Harold Albrecht

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the government's motion to amend clause 1.1 of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, standing in the name of the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians.

As hon. members will know, Bill C-21 proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in the process, eliminate a source of injustice that has existed for more than three decades.

The repeal of section 67 has been a cornerstone of this government's aboriginal agenda throughout its mandate. Our government first committed to the repeal of section 67 as part of our electoral platform. In December 2006, Bill C-44, the precursor to Bill C-21, was introduced. Although Bill C-44 died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September 14, 2007, our government committed to its reintroduction in the Speech from the Throne delivered on October 16, 2007.

In November 2007, Bill C-21, identical to former Bill C-44, was reinstated. There is ample evidence of strong support among key stakeholders for the repeal of section 67. In the 17 committee hearings devoted to Bill C-44 of the previous session, testimony came from dozens of witnesses, chiefs, members of band councils, representatives of national and regional aboriginal groups, legal specialists and public servants. Although these men and women came from remarkably diverse backgrounds and represented a broad variety of interests, the support for the repeal of section 67 was virtually unanimous.

While this government took a clear and unambiguous approach to the repeal of section 67, on February 4, 2008 the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development reported Bill C-21 to the House of Commons with several amendments. They included the addition of a broad non-derogation clause, clause 1.1, and an interpretive clause, clause 1.2.

Other proposed amendments included: a new requirement for the Government of Canada to undertake with organizations representing first nations a study to address the fiscal capacity and resource requirements of first nations associated with the repeal of section 67; a change to the review of the effects of the repeal within five years so it could be conducted by the Government of Canada working with organizations representing first nations rather than a parliamentary committee; and finally, an extension of the transition period for the application of the repeal to first nations to 36 months, rather than the 6 months originally proposed by government. These amendments do not affect the immediate application of the repeal of section 67 to the federal government upon royal assent.

This government's preference remains a clear approach to the repeal of section 67. However, in light of committee testimony in which most, if not all, groups expressed concern about how the repeal will be implemented and called and for a further extension of the transition period, the government will support all of the committee's amendments, with the exception of clauses 1.1 and 1.2, the subject matter of today's debate.

Clause 1.1 is a very broad non-derogation clause. As hon. members will know, a non-derogation clause is a statutory provision that indicates the statute is not to derogate or abrogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In our view, such a clause is unnecessary given that the Constitution takes precedence over all other federal laws. Previous governments have supported the inclusion of a non-derogation clause which clauses are currently found in several federal statutes. Clause 1.1, however, is much broader than any of those existing clauses.

Given the broad and unprecedented nature of clause 1.1, our view is that it has the potential to reintroduce some of the sheltering of discrimination provided by section 67.

In fact, in its most recent report entitled “Still a Matter of Rights”, in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission reiterated its call for the repeal of section 67, the commission indicated concern that clause 1.1 could “have the unintended consequence of shielding first nations, in whole or in part, from legitimate equality claims, thus reinstituting section 67 in another form”.

It would be illogical for the opposition, who, on principle, favour repeal of section 67, to intentionally support the inclusion of a provision that would have the unintended effect of sheltering discrimination. As a result, we cannot support clause 1.1, as adopted by the standing committee.

Therefore, notwithstanding our concern for non-derogation clauses, generally, we propose to replace clause 1.1 with the non-derogation language most recently used in existing statutes, namely, the same that was added to the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act.

Regarding Motion No. 2, clause 1.2, our government shares the view that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied in a manner that is sensitive to particular circumstances of first nations communities. However, the fact is that it is difficult to find fail-proof language that would address all of the competing considerations for handling a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint in such a context.

This was the basis for our decision not to include an interpretive provision in Bill C-21. We have always maintained that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is the expert in administrating the Canadian Human Rights Act, is best placed to develop an interpretive provision jointly with first nations outside of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This could be done by way of guidelines, a directive, or regulations, which would be binding on the commission.

In spite of these concerns, the committee chose to insert an interpretive clause in the bill. We recognize that many witnesses called for such a clause, so we are willing to accept this provision.

However, as with clause 1.1., we have concerns with the broad language of the interpretive clause adopted by the committee and the potential for discrimination to be sheltered. We are particularly concerned that women might inadvertently be discriminated against as a result of this clause.

Therefore, we are proposing to include a provision to ensure the principle of gender equality applies to this clause. Such an amendment would be in keeping with the 2000 Canadian Human Rights Act review panel report, which noted, specifically, that an interpretive provision should not justify discrimination on the basis of sex or condone other forms of discrimination.

As well, the previous government's last attempt to repeal section 67 included an interpretive clause with a similar provision related to gender equality.

The government is committed to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians and to the repeal of section 67. We are committed to creating, for the first time since the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted 30 years ago, a right of complaint for first nations in relation to the Indian Act.

Therefore, I urge members to vote in favour of these necessary motions.

[Government Procurement, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, our government demonstrated our commitment to accountability by introducing the Federal Accountability Act as the first piece of legislation tabled in the House.

This legislation includes provisions, like the creation of the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, to bring more accountability and transparency to the procurement process.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services give the House an update on the status of the Procurement Ombudsman and how this office will give small and medium business continued confidence in the federal procurement process?