Harold Albrecht

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague was not here in 2008, 2009 and 2010, those years when we were facing not just a Canadian downturn in the economy but a global recession. My Conservative colleagues are on the opposition side now, but when we were in government in 2008 and 2009, we had a minority government and we were suggesting stimulus funding. The Liberal Party then actually said that we were not spending enough to stimulate it. They wanted us to go deeper and deeper into deficit.

Former prime minister Harper had the wisdom to know that there was a limit to how much the government could spend and how much it could go into deficit. The Conservative government at the time also had an incredible plan to bring us back out of deficit spending within a three- to four-year period, which we accomplished.

There is a big difference between going into deficit financing to stimulate a lagging economy that is in recession and comparing that to today, when we are in an economic growth period and still spending way more than we are taking in. It is a recipe for disaster.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I too look forward to October 2019.

While I am glad to rise today and lend my voice and the voice of my constituents to this debate, I would be remiss if I did not also register my frustration that the majority of my colleagues in the House will not be able to give any input on this piece of legislation. The government has again moved time allocation, effectively ending debate.

Here we go again with more broken promises. Over and over during the campaign, the Liberals railed against time allocation and they railed against omnibus bills, yet all the promises they made are out the window. This is an 800-page omnibus bill. It would take Canadians more time to read this legislation than we have been given to debate it. It is outrageous and it is undemocratic, but it is made even worse because of the campaign promise of the Liberals not to use omnibus bills.

I will be focusing most of my time today on the lack of action taken by the Liberal government in order to improve Canada's competitiveness on the world stage. The imposition of a carbon tax, the spending spree and the debt spiral the government is plunging Canada into are all part of the abysmal track record of the Liberals on keeping their promises to Canadians.

Remember those promises? They were a maximum $10-billion deficit, and a balanced budget in 2019. Again, we have more broken promises.

The Business Council of Canada, which represents the largest companies operating in Canada, made the following submission to the finance committee during pre-budget consultations:

[W]e ask the government to introduce a comprehensive strategy to improve competitiveness, diversify trade and attract private sector investment. According to a recent survey of our members, only one in seven CEOs expressed confidence in the competitiveness of Canada's business climate. According to that survey, the tax and regulatory burden combined with concerns around the availability of talent were the most important factors affecting company investment plans in Canada.

Among other recommendations, we've called on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of Canada's tax system with the goal of strengthening the incentives for investment and growth. We believe the need for this review has only been intensified by the implementation of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

It went on to say:

Effective January 1, 2018, the U.S. reduced its federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% and allowed for full expensing of investments in machinery and equipment. This tax reform package also introduced new international tax rules. They encouraged multinationals to shift capital back into the U.S.

These changes have given the United States a significant tax advantage over many advanced economies but in particular Canada, given our very close proximity and dependence on that market. According to a...study that we commissioned by PwC Canada on the implications of U.S. reform, failing to respond to these changes threatens 635,000 jobs and $85 billion in GDP.

In their last budget and their most recent fall economic update, the Liberals have done absolutely nothing to address the concerns outlined by the Business Council of Canada on Canada's lack of competitiveness on the world stage. The Liberals are just out of touch with Canada's business community.

Our Conservative team has been on the ground from coast to coast to coast, talking with business owners, investors, and employees. Personally, I have visited Sault Ste Marie, Belleville, Guelph and all throughout the Waterloo region. I was proud to host a round table with local business several months ago, with the shadow minister for international trade, the member for Niagara West. While the round table focused on the trade negotiations between Canada and the United States and the retaliatory tariffs, we also heard how the Liberal government is not creating a healthy environment to enable small and medium-sized businesses to grow.

One business from southwestern Ontario that participated in our round table shared that in 2009, during the global economic recession, it lost 800 employees. However, because of the policies of our Conservative government at the time, it was able to recoup its loses in just eight months.

Contrast that with today. The same business is looking at job losses of over 1,000 employees as a result of slow economic growth. It is worried that the Liberal government is spending the cupboards bare, so that when a recession hits, it will not be able to recoup like it did previously.

We also heard that, just as the Business Council of Canada outlined in its submission to the finance committee, the competitive climate is causing many companies to move south of the border. Even worse, it is discouraging entrepreneurs from starting businesses here in Canada at all.

For those already in operation, any foreseeable plans to expand have been put on hold. Companies that once felt they were supported and encouraged by the policies of the federal government just do not feel that same level of support anymore. That the government is raising taxes and has no plan to balance the budget is making this climate of worry and concern much worse.

Speaking of debt, in the first three years of the current government, the Prime Minister added $60 billion to the national debt. Deficits are even higher than expected and higher than what was promised in the 2015 election campaign. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects deficits of $22.2 billion in 2018-19 and $21.4 billion in 2019-20, which is $4 billion higher than the government showed in budget 2018.

Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 for every Canadian family. According to the finance committee, the budget will not return to balance until 2045, by then racking up an additional $450 billion of debt.

When the economy is strong and growing at 3%, a responsible government would pay down debt, so that we have more fiscal room in case of a downturn. However, we see the current government doing the exact opposite.

In 2009, the Conservative government was able to take decisive action to support the Canadian economy, yet it returned to balance and a surplus by 2015. However, with no plan or commitment to balance, the Liberals have budgeted the cupboard bare. The next time Canada is faced with a crisis, there will be nothing there.

The cost of interest alone on our debt will increase from $23.9 billion in 2017-18, almost doubling to $39 billion in 2021-2022. That is $39.1 billion, which is more than the $36.1 billion we spend on federal health care through the Canada health transfer.

Let us think of what that money could do if we were to provide our veterans with the help they desperately need. We could properly invest in mental health care throughout Canada. We could provide palliative care to every community from coast to coast. Instead, it is going toward paying for the government's out-of-control spending.

My last point is on the carbon tax. Following the Liberals' announcement of their forced carbon tax on Canadians, the president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce said that although he is a climate change believer, the senseless response by governments all over the world is, simply put, ridiculous. He said there should never be a cost to using less, that it makes no sense. If less use is required, he described punitive measures as the lazy man's way of reducing carbon emissions. As he said, it is completely counterproductive to take money out of circulation, hang on to it for a period of time, then give 90% of it back. That was a promise he had heard from the Prime Minister on a report by 570 News, which he felt was insulting to the intelligence of every taxpayer, like we need to be babysat.

The chamber of commerce president said he was reminded of an old saying: A tax is a fine for doing something good, and a fine is a tax for doing something wrong. He said the carbon tax is a fine everyone will have to accept, and that is just wrong. He said that today, when business is burdened in every manner by government, it's time that it be recognized by all politicians that without business there is nothing for anyone. Businesses, he said, need a path that clearly demonstrates our economy is first and foremost, so it can provide all the money government needs to save the world.

It is clear that the government is far more interested in imposing its ideology on Canadians than it is in listening to and working with Canadian business.

I am going to finish with this. According to a website that tracks the success of the Liberal government, after 1,119 days in office, the Liberals have broken or completely ignored as many promises they made in the 2015 election campaign as they have kept. That gives Canadians much reason to worry, because a government that campaigns on one thing and does exactly the opposite only increases Canadians' mistrust in our democratic institutions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker commented about how the economy is doing so well. My question, then, is why is the Bank of Canada warning us about the decline in investments in Canada? Over the last three years, Canadian investment in the U.S. has increased by 65.8%, and yet in that same time span, investment in Canada has decreased by 5%. Where is the confidence that my colleague has about the economy, and what can we look forward to?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is disturbing to see how far the Liberals have led us into increasing debt, despite the fact that they promised in their election campaign that by now we would be coming back to balance. That is far from the truth. In fact, the cost of interest alone in 2017-18 was $23.9 billion. By 2021-22, the cost will be $39 billion. That is a $15-billion increase in interest costs alone. That has nothing to do with paying down the debt. It will cost an extra $15 billion to pay the interest on our debt, which is rising every year because of increased deficits as a result of the government's spending. This is in spite of the fact that it promised a very small deficit and promised to bring us back to balance by now.

My question is simple. Could that extra $15 billion we are spending on interest not be put to better use to provide, for example, great palliative care for Canadians?

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I recall that during the 2015 campaign, the party that is currently in government made a big deal about the fact that individual members of Parliament would have a much greater degree of freedom, that their voices would be heard, and they would have more responsibility.

Here, just a few minutes ago, this member said that using private members' legislation was using the back door. I have had an opportunity to table private members' legislation, as have many of my colleagues on this side, and indeed members on the government side.

Does my colleague actually believe that private members' legislation is somehow less important than government legislation, especially in light of the big deal Liberals made about giving individual MPs more autonomy, more power and more say in what happens in this chamber?

My colleague had the audacity to say that private members' legislation is using the back door. Could he clarify what he was trying to imply?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague outlined a number of the positive elements of the bill. Certainly on this side of the House, we agree that there are some positive elements in it. The intimate partner violence reform is one that we applaud. What he has neglected to say is that there are many other crimes for which the sentences are being reduced, for example, human trafficking.

Under the leadership of our former prime minister Stephen Harper and my colleague Joy Smith, we led the play on human trafficking. The fact that human trafficking of children and young people occurs in our country is unfortunate and despicable.

At the justice committee hearing on human trafficking, former human trafficker, Donald, testified that if the government were to be lenient on the sentencing of convicted human traffickers, it would be like a carte blanche for traffickers to expand this despicable industry and further harm Canadian kids.

Could my colleague indicate if he is in fact in favour of making more lenient sentences for those who would abduct a child, the human traffickers in our country?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good work and standing up for victims in Canada. On this side of the House, our priority is to stand up for victims.

In my riding, in the member's riding and other members' ridings, we have all heard from MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has major concerns about the incidence of drunk driving on our roads, often resulting in bodily harm or death. Within the last few weeks in the House, we have heard of family members who have died as a result of drunk driving. We need to take this seriously.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the application of the reduction of the penalties for impaired driving causing bodily harm in Bill C-75, what the negative impacts of that could be and, if she has time, comment on whether she is hearing the same thing from MADD Canada in her riding or from other constituents who have expressed concern about the weakening of this provision.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as I reflect back on the campaign of 2015, and sitting in many all-candidates debates, I remember hearing so clearly that if the Liberals became the government they would not bring in closure or time allocation and they would get rid of the practice of introducing omnibus bills in Parliament. Here we have those things being brokered at the same time.

In Bill C-75 there are some serious offences that will be downgraded to hybrid offences which gives the discretion to prosecute them as summary convictions, such as obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman and blood alcohol over the legal limit. We know the scourge of impaired driving on our streets and it is unbelievable that the government would actually reduce this offence.

I am not as concerned right now about those particular items as I am concerned about the fact that the government is intent on shutting down debate on a very serious issue when all parliamentarians should have the option of giving their views and letting their constituents know their views.

Why is the government so intent on shutting down debate on this important issue?

[Organ and Tissue Donation, November 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and speak in support of Motion No. 189. It is a rare opportunity for me to say I agree with the member for Winnipeg North but this is a wonderful opportunity to do that.

Often we in the House find ourselves debating different issues that have great symbolic importance, financial importance or importance in regards to the safety of Canadians. However, when we talk about organ donation and its importance, this is literally a matter of life and death.

Over the past 12 years, I have been proud to support several motions, bills and studies that encourage Canadians to become organ donors. Specifically, during this Parliament, I think of Bill C-223, introduced by my hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning and Bill C-316, introduced by my hon. colleague from Calgary Confederation.

This is not, or at least it should not be, a partisan issue. However, I was dismayed to see the Liberal Party vote against Bill C-223, that I just referenced. This legislation would have established a Canadian organ donor registry and co-ordinated and promoted organ donation throughout Canada. I believe it was a good piece of legislation that unfortunately failed. At the very least, Bill C-223 should have been referred to the Standing Committee on Health for further study in order to receive input from expert witnesses.

Bill C-316, currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Health, was introduced by my colleague from Calgary Confederation. It would give Canadians the opportunity to sign up as organ donors on their annual income tax return. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House and in the other chamber will continue to support this common-sense measure that would give Canadians more opportunities to register as an organ donor and in the process save the lives of thousands of Canadians who are on a waiting list. Because time is of the essence, I hope that the Standing Committee on Health and the Senate will quickly move this legislation forward so it is actually in law before the end of this parliamentary term.

The motion today is as follows:

That the House: (a) reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care, since every year more than 250 people, out of the 4,500 on waiting lists, die without receiving a transplant; and (b) urge the government to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada through public education and awareness campaigns, ongoing communication and the exchange of information, including best practices.

It is a sad truth that while 90% of Canadians support organ donation, only 20% are registered. I am proud to say that the towns of New Hamburg and Baden in my riding of Kitchener-Conestoga have reached a level of 52% registration. They are tied for fifth place out of 170 communities, while New Dundee and Petersburg, also in my riding, are tied for eighth at 49%. Congratulations and many thanks to these four very engaged communities.

We need to do more as members of Parliament to encourage our constituents and all Canadians to register to become organ donors.

I am thankful that the Standing Committee on Health has recently completed a study on organ donation in Canada. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues on that committee who initiated this study. Members of our caucus are awaiting its final report.

In addition to registering as a donor, it is important for individuals to discuss their decision to register with their families. They should let their families know about their decision and then register at beadonor.ca because in the final analysis, families of the deceased are not obligated to follow through but are much more likely to follow through if the discussion occurred beforehand. This decision could very well save a life and offer hope to someone waiting for an organ transplant.

Thousands of adults and children are counting on us and our fellow Canadians to give the gift of life. It is time that we as a nation close the gap between the need for life-saving and life-enhancing organs and the supply of organs that are available. Why not take steps now to make a difference? It will be someone's son, someone's daughter, someone's granddaughter who will be the recipient of someone's good decision to register to donate his or her organs.

We would all like to think we will live to be 80 or 100, but the reality is many of us will die long before that for a variety of reasons.

I came face to face with that reality seven and a half years ago, when my wife of nearly 40 years experienced a sudden intracranial hemorrhage on election night, May 2, 2011. Suddenly unconscious, rushed for medical treatment, surgery and life support, it became apparent that the bleeding could not be stopped, brain activity had totally ceased and death was imminent.

Conferring with my children, knowing Betty's wishes, that she had signed her licence to confirm her intentions to donate her organs, the decision, while not easy, was the right one, as we know that five people have had their lives extended and many more have benefited from the tissues donated.

Seven years ago, I stood in the chamber during a take-note debate about organ donation, just seven months following Betty's death, and I said these words:

I will return for a moment to that hospital. It was clear that Betty's physical life was over. Brain activity had stopped completely. We knew instinctively that the Betty we had come to know and love was no longer there. Her spirit was still very much alive but her body was only breathing with mechanical help. What to do?

Again, our faith has its foundation in the Christian scriptures, which uses many different metaphors for the physical body. It is referred to as a tent, a house, a temple, or even as clothing for the spirit within. So if the person who lived in that temple or...[who] occupied that house or camped in that tent was no longer here to need any of those things, why would we not share them with someone in need?

Why not help out one of those thousands of people who are currently on waiting lists for a specific organ? Many of those waiting are still in the prime of life. An organ donation can make the difference between life and death. Our decision, while not easy, was made lighter by knowing that someone else would possibly receive the gift of life even as we journeyed into our own grief and loss.

Was there a downside to...organ donation? Yes, there was. We had to prolong the inevitable by agreeing to multiple tests in order to determine if in fact the organs were healthy and suitable for transplant. There were detailed personal history questions in order to mitigate any risks to potential recipients.

Let me assure members of this House [of Commons]...that they can rely on the safety of organ transplants in this country. This is because of Canada's strong organ transplant community and Health Canada's work in establishing rigorous safety requirements through the implementation of the safety of human cells, tissue and organs for transplantation regulations.

Many times since Betty's death on May 4, 2011, two days following her intracranial hemorrhage, I have reflected on the reasons that I am able to move ahead in spite of my deep loss. I can say that two things come to mind: first, my total confidence in Christ's victory over death and in the power of the Resurrection and that I will see her again; and, second, my knowledge that five others have been given the gift of life through Betty's death.

There is a third reason. Two years following Betty's death, the amazing gift of my marriage to Darlene has given me renewed joy in my journey, and I am indeed grateful and blessed to have walked this journey.

As I said earlier, thousands of Canadians are on the waiting list for a life-saving transplant. I urge all Canadians to step up and register at beadonor.ca. We can do better than the 20% registration rate. I think we can even do better than the 52% rate that I referred to from my communities in Kitchener—Conestoga. Why not aim for at least a 75% registration rate? It will almost certainly save a life.

By supporting Bill C-316 and this motion, Motion No. 189, and, most important, people taking the time to register themselves, every one of us can make a positive difference.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not pretend to have anywhere close to the knowledge that the member has of the legal justice system. I certainly agree that we need to do everything we can to give a strong message that any of these breaches will not be tolerated.

I want to come back to my earlier point that there is such a long list of lightening of sentences here that it gives me great concern for my entire community, and in fact for the whole country.