Harold Albrecht

[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?

[Kitchener Rangers, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of the best junior hockey team in Canada, if not the world. Sure, the world may not know it yet, but I look to the future, and let me assure everyone, the future is blue.

The Kitchener Rangers are the hosts of this year's Memorial Cup. Starting tomorrow, four teams will gather in the best city in Canada, and we in Kitchener will host them with pride and with the proper dash of humility.

Because 10 days later, three of those teams will return home with a sense of accomplishment for having represented themselves well, but only one team will have the right to hoist the Memorial Cup, and I think we all know, the Rangers it shall be.

From the glory days of Paul Coffey, Al MacInnis and Scott Stevens to the future of Justin Azevedo, Matt Halischuk or Mike Duco, look out, Canada, the Rangers are coming.

It is time for Canada to recognize in hockey what it has long recognized in politics: it is time to go blue all the way.

Go, Rangers, go.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member as he articulated his view of what happened with respect to the bill. He used the term “unilateral process”. I remind him and all members of the House that 109 different consultation sessions were held with aboriginal groups, a total of 135 consultation days in 64 different locations across Canada.

He went on to say that 12 members of committee should not be making the decision as we engage in this consultation process. I have three questions for the member.

First, is he aware that his party's critic for Indian affairs stated unequivocally that the Liberals did not consider the committee process part of the consultation process?

Second, would he envision another 109 or more sessions of consultation before committee?

Third, how long is he willing to have this important initiative held up? First nations people have been waiting for this for years. It is my opinion and the opinion of members on this side of the House that we cannot afford to unduly hold up this bill.

I would like an answer to those three questions please.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the great work of my colleague in the NDP and her commitment to improving the lives of aboriginal people across Canada. I had the privilege of serving with her on that committee, and I do not second guess her commitment.

The member did mention, however, that some groups opposed the process or the bill itself. She said “people spoke up strongly against the bill”.

I point out that this same occurrence is true of many other bills, in fact, probably every bill that comes before committee. There will always be those, who in spite of overwhelming broad based support, will not necessarily support the specifics of the bill.

As it relates to Bill C-47, the fact is clear that there was extensive consultation and collaboration. There were 109 consultation sessions with aboriginal groups and 135 consultation days at 64 different locations across Canada. No, not every group or individual sees this as a perfect bill, but it is clearly a step in the right direction.

I have two questions.

First, how would my colleague define adequate consultation and how long would she be willing to extend this consultation process and continue to slow down the final implementation?

Second, will she reiterate her support today for Bill C-47 at second reading so it can go to committee, be studied, have possible amendments and finally be implemented in the interests of all aboriginal people?

[Gasoline Prices, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley West, in supporting a carbon tax, says we cannot fight climate change and have cheap gas. That is easy to say for someone who had the good fortune to attend both Upper Canada College and Oxford University, someone who worked as the editor of the Financial Post, and served in the federal cabinet. But this demonstrates just how elitist and out of touch the Liberal Party has become.

The Liberal Party may believe that high gas prices are a good thing, but they eat away at the standard of living of ordinary Canadians: the trucker, the farmer, the commuter, the small business owner, all of whom depend on driving for their livelihood.

Many rural residents in my riding depend on buses to transport their children to and from school daily. Without question, this proposed Liberal tax will impact even education costs. It is an insult that the party of privilege would support a sweeping and regressive tax that would disproportionately negatively impact ordinary Canadians.

Shame.

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps once you hear the beginning of my speech, you will want to extend the time to allow me to get in my entire speech.

Bill C-445, which is sponsored by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, is a proposal for a refundable tax credit to deal with shortfalls in pension income. From the onset, I will state that we do not support this proposal as it is fundamentally flawed.

First and foremost, the largest issue with Bill C-445 is cost, which the Department of Finance estimated to be approximately $10 billion. Clearly, supporting a proposal with a cost of this magnitude would be fiscally irresponsible and it would threaten Canada's fiscal health.

Furthermore, the proposal also raises serious issues with respect to pension and tax policy and ignores the present state of Canada's retirement income system. Bill C-445 touches on a matter of importance to all workers, the security of their pensions.

This government recognizes that the security of workers' pension benefits is a key element in ensuring the effectiveness of Canada's retirement income system. It has been recognized that Canada has a diversified retirement income system based on a mix of public and private pensions. The old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs, along with the Canada and Quebec pension plans, are considered to be the pillars of that system, ensuring a minimum level of income in retirement for Canadian seniors.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern that I raised yesterday in the report stage debate in the sense that too often when we debate these kinds of issues here in the House it becomes very polarized. Again today we heard the statement about a wholesale change to biofuels.

The government is not proposing a wholesale change to biofuel. We are talking about a very minimal biofuel content in our fuel. We also recognize that only about 5% of our land is used to produce crops that will be used for biofuel.

Does my hon. colleague think that, as our minister pointed out not too long ago, the weather pattern changes can actually have a greater impact than just the 5% of land use that is used for ethanol production?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, aboriginal Canadians are starting to see real results and measurable improvements in their quality of life.

For the first time ever, there is an Indian residential schools settlement agreement. For the first time ever, the Prime Minister will apologize to former students of residential schools. For the first time ever, there are tripartite agreements with provinces to improve education. For the first time ever, a government is moving to protect women and children on reserve when a relationship goes bad. For the first time ever, our government is moving to deliver real human rights on reserve. We are not into aspirational documents. We want the real thing. For the first time ever, specific claims are going to be resolved fairly and quickly for aboriginal people and all Canadians. For the first time ever, there is real action to clean up the drinking water.

Thanks to our Conservative government, we are making real improvements in the lives of aboriginal people. No more promises in a news release. This is the real deal.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. It never ceases to amaze me how he can tie any particular subject that happens to be on his mind to bills under discussion.

That being said, the member did urge us to move quickly on this bill to get it in place, and that is good.

One of his main concerns was about the traceability of goods coming into Canada. As he knows, this bill proposes a requirement that suppliers keep documentation on the source and destination of the consumer product. My question is very simple. This has not been part of the regimen for over 40 years. Why did his government not take action in the past 15 years to address this glaring loophole, which should have been addressed long ago?