Harold Albrecht

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the service he has offered to Canadians through his career in protecting Canadians and for his passionate remarks about the value of our men and women in uniform, not only to our country but to world stability.

His reference to the importance of communication certainly reminded me of October 22, which I think we can all agree was a very difficult time on the Hill, and our security forces did the best they could do. Our colleague has pointed out some of the challenges that relate to that because of the communication challenges. He made a great connection to that incident on the Hill in relationship to the potential communications challenges that would occur in theatre.

Could he expand a bit on that point? Having our own CF-18s in the air protecting our ground troops, certainly to me seems a better communications operation than us having to rely on allies.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I might just say parenthetically that the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has some very big shoes to fill, replacing the member who represented that area for the last number of years. I certainly had the privilege and honour of working with her.

This again comes to the heart of the differences between our parties. On this side of the House, not only do private members have the freedom to craft a piece of private member's legislation and try to gain support on all sides of the House, but at the end of the process they also have the freedom to vote their conscience on this private member's legislation.

I would challenge my counterparts on the other side. I would request that they ask their leadership for the same privilege that this party has had for all the years I have been here in Parliament and to have a free vote on this private member's legislation and to actually see some work that is initiated from the grassroots in the ridings we represent, come to Parliament, bring it to the discussion and then bring it to fruition in a piece of legislation that is implemented into law.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, again I think this question points out some of the differences between our parties' perspective on unions.

We certainly appreciate what unions do, we appreciate union workers, and we want to listen to the union members. That is why I quoted some anecdotal evidence that members in my riding say this or say that. However, the Leger poll of some 1,400 respondents—a very large sample—that I referred to in my comments clearly indicated that 84% of the current union members surveyed said they wanted public disclosure.

The Liberal Party often talks about scientific evidence and evidence-based decision-making. Here we have the evidence. It is important that we on this side continue to work on behalf of the union members, not simply the union leaders who do not want this kind of disclosure and who do not want secret ballot voting.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to rise in the House today on behalf of the many union members who live in my great riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. My riding is home to many union members. In fact, many of my good friends and family are union members.

The Liberal Party would have Canadians believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is anti-union. That is ludicrous. We on this side of the House are pro-worker, pro-accountability, and pro-transparency. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, introduced by the previous government, made much headway in increasing both union member and non-union member confidence in unions.

One of the things I found troubling earlier this morning was my colleagues' statements on the opposite side of the House that the introduction of our legislation as two private members' bills was a back-door method of legislation. On this side of the House, we value all our members in the House, backbenchers and front benchers. Our government's record on private member's bills is better than any previous government's. The two private member's pieces of legislation that I was privileged to introduce were debated in the House and then passed into law. I will forever be grateful that as a private member I had the opportunity to introduce those bills and to see the support for them in the House and to know that they are now part of our government's legislation.

As a brief summary of the legislation the Liberal government is planning to repeal via Bill C-4, Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act, was introduced by my hard-working colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The legislation made it mandatory that a secret ballot be conducted for the accreditation or revocation of a trade union, rather than the automatic certification of a union when a majority of employees, 50% plus one, sign their membership card. The legislation strikes a balance by creating the same process when it comes to unionizing a workplace and to revoking a union according to the employee wishes. The decision of whether to unionize rests with the employees, not with the union and not with the employer.

I would like to pose a few questions to my colleagues across the floor. First, why is the Liberal government so against secret ballot voting? We know that the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, stated at the committee charged with studying Bill C-525 that it uses secret ballot votes for internal elections and for the ratification of settlement agreements from collective bargaining. The president of PSAC, Robyn Benson had this to say:

Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.

Furthermore, when asked if she believed that if there were to be a secret ballot vote, it should be 50% plus one of all employees, not just those present, her answer was yes, that she agreed.

Every member in the House was elected by a secret ballot vote, and on election day as nominees we are not allowed to stand beside the voting booth to tell voters to cast a ballot in our favour. I believe the hard-working men and women, my friends, union members from Kitchener-Conestoga, deserve the same privilege that we give to all constituents in our riding on federal election day, a free and secret vote. Without this commitment, employees who have not signed their membership card may not even be aware that a union certification drive is in process, and they may not be in favour of that union or its representatives.

One question that arises is whether it is even fair for them not to be consulted, since they must pay union dues and be members of the union. Another question is whether employees had signed their union card free of intimidation.

It is clear to me that allowing secret ballot voting is very common sense. However, do not just take my word for it. Here are a few others who support this legislation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business clearly pointed out that “As secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy, if the process is good enough to elect our politicians, it should be good enough to form a union.”

Everyone in the House knows how important small and medium-sized business is to the engine of the economy of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of independent Business speaks very clearly on behalf of the workers in those businesses.

The Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications group testified that it and its members also support Bill C-525.

John Mortimer, the president of the Canadian LabourWatch Association, expressed his support on behalf of his organization for Bill C-525 for many reasons, including the fact that sometimes employees are victims of inappropriate tactics and are given the wrong information so that they will sign their membership card. For example, some employees sign their card without knowing the true result, which is the unionization of their workplace.

The Canadian LabourWatch Association also commissioned a poll of unionized and formerly unionized workers, which was very helpful. It found that 86% support secret ballot voting for union accreditation.

I could go on. However, let me just quote Merit Canada. It pointed out that the old system under which employees expressed support for its union's certification by signing their membership card resulted in intimidation and manipulation by both union organizers and management.

I hope that my colleagues from the Liberal Party do not support the manipulation and intimidation of hard-working Canadians.

Bill C-525's asking for a secret ballot is just plain common sense and the very cornerstone of modern democracy, as has been pointed out many times today.

Moving now to Bill C-377, what is the Liberal government trying to accomplish by giving a free pass to unions with respect to its financial transparency?

Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by my former colleague the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, would extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefits, in other words, labour organizations. The basic premise of the bill is that every labour organization in Canada will file a standard set of financials each year, which will then be posted on the CRA website, much like Canadian charities already do.

These bills are common sense and, as members will hear during the remainder of my remarks, are what Canadians want. I do not understand why the current Liberal government has decided to repeal these laws that increase confidence in and the integrity of our unions as one of its first acts in this Parliament.

While I think this is common sense, let us also hear from others.

In a Leger survey conducted in 2013, consisting of 1,400 respondents, not only did 83% of Canadians surveyed indicate they wanted public disclosure but 84% of current union members surveyed also said they wanted public disclosure.

Furthermore, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supported this piece of legislation. It said that similar legislation has been in place for charities for many years and that there ought to be treatment of labour organizations analogous to that of charities.

The Quebec Employers Council also welcomed Bill C-377, citing that it is appropriate to make public the amount of dues that workers are required to pay, and which involve significant tax advantages, as well as the manner in which they are used.

This bill is actually about public disclosure, and this is a very positive step forward for unions and Canadian workers. Public disclosure will demonstrate that labour organizations spend their money wisely, effectively, and obtain good value for members' dues. This bill does not tell unions how to spend their money or restrict them in any way.

In my province of Ontario we have what we call the “sunshine list”, which makes public a list of all publicly funded employees who make over $100,000. In addition, salaries, benefits and office expenses of members of Parliament, MLAs, and others are also easy to obtain online.

Because union directors are also publicly funded through the mandatory union dues of all of their members, it only makes sense that union leaders in positions of authority and employees of the union earning more than $100,000 will have to disclose their earnings.

It is also important to recognize that the salaries of many Canadian union leaders are already published online in the United States. The U.S. has had legislation requiring public disclosure since 1959, before many of my colleagues in the House were even born. The Liberals would have us travel back in time and limit this form of accountability.

The actions that Bill C-4 is bringing into effect would not increase the confidence that Canadians have in our unions and our leadership, and it is important that we oppose the bill at every opportunity.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. Her comments that struck me the most strange were her repeated references to the back door, referring to members of Parliament using private members' legislation to advance a cause that is important.

I have had the privilege and honour of having two pieces of private members' legislation passed in the House in the last 10 years, and at no time did I or any of the people supporting my initiatives consider the method I used as back door. It is demeaning to every member in the House to consider private members' legislation a back door. This is the basis of our democracy in Canada, and it is a real disservice to have repeated references to this as a back door by the member and the previous member.

Let me get more to the point of Bill C-4 and what it would do in terms of repealing some of the initiatives that our government undertook. In terms of accountability, we know, just recently during the election, that there were a number of times when the Liberal government actually had unions pay their members to come to announcements. I do not believe that most of the union members were aware of that. The bills we put forward to enact more transparency would have addressed that.

Why does the member think it is not important for union members to know how their dollars are being spent?

[Health, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize this week as National Suicide Prevention Week, suicide continues to be a major national public health issue in Canada.

In December 2012, Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, was passed into law. This framework will help the hundreds of Canadians across Canada who are working with some of Canada's most vulnerable people.

Would the Minister of Health inform the House as to when we can expect some information as to when this bill will actually be implemented?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I did touch on this during the speech, urging the Liberal government to be more aggressive in pursuing new markets, for example.

I cannot tell members the difference it makes, having the proposition of the Canada–EU free trade agreement, the Canada–Korea free trade agreement, and the TPP when it comes to exporting agricultural products like pork and beef and the high tariffs that are currently on those products. That is the kind of fight we need to see from the Liberal government in standing up for our farmers to have access new markets.

When it comes to scientific research, I alluded to this earlier in response to my colleague across the way. We have to give farmers the research tools to help them develop a higher quality of their product, whether it is livestock or field crops. Our government did that. Many of our farmers are contacting me to let me know that they have been happy with this initiative rather than having them rely on government subsidies and top-ups that are not helpful in the long run.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for a minute I thought my colleague had forgotten that I was not part of the government right now.

However, I am proud of the investments and the initiatives that our government took on the health file. There have been many misstatements and misinformation made over the last number of years in terms of so-called health cuts. Our government increased funding to provinces at 6% per year. That certainly is not a cut.

We also committed to continue to invest going forward. I am happy to do anything we can to advance the health care of Canadians.

If members examine my record, they will see that over the last number of years I have worked hard on issues such as mental health initiatives, suicide prevention and palliative care. I certainly plan to continue those efforts as we go forward.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I especially welcome my colleague back again to the great village of St. Jacobs.

The biggest difference between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party as it relates to agriculture is that in the Conservative Party we believe farmers want to farm the land, not the mailbox.

For so many years, farmers were dependent on subsidies, top-ups and all of those kinds of programs. We invested in scientific research so farmers could produce high quality food using less pesticides, increasing their yield and providing traceability programs so if and when an unfortunate incident occurred, we could quickly address those problems.

The farmers I speak to in my area are thrilled with the investments we have made in helping farmers do their job better. They have no interest in continuing to rely on government subsidies. However, I am more than willing to work with the party opposite in improving the lives and the viability of our family farms.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

Today it is once again such a great honour for me to be able to rise in the House to participate in our democratic process on behalf of those who elected me from the greatest riding in all of Canada, Kitchener—Conestoga. It is with my constituents' best interests in mind that I speak to the government's Speech from the Throne.

As the MP for an urban-rural riding, I am concerned about the glaring omission of any mention of agriculture. Yes, agriculture is important to rural communities in my riding, but it is also very important to the urban communities that I represent as well. Farmers do feed cities. In my riding there are over 1,200 farms, approximately 1,400 in all of the region of Waterloo, accounting for $473 million in gross receipts in 2010. Farmers are professionals. They want to meet their social obligations in protecting the environment, protecting the health and welfare of animals, and providing the best quality food and products for their families, for their communities, and for the world.

The family farm is the foundation of the Canada we love today. Products have evolved and technology has advanced, but one thing remains constant: from before sunrise to long after the sun goes down, Canadian farmers do the hard work that feeds our country.

The Canadian agriculture and agrifood sectors account for more than $100 billion in economic activity every year and employ more than two million Canadians. The importance of agriculture to our national interests simply cannot be overstated. One in eight Canadian jobs depends on agriculture, those in primary agriculture, food processing, horticulture, farm markets, and more. By the way, I hope that all of my colleagues have taken the opportunity to visit the world-famous St. Jacobs farmers' market, in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga.

Over 100 years ago in 1900, one Canadian farmer produced enough food for 10 people. Today one farmer feeds more than 120 people. These are not people the government should be ignoring when setting out its agenda for this coming session. The Liberal government should be aggressively pursing new markets for our producers while protecting supply management. It should be investing in cutting-edge agriculture and agrifood technology; levelling the playing field for our producers, so they can better compete with trading partners; making science-based regulatory decisions; ensuring an effective and efficient transportation system; and all the while keeping taxes low for these producers and processors.

Our party has always placed high value on our agricultural sector and we will continue to do so while in opposition. Unfortunately, in three months since the election, we have already seen enough inaction on this and a number of other files to make Canadians uneasy about the future.

In terms of the economy and taxes and deficits, our leader said it best in her reply to the throne speech when she said, “We trust Canadians and the money they work so hard for is better left in their own pockets than in the hands of politicians here”. The constituents in my riding would prefer to invest and spend their own hard-earned money rather than have government determine how they can or cannot spend it.

Three topics I would like to focus on in this section are trade, the government's commitment to lowering the TFSA limit, and its promise to run a large deficit to increase infrastructure funding.

First, on trade, I am very happy to hear the Liberal government has signed the trans-Pacific partnership deal. However, the government needs to ratify the TPP at the earliest opportunity as it is in the best interests of all Canadians. The TPP would provide access to new markets with which we do not currently have free trade agreements, such as Japan, the world's third-largest economy. Ratifying the TPP would preserve Canada's privileged access to our largest trading partner, the United States, and would strengthen our partnership under NAFTA.

Ratifying this deal is especially important to our agriculture sector and again I am thinking of Waterloo region farmers. The TPP would allow these hard-working farmers preferential market access to products from great Canadian beef and pork to sweet Canadian maple syrup. By the way, Kitchener—Conestoga is home to the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival, which is the world's largest one-day maple syrup festival, and it will be held on April 2 this year.

By generating opportunities for Canadian agriculture and agrifood exports, the TPP would protect and create jobs and enhance economic opportunities and financial security for Canadian businesses and workers and their families in all regions of Canada.

As it relates to the tax-free savings accounts, the Conservative Party is proud of our introduction of TFSA that encouraged Canadians to be responsible in saving for their own future needs. A few days following the Speech from the Throne, my office received a phone call from a senior who begged and pleaded that I, along with my office, do everything that we can in order to ensure the Liberal government does not reduce the limit that she can contribute to her primary source of saving. This woman, by the way, was not someone who had a large income, contrary to what the Liberal government would like Canadians to believe. Many Canadians have come to rely on these savings accounts when planning for their future. These negative changes proposed will make life less affordable for Canadians who are trying to save for their vulnerable years.

In terms of infrastructure, in December, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and key members of his cabinet regarding commitments he had made to infrastructure funding, specifically in my riding. During the campaign, our current Prime Minister assured that an elected Liberal government would fund a two-way, all-day, rail link to Toronto so that commuters could travel to and from the region throughout the entire day. I would urge the Liberal government not to renege on its promise as its Ontario counterparts continue to drag their heels.

As we all know full well, these projects do come at a great cost. The government made it clear in its platform that it will be taking the surplus the previous government left it and entering into a deficit. The problem is that what was once a promise to keep the deficit to $10 billion has now ballooned to $20 billion or possibly even $30 billion. Every week we hear of more holes in the Liberal costing of their platform. More recently, a report from the parliamentary budget officer contradicts the Liberals' claim of a cost-neutral tax increase to Canadians. Instead, the PBO has found that it will cost the government upwards of $100 million per year to fund these so-called tax-neutral measures. It is clear to Canadians that there is always one party that will always look out for hard-working taxpayers and that is our Conservative Party.

We heard in the Speech from the Throne a commitment to keep Canadians safe and to strengthen relationships with our allies. Conservatives have said that in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, Canada must maintain our commitment to the air combat mission against ISIS and leave our CF-18s in the fight. The Prime Minister has still not explained how pulling CF-18 fighter jets out of the fight against ISIS is helpful to our coalition partners. If Canada truly wants to strengthen our relationship with its allies, this is not the time to withdraw our CF-18s. We should be standing side by side with our allies.

The Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Air Force have been carrying out training and air strikes successfully in the region for almost a year. The suggestion that Canada does not have the resources to do both is simply not consistent with the contributions we have already made and is a disservice to Canada's strong record. The brave men and women of Canada's Armed Forces are always willing and able to do the heavy lifting which includes degrading and defeating ISIS, a terrorist group that is committing mass murder and unspeakable atrocities. It is clear that remaining in the coalition fight against ISIS in a combat role is therefore in the best interests of Canadians both here and abroad. It is also for the refugees that we have welcomed in our communities with open arms and hearts that we must remain in this fight. For many of them, a safe and stable homeland remains their ultimate desire. It is our job to provide that for them so that if they wish, they may return to their country of origin and live free from oppression and fear of death.

The constituents of my riding are expecting the government to work hard for all sectors of the economy. The Liberals must address what they plan to do for our farming communities. Furthermore, they expect the government to steer our Canadian economy in a time when global markets are fragile, while stewarding their hard-earned tax dollars well and maintaining the principle that we should not spend money we do not have on things we cannot afford.

Last, as many of our closest friends around the world ramp up their contribution to the fight against this barbaric group ISIS, Canadians expect that we will stand alongside our friends. Unfortunately, these have not been addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

It is my hope that the Liberal government will see the error of its ways and take action on behalf of our global friends, on behalf of our small and medium-sized businesses in expanding trade opportunities, and especially on behalf of our vital agriculture sector to ensure that family farms can succeed and that Canadians can continue to have access to the very highest quality food in the world.