.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have already said many times that they want to have a say in their own retirement plans. The government has not consulted with real people who are working and paying into the CPP.

I must agree that the CPP has its own value; however, the expansion that the government is suggesting would not really help present retirees and future retirees. It would only kill jobs, which all our people need in order to grow the economy

The member opposite has twisted the facts, saying that the Conservatives do not support the CPP. We do not support the expansion of the CPP that the government is suggesting right now, with increased premiums that would kill jobs and push our youth to unemployment.

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, figures show that 30% of single elderly women in Canada live in poverty. Could my colleague tell me what her party’s plan is to get those women out of poverty?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, I was the minister responsible for seniors for five years. Our government did a lot for seniors. We increased the GIS to the highest amount in a quarter century.

For single women who do not have any CPP, we really want the government to look at other ways, because increasing the CPP would not help even a single woman who is retired now. We need to make sure these women have proper housing subsidies. We want to make sure they stay healthy so that going to the doctor or pharmacy will not cost them anything.

Do members know what is going to kill them? The carbon tax is going to kill them, because they will have to pay more for everything.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing high youth unemployment in my riding, and I have heard comments about that today. If people do not have jobs, they cannot contribute to CPP and they are certainly not going to be able to take advantage of it later.

I wonder if the member shares that experience.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, new graduates are finding it more and more difficult to pay back their student loans and find jobs after school. With higher payroll taxes and likely limited jobs coming from our small businesses, the CPP enhancement would only magnify these problems. New graduates need money in their pockets to pay back their school debt. We need to help our new graduates find work by creating jobs, not sticking our job creators with larger payroll taxes.