Harold Albrecht

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague's comments. However, I was amazed at her selective memory and the things she chose to leave out of her speech.

She failed to mention that this practice that she calls shameful deficit financing actually began under former Prime Minister Trudeau. Certainly, the Conservative government that followed had to continue on to keep the social programs running. Yet, when the Chrétien and Martin years came along, they just cut all of that funding to the social programs. Health received a $25 billion cut.

I have three questions. How can the hon. member refer to paying down almost $40 billion of debt as squandering money? Second, where is the $50 billion surplus that was targeted to employment insurance funds? We do not know where it is. Third, where is the $40 million still not accounted for from the former sponsorship program? I would like answers to those three questions, please.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the long shopping list of items that the member for Yukon would like to have in the bill, but I wonder if he, or anybody in his party, has read anything of the action plan report that just came out.

At the top of page 71, there are improvements to the Freegold Road in Yukon, improvements to the water treatment plant in Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories, and I could go on.

In addition to that, is he aware of the improvements we have made for ordinary Canadians, such as the home renovation tax credit, or the improvements we have made to implement the first-time home buyers' tax credit? All these advances are important for ordinary Canadians across the country.

Could the member tell the House why he and his party intend to vote against these great moves that will help all Canadians across the country?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last part of the member's speech. Maybe I was fortunate in that I was not in the House for the first part.

He talked about the bitter pill that his government needed to swallow in order to balance the budget. What he needs to acknowledge is that bitter pill involved cutting transfers to the provinces and municipalities for health care, education, and many of the things that we on this side feel are essential and we would never take action like that.

However, the question I would have for the member opposite is this. How could he and his entire caucus stand in the House a few days ago, when their leader made a comment that on this side of the House we are trying to starve the beast? On one hand, the Liberals accuse us of spending too much and on the other hand he is suggesting that we are not spending enough to keep government programs operating in terms such as starving the beast. How can he square that circle?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker criticized at length the government for all of the spending we are doing. Yet, less than a week ago, members of his party stood en masse and applauded their leader when he accused this government of starving the beast, in other words, not investing enough in government agencies.

I wonder how, on one hand, the Liberals are accusing us of not spending enough and, on the other hand, are saying that we are spending way too much.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, earlier today you requested that the members of the House reduce the temperature and listen to each other respectfully. We agreed with that.

Here is a member who has used the unparliamentary term “lie”. I respect your judgment, Madam Speaker, but I request that you ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary language. It is clearly unparliamentary and I ask for action.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just a few minutes ago, the hon. member across the way accused every member on this side of the House of a lie. I suggest that is unparliamentary language and I would request that she retract that.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to feel the love between the former coalition partners who actually signed an agreement to work together to manage the economy of this country through a very difficult time.

The former speaker asked us to explain some things. I would like to ask my colleagues across the way to explain the difference between accusing us of spending too much money and taking us into deficit, yet at the same time accusing us of “starving the beast”, as their leader did this morning, or in other words, cutting back on government spending. These two things cannot be put in the same speech and yet they were many times today.

I would like her to respond to that.

[Petitions, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a number of petitions from over 700 people from British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

The petitioners call upon the government to enable prosecution of those who encourage or counsel someone to commit suicide by updating Canadian criminal codes to reflect the new realities of 21st century broadband access and to fund education programs to protect vulnerable youth and help them to protect themselves from online predators.

[Criminal Code, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the House that my main concern with the motion is to address the issue of predators who are taking advantage of vulnerable people, especially youth. I realize suicide has no boundaries in terms of the age, but my main concern with this is to deal with predators who are taking advantage of vulnerable youth.

However, it is my hope that this discussion will open the possibility for further discussion. Too often we are afraid to talk about suicide and because of that, as I said in my speech, it is shrouded in this mystery that nobody wants to open up. If we are open and talk about it, it will in fact create a healthy environment to allow us to move forward to protect life at all stages.

[Criminal Code, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question and for his indication of support for the motion. I am very heartened by that.

I have had the argument put to me that this is already covered in the Criminal Code. I am not a legal expert nor am I a lawyer but I will repeat the question that I asked during my comments. If it is already included in the Criminal Code, why have no charges been laid after 500, 600 days following March 2008 when this crime occurred? To the best of my knowledge, up to this point no charges have been laid.

Our youth and the victim's family deserve better than that. Those of us who have close friends who have experienced the trauma of suicide, let alone being counselled over the Internet, just suicide, are left to deal with haunting questions: Why? Could I have done more? What else could I have done? They are left to face that empty chair at family gatherings. I do not think we can afford to ensure we avoid any possible little legal wranglings just to ensure we do not create some potential problem five years down the road. It is important that we act now and act decisively, and that we give a clear message as a deterrent to those who are out there intending to give bad advice to young people that is irreversible. It is unconscionable.