Harold Albrecht

[Finance, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in just three years, the Prime Minister has blown his budget, leaving us with two times the debt he promised, yet with no results. Worse, Parliament's independent budget watchdog confirms the Liberals have no plan to balance the budget. Another broken Liberal promise; another Liberal budget failure.

While the Prime Minister has little to show for his massive spending, Canadians, with no money left at the end of each month, are left with the bill for the Liberal failure. Last year, the Liberals pushed Canada's debt to an all-time high. Each Canadian family now shares more than $47,000 of that debt, which is about the price of a reliable new family minivan.

It was reported in the Waterloo Region Record just this week that an average family in the region would be paying over $200 more per year on their natural gas bill alone.

Make no mistake that the Liberals have found ways to hike Canadians' taxes to pay for their past failures. If given another chance, Liberal taxes will go up again. The Liberals have blown their budget, and Canadians will have to pay for it. The Conservatives are fighting for better.

[Petitions, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians who are calling on the government to end the needle exchange program. They are calling on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety to end the prison needle exchange program and implement measures that would increase the safety of correctional officers in the surrounding community.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in the Waterloo region (defined as the ridings of Kitchener—Conestoga, Kitchener South—Hespeler, Kitchener Center, Waterloo, and Cambridge): what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date or expected completion date?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada's Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what consultations were done with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers prior to the pilot program launching; (b) on what dates did the consultations in (a) take place; (c) who was in attendance for the consultations in (a); (d) how many inmates are registered for the program; (e) how many needles have been given to inmates in the program; (f) what are the index offences of inmates registered for the program; (g) what plans, if any, exist to begin the program at other penitentiaries; (h) is an inmate's participation in the program noted in their correctional plan; (i) is an inmate's participation in the program disclosed to the Parole Board of Canada; (j) what safety measures, if any, have been put in place to protect correctional officers from needles that are now in circulation; (k) how many cases have been found of inmates not in the program being in possession of needles sourced to the program; (l) how many needles have been returned to administrators of the program; (m) how many needles have gone missing as a result of inmates losing or not returning them; (n) where does the government suspect that the remaining or missing needles are located; (o) how many inmates have been subject to disciplinary measures for either failing to return a prison exchange needle or being in violation of the program's regulations; and (p) what is the rate of inmate assaults on correctional officers since the program began?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the Canada Child Benefit: (a) how many recipients of the benefit (i) are permanent residents of Canada, (ii) are temporary residents of Canada, (iii) have received refugee status, (iv) have made asylum claims that have not yet been adjudicated; (b) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iii); and (c) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iv)?

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work, especially on the trade file.

Earlier this year, in late spring, I had a number of coffee drop-ins in my riding, where I asked constituents what their concerns were. Based on the feedback from a small number of constituents, maybe a couple of hundred, I sent out letters to every household in my riding, and over and over again, these issues came to the top: trade issues and immigration, which is always right near the top, especially as it relates to illegal immigration.

My constituents are concerned not only about the cost of the illegal immigration Canadian taxpayers are being forced to bear but about legitimate refugees who have been languishing in UNHCR camps for years, not able to get in line to have access to the protection Canada would offer.

I wonder if my colleague from Niagara West has also experienced input from his constituents. He is much closer to the border than I am. I would imagine that he is hearing from his constituents too as it relates to the integrity of our borders.

All of us on this side of the House welcome immigration. We welcome refugees who are in legitimate need of our protection. I have had refugees living in our home. This is something we care about. We have to be sure that it is well managed, that it is orderly, and that it is fair.

I wonder if my colleague is hearing from his constituents in this regard as well.

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a fantastic command of this file, especially as it relates to trade.

He outlined a number of failures of the government as they relate to trade, but one of the issues he did not have time to get to was the issue of giving up our sovereignty of the dairy industry in the USMCA. I spent a lot of time on the phone this morning with two farmers from my area who are very concerned about this one part of giving up our sovereignty. Again, the Prime Minister has capitulated to President Trump on so many issues.

My question really relates to the hypocrisy of the government in bringing in this bill, which we support, which increases the safety and security of Canadians, but at the same time the government is welcoming 38,000 to 40,000 illegal migrants across the border in Quebec with virtually no safety measures in place to actually guarantee that for Canadians.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that hypocrisy.

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, based on his considerable knowledge and command of this file, I am wondering if my colleague could give us an overview as to what some of the other Commonwealth countries, such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, are doing in regard to these kinds of initiatives. Could the member just give us a little image of what that might look like?

The other concern that has been raised a number of times is the 40,000 illegal border crossers, migrants who have come into Canada in the last number of years. Certainly, this is a cause for great concern for many of my constituents, along with, as my colleague commented, the global compact that we are signing. Many of us on this side of the House have housed refugees in our homes. We care for refugees. We want to care for legitimate refugees. However, we are concerned about the misuse of some of these options that people are taking advantage of.

Could my colleague comment? Does this bill do anything at all to increase the likely safety of those who are crossing our borders illegally in Quebec and Manitoba?

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, here we are again facing a time allocation motion. Virtually every member in this House remembers the campaign of 2015 when the Liberal candidates would adamantly declare they would end these practices of closure, time allocation and omnibus bills. On and on the promises went about what a Liberal government would do differently, yet here we are again with time allocation on a very technical amendment.

It may be true that we agree with the amendment, but one of the things that would be helpful is that while it is important for us to do all that we can to keep Canadians safe, it would be good to know from some of our other colleagues in this House what their perceptions are as to how other democracies are handling this situation, in terms of exit and entry. Obviously our prime concern is the safety of Canadians and also the safeguarding of their personal information.

Could my colleague comment on how he could stand before his constituents in the last election, and basically promise an end to the use of time allocation, but here we are, dozens of times later, using the same technique?

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House since about 10 o'clock this morning listening to speech after speech, and almost none of the Liberal members have been able to speak to the motion itself.

They talk about putting a price on pollution. A week or two after the government came to power in 2015, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change gave permission to Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. In February of this year, the government gave permission to the City of Quebec to spill 46 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.

My question is very simple. We talk about a price on pollution. How much did Montreal pay to pollute the St. Lawrence River? How much did the City of Quebec pay to pollute the St. Lawrence River?