Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2016-10-25 16:00:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC)",
        "fr": "L'hon. Alice Wong (Richmond-Centre, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"4566199\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to discuss the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan in Bill <a data-HoCid=\"8471390\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-26/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act\">C-26</a>. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566200\" data-originallang=\"en\">As has been mentioned by my colleagues earlier, this change would raise CPP premium rates. This plan would also increase the maximum level of earnings on which CPP premiums would need to be paid. The net result of these changes would be that both employers and employees would have to pay more. Indeed, the CRA has published a table showing that this amount could be as much as $2,200 more, each and every year, and this number would continue to go higher and higher.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566201\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nearly all Canadians would be affected by this expansion. Everybody earning a salary in this country would be negatively affected and would see their paycheques decrease as this payroll tax takes effect. Likewise, employers would see the cost of hiring employees rise.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566202\" data-originallang=\"en\"> As a former small business owner, I have first-hand experience in seeing how a business can be affected by payroll taxes, including CPP premiums. During the past year, I have thoroughly enjoyed my role as the critic for small business, holding the government accountable for its actions and inactions. I have heard from entrepreneurs and small business owners from across the nation in round tables and one-on-one meetings. Each time the topic of the proposed CPP expansion is brought up, immediately I hear the same thing: when the cost of hiring employees rises, employers hire fewer people. Payroll taxes, which include CPP premiums, are one of the largest costs for small business owners.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566203\" data-originallang=\"en\">These employers are leaders of our communities and care about investing in their employees. However, if they cannot afford to pay for their employees, they will be forced to either reduce their workforce or increase the workload on their current staff to avoid hiring new workers.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566204\" data-originallang=\"en\">One entrepreneur from Toronto explained to me that she is already feeling constrained by the increasing tax burden on her business. She said that, if the CPP expansion were to move forward, she would have to expand the job duties of each of her current employees rather than hiring new workers to fill the gaps.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566205\" data-originallang=\"en\">Small business representatives from across the country have also added their voices to this conversation, urging the government to rethink this plan. Among them, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, is the most notable. It conducted a number of surveys on its members, asking for opinions and potential business decisions they would have to make, should this expansion move forward. The results are troubling.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566206\" data-originallang=\"en\">These surveys indicate that two-thirds of small business owners believe that this expansion would compel employers to freeze salaries in order to account for the changes. The math is simple. Dollars that would otherwise go into salaries would, instead, go into extra payroll taxes. When we consider the government's track record of increasing payroll taxes, increasing small business taxes, implementing a nationwide carbon tax, and cutting tax credits, it is no wonder business owners are choosing to hold on to their wallets.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566207\" data-originallang=\"en\">I would not be shocked to see the Liberals finally decide to raise the GST to pay for their spending spree. Who wants to invest in such a high-tax environment? One of the arguments being used to support the expansion of the CPP is that it would help struggling seniors. However, the proposed plan would not be fully implemented for another 40 years, which means seniors would not be receiving the help now that the government says they need. I would challenge the government that there are many other ways they could help seniors and the aging population, but the Liberals have chosen to turn their backs on Canadian seniors. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566208\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am going to let the House know what seniors think. The carbon tax would increase the cost of everything, including their groceries and heating their homes. That would be dramatic. That would be devastating to our seniors.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566209\" data-originallang=\"en\">Now that I have talked about seniors, I will talk about our youth, whom the government claims the bill would benefit the most. Our youth benefit from employment, and this bill would make it more difficult for employers to hire our graduates. Young participants in my round tables are more concerned about their jobs, about their take-home money now, instead of paying into something for 40 years down the road.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566210\" data-originallang=\"en\">Not only that, but we are forcing Canadians to invest in a pension plan that offers a low rate of return. According to a well-quoted study by the Fraser Institute published in May 2016, and externally validated by many other organizations, the projected real rate of return for CPP investees is 2.1%.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566211\" data-originallang=\"en\">I will quote from the study:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4566212\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Canadian workers retiring after 2036...can expect a real rate of return of 2.1 percent from the CPP. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4566213\" data-originallang=\"en\">This basically means the majority of our workforce today, contributing to CPP, is making a real rate of return that is barely above inflation. Remember, when people retire and draw funds from the CPP, that amount is taxed with income taxes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566214\" data-originallang=\"en\">Some Canadians are comfortable with the CPP and the fact that it is backed by the government, but we are given no choice in the matter. CPP legislation forces all Canadians to participate in this low-return investment. The government has made the decision for the rest of the country, regardless of the personal situation for how Canadians want to fund their retirement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566215\" data-originallang=\"en\">There are other ways that government could encourage Canadians to invest in their retirement. There are already many options available to individuals, including the well-known registered retirement savings plan or tax-free savings accounts. The CPP is only one method of saving, among others, but this is a forced method of saving for retirement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566216\" data-originallang=\"en\"> By highlighting and encouraging other programs, Canadians are able to create a retirement financial plan that suits them best and does not solely rely on government to make this choice for them.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566217\" data-originallang=\"en\">At a time when our economy is struggling and many people are unable to find work, such an expansion of the CPP would only magnify these problems. Our job creators would face another burden in their ability to hire new workers, and Canadians would have less money in their pockets to invest in the economy.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566218\" data-originallang=\"en\"> I am convinced the government does not want to help Canadians save. If it did, the Liberal government would not have chosen to reduce the amount of money individuals can contribute to their RRSPs or tax-free savings accounts.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566219\" data-originallang=\"en\">Canada has excellent programs that allow Canadians to choose how they want to save their money for retirement. As I have said before, instead of making it more expensive for our small businesses to hire staff and create jobs, we should be minimizing taxes, cutting red tape, and trusting Canadians to make their own decisions regarding how to spend and save their money. I will continue to fight for our hard-working job creators.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"4566199\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je suis ravie de prendre la parole aujourd'hui au sujet des modifications propos\u00e9es au R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada dans le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"8471390\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-26/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act\">C-26</a>. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566200\" data-originallang=\"en\">Comme l'ont mentionn\u00e9 mes coll\u00e8gues plus t\u00f4t, la modification augmenterait les taux de cotisation au R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada. Elle augmenterait \u00e9galement le niveau de gains maximal pour lequel des cotisations au R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada doivent \u00eatre pay\u00e9es. Le r\u00e9sultat net de ces modifications serait que l'employeur et l'employ\u00e9 devraient tous deux payer plus. En effet, l'ARC a publi\u00e9 un tableau montrant que la diff\u00e9rence pourrait aller jusqu'\u00e0 2 200 $ de plus par ann\u00e9e, et ce nombre continuerait d'augmenter.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566201\" data-originallang=\"en\">Presque tous les Canadiens seraient touch\u00e9s par cette expansion. Tous les salari\u00e9s du pays en subiraient les cons\u00e9quences n\u00e9gatives et verraient leur ch\u00e8que de paie diminuer lorsque cette charge sociale entrerait en vigueur. De m\u00eame, les employeurs verraient les co\u00fbts d'embauche augmenter.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566202\" data-originallang=\"en\"> J\u2019ai d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 propri\u00e9taire d\u2019une petite entreprise et j\u2019ai pu constater de visu \u00e0 quel point les charges sociales, dont les cotisations au RPC, peuvent influer sur une entreprise. Au cours de la derni\u00e8re ann\u00e9e, j\u2019ai profond\u00e9ment aim\u00e9 mon r\u00f4le de porte-parole en mati\u00e8re de petite entreprise, demandant au gouvernement de rendre des comptes sur ses actions et inactions. J\u2019ai recueilli les propos d'entrepreneurs et de propri\u00e9taires de petites entreprises de tout le pays en tables rondes et en rencontres individuelles. Chaque fois que la question de la bonification du RPC propos\u00e9e est soulev\u00e9e, ils persistent \u00e0 dire que, quand le co\u00fbt pour embaucher des employ\u00e9s augmente, les employeurs embauchent moins. Les charges sociales, notamment les cotisations au RPC, repr\u00e9sentent les co\u00fbts les plus importants pour les propri\u00e9taires de petites entreprises. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566203\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Ces employeurs sont des chefs de file de nos collectivit\u00e9s et ils ont \u00e0 coeur d\u2019investir dans leurs employ\u00e9s. Cependant, s\u2019ils ne peuvent se permettre de payer pour leurs employ\u00e9s, ils seront oblig\u00e9s soit de r\u00e9duire leur effectif, soit d\u2019augmenter la charge de travail des employ\u00e9s en place pour \u00e9viter d\u2019en embaucher de nouveaux. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566204\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Une entrepreneure de Toronto m\u2019a expliqu\u00e9 qu\u2019elle se sent d\u00e9j\u00e0 limit\u00e9e par le fardeau fiscal en hausse que doit assumer son entreprise. Selon elle, si la bonification du RPC devait aller de l\u2019avant, il faudrait qu\u2019elle augmente les t\u00e2ches de chacun de ses employ\u00e9s actuels plut\u00f4t que d\u2019en embaucher de nouveaux pour combler les \u00e9carts. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566205\" data-originallang=\"en\">Des repr\u00e9sentants de petites entreprises de tout le pays ont ajout\u00e9 leur voix \u00e0 ce discours, exhortant le gouvernement \u00e0 revoir ce r\u00e9gime. Parmi eux, la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration canadienne de l\u2019entreprise ind\u00e9pendante, la FCEI, est la plus \u00e9minente. Elle a men\u00e9 divers sondages aupr\u00e8s de ses membres pour solliciter leur opinion \u00e0 propos de ce projet de bonification et leur demander les \u00e9ventuelles d\u00e9cisions d\u2019affaires qu\u2019ils auraient \u00e0 prendre si cette bonification allait de l\u2019avant. Les r\u00e9sultats sont troublants. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566206\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ces sondages indiquent que les deux tiers des propri\u00e9taires des petites entreprises estiment que cette bonification les obligerait \u00e0 geler les salaires pour faire face aux changements. Le calcul est simple. L\u2019argent qui autrement servirait \u00e0 verser les salaires servirait plut\u00f4t \u00e0 assumer les charges sociales suppl\u00e9mentaires. Quand on regarde les mesures prises par le gouvernement, c\u2019est \u00e0 dire augmenter les charges sociales, relever les imp\u00f4ts des petites entreprises, instaurer une taxe sur le carbone \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle du pays et sabrer dans les cr\u00e9dits d\u2019imp\u00f4t, inutile de se demander pourquoi les entrepreneurs choisissent de s\u2019accrocher \u00e0 leur portefeuille. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566207\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je ne serais pas surprise que les lib\u00e9raux d\u00e9cident finalement d\u2019augmenter la TPS pour acquitter leurs folles d\u00e9penses. Qui veut investir dans un contexte fiscal aussi d\u00e9favorable? Pour appuyer la bonification du RPC, on soutient notamment que cela aiderait les a\u00een\u00e9s en difficult\u00e9. Toutefois, le r\u00e9gime propos\u00e9 ne serait pas enti\u00e8rement mis en oeuvre avant 40 ans encore, ce qui veut dire que les a\u00een\u00e9s ne recevraient pas maintenant l\u2019aide dont ils ont besoin, selon ce que pr\u00e9tend le gouvernement. J\u2019inviterais volontiers le gouvernement \u00e0 tenir compte des nombreuses autres fa\u00e7ons de venir en aide aux a\u00een\u00e9s et \u00e0 la population vieillissante, mais les lib\u00e9raux ont choisi de tourner le dos aux a\u00een\u00e9s canadiens. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566208\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je vais expliquer \u00e0 la Chambre ce que les personnes \u00e2g\u00e9es pensent. La taxe sur le carbone ferait augmenter le co\u00fbt de tout, y compris l'\u00e9picerie et le chauffage de la maison. Ce serait dramatique. Ce serait catastrophique pour les Canadiens \u00e2g\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566209\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Maintenant que j\u2019ai parl\u00e9 des personnes \u00e2g\u00e9es, je vais parler des jeunes, qui, selon le gouvernement, profiteraient le plus du projet de loi. Les jeunes gagnent \u00e0 occuper un emploi, mais le projet de loi compliquerait l'embauchage de nouveaux dipl\u00f4m\u00e9s. Les jeunes participants \u00e0 mes tables rondes se pr\u00e9occupent davantage de leur emploi, de leur paie nette actuelle, que de quelque quelque chose qui leur co\u00fbte de l'argent, mais dont ils ne profiteront que dans 40 ans.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566210\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Qui plus est, nous for\u00e7ons les Canadiens \u00e0 investir dans un r\u00e9gime de pension qui offre un faible taux de rendement. Selon une \u00e9tude abondamment cit\u00e9e de l\u2019Institut Fraser, publi\u00e9e en mai 2016 et valid\u00e9e par de nombreux organismes, le taux de rendement r\u00e9el projet\u00e9 pour quiconque investit dans le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada est de 2,1 %.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566211\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Selon l\u2019\u00e9tude:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4566212\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les travailleurs canadiens qui prendront leur retraite apr\u00e8s 2036 [...] peuvent s\u2019attendre \u00e0 un taux de rendement r\u00e9el de 2,1 % du R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4566213\" data-originallang=\"en\">Autrement dit, la majorit\u00e9 de la main-d\u2019oeuvre qui cotise actuellement au RPC obtient un taux de rendement r\u00e9el qui est \u00e0 peine sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 l\u2019inflation. N'oublions pas que, lorsque les retrait\u00e9s touchent des prestations du RPC, ces sommes constituent un revenu imposable.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566214\" data-originallang=\"en\">Certains Canadiens sont \u00e0 l\u2019aise avec le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada et avec le fait qu\u2019il est garanti par le gouvernement, sauf qu'on ne nous laisse aucun choix. Les dispositions l\u00e9gislatives concernant le RPC forcent tous les Canadiens \u00e0 contribuer \u00e0 cet investissement \u00e0 faible rendement. Le gouvernement a pris la d\u00e9cision pour le reste du pays, peu importe la situation personnelle de chacun ou la fa\u00e7on dont les Canadiens veulent financer leur retraite.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566215\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Il existe d\u2019autres fa\u00e7ons pour le gouvernement d\u2019encourager les Canadiens \u00e0 \u00e9pargner pour la retraite. De nombreuses options sont d\u00e9j\u00e0 mises \u00e0 la disposition des particuliers, y compris les fameux r\u00e9gimes enregistr\u00e9s d\u2019\u00e9pargne-retraite ou les comptes d\u2019\u00e9pargne libre d\u2019imp\u00f4t. Le RPC n\u2019est qu\u2019un instrument d\u2019\u00e9pargne parmi d\u2019autres, mais il s\u2019agit d\u2019un instrument d\u2019\u00e9pargne-retraite impos\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566216\" data-originallang=\"en\">Lorsque l'on met en lumi\u00e8re d\u2019autres programmes et que l'on en fait la promotion, les Canadiens sont en mesure de d\u00e9finir le plan financier pour la retraite qui correspond le mieux \u00e0 leurs besoins sans compter uniquement sur l'\u00c9tat pour qu'il fasse le choix pour eux.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566217\" data-originallang=\"en\">Alors que l'\u00e9conomie tourne au ralenti et que beaucoup de gens sont incapables de trouver du travail, \u00e9largir ainsi le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada ne ferait qu'amplifier les probl\u00e8mes. Pour les cr\u00e9ateurs d'emplois, ce serait un obstacle de plus \u00e0 l'embauche, et les Canadiens disposeraient de moins d\u2019argent pour investir dans l\u2019\u00e9conomie.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566218\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je suis convaincue que le gouvernement lib\u00e9ral ne veut pas aider les Canadiens \u00e0 \u00e9pargner. Si c\u2019\u00e9tait le cas, il n\u2019aurait pas choisi de r\u00e9duire la somme maximale que l'on peut placer dans un REER ou un compte d\u2019\u00e9pargne libre d\u2019imp\u00f4t. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4566219\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le Canada a d\u2019excellents programmes qui permettent aux Canadiens de choisir la fa\u00e7on dont ils veulent \u00e9pargner pour la retraite. Comme je l\u2019ai dit auparavant, plut\u00f4t que de rendre l'embauche et la cr\u00e9ation d'emplois plus co\u00fbteuses pour les petites entreprises, il faut r\u00e9duire les imp\u00f4ts autant que possible, all\u00e9ger les formalit\u00e9s administratives et laisser les Canadiens libres de prendre leurs propres d\u00e9cisions concernant la fa\u00e7on dont ils d\u00e9pensent et dont ils \u00e9pargnent leur argent. Je continuerai de lutter pour les vaillants cr\u00e9ateurs d\u2019emplois canadiens.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2016/10/25/alice-wong-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/alice-wong/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4393/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "9185021",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": "Initiatives Minist\u00e9rielles"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Canada Pension Plan",
        "fr": "Le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2016/10/25/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2016%2F10%2F25%2F"
    }
}