Harold Albrecht

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out that the carbon tax will obviously be assigned to farmers as well. I have a farmer in my riding who estimates that the carbon tax alone will add $6,000 to his fuel bill. That is just for the fuel on his farm and does not take into account getting his milk to the processors, getting feed to the farm, and the extra cost of fertilizer. It is obvious that these extra costs, $6,000-plus or as high as $10,000, will simply be added to the bill for the average Canadian family for groceries and other consumable products.

Trevor Tombe, at the University of Calgary, estimates that the carbon tax will add up to $1,100 per family. We know that the Liberal government knows how much that is but refuses to tell us, because it is afraid that people will wake up to the fact that this is not a good thing for them.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on how this carbon tax to the farmers, which will be passed on to consumers, will help the middle class, which the government has continually said it is trying hard to help.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that during the campaign, we heard clear promises of no more omnibus bills, no more closure, yet it is happening all the time with the Liberal government.

The budget implementation bill has over 540 pages, an omnibus bill. Over 200 pages of that bill deal with the carbon tax, yet there is not one word about two things: first, how much it will cost the average family; and second, how much greenhouse gas reduction there will be from this carbon tax. The member calls it carbon pricing, but we all know it is a tax.

I would like my colleague to answer the question, which hae been asked multiple times in the House. How much will the carbon tax cost the average Canadian family and how much greenhouse gas reduction will result from the carbon tax?

[New Hamburg Mennonite Relief Sale, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in 1967, I attended the very first New Hamburg Mennonite Relief Sale. The sale was organized in response to the worldwide need for relief from hunger, poverty, and natural disasters.

This past weekend's sale, marking 52 years, raised over $300,000. Since 1967, over $16 million has been raised to meet human need and to work for peace and justice in the name of Christ.

Handcrafted quilts continue to be the main attraction, drawing bidders from around the world. This year's highest bid was $6,600. However, there are many other high-quality items for sale: fresh strawberry pies, garden plants, antique tractors, apple fritters, and ethnic food specialties, including my favourite, Salvadoran pupusas.

I want to thank the hundreds of volunteers, the sponsors, and the auctioneers who donated their time; the New Hamburg Independent, which printed the program; and all those who purchased an item. The success of the sale is a wonderful reflection of our community's heart for assisting those in need. God bless all of them for their sacrificial service.

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, in relation to the review of statutory instruments.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on this particular point of order, it was impossible to hear what was being said. In fact, I heard clearly in my earpiece the interpreter saying “inaudible”, indicating that they were not hearing, and so how could they possibly have interpreted for the rest of us?

[Armenia, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last evening, along with colleagues of the Canada–Armenia Friendship Group, I was honoured to attend a celebration of the centennial of independence of the Republic of Armenia.

While we celebrate great strides taken by Armenia, concerns remain surrounding the conflict in the Artsakh region. With over 80% of Artsakh's population voting in a referendum and 99% of those supporting independence, it was unfortunate that Azerbaijan ignored the results and responded aggressively. The conflict resulted in tens of thousands of victims and hundreds of thousands of refugees. In 1994, the conflict ended with a ceasefire agreement.

In a 2006 referendum, the region approved a new constitution. While there have been signs of progress in peace negotiations, there have been several instances of ceasefire violations, most notably in 2016, when dozens of soldiers lost their lives, and since then deaths of innocent civilians have happened far too often.

I call on the Government of Canada to stand up for the right to self-determination of the people of the Republic of Artsakh and to work alongside the global community in seeking peace for this region.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we support Bill C-57 and the sustainable development strategy. Throughout the member's speech, I heard a number of phrases used, such as quality of drinking water, pollution prevention, polluter pays, a results-based approach, and the precautionary principle. Those are all great, and Conservatives support them.

However, I asked twice already today in the House, and both times did not receive an answer, how to square the idea of these good principles, these great-sounding words, with the actions of the Liberal government on the protection of our water and drinking water. In November of 2015, the government approved the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River in Montreal. One would think that was just a mistake it made, but again, in 2018, in Quebec City, another 43 million litres of raw sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River.

How can we use these great principles and good-sounding words but not follow them up with action that actually protects our environment?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what my colleague had to say. I want to repeat a couple of phrases that he used throughout his speech, such as environmental decision-making, sustainable development strategies, meeting our domestic and international obligations, and stopping environmental damage. I think we are all in agreement with those principles.

However, earlier today I asked one of his colleagues about the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. That happened in 2015, just after the government took office. Then again this year, in February, another 43 million litres of raw sewage was dumped into the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City.

How does that kind of action, degrading our environment, fit with these four principles I heard throughout his speech, principles of environmental decision-making, sustainable development strategies, meeting our domestic and international obligations, and stopping environmental damage?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but find some of them a little ironic. He talks repeatedly about drinking water, clean water and sanitation, clean energy, and clean oceans, and yet the environment minister, shortly after she was appointed in November of 2015, authorized the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River, and just this February, another 43 million litres of raw sewage from Quebec City. How can the member stand in the House and talk about the commitment of the government to environmental cleanliness, especially when it relates to water, when these kinds of issues are ongoing in our country.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague listed a large number of issues that deserve further study.

That is one of the reasons it is important that the debate be allowed to continue here, and indeed, when it goes to committee, that there be adequate debate and adequate opportunity for input from experts.

The member talked about the timing of results influencing opinion, and that sort of thing. I am much more concerned about third party advertising and third party influencing of the results. The biggest concern, as I indicated in my comments earlier, was using inaccurate information as voter ID, which would actually allow for fraudulent use of our electoral system. Our system is the envy of the world, and I would like to keep it that way.