Harold Albrecht

[Mental Health, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 11 years I have spent much of my time focusing on the issues of mental health and suicide prevention. Motion No. 388, targeting online predators, passed unanimously in November of 2009, and Bill C-300, calling for a federal framework for suicide prevention, received royal assent on December 14, 2012. These are two initiatives I am proud to have championed.

I was encouraged in February of this year to receive a letter from Noah Irvine, an exceptional young man from Guelph, who unfortunately knows this issue all too well. In his letter to all members of Parliament, he challenged us to champion the cause of mental health, and to stand up for Canadians suffering with mental illness. His story of personal loss and his ongoing courage in overcoming these trials are an example to every one of us.

Noah is visiting Ottawa today. It has been my privilege to meet him and sense his ongoing commitment to this important cause. I thank Noah for his message of hope. May he keep up the good work.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question for my hon. colleague, I would like to say on behalf of my colleagues and the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga that we extend our sympathies and condolences to the Chang family, and also to my colleagues on the other side of the House. We certainly share in their grief as we journey through this difficult valley.

I do not think it is a secret that we will be supporting this bill, including the aspects of increasing the safety and security of all Canadians. With the current reality of many individuals crossing our borders at so-called unofficial entry points, I think this question needs to be asked. How would this legislation affect those areas such as Manitoba and Quebec, where we are seeing many immigrants coming into Canada at these unofficial entry points?

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on this point of parliamentary secretaries sitting on committees as ex officio members.

Certainly during our time in government, the parliamentary secretary was there, part of the committee, quarterbacking the work that needed to be done. We know this idea of not having them there officially was tried in 1986 but scrapped in 1991. Thomas Sowell said this:

One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again.

If the government is so intent on having parliamentary secretaries at committee, why not let them sit there as full members to quarterback the work of government, as they really should be doing?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague ran out of time to talk about some of the issues relating to the removal of the protection for clergy and faith groups who join for worship, funerals, or those sorts of ceremonial activities.

Could my colleague comment on the wisdom of removing that section from the Criminal Code?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pointing out that on this side of the House, we have people who really believe in what they stand for, and they are willing to stand up and talk about it. I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like him to expand on section 176. At a time in our world when we see increasing violence, and especially violence directed against religious communities, it seems very unusual that we would remove a section like this from our Criminal Code. What does he think might be the motivation behind removing this section from the code?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want all members of the House and all Canadians to know that Conservatives fully support any changes in this bill that would clarify and strengthen sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code.

The health committee recently conducted a study on the effect of pornography. The health committee heard all kinds of evidence that violent and degrading material can result in harm to our children and violence toward women and girls, yet this evidence was totally omitted from the final report. Because the evidence was omitted, there is also very little in terms of recommendations. In fact, there was a failure to forward meaningful recommendations.

Why would the Liberals talk about strengthening sexual assault provisions on the one hand, yet at the very same time, just a few days ago, reject the evidence and fail to put forward meaningful reports that would protect our children from this kind of material?

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point that the real reason we are here tonight on both Bill C-24 and Bill C-50 is because of miscalculations on the part of the Prime Minister. In the first instance, he promised gender parity in cabinet, and suddenly realized he did not have it. On this piece, he is giving in to his Liberal instincts.

Why is there nothing in Bill C-50 that would address third-party financing? That is the big elephant in the room. Third-party groups have unduly influenced elections, especially the last one. Why is there nothing in Bill C-50 that would address that?

[Salaries Act, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, would you check to see if we have quorum at this point in the deliberations.

[Salaries Act, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague infers that the idea of having ministers of state and ministers was somehow Stephen Harper's idea. This system has been in place for a long time. All Canadians, other than the Liberals, who are now bent on correcting this mistake that the Prime Minister made, recognize the huge difference in workload. It is one thing for members to sit around the cabinet table and give their input, that is great, but there is a lot more to being a minister than sitting at the cabinet table. To manage a department with a deputy minister and a full complement of staff is a huge responsibility.

My colleagues on this side of the House, who have served in both of those capacities, as ministers of state and full ministers, are insulted by this thinking that a junior minister, a minister of state, would now be artificially elevated to this full minister status.

My colleague talks about the great cabinet that Prime Minister Harper had. I want to congratulate him. I would ask my colleague this. Why in the world would the Prime Minister and the Liberal government not have appointed a minister for seniors at this point, almost two years into their mandate?

[Salaries Act, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we have been very much aware of the genesis of this bill. It has been pointed out time and time again that in 2015, when the government was elected, it took great pride in the fact that it had a gender balanced cabinet. Then the Liberals suddenly realized, when somebody pointed out to them, that five of the junior ministers were all women, and there were no men among that group. In a last ditch attempt to correct that, the Prime Minister simply announced that they would all be equal. He forgot that they are not all equal.

They do not have departments, they do not have deputy ministers, they have different salaries, and they have huge differences in their workload. This is simply an attempt to correct a previous mistake that the Prime Minister made in haste. It is unfortunate that Canadians are going to be left on the hook to pay for the Prime Minister's mistake.