Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

On June 8, 2016, Alice Wong gave a Member’s Statement on the Richmond Multicultural Community Services Society.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to attend a volunteer appreciation event hosted by Richmond Multicultural Community Services. RMCS welcomes newcomers to Canada and strives to assist them with needs, such as language development and job search skills.

I was able to meet with volunteers of all ages and backgrounds from across my riding. They are committed to engaging in our community and providing services to new immigrants and refugees.

Over the past number of years, I have been able to partner with this organization, and I am proud of the work they do in my riding of Richmond Centre. I admire the leadership they show as they promote multiculturalism and diversity in Richmond.

Congratulations to all of the volunteers who were recently honoured at RMCS. I thank them all for their hard work.

On June 6, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, specifically on the amendment to strike clause 34 (the removal of the small business tax rate reduction).

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to the amendment put forward to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

Clause 34, as it stands, will amend the Income Tax Act in a manner that would increase the small business income tax rate to 10.5% instead of continuing its scheduled decrease to 9%. Right this minute, the Income Tax Act, as currently written, will continue to lower the small business tax rate down to 9%. The removal of clause 34 from Bill C-15 will be an important gesture to demonstrate the commitment that the government made to small businesses during election time. During the 2015 campaign, all parties promised to reduce the small business tax rate and continue the outlined reductions put forward by our previous Conservative government.

We understand that small businesses are the backbone of our communities and are essential for job creation and a robust economy. As a result, the government should be encouraging small business owners and ensure that they have access to low tax rates. However, the Liberals seem to think differently. This is exactly why clause 34 is so concerning. This clause seeks to break one of the key promises previously made by the current Liberal government. I strongly believe that this reduction is crucial to motivating small businesses to grow and prosper.

As the former coordinator of the small business programs at both the Vancouver Community College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, I have trained many business owners in leadership and business development. There are many challenges that small business owners face, whether it is working long hours, sacrificing time spent with family and loved ones, or the personal expense. However, when it is time to mature as a business, and at the point of decision to expand or not, the ability to reinvest is key and perhaps the greatest challenge. The question is to expand or not to expand.

This is exactly true for female entrepreneurs. I have had the opportunity to witness the growth and prevalence of female-run businesses, through the British Columbia Women’s Enterprise Centre. Tax burdens, whether personal or business, have always been a great challenge to creating access to the money they require in their own pockets to reinvest. Additionally, my involvement as one of the founders of the Ethno Business Council in B.C. and my personal business experiences both demonstrate that tax burdens weigh particularly heavily on immigrant entrepreneurs.

While I was completing my doctoral dissertation at the University of British Columbia, I focused my research on studying the business cycle of immigrant entrepreneurs. What I found then, and what I continue to witness, is that immigrant business owners require as much encouragement and assistance as possible, not as a handout, but real encouragement in low-tax policies and business development opportunities.

Over the past several months, I have continued to meet with business leaders in my own riding and from across the country. One concern continues to ring out most clear. Lower tax rates, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, are crucial to small business development. It is not for the government to choose winners and losers. However, that is exactly what we have seen. The current Liberal government has chosen small businesses as the losers.

On several occasions, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism has stood in this House and promised to reduce the tax rate for small businesses. She promised that she was working with the Minister of Finance and other colleagues to ensure that the voice of small business owners were heard. Unfortunately, that was all for nothing.

Instead, the Liberals have deliberately and blatantly left small business out of the budget and show no indication of following through on their promise. Small businesses across the country feel slighted and have witnessed first-hand the broken promises of the Liberal government. However, by accepting this motion, the Liberal government would be able to demonstrate to small businesses that it recognizes their worth and seeks to support and encourage growth for lower tax rates.

As research and data emerge regarding the government’s decision to eliminate the tax rate reductions, we are gaining a clear picture of just how much this will cost our small business owners. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, this decision will cost small and medium-sized firms over $900 million, compared to the government letting the scheduled small business tax reductions stand. That is a cost of nearly $1 billion that the Liberal government is placing on our hard-working middle class. Instead of alleviating the burden on our middle class, the Liberals are actually adding to their burden.

There is no doubt that small businesses stimulate our economy and encourage growth. The president of CFIB, Dan Kelly, stated that “The simple truth is Canada’s small business owners are overwhelmingly middle class. They are your mechanic, accountant, hair dresser, and landscaper, just trying to earn a living doing something they love.”

The Liberals are looking for a way to pay their debt by placing it on the backs of our small businesses. Our middle class is not responsible for the Liberals’ reckless spending. This I have mentioned before. When small businesses are paying more in taxes, it means they have less money in their pocket to reinvest in their businesses. Whether these investments materialize as hiring new employees, seeking out new business opportunities, or expanding their market, each is important, and this budget will inhibit any type of growth.

I am proud to support this motion to amend Bill C-15, and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the same. We need to invest in our small and medium businesses and provide them with tools and funding to help them succeed, not just in the start-up phase, but throughout their entire business cycle. Small business owners are counting on us. We need to demonstrate that we value their hard work.

Mr. Adam Vaughan (Spadina—Fort York, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite talk about the need for tax cuts. Putting aside the fact that taxes did not go up for small businesses, future reductions have been deferred, and taxes did go down this year.

I have been reading through all of the private members’ bills that the Conservative Party has introduced in the House this term. It is quite fascinating to note that we do not find tax cuts amongst them. We found things like an act to amend the Criminal Code. We found an act to establish a national appreciation day, a much higher priority than tax cuts in terms of the private members across the way. We found an act to amend the firearms legislation and an act to amend corrections and conditional release. We did not find tax cuts as being a popular component of their private members’ bills.

I am curious as to why the member herself has not brought forth a private member’s bill, if the issue is that important to her.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, our Conservative government lowered personal taxes 120 times. We do not need a measure in the bill just to reinstate our commitment to cutting small business taxes. It was in our campaign promises, as it was part of every party’s commitment.

Once in power, why did the Liberal government forget about its commitments and not fulfill its promise to lower small business taxes? The Liberal government should be facing that challenge. The Liberal government should be helping our small business owners.

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC):
Madam Speaker, it is incredulous to me, to anyone who sits in the House on this side, that the hon. member would actually bring that up when he knows full well that it was the Liberal Party that promised to bring the small business tax rate down, and yet it is not included in the budget. However, I digress. I am not actually here to speak to that, but it is worth noting.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about small business. In the committee of the whole last week, the Minister of Finance was asked a very pointed question as to whether in fact he had consulted with Dan Kelly of the CFIB during budget deliberations. Like an artist in Cirque du Soleil, he contorted his body in every angle without answering the question. Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. How important would it have been for a finance minister to meet with the president of the CFIB during budget deliberations?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, during many of my visits and discussions with the president of the CFIB, the first concern he raised was they were not even able to secure a meeting with the finance minister. How can the government really set up a policy when the most important economic element in our whole community in Canada that creates over 95% of jobs is not even heard?

In my experience, in meeting many of the business owners, and as a former business owner myself, this is exactly who we should be listening to, small business owners and small business organizations that represent them. I mentioned the B.C. Women’s Enterprise Centre, the Ethno Business Council of B.C., and all those business associations I have been consulting. We should be listening to them. This is their major concern.

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC):
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that small businesses in my area are concerned. They are trying to invest, to hire, and to develop.

I would like to ask about the overall government plan on spending. If spending for the sake of spending were true, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. Of course that is not true. Perhaps she could speak to that.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, the government has said it is going to spend on infrastructure and innovation. What they are spending on is the program, and the program administration. There is no actual job creation. There is no direct benefit to any of our businesses, especially now that it is actually increasing taxes to our small businesses.

Again, to grow or not to grow, to expand or not expand, that is the question. I do not think the Liberals have a good answer to it.

On June 1, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on Motion 38: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, on an annual basis, proclaim the first day of the Lunar Year as the beginning of the 15-day “Spring Festival”, in acknowledgement of the many celebrations and gatherings that take place in communities across the country, as well as in recognition of the tremendous contributions of people of Asian heritage to Canadian society.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley North on being the first member of Parliament of a Mandarin-speaking background from mainland China to be elected to the House.

Like my riding of Richmond Centre, Don Valley North is culturally diverse and has made history on more than one occasion by electing MPs who were the first of their ethnic community. My former caucus colleague Joe Daniel was the first ever member of Malayali descent. On my part, I was the first Canadian woman of Chinese descent to be appointed to serve in cabinet. I am honoured to share in this moment to celebrate that multiculturalism is alive and strong throughout Canadian society.

I remember as a young child that every year I would always look forward to the spring festival, just as our hon. member for Vancouver East did. Although the gifts and delicious food were always a point of excitement for the children, there is much more to this holiday. It is our only opportunity to welcome the incoming year, and it represents a time of celebration and reflection on the past year. It is also a time for thanksgiving and an opportunity for family members to return home and spend time together.

Although both the hon. member for Don Valley North and I are both of Chinese descent, the spring festival is of great significance to many other ethnic communities throughout Southeast Asia as well. Along with mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, the spring festival and related lunar new year celebrations are held in other countries in the region, such as Vietnam, Korea, and Malaysia. There are many Canadians who hail from countries where the spring festival is a valued tradition, and they still observe those traditional celebrations here.

To put this in numerical perspective, as the hon. member from Edmonton has done, there are more than 1.3 million Canadian residents of Chinese descent. Half a million of those individuals have roots in Hong Kong, and I am one of them, 220,000 are of Vietnamese origin, and more than 170,000 individuals are members of the Korean community in Canada. Along with many others, they make up a huge part of our nation’s cultural mosaic, in which we Canadians take great pride.

I realize that, as a multicultural mosaic, sometimes our different colours, origins, and traditions may appear to clash. Even within my riding of Richmond Centre, there is now some tension between the more established residents and the newer members of our immigrant community.

Some people may ask, if we pass this motion, where we would then draw the line. Are we to recognize every cultural tradition that is celebrated by some members of Canadian society? I would have to disagree with those individuals. There is a belief out there that somehow motions like this one may dilute our Canadian identity. To them I say that, rather than diluting what it means to be Canadian, we are keeping the finest traditions of the Canadian spirit instead.

Canada has always been a mosaic of different peoples, to which we have been continually adding new pieces, starting with our first nations and indigenous communities and moving to the arrival of European influences in the 15th century; and even now, today, people throughout the world come to Canada to find peace, acceptance, and freedom. We are a country that has always been weaving new threads into our national tapestry.

Over 85% of immigrants to Canada eventually become citizens, which is one of the highest rates in the developed world. Not only do they come to build a better life and a brighter future for themselves and their families, but they also fully join and, likewise, fully contribute to Canadian society. The motion and, more specifically, what it is celebrating are what being Canadian truly means.

Diversity is where we find much of Canada’s strength. Throughout their long history in this country, Canadians of Asian heritage have contributed significantly toward making Canada what it is today. We are also pushing us forward to become the best nation we could possibly be.

The spring festival is no longer just an Asian holiday but one that is celebrated and enjoyed by Canadians of all backgrounds. I am privileged to witness this every year at the Vancouver Chinatown parade, one of the largest in North America, which brings together over 3,000 participants and 10,000 spectators annually. The groups that participate, much like Canadian society at large, are immensely diverse. Along with the traditional lion dancers and martial arts demonstrations, we also see some other groups represented, including Scottish pipe and drum bands, cadets, and members of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces. It is wonderful to see different groups taking part in the festivities and celebrating in the meaning of the spring festival.

I would like to also add the romantic part to this beautiful festival. In Chinese history, the last day of the spring festival, which is the 15th day of the first moon, is also Chinese Valentine’s Day. It was during this day that young women and young men went out to the market carrying paper lanterns and solving riddles on the lanterns. The winners of those riddles did not only win prizes but they won the hearts of beautiful young ladies.

Over the past several years in my riding of Richmond Centre, there has been a countdown at the Aberdeen Centre to mark the beginning of the spring festival. It has become an important community event in Richmond. There have been prime ministers from different parties who have also taken part. I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House who have attended such events can attest to the fact that the spring festival celebrations are something to be enjoyed by all Canadians.

As the member of Parliament for Richmond Centre, I am truly delighted to have the opportunity this evening to speak to the motion and bring recognition to this important event. I am grateful that we as a House can celebrate our multiculturalism together and recognize the important role it plays in our Canadian society.

I, along with my colleagues, wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the member for Don Valley North.

On May 17, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (access to copyrighted works or other subject-matter for persons with perceptual disabilities).

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill for which I have been waiting for many years. I have to declare that I have some very personal reasons for fully supporting the legislation.

My husband is visually impaired. Through the years of his studies at the Regent College, we worked together. I was his research assistant, reading all his textbooks to him so that he could write his papers for graduation. We also asked the Crane Library, the University of British Columbia to provide him with research materials. Copyright is the number one concern.

We have also been trying to explore the Internet these days to download audio books. Right now, he cannot really read anything in print form. He is a highly intellectual person. For example, he has even audio-read A Brief History of Time. Many of us who have vision would not find this easy, but he is very keen and can actually give a lecture on that.

This is for people like my husband, for people who are highly intellectual, and who would like to use this as a research tool. He is still working hard. He is retired, but he is still going through a lot of audio books, including those on Buddhism and other religious studies.

This is coming from the point of view of a researcher. I am a former researcher myself. I was also a research assistant for my husband, and I am still a volunteer for CNIB. I have actually spoken to CNIB during my years as a member of Parliament.

I am so grateful that my hon. colleague is finally able to get to this. I want to ask the whole House to support this, not only for my personal reasons but also for all those who need the help. There are excellent people out there who love books.

On May 10, 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, the decision of the Liberals to increase the small business tax rate is proving worse and worse. Last week, I asked why the Liberals broke their promise to our small businesses. This broken promise will cost the industry $2.2billion.

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

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on January 1, the tax rate for small businesses was reduced. Today the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the decision to maintain the reduced business tax rate was the right one.

The report confirmed that the previous government’s approach would have created just over 1,000 jobs at a cost of almost $2.1 billion to the economy with no growth to the economy.

It is important that we support our small and medium-sized businesses. I am here to ensure they are productive, more innovative and export oriented. We will continue to do the work we are doing.

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I wish Liberals understood small businesses, but the facts just do not support that.

A report from the parliamentary budget officer today indicated that in addition to the $2.2 billion cost to the industry, the changes to the small business tax rate would actually cost jobs. When will the Liberals stop punishing small businesses?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the budget officer for offering his projections to Canadians and parliamentarians.

In a previous report, the budget officer’s verdict was that our budget as a whole would have significant positive impact on the Canadian economy and create tens of thousands of jobs.

As a whole, budget 2016 proposes targeted investments, totalling $50.2 billion. Small business is implicit throughout the entire budget. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are our job creators, and we support small business.

On May 9, 2016, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons regarding second reading of Bill C-15, An 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, first, on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Centre, I wish to send our thoughts and prayers to those affected by the wildfires in Fort McMurray and the surrounding area. We are grateful to the firefighters and first responders who are tirelessly working together to control the fire and ensure the safety of those involved. The residents of Richmond Centre stand behind them.

Today, I rise to discuss Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I wish to articulate my concerns with the bill. There are many troubling aspects of the bill, but I will be focusing on two primary ones. First, I will discuss the small business and employment provisions and changes outlined in the budget. Second, I will comment on the changes to small business hiring. Both of these areas are of great importance to me and my riding of Richmond Centre.

This being my eighth year serving as an MP, I have had the opportunity to work alongside our previous Conservative government and witness strong fiscal responsibility. Not only were we able to leave a surplus at the end of our term, but the debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than it had been when we took office. In addition, during the economic downturn and global recession, our Conservative government created 1.2 million net new jobs. However, such success is quickly being squandered by the new Liberal government.

Before my work in politics, I spent many years as a small business owner. I have experienced first-hand the hard work and dedication required of individuals to operate a small business.

Over 10 years ago, I worked with other business leaders to develop the Women’s Enterprise Society of British Columbia, which has been supporting women entrepreneurs. I also founded the Ethno Business Council to encourage and engage business from various cultural groups.
Over the years, I have been hearing the same message: small and medium-sized businesses need lower taxes and support from the government.

Since small business is close to my heart, members can understand why the budget is so concerning for me. The Liberal government has decided to break its promise to continue the outlined small business tax cuts. This broken promise will cost the small business sector $2.2 billion over the next four years. What this broken promise demonstrates is that the Liberal government believes our small business owners should be the ones to pay for its deficits, which is simply unacceptable.

Under this new budget and the proposed tax increases, the top tax bracket for over half of our provinces will be more than 50% of an individual’s income. It is tax increases like this which will be punishing some of the most productive workers in our society.

What is worse is that the Liberals are accusing small business owners of manipulating the system to avoid paying higher taxes. This could not be further from the truth.

Two-thirds of small and medium-sized businesses fall directly into the middle class. In fact, there are nearly four times as many owners earning less than $40,000 than those earning more than $250,000.

By eliminating the proposed tax cuts, the Liberals are directly targeting our middle class and making its financial situation more difficult.

Over the past few months, I have met with numerous organizations and individuals who represent small business owners from across the nation. Every time I hear the same concern, that small business owners are being neglected by the government. The Liberals’ abandoned promise of lowering the small business tax rate is affecting all small businesses. What is more, the government is increasing red tape and making it more difficult for owners to qualify for the small business tax rate. They claim these changes are to close loopholes, but in fact, the changes are affecting all kinds of small businesses, even though their revenues are well below the $500,000 cap.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, summed up the budget well. I will quote from a news release:

“Small business owners across the country are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit. What was proposed to Canadians as a short-term $10 billion deficit plan to invest in critical infrastructure is now $29 billion with no plan to get back to balance,” Kelly said. Most of the deficit is to cover a massive 7.6 per cent increase in program spending, which will do next to nothing to grow the economy. “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes,” added Kelly.

The budget and Bill C-15 have one clear loser, and that is our small businesses. As a result, I will be supporting the motion put forward by our colleague from Nepean—Carleton to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15 altogether. I encourage all members of the House to support the motion as well.

Nowhere in Bill C-15 do we see a commitment to renew the small business job credit next year. In fact, what we see instead is another broken promise to reduce employment insurance rates to $1.52. The new El spending would put pressure on the premiums paid by both employers and employees and would cost $2.4 billion over two years. We should be working to ease the premiums and hiring costs placed on employers rather than making it more difficult for them to hire workers. Once again, our small businesses are bearing the worst of all the Liberal government’s irresponsible spending.

In conclusion, one thing is clear throughout budget 2016: the Liberals have demonstrated their utter disregard for responsible fiscal management and they have no plan to repay their extreme deficits. They have chosen to turn their backs on the job creators, our small businesses. The Liberals do not understand that borrowed money needs to be paid back, and instead of taking that responsibility upon themselves, they are placing it on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I noted in my colleague’s speech that at one point she said that small business owners fall in the middle class. Would she not agree then that because we are giving a tax break to the middle class, in fact we are helping small businesses and not hurting them, as she suggested?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these are not the people who would benefit from the Liberals’ so-called tax cuts for the middle class. Their broken promise to reduce the taxes actually would be creating unemployment instead of employment. This is exactly what we are fighting against.

[Translation]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was interesting.

Something about it took me a little by surprise, however: the Conservative Party’s sudden interest in helping small and medium-sized businesses. During its time in power, it did absolutely nothing to cut small business taxes as the NDP requested. It did, however, give hundreds of millions in tax breaks to banks, oil companies, and big corporations. Now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives are taking an interest in small businesses even though all they cared about before were huge corporations, not our small merchants.

[English]

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government which created 1.2 million net new jobs during the downsizing of the economy and it was the Conservative government that reduced personal taxes 120 times, putting more money into the pockets of families who then spent their money on building our economy. That is what our government did, but the broken promises by the Liberals have created $2.2 billion of costs to our small businesses. That is not the way to do business.

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a great speech and a great analysis on the economic and tax fronts. I hope the member would share the same view on the subject of the middle class. Most Canadians are middle class. The Liberals use the term “middle class” as a political term to win votes here and there. We understand that the Liberals played that game.

How will the borrowing habits that are going to become an ongoing thing in the next four years by the Liberal government be such a dangerous thing for the Canadian economy and for Canadian businesses?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said. He said, “Small business owners across the country are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit”. At the end of his quote he said, “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes”. Instead of bearing the responsibility, the Liberals are now putting their responsibilities on our children and our grandchildren.

I know that the Minister of Finance said it is good for his children and his grandchildren, but I am afraid it is not to the benefit of all our children and our grandchildren.

Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both share a passion for small business. I am sure she would agree with me when I say that many small businesses are in the tourism industry. I was in the tourism industry and I would have appreciated lots of marketing money being invested in the economy to bring in more customers.

Does the member not think that the investment we are making in destination Canada, the investment we are making into broadband, the investment in infrastructure which is all going to support businesses, does that all not support small business at the end of the day? We all know how important tourism is for every riding in our country.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that it was our government that got the approved destination status from China which brought in lots of tourists and helped us to grow tourism. It is our government that did the job, not the Liberal government. It took them 30 years and failed.

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.