Harold Albrecht

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. I am sure he has heard, as many of us in this chamber have, from many constituents over these past number of weeks about their concerns regarding the Canada Post situation.

I want to read excerpts from some of the ones that I have received.

This first one points out to me, right in the first sentence, that he did not vote Conservative, he voted NDP. However, he goes on to say, “This greediness for money and job security has to stop. No agency or organization in this day and age has job security and better pensions, while many organizations are cutting back on their pensions and laying off staff because they cannot make ends meet”.

Another constituent writes, “I am contacting you as a small business owner who is going to be greatly affected by the postal strike. We distribute across North America and when the strike is countrywide, our shipping costs will increase by more than half. Depending on how long this strike goes on, it would cripple us”.

One final one states, “The current postal strike has ended my livelihood. I run a small mail order business. This strike must be doing much damage to our economy. I urge you to put pressure on the government in caucus meetings, et cetera, to bring this strike to a close”.

The member says we should continue negotiations. How long are we willing to just let this situation slide before we take action to preserve jobs and to preserve businesses in this country?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his election to the House.

As members are aware, our government is embarking on a three-pronged approach: the military involvement to stop the regime and to hold it accountable, the diplomatic efforts working with the National Transition Council to find a way forward for the Libyan people, and the humanitarian aid piece of the project.

Could the member comment on the announcement made earlier today by the Minister of International Cooperation regarding the assistance to the Red Cross and, in particular, the program to deal with gender-based violence?

[Betty Albrecht, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my thanks to the citizens of Kitchener—Conestoga for once again entrusting me with the privilege of serving as their representative and for entrusting our party with a stable, national, majority Conservative government.

As members know, on election night my wife, Betty, collapsed to pass away days later. Since then literally thousands of Canadians have reached out, offering prayers, compassion and solace. I thank them.

I thank my colleagues in this House for their support. While this House is sometimes known for a lack of decorum and civility, that image is a stark contrast to the genuine warmth and affection I have felt from my colleagues from all parties through these difficult days.

Betty and I were united as a team in all of our endeavours and Betty was my constant source of encouragement. I thank God for Betty's love and for giving us 39 joyous years of marriage, three fantastic children, Gavin, Benj and Arja, their spouses, and my nine grandchildren of whom I could not be more proud.

They share not only in my sorrow but also in the gratitude I extend to all members today.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, all of us in the House would like to do far more for seniors, especially those who helped build this country and who gave us many of the benefits we currently enjoy. However, the reality is that there has been no adjustment to the GIS for something like 25 years. When the previous Liberal government was in power, it could have changed that. We have at least started to address some of the major shortfalls in this area.

Of course, we want to continue to expand on that. Many of the other initiatives we took in the past to support seniors were welcomed. When I go door to door, it is seniors who embrace the changes this Conservative government has initiated over its past terms. Pension income splitting has been a very popular way to help seniors address this issue.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on being elected to the House. I know he will immensely enjoy representing his riding.

I want to point out that the Conservative government believes we need a balanced approach to crime prevention. We agree with, and have supported enthusiastically, many of the crime prevention programs. We have invested heavily in the anti-drug strategy and many other crime prevention programs. I personally have worked with groups in my riding that are active and successful in crime prevention programs.

However, we cannot simply put everything into that arm, the prevention program, without recognizing that we also need to protect victims. When a person who has committed a criminal offence is kept in prison long enough to be rehabilitated in order to protect those in the community, it is important that we support those kinds of initiatives as well.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin today by thanking the citizens of Kitchener—Conestoga for returning me to Parliament to work on their behalf and by congratulating all members of this House on their election to this chamber.

A special word of thanks to all of those who helped me return to Parliament, my family, children, grandchildren, my campaign team, John, Linda, David, Scott, Beverly, Doug, and many others, and also my EDA board, my president especially.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of hundreds of volunteers who made it possible for me to enjoy this great honour and privilege of serving here in the House of Commons.

I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the ongoing work between the campaigns of my constituency and Ottawa staff. Certainly, on a day-to-day basis the issues they deal with make it possible for me to represent the area and to address many of the issues that the constituents bring to my office for help.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

I rise today to speak in support of budget 2011, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I am pleased to note that this budget is very similar to that one tabled on March 22, a budget which the opposition parties chose not to debate in favour of forcing an unnecessary election.

The citizens expressed their contempt with the opposition action through their ballots. I return to this House not only as part of a majority government but with the strongest mandate I have ever enjoyed in three elections. I understand where the voters were coming from. I understand what motivated them. They told me at the doors. I met thousands of them over the five weeks of the campaign.

Canadians are concerned about the economy. They worry about their jobs, the ability of their children to find that first job while saddled with debt, the ability of their parents to access the health care they need, and where their mortgage or rent payment will come from.

When the voters were given a choice between a low tax plan for jobs and growth on one hand and continuing the political games of the opposition on the other, Canadians voted for the leadership that brought them seven straight quarters of economic growth, more than half a million net new jobs since July 2009, and the strongest fiscal position among the world's advanced economies.

Members on this side of the House ran on our government's record. We ran on the budget that we proposed on March 22. That budget promised to support job creation through a variety of means, all contained in this budget as well, extending the capital cost allowance, improving the programs that help employers return their skilled workers, renewing programs to help the unemployed, making it easier for small businesses to hire and grow, and support for young entrepreneurs.

In Waterloo region, we heard praise for the March 22 budget. Feridun Hamdullahpur, president of the University of Waterloo, noted that our future prosperity was dependent on innovation and research. Our universities will be on the edge of that, thanks to that same budget.

That budget promised to support families and communities, as does this budget tabled yesterday, through an enhancement of the GIS, tax credits to support children's art programs, volunteer firefighters and family caregivers.

The support for volunteer firefighters is crucial. Many times these are the frontline responders to the emergencies that occur in our communities. I believe they deserve the honour and respect of all of us here in this House and indeed of all Canadians.

There was also support for family caregivers, so that families like the Simpson family in the region of Waterloo, whose son suffers from cerebral palsy and will require care for his entire life, can make ends meet more easily.

When the opposition rejected its chance to debate that budget in March, it missed an opportunity, but thanks to the wisdom of Canadians, it has been given a second chance to offer criticism and amendments, and to adopt a budget that will see Canada maintain its economic leadership on the world stage.

Before I move to the substance of why I believe what is contained in this budget is the best possible course for Canada's economy, I would like to digress for just a moment to discuss what was not contained in this budget and nor was it contained in the throne speech which we heard last week.

As I mentioned, this most recent campaign was my third election. Through each of these campaigns, honourable opponents from some other parties told the voters there was a reason to be afraid of the Conservative Party and afraid of a Conservative majority. My constituents were told most recently that a Conservative majority would veer from the good governance and prudent stewardship we have offered Canadians to instead pursue some secret agenda.

Through three campaigns now, our party has defended itself from similar charges, charges that if we were given a majority, Canada and Canadians would be somehow harmed by nefarious actions our party would undertake. These were the accusations.

A stable, national Conservative majority government now governs this great country, but contrary to the predictions of the doomsayers, this government is delivering exactly what we said it would: a low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

Contrary to the fear-mongering to which Canadians were exposed, this budget demonstrates that this government will deliver on the promises it makes to Canadians. It will continue to focus on creating jobs now and fostering long-term growth going forward.

Canadians saw past the doomsaying. They saw one party fighting the recession and an official opposition fighting the recovery. Canadians saw where our focus was and returned us to government with a decisive majority. That previous official opposition, meanwhile, was found wanting by Canadians and was reduced to third-party status for the first time in its history. More than four in five Canadians voted against the Liberals' self-interested policies. More than 80% of Canadians voted against those policies.

Canadians now enjoy a majority government and a new loyal opposition as well. I extend my congratulations to the member for Toronto—Danforth on his party's success. While I disagree with many of the official opposition's policies, I do not question its belief that it acts in Canada's best interests rather than its own.

However, I digress.

On March 22 the proposed budget, just like the one tabled yesterday by our finance minister, provided a clear path to improving Canadians' lives today while positioning us for future stability and growth. Once again this budget is receiving praise in the Waterloo region. The Greater Kitchener-Waterloo Chamber of Commerce was particularly happy to see our government follow through on a hiring credit for small business to apply against their EI premiums.

The senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, said, “We think that a lot of the provisions are going to help some small firms come out of the recession a bit better than they would have otherwise”.

I know it is easy for us to dismiss the endorsement of business groups. However, I am sure members of the third party will recognize the names of former Liberal candidates who have also praised this budget. Carl Zehr, chair of the big cities caucuses of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and Berry Vrbanovic, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' new president, were both grateful that this government follows through on its commitments.

This government will make the gas transfer permanent. This government will work with municipalities on a long-term infrastructure program that Mayor Zehr notes includes traditional roads, bridges, water, infrastructure and other community needs.

It is true that the document tabled yesterday is not identical to the budget proposed on March 22. By forcing an election, the opposition parties gave this government an opportunity to seek new mandates. Our platform committed to end political subsidies.

Our region's daily paper, the Waterloo Region Record, today stated as clearly as possible the case for stopping this political welfare. It says, “The best argument for the change is that political parties should have no automatic right to financial backing from taxpayers”.

Our platform also committed to returning Canada to surplus a year earlier than forecast. Deficit spending will end in 2014, and we are committed to finding the savings needed to achieve this goal.

We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Liberal government. Canadians have turned the page and are ready to close the book on that party. We will protect transfer payments for health care and education, but we will return this country to surplus. According to the chamber of commerce, budget 2011 will secure the fiscal flexibility that is crucial to our long-term competitiveness.

Finally, I heard the leader of the third party refer to this budget somewhat derisively as a “déjà-vu budget”. It may be that Canadians elected us to provide exactly that: a low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election to this House and on his speech.

However, it never ceases to amaze me how he can ignore the facts, and there are a number of facts that he ignored in his speech. One fact is that more than 70% of Canadians voted against his party, so he cannot presume to represent them today. Another fact is the 540,000 net new jobs. He refers to them as part-time, low wage, low sector but he has obviously failed to read the budget. On page 30, it is very clear that 85% are full-time jobs and 90% of them are in the high-wage industries.

Why would my colleague oppose a budget that has many of the initiatives within it that will help to create new jobs, high-paying jobs, such as the extension of the capital cost allowance that will allow businesses to invest in innovation and new technology which will make them more efficient and, therefore, create jobs for Canadians?

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Toronto Centre for his speech and on his re-election to the House. However, I note that, as I look across the House, my colleague has moved considerably to the right.

My colleague indicated in his speech that public policy should be driven by facts. However, it was ironic to me to notice that during his speech he ignored a number of facts. He ignored that more than 80% of Canadians voted against his party. He ignored the 540,000 net new jobs that have been created. He also ignored that on May 2, Canadians chose to elect a national, stable, majority Conservative government.

How can my colleague oppose a budget that has measures, such as providing this hiring credit for small business to encourage hiring? How can he ignore the work-sharing program extension that the budget includes and g the support for the manufacturing and processing sector that is here? All of these measures are key and crucial to increasing job creation. Not only will that increase the ability of families to provide for their needs, but it increases the sense of self-esteem and purpose that is so necessary in our society.

I would like his response as to why he opposes those great measures that are in this budget.

[Business of Supply, March 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks and I want to remind the House and Canadians about the process that was followed.

Mr. Speaker, you referred this issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. You said it was a prima facie breach of privilege, which means on the surface it appeared there was a breach of privilege.

I had the honour and privilege of sitting on that committee during a constituency week when members should have been back in their ridings. We listened to some great input in committee. We heard from Mel Cappe, a number of ministers, and many other witnesses during the two days of hearings, and then a third day for another matter.

The problem is that the decisions of that committee, which should have been made after the input was received, were made long before the committee ever met. At the end, the committee was presented with the demands of the coalition opposition, one of which was that there would be a maximum of two pages in the report, two days of hearings and two pages in the report. It is unbelievable.

What is worse, the coalition demanded that there be no summary of evidence presented at the meetings to the House of Commons. We can talk about democracy and the contempt of parliamentary process, but I would ask my hon. colleague this question. If we do not provide information on the process that the procedure and House affairs committee went through for three days here in Ottawa, is it not a contempt of the parliamentary privilege of the members of the House?

[Committees of the House, March 23rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is a true travesty that we are spending this time dealing with this motion today.

Last week was a constituency week when members of Parliament should have been in their ridings hearing from their constituents who sent them here to represent them, but instead there was a motion that required the procedure and House affairs committee to spend three days on hearings. During that time, we heard from multiple witnesses. Three ministers of the Crown appeared. With less than a day's notice, two of them appeared for a second time to answer the questions that were asked of them by committee members. Many other witnesses appeared. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in convening our procedure and House affairs committee last week.

At the end of those hearings, that opposition member and his coalition partners presented a motion to the committee. I want members to listen carefully to the motion, which read, “that they would not allow any summary of evidence to be presented in that report”, after two full days of hearings and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get those witnesses here, as well as all of the required material that was prepared for it. At the end of that time, they had the audacity to ask that no summary of evidence be included in, what they said could be a maximum, two-page report.

How can the member stand here and defend democracy when, at the end of a two-day hearing, he actually asked that no summary of evidence be included in the record? Then, because the opposition members had the majority, they could pass any motion they wanted to pass. Of course they would pass the motion. How can that be called democracy?