Harold Albrecht

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. It is with their interests in mind that I speak in opposition to the government motion that does not help the middle class. Instead, it raises taxes on Canadians and makes it harder for my constituents to save their hard-earned money.

What we are debating today in the House is a fundamental difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. On this side of the House, we know that ordinary Canadians are best positioned to determine how their money is saved and spent. On this side of the House, we believe the government should be making it easier for Canadians to adequately prepare for their own retirement.

The Conservative Party supports both immediate and long-term, broad-based tax relief. Reducing personal income taxes is a priority for the Conservative Party because it increases take-home pay and raises the living standards of all Canadians. It leaves more money in their pockets and less in the government's, where far too often it is not used efficiently by governments of all stripes.

Over the past 10 years, our Conservative government cut the GST from 7% to 5%. We cut taxes for small business. We created the tax-free savings account, which is now being clawed back. We introduced pension income splitting and the family tax cut. Indeed, since 2006, our Conservative government reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. We cut taxes over 180 times. As of 2015, our tax relief is saving a typical family of four up to $6,600 per year. I am proud of that record. I have been approached in my riding by parents who were very grateful for the reduced tax burden, which lets them now meet the financial needs of their families.

However, what I cannot be proud of is the current Liberal government's failed election promise of a revenue-neutral tax cut to what it has determined to be the middle class and restricting the ways that Canadians can save for that special project, or for their retirement.

These two measures will not help middle-class Canadians, and they are election promises that should be abandoned, as the Liberal government has already done on many of its other election promises.

First is the creation of the middle-class tax cut. It sounds great: a tax cut for the middle class. The Liberals' election promise was that this tax cut would be revenue-neutral. We know that this was never true, and it was not until after the election that the current Minister of Finance realized it. This means bigger deficits with no end in sight and higher taxes in the future to pay for this failed election promise. It is money going to pay interest that could be invested in health care, palliative care, and mental health care services.

Let us look at exactly who would be benefiting from this so-called tax cut.

David Macdonald, who is a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, analyzed this so-called middle-class tax cut. The reality is that for those Canadians making between $48,000 to $52,000 a year, the average saving would be $51 a year. That is less than a dollar a week. For Canadians making from $62,000 to $78,000, it would be $117 in savings per year. He classifies what comes as the next level as the upper middle class. Those making $124,000 to $166,000 would gain $521 a year. Then from $166,000 to $211,000, it would be a gain of $813.

As incomes rise, the larger the break from government taxes. Is this really the Liberal message? I am sure all Canadians would like to have a few extra dollars in their pockets, but it seems quite clear that those who the Liberal government consider the middle class are receiving far less from this tax cut than those of us serving as members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

It is very clear that this modification to the income tax rate change the Liberals are championing is not a significant tax cut at all, but it also comes with a very high price tag in deficit financing. The policies of the government will be economically destructive for Canada. These destructive economic policies will create a huge burden for our children, our grandchildren, and, indeed, our great-grandchildren.

This small tax break is not enough to stimulate our economy. Nor will throwing money at the middle class stimulate growth. It does not help create jobs. We have not seen anything from the government that will help with innovation, allowing companies to expand, or anything that will help create jobs for Canadians.

However, we know that creating jobs is not a top priority of the Liberal government. Since forming government, the Liberal Party has spent and promised billions of dollars outside of Canada, spent time here in the House repealing laws that increase union transparency, but have not created a single job here in Canada.

While in government, we on this side of the House took our jobs seriously and knew what it took to create jobs, to return to balanced budgets, and create a fairer tax system. In our 10 years as government, we eliminated the deficit while continuing to enhance the integrity and fairness of the tax system while refusing to raise taxes. These are the measures the government should be taking, not an expensive tax cut that benefits members of Parliament here in the House more than middle-class Canadians.

Second is the clawing back of the tax-free savings account. A few days after the throne speech, my office received a phone call from a senior who asked for my help to do everything possible to ensure that the Liberal government did not reduce the limit she could contribute to her primary source of savings. This woman, by the way, was not someone with a large income.

Contrary to what the Liberal government would like Canadians to believe, TFSAs have been a very effective tool for all Canadians, both young and old. Members should not take my word for it, as experts in the business community recognize the value of the higher contribution limit for the TFSA. In fact, one chief actuary from a well-respect HR firm said, “I think it is really quite a positive move for the retirement security in general”. Who said that? It was the chief actuary of the Toronto-based HR firm Morneau Shepell. I would encourage our Minister of Finance to perhaps talk to his former colleagues about the benefits of the TFSA and the increase in contribution limits for all families.

In response to this, the Liberal government will claim that only the top 1% of income earners in Canada benefit from TFSAs and that their plan to increase the mandatory CPP contribution limit is better for Canadians. However, 60% of those who max out their TFSA contributions make under $60,000 per year. Let me repeat that for my colleagues here in the House: 60% of Canadians who utilized the maximum amount they can contribute to their TFSA make less than $60,000 a year. It goes without saying that these are not the top 1% of income earners in Canada.

I would return to my initial point on the differences between our two parties. On this side of the House, we trust Canadians with their own money. We realize that it is our job to create ways that which Canadians can save for their own retirement and make it economically beneficial for them to do so. The Liberals, on the other hand, have decided that they know what is best and that Canadians have no say in how their money is invested for their retirement.

I would humbly ask on behalf of my constituents that the Liberal government abandon its ill-conceived plan and instead introduce real measures that would lower taxes on the middle class and not claw back the TFSA contribution limit. Let Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets where it will be invested wisely and spent judiciously in ways that spur our economy. We do not need more debt and more interest payments.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society recently issued a report that shed some very discouraging light on the state of palliative care in Canada. However, instead of dealing with this sad fact first as its number one priority, the Liberal government seems to be focusing all its efforts on physician-assisted suicide.

Why is the Liberal government working so hard on a plan to allow living people to die, rather than helping dying people to live?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think we see clearly the difference between the three parties in the House. Unfortunately, my biggest disagreement is with the party that my colleague represents.

If there ever were a fight in which we ought to defend vulnerable and innocent people, if there ever were a fight where we needed to be involved, this is it.

As I said in my remarks, I had the privilege of visiting Juno Beach for the 65th anniversary of D-Day. I will never forget how the people of France, to this day, are grateful that we did not have a government that stood on the sidelines and hoped to just cut off money supplies, but was actually willing to send men and women into the field to protect innocent people.

When the veterans stood from their wheelchairs and took a few steps across a little gravel pathway to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, children of parents who had been there on D-Day would run in, pick up a stone that had touched the sole of the foot of one of our soldiers, and take it as a memento. They are so grateful for what our men and women in uniform did back then.

I am convinced that 20 or 50 years from now, if we do the right thing, we will be able to stand tall and be thankful that our men and women stood in support, not only of our troops here at home, but in support of men and women who are vulnerable and innocent and are being treated in unbelievable ways.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question, but I was very clear in my remarks that if we were voting on simply expanding the humanitarian, security, and intelligence aspects of the mission, on this side of the House, I am confident that we would have unanimous support for that kind of motion.

However, there is no rationale for removing the CF-18s, and if there is, we have not heard it. We have been here a week debating the motion, and not one Liberal member has been able to explain how removing the CF-18s out of theatre enhances our ability to degrade and destroy ISIL.

We do not question the aspect of increasing our forces on the ground, but why, at a time when we are increasing the number of Canadian men and women on the ground, would we subject them to the potential of having no overhead protection?

We know the challenges of communications. We saw it here on October 22 with the different security forces in the House. Communicating between different security forces at a time of emergency like this is challenging. Therefore, there is no question in my mind that our men and women on the ground would be much safer if they had the cover of our CF-18s flying overhead.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for and am forever thankful to the men and women who have served, who are serving, and who will serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am glad to extend that respect and gratitude to many of my colleagues who have served in uniform and now serve here in this chamber.

While I personally do not have military experience, I rise in the House today on behalf of the constituents who placed their trust in me to share their views and to advocate for their expectations of the government.

I was glad to hear that the current government would follow the precedent set out by our Conservative government by allowing a fulsome debate on the mission at hand and to hold a vote in Parliament. However, I was extremely disappointed by the lack of transparency and accountability that the current government has shown by bringing our CF-18s home and parking them before this debate is finished and before we have even hold a vote. Surely the government knows better than to try to deliberately mislead Canadians and parliamentarians, or at least so I had hoped.

My constituents, and indeed all Canadians, deserve better from the Prime Minister. What has not been made clear on the government side is why the Liberal government has unilaterally, in opposition to the vast majority of Canadians, decided to pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS.

In response to my remarks, the Liberal government will say that the Conservative Party does not understand that we are part of a coalition. We absolutely do understand that we are part of a coalition. The difference on this side of the House is that we think it is irresponsible to leave the heavy lifting to our allies.

Our pilots are among the most skilled in the world. They are the best of the best. Our allies have specifically requested that they continue. In a radio interview just last month, the Minister of National Defence confirmed quite succinctly exactly how our allies feel about Canada's role when he said, “Of course they want to keep our CF-18s there”.

Since 2014, these pilots have carried out over 1,300 sorties, almost 800 support aircraft flights, and have destroyed almost 400 ISIS targets. Our brave pilots who carried out these vital missions safeguarded countless innocent and vulnerable people on the ground from the advances of barbarism. That was their contribution. That is the truth. To suggest otherwise undermines these efforts and brings dishonour to our men and women who wear our uniform so proudly.

Unfortunately, we have been given a false choice by the Liberal government. We can either have training and humanitarian assistance or air strikes, but this is not reality. This is not an either/or situation. It is a both/and situation. Let us not forget that we have been doing all of these things since the mission begun. We have had humanitarian support on the ground. We have had training for the local military and police forces and have had our CF-18s in theatre.

If this were simply a question of increasing training for local forces and increasing humanitarian and diplomatic initiatives without changing our air strike contributions, I am sure that there would be unanimous consent from this side of the House. However, the Liberal government has made us choose between either increasing our training mission, humanitarian assistance, and diplomatic ties, or remaining an ally in good standing by remaining in the combat mission with air strikes.

Unfortunately, as I said, the Liberal government has not just made us choose, it has already decided for us. Why? We do not know why. Is it because the Liberal Party of Canada has adopted a non-combat mantra within its top ranks? Is it because it is looking for ways to save money in order to minimize its ballooning deficit and clear economic mismanagement? Does the Prime Minister just personally disagree with air strikes? We have no idea, because the Liberal government, after a full week of debate, has not given us a single reason why we have brought our CF-18s home and taken the greatest pilots in the world out of the fight. The Liberal government has not given us one reason.

We have taken these pilots out of the fight while leaving their brothers in arms on the ground without Canadian aircraft support. Sure, they can now rely on our coalition partners for cover, but Canadians are Canadians are Canadians and we want what is absolutely best for Canadian men and women on the ground, and the best is having our CF-18s overhead.

This is Canada's fight. We have an obligation to stand up for the victims of genocide, to fight against this evil and destructive ideology, and to protect Canadians at home and abroad.

If only our current Prime Minister had the same courage the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has shown. He understands how a coalition best works together, and it is definitely not by handing over all the hard work to other countries. Mr. Cameron is quoted as saying, “We shouldn’t be content with outsourcing our security to our allies. If we believe that action can help protect us, then with our allies, we should be part of that action, not standing aside from it.”

Professor Hansen, Director of the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, put it best when he said, “There’s nothing admirable in letting other countries do the fighting while you hide behind liberal pieties.”

The United Nations Security Council has determined that the Islamic State constitutes an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon member states with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq.

We are a member state. We have the requisite capacity. Why are we not taking all necessary steps or measures? Canada has a long, proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities.

However, this is not just a war that is being waged overseas, out of sight, out of mind. ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies. It is paramount that the government stands shoulder to shoulder with our allies to defend and protect the safety and security of Canadians both here and abroad. Every single one of us and our constituents would prefer a world where military and police were not needed, but we do not live in a perfect world. Evil exists and Canada has an obligation to restrain that evil.

I have had the great privilege of visiting the monumental historic sites of Juno Beach and Vimy. I encourage all members to take the time to visit these sites. These sites exist because Canadians did not shy away from combat. They did not rely solely on their allies. They exist because Canadians rose to the occasion; our brave men and women fought side by side with our allies and defeated the evil of their time.

We need to do the same today. We need to do all that we can to bring peace and stability in the area. We owe it to the refugees whom we are welcoming here in Canada, and we owe it to their families who are still living under the brutal Islamic State regime back home.

Public opinion was very important to the Liberal Party during the campaign season, so why now, since it has seized the brass ring, is it deaf to the voices of Canadians? Why is this ill-conceived election promise any more important than the laundry list of election promises already broken?

It is with the support of my constituents, Canadian citizens, and our allies that I stand in the House today speaking against the government motion and urging the government to allow our CF-18s back in the fight, to reintroduce the greatest pilots in the world back into theatre and take all necessary measures to degrade and destroy ISIS.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for drawing attention again to the fact that on this side of the House we certainly value the work that our men and women in uniform do for us each and every day. We want them to have all the resources at their disposal to help them to do their job and, more important, to return back to their families healthy.

However, there is one issue we are losing sight of, and that is the concept of the refugees we are welcoming. We want to welcome refugees to our country and help them get settled in permanent housing situations. However, many times when we speak to the refugees, they would far rather have us redouble our efforts at creating a secure and safe environment for them so they are able to maintain their homes in the places where they are comfortable, and that is in their homeland, rather than being taken to a country that is maybe difficult to live in in terms of climate and the many cultural adjustments they need to make.

Would my colleague comment on the importance of us doing all we can, including maintaining our CF-18s in the fight, so we can create a more stable environment for our colleagues who are from this troubled part of the world?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her contribution. Certainly, she has given this a lot of hard thought to and has struggled with a very complex issue. It is in no way simple. I think all of us in this room struggle with this issue of military involvement and what our contribution should be.

The one comment she made in saying that we should not continue with the CF-18s is the risk of possibly killing innocent civilians. I share that concern. However, the struggle I have is how do we balance, on the one hand, the risk of having innocent civilians killed from the mission of our CF-18s with, on the other hand, seeing many hundreds of innocent civilians killed if we stand by and do nothing to try to protect the most vulnerable in these situations?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph, who is almost my next-door neighbour, for his speech, and I welcome him to the Parliament of Canada. It is a true honour to serve here. I also want to acknowledge the great work our men and women in uniform do for us every day in providing protection and security.

The member said that we should be doing more than just bombing. On this side of the House, we totally agree with that. In fact, we have been doing much more than that for many years. He indicated that we should be providing increased essential services and providing increased training for police and security forces. We agree with providing increased training and increasing our capability in terms of intelligence gathering. However, I have yet to hear one of the members on the opposite side explain how pulling our CF-18s out of the fight there, which are providing cover for our allies and for our own troops on the ground, actually improves our ability to restrain ISIS. I would like him to explain that.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by residents of Kitchener—Conestoga and the greater region of Waterloo.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that voters can cast an equal and effective vote to be represented fairly in Parliament, regardless of political belief or place of residence, and then to introduce a suitable form of proportional representation after these public consultations.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate speech and for highlighting that our men and women in uniform are, and have been, doing a great job of protecting Canadian values.

It is particularly troubling to see the CF-18s pulled out. I do not think any of us in this room take any joy in the fact that we are in a military conflict. We would all prefer not to have military conflicts. However, when vulnerable people are being threatened by evil in this world, it is our job as a government to stand up and protect the most vulnerable.

One of the things I am hearing in the context of the refugee crisis is that many of the people coming to Canada as refugees, if they had the choice, would far rather be in their homeland in a safe and secure environment. That is one of the jobs we are trying to do.

However, when our CF-18s are pulled out, it makes that less likely. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that if we could bring more stability to that region, it would reduce the need for us to be accepting refugees. We are glad to do that, but many of them would far rather be back in their home country.