Harold Albrecht

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of the member's speech, he said that we would do well to keep the issue of crime in mind. On this side of the House, we could not agree more; we need to keep that in mind. However, there is a big flaw in Bill C-71, in that it does not deal with gangs and violent crime; it does not deal with the fact that many of these guns are sourced illegally by theft. What we need is something that will cause the Canadian public to be more safe.

I met with a number of people at shooting ranges this summer, and talked about safety and training regulations and the background checks. They are eager to comply with all of the existing laws. However, to a person, they said that this particular bill, while it gives the impression of increasing the safety of the Canadian public, would do absolutely nothing on that. If we add to that Bill C-75, with the weakening of many of the sentences for some very violent crimes, such as joining a terrorist group and gangs, these are giving the wrong message.

I ask my colleague if this exercise we are going through today is simply an exercise in public relations to try to assure us that the Canadian public is safer with this law, when in fact it would do nothing to increase safety but in the process target many law-abiding citizens.

[Carbon Pricing, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, during the Prime Minister's summer of failure, I was hosting meetings in every corner of my riding and listening to the concerns of my constituents. What they told me is that they cannot afford a carbon tax. Small business owners, manufacturers, seniors, single moms and farmers are all tired of their taxes being raised by the Liberal government.

When will the government stop helping its Liberal insiders and start to focus on making life more affordable for middle-class families in southern Ontario?

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I have a number of farmers, hunters and sport shooters. This summer I took the opportunity to visit a few of the sport shooting ranges and was impressed with the increased attention they were giving to safety and training. They are totally committed to the safety of firearms, proper licensing, background checks, and all of these things. They are convinced that Bill C-71 has good intentions but does nothing more than make it difficult for lawful gun owners. They believe it does nothing toward increasing the public safety of our country.

My colleague who just spoke has been quoted as saying, “I don’t think I speak out of turn when I say that there is no tolerance for people having guns in Toronto, period—long guns, short guns, in-between guns, fast guns, slow guns.” Coming from the chair of the committee that studied this bill, this shows a lack of understanding of the number of gun owners there are in Toronto who are sport shooters and hunters, and who abide by the rules as they are.

I am also wondering if the member could comment on his thoughts about the Liberals' eventual plan to ban all firearms.

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, in my area I have a number of farmers who need to use guns. I have hunters and sport shooters. The sport shooters obviously go to the shooting ranges, and so this summer I decided to go to two of the shooting ranges in my area and learn about sport shooting. I have a PAL myself, but did not know much about sport shooting. When I went there, I was impressed with the attention to detail that these clubs give to following the rules, safety guidelines, and being 100% sure that people who use these guns are adequately trained.

They are more than happy to follow the rules and make sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands and to make sure that the background checks are done. However, they object to something like Bill C-71, which would create an extra burden on legitimate firearms owners. They are happy to accept the burden if they could be assured that it would actually increase public safety, but they are convinced that Bill C-71 is a public relations exercise intended to convince the public that this would somehow increase safety when in reality all it would do is target legitimate gun owners and do nothing against violent criminals and gangs.

[Petitions, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in regard to the harvesting of organs.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to move quickly on the proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents of foreign nationals who have participated in his abhorrent trade in human organs.

[Petitions, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions today. The first one is from hundreds of citizens and is in regard to the Canada summer jobs program.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies, among other things, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms.

The petitioners believe that the current Liberal government's proposed attestation requiring Canada summer jobs program applicants to hold the same views as the government could contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to defend freedoms of conscience, thought and belief, and to withdraw the attestation requirement for applicants of the Canada summer jobs program.

[Petitions, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from a number of constituents from my riding in the region of Waterloo. These citizens are drawing to the attention of the House that section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies, among other things, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms. The petitioners believe that the current Liberal government's proposed attestation requiring Canada summer jobs program applicants to hold the same views as the government would contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to defend their freedom of conscience, thought and belief and withdraw the attestation requirements for applicants to the Canada summer jobs program.

[Petitions, June 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 11,678 petitioners who point out that the current eligibility requirements of employers seeking to apply for Government of Canada funding through the Canada summer jobs program, requiring organizations to sign an attestation, would force many organizations to choose between their beliefs, often rooted in their religion, and being able to receive funding. They say that by its nature, this requirement discriminates against organizations based on their beliefs.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to remove this discriminatory requirement and allow Canadians to continue to express their freedom of religion and belief of expression without facing institutionalized discrimination by the Government of Canada.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know about the carbon tax is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is going to take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy in 2022. That is a huge hit to the economy. As my colleague has pointed out, it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Even at committee, the Minister of Environment was asked how much reduction of greenhouse gas emissions we can expect from this carbon tax. That question was not answered. Now we also know that the Liberals are not answering the question about how much it will cost the average Canadian family. It has been blocked out. Even though the party on the other side knows full well what it will cost, we do not have that information.

In my colleague's riding I am sure there are a number of farmers, and I wonder if she has had the opportunity to connect with farmers as to their view of what the carbon tax will do to their livelihood.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my colleague indicated that a number of the provinces are working in a situation where there is already carbon pricing. I want to remind him that the number of provinces that are in agreement with the carbon tax policy is rapidly decreasing.

My colleague said that anyone who says that a carbon tax will negatively impact the economy is working out of ignorance or fear. I want to remind my colleague that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the carbon tax would take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022. Does the member opposite think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is working out of ignorance and fear?

He also said that the carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions. If that is true, all we are asking is this: what is the cost, and what is the reduction in emissions?