Harold Albrecht

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that we have the support of the Bloc in principle on the nature of this bill. I think one of the primary obligations we have as parliamentarians is to ensure that the products Canadians buy are safe.

I want to point out that the overwhelming majority of the suppliers in this country do take seriously their responsibility and obligation to provide Canadians with safe products. However, we do know that some recent high profile cases have caused some concern about the safety of the products that are available on the market.

However, the problem is that this regime we are currently seeking to amend has been in place for over 40 years. It is time that it gets modernized and takes into account, not only the punitive approaches, but the preventive approaches that this bill encompasses. It also proposes requirements for suppliers to keep documentation on the source and destination of their consumer products. This is to aid in the tracing of the product should a recall or other measure be necessary. I agree with my colleague that it is inconceivable this was not already part of the system, that we should have been able to trace it.

I am a fairly recently elected member here having only been here about two years. How often in the past 15 years did the member and his party pressure the previous government to change this and bring it up to modern standards? Why does he think it took a Conservative government to finally take decisive action on this to ensure the safety of the products that Canadians purchase?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, as she articulated some of her concerns regarding the biofuel initiatives.

One of the unfortunate things that too often happens in the House and at committees is we tend to polarize this issue. Some of the comments my colleague made indicated that polarization, for example, using phrases like “wholesale switching to biofuels”. The government is not recommending wholesale switching. It is a very measured response. It is an environmentally friendly response.

The biofuel initiatives of the government would reduce greenhouse gases by over four megatonnes per year. That is the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. That is responsible environmental leadership.

On the issue of cellulosics and using wood chips, is the member aware that the government has invested $500 million in the future of biofuels like cellulosics, which can turn wood chips and garbage into fuel?