Back To Top

Candidate, Harold Albrecht

Conservative Party | Kitchener - Conestoga, ON

CLC rating: Pro-life, pro-family

SupportableLight Rating

Supportable
Supportable
Rating Comments: Voted in favour of MP Woodworth's principled Motion 312, to study whether a child in the womb is a human being, based on the preponderence of modern medical science. Albrecht was the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee Chair prior to the October 2015 Federal election.
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2006.01.23
Previous Occupation: Dentist, pastor, school trustee
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1949.10.15
Percentage in last election: 39.03% (2019) ; 43.3% (2015)
Victory margin last election: -0.71% (2019) ; 0.5% (2015)
Religion / Faith: Christian
Constituency Offices
1187 Fischer-Hallman Road, Unit 624
Kitchener, Ontario
N2E 4H9
Tel: 519-578-3777
Fax: 519-578-0138
Parliamentary Office
Ontario
Life & family issues voting score: 100%

Note: The voting score calculation is not weighted to account for relative differences in importance of various bills or issues. Here is Harold Albrecht's voting record relating to life and family issues:

Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision Vote Score
Bill C36, third reading: To protect exploited persons from prostitution by criminalizing pimps and the purchase of human beings for sex.
After the black-robed activists who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our Criminal Code prohibitions against prostitution, the Conservative government put forward this new legislation, modelled on the successful nordic law, to protect women from prostitution and the degradation of communities. The bill passed by a vote of 156 to 124. It is shameful that 124 Members of Parliament voted to protect the evil, exploitative practice of prostitution. [October 6, 2014]
Yes ok
Bill C225 - 2nd reading of 'Cassie & Molly's Law' bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to make it a separate offence to kill or injure a preborn child while committing violent crime against a woman while knowing she is pregnant. It would also add stiff minimum sentences if the unborn child is killed or injured.
This excellent Bill, introduced on February 23, 2016 by Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall, and co-sponsored by Conservative MP Rachael Harder, would bridge a terrible gap in Canada’s criminal justice system by increasing respect for the dignity and intrinsic worth of preborn children. [Defeated October 19, 2016 by a vote of 76 Ayes to 209 Nays]
Yes ok
Amendment to protect freedom of conscience for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and healthcare institutions to refuse to participate in euthanasia, either directly or indirectly
Conservative MP Michael Cooper proposed this amendment to the Liberal government’s pro-euthanasia Bill C-14, so as to protect the freedoms of conscience and religion for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare workers and institutions to refuse to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, either directly by committing the murder, or indirectly by referring the patient to be killed by someone else. Tragically, the common sense amendment was defeated by a vote of 97 Yeas to 222 Nays. Basically, almost all Conservatives voted well, and virtually all Liberals, NDP and Bloc MPs voted to crush freedom of conscience. [May 30, 2016, Vote No. 72]
Yes ok
Bill C14 - 3rd reading of Liberal gvmt bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide
This horrible Bill, introduced on April 14, 2016 by Justin Trudeau's Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, would institute a killing regime in Canada under which doctors, nurses and even average people assigned by a doctor, will be permitted to kill their patients. The bill uses an innocuous-sounding phrase - medical assistance in dying - to hide the ugly reality of a state-sponsored killing apparatus that would allow most ordinary Canadians to participate in causing the death of their fellow citizens. This reckless bill will lead to wide open euthanasia-on-demand, just as they have in the Netherlands and Belgium where child euthanasia and the killing of depressed persons is permitted. [Passed May 31, 2016 by a vote of 186 Ayes to 137 Nays]
No ok
Bill C14 - 4th reading of a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide (after it was amended by the Senate)
The passage of this monstrous Bill, introduced on April 14, 2016 by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, institutes a killing regime in Canada under which government-approved conditions have been established for putting citizens to death. The innocuous-sounding phrase "medical assistance in dying" has been employed to hide the reality of a remarkably broad state-sponsored killing apparatus that now allows most ordinary Canadians to participate in causing the death of some of C-14's victims. This carefully-constructed, euthemistic phrase "medical assistance in dying" indicates only that medication is to be involved in the actual killing; it does not indicate that a doctor or a nurse must be present to oversee that actual administration of the lethal medication in all cases. Once dispensed, deadly medication can be adminstered by "any person" of the age of majority. Thus, in some circumstances, Bill C-14 goes beyond what the now-obsolete phrase "doctor-assited suicide" envisaged; now, there is not even a requirement for a healthcare professional to witness every euthanasia killing that takes place. [Vote June 16, 2016 - passed 190 to 108]
No ok
Bill C16 - 2nd reading of a Bill to amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
This totalitarian Bill, introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould on May 17, 2016, would invent, in law, a new breed of human person out of those suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, and threatens to punish those who refuse to affirm transexualized alter-egos, using the state's dragnet of "hate propaganda". [Passed October 18, 2016 by a vote of 248 Ayes to 40 Nays]
No ok
Bill C45 - 2nd reading of a bill to legalize the possession and recreational use of cannabis (commonly known as marijuana).
Dubbed the Cannabis Act, this irresponsible bill was introduced on April 13, 2017 by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. Though purportedly introduced to help keep marijuana out of the hands of children, Bill C45 would actaully have the opposite effect. The bill would not only legalize the possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis by individuals 18 years of age and over for purely recreational use, but it would also remove any criminal penalties for children aged 12 to 17 who possess up to five grams of marijuana, and would further allow people to freely grow marijuana in their own homes, even if children are present. This would make marijuana more accessible than ever before to children from the hands of possessing adults, and the dramatically increased access and societal acceptance of open marijuana use would excite the appeal and desirability of this dangerous, mind-impairing gateway drug among children and youth. [Vote June 8, 2017 - passed 200 to 76]
No ok
Bill C45 - 3rd reading of a bill to legalize the possession and recreational use of cannabis (commonly known as marijuana).
Dubbed the Cannabis Act, this irresponsible bill was introduced on April 13, 2017 by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. Though purportedly introduced to help keep marijuana out of the hands of children, Bill C45 would actaully have the opposite effect. The bill would not only legalize the possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis by individuals 18 years of age and over for purely recreational use, but it would also remove any criminal penalties for children aged 12 to 17 who possess up to five grams of marijuana, and would further allow people to freely grow marijuana in their own homes, even if children are present. This would make marijuana more accessible than ever before to children from the hands of possessing adults, and the dramatically increased access and societal acceptance of open marijuana use would excite the appeal and desirability of this dangerous, mind-impairing gateway drug among children and youth. [Vote Nov. 27, 2017 - passed 200 to 82]
No ok
Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage
[Dec 2006]
Yes ok
C-484, Unborn victims of Crime Act
Common sense legislation that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the childs mother is the victim of violent crime. This cannot be considered a "pro-life" bill because it specifically excludes deliberate acts of abortion by the woman. Nonetheless, it is a good "pro-family" bill because it protects women and their wanted children from violent crime. (Mar5/08)
Yes ok
Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler
Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008)
No ok
Motion M388, Criminalize online suicide counselling
Private member's motion introduced by Harold Albrecht (and subsequently passed unanimously) to criminalize the counselling of suicide on the internet. This Bill was inspired by the death of Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old student at Carleton University in Ottawa whose suicide was encouraged over the internet by a serial predator posing as a kindred spirit and helpful friend. [2009]
Sponsored the bill ok
Bill C-384, Legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide
A horrible bill that would have given doctors permission to kill people who are seriously ill but not dying and who in fact, have a treatable condition. Doctors would also have been permitted to kill people suffering with treatable chronic depression. This bill was defeated on second reading, 59 votes in favour to 228 votes Against.
[Apr 21, 2010]
No ok
Bill C-510, to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort
This private member's bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, also called Roxanne's Law, was a common sense bill to protect women and their unborn children from coercion to abort. Abortion coercion by boyfriends, husbands, relatives and even physicians is very common in Canada. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in 2nd reading by a vote of 97 to 178. [December 15, 2010]
Yes ok
Bill C389, 3rd reading of the "Transsexual Bathroom Bill"
This radical bill sought to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would've endangered women and children by creating a legal right for men who "identify" as the opposite sex, to use female public washrooms. Male sexual predators or peeping toms would have certainly used this as an opening to enter the girl's washroom. It is unconscionable for legislators to put women and children in such a compromising position. It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. This bill passed final reading in House of Commons by a 143-135 vote on February 9, 2011, but then, thankfully, died in the Senate when a federal election was called.
No ok
Bill C-304, 2nd Reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
This clause enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 158-131. (Feb 15, 2012 )
Yes ok
Bill C279 - 2nd reading, to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison would invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote June 6, 2012 - passed 150 to 132]
No ok
Motion 312: Studying Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being
Motion 312 (sponsored by MP Stephen Woodworth) called for parliament to review Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth.
Yes ok
Bill C-304, 3rd reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Section 13 enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 153-136. (June 6, 2012 )
Yes ok
Bill C279 - 3rd reading of 'transgender & transsexual' empowerment bill which added the radical concepts of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison sought to invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote March 20, 2013 - passed 150 to 137]
No ok
Conservative Motion (Vote #459) to exempt some (but not all) employers from having to sign an attestation in support of Justin Trudeau’s personal, Liberal social values, as a pre-condition to access federal funding to hire students via the Canada Summer Jobs Program. The motion sought to exempt organizations that engage in activities such as feeding the homeless and helping refugees from have to affirm their agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal values.
This was a clever trap to get Liberals on record voting to defund organizations that feed the hungry and serve refugees. As far as a political shaming exercise goes, it was effective, with all but one Liberal MP voting to not allow conscientious objection by employers (of a non-political non-activist nature) from having to pledge loyalty to abortion and transgender ideology, in exchange for federal funds. Liberal and NDP MPs voted almost unanimously against the motion, revealing just how radically devoted to in-utero child-killing they are. The shame heaped on those rabidly pro-abortion MPs is well-deserved, and so, Campaign Life Coalition has given them a negative score for this vote. All Conservative MPs who were present voted in favour of the motion. Nonetheless, CLC cannot count this a positive vote because the motion was half-hearted, cowardly, and represented a betrayal of the pro-life movement, surrendering pro-life organizations to continued Liberal tyranny. The motion does not seek to protect ALL Canadian employers from being coerced to pledge fealty to abortion and transgender ideology in exchange for government funding. Another major problem was that implicit in the motion, the Scheer Conservatives gave tacit approval for Justin Trudeau to continue his ideological discrimination against some employers. Namely, those employers who engage in pro-life “political activist work”. Why should Conservatives betray front line workers in the pro-life movement to this Liberal tyranny? Why is it acceptable to violate our constitutional rights to freedom of religion and conscience? Are our rights any less important than those of other employers? It is our tax money that is being distributed too. Our conscience rights are to be respected, as are those of every other Canadian citizen. The Scheer Conservatives threw under the bus, the many front-line pro-life workers in organizations like Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and Toronto Right To Life, who sacrifice so much to save preborn human lives. This motion could have protected all Canadians, but the Conservatives chose not to protect us all from Justin Trudeau’s ideological coercion. As a pro-life party Leader, Andrew Scheer could also have chosen to use this motion to advance debate on abortion and the right to life. Instead, he passed up that opportunity by carefully avoiding any mention of the word “abortion” in the motion itself, as well as in any comments made by himself or other MPs. It seems reasonable to conclude that orders were given by Scheer’s office that Conservative MPs must not mention the A-word. This represents a second betrayal. For this reason, Yes votes by Conservative MPs have been scored as neutral. [Vote March 19, 2018 - defeated 207 to 93]
Yes --

Here are quotes from Harold Albrecht on various life and family issues:

After being attacked in the local newspaper by a militant, pro-abortion columnist, Albrecht defended his pro-life convictions with a letter to the editor:  "Yes, I attended the March for Life this year. Stevens seems to believe my presence indicates the nefarious hidden hand of some new agenda. In fact, this was my fifth time speaking at the March for Life....I am a firm advocate for life, from conception to natural death." [The Waterloo Region Record, 'Stevens Column Erred', May 21, 2010]

On a Motion to Make it Illegal to Counsel Suicide Over the Internet:  "We all know someone who has been touched by depression. Too many of us are aware of incidents where this depression has led to suicide... vulnerable people require the protection of the law. That is the purpose behind section 241 of Canada's Criminal Code which makes it illegal to counsel someone to commit suicide. The need for section 241 has not changed. The goals of section 241 remain as important today as ever." [Hansard transcript, Sept 30, 2009]

Stating his intention to support Motion 312, a motion to examine modern medical science on the question of whether a child in the womb is a human being:  "All through my time in Parliament, I’ve been pretty clear I’ll support anything that protects the sacred gift of human life. This motion asks us to study when human life begins. That’s something Canada needs. It’s time we had this discussion.” [Waterloo Region Record, 'Woodworth gets local MP’s support for motion', Sep. 24, 2012]

Speaking on defending true Marriage and the institution of the family:  "I will continue to stand for the tradional family." [The New Hamburg Independent, Dec. 13, 2006]

On the definition of Marriage:  "over 1,000 constituents have taken the time to write me a letter, or pick up the phone, or stop me on the street, and they say quite clearly, 'I care about traditional marriage'. I have been asked about this issue by young married couples who are raising children. These families are deeply concerned about their children and future grandchildren if the traditional family is abandoned. I have personally met with young people... These young people want to see the definition of marriage protected as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." [Hansard transcript, Dec. 6, 2006]

Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Harold Albrecht on 2006.

Question Response
Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? Yes
Do you support the conscience rights of health care professionals to refuse to do or refer for medical procedures which they oppose? --
If elected, would you vote in favour of a law to protect all unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? --
If elected, will you vote to pass laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted-suicide, and vote to reject laws that would expand euthanasia and assisted-suicide? --
If elected, will you support measures to introduce and pass a law to protect every unborn child from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? Yes
Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) No
If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures to explicitly exclude abortion as an insured health service under the Canada Health Act? Yes
If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate killing (euthanasia) of a human being regardless of age, state of health, or "anticipated quality of life" or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? Yes
If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures that would prohibit the dispensing of abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals? Yes
If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures to prohibit experimentation upon human embryos, at every stage of development? Yes
If elected, will you vote for measures that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes

There are no videos available for Harold Albrecht.

  • Legend for Light
    Rating System
  • Green Light
    GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE
  • Red Light
    RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE
  • Amber Light
    AMBER light means voters should be cautious about the candidate. CLC is still evaluating this individual, does not have enough data, or their record is mixed. View their quotes & voting history to help you decide.
Want to See How the Parties Compare on Policy?