This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2016-11-17 12:10:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)",
"fr": "M. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, PCC)"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"4639465\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the finance committee. It seems like the $50,000 mark mostly is a point of argument that is favourable for him to start by showing that $4,000 increase. To be honest that $4,000 increase, from $12,000 to $16,000, in a four-year term with the inflation rate, is very shy and very short of reach. Therefore, this is not going to benefit. The extra investment will be put in place by employees. By the way, he never mentioned the contribution of employers, which is a significant number. It would be more credible for him to mention that to Canadians so they understand what the employers are going to pay, which is an additional tax and a disadvantage for employers.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4639466\" data-originallang=\"en\">How can the member work the math properly to show Canadians the proper news when they will not see any benefit four years from now and from a financial position, an investment position, that will help Canadians and make sense of an investment? I do not see it. It is not shown\u2014</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"4639465\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je suis heureux de si\u00e9ger au comit\u00e9 des finances avec mon coll\u00e8gue. Il est vrai que, par rapport \u00e0 des gains de 50 000 $, une augmentation des prestations de 4 000 $ semble assez substantielle. Quand on y regarde de pr\u00e8s, toutefois, et qu\u2019on tient compte de l\u2019inflation, on constate que passer de 12 000 \u00e0 16 000 $ en quatre ans, c\u2019est loin d\u2019\u00eatre suffisant. C\u2019est donc un avantage tr\u00e8s limit\u00e9. Le suppl\u00e9ment sera financ\u00e9 par les employ\u00e9s. \u00c0 ce propos, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 n\u2019a pas parl\u00e9 de la contribution des employeurs, qui est pourtant cons\u00e9quente. Il serait plus cr\u00e9dible s\u2019il disait franchement aux Canadiens que les employeurs vont \u00e9coper d\u2019un imp\u00f4t suppl\u00e9mentaire.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4639466\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le d\u00e9put\u00e9 devrait refaire ses calculs et dire franchement aux Canadiens ce qu\u2019il en est, car ils ne vont en recevoir aucun effet b\u00e9n\u00e9fique d\u2019ici quatre ans, et je me demande comment ils vont pouvoir en conclure que c\u2019est un bon investissement. Personnellement, je n'arrive pas \u00e0 cette conclusion. Rien n'indique que...</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2016/11/17/ziad-aboultaif-1/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/ziad-aboultaif/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4208/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "9239649",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Initiatives Minist\u00e9rielles"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Canada Pension Plan",
"fr": "Le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada"
},
"h3": {
"en": "Second Reading",
"fr": "Deuxi\u00e8me lecture"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2016/11/17/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2016%2F11%2F17%2F"
}
}