Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

On May 5, 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, for two days, the parliamentary secretary has accused small business owners of being tax cheats.

She is not alone. The Prime Minister has said small businesses are just a way to avoid taxes. Just today, a Liberal member said in the House that the small business tax rate does not matter.

When will the Liberals reverse their broken promise and bring the tax rate to 9%?

Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question because we know that there is a loophole that allows some to use the tax rate to get out of paying the personal income taxes the rest of us pay all year. But we do understand small business and I understand small business and we know they need a robust economy and they need strong consumers.

With our middle-class income tax cuts, the child benefits, the investments in infrastructure, in broadband, in incubators and accelerators, in tourism marketing, the list goes on, absolutely all of it helps small and medium-sized businesses.

On May 4, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons regarding second reading of Bill C-233, An Act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise as the former minister of state for seniors to speak to Bill C-233, An Act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.This bill is specifically close to my heart because 25% of constituents in my riding of Richmond Centre are seniors.

I would like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for bringing forward this very important bill, and the Liberal MP who sponsored it. Bill C-233 would provide for the development and implementation of a national strategy for the health care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.

This bill is what Canadians are asking for. The Alzheimer Society and other seniors organizations are very supportive of this bill. Mimi Lowi-Young, CEO of the Alzheimer Society of Canada, had this to say about Bill C-233:

We all need to get behind this bill…. We strongly believe that a national dementia strategy that focuses on research, prevention and improved care is the only solution to tackling the devastating impact of this disease. We’re ready to collaborate with our federal, provincial and territorial partners to make this a reality.

According to Alzheimer Society research, 83% of Canadians have said that they want a national dementia strategy. Here is a summary of the issue.

Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are progressive, degenerative, and eventually fatal. They impair memory, judgment, and the ability to reason, think, and process information. Changes in personality and behaviour also result from dementia.

Currently, 747,000 Canadians have some form of dementia. This number is expected to nearly double, to 1.4 million in less than 20 years. Three out of four Canadians, being 74%, know someone living with dementia. As Canada’s population ages, the number of Canadians who are diagnosed with these diseases is expected to double within a generation.

Research, collaboration, and partnership remain the key to finding a cure. An early diagnosis and support for treatment can lead to positive health outcomes for people with any form of dementia. Early diagnosis also has a positive impact on the family and friends who provide care for them. The Government of Canada, in consultation with the ministers responsible for the delivery of health services in each province and territory, should encourage the development of a national strategy for the care of people living with Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia, as well as for their families and caregivers.

What is dementia? Dementia is a difficult disease, but it does not define the person who has it. People with dementia are people first. They can lead happy and vital lives for a long time, especially when the right care, support, and understanding are in place. Timely diagnosis is important. It opens the door to treatments, connects people with the disease, and connects their families with helpful resources like the Alzheimer Society. While there is no guarantee, Canadians can reduce their risk of dementia by eating a heart-healthy diet, doing more physical activity, trying and learning new things, staying social, quitting smoking, and watching their vitals.

Who is at risk? The answer is largely seniors. While dementia is not a part of growing old, age is still the biggest risk factor. After 65 years of age, the risk doubles every 5 years. Seniors represent the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population. Today, one in six Canadians is a senior. In 14 years, one in four Canadians will be a senior. That has already happened in my own riding.

Dementia also occurs in people in their forties and fifties, in their most productive years. As of 2008, there were 71,000 Canadians age 65 and younger and 50,000 Canadians age 50 and under living with dementia.

What is the impact on families and the economy? For every person with dementia, two or more family members provide direct care. The progression of dementia varies from person to person. In some cases, it can last up to 20 years. Because of its progression, caregivers will eventually provide 24/7 care. In 2011, family caregivers spent 444 million hours, representing $11 billion in lost income and about 230,000 full-time jobs. By 2040, caregivers will be providing 1.2 billion hours of care per year.

Dementia is a costly disease, draining $33 billion per year from our economy. By 2040, it will be $293 billion per year. When I was minister of state for seniors, we created a portal on the seniors.ca website specifically for family caregivers to outline the kind of awareness and help that is available. I am glad it is still there. I encourage everyone to visit the website. However, more needs to be done.

There is a great need for a strategy that includes awareness and research. Here are the reasons. It is commonly believed that dementia is a normal part of aging. It is not. This kind of attitude means too many Canadians are diagnosed too late and caregivers seek help when they are in crisis mode. We still do not fully understand the causes, nor do we have a cure. Effective treatments are lacking and there is no proven prevention. Dementia can lie dormant in the brain for up to 25 years before symptoms appear. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. It accounts for over two-thirds of dementia cases in Canada today.

I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill for acknowledging that the former government got the ball rolling. We did a lot of work in research, like the longitudinal study which for a period of time follows people from the age of 45 to age 65 at every step. Some day that useful data will help us find out the where and why of dementia inclination in detecting this kind of brain disease, and hopefully we will be able to generate good ideas for a cure.

We have been asked why we did not support the former bill. My colleague has already mentioned that. It is not important just to get the bill passed. We wanted the right bill passed, which is also very good in a sense that it can be carried. I do not wish to list all the things which we cannot do under that bill. However, I am so glad that we are able to do it now, because now we have time to consult the general public.

A national strategy would ask the minister or delegated officials to work with representatives of the provinces and territories to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy to address all aspects of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.
I strongly encourage every member of Parliament to support Bill C-233.

On May 4, 2016, Alice Wong asked one 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, just this week, Stats Canada showed what Conservatives have known all along, small businesses are the middle class.

Unfortunately, the Liberals do not seem to understand. Instead, they abandoned our small business owners when they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate to 9%. This broken promise will cost our middle class $2.2 billion.

Why do Liberals continue to abandon our hard-working small business owners?

Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House as a small business owner and operator in Newfoundland and Labrador for over 25 years. I am proud to stand with a government that understands small business owners need and want a robust economy to succeed.

We know that the small business tax rate is there to help companies grow, but we also know there is a loophole, as I mentioned yesterday. That is costing taxpayers an estimated $500 million a year. We are going to fix that problem and I look forward to being part of the team that will fix that.

On May 3, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons regarding second reading of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss Bill C-14.

As we well know, Bill C-14 is the government’s response to the Supreme Court ruling in the Carter decision last February. The court gave the government a total of 16 months to form legislation, so here we are in the House today, debating the bill.

I was pleased to see that the bill included many recommendations provided by my Conservative colleagues in their dissenting report from the special joint committee report on this issue. However, I do not believe the bill in its current form is good enough.

I have benefited from listening to my colleagues’ speeches, and appreciate the passion each has shown as they discuss Bill C-14 in the House. Indeed, I have made my own consultations with various interested parties in my riding of Richmond Centre, and look forward to sharing them with you.

We have received many suggestions and comments on the legislation, both from parties that believe the bill is too restrictive and those who believe it is not restrictive enough. Indeed, I am rather impressed that there was significant public interest on this bill, and I would like to continue to encourage people in Richmond Centre who have not given their thoughts on this matter to write to myself or my office.

My voting position on second reading will be carefully considered from a balance of available information, including from the consultations I have held with interested stakeholders in my riding.

To begin, I would like to share some of my personal experiences. During my time as the Minister of State for Seniors, I had the opportunity to work with many groups who are devoted to protecting our most vulnerable and ensuring quality palliative care. The unfortunate reality is that there are many seniors who are not provided with effective end-of-life care. Instead, they are subject to elder abuse and are often pressured into making decisions to avoid becoming a burden to their families. This is tragic. It is absolutely imperative that we ensure that there are safeguards to protect seniors against such elder abuse.

A potential safeguard to protect financial abuse of elders, which is a very common and unfortunate form of elder abuse, is to simply prohibit any independent witnesses from financially profiting at all from the will or the estate of those who requested physician-assisted suicide This was actually a recommendation from a group of constituents I met with recently. They pointed out that in the bill, the independent witnesses that have to sign the documentation to enable the physician-assisted suicide only have to know or believe they are not a beneficiary under the will of the person making such a request. Again, this is simply not enough.

Back in my riding of Richmond Centre, I have been an active member of the Richmond Rotary Club. This club was instrumental in building the first hospice in Richmond. It was there that I and my fellow Rotarians witnessed first-hand the benefits quality palliative care can bring people. Life is valuable at every stage. One of my primary concerns with physician-assisted suicide is that it will only complicate end-of-life decisions. Individuals who are sick or need additional care will see themselves as a burden, and choose death to avoid placing further expectations on family members.

Instead, we need to be supporting family caregivers and demonstrating that every life is valuable.

As others have noted, there was no allocation in the budget for palliative care services. This is totally and absolutely unacceptable. This issue is quickly becoming more about access to death than access to life. It is absolutely essential that the government make a commitment to strengthen palliative care and encourage citizens to seek such care first. Palliative care provides death with true dignity and not a forced death, which is what physician-assisted suicide is.

Last year, I had the opportunity to meet with organizations such as the Council for Canadians with Disabilities, the CCD. I met with its representatives to discuss their concerns and the importance of protecting individuals with disabilities. More recently, they were able to appear as witnesses at the special joint committee to discuss their views on possible legislation. The CCD was very concerned with the recommendations provided by the committee and commented, “The permissive approach would put vulnerable people at risk”.

We cannot ignore the needs of our most vulnerable. It is crucial that the legislation reflect the concerns of groups such as the Council for Canadians with Disabilities to ensure all Canadians are protected.

I would like to share a few of the comments I have heard from my constituents over the past several months. I will emphasize that my repeating these comments in the House today does not mean that I endorse all of them, but rather, this is a reflection of the variety of comments received. I know as an elected figure this may be hazardous as I may be quoted out of context; however, it is my duty to ensure that these voices are heard.

A primary theme as a result of my consultations is that Bill C-14 would only decriminalize the act of physician-assisted suicide as performed by medical practitioners.

I will add that there would be no effects or changes to the Canada Health Act, nor would it instruct our provinces to provide this procedure as something to be covered under provincial medical insurance plans. In my home province of British Columbia, this is the medical services plan, the MSP.

In general, there seemed to be a considerable amount of confusion about whether the provincial governments would actually provide this procedure and whether they would indeed pay for it.

One stakeholder group mentioned it wished to invoke the notwithstanding clause to maintain the previous provisions of the Criminal Code. This group found the terminology of what constituted a terminal illness to be a slippery slope and that unendurable pain could be mitigated with quality palliative care. As it realized that this was generally not a realistic approach with the existing government, it also mentioned that it was hoping for a robust protection for health care providers and facilities to act according to their conscience.

There were many other comments, but I have only 10 minutes for this speech, so I will state again that I have been pleased with the amount of interest we have received from engaged citizens and stakeholder groups on Bill C-14. I will be making my voting decision after giving the people of Richmond Centre the maximum period of time to send their feedback.

I would like to end my speech with a short story. Many members of my family are health professionals. Even among those who are young, many desire to grow up to be doctors or nurses. When I ask my young nieces and nephews why they want to be a doctor, I always receive the same simple answer, “I want to save lives.”

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned about access to death versus access to life. On the timeline we are working with, imposed by the Carter ruling, is precisely access to death that we are addressing here. I do not believe there is anyone here who is opposed to looking at palliative care.

For me, freedom to life is very much like, and as important as, freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be religious in any manner we choose, just as it includes the freedom from religion. Freedom of life includes the freedom to live, but it includes the fundamental right not to live. The latter is not a right that should be exercised lightly, and it is extremely important to have processes in place, as this bill proposes to do in line with the Carter decision.

I believe we should make every effort as a society and as a Parliament to make every person’s life as good as possible. Indeed, that is a principal obligation of government. I believe that the decision of when to end one’s life is a decision that belongs to the person whose life is ending, and only that person.

Does my colleague agree that the best defence of life we can provide is by getting this law through on deadline, avoiding a legal vacuum, even if it means revisiting the issue later?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, I know I am not alone in stating that the time frame set out by the Supreme Court was not sufficient. Sixteen months is not nearly enough time to adequately examine evidence, consult with Canadians, and prepare well-drafted, careful, and sound legislation. I do not think it is appropriate to approve legislation simply because it is good enough or we are on a time crunch. It is never our responsibility to rush legislation. We represent our constituents to ensure a better and safer Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings about the Conservative member’s speech.

On the one hand, the Conservatives are complaining about not having enough time to debate the issue. As everyone knows, it was the Conservatives who opposed the opposition motion to create a multi-party committee to study the Carter decision. This would have started the ball rolling on a study of medical assistance in dying. Therefore, they are part of the reason why debate and studies on the issue were delayed.

On the other hand, I agree with the member that we need more palliative care and that financial resources must be allocated to palliative care. Many people want to stop their suffering, but they do not necessarily want to die right away or to access medical assistance in dying. Above all, they want the pain to stop.

Today, the Liberals say that they are prepared to allocate $3 billion over four years. However, there are no timelines.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[English]

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberals say that they wanted to commit themselves to $3 billion over four years. However, it is not in the budget. If it is not in the budget, where is the money? The most important thing is to not make empty promises, but to really keep their promises and take real action.

I appreciate the fact that my colleague from the NDP also stressed the importance of palliative care. It is exactly the same message that this is an option for end-of-life choices. Ending one’s life by force is not the only choice.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague referenced the government’s supposed commitment on palliative care, but it is actually worse than that, because the Liberals have said palliative or home care. One of the members pointed out quite rightly that palliative care can happen in the home, but these are not the same thing. There are many kinds of home care that are very much essential which are not the same as palliative care.

I would say it is important that we deal with palliative care, not just separately maybe sometime in the future, but specifically in this legislation. The federal expert panel, which the previous government set up, was clear that people cannot be construed to have consented to euthanasia or assisted suicide unless they had an option of palliative care available to them.

I would like the member’s comments on that.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a very clear distinction between home care and palliative care.

Palliative care is about helping the relatives, the friends and families of the one who is terminally ill and who is expecting to die. It helps them go through the end-of-life period of time together in a positive way so that it is a good end-of-life option. That is unlike home care, which is only for helping seniors get up, do their washing, do their dishes, and other things. There is definitely a clear distinction between home care and palliative care, especially hospice homes.

On May 3, 2016, Alice Wong asked a question in the House of Commons on the topic of Taxation.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals love to talk about facts, so let us look at some facts. Their decision to abandon tax cuts for small businesses will cost the industry $2.2 billion over the next four years. I repeat: $2.2 billion. The more we learn about the Liberals’ so-called commitment for small businesses, the more we realize that there is no commitment at all.

When will the Liberals deliver their promised 9% tax cuts?

Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. We know that the small business tax rate is there to help companies grow and create jobs, but we need to make sure that the small business tax system is fair and being used appropriately. The loophole is allowing far too many people to use this rate to get out of paying personal income taxes that the rest of us pay each and every year. This loophole is costing taxpayers over $500 million a year. We need to fix the problem so that those using the small business tax rate are the small business owners who are creating jobs for our communities.

The following is a transcript:

The Liberals have released their 2016 federal budget. Unfortunately, it offers very little for Canada’s small businesses except higher taxes. For instance, they’re scrapping their promise to stay on schedule to reduce the small business tax rate to 9%. They’re also cancelling the hiring credit for small business and increasing payroll costs. Small businesses are essential to Canada’s economy. But instead of helping job creators, the Liberals are raising their taxes. Conservatives have a strong record of keeping business taxes low. We’ll continue to push the Liberals to follow our lead and help small businesses in Canada.

On April 18, 2016, Alice Wong asked two questions in the House of Commons on the topic of Small Business.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Small Business and Tourism told us to look at the budget with regard to small businesses, so let us do that.

The fact is the Liberals dismissed recommendations from the finance committee and ignored recommendations from small business owners. The minister claims to be working with stakeholders, but recent history shows there is no sense in trusting what Liberals say.

When will the minister stop hiding behind empty promises and stand up for small business owners?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been working closely with small business owners and stakeholders across this nation. Since being put in this post, I have met with almost 250 stakeholders, small business owners, and the people who work hard for them. Our budget actually supports small businesses.

We are listening to Canadians. We are listening to small business owners. That is what we will continue to do.

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister’s mandate letter tells her what her priorities are. One of them is, “Work with the Minister of Finance as the small business tax rate reduction is implemented”.

Could the Minister of Small Business and Tourism explain why the finance minister ignored her and instead raised taxes on small businesses?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is taking a whole-of-government approach. We work very closely with each other. Part of working together is listening to each other and engaging in difficult conversations.

I work closely with the Minister of Finance. We have consultations and discussions every day. We are not just listening to each other, we are listening to Canadians and small business owners, because we need to ensure that they have the robust economy that they need, and that is what we will do.

On April 14, 2016, Alice Wong made a statement in the House of Commons on the Vancouver International Airport.

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, located in my riding of Richmond Centre is the Vancouver International Airport, most commonly known as YVR. The year 2015 was a milestone year for the airport, having served more than 20 million passengers in a single year, with plans to increase service to 25 million travellers per year over the next five years.

Indeed, there was another milestone at YVR last year, and that was the opening of the McArthurGlen designer outlet, the first of its kind in North America. This will attract even more tourists and local consumers to Richmond.

It is my privilege to serve a riding that hosts a global leader in excellent transportation service and continues to be a vital link for travellers within Canada and beyond.

On April 13, 2016, Alice Wong asked two questions in the House of Commons on the topic of Taxation.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to make promises to Canadians, only to turn around and change their minds.

Instead of encouraging jobs and hiring, the Liberals have increased payroll taxes and EI premiums for small businesses. This does not affect just small business owners but also the millions of Canadians who work for them.

When will the Liberals stop killing jobs with higher taxes?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have lowered taxes on small businesses; we have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. We are working with Canadians to ensure that we have a strong economy and that we create jobs. Budget 2016, which I encourage the member to read in its entirety, makes many investments, including $11.9 billion in infrastructure spending, which will help small businesses, and $500 million for broadband in rural and remote areas.

I see the Speaker’s hand is waving, so I will stop, but the list goes on. I am thankful for the opportunity to stand to say how we are working with small businesses.

The Speaker:
I guess I had better help members by letting them know that when I start doing that, it means they have 10 seconds and counting. I would ask them to keep that in mind.

The hon. member for Richmond Centre.

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear: Liberals think borrowed money will somehow magically create jobs. Small businesses understand that jobs come from hard work and responsible spending. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly said, “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes”.

Why are the Liberals taxing job creators to pay for their reckless spending?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I have said in the House before is that saying it does not make it true.

Let us look at the facts. We are working with small-business Canadians. We are working with the Small Business Matters Coalition. We are working with stakeholders. There are 3.2 million Canadians whom we are representing on this side of the House. We are working with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Dan Kelly himself. I have met with him and will continue to work with him.

We will continue to represent small businesses, and I encourage the member opposite to take some time to meet with me as well.

On April 12, 2016, Alice Wong asked two questions in the House of Commons on the topic of Taxation.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals’ job-killing budget, they are raising taxes on small businesses and their workers. They reversed the Conservative tax cut for small businesses, raised payroll taxes, and now the top tax bracket in over half of our provinces will be more than 50%.

When will the Liberals stop raising taxes on workers and job creators?

Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to read our budget. If she goes back to January, when I believe she was in the House, she will see that we lowered taxes on nine million Canadians. What she will find is that this year small business taxes actually have gone down. What the member will also find is that the nine out of ten families with children who will get the Canada child benefit will have an average of $2,300 more. This will help small businesses.

This is a budget that will help Canadians and Canadian businesses to be more successful.

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claimed to consult with businesses and workers, but as we saw in the budget, they broke that promise too. The Liberals even ignored their own members on the finance committee by raising taxes on small businesses. This should come as no surprise after the Minister of International Trade said “Amen to raising taxes”.

How can Canadians trust the tax-and-spend Liberals when they break promises to their own members?

Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us start with understanding that we had more pre-budget consultations than in the history of the country will ever have.

Let us move forward with a very clear understanding that we reduced taxes on nine million Canadians. Let us move forward one more step by understanding that we helped small businesses across the country by helping their customers and clients.

This is a budget that will help Canadians, families and businesses. It will grow our economy over the long run.