Harold Albrecht

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I certainly applaud the initiatives of the budget and specifically of Bill C-52.

The tax cuts for families are very well received in my riding. The improved financial security from the measures for seniors, such as pension splitting and RRSP regulation changes, is also very important.

However, I want to refer specifically to a comment that she made in regard to the investment of $50 million for research and development to the Perimeter Institute.

I have had the privilege of visiting the Perimeter Institute and the Institute for Quantum Computing. I want to confirm that she said if Bill C-52 is not passed that $50 million could be in jeopardy, because if that is true, there are many residents of the KW area who will be very concerned. In fact, this would impact the future research capabilities of this great institution.

[Tourism Week, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating Tourism Week.

Tourism is very important not just to the good people of Kitchener—Conestoga but to all regions of Canada. Whether people are visiting the Elmira maple syrup festival or Oktoberfest, the CN tower or the Queen Charlotte Islands, tourism creates hundreds of thousands of jobs all across Canada.

Of course, tourism is also one of the leading ways to help educate Canadians about our rich heritage and culture.

The benefits of tourism are obvious, which is why I am thrilled that Canada's government is investing $75 million in marketing Canada's exciting tourism opportunities through the Canadian Tourism Commission.

This money will fund tourism marketing and research and investments in national parks, historic sites and museums, as well as tourism related infrastructure.

Canada's government is now dedicating time and energy to ensuring that Canada's tourism industry grows and prospers. A vibrant and competitive tourism industry benefits all Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for the aims of the child first approach in responding to the needs of first nations children. There can be no doubt that the various levels and agencies of government are struggling with many issues, including cross-jurisdictional issues, when it comes to the health and safety of at risk first nations children.

Let me add that I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan to improve the lot of first nations communities and individuals all across Canada. I have the privilege of serving with her on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Jordan's principle proposes a direct approach to ensuring that first nations children get the care they need. By putting the needs of children first, it advances a straightforward solution which should ensure that services are delivered in a timely fashion.

For these reasons, I am keen to endorse this private member's motion and the principle it espouses.

However, despite my enthusiasm about a child first principle, I recognize that there are some limitations to our ability to adopt this motion immediately.

Jordan's principle is about results, not processes. It is not a solution to the problems surrounding the delivery of services to at risk first nations children. It does, however, provide invaluable guidance about the nature of that solution.

Acknowledging Jordan's principle and starting to work on cross-jurisdictional solutions is the first step toward resolving these issues. However, the principle does not address the root causes, and only by resolving these underlying problems can we arrive at a sustainable solution.

This government believes that the only way to resolve many aboriginal issues is to address root causes, whether jurisdictional or legislative. Since taking office, the government has adopted this approach on several key issues such as unsafe drinking water in first nations communities and poor educational outcomes in on reserve schools.

Although the issues are radically different, the same critical factor stands in the way of an immediate solution. Policies and programs in these areas, as well as child and family services, require structural reform so we can ensure that we are meeting the needs of first nations communities and families.

In a nutshell, child and family services fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada pays for the delivery of child and family services to first nations on reserve. In many cases, the services are delivered by first nations agencies pursuant to agreements negotiated with the provinces. In other cases, provincial and territorial agencies deliver these services.

Given this complexity, it should come as no surprise that the quality and availability of first nations child and family services vary widely across Canada. Despite the best efforts of the talented and dedicated men and women who provide and administer services, the system sometimes exacerbates the difficulties of children such as Jordan, the three year old boy, now deceased, who inspires the principle at the heart of the motion under debate.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has directed his officials to work with their provincial, territorial and first nations counterparts to improve the systems currently in place. I am glad to say that we are beginning to see some improvement.

Late last month, the Government of Canada, the province of Alberta and Alberta first nations established an historic partnership. This partnership establishes a new foundation for first nations child and family services in the province. There is every reason to believe that this new approach to child welfare will provide a lasting solution.

In essence, this partnership validates a project launched by the province of Alberta more than six years ago. The project aimed to improve the province's child welfare system by implementing something called the Alberta response model.

This model involves a major shift in emphasis for child and family services. Rather than focus on crisis intervention, this model emphasizes prevention and collaboration. The idea is to get professionals, administrators and families working together to prevent a crisis.

Since the province of Alberta adopted the model, the number of child interventions in the communities served by the province has dropped significantly, by some 22%. This included seven first nations communities in which the interventions decreased by 10%. By way of comparison, the number of child interventions in first nations communities not under this model increased by 4% during that same period. Under the agreement reached last month, the Alberta response model will be implemented by all first nations child and family services in Alberta.

This government is confident that the Alberta response model will lead to better results for first nations children over the long term. We have invested $15.3 million to implement this new approach over the next year.

The government has also taken decisive action to make constructive changes to the existing framework and other areas to better support first nations children and families. For example, late last year a bill that transformed on reserve education in British Columbia earned the unanimous approval of this House. First nations in that province are now able to design and implement appropriate curricula, set relevant standards and engage residents of their communities in the vital work of educating children. There is no doubt that this legislation will lead to improved outcomes for first nations students in British Columbia.

The government is determined to improve the quality of life experienced by all first nations in Canada. By taking careful stock of our existing programs and services and implementing structural or legislative change where necessary, we will make measurable progress.

I endorse the motion introduce by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, with the note of caution that we are unlikely to resolve the jurisdictional issues merely by saying so. We do want, however, to send a message that this is the direction we want to move in and move in that direction as quickly as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. He said that the committee acted in a responsible manner as its members dealt with this bill in committee. The previous speaker from the Liberal Party said they gave it their best effort. I am sure this is the expectation that all of our constituents have of us as parliamentarians.

However, instead of improving this bill, those members actually gutted it of many of the important elements relating to the preservation of the health of Canadians. We all know that air pollutants cause undue hardship for thousands of Canadians. In fact, the David Suzuki Foundation agrees. It states there is strong evidence that:

Air pollution is the most harmful environmental problem in Canada in terms of human health effects, causing thousands of deaths, millions of cases of illness, billions of dollars in health care expenses, and tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.

Given the seriousness of air pollution, why would the members allow these key elements to slip away from the bill?

For example, through the opposition amendments, we have lost mandatory national air quality standards. As well, we have lost mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards. We have lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants. We have lost tougher enforcement rules for compliance.

Why did the members allow these important elements to slip away from the bill?

[Science and Technology, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Waterloo I had the privilege of attending an announcement made by the Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Prime Minister made an announcement regarding enhancing our science and technology assets and expertise. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please explain how this program will improve Canada's standard of living and build a stronger economy for the future?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government is proudly moving forward with human rights protection for first nations citizens through Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, while the government is looking to rectify this long-standing inequity, the opposition parties continue to dither and delay.

How much longer do first nations citizens need to live without the protections that are taken for granted by all other Canadians?

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs please highlight the importance of the bill now before the committee?

[Democratic Reform, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a commitment to eliminate the undue influence of wealthy individuals and to restore accountability in government. To accomplish this we passed the Federal Accountability Act.

However, the Liberal Party of Canada managed to find a way around the rules again allowing big money to influence the political process. The result is the leader of the Liberal Party and the deputy leader and other Liberal leadership candidates indebted themselves to wealthy individuals to the tune of over $3 million.

Could the Minister for Democratic Reform inform the House what he is doing to correct this unacceptable situation?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. At one point she accused us of a petty partisan agenda. I can assure the member that in my riding people of all political stripes are asking us to take action on the matter of criminal offences in Canada. For a long time, people have been aware that the system is out of balance in terms of taking into account the victims' needs.

She also commented that the violent crime rate has dropped by 13%. That may be true or it may not be true. My question is this: if in her riding the murder rate was 100 per year and then dropped to 87, would that be acceptable? Would the rate of sexual offences dropping to 87 still be acceptable?

Is it not true that we still have an obligation to deal with an unacceptably high incidence of these kinds of situations where young people are being exploited and sexual offences continue to occur? We are talking about this happening after three convictions, not just accusations. I think it is time for us to act. Canadians are asking us to act. I would appreciate the member's response.

[Democratic Reform, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate backed off on its delay tactics and finally allowed the bill fixing dates for elections to become law. However, the Liberal dominated Senate is still stalling on the bill to limit senators' terms to eight years.

Today we learned that the Liberal senators are looking for a new obstruction tactic and are actually considering sending the bill to court to keep themselves from ever passing the bill.

The Liberal leader said months ago that he would get his senators to pass this bill. What happened?

Would the Minister for Democratic Reform comment on the Liberal senators' defiance of their leader and on the future of this bill?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous speaker's comments. One of the statements he made is that this government has shown a blatant disregard for aboriginal people. I find that ironic coming from a member of the Liberal government that was in power for 13 years and could have addressed many of these issues.

I want the member to know that I requested to serve on the aboriginal affairs committee out of a desire to see improvement in the lives of all of our aboriginal peoples. How can the member indicate that we have a blatant disregard for aboriginal people considering the number of initiatives that the minister has already implemented?

There is the home ownership concept where aboriginal people will begin to build their own equity and have a sense of pride in ownership and investment, and the initiative to reduce the number of high risk communities. Recently, we received a report that showed that the number of high risk contaminated water communities has been reduced from 197 to 93 in the space of one year. There is the initiative to implement Bill C-44 which will end 30 years of discrimination on reserve.

There are these and many others I could outline indicating our support for aboriginal peoples. How can the member honestly say to the Canadian people that this government has shown a blatant disregard for aboriginal peoples?