Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

On November 2, 2017, Alice Wong made a Point of Order in the House of Commons. The topic was on the Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort York.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus.

I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.

Now I will state the facts.

I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for Spadina—Fort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day.

Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said “Canada is our home”. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made.

I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons.

Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.

In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had:

no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation.

Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.

On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said:

Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected.

This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.

Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):
I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention. We will look into it, dig a little deeper, and get back to the House if we deem it necessary.

On October 4, 2017, Alice Wong made a statement in the House of Commons. The topic was on the Mid-Autumn Festival.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to join all Canadians of Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese descent to celebrate the mid-autumn festival today. It is the time of the year when the moon is at its brightest and fullest. This celebration dates back centuries and is associated with fertility, rejuvenation, and gratitude for a bountiful harvest.

Tonight, families and loved ones will gather under the full moon to light beautiful lanterns, exchange gifts and stories, and share traditional foods.

Canada is home to a number of vibrant Asian communities who have helped shape our society for the better and contributed tremendously to Canada’s success.

I encourage all Canadians to participate in these community celebrations with our Asian friends and neighbours and to learn more about this holiday. On behalf of the riding of Richmond Centre, I wish all those celebrating a happy mid-autumn festival.

On October 2, 2017, Alice Wong asked a question during Question Period. The topic was on Seniors.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in celebration of National Seniors Day, I visited many seniors homes, talking and listening to their concerns.

One concern of seniors is identity theft. In light of a major security breach in a credit agency, when will the Liberal government take action to stop identity theft of our vulnerable seniors?

(1500)

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the importance of seniors is not only very clear in our mandate letter, but it has also been very clear in our actions since April 2016. We increased by almost $1,000 the guaranteed income supplement for 900,000 vulnerable seniors. We brought the age of eligibly for old age security back to 65 years old, which is preventing 100,000 vulnerable seniors from falling into severe poverty. We have launched, and will be launching again, important investments in housing, in health care, and all sorts of things that will produce—

September 28, 2017

The Honourable Bill Morneau, PC, MP
Room 435-S, Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re: Tax Planning Using Private Corporations Consultation

Dear Minister Morneau,

I write to you today to express my concerns regarding the recent proposed changes to our tax system. As a former small business owner, I know firsthand the hard work, personal and financial risk, and the passion that is required to operate a small business.

As you know, our small businesses are the job creators in this country. They contribute to our communities, provide work for new graduates, and foster the entrepreneurial spirit Canadians value. Small business owners seek to provide stability for their employees, paying Employment Insurance and CPP premiums – neither of which they receive themselves. These entrepreneurs create new ways to be more efficient, environmentally smart, and community minded. They and their families invest a considerable amount of risk to pursue a passion they have always dreamed of.

The proposed changes you and your government have proposed will have negative impacts on these very entrepreneurs. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the individuals you claim to be targeting in these changes are not those who are actually on the line. I strongly encourage you to re-examine your proposals, and to ensure that these small, community serving companies are not caught up in a poorly planned pursuit to raise revenues.

Many of my constituents have shared with me their frustration with the proposed changes. Below, are several examples from individuals in my riding who have reached out to me to share their personal stories through emails and letters. I have also included a petition addressed to your office signed by more than 100 constituents on the issue.

“As you continue to propose changes to make it even harder for small businesses to save for equipment upgrades, balance their business so that banks will lend us money when we are forced to relocate due to double digit increases to our base rent, and yet try earnestly to provide a fair and reasonable wage to our employees living in an urban center – why do you allow people who are really not paying anything let alone their “fair share” to thrive? Surely you could focus your governments efforts on identifying businesses that are licensed to operate and yet don’t show up in your own system.” – Richmond Resident September 25, 2017

“I have operated my small business and provided jobs (6 employees) since 1976. My business has a larger and continuously increasing tax burden than my employees, including 40 percent for in Employment Insurance and double the CPP premiums. At 70 years old, I continue to work 7 days a week, I can’t afford to be ‘sitting in a gated community”. I personally take all the financial risks because banks want my personal guarantees for any business loans and mortgages. I have very little in RRSPs and no TFSA. All my tax planning has been based under the current tax regime, saving in the business, and relying on drawing down dividends for my retirement years. “ – Small Business Owner, September 8, 2017

“The three tax measures proposed by the government will greatly interfere with my businesses’ ability to run operations, achieve my goals and provide the societal contributions that benefit my staff that live right here in Richmond,” – Entrepreneur, September 25, 2017

Please consider these concerns as you consider tax reform. There are many ways we can improve our tax system, but targeting our job creators is not one of them.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope we can work together to find a more fair and agreeable solution.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Alice Wong, PC, MP
Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre

On June 19, 2017, Alice Wong made a statement in the House of Commons on the topic of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, each year June 15 marks World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

Elder abuse is an important human rights issue we all can bring awareness to, and help ensure that older generations have a right to live a life of dignity. This means a life free from all forms of abuse, including financial and physical abuse, as well as material exploitation, which can lead to significant emotional and mental suffering.

This issue is particularly close to my heart, and in my role as former Minister of State for Seniors, I am incredibly proud of the legislation my colleagues and I created to help end elder abuse.

I am disappointed by this current government’s lack of focus on this issue, in particular their decision to abolish the Minister of State for Seniors portfolio. I hope to see all my colleagues and all Canadians fight to end this devastating form of abuse.

On June 7, 2017, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on second reading of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, also known as the Cannabis Act.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the proposed legislation in Bill C-45, related to the legalization of cannabis, more commonly known as marijuana.

Bill C-45 has been put forward on a rushed timeline. Many practical implications of Bill C-45 are to be decided by provincial governments. When implementing the bill, the Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them now and hope for the best later, a policy that will not work, like all of the other broken election promises.

Before I even begin my speech to outline my concerns with the policy put forward by the government, I would like to say that I do not believe the legislation would create sound policy for Canadians. Instead, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque on many regulation details to be decided later. The legalization of an illicit drug has a significant impact on all Canadians, and it is our duty to ensure that all Canadians are safe.

I will start with a bit of history of cannabis in Canada. Cannabis was first banned in Canada in 1923, under the Narcotic Drugs Act Amendment Bill. Other drugs on the list at the time included opium, morphine, and cocaine. I am glad those three are still on our current banned list. I do not know for how long though.

Cannabis use continued to steadily grow through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, bringing us to today. Cannabis use is at an all-time high. According to a University of Waterloo report on tobacco and cannabis use in Canada, around one in five students between grades 7 and 12 has used cannabis. The majority of them used cannabis over the past year. I do not think any member would stand up in this chamber and say that this is a good thing. Indeed, these numbers should be going down. Passing the legislation would most certainly mean student usage of cannabis will go up.

Cannabis has been illegal since 1923 for many reasons, but one of the most prominent is that cannabis is a drug that has real and damaging health effects on those who use it, especially in the age range where brains are developing. We heard from my colleague, a physician, who just quoted some of the hard facts about medical research and the kind of harm our children and youth will face once they start using marijuana.

The softening of attitudes towards cannabis has not resulted in lower usage, or more importantly, lower usage among young people. Many more Canadians who do not currently smoke marijuana, or cannabis, are likely to start once it is legalized. The legalization of cannabis will not curb interest. Indeed, it will help to promote it, as evidenced by the states in the U.S.A., such as Colorado, that have legalized it.

I have many concerns with the bill, but I will start with the legal access to cannabis proposed in Bill C-45. The government has stated over and over again that the bill is aimed to protect children and young people from cannabis. The irony in this statement, however, is that by legalizing cannabis and actually providing legal backup for the production, possession, distribution, and use of cannabis, the bill would actually encourage cannabis to be used more.

Under Bill C-45, adults will be able to possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis while in public. To put this in perspective, 30 grams would fit into a small bag of potato chips, so it is not a small amount.

In private, there is no prescribed limit. We can stockpile kilograms as long as we do not intend to distribute.

The bill goes even further to allow adults to grow and produce their own cannabis with up to four plants in their homes. The problem is that these plants are already in the home. The government wants to protect children, but it is allowing cannabis to be grown in the very space that is supposed to be safe for children.

I understand that the legislation includes a few parameters to ensure that it is not possible for any and every adult to produce cannabis. I also wish to clarify that I am not speaking in reference to the use and the need for cannabis for medical purposes. That is a different issue.

That being said, I am not confident that there are enough safeguards to ensure that the four-plant limit is not rampantly broken or disregarded. Allowing individuals to produce on their own will make regulation and oversight much more difficult for the government and our law enforcement.

This leads directly into some of the other regulatory concerns I have. How the government plans to effectively regulate cannabis production and consumption is not made clear in the present form of the legislation. In particular, the clauses concerning search warrants include provisions that would allow a warrant to be issued through a phone call, or would allow inspectors to open packages and enter buildings based on their belief that activities contravening the law are taking place. These provisions lack substance and practical process to assist law enforcement officers to determine when a search warrant is appropriate and how they are accurately able to predict violations.

Finally, in my home riding of Richmond Centre, I strongly campaigned against the legalization of marijuana and was re-elected because this is a view that many of my constituents share. They tell me their concerns. There are concerns about the awful lingering smell of smoked cannabis, but there are also concerns about obtaining housing insurance if a tenant decides to grow cannabis plants in the unit without the landlord knowing about it. Parents are concerned about the safety of their kids. There are so many unanswered questions about the real-world consequences of legalizing cannabis.

The bill represents a huge shift in policy and for our society, as a whole. I find it infuriating that a government that is so preoccupied with consultations on even the smallest of changes deems it appropriate to rush through this legislation.

One journalist commented that, “Trudeau Liberals are legalizing marijuana as if they’re being forced to”.
The safety of Canadians, and particularly, our young people are—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
Order. I just want to remind the member that she cannot name individuals who are in the House.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, I was quoting what the paper said.

I strongly encourage the government to slow down the legislation and get the regulatory framework in place. Hopefully, we can then bring together a more effective and secure piece of legislation.

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation and one that I think many of us in the House, and Canadians, have struggled with. We are clearly not winning the fight when it comes to the issue of drug abuse in Canada, which is something that I was a part of for many years. I almost feel like we are giving up. However, the reality is that we have the highest cannabis use here in Canada among our young people. Bill C-45 is, hopefully, going to help us get a handle on that.

As much as we are uncomfortable with the direction in which we are going, what alternatives are there to supporting Bill C-45?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, the most important thing we have not done successfully for a number of years is education. Whenever we talk about prevention of drug use, there are always many things that we should have done. The whole reason we have an increased number of young people is, number one, the softening of the attitudes. Number two is that they do not see the actual damage done to their brains.

I would like to quote a real example of a neighbour whose house was what is called a grow-op. In the basement we could see mould and a lot of things, and then finally the police discovered it was a grow-op. Then when the school board looked at the kids living upstairs, above that very basement, all those students showed signs of being stoned, as if they were smoking grass.

My question, as a former educator, is this. We need to educate young people so that they will not even go there. If we encourage them to use it and give them even more access at home, how can parents guarantee that their own kids will not have access to those four plants?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, which help us all in thinking about this matter.

It seems to me that, from the very start, something fundamental is missing from this bill. I have a hard time understanding that after 18 months of study, nobody has come up with a standard THC level. That is the first important thing.

When the Liberals manage to get organized crime out of the schoolyard, as they say they want to do, what will organized crime offer other than a superior experience to what could be sold on the market? Nobody has even come up with the THC level of the product that will be legalized.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[English]

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, I think the most important thing is not even “have our kids tried that?” That is the safest thing. Looking at the drug to see if the quality of the drug is good or giving the best cocaine to the people at the injection site, this is following the same argument. That is not the right way to deter our students, our young people, from taking this very harmful drug.

My policy would be to not even go there. The current legislation actually would encourage and make it so much easier for our young kids to have access to drugs, not even talking about marijuana cookies, not even talking about how these kids can trade among themselves. These are very real issues, but the legislation would not be able to stop that.

On May 31, 2017, Alice Wong spoke in the House of Commons on second reading of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to the proposed legislation, Bill C-46, regarding impaired driving and amendments to the Criminal Code. This bill examines and alters the procedures and consequences for impaired driving for both cannabis and alcohol. I will comment on a few aspects of the changes regarding alcohol, but the majority of my speech will be focused on the impacts of drug-induced impaired driving.

To begin, I would like to say that several changes proposed in the legislation are encouraging, such as increases in maximum penalties and mandatory fines. Unfortunately, not all the penalty changes seem appropriate. Rather than increasing mandatory minimum prison sentences, the government has decided to change the fines for a first offence, based on blood alcohol content, the BAC. While I can understand the importance of knowing the BAC of an individual behind the wheel, I would want to ensure that a slightly lower BAC would not somehow mean that a person was not penalized for driving under the influence. Alcohol has different effects on different people. Would an officer be able to use his or her discretion in a situation, or would a device be able to determine the accuracy of the BAC? I simply want to ensure that the corresponding fines are appropriate and fair.

One of the proposed changes affecting our law enforcement officers would be the ability to demand breath samples from any driver they lawfully stop. Officers would no longer be required to have a legitimate suspicion that a driver had alcohol in his or her body. Some critics have even stated that this would be unconstitutional, and research shows that most Canadians would oppose giving police these greater powers.

Recently, the CBC reported:

If Canada’s new impaired driving laws are passed police could show up on your doorstep — up to two hours after you arrive home — to demand a breath or saliva sample.

How would the government ensure that someone who arrived home safely while sober and then consumed alcohol afterward would not be wrongly accused?

Another concerning change regarding alcohol-impaired driving proposed in Bill C-46 is that it would actually reduce the penalties previously outlined in the Criminal Code with respect to ignition interlock devices. Ignition interlock devices allow offenders to reduce the period of prohibition from driving by opting to use a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device under a provincial program. With the use of these devices, they are able to drive anywhere in Canada during this time.

While it is true that offenders should receive another chance to prove that they are capable of driving, they must first serve the appropriate minimum absolute prohibition period. These wait times have been reasonable: three months for first-time offenders, six months for second-time offenders, and 12 months for third-time offenders. Unfortunately, the Liberals have decided to reduce these wait times to the point where there would be no minimum prohibition at all for first-time offenders. Subsequent offences would be reduced to the following: second-time offenders would be prohibited for only three months, and third-time offenders would be prohibited for only six months. These drastically reduced prohibitions are dangerous. The changes could allow offenders to be behind the wheel before they were ready.

I would ask the government to reconsider some of these changes to ensure that offenders are properly convicted for their actions and that the probationary periods, as currently outlined in the Criminal Code, are maintained.

Moving on to drug-impaired driving now. The Government of Canada website states that:

Bill C-46 proposes to supplement the existing drug-impaired driving offence by creating three new offences for having specified levels of a drug in the blood within two hours of driving. The penalties would depend on the drug type and the levels of drug or the combination of alcohol and drugs. The levels would be set by regulation.

While it is encouraging to see tougher penalties for repeat offenders, some concerns remain about the ability to enforce these new offences based on the specified levels. For example, would officers be able to use discretion for those near the cut-off, or would the measuring devices be able to determine exactly how significant the influence of the drug is? Furthermore, the level of the drug may have a greater impairment on some people, causing their behaviour to be more harmful to the safety of others. My concern is that the punishment may not be congruent for all offenders.

It is of the utmost importance that we seek to protect Canadians from impaired drivers and ensure that there are strict penalties for those who choose to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, it is also critical that those penalties are accompanied with sufficient education and resources for our police officers. The legislation does not include any specifics regarding the process by which police will be trained in order to handle the increased threat of drug-impaired driving upon the legalization of cannabis.

Education on impaired driving is not limited to police officers. It is critical that the Liberal government also emphasizes effective education to deter Canadians from impaired driving. The report and recommendations outlined by the Liberal government’s task force recommended extensive education on cannabis and impaired driving awareness before any legislation takes effect. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to ignore that sound advice and is pushing through the legislation.

Impaired driving continues to be one of the leading causes of death in Canada and it is unwise to move forward without effective education and resources for our police forces and for all Canadians. While I find it hypocritical that after 10 years of denouncing the stricter penalties for criminals put forward by the previous Conservative government, the Liberals have opted to impose higher maximum penalties and mandatory fines, it is a good first step to ensuring that our streets are safe.

That said, as I have mentioned throughout my speech, the changes outlined in Bill C-46 are not enough to protect Canadians from the dangers of impaired driving. I hope the government will choose to slow down the legislation and provide relevant education before it chooses to move forward with cannabis legalization. The legislation has been rushed and has been put on an unreasonable timeline. The Liberal government needs to recognize that when passing major legislation such as this, it is far more important to get it right rather than to do it hastily.

I hope the government will consider the concerns I have raised and together we can work to protect Canadians from the devastating realities of impaired driving.

Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Conservatives finally understand that actions taken here in Parliament have unintended consequences on municipal budgets and police budgets. Having been a city councillor for the better part of 10 years, I can tell the House that the accidental downloading by the last government was quite extensive. I can assure the member that we are sensitive to that and are talking to our partners on those issues right now to make sure that, as we move forward with the legislation, the training and the compensation are there.

It seems that the point that was being made was that until we figure out exactly how we can test properly for impaired driving as a result of cannabis, we really should not move to legalize it. Keeping in mind that we have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the western world, particularly by our young people, would the member opposite not agree that impaired driving is already happening?

The legislation would allow us to start moving towards regulating it, criminalizing that behaviour, and making sure that we do the public education to stop that behaviour because of the risk it poses to Canadians everywhere.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, this is not what their task force advised. They advised that before any legislation is pushed through, these tools need to be there. How can we measure whether a young person or an adult is really impaired if the tool is not there? It is really unrealistic that the government would push this through.

Talking about expenses, earlier a member on this side mentioned that spending that money over five years and not using it properly is not the way to have really good laws. Just hastily passing it through and not making sure that it is done properly, that is really not a responsible lawmaker’s job.

Our job in Parliament—

The Deputy Speaker:
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we will all work together to try to make sure the legislation is as well-rounded as possible.

I have a couple of questions. I listened attentively to the speech of my hon. colleague. She mentioned concerns with both the mandatory testing and the number of hours after the alleged driving that an individual could be tested. Both of these were found in Bill C-226, the private member’s bill of the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which the hon. member voted for.

In essence, both of them allow us to make sure our roads are safer. The fact that a police officer can, on any lawful stop, ask somebody to submit to a breathalyzer test, to me, is a good thing, and so is the fact that an individual cannot argue that they drank alcohol right before they got in the car so their blood alcohol limit was not reached when they were in the car; it only got reached after. These are good things. They keep bad people off the road.

Why does the hon. member have concerns about these when she voted for them already in a different law?

Hon. Alice Wong:
Mr. Speaker, there are people of different cultures in my riding, and I can give the member true stories. One of my constituents complained to me that she was pulled over by a police officer and she was trembling because she did not understand why she was stopped by police. Because of the differences in language, she did not understand exactly what happened.

Imagine if the police suddenly come into an individual’s house and tried to make them do things. There have been incidents, probably, in the Lower Mainland, and a lot of abuses have been committed by people who do not follow the proper rules and who have not been trained on very sensitive issues.

That is the question and I would ask the Liberals to reply instead.

On May 17, 2017, Alice Wong made a statement in the House of Commons on the topic of the Tourism Industry.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are essential to my riding of Richmond Centre.

With Vancouver International Airport, YVR, as Canada’s gateway to the Asia Pacific, I am proud of the work our entrepreneurs are doing to promote tourism and hospitality, while creating-jobs in Richmond and throughout the Lower Mainland. By supporting the tourism industry, we are showcasing the best this country has to offer to the many visitors that pass through YVR.

I also look forward to co-hosting a special round table with my colleague from Banff—Airdrie, to further hear from these groups and work with them to address the challenges they face. Together, we can ensure that tourism, as well as the small businesses that depend on it, continues to flourish in the years to come.

It is my privilege to serve a riding that welcomes so many visitors. Richmond continues to be a significant contributor to the tourism and hospitality industry.

On March 20, 2017, Alice Wong asked a question during Question Period. The topic was on Small Business.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that small businesses are just there to help rich people avoid taxes. Clearly, he has never met the hard-working entrepreneurs who actually own small businesses across our nation. It seems he will continue the attack on these middle-class families in the upcoming budget.

When will the Prime Minister end his attack on small businesses?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the important work that small business owners do and the contributions they make to our economy. Our endeavour will always be to help them be more productive, more innovative, and export oriented.

This government will continue to take a whole-of-government approach to ensure that we open up markets for 99% of businesses, which are small businesses. We will continue to work very hard for them.

On March 8, 2017, Alice Wong asked a question during Question Period. The topic was on taxation.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, 2016 was a difficult year for our small business owners. Their hiring credit was axed, their payroll taxes were increased, and they did not get the tax cut the Liberals promised. Small businesses are being targeted by the Liberals for being too small and the Prime Minister accused small businesses of existing solely to avoid tax.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to our entrepreneurs and cut their taxes in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House, especially on International Women’s Day. I wish everyone the best on this day, especially our women entrepreneurs.

This government has committed to making more opportunities for under-represented groups. We are working better with entrepreneurs, we are listening and engaging with small business owners, we are speaking to their customers so that we can create the opportunities they need. The solutions that our small businesses owners have are not only good for Canada, but they are amazing for export markets. We will continue to open up those markets so that we can encourage our small business owners to export, as well.