Harold Albrecht

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps part of the misunderstanding or misinterpretation here is related to the amount of taxes that are paid currently by non-members. That is primarily a result of the fact, as has been pointed out previously in our debate today, that there are more non-members living in the Tsawwassen area than there are members and also many of these non-members are making larger incomes than many of the members. We feel that is unacceptable. One of the primary reasons that we feel this agreement should be ratified in its current form is to minimize some of the current inequities that occur.

One of the goals of this treaty, in fact probably the primary goal of this treaty, is to reduce first nations reliance on government funding. The Tsawwassen will contribute to the funding of its government from its own sources of revenue. Under this tax sharing arrangement, the first nation can obtain a predictable source of revenue in an efficient and effective way in order to help meet its needs and provide programs and services.

I want to underline that these tax revenues will help to reduce the dependence on federal transfers, thereby contributing to the goals that we all have in this place, which is of self-reliance and shared responsibility for funding self-government.

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-34.

The Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement was negotiated by Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Tsawwassen treaty negotiations began 15 years ago in 1993. Tsawwassen members ratified the final agreement through a community vote, with 70% of eligible members voting in favour. In October 2007, the Province of British Columbia introduced and subsequently passed settlement legislation to ratify the Tsawwassen final agreement.

The majority of the clauses in Bill C-34, which have been proposed for deletion, are fundamental to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. The effect of removing these clauses would render Canada unable to fulfill the commitments it has made in the final agreement. In fact, deleting these clauses would effectively result in Canada not ratifying the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.

Canada negotiated the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement in good faith and we are fully committed to implementing this agreement with all its provisions and commitments. To delete these fundamental clauses of Bill C-34 would be unacceptable, unfair to the parties and to the agreement, and a dishonour to the Crown.

When Tsawwassen chief, Kim Baird, addressed the provincial assembly in November, she said that one of the most important things the Tsawwassen treaty achieved was a new relationship between the Tsawwassen, British Columbia and Canada, that it achieved reconciliation, that true reconciliation signified real action and tangible change and that true reconciliation was the product of this treaty.

I am proud of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement and all Canadians can be proud of this treaty. It represents a positive and tangible step forward in building a new relationship with the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Crown.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to address concerns that have been expressed about the possible impact of tax sharing arrangements on non-member residents of Tsawwassen First Nation lands. No such tax sharing arrangements have been concluded and may not be concluded for many years.

However, the Government of Canada supports the exercise of tax powers by first nations and has a well established policy approach for negotiating tax sharing arrangements with aboriginal governments. About 40 such arrangements have already been concluded under existing legal frameworks, such as the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act enacted by Parliament in 2003.

Such GST and personal income tax arrangements are outside the treaty and would not change the amount of tax that non-member residents of first nation lands would pay, how they pay their taxes or what they receive in the way of federal services or benefits. These tax arrangements will not affect the ability of resident non-members to vote in federal or provincial elections or to make their views known.

The Tsawwassen treaty itself does not give the Tsawwassen First Nation the ability to impose taxes on non-members of the first nation. The first nations tax system only applies to non-Tsawwassen members through government to government agreements outside the treaty. Canada will only answer these arrangements under conditions that would protect non-members' interests, such as full harmonization and coordination with the corresponding federal tax.

There would be no additional tax burden on non-members. GST and income tax would continue to apply in exactly the same way as enacted by Parliament in federal tax legislation, using the same rates, the same rules and the same Canada Revenue Agency forms, administration and recourse processes.

Based on delegated, discretionary and terminable tax arrangements, Parliament retains ongoing political accountability for the application of the tax to non-members and for its decision to share tax room. Under these circumstances, these arrangements do respect the principle of representation.

Tax sharing arrangements would also include mechanisms to contain the amount of forgone federal revenue where, for example, non-members of the first nations account for a significant proportion of the first nation tax base. For instance, if such a tax arrangement were in place now, the Department of Finance estimates that about 40% of the total personal income tax derived from all residents of Tsawwassen lands would be shared with Tsawwassen and Canada would retain 60%.

Finally, I would stress that these taxes would apply equally to members of the Tsawwassen First Nation. The Tsawwassen treaty will end the existing Indian Act tax exemption following an agreed upon transition period. It, therefore, encourages the first nation to exercise its tax powers. These taxes would generate revenues that would help to fund the first nation's programs and services. They would contribute to the shared responsibility for funding self-government and reduce dependence on federal transfers. They would also encourage greater accountability between the first nation and its citizens and thereby promote better governance.

It is clear that it is important that Parliament pass Bill C-34 in the form in which it was ratified by Tsawwassen members and by the British Columbia legislature.

[Taxation, June 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal leader schemes at ways to raise the tax bills of Canadians, from a regressive GST tax to a punitive carbon tax, our Conservative government is implementing unprecedented measures to reduce the federal tax burden. We have cut taxes in every way. We kept our promise and cut the GST by a full two points. We reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. In total, our nearly $200 billion in tax cuts means more Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please advise the House on the date of tax freedom day in 2008?

[The Environment, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as more details are being leaked about the Leader of the Opposition's proposed carbon tax and the great lengths the Liberals are using weasel words to conceal the real nature of this tax from the public, it is clear the party is trying to trick Canadians into paying a permanent new tax.

As I have stated before on the floor of the House of Commons, citizens of my riding in Kitchener—Conestoga depend on driving for their livelihood. Whether it is the farmer operating a tractor, the long haul truck driver, the small business owner or the daily commuter, without question, this proposed tax will eat away at their standard of living.

Canadians are not naive. They will not be fooled by Liberal word games and phony green packaging. The public has caught on to the Leader of the Opposition's real tax shifting plans. This permanent new punitive tax will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of gas, electricity and everything else Canadians buy.

This is a tax the Leader of the Opposition previously said was bad policy and would oppose. Now he is flip-flopping. With this new Liberal tax trick, Canadians can be certain that their taxes will shift in one direction only: way up.

[Health, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, under the former Liberal government, Canadians were sent mixed messages about drug use. While the Liberals sure talked a good game, they did little to nothing to help people get off drugs.

This week, the Minister of Health announced that the government would appeal the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court to allow Insite to continue operating. Reports are now surfacing that the same advocates for the Vancouver site are pushing for similar facilities in major cities like Toronto.

Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House the government's position on Liberal and NDP initiatives to open drug injection sites all across the country?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the House was dealing with a number of key pieces of legislation that would directly affect the lives of aboriginal people in Canada.

The bill on matrimonial real property on reserve is about correcting an obvious inequality and protecting the vulnerable in the event of a marriage breakdown. We are also dealing with the bill on our government's commitment to extend the same human rights protections to first nations on reserve, which all other Canadians enjoy.

Would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development update the House on the progress of these and other legislative initiatives that would improve the lives of aboriginal people in Canada?

[Income Tax Act, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to resume my comments on Bill C-445. As I indicated earlier, we do not support this proposal as it is fundamentally flawed.

First and foremost, the largest issue with Bill C-445 is the exorbitant cost which would be fiscally irresponsible and threaten Canada's fiscal health.

A key pillar of Canada's pension system is tax deferred retirement savings, including registered pension plans and RRSPs. These plans provide Canadians with incentives to save for retirement and help bridge the gap between public pension benefits and retirement income goals.

I believe we all acknowledge that the best way to ensure that promised pension benefits are secure is healthy plans with good supervision. At the federal level, pension plans are regulated under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, or PBSA, and are supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The superintendent's mandate is to protect the rights and interests of plan beneficiaries. Moreover, the PBSA sets requirements related to the funding and administration of pension plans.

For example, it requires that plan assets be kept separate from those of the plan sponsor. In the case of defined benefit plans, actuarial valuations of the plan's liabilities must be regularly conducted. If there is a funding deficiency, the sponsor is required to remit to the pension fund, over a certain period of time, amounts by which the estimated liabilities exceed plan assets.

It also provides that contributions owing but not yet remitted to the pension plan are subject to a deemed trust. This means that these amounts are considered separate from the employer's estate in bankruptcy proceedings. Recent changes to federal bankruptcy legislation granted a super priority to employer and employee contributions not yet remitted.

In addition, after widespread consultations on benefit security and the viability of defined benefit pension plans under federal regulation, our Conservative government has brought forward measures to ensure Canada's regulatory framework continues to be responsive to the needs and circumstances of pension plan sponsors.

In budget 2006, we provided funding relief for federally regulated defined benefit pension plans by introducing several temporary measures. These included: allowing solvency payment schedules to be consolidated in order to smooth solvency payment obligations; extending the period of making solvency funding payments to 10 years from 5 years, subject to a condition of buy-in by plan members and retirees; and, extending the solvency funding payment period to 10 years through the use of letters of credit.

Such changes will help re-establish funding for federally regulated defined benefit pension plans in an orderly fashion, while providing safeguards for promised pension benefits. What is more, we will continue to work to ensure the retirement income system is responsive to the needs of workers, pensioners and seniors in a way that is consistent with sound pension and tax policy principles.

Regrettably, the proposal currently being debated would not support the basic objectives of the pension and retirement saving system nor the tax system.

Bill C-445 recommends a government backed guarantee for pension benefits through the introduction of a refundable tax credit for pension income shortfalls, a proposal that would not be good pension or economic policy and would not be fair to the taxpayers of this country.

To begin, such a guarantee could provide a disincentive for employers to properly manage their pension plans to control financing risks. The fact that plan sponsors would not be required to contribute anything whatsoever to cover the cost of the refundable credit would exacerbate this affect.

Providing any kind of guarantee or compensation for pension benefits, whether through the tax system or otherwise, is potentially costly for taxpayers. In addition, it raises issues of fairness given the costs would be borne by all taxpayers while benefiting only a minority of those participating in pension plans.

As well, Bill C-445 would place on the federal government the responsibility for providing compensation in respect of all, and I underline all, pension plans that reduce pension benefits. Placing such an onus on the federal government for such compensation, which is estimated to be in the vicinity of $10 billion dollars, would not be justified.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to briefly touch on some of the measures our Conservative government has taken to support seniors, specifically through the tax system. I am speaking of measures like passing legislation that will allow, for the very first time in Canadian history, pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners, a significant major change that will benefit seniors.

As Jamie Golombek, a well known taxation and estate planning specialist recently declared, “Pension splitting is probably one of the biggest tax changes in decades, in terms of the amount of tax savings this can mean for pensioners”.

We have done much more, though. We are fully exempting the first $3,500, up from the current maximum exemption of $500 of earned income from the guaranteed income supplement calculation, to extend further benefits to seniors. We are giving older workers the choice to stay in the labour market by permitting phased retirement. We are increasing the age limit to 71 for converting an RRSP to strengthen incentives for older Canadians to work and save.

We are doubling the amount of pension income eligible for the pension income credit. This measure alone will benefit nearly 2.7 million pensioners. We are enhancing the flexibility to withdraw funds from life income funds, also known as locked in pensions, to ensure that holders of such funds have the necessary flexibility to manage their retirement savings according to their own circumstances.

Measures like these I have mentioned are just part of the reasons that seniors and seniors' organizations right across Canada have applauded our Conservative government's initiatives like our recent federal budget, a budget which the former Canadian Association of Retired Persons commended, “for listening to many of its recommendations over the years and taking steps in the right direction”.

The Federal Superannuates National Association, a major organization representing 155,000 federal pension members, also welcomed budget 2008 because it addressed “a number of concerns of seniors. FSNA is particularly supportive of the 2008 budget measures aimed at low-income seniors”.

To recap, I urge members not to support Bill C-445. It would not be the best way to promote the security of pension benefits. Rather it would create undesirable economic incentives for pension plan sponsors and be an improper use of the tax system, not to mention costly and unfair in its application.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that I have the honour of working with this member on the aboriginal affairs committee. I applaud her efforts to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians. I know that she herself has a very incredible story of perseverance and of dedication, not only to her people but to the country of Canada.

I want to thank her as well for clarifying her understanding of the tension between collective rights and individual rights. I think we probably will never totally and completely have exactly the same basis of understanding. I appreciate her attempts to clarify that.

I am wondering if she could expand a little on her support for the clause 1.2 amendment, which adds the words “to the extent that they are consistent with the principle of gender equality”. I think this possibly gets to the heart of some of our concerns in terms of collective versus individual rights.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it has been clear, through my time in Parliament and my time serving on the committee for aboriginal affairs and northern development, that all members of our committee share the same commitment to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians.

We may differ, as my hon. colleague commented in her former speech regarding the Tsawwassen claims. We may differ in our approaches as to how to achieve that, but there is no question in my mind that all members on all sides of the House are committed to bringing this improvement to the lives of aboriginal people.

It is important that we, as the government, take leadership of this so people are not discriminated against unfairly, for example, if a person is discriminated against on the basis of gender, or race or any of the other 10 or 12 things that are included as the basis for complaint against human rights enactment. It is important we have the tools in place so people in first nations communities have the same rights that other Canadians have enjoyed ever since the act was implemented.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to recognize that at the heart of the bill is a desire to see the lives of aboriginal Canadians improved.

As I pointed out in my statement, section 67 has been with us for over 30 years. It was introduced, at that time, to be a temporary measure so it would not conflict with the Indian Act. Over the course of this government's time in government, we have taken a number of steps to improve that.

The basic answer to the question is the way it currently exists in clause 1.1, it is a very broad description of the kinds of things that could lead to dispute. For example, in clause 1.1, as it is currently written, before the amendment, it talks about other rights and freedoms, including any rights or freedoms recognized under customary laws or traditions of first nations people of Canada. Right now, parliamentarians, courts, the Human Rights Tribunal itself would be unable speculate as to what those other rights might be. Therefore, it is important that we tighten that up to define what those other rights are.