Harold Albrecht

[Taxation, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our party stands alone in its commitment to keep taxes down.

In 2007, this government made the decision to lower taxes on job creators. Thanks to our government, Canada's corporate tax rate today stands at 16.5%.

At the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's general meeting, one of my constituents asked the Liberal leader about the party's current position on job-killing tax hikes. The Liberal leader said, “We've got corporate tax in Canada at 18%”.

My constituent gave the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. The Liberals do not understand agriculture. They do not understand business. The opposition has made job-killing tax hikes the centrepiece of their vision for Canada.

Farmers deserve to know if the Liberals are deceiving them on purpose, or whether the Liberal Party, as has been speculated, just does not get agriculture or business.

Agriculture is a business that does not need to be taxed to death.

[Conestoga College, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, from investing in knowledge infrastructure to credits for tools for tradespeople, we are helping Canadians achieve their potential.

I often praise the University of Waterloo, and why not? UW hosts Canada's pre-eminent school of engineering and is the MIT of the north.

However, in the senior design competition at the 2011 Ontario engineering competition, it was not UW that took home top honours. It was Conestoga College. That is right. My constituent Ian Hillier of Petersburg, with Jamie Hobson, David Timmerman and Brian Montgomery-Wilson, won out over teams from universities and colleges across Ontario, including the University of Waterloo.

Our government invested to expand and improve Conestoga's engineering facilities. How long then will it be until UW stops calling itself the “MIT of the North” and instead uses the more prestigious phrase, “Conestoga College of Universities”?

I ask members of the House, especially the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, to join me in congratulating Conestoga College and its students for this honour.

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that my colleague has an incredible background in the legal profession. He has an amazing amount of empathy which was so obvious throughout his speech. He was talking about the victims of crime and the emotional costs, the non-material costs that come along with crime.

I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of families of victims of crime in my riding. It is incredible to try to understand the pain and the emotional suffering they go through, not just themselves but their extended families.

My colleague indicated that the families are not looking for vengeance. They are simply looking for an increased amount of safety for themselves and their families.

Are there costs? Yes, but the people whom I spoke to in my riding are more than willing to pay the costs for increased safety in our community when they consider the emotional costs to the families and to the victims of crime.

Has my hon. colleague found that same kind of response in his community from people who have been victims of crime? He does not have to give any specifics, just general comments.

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and a bit of amusement, I must admit, especially when the previous speaker commented on the prudent fiscal management and the $13 billion surplus that her government amassed. However, she forgot to tell Canadians how the Liberals did that. They did it by cutting $25 billion out of health care and education. I still have municipal people to this day in my area who are still feeling the effects of those cuts that they had to absorb.

Neither did the member say anything about the $52 billion in the EI fund that somehow got lost in the general revenue fund. How can she call that prudent fiscal management? While she is at it, could she just tell the House where that $40 million is, because it would really help a lot with me believing her about fiscal management?

[Human Rights Situation in Iran, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I, too, would like to add my words of congratulations to the minister on her recent appointment as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, with specific responsibilities for the Americas and also for Consular Services.

There is no question that all of us in the House are disturbed by the suppressing opposition of the protests that are happening in Iran, the activists who are being arrested, the government's increased crackdown on minorities and opposition groups, Iran's use of intimidation and violence to suppress dissent, and its unjust detention of human rights defenders.

Our responsibility here in this House is certainly to address these situations, and we need to be concerned about all of those in Iran who are suffering, but I think our primary concern as Canadian parliamentarians needs to be the well-being of our Canadian citizens.

I would just like the minister to expand perhaps on her comments earlier regarding Canadians of dual citizenship who are being detained in spite of the lack of due process that was followed in their arrest and detention. Certainly it is important that our government speaks up on their behalf, and I know our minister is working hard in terms of the consular services she is offering them, but I would just like her to expand a bit on her comments about the services that the government it providing to Canadians of dual citizenship who are being unjustly detained in Iran.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I accept that question in the spirit in which it was asked.

On this side of the House we are very concerned about a balanced justice system, one that, yes, does consider preventive measures. We have invested millions of dollars on prevention schemes, such as drug prevention programs, and so on.

We also are very concerned about rehabilitation. To say that keeping someone in prison is a harsh message of punishment I think misses the point. All along our members have been arguing that what we are asking for is protection for victims and potential victims. There is a huge difference between punishment and simply keeping that potential offender away from the possibility of reoffending.

Personally, I am all for forgiveness and as an individual, I can do that. However, these people have a debt to pay to society, in terms of not being reintroduced to society until, as the material suggests, they have given evidence that they want to change and that they are actually participating in a rehabilitation program to ensure that kind of change occurs.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that whenever colleagues across the way are opposed to some action, they will always find a reason to throw up obstacle after obstacle.

In this debate, we need to get to the heart of what we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to reintroduce a measure of accountability and responsibility on the part of those who have been sentenced. Before individuals automatically become eligible for parole, they will have to show some evidence that the right has been earned. There has to be some evidence of an offender's participation in a rehabilitative program, evidence that he or she has the actual desire for change so when released, he or she will not simply re-enter society and perhaps victimize others.

We agree that white-collar crime is not a violent crime in the sense that there is physical injury. However, one cannot argue that when seniors lose their life savings to one of these people it is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to stand up and protect those victims. The best way to protect them is to not allow that person out so they can continue their schemes.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate today and to support the motion before us. I am splitting my time with the member for Brant.

I listened with great interest to the comments of several of our hon. members and I appreciate this opportunity to set the record straight on a number of fronts. Some of our colleagues today suggest that the motion before us is somehow not in the best interest of a free and open debate. The implication is that our government is not listening to Canadians, that we are just moving forward without time to hear what people are telling us.

That is patently false. Canadians have spoken loud and clear since our government was first elected, and our government is listening. Canadians have told us that they want us to take action to keep our streets and our communities safe. Our government has delivered on our commitment to build safer communities in a number of different ways.

Canadians have told us that they want us to work together to get tough on crime. Again, our government has listened and we have introduced and passed a wide range of bills to deliver on our commitment to get tough on crime.

Canadians have told us that they want a justice system that will work the way it should. Again, our government is taking action to ensure that it does. That includes keeping dangerous offenders behind bars, not releasing them into the streets automatically before they are ready. That is why we have introduced new laws to end early parole for offences of murder and to prevent potentially dangerous offenders from serving their sentences in their homes.

Previously, there was a practice for offenders to be granted extra credit for the length of their sentences for time they had served before or during their trial. That was not acceptable to many Canadians, and our government is listening. That is why we have delivered legislation that limits credit for time served in pre-sentence custody.

We have also introduced legislation to tackle property crime, including the serious of crimes of auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime. I am proud to note that our government has passed legislation to help reform the pardon system. In particular, we have ensured that the Parole Board of Canada has the discretion it needs to determine whether granting a pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In addition, our government has passed legislation to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry and the National DNA Data Bank so all sex offenders are registered. After all, our government has taken significant action that achieves results in tackling crime in our communities, and we will continue to do more.

We are doing more because that is what Canadians have told us they need. They want a government that listens. Our government has. They want a government that takes decisive action. Our government has done just that, and that is what we are doing again today.

We have heard for several years that many Canadians want to do away with the current system of accelerated parole review. We have heard it from victims of crime and other white-collar crimes, many of whom have seen their entire life savings disappear in the blink of an eye. Many Canadians are outraged that fraudsters, con artists and swindlers can be reviewed for parole after serving just one-sixth of their sentence. Many Canadians ask why offenders should be treated differently from others just because they use a balance sheet rather than a gun as a weapon.

Canadians want answers. They want us to listen and, most of all, they want us to take action today. They do not want us to take action next year. They do not want us to delay taking action. The truth is all of us know what needs to be done. Canadians want results, and, again, our government is listening and taking action. Bill C-59 is all about that. It is about standing up for victims, and that includes victims of white-collar crimes and fraud.

Today, someone who commits fraud, in other words, someone who preys on hard-working, law-abiding Canadians and perhaps swindles their life savings from them is treated differently from other offenders. These offenders receive what sounds like a stiff sentence, but the sentence does not always reflect the amount of time an offender will actually spend in prison.

Today, a white-collar criminal might receive a sentence of 12 years, or perhaps in some cases more, but the reality is many are released on parole before other offenders who might receive a similar sentence.

Unlike other offenders who are generally eligible for day parole six months before full parole, white-collar or non-violent criminals can be free just after a few months in some cases. The general rule of thumb is they can access a process called accelerated parole review after serving one-sixth of their sentence and full parole after one-third of their sentence.

What makes the review process expedited is that these accelerated parole reviews are accomplished through a paper review by the National Parole Board of Canada, whereas regular parole reviews are normally done by way of a hearing in person. The test for accelerated parole review is also lower.

The National Parole Board of Canada only has to have reasonable grounds to believe that the offender will not commit a violent offence, whereas with other offenders the test is whether the person is an undue risk to commit any type of crime upon release.

The bottom line is that the parole board, when dealing with these cases, has limited discretion. The test is whether someone is going to commit a violent offence.

Even if the parole board believes someone will commit another fraud, the board is still compelled to release that individual under supervision at one-sixth of the sentence. That means in many cases people who are convicted of crimes that have had devastating effects on the lives and livelihood of Canadians often spend very little in prison.

The end result is that offenders convicted of white-collar crimes are often released under supervision after a few months. Fraudsters are given lengthy sentences, but these sentences do not result in much time spent in prison.

No wonder Canadians' faith in the justice and corrections system is shaken. No wonder they want change. That is what our government is doing today.

Bill C-59 would abolish accelerated parole review and repeal sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that govern the accelerated parole review regime.

It will mean that offenders who commit non-violent or white-collar crimes are put on the same footing as other offenders. They will be eligible for regular day parole review six months prior to full parole eligibility and full parole review after serving one-third their sentence.

Rather than being subject to a paper review, they will be subject to an in-person hearing. The test as to whether he or she should be released will be whether that individual presents an unmanageable risk of committing another crime.

The changes which our government is proposing will mean that Canadians can have faith that offenders convicted of white-collar crimes will not escape full accountability for their actions. These changes will mean that Canadians can have faith that their voices are being heard and that our government is taking action to deliver on our commitments.

I am therefore very proud to support the motion before us today so all of us can ensure that Bill C-59 receives the expeditious passage for which Canadians have called.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in the earlier part of his speech, the previous speaker said something about differentiating between major crimes and minor crimes and not putting people who are so-called guilty of minor crimes in prison with the people who commit major crimes.

Does the member not consider people who lose their entire life savings to be victims of a very major crime?

[Public Safety, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced legislation to amend the Aeronautics Act to ensure that Canadians can continue to travel over U.S. airspace.

Similar amendments were brought in under the previous Liberal government. Yet now the Liberals and their coalition partners are threatening to kill Bill C-42.

Could the minister remind the House why this straightforward technical amendment is needed?