Harold Albrecht

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased to hear the member indicate his strong support for the initiatives of our Minister of Justice.

I have three short questions for the member.

First, he mentioned deficits. Why did he not take the time to inform the Canadian people that this government paid down $37 billion of our national debt?

Second, in dealing with the current deficit and financial situation, would he recommend that we offload this problem onto the provinces and municipalities, or should we as the House of Commons take responsibility for doing that?

Third, could he name one G7 country that is better off in terms of their debt-to-GDP ratio than Canada? If he could just name one, I would be very happy to hear that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague outlining some of the benefits in the Speech from the Throne. I especially noted his comments about the family. I know he is a strong family man and he is very supportive of the universal child care benefit. I have spoken to many people in my riding who are very appreciative of this initiative.

Another thing that was included in the Speech from the Throne relates to many of the community groups in many of our ridings. Every riding has dozens and dozens of volunteer groups but many of them in the past have been somewhat hobbled in their ability to dispense funds and invest the way they would like to in their communities.

I heard from my community a strong appreciation for these initiatives in the Speech from the Throne. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the initiatives that will make it easier for charitable groups in our communities to continue doing the fantastic work that they do.

All of us know that if government needed to assume the responsibilities of these charitable groups, it would never be able to do it. If the member could comment on that I would appreciate it.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am happy we are finally having this discussion because many of my constituents are concerned about the current shortcomings in the Youth Criminal Justice Act . I have met with a number of parents on this issue, both parents of victims and parents of children who are in trouble with the law, and their theme is consistent. They all said that we need earlier action, earlier intervention.

Does the member believe that earlier intervention and meaningful deterrence could have a very positive effect on our long-term rehabilitation efforts? Does she agree that it is easier to rehabilitate a 16-year-old than a 56-year-old?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the way he has outlined the provisions of the bill and for his great leadership on criminal justice issues.

I am appreciative of the way he outlined at the beginning of his speech this morning the prevention aspects, enforcement and rehabilitation. We have many groups in the Waterloo region doing great work in prevention. I have had the privilege of announcing funding for many of these initiatives. We have a great police service in the Waterloo region. I also have had the opportunity to work closely with a number of groups that are doing great rehabilitation work. It is important to highlight that balance.

I have heard from a number of parents in my area who are very concerned about the lack of provisions in the current Youth Criminal Justice Act, especially as it relates to deterrence and the protection of society. I am not hearing from parents of victims. I am hearing from parents of children who themselves have been in trouble with the law and are asking the courts for help, as the minister said, in protecting themselves. It is important that we express it in this legislation and that concern for the safety of the individual who has committed the crime is included.

Could the minister expand a wee bit on the component of the deterrence that is part of this bill, because that part has been missing for far too long?

[The Budget, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s the Liberal Party decided to slash transfers to the provinces for health and education. Now senior Liberals are calling for government to raise taxes on the one hand, but on the other hand they are questioning a plan endorsed by the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell members of the House if our government will take the misguided Liberal approach?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate the motion before us today.

When we formed the government in 2006, our top priority was to stand up for accountability and transparency and to change the way government works. After all, we were elected on the heels of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which still taints the Liberal Party and many of the members on that side of the House to this day. Canadian taxpayers have still not recovered from the more than $50 million that were funnelled by Liberals to their friends, and I have yet to hear the hon. member who moved this motion express even one-tenth of the outrage he claims to feel today.

Like many Canadians, I remember the length and extremes to which members of the party opposite went in defence of their sponsorship entitlements. I am left wondering if the hon. member's outrage and indignation would disappear if only members of his party were still benefiting financially from their entitlements, but they are not, not any more. Tax dollars paid by hard-working Canadians are no longer paying the Liberal Party's Visa bill.

We offered Canadians a choice. The Prime Minister offered Canadians an opportunity to walk away from the politics of partisan self-interest and Liberal entitlement. Canadians elected us on a commitment to a more accountable government. This government and the Prime Minister have delivered.

Our first major achievement was the Federal Accountability Act. This landmark piece of legislation made substantive changes to 45 statutes and amends over 100 others. It delivered on the government's promise to put in place a five year lobbying ban, to eliminate corporate and union donations, and to protect whistleblowers, among many other important reforms.

In everything we do, we are driven to ensure that our activities stand up to the highest level of public scrutiny. This extends to our work on the communications front, including advertising.

What does not stand up to scrutiny is the hypocrisy oozing from the Liberal benches. Listen to this quote: “The public has a fundamental right to know what its government is doing and why, all the time”. Who said that? The member for Wascana, the same member who later boasted that the Liberal government was spending $110 million in 2002-03 to keep Canadians informed of programs, services and initiatives.

What we are seeing is just more evidence that the Liberal Party does not see a difference between tax dollars and Liberal funds. The Liberals spent years defending the illegal transfer of taxpayer dollars to their party, but now they claim outrage at legitimate advertising expenses.

As we all know, the economic action plan is a crucial part of our plan to help Canadians weather the global economic recession. It includes measures to help Canadian businesses and families and to secure Canada's long-term prosperity. I am proud to say that our economic action plan is on track and it is delivering results for Canadians.

Thanks to almost 16,000 projects across Canada, more and more Canadians are back at work, and over 12,000 of those projects have begun or have already been completed.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite engaged in some pretty aggressive finger pointing at the Conservative Party. Repeatedly, throughout her speech, she called for leadership by example.

I have with me here a ten percenter. I am not holding it up; I am just reading from it. It is a ten percenter that went into a riding that was not the riding of the Liberal Party member. On it is a picture of a backpack of one of our Canadian soldiers with a Canadian flag. It says: “We used to wear it with pride”. On the front of it is a Liberal logo prominently displayed. On the back, it refers to turning our backs on the proud Canadian traditions of diplomacy, peacekeeping, human rights and international development.

The current budget has more dollars in it for international development than any previous budget. This is clearly misleading. In terms of the pride with which our men and women in uniform serve our country, I think the record of this government is clear. We stand behind and with our men and women in uniform.

Is this the kind of material that she would refer to as leading by example?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made many times to the issue of the mass mailings of ten percenters. In fact, that is the way the motion is worded. All of us have received ten percenters from other MPs.

Is it being suggested that not only mass mailings be curtailed? When a ten percenter is placed in a franked envelope and mailed first class, that certainly would increase the costs dramatically. Are we going to target those as well? I personally have received mailings from the NDP that were franked with ten percenter material in the envelope, a much higher cost than if we were to simply do a mass mailing.

Could the member respond to that?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I actually had to chuckle a few times during the member's speech because the hypocrisy was overwhelming. His motion refers to reducing government waste. I wonder whether he is able to tell this House and the Canadian people when he expects the $150 million that was diverted to his friends in the Liberal Party will be returned to Canadian taxpayers.

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague comment rather negatively about Canada's economy. I wonder if she is aware that her own leader, in January of this year, said “the good news is that the basic economic fundamentals of Canada are strong”.

Is she also aware of the positive view of Warren Lovely, the CIBC economist, who said:

Simply put, highly rated Canada offers safe harbour in today's global debt storm.

Few advanced economies boast stronger real GDP growth prospects--a view endorsed by our (CIBC's) economics department, a broad cross section of private sector banks, the Bank of Canada, the IMF and...the OECD.

Could the previous speaker mention one country that is better off than Canada from an economic recovery perspective?