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": "2016-11-28 18:10:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood\u2014Transcona, NDP)",
"fr": "M. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood\u2014Transcona, NPD)"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"4665288\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madam Speaker, I want to return to the issue of whether we call this a tax or not.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665289\" data-originallang=\"en\">Part of what Canadians are going to work for is not just wages for today, they also want to retire eventually. Their pension package is part of the wage package. To call the CPP increase a tax increase would be the same as calling their wage a tax. When such a broad definition of taxation is used, it just kind of stops making sense. If every cost incurred by an employer is a tax, that would not make any sense at all.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665290\" data-originallang=\"en\">Canadians are going to work. They want to defer some of their wages in order to be able to take their retirement. This is a sensible way of doing that. I do not think calling it a tax adds anything to this debate. In fact, I think it really obfuscates what Canadians are going to work for. I do not think the debate is moved ahead at all by referring to the CPP increase as a tax, just as debates about wages would not be advanced if we suddenly started calling people's wages \u201ctaxes\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665291\" data-originallang=\"en\">I wonder what the member thinks about that.</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"4665288\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madame la Pr\u00e9sidente, je voudrais revenir sur le fait d\u2019appeler cela une taxe ou pas.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665289\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les Canadiens se rendent au travail non seulement pour gagner un salaire aujourd\u2019hui, mais \u00e9galement parce qu\u2019ils veulent prendre leur retraite \u00e0 un moment donn\u00e9. Leur r\u00e9gime de pension fait partie de leur salaire. Associer la bonification du RPC \u00e0 une hausse de taxe \u00e9quivaudrait \u00e0 appeler leur salaire une taxe. Lorsqu\u2019on \u00e9largit \u00e0 ce point la d\u00e9finition de la taxation, cela devient absurde. Si tous les co\u00fbts d\u2019un employeur sont des taxes, tout perd son sens. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665290\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les Canadiens travaillent et ils veulent reporter une partie de leur salaire afin de pouvoir prendre leur retraite. C\u2019est un moyen sens\u00e9 d\u2019y arriver. Je ne crois pas que le fait de nommer cela une taxe apporte quoi que ce soit au d\u00e9bat. En fait, je crois que cela ne fait que donner une id\u00e9e fallacieuse de la raison pour laquelle les Canadiens travaillent. Je ne crois pas que cela fasse avancer le d\u00e9bat que d\u2019appeler le RPC une taxe, de la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on qu\u2019on n\u2019avancerait \u00e0 rien si on se mettait tout \u00e0 coup \u00e0 d\u00e9signer les salaires sous le nom de \u00ab taxes \u00bb. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4665291\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je me demande ce que le d\u00e9put\u00e9 en pense.</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2016/11/28/daniel-blaikie-2/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/daniel-blaikie/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4407/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "9273104",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Initiatives Minist\u00e9rielles"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Canada Pension Plan",
"fr": "Le r\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada"
},
"h3": {
"en": "Report Stage",
"fr": "\u00c9tape du rapport"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2016/11/28/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2016%2F11%2F28%2F"
}
}