​This week there was more attention than usual on US politics as many watched the results of the US mid-term elections.

Closer to home in Washington State there also was a vote to implement a state carbon tax.

This vote was Initiative No. 1631 which proposed a carbon tax of $15/ton and was rejected with a majority 56% of roughly 2 million voters saying no.

This was the second time a Washington State carbon tax has been rejected by a majority of voters with the previous initiative being voted down in 2016.

Why does this matter to Canadians?

Here in BC, some of our industries compete with industries located in Washington State.

When an industry in a jurisdiction paying carbon taxes cannot compete with that same industry in another jurisdiction, not paying carbon taxes, there is a serious concern for economic harm and job losses.

This situation is called “carbon leakage”.

Carbon leakage is even referenced in the current BC NDP Provincial budget document.

Here is how “carbon leakage" is defined in that budget document:

“Industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price:

If Industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

In Ottawa, the Trudeau Liberal Government has also acknowledged this same principle.

Liberal MP Sean Fraser, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, recently admitted that when it comes to big industrial emitters in “trade-exposed industries”, the Liberal Government has recently softened carbon tax on big polluters because in the absence of carbon tax relief the carbon tax could potentially have jobs leave and it will do nothing for emissions.

In New Brunswick, the Trudeau Liberal Government has given a 95.5% percent exemption on carbon tax that applies to coal fired power.

Coal power is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Atlantic Canada. The largest emitter is the Irving Oil refinery who imports oil from Countries that also do not have carbon taxes.

BC is also not immune from carbon tax exemptions.

As one example, despite the BC NDP Government signing onto the Trudeau national carbon tax, the new BC LNG investment will be exempt from the carbon tax increases called for in that agreement.

This is not an isolated incident where a polluting industry in BC has secured some form of carbon tax relief.

Why do I raise these points?

The challenge is that increasingly some of Canada’s largest polluters are being given exemptions from paying carbon tax.

These carbon tax exemptions seldom draw major national media headlines and many citizens are unaware they are occurring.

However for the average citizen and for small business owners there is no carbon tax relief.

Here in BC, more increases in carbon tax remain on the horizon.

My question this week is one of fairness.

With large scale polluters increasingly being given carbon tax relief, do you think it is fair that, here in BC, average citizens are being asked to pay more carbon tax?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

Recently I have been overwhelmed by citizens asking what can be summarized by the following question:

“Is it true that Statistics Canada is demanding access to certain Canadians personal financial and banking information, including all transactions along with bank account balances without citizens’ consent or even notification that this is going on?”.

When news of this potential sharing of your personal financial information with Ottawa bureaucrats first broke (full credit to Global News) the Official Opposition immediately began hearing very serious concerns, even outrage, from many Canadians.

This was similar to what occurred when it was announced the Liberal Government was going to claw back employee discounts and treat them as taxable benefits. 

In that case when the Official Opposition raised these concerns, the Liberals announced it was a policy directive that was not signed off by the Minister and would not go forward.

Our hopeful expectation was this might be a similar situation. 

Unfortunately in question period this week Prime Minister Trudeau has confirmed that he fully supports your personal banking information being shared with Ottawa bureaucrats without either your consent, or your knowledge.

The Prime Minister has stated that he believes your data will remain secure. The fact that you have not consented to your financial data being shared and that you will not be  notified that your banking information has been taken is perfectly acceptable and is something he supports.

On Thursday my opposition colleague MP Candice Bergen presented over 800 pages of government documents showing hundreds of incidents of privacy breaches affecting thousands of citizens over the past 19 months.

Fortunately on October 31st,  the Privacy Commissioner announced he will launch an formal investigation into these proposed actions from Statistics Canada.

In my view, this is not 1984. No government should be using Orwellian techniques to harvest your personal private banking information.

Your personal financial information belongs to you and you have a right to know when it is being accessed and for what purpose. 

The Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and our Official Opposition caucus do not support this Liberal supported assault on your personal financial privacy. 

My question this week is a simple one: 

Do you? 

​I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

  

​This week you may have seen or heard media reports regarding a carbon tax rebate plan announced by the Trudeau Liberal Government.

What is this new carbon tax rebate plan?

The Federal Liberal Government has mandated a national carbon tax to be implemented across Canada allowing individual Provinces and Territories some flexibility to set the parameters of how this carbon tax program will be implemented.

As an example, here in British Columbia, a carbon tax has been in place since 2008. The Provincial NDP Government has announced it will continue to increase this carbon tax to meet the federal standard set by Prime Minister Trudeau.

Other provinces, most notably Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick have either openly refused a carbon tax or have enacted other environmental policies that Mr.Trudeau has decided do not meet his carbon tax threshold.

In these four provinces (and these four provinces only) residents will soon be getting annual carbon tax rebates from the federal government. 

In Manitoba the rebate is $336, Ontario is $300, NB is $248 and Saskatchewan the yearly rebate is $598. 

In British Columbia the rebate is zero.

One local citizen recently shared with me that this Liberal carbon tax policy essentially rewards provinces who have rejected the Liberals carbon tax. 

An interesting observation.

In my view, this Liberal rebate is an admission that their national carbon tax is not truly revenue neutral and that people will pay more in costs related to the carbon tax.  

The intent in these four provinces, according to the Liberals, is to return a larger carbon tax rebate than what the Liberals calculate citizens in these provinces will pay in increased carbon taxes. 

In other words, the Liberals are suggesting that if you live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick you will make money and come out ahead after paying a carbon tax. 

This same carbon tax credit, that will be implemented through income tax returns, will also apply to the territories. 

In August the Trudeau Liberals also lowered the amount of carbon tax that some of Canada’s largest polluters will pay as a result of “competiveness” concerns as many of Canada’s largest trading partners do not have a national carbon tax.

It should also be noted that the recently negotiated USMCA trade agreement between Canada, USA and Mexico is also silent on the subject of a North American carbon tax meaning that competiveness concerns will remain.

My question this week: 

Do you believe government claims that you will come out ahead financially after paying increased taxes?

I can be reached at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca or at 1-800-665-8711. 

​Back in June of this year the National Energy Board reported that crude oil-by-rail exports from Canada set a new record of 204,558 barrels per day. 

Industry analysts predict that by the end of this year, oil exports could increase to 300,000 barrels. 

The International Energy Agency has predicted that by the end of 2019 Canadian oil by rail exports could hit 390,000 barrels a day with the potential to possibly hit peak levels of as much as 590,000 barrels. 

For some added context, in 2012 the shipment of oil by rail was roughly 30,000 barrels of oil per day. 

I mention these things because the efforts to block the Trans Mountain pipeline have been successful to date and have only served to increased shipment by rail, a less environmentally efficient option.

At the same time the production of oil in Alberta continues to increase.

Currently oil production is on pace to hit 5.6 million barrels per day by 2035, an increase of over 30% to current production levels. In the absence of increased pipeline capacity it is clear why oil by rail exports will only continue to increase.

Aside from the logistical challenges, there is also the current inability to access new markets that are willing to pay more for Canadian oil then is currently the case with exporting to the United States. 

Industry experts predict that roughly $1 billion a month is being lost in potential increased revenue from accessing new markets.

As many will know the Federal Liberal Government has paid $4.5 Billion to purchase the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and has repeatedly stated it will spend an additional $7-9 billion to build the expanded project. 

Currently the project remains at an impasse with no clear deadline being set by the Government for completion let alone construction.

What if there was another way? 

Independent Senator Doug Black has tabled a private members bill in the Senate. 

Bill S-245 “An Act to declare the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada”. 

As many know, the BC NDP Government has been making efforts to block the Trans-Mountain pipeline. 

Bill S-245 proposes that the authority of class 29 of section 91 and paragraph (c) of class 10 of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to be used to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada.

This bill passed in the Senate and is before the House of Commons this week. 

Given that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Trans-Mountain project is in Canada’s national interests, it will be interesting to see if the Liberals support this Senate bill going forward.

My question this week:.

Do you support Senate Bill S-245 and the intent to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

With so much Canadian media reporting on the recent appointment of a US Supreme Court Justice, many Canadian stories tend to get lost in the shuffle. 

One of the stories that I suspect few have heard about is the progress of the Trudeau Liberals vaunted $35 Billion Infrastructure Bank.

I first raised my concerns about this bank when it was introduced by the Liberals in 2016.

I questioned the move to develop yet another expensive federally funded agency where none was needed. In a subsequent MP report in 2017, I raised the concern that the Infrastructure Bank doesn’t actually build any infrastructure. 

The Liberal Government has stated that the purpose of the Infrastructure Bank is to attract international investors who would invest privately and ultimately build infrastructure here in Canada.

This raises the question as to where the Infrastructure Bank is today, in late 2018. 

CBC recently reported the Infrastructure Bank has only been involved in one project since it was created.  

The project in question is committing a $1.28 billion loan to help build a $6.3 billion transit project in Montreal.

What is interesting about this particular project in Montreal is that it in no way was instigated by the Infrastructure Bank.

This Montreal light rail project was already in progress before the Infrastructure Bank was created.

Another interesting aspect to the Montreal light rail project is that it is being constructed by a French construction firm with the rail cars being built in India.

That single project aside, my earlier concerns about the Infrastructure Bank being an expensive and unnecessary waste remain.

Access to information requests have revealed some staggering costs to run this new Infrastructure Bank. 

Almost $11.4 Million has been spent on salaries, compensation and other administration expenses while close to another $ 1.4 million has been spent on capital expenses.

To recap, the Liberal Government has now spent close to $12.8 million on the Infrastructure Bank.

That is $12.8 million that could have been spent building actual infrastructure that is instead paying for expensive administration.

On a different note, earlier this week the Liberal Government announced it was providing $1.44 million towards a “near net zero” private grocery store in an Liberal Cabinet Minister’s riding in Ontario.

This project was not funded through the Infrastructure Bank but rather through Natural Resources Canada.

My question this week is do you believe the Infrastructure Bank is a good investment of $35 billion in tax dollars or is it an expensive, wasteful and unnecessary abuse of resources?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

This week Canadians learned that a draft agreement has been reached between the United States, Mexico and Canada with ongoing renegotiation of the NAFTA deal. 

The new agreement, subject to ratification is called the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement otherwise referred to as the USMCA.

This agreement involved a significant number of concessions from Canada from the previous NAFTA agreement.

Some of those concessions are listed down below.

Dairy: the United States received increased access to the Canadian dairy sector- roughly 3.6%. The Liberal Government has promised it will compensate Canadian dairy farmers for their losses.

Auto sector: Canada has agreed to a maximum number of vehicles that can be produced in Canada (2.6 Million) and be exported to the United States without duty. As well, to avoid duties, 75% of the parts used in the manufacture of the vehicles, must originate from USMCA partner countries. 

Drugs: Canada has agreed to extend patent protections for biological pharmaceutical drugs to 10 years. This change is widely expected to increase the cost of some prescription drugs.

Copyright Laws: Canada has agreed to extend the terms of a copyright from 50 years up to 70 years. A change that many experts have called a “capitation on Canada’s copyright policy”.

De Minimis: this is a term that represents the amount of goods a person can bring across the border without being hit by duties.The basic exemption when crossing the border in person will increase to $40 of US goods up from the current $20. For online shipment (e-commerce) the level is increased to $150 CAD.

Trade autonomy: one more alarming concession that has many concerned in Ottawa is language that may restrict Canada's ability to negotiate a trade deal with a "non-market" country, for example, China. This is an emerging topic requiring more clarification.

BC Wine: on a topic closer to home another concession is that BC Grocery stores current selling only BC wines will be required to also sell wines from the United States…a problem that many thought could occur and made their concerns known when this provincial program was first put into place.

What has not changed is that an independent arbitration panel will still be used in the event there is a trade dispute. Many view preserving this as one of the few key wins for Canada in this new agreement that shall have a 16 year expiry date with an option to renew for another 16 year term.

Things not addressed in the new USMCA:

United States tariffs on Canadian produced steel and aluminum remain in effect as do the punitive tariffs on Canadian

Softwood Lumber.

In addition the United States “Buy American” provisions also remain in effect.

Is this a good deal or a bad deal for Canada? 

That is the question for Canadians to decide upon and will also serve as my question for this week:

Do you think the many concessions that the Liberal government made, went too far or is this simply the price to be paid for a new North American trade agreement?

I welcome your comments and can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.
​

This week a somewhat unusual event occurred in the House of Commons.
On Tuesday the Conservative Official Opposition tabled a motion:

“That, given the Prime Minister has told veterans that they are “asking for more than we are able to give”, the House call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to revoke the Veterans Affairs Canada benefits that have been extended to Chris Garnier, who is not a veteran, is incarcerated for second-degree murder and for interfering with the dead body of police officer Catherine Campbell, and is currently receiving benefits for a disability he sustained while committing his heinous crimes.”

​The unusual event? 

After the debate on this motion, all opposition parties – the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party voted unanimously in support of stopping veterans benefits being provided to this convicted killer of a police officer.

The Trudeau Liberals used their majority to defeat this motion.

It is unusual for all opposition parties to vote together, however this issue crossed all partisan party lines. I have heard outrage from a significant number of people and in particular from members of our law enforcement community. 

The Liberals, in support of their move to defeat the motion, have argued that because the convicted murderer’s father is a veteran, there is justification to provide these benefits to his son.

There is some positive news related to this motion.

On the day this motion was being debated in the House of Commons, CBC reported that that “Veterans Affairs Canada will no longer pay for benefits for incarcerated relatives of veterans in the wake of the Christopher Garnier case.” 

This revised policy is one that I am already hearing strong support for, from many citizens in our region.

Despite this new policy, the Trudeau Liberals have decided it will not be applied retroactively, meaning that this convicted killer will continue to receive treatment for PTSD that he admitted was caused by events that occurred during his brutal act of violence against an off duty-police officer.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Trudeau Liberals decision to continue to allow Veterans Affairs to pay the cost of PTSD treatment of the man convicted of murdering an off-duty police officer?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

I was recently honoured to be named as the Opposition Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science, Economic Development and Internal Trade. 

This new role is one I take very seriously and I would like to briefly explain one of the reasons why.

In some ways Canada is at a cross roads. 

We have a Prime Minister who believed that if we had a national carbon tax, it would buy social license to support getting a new pipeline to tidewater.

Today we know that plan is failing for a variety of different reasons. 

The Prime Minister says he remains committed to getting the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion built, despite the fact that a growing number of provinces are rejecting his federally imposed carbon tax.

The important question here is “What are the alternatives?” 

This is where innovation, science, economic development and internal trade come in to the picture.

Recently, I learned of a new high tech refinery being built in Alberta. As refineries go this is a small one producing roughly 500 barrels per day. 

But what is exciting is this refinery is producing ‘clean diesel’.

What is ‘clean diesel’? 

It is a synthetic sulphur-free diesel fuel that is made from a mixture of liquid gas, wood chips and bio solids that has near zero CO2 emissions.

Not only does this fuel meet the low carbon fuel standard target for 2020, the same technology can also be adapted to produce synthetic jet fuel for aviation applications.

Another important consideration is this synthetic fuel is fully compatible with existing engines and requires no costly retro fitting.

Synthetic diesel can also be used as a concentrate. As an example, mixing 20% synthetic diesel with 80% conventional diesel produces a diesel fuel that is well below current European and Californian emission standard levels. 

There is also a local connection to this technology. 

A company located in the South Okanagan is currently manufacturing some of the equipment to be used at the refinery in Alberta.

With some adaptation, the same technology can also be used to generate electricity.

With a fairly robust supply of wood waste in addition to many local governments struggling to find locations to deal with bio solids, there are opportunities to use these materials to generate electricity. 

Currently, there are some exploratory efforts to identify possible locations for such a plant here in the Okanagan.

Synthetic fuels and energy production are obviously only one step in a complex problem but it does clearly illustrate the important role that innovation can play as we look to find lower carbon solutions in our future.

My question this week: 

Should the Federal Government encourage development of innovation projects such as this one to reduce our CO2 emissions, instead of imposing carbon taxes?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free a 1-800-665-8711. 

​One of the local concerns I am hearing more about, is the growing frustration from those who are in the queue and waiting for applications to be processed related to citizenship and immigration and in particular, asylum claims. 

Many families in this situation believe that they are being further delayed because those entering Canada illegally (currently over 30,000) are getting priority treatment over those who enter legally and follow all of the proper rules and procedures. 

The Liberal Government has consistently denied this is occurring, stating that “asylum seekers are processed under a separate category neither ahead or behind applicants for immigration, permanent residence or citizenship.”

The Liberals have also stated that for unsuccessful applicants “there are no guarantees that you will be able to stay in Canada”.

This week the Globe & Mail published a report that indicates that the wait time for a refugee claim hearing in Canada has increased more than a third over the past two years and that the “the resulting backlog has created a growing queue for any and all asylum seekers.”

The Globe & Mail report is consistent with the growing concern and frustration that I am hearing locally.

Another troubling statistic from the Globe & Mail, and I quote directly, “a separate data set from the Canada Border Services Agency shows that only a handful of those who have been denied refugee status have been deported.”

The report states that of the 32,173 people who crossed into Canada illegally since April, 2017, only 398  have been deported. 

Of those, 146 were sent back to the United States.

The remainder  to 53 other countries including Haiti (53), Colombia (24), Turkey (19) and Iraq (15).

As the National Post has reported, under the previous Conservative Government in 2012/13, the number of failed claimants that were returned to their country of origin was 14,490. 

In 2016/17, under the Liberal Government, that number has declined to just 3,892.

The Liberals like to suggest that pointing out this growing problem is “stoking fears on immigration,” an accusation I will continue to categorically reject.

As I have stated in the past - supporting legal immigration to Canada is how we ensure fairness for those citizens who are making every effort to fully comply with Canadian law. 

My question this week:

Do you believe that those who make every effort to legally comply with our immigration system are being treated fairly as their application wait times continue to grow?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

Early last week the federal Minister of Natural Resources went on the record to state that his Liberal government had “done extensive consultation” and had  “went beyond what the NEB (National Energy Board) has done. We took six months extra to consult with Indigenous communities and affected communities on the route.” - all in order to get the Trans-Mountain pipeline project approved.

In other words, the Trudeau Liberals were so confident that they spent $4.5 Billion of tax payer money to buy the existing pipeline from USA based Kinder Morgan, to be followed by the much more expensive expansion project (estimated cost to be between $7-9 Billion) 

Late last week we heard the Federal Court of Appeal disagree with the Liberal Government by ruling that consultation had not been adequate. 

This ruling, at least for now, has brought the Trans-Mountain project to a standstill and layoff notices for many crews working on different aspects of the project are expected shortly. 

As a result of this Trudeau Government failure, the Alberta NDP government announced it would be withdrawing from the Liberal national carbon tax plan until such time that the Trans-Mountain pipeline project is completed.

These negative developments, along with ongoing NAFTA negotiations challenges that resulted in Mexico reaching its own agreement with the USA and Canada sitting on the sidelines, resulted in many media referring to this as “Trudeau’s horrible, no good, very bad week”.

So this week, during an emergency meeting of the Natural Resources Committee in Ottawa, a simple request was made to have the Finance Minister and Minister of Natural Resources appear before the committee and explain what the Liberal plan was to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, in light of the court ruling.

That request was blocked by the Liberal members of the committee. 

To recap, the Liberal have spent $4.5 Billion buying a pipeline that requires a further $7 to 9 billion for an expansion and they refuse to disclose how they will actually complete it.

Many experts are suggesting that the Liberals have created a regulatory environment that not even they can successfully navigate. 

From my perspective, whether you support the pipeline or not, a democratically elected government should be able to see projects deemed to be in the national interest completed. 

Instead we have a situation where it appears that activists, some of whom are foreign funded, may usurp the will of a democratically elected government. 

While some may view the prospect of foreign interference in our elections with skepticism, this is now a mainstream issue with the Liberal Government suggesting current federal election laws do not fully take these activities into account and suggesting some legislative fixes are warranted.

I suspect the reason why Mr. Trudeau refuses to disclose how he will break this self-created regulatory quagmire is due to the fact that an election is approaching and it is politically more convenient to “rag the puck” when it comes to a controversial subject such as building pipelines. 

I hope that I am mistaken on that point and that the Prime Minister will reveal a concrete plan that supports a project he has defined as being in our national interest. 

My question this week:

Given that the Trudeau Liberals define the Trans Mountain project as in Canada’s national interest, do you believe they will complete it?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​If you have been following Ottawa based politics recently you may have heard some speculation that Prime Minister Trudeau might prorogue the House of Commons, as the fall session is soon set to return.

This begs the more obvious question- what does that mean? 

As I have written previously on this topic, prorogation is one of the more interesting Parliamentary procedures. In essence each “session” of Parliament is not unlike a chapter in a book. 

As much as each chapter will have a beginning and an end, so too will a session of Parliament.


Prorogation is officially defined as the ending of a session of Parliament.

In this case the 1st session of this Parliament (the 42nd), would come to a close if is officially prorogued by a proclamation of the Governor General at the request of the Prime Minister.

Why request prorogation? 

There can be a number of different reasons however the most common is that the next session of Parliament would open with a throne-speech. Many consider this akin to hitting the reset button as it allows the sitting Government to outline a new or different direction.

Considering the next federal election is fast approaching, many believe there is political value in outlining a new agenda, hence the speculation that the House may be prorogued in the near future.

Is it unusual for the house to be prorogued? 

Looking back at previous Parliaments including the last one, there have been only five Parliaments that did not have two or more sessions. In fact many Parliaments had 3 or more sessions with some having as many as 5, 6 and even 7 sessions within the duration of an elected Parliament. 

Part of the reason for this is that prior to having a fixed calendar, prorogation was the only way the House could adjourn for a period of time. One other interesting aspect of prorogation is that it can be used at the discretion of Government without the consent of the opposition (that would normally be required to adjourn the House). 

Because prorogation is a tool of government that does not require the consent of the opposition, it tends to be quite heavily opposed when it is used because it allows the Government to defer debate or change the channel onto a different subject. 

I do not often engage in speculation however I believe this session of the House will likely end up being prorogued. 

My question this week now that you know more about prorogation is, do you think it is an acceptable political tool for the Government to use?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

I have often said that the wheels of Ottawa tend to turn quite slowly. 

One of the issues I worked on in the last Parliament was the need to establish a regulatory framework in Canada related to invasive species legislation.  

This was and remains a serious concern locally given the growing threat of invasive freshwater mussels to our region.

After considerable delay and much prodding we were able to have the new regulations in place for the 2015 boating season however that was only the first of many steps required to protect the Okanagan and other freshwater lakes in British Columbia and Western Canada.

The concern now is funding. 

Recently when the Prime Minister visited the Okanagan he and members of his caucus have been touting “$500,000 in research, education and outreach to help prevent invasive mussels from reaching local waterways”.

In turn I have recognized the Liberal Government for listening to our concerns and taking some action on this file. 

Unfortunately the funding announced recently is spread out over a 3-4 year time frame meaning the actual impact is roughly $158,000 annually.

As my opposition colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap, Mel Arnold pointed out, along with Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB), and more recently the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, this funding is nowhere near adequate to prevent invasive mussels from reaching our local waterways.

Make no mistake, the risks are very real. 

It is estimated that an invasive mussel infestation could create economic loss of $42 million annually in direct costs and lost revenue to the Okanagan region. 

More concerning is that invasive zebra and quaggamussels could destroy critically needed habitat that would further threaten or even destroy our local Pacific Salmon population.

The OBWB has issued a comprehensive multi-point plan that will better protect our region from invasive mussels. The annual operating cost of this plan is roughly $2 million.

To put that number into perspective, the current Federal Government’s annual Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) funding is close to $19 million. At the moment, 86% of the annual AIS funding is spent in Ontario. Here in the Okanagan, this recently announced funding from the Liberal Government is less than 1% of that.

I believe our Pacific Salmon habitat deserves more protection from the Liberals then less than 1% of the AIS funding. 

My question this week: 

Do you agree with me that the Federal Liberal Government should fully fund the request from the Okanagan Basin Water Board to better protect our region from invasive freshwater mussels?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

In my weekly MP reports I often close with a question related to the subject of the report. 

I do this for a number of different reasons, most importantly because I want to know what my constituents think.

On some issues there may be a strong consensus, however on other issues there might be vast differences of opinion. 

In particular, I find citizens will often convey a perspective that might not be reflected in Ottawa. 

If there was any one subject that provoked an extremely significant response, it was related to the Trudeau Liberal Government announcing that it would spend $4.5 Billion to purchase the Trans-Mountain pipeline project from USA based Kinder Morgan.

The intent of this purchase was to spend an additional $ 7.4 Billion to build the expanded Trans-Mountain pipeline.

The reaction I heard from this decision that the Government spend nearly $12 Billion building a pipeline, was generally one of outrage, even from those who indicated they supported its construction.

I mention this because very recently the CBC reported on documents Kinder Morgan filed with the United States Security and Exchange Commission that show constructing the pipeline could increase costs a further $1.9 Billion over and above what was formerly disclosed and take an additional year to construct.

Most troubling is the fact that Canadian journalists did not learn of this new information directly from the Liberal Government. 

Without the filings from the US Security and Exchange Commission this information would likely still be hidden from Canadians.

Given that the CBC reports the cost to construct the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline may now top $9.3 Billion, with a possible completion date of December 2021, my question this week is a simple one: 

Have your views on the Trans-Mountain pipeline project changed in any way and do you believe the Trudeau Liberal Government can reliably manage this project?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

Social media- in particular Twitter, has become an increasingly powerful force for political communication as we hear almost daily media reports on tweets from the President of the United States. 

Last year, here in Canada, a tweet came from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that stated:

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada” 

This tweet has been frequently referenced as a catalyst for a large increase in illegal immigration across Canada's borders

More recently a tweet from Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland called out Saudi Arabia for imprisoning human rights activists resulting in a significant reaction from Saudi Arabia. 

Within days of the tweet, Saudi Arabia announced intentions to withdraw roughly 16,000 students from Canadian post-secondary institutions, expelled the Canadian Ambassador from Saudi Arabia and withdrew the Saudi Arabian Ambassador from Canada.

In addition, Saudi Arabia placed a freeze on all new trade and investment transactions with Canada, suspended all flights to and from Toronto and Saudi Arabia and is transferring all Saudi nationals receiving paid medical treatment in Canada to hospitals in other countries.

It has also been reported that the Saudi Central Bank is in the process of selling off and divesting all Canadian related equities, bond, and cash holdings. There are also reports that Canadian agricultural products will no longer be purchased along with other actions

The total cost financially is unknown to date.

It is estimated that Saudi Arabia has invested close to $6 Billion in Canada and that the loss of Saudi students may account for roughly $500 million in lost revenue annually to Canadian post-secondary institutions.

It is difficult to comprehend that Canada’s relations with Saudi Arabia could become so stressed over the use of social media and Twitter however Minister Freeland and the  Liberal Government stands by the tweet calling out Saudi Arabia for serious human rights concerns.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this situation is that to date none of our allies, including the United States, have stood by Canada.

Countries such as Egypt and Jordan have stated they are siding with Saudi Arabia in what they view as an intrusion by Canada into domestic affairs.

My thoughts?

I do not believe the Liberal Government intended to provoke this reaction from Saudi Arabia, as very few could have predicted this level of response. Likewise I believe it is a long standing tradition of current and previous Canadian Governments to raise human rights concerns when and where they exist. 

Where I will fault the Liberal Government is using Twitter as the tool to convey these concerns.

Canada has a long standing history of having a world class diplomatic sector and using the services of skilled diplomats offers many benefits. 

There is a growing concern where the Liberal Government has used tweets that have helped to create situations that adversely impact others as this current situation with Saudi Arabia demonstrates. 

My question this week;

Are you concerned with the growing reliance of using Twitter diplomacy as opposed to traditional diplomacy by the Liberal Government?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​For three years now the national carbon tax has been one of the signature policies of the Trudeau Liberal Government in Ottawa.

However the Province of Saskatchewan has continued to be a hold out and is refusing to implement the federally imposed carbon tax. 

More recently, the new Ontario Government also announced its intentions to reject what is often called the “Trudeau Carbon Tax” and has created the potential for a significant legal challenge.

This week the Office of Environment Minister Catherine McKenna announced that the Liberals will be doing some back peddling on the Liberal carbon tax policy.

The Liberal Government announced plans that, as the CBC reported, will reduce the carbon tax so “large polluters will be taxed on 10-20% of emissions rather than 30%” as was previously planned."

One well known Canadian columnist observed, these carbon tax changes amount to “a carbon tax that taxes you less the more carbon you emit.” 

Why are the Liberals making this change to reduce carbon tax on large scale polluters?

In short, over concerns related to competitiveness. 

In my view these concerns are quite valid.

As for example, the United States does not have a national carbon tax nor do many of Canada's largest trading partners. 

I believe this is a major policy change as it is the first time the Trudeau Liberal Government has publicly admitted that the costs of the carbon tax can place Canadian industry at a competitive disadvantage when compared to other countries that have no carbon tax whatsoever. 

The bigger problem is that these carbon tax changes announced by the Liberals only apply to large scale polluters; unfortunately they do not apply to small business owners or hardworking Canadian families. 

For the average family and small business owner there are no exemptions whatsoever.

In some Provinces there are rebates for certain citizens however they are not applied in the same manner as an across the board exemption that would benefit all taxpayers.

I believe this creates a challenge and also leads to my question for this week.

As the Liberals have now admitted that the carbon tax makes heavily polluting industry less competitive would it not also be fair to recognize the adverse impacts on small business owners and Canadian families who in comparison are not large scale polluters?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free  1-800-665-8711. 

This week I was asked by a local citizen what my views were on the idea that “constituency offices should be reimagined as civic hubs and outposts of Parliament, rather than service centres” and more to the point “to reduce the casework burden on MPs and their staff.” 

These questions stem from a report that was produced by the non-profit organization Samara Centre for Democracy after conducting many exit interviews with outgoing or retiring Members of Parliament.

What is case work? 

To summarize, case work often involves working directly with a citizen on a specific problem that they are having in accessing a federal Government of Canada provided service.

Some common examples in my riding can include challenges accessing Old Age Security (OAS), Canada Child Benefit, Immigration related concerns, veteran services and more.

Do I agree with the suggestion that an MP, and by extension the constituency office and staff, should do less case work?

I could not disagree more strongly with this statement and I will provide an example why.

Earlier this year, I heard directly from a number of single parents, typically single mothers, who were unfairly having their Canada Child Benefit either placed on hold, or in some cases even held back for dubious and arbitrary reasons.

Most often because a former spouse refused to update postal and other records indicating they no longer resided at their former matrimonial address. 

The burden of proof for a single mother to confirm they were separated or divorced was subject to arbitrary interpretation by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) staff and in some cases single mothers were having their status changed back to married despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. In essence these single mothers were being treated as guilty and child benefits were withheld unless they could prove CRA was in error. 

As I saw a clear pattern developing in my riding, I raised the issue with the Minister during Question Period in the House of Commons. 

​As a result of that question a few national media stories arose and before long I was contacted by single mothers across Canada all facing the same challenge. 

Credit to the Minister and her staff who have reached out to my office and I can report that many of these cases, that were often causing supreme hardship, have now been resolved.

There are other examples, however I referenced this one because were it not for the fact that I personally handle case files with the assistance of staff, it is unlikely I would have been able to see a systemic problem occurring across the board so quickly.

Ultimately I believe that elected officials are sent to Ottawa for a variety of different reasons, however one of those reasons is ultimately to solve problems encountered by the citizens we represent. 

By working case files, I gain a direct insight to challenges, which is useful in determining if an issue is unique to a specific situation or is becoming increasingly common as a result of a bureaucratic driven process. 

In summary, I believe that handling case files provides a critical connection to how government services are provided, and when there are challenges, how they can best be addressed. 

My question this week is, do you agree?

Should Members of Parliament continue to be actively involved in case files or should we work more towards becoming “civic hubs and outposts of Parliament”?

​I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​​This week Prime Minister Trudeau announced a cabinet shuffle, an event that typically creates a strong level of reaction among parliamentary media, political watchers and pundits along with other elected officials. 

Cabinet shuffles by design are intended to send a message and are not uncommon when a government is one year out from an election and is looking to shore up either, geographical regions, or portfolio areas where the Government believes it could be vulnerable.
 
By the numbers, the new cabinet has grown from 30 Ministers up to 35 Ministers with 5 new Ministers coming on board. and a few existing Ministers changing portfolios.

The key is to look at some of the new Ministers to get an idea on the message the Prime Minister is sending.

One of the new Ministers is former Toronto police Chief Bill Blair, who will become the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.

This seems a clear message that Mr. Trudeau has heard the concerns of many Canadians, that have been voiced through the official opposition, on the need to take action to secure the border.

Normally this responsibility is with the Minister of Public Safety however it appears the Prime Minister believes that two Ministers are required to address problems in this area.

Another new Minister is MP Filomena Tassi, from Hamilton, now becoming the Minister for Seniors.

Previously the Liberals had drawn criticism for eliminating the Minister of Seniors position, that was a hallmark of the former Conservative Government.

Today’s announcement, at least in theory, appears to be an effort to address those concerns.

Another curious change was the shuffle of Dominic LeBlanc from Fisheries and Oceans to Inter-Governmental Affairs, Northern Affairs and Internal Trade.

Previously Mr. Trudeau had appointed himself as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs so in effect he has fired himself from this position.

A factor for this change may be the changing provincial landscape. Particularly, the new Premiers in Saskatchewan and Ontario, who are less supportive of key Liberal issues such as the Trudeau carbon tax.

The movement of of Dominic LeBlanc from Fisheries and Oceans has created a potentially positive outcome for British Columbia as North Vancouver MP Jonathan Wilkinson becomes the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Wilkinson is a well-respected individual and is widely viewed as a very capable and competent Member of Parliament.

I believe we all wish Mr. Wilkinson well in this challenging but very important new role.

Other changes include a three way swap where Jim Carr has moved from Natural Resources to International Trade that has opened the door for Amarjeet Sohi to move from Infrastructure to Natural Resources.

Moving in to fill the Infrastructure vacancy is François-Philippe Champagne formerly of International Trade. 

Although there are other changes this summarizes some of the larger departmental changes.

Front bench Ministers not shuffled include Finance, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice, Transport and Immigration.

My question this week:

Did the shuffle go far enough or was it just right in how you view the current direction of this Liberal Government? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.

​I have been asked by a number of citizens to comment on the re-emergence of an 18 year old editorial from a Creston, BC newspaper that was written by a reporter who at the time has stated she was groped by Justin Trudeau. 

Many news organizations both inside and outside of Canada have now reported on this alleged incident and many have taken issue with the response from Mr. Trudeau.  

The common criticism against our Prime Minister is that he has used a double standard by not holding himself to the same zero tolerance principle that he has held to other members of the Liberal caucus while facing similar circumstances.

From my perspective, I have had a long standing policy to not comment on the conduct of other members of Parliament past or present.

At this time I see no need to change my position on matters like these and will not comment further. 

Instead this week I am going to focus on something the Liberal Government has done that I agree with and support. 

In my June 26th MP report I referenced that on July 1st, Canada’s retaliatory counter tariffs against a variety of USA imported and produced goods would be implemented that will make many USA produced goods more expensive for Canadians to buy.

The list of USA produced items that would be subject to a 10% tariff on July 1st, 2018 was extensive and included common grocery store items such as yogurt, coffee, pizza, ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soups, dishwasher detergent, toilet paper, and some appliances.
 
This week the Liberals announced that mustard made in the United Stated would be removed from the tariff list. 

Why do I support this decision?

In short because Canada is the largest producer of mustard seed in the world.

As an example French’s mustard, despite being made in the United States, is made from almost exclusively Canadian grown mustard seed. 

Even French manufactured, Maille mustard, contains a significant percentage of Canadian grown mustard seed.

This example of mustard seed is effective in establishing the degree that the United States and Canadian economies have come to work together as a result of free trade.

By eliminating this tariff the Canadian mustard seed industry will remain competitive.

My question this week does not relate to mustard but rather to Greyhound.

As many citizens will now know this week Greyhound announced intentions to withdraw service from western Canada.

Greyhound has cited many factors for this decision but primarily it is an overall decline in ridership. 

At this point it is unclear what role Government at all levels may do in response to this decision. 

My question is:

Will you be affected by the loss of Greyhound service in British Columbia?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

It is often said that time flies on the Government side of the house but moves much more slowly when in opposition. 

I mention this as last week marked the six year anniversary since my first private members bill became law. 

Bill C-311 removed prohibition era federal restrictions that blocked direct to consumer shipping of wine.

In the last Parliament, the Conservative Government used a similar mechanism to also include craft beer and artisan spirits, all in an effort to open up our borders to increased inter-provincial trade.

A private members bill or motion is one of many ways than an MP can introduce legislation to help benefit the riding we represent.

In the case of my former bill, many Okanagan wineries were frustrated at the inability to even be able to legally sell to citizens who visited their winery in person from other provinces as it was illegal to transport that wine home across a provincial border.

More recently, Credit Unions, of which we have many in our community, faced a threat from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions that would have banned Credit Unions from using terms such as bank, banking or banker.

After hearing of this problem, I wrote several MP reports on the subject and heard almost unanimous feedback. In some cases, even outrage at the thought of the long arm of Ottawa attacking Credit Unions in this way.

In response to this feedback, I tabled another private members bill, Bill C-379, that called for the Bank Act to be amended to ensure that Credit Unions could continue to use these terms without fear of reprisal from Ottawa. 

I was particularly pleased when an Independent Senator, appointed by the Prime Minister, contacted me with an interest to potentially sponsor my bill in the Senate.

Fortunately, and full credit to the Liberal Government, they essentially included the spirit of my bill in their recent Budget Implementation Act.

This will ensure Credit Unions and Caisse Populaires (as they are known as in Quebec) will no longer face this threat.

Last week, before the House of Commons adjourned, I tabled my latest Private Members Bill.

Bill C-410 proposes to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) and Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP) from seizure by creditors in the case of bankruptcy or insolvency. 

RESPs and RDSPs are important saving tools for Canadians living with disabilities and for families saving for their children’s education.

Currently a trustee in bankruptcy can permit creditors to seize the holdings of any RESP or RDSP in the event that the account owner files for bankruptcy.

By extension this can include accounts dedicated to provide care for severely disabled children. It can also include education accounts for children.

Bill C-410 will prevent this from happening in a similar way as how Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP) and Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIF) are protected now.

​I was honoured to hear that the Canadian Association of Social Workers has responded positively to Bill C-410, however as Parliament is currently adjourned, it is unclear if the Liberals and NDP will be supportive of my new bill.

I will continue to solicit input from industry, citizens and Parliamentarians over the summer recess.

To that end, my question this week:

Are you supportive of Bill-410, proposing to protect families dealing with the high costs of caring for a family member with disabilities and for parents who want the best possible education for their children?

​I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​The 1988 Canadian federal election was one of the most important in recent Canadian history.

At that time the Conservative Brian Mulroney Government had successfully negotiated our first free trade agreement with the United States.

It was not without controversy.

At the time, the Liberal Party led by John Turner, ran election attack ads on TV showing the Canada/USA border being erased and asked “Just how much are we giving away?” and concluded with the statement “This is more than an election --  this is your future”.

Here in the Okanagan, there were media reports of some local vintners threatening to tear out entire vineyards fearing they could not compete with the massive California wine industry. 

Today we know that not only can our local vintners compete, but they can thrive and produce some of the best wines in the world.

Many people from outside of Canada now know and visit the Okanagan not unlike how Napa Valley has been known for decades.

The US President now calls trade deals with countries such as Canada, the worst the United States has ever signed.  

To date all efforts to successfully renegotiate NAFTA have failed and at an awkward Canada-USA news conference of NAFTA negotiators it was revealed there have been no talks for roughly two weeks now.

This week in Ottawa a number of business people in the Canadian aluminum and steel industries spoke in very blunt terms over the very real prospect of serious job losses.

On July 1st, Canada’s retaliatory counter tariffs against a variety of USA imported and produced goods will be implemented that will make the USA produced goods more expensive for Canadians to buy.

This is not unlike how it was recently reported that the US tariff on Canadian softwood lumber has increased the price of an average new home built in the United States by roughly $9,000.

The list of USA produced items that will be subject to a 10% increase on July 1st, 2018 as a result of the Liberals tariff counter-measures is extensive.

Items include yogurt, coffee, pizza, ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soups, dishwasher detergent, toilet paper, and some appliances. 

Obviously many Canadians will face higher prices in grocery stores as a result of these tariff increases.

It has been suggested that the Liberals, where possible, have attempted to strategically implement these tariffs to maximize political impact on the home states where these items are produced.

Obviously after July 1st when these tariffs go into effect, check the country of origin on items you buy.

That may explain price changes.

Hopefully these retaliatory tariff changes do not encourage further retaliation from the United States against more Canadian produced goods as the US market remains Canada’s largest trading partner.

One thing is for certain, consumers lose when tariffs are implemented.  

As we approach Canada Day, I believe we should all stand united in the hope that we can soon see a return to the NAFTA table and a successful agreement.

My question this week:

Do you support increased retaliatory tariffs that also increase costs on US produced goods sold in Canada?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​If you have been following politics in Ottawa in the past week, you have may have heard the term “Carbon Tax Cover Up”.

What is the “Carbon Tax Cover-Up”? 

This question has resulted in considerable debate within the House of Commons including an all-night filibuster between the Liberal Government and the Official Opposition.

In my MP Report, May 2, I discussed how much the Liberal carbon tax being imposed by Prime Minister Trudeau would cost Canadians.

At least I attempted to.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Government continues to refuse to release a report that documents the estimate of these costs.

What does this report say? 

Here is a direct quote: “This memo focuses on the potential impact of a carbon price on households’ consumption expenditures across the income distribution. Key findings are…” 

The rest of the report after this sentence has been blacked out by the Liberals. 

A further table in the report says “Original note based on preliminary projections from Environment Canada. Final projections have now been made available”

Once again the projections are not being made available because Mr. Trudeau’s Government has blacked them out as well.

Despite the fact that the Liberals continue to hide this information from Canadians, an Economics Professor at the University of Calgary and Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at its School of Public Policy has made some calculations of these costs.  

It is important to recognize that the carbon tax rate on emissions under Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan calls for the carbon tax rate to be continually increased per tonne of carbon. 

I mention this point because previously a province, such as BC, had the ability to freeze the carbon tax at a certain level if there was economic harm or concerns over affordability for citizens.

It is reported that advisers to the Minister of the Environment believe that a price of $100 per tonne is necessary for Canada to reduce our emissions to 30% below 2005 levels within the next two to four years.

According to the professor, here in British Columbia, that means citizens could be paying over $1,200 a year just in higher carbon taxes alone.

The provincial government will have some ability to refund or partially credit this revenue or to spend it in other areas. 

Will this actually reduce emissions?

The Liberal Government believes it will and has released a report from the Department of Environment and National Resources that concludes a carbon tax could eliminate up to 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2022. 

The issue with this report is when you read the fine print, there is a disclaimer.

The disclaimer reads: “The scenario presented in this document is for illustrative purposes only. It is not intended to signal any expectations on the part of the Government of Canada as to where the federal system will apply” 

In other words, it is a purely hypothetical scenario created to help the Liberal Government justify the carbon tax.

The challenge is that, in our riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, there are still many rural areas where no public transit exists.  

Some areas have even lost Greyhound as an option.

Healthcare has been increasingly consolidated to larger centres, meaning lengthy trips are required for even basic medical needs.

Smaller schools, in places like Hedley, no longer exist, creating longer commutes for students and families. 

Ottawa of course, does not have these problems. 

This is why I consistently speak out against the carbon tax and have demanded, at a minimum, that the Liberal Government come clean and disclose the costs from this report.

For citizens in rural communities like Hedley and Logan Lake, I do not believe potentially making them pay over $1,100 a year or more will be helpful when there are lack of alternatives in those areas. 

In essence the carbon tax has the potential to unfairly penalize those in rural communities the most. 

My question this week:

Will the carbon tax unfairly target Canadians living in rural communities? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​“I get into Air Force One, the televisions on, and I see a news conference being given by Trudeau,” Trump said of leaving the G-7 summit held in Canada this weekend. “And then he talked about how they won’t be bullied. And I said, ‘What’s this all about? He didn’t do that to my face, what’s this all about?’”

He added: “I actually like Justin, you know, I think he’s good, I like him, but he shouldn’t have done that. That was a mistake. That’s going to cost him a lot of money.” – USA President Donald Trump

These comments from the President of the United States have been the largest issue in Ottawa and elsewhere this past week.

It is deeply alarming that the President of the United States is threatening to financially punish Canada at the trade table, in large part because he disagrees with the comments of Prime Minister Trudeau at a news conference. 

In my view this is completely unacceptable.

If this threat is carried out in any way, it could seriously compromise what has otherwise been an extremely successful relationship between two world leading countries.

If there is an upside, recently we also witnessed a historic event where President Trump concluded what many view as successful talks with North Korea that may denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

I mention this as it was not so many months ago that relations between the US President and the leader of North Korea were far more adversarial and most would agree considerable progress has made towards a more constructive relationship. 

What can Canada do?

As I have stated in the past, if there is one area where I believe our Prime Minister and his administration have worked very proactively, it has been to maintain positive relations with the United States administration.

I believe this work will continue and some success will result from these efforts.

The greater challenge is that the United States administration is aggressively pursuing an economic agenda that has been successful in increasing investment and lowering unemployment to record lows.

US corporate taxes have been significantly reduced and resource development has been accelerated.

Here in Canada, costs of doing business have increased.

The carbon tax, that the USA does not have, continues to rise.

CPP, which is often referred to as an employment tax, is also steadily increasing.

Locally in provinces like British Columbia, a new health employer’s tax will have a similar impact.

Upper income brackets have been increased both provincially and federally and many tax credits used by families and students have been eliminated. 

All of these factors combined are making Canada less competitive compared to the United States.

Aside from those measures, Canada still does not have true inter-Provincial free trade.

For example, a winery in BC still cannot directly sell to consumers in many Canadian provinces.

A competing winery located in Washington State can directly ship to customers all across the United States.

Why do I mention all of these things?

With the current uncertainty over the NAFTA negotiations, there are plenty of other areas where the Federal Government can take a leadership role and actively work with provinces to lower costs instead of continuing to increase them, as has been the case to date. 

My question this week:

Do you agree? In the absence of success at the NAFTA table should the Federal Liberal Government actively and aggressively take measures to increase Canadian competitiveness?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl,gc,ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​“A trade war Canada will lose” has been a common theme in recent Canadian media headlines after the United States announced a tariff of 25% on Canadian steel and 10% on Canadian aluminum last week. 

In response, Canada has announced targeted tariff increases on a broad range of United States manufactured goods that are imported into Canada.
 
Is this a full blown trade war?

At the moment it is a tariff related dispute designed to increase pressure on the NAFTA negotiations.  

Having said that, I believe it is also important to be mindful of the year 2008 when the Canadian dollar not only reached parity with the US dollar, for a brief period of time it actually rose above the US dollar.

I mention that due to the fact that although the 25% tariff on steel is both punitive and in my view completely unfair to Canada, it ultimately negates the Canadian currency advantage that is currently around 23% between the United States and Canadian dollar.

This tariff approach follows a similar pattern from the United States where Canadian softwood lumber exports were hit with a tariff up to 24% essentially wiping out the currency advantage that historically works in Canada’s favour.

As I have previously commented, I believe it is also important to point out that our Prime Minister has largely shown restraint in not getting involved in USA domestic politics despite that it would be politically convenient to do so. 

In fact to date, I believe most political pundits would agree that our Liberal Government has made considerable effort to work proactively with the United States administration in several areas and I believe these efforts will continue.

As the official opposition, we will continue to hold the Prime Minister to account for the failure thus far to conclude a successful new NAFTA deal with the United States.

Some in Ottawa do not like this fact however it should be pointed out that holding someone accountable to produce results for Canadians is not necessarily the same thing as assigning blame.

In this case, we have a US President who was elected in part with a promise to renegotiate trade deals such as NAFTA.

Here in Canada we have a Prime Minister who has expressed an agenda to also change trade deals and promote “progressive trade values” that to date other countries continue to strongly reject.

In my view, we should recognize that in the event our Canadian dollar returns to parity with the US dollar, either through natural market forces or through artificial means such as punitive tariffs, we will have to be able to compete.

On that note a national carbon tax and increased payroll taxes that the United States does not have will make Canada less competitive.

Recent comments from the International Monetary Fund highlights the lack of Canadian tax competitiveness compared to the USA.

I believe in the absence of a new NAFTA deal Canada needs to focus on measures that increase our international competitiveness. 

To date, the Federal Government and many provinces, including British Columbia with an incoming new health employers tax, will achieve the opposite.

My question this week relates to NAFTA:

Do you believe Canada should show more flexibility to achieve a new NAFTA agreement or aggressively pursue the status quo?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711. 

“While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” 

Many people believed this statement by Justin Trudeau and his promise to honour what he called “social licence” when it came to approving pipeline projects. 

Perhaps this is why I have heard an unprecedented level of outrage on the announcement that the Trudeau Liberal Government is borrowing $4.5 Billion to buy the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline this week.

The Liberal Government has claimed that purchasing the Kinder Morgan’s Trans-Mountain assets was necessary so that the Government can complete the estimated $7.4 Billion Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project. The Liberals have also claimed they will, in the immediate future, look for other buyers and investors and ultimately they will look to sell the pipeline expansion project once completed.  

Critics have suggested that the Prime Minister is buying his way out of a problem of his own making, while activists have promised this news will only increase protests and further fuel anti-pipeline sentiment. 

There is some validity to these sentiments as those who oppose the Trans-Mountain pipeline project, including the BC NDP Provincial Government, have indicated they will continue to oppose the project regardless of the change in ownership.

Likewise, for supporters of the project, many view this change in ownership as bringing the pipeline no closer to actually getting built.

My thoughts?

I believe it is true that the Prime Minister did largely create this problem. 

The promise to honour “social license” created expectations that clearly the Prime Minister had no serious intention of observing.  

Further, with the Prime Minister promising for many months that the project would get built without offering any details, he ultimately created a situation where Kinder Morgan imposed a May 31st deadline for certainty.

This deadline served as an ultimatum to the Liberal Government.

If Kinder Morgan withdrew from the project over a lack of certainty it would be viewed as a massive failure in federal leadership on the part of Prime Minister Trudeau given his promise the pipe line would get built.

The Prime Minister had other options.

For instance, rather than utilizing his political capital to work with Premiers Notley and Horgan to a mediated solution, we saw only a brief meeting recently where all three leaders could press for some political resolution.

The Prime Minister could have introduced or supported Independent Senator Doug Black’s Bill S-245, that would have further clarified the federal jurisdiction as he had previously publicly committed to do.

Buying the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline does not ensure the expansion project is built. 

Activists have vowed to use all means necessary to stop the construction and the change of ownership now makes these protests more politically motivated.

​What Prime Minister Trudeau did achieve in buying the Trans Mountain pipeline with our money, is control of the projects timeline.

As there is no longer an ultimatum from Kinder Morgan, the Liberals can decide where they begin the construction and where they do not and of course when, if at all.

With an election on the horizon, I submit this purchase was more about controlling the political agenda than about seriously building a pipeline.

Perhaps I am wrong on this speculation but time will tell. 

My question to you this week: 

Do you believe the Prime Minister will enforce the rule of law and begin actively constructing the Trans Mountain expansion project or are the Liberals simply buying political time at our expense? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​When many Canadians think of Parliament Hill from a political perspective, one of the most common images is that of Question Period. 

While Question Period is an important part of our democratic process, it is also the most adversarial and partisan activity within the House of Commons.

Question Period alone, does not reflect some of the other very important Parliamentary activities that occur.

One of those important Parliamentary activities occurs after a bill passes second reading and moves on to committee stage review. 

Committee stage review is one of the most important parts of the process where a Parliamentary Committee representing members from all of the major political parties will scrutinize every aspect of a proposed bill on a clause by clause basis.

It is also during this committee review where expert witnesses and other affected individuals can provide input that may or may not lead to amendments to the proposed legislation before it returns to the House of Commons for third reading debate.

An example of the importance of Committee Stage review can be evidenced by a recent meeting of the Finance Committee that was scrutinizing the Liberal Governments Budget Implementation Act (BIA), Bill C-74. 

Despite Prime Minister Trudeau’s election promise to not use omnibus budget legislation, the Finance Committee has been studying a 560 plus page BIA that is, very clearly, another broken promise from the Prime Minister.

One controversial measure that was discovered by the Finance Committee was buried so deeply in this BIA bill, that even Liberal members on the Finance Committee were unaware it existed. 

What was this measure?

It has been summarized as legislation that will ease penalties for corporate crime.

Division 20 of the bill proposes that prosecutors can suspend criminal charges against companies in certain cases of corporate wrongdoing.

Ultimately, as this clause proposes an amendment to the criminal code, many view it as a measure that has no business being in a budget related bill and is better suited to be examined by the Justice Committee, where more appropriate examination can occur.

So why propose these changes? 

To date the Liberal Government has not indicated the reasons why this legislation has been hidden inside the BIA however other interests have suggested this approach to suspend criminal charges could encourage more companies to come forward to self-report corporate crimes.

My thoughts? 

These are important proposed changes that on the surface are alarming and as a result deserve further scrutiny.  

Because of this, I have encouraged all Parliamentarians at Finance Committee to support having this clause examined separately by the Justice Committee. 

It is important to hear constructive arguments from both sides.

It can be argued that the opportunity to reach a remediation agreement may offer restitution to victims without litigation in cases where wrongdoing may have occurred but the chances of a successful conviction are slim. 

However, critics believe this approach could actually increase corporate crime and undermine public confidence in the system.

I remain of the view that while this proposal involves important criminal code amendments, it does not belong within a budget implementation bill.

My question this week:

Should large scale criminal code amendments be restricted to bills that come before the Justice Committee or do you agree with the Liberal Government these can be part of a budget bill, as part of an overall plan? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.