Harold Albrecht

[Canada Pension Plan, November 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the one problem I am having is justifying the fact that even the finance department that the Liberal government looks to for advice is indicating that there will be a reduction in employment of 0.04% to 0.07%, or about 1,000 jobs per year over the next 10 years, for a loss of 10,000 jobs in total to the economy.

When we speak to our constituents, we often hear owners of small businesses say this tax will certainly have a negative impact on their ability to expand, with no opportunity to hire more people, and that in some cases it will lead to layoffs.

Could my colleague comment on the immediate negative impact this measure would have on jobs in Canada?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he is looking forward to improved retirement security for his grandchildren. I, too, have a number of grandchildren. However, how will it be more secure for our grandchildren if, as Dan Kelly said, two-thirds of small firms have to freeze or cut salaries, or even reduce hours or the number of jobs? If our grandchildren do not have jobs, it does not matter what the CPP will be, because there will be no CPP for them without jobs.

Also, the member mentioned once these measures are fully in place, but he failed to address the fact it will be 40 years from now. How can we really believe that these measures will help current retirees when they clearly will not be implemented for a full 40 years?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one of the comments my colleague made was that his party is concerned about the future of young people and jobs and all that sort of thing. However, it is clear that increasing CPP premiums would actually reduce the number of jobs that are available. We have heard from many small business owners that they will not be able to expand their workforce. They will not be able to make that new hire. In fact, they may actually end up laying off some of their current employees. I fail to understand how we can square that circle of increasing CPP premiums, reducing jobs, and making it better for young people.

Dan Kelly, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said this:

Two thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to a CPP/QPP hike.

How can this member actually believe that increasing CPP premiums will increase the number of jobs available for the young people who are graduating from the high schools he just mentioned?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this summer I had the privilege of meeting a lady who is doing the financial work for a number of different companies in her area. She said very clearly that if the CPP increase goes through, a number of her companies would actually be forced to lay off workers, let alone hire new ones.

My colleague gives the impression that this change in CPP would somehow eliminate poverty. I want to quote a book by the chief actuary of Morneau Shepell, co-authored by the finance minister.

Whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty. The poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get. Yes, a little over five per cent of seniors today still have income below the poverty line.

Going back to the first comment I made, when companies are forced to lay off workers, or when companies that would like to expand and hire more workers are not able to do that, in the end we will have fewer people working. How is it beneficial if a very few people get access to a small increase in CPP but hundreds of others are actually laid off or are out of job?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his initiative in planting trees. I, too, have had the privilege of planting well over 1,700 trees on my property, and I think it is one example that every Canadian could follow. We could each do our little part. We do not have to have government do everything.

As we listened to the witnesses on Bill C-40, the predecessor of the bill before us, it was clear from farmers and experts, and from the CEO of Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle, who clearly said in testimony that we cannot include the concept of ecological integrity in the bill.

Is my colleague suggesting that we cannot trust our Parks Canada experts and officials when they make a very clear, unequivocal recommendation to the committee, or is he simply acknowledging that this is paying back the political loan to the Ontario Liberals?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I commented yesterday, the whole term “ecological integrity” includes this supporting processes concept. That concept means that we leave alone the engines that make the ecosystems work, like fire and flooding. If we let fires burn and flooding go unchecked in an urban area, which have the potential to wreak havoc in residential areas and create incredible risks for our urban neighbours, it is clear that we cannot have this term “ecological integrity”.

I want to be clear. All of us in this room, I am sure, are eager to work as closely as we can to that target of ecological integrity. However, if we simply put those words in the bill, with ecological integrity's current definition, they would just be nice-sounding words. They would have no impact, as they have no meaning. We will work toward ecological integrity, but to have that wording as a definition in an actual bill this Parliament passes would be disingenuous.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the environment committee.

At the end of my remarks yesterday, I clearly identified the amendment I would like to see in Bill C-18. It is very simple. It is to remove the concept of ecological integrity from the bill. Our farmers who work in the park and use sustainable agricultural practices are not using till. Their impact on the environment is minimal. In fact, they are a benefit to our urban dwellers. We can think of the ecological goods and services our farmers are producing, including the oxygen from the cover crops they plant and the clean water from the wetlands that are preserved, and all of those things.

As I said in my comments yesterday, our farmers are some of the best environmentalists in the country. This is a way to recognize them, acknowledge the work they do on our behalf, and give urban dwellers in the GTA the opportunity to see a national park right on their doorstep without their having to drive for hours and hours or fly out west.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be an expert on national parks, but we did hear from Alan Latourelle, who was the CEO of Parks Canada for 13 years. Mr. Latourelle was very clear that, yes, for the majority of national parks the term “ecological integrity” is included, but we are not faced with the same set of circumstances in them. We are not faced with urban neighbours or highways and power lines going through those parks.

What is really disappointing to me is to think that here we have the opportunity. The Conservative government took advantage of the opportunity and implemented the Rouge National Urban Park right next door to the GTA. Children might not otherwise ever get the chance to visit a national park. They are basically at the end of the transit line and could visit the park. They could feel and touch and learn.

To think that we would have farmers in the park using sustainable agriculture to provide produce, fresh fruits and vegetables, which in some cases children and families could go there together to pick, what a fantastic opportunity for urban dwellers it would be to be exposed to a rural landscape.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I began my remarks yesterday, I referred to the fact that the Liberal Party in a previous Parliament was against adopting the legislation on Rouge National Park primarily because the Ontario Liberal government was unwilling to transfer land to the park. In fact, the provincial Liberal government demanded $100 million to append a section of the park to the Rouge National Urban Park. According to the provincial government, this was not its main concern but the fact we had not included ecological integrity in the definition of the park. It seems clear that that was simply a political cover so it would not be embarrassed about not including this section of the park in the boundaries we defined.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that my entire speech was a highlight. I will try to keep my remarks short.

Last term when the Conservatives were in government, we had the honour and the privilege of establishing Rouge National Urban Park. I had the privilege of serving as the chair of the environment committee during that time and heard many witnesses give their presentations and voice their concerns. The groups that spoke most clearly to these issues were the environmental groups that clearly wanted to preserve the Rouge National Urban Park while at the same time combining sustainable farming activities.

The one big issue we are facing with respect to this legislation brought forward by the Liberals is that they want to add the term “ecological integrity” to the definition of this urban national park. It is impossible to have the term “ecological integrity” included in the definition of an urban park. Residences are located right next to this park, farms are in the park, and power lines go through the park.

Ecological integrity would demand that the park rangers and so on let nature take its course. For example, if a forest fire were to break out in the urban park, they would need to let that fire burn. If a flood occurred as a result of beavers damming up a stream or river, they would need to let that flood occur. Those kinds of activities and experiences in a park so close to its urban neighbours would be disastrous for the park.