Normally the House of Commons is back in session during the third week in September, meaning we would be well into the fall session by now.

Obviously with Prime Minister Trudeau having called an election on September 20th, the normal Parliamentary cycle was delayed.

Recently I have been increasingly asked the question when will the new Parliament be up and running in Ottawa? 

For some context, the 2015 general election that was held on Monday, Oct. 19th and just over two weeks later on November 4th, Prime Minister Trudeau announced his cabinet and the new Parliament resumed roughly one month after that on December 3rd with a Throne Speech being heard on December 4th.

We are now three weeks past the September 20th election and I would expect the PM to announce his cabinet within the next week, with Parliament likely returning with a Throne Speech sometime potentially as late as December.

It also should be noted that the first action of Parliament, once it returns, is to elect a new Speaker. 

Opposition parties will also be announcing who their critics will be as well as their House administration officers such as the House Leader and Whip.

The reason why I am often asked when will the new Parliament begin sitting relates to another question I am also receiving frequently that relates to the Canadian Recovery Benefit (CRB) program that replaced the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) program.

Currently the CRB, much like Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada’s other pandemic relief benefit programs are set to expire on October 23, 2021.

Many Canadians are awaiting news as to what will become of these programs.

While there have been hints that discussions around extending these benefits are being held, no conclusive statement has emerged from the Trudeau Government.

From my perspective, I would expect the Prime Minister would have a new cabinet in place ASAP and the fate on the future of these programs would be a priority topic of discussion.

With Statistics Canada announcing that Canada’s unemployment rate has now reached pre-pandemic levels, some are suggesting these programs should be wound down.

As the National Post recently reported on October 9th:

“A chorus of business, academic and political voices wants an end to the CRB once and for all, claiming it's hindering productivity and worsening labour shortages…”

My question this week:

What do you think should happen with Canada’s pandemic recovery programs on October 23?

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

​Before I begin this week’s report, I would like to confirm that my long-standing policy of not commenting on the personal decisions of other Members of Parliament remains. 

Thus I will not be commenting on Prime Minister Trudeau’s vacation trip to Tofino on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation last week.

Instead, I will pass on the Prime Minister’s comments:

“Travelling on September 30th was a mistake and I regret it” as the PM apologized for his actions in this matter.

Another announcement from Ottawa this week are further details and clarification on the Federal Government’s mandatory vaccination plan for domestic air, sea and train travel. 

Starting on October 30th, 2021, all travelers will be required to be fully vaccinated before boarding planes, trains or marine vessels that are federally regulated.

At this point in time, I am told this will not apply to BC Ferries.

Also all members of the federal public service, including organizations such as the RCMP, CBSA, Canada Post and others, will be expected to have similar mandatory vaccination policies in place. 

The Prime Minister has indicated that criteria will be announced regarding exemptions for medical or religious reasons by the end of October.

At the time of my writing this report, both the House of Commons and Senate will be required to implement their own mandatory vaccination policies, although MPs and Senators will not be exempt from the travel restrictions without a valid exemption.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am fully vaccinated and encourage others to be fully vaccinated if they are not already.

My question this week:

Do you support these mandatory vaccination policies? 

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

In my report last week, I covered recent speculation out of Ottawa on reports of an election writ being dropped, potentially this week, creating an early fall election.

I also asked the question: “Do you want to see an election called in the immediate future?”

I sincerely appreciate the significant number of replies I have received in response to this question.

There is no question that many citizens in our region have very serious concerns of the future direction of Canada.

In the absence of the writ being dropped my summer listening tour continues. 

One concern that I have heard from citizens in Merritt is the state of the local post office, who many have suggested has fallen into disrepair. 

I raised these concerns directly with Canada Post in Ottawa and am pleased to report the some much needed maintenance work will soon be getting underway on this post office.

It was encouraging to hear Canada Post take these concerns seriously and commit to making improvements so that the Merritt Post Office reflects “the beauty and pride of the local community.”

The reason why I raise the Merritt post office is that it is a remainder on the importance of raising concerns with your elected official, be it an MP, MLA, Mayor, Councilor or Regional Director.

If elected officials are not made aware of challenges or concerns in a community, there is less chance of success in addressing them. 

At the same time, holding elected officials to account is part of how a healthy democracy works.

As my summer listening tour continues, I invite you to contact me if you have a concern that relates to the Federal Government that you would like to share. 

This also relates to my question for this week.

From a Federal Government perspective, what is your top concern that you would like to see action taken on?

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

​If you follow the rumours out of Ottawa, it has been reported, as early as August 8th, the Prime Minister will request our new Governor General, Mary Simon, dissolve Parliament and call an election.
 
If that were the case this would be my final weekly MP report to you as it would be inappropriate to distribute weekly reports as a political candidate as opposed to being an elected official.
 
Will there be an election? 
 
From my perspective I believe public safety must come first.

As many regions of Canada are reporting an increase in COVID outbreaks related to the Delta variant, an election call would carry serious risk for a sitting Prime Minister, even in a minority Parliament.
 
The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, wrote to the Governor General to ask that a request to grant an election from the Prime Minister not be granted.
 
The leader of the NDP has further pointed out that the minority Liberal Government has never once failed a confidence vote in the House of Commons that would trigger an election.
 
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has argued that both the Conservative and NDP opposition parties have routinely obstructed passage of his government's priority bills whenever asked by media if he will ask for an election.
 
From a factual point of view, it should be noted when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament last summer, he did far more damage in delaying his government bills than any opposition party could possibly do.
 
It should also be noted that the NDP opposition has made offers to fast track and prioritize certain Liberal Government bills and the Prime Minister refused these gestures.
 
In short, the Prime Minister’s argument is factually incorrect and unfair to the NDP.
 
It is true that the Conservative opposition has fought strongly against some of the Liberal Government “priority bills”.
 
One example of a Liberal Government “priority bill” is Bill C-10, which has been panned by many critics as an internet censorship bill under the guise of a broadcast modernization. 

Canada’s foremost law professor, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has said Bill C-10 is a “shocking and likely unconstitutional speech regulation.”
 
Experts like Professor Michael Geist as well as industry and civil liberties experts and stakeholders have continued to strongly advocate against this bill being passed, arguing it is also an assault on long-standing Canadian internet policy, such as violating net neutrality.
 
In the House of Commons, only the Conservative Opposition as well as Independent MP Jody-Wilson Raybould have fought against this bill being passed.
 
So, will there be an election?
 
Certainly, if the Prime Minister believes an election campaign suits his best interests and the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, I suspect we will see an election in the near future.
 
However the purpose of, what could be my last report to you of this 43rd Parliament, is not to communicate what the Prime Minister wants, but rather to ask what you want.
 
Do you want to see an election called in the immediate future?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

As my summer listening tour continues around the riding of Central Okanagan Similkameen Nicola (COSN), one topic that I continue to hear being raised is regarding vaccine passports.

When I last wrote a weekly report on this subject, back in early April, the vast majority of the feedback I received was largely opposed to the idea of vaccine passports.

While I continue to hear opposition, I am also increasingly hearing from other citizens who are demanding the Federal Government announce a federal vaccine passport program.

This week CTV News reported that a similar questions were asked of Prime Minister Trudeau:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau skirted around questions about when Canadians can expect to be equipped with formal proof of their COVID-19 vaccine status for travel abroad but vowed that the system will be both “simple and efficient.”

Based on the Prime Minister’s response we know that a federal vaccine passport program is in the works.

What remains unknown is when this program will be formerly announced.

I have also been receiving other concerns related to this subject. 

Most have opposed the use of documents --  whether it is a called a 'vaccination record' or 'passport' domestically.

For example, to attend an event or domestic travel for, what is deemed provincially, as a non essential purpose.

I should note that the decision to require citizens within Canada to use such documentation would be a provincial and not a federal one.

However, it becomes a federal matter when that travel is international.

I have heard of local citizens, in attempting to make travel arrangements, being denied entry to various countries on account of having been vaccinated here in Canada with one or both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

In one case, a Canadian attempting to attend a family member’s funeral was denied entry into another country.

It is a sovereign right of any country to establish under law who may enter their country and under what circumstances.

As a Member of Parliament, I believe Canada has the same sovereign right to admit or reject any admission under its own lawful authority and I believe Canadians strongly support that right.

It has been reported to me that some countries will only recognize mRNA vaccines manufactured by companies such as Pfizer and Moderna.

The Province of Quebec, to remedy this situation, has announced it will be offering an extra dose of an mRNA vaccine to those travelling to countries that only recognize mRNA vaccines.

If you are wondering what are the approved vaccines for US citizens to visit Canada for non-essential purposes beginning on August 9, 2021 the list includes: 

Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.

In other words, Canada will provide more flexibility on the list of approved vaccines to visitors than many other countries who have formerly announced guidelines to foreign visitors.

While a federal vaccine passport program has not yet been announced my question this week is as follows:

When there is a federal vaccine passport program here in Canada, will you access it?

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

​This week I will give Prime Minister Trudeau some well deserved credit.

On Monday the Federal Government announced:

“August 9, 2021, Canada plans to begin allowing entry to American citizens and permanent residents, who are currently residing in the United States, and have been fully vaccinated at least 14 days prior to entering Canada for non-essential travel.”

These fully vaccinated travelers will also not have to quarantine upon arrival in Canada, provided they comply with the required pre-entry COVID-19 molecular test with a negative result.

The Federal Government also announced they intend to expand this relaxing of restrictions to fully vaccinated international visitors on September 7th, with the same criteria for pre-entry with a COVID-19 molecular test and a negative result.

Why do I commend the Prime Minister for this announcement? 

It is not because it means the border will be re-opening.

The reason I commend the Prime Minister is that providing clear dates and criteria in turn helps create certainty. 

Many small businesses here in the Okanagan, to some extent, depend on visits from US citizens.

Over the past months there has been a growing frustration as many receive calls for bookings, orders and/or reservations, leaving small business owners in a challenging situation of having to refuse business and not knowing when the situation might change.

The announcement from the Prime Minister fixes that and also provides an opportunity for families who have been separated by the border closure to be reunited.

However, it must also be pointed out that the announcement made by the Prime Minister only applies to US citizens coming to Canada.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government did not coordinate this re-opening with the United States, so Canadian citizens will not be in a situation to receive reciprocal approval for non-essential travel at the US border.

Strangely, when the Prime Minister was directly asked if he had contacted President Biden to advocate for a reciprocal treatment for Canadians at the US border by a reporter at a news conference earlier this week, the PM refused to answer the question. 

That leads to my question this week:

Should the border re-opening have been coordinated on a reciprocal basis or do you support the current approach by the Prime Minister?

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

​In the Okanagan, Similkameen and Nicola Valley's, we have many small family run farms and small business operations.
 
When it comes time for retirement, if a business owner decides to sell to another member of the family to pass the business along to the next generation, the difference between the sale price and the original purchase price is considered a dividend.
 
In the event the same family farm or small business is sold to a stranger the difference between the sale price and the original purchase price is considered a capital gain.

Both dividends and capital gains are taxable.

The difference is that generally capital gains are taxed at lower rate than dividends.
 
So, if you sell your family farm or related small business to a family member, you are in effect penalized for doing so, compared to selling to a non-family member who would pay lower taxes on the sale.
 
My Conservative colleague MP Larry Maguire from Brandon-Souris did not feel this tax approach was fair and tabled a Private Members Bill C-208 “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation)”.
 
Bill C-208 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act so that the same tax rate should apply when selling an operation to a family member as would apply when selling to a third party.
 
Unfortunately PM Trudeau, the Finance Minister, the Liberal cabinet and majority of the Liberal caucus all voted against this bill that promotes taxation fairness to families.

Fortunately, all members of the Conservative, the NDP, Bloc Québécois, Green MPs and some backbench Liberals voted for this bill allowing it to pass third reading by a vote of Yeas: 199 - Nays: 128.

Bill C-208 received Royal Assent and was passed into law on June 29, 2021.
 
Despite this bill now becoming law, the government is refusing to immediately implement the bill and has indicated that:
 
“The government proposes to introduce legislation to clarify that these amendments would apply at the beginning of the next taxation year, starting on January 1, 2022.”

The serious concern here is that the legislation has already been passed into law.

In spite of the fact that the current Liberal government doesn't support it.
 
This action undermines and disrespects the will of the people though an elected Parliament.
 
It is my view that the Prime Minister believes by delaying this bill until after a federal election, if the Liberal Government receives a majority, they can overturn it.
 
I believe this bill, that is now law, should be immediately implemented.

If a future majority government seeks to overturn these amendments to the Income Tax act, they could attempt to do so using the democratic process.
 
To use the bureaucracy to delay and basically block this bill is an arrogant affront to democracy.
 
My question this week: do you agree? I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

As you may have heard, starting on July 5th, restrictions were slightly eased when crossing the border into Canada.
Unfortunately this has led to some misunderstanding in certain circumstances.

For example, while some restrictions have been eased, the requirement for U.S. and other citizens coming to Canada for only essential reasons has not been relaxed or otherwise changed.

U.S. and other non-Canadian citizens coming to Canada for non-essential reasons will still be turned away at the border. 

This means that any potential tourists coming to vacation in Canada continues to be prohibited.

So what has changed? 

The most significant change is that for Canadian citizens eligible for entry into Canada, there is now a process to potentially not be subject to mandatory 14 day quarantine, including the mandatory hotel stop over for air travel where applicable.

As of July 5th, an eligible citizen, who has been fully vaccinated with a vaccine approved for use in Canada, may be eligible to bypass quarantine under certain conditions.

The conditions to bypass the quarantine include providing proof of your vaccination, you must also provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test result that has been taken within 72 hours of your entry into Canada. 

Proof of vaccination can be provided online via the ArriveCANweb portal or through the ArriveCAN app that can be found on both the Google Play Store and the App Store for iPhone.

The definition of “fully vaccinated” is:

“To be considered fully vaccinated, a traveller must have received the full series of a vaccine — or combination of vaccines — accepted by the Government of Canada at least 14 days prior to entering Canada. Currently, those vaccines are manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson).”

For travellers who are not fully vaccinated, there are no changes to the existing restrictions and quarantine requirements. 

My question this week:

Now that there is a Government of Canada app to provide proof of vaccination available for iOS, Android and online, how do you feel about that?

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

With the House of Commons now adjourned for the summer, and possibly not returning in the fall in the event the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calls an election, this means my annual summer listening tour can now begin.

Every year since I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, I have made a point of meeting with citizens in every region of my riding to hear thoughts, concerns, and ideas. 

This has always been a very useful and helpful exercise as it guides the work that I do in Ottawa once the fall session gets underway.

One example of this is over this past year, with many students unable to secure jobs over the summer months due to the pandemic, it has increased student debt levels and that has also increased the anxiety many students with significant debt and interest payments.

So far this summer, while my listening tour has only just begun, I am also hearing from many small business owners who have never encountered more difficulty in hiring for vacant jobs.

In short, many report they are unable to fill vacant positions.

A big part of this can be attributed to the federal government, who has not yet implemented a plan to transition workers back into the work force as various Provinces ease pandemic restrictions.

It is my view this government would rather prioritize an election, and claim they need a majority, before any effort will be made to change current pandemic related benefit programs that are acting as a barrier to fill vacant job postings.

The purpose of my report this week is not to criticize these challenges but rather to propose a solution that may help students struggling with debt, as well as employers struggling to fill “help wanted” positions.

Before the House of Commons adjourned, I tabled my latest Private Members Bill -- Bill C-317.

My new bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act.

Currently, if an employer wants to help an employee pay off their student loans, either with a bonus or as part of their salary, that assistance is taxed as regular income. 

My bill would allow employers and employees to enter into voluntary arrangements where payments made by an employer to an employee, pursuant to a student loan assistance program, would be a non-taxable benefit.

This would help young people to pay down debt faster and start saving for the future. 

For willing employers, this would help them attract talented workers and encourage employee retention as training costs are considerable.

From a governmental perspective, it would also help ensure that student loans are repaid faster. 

I believe that when you say to someone that the challenge young people face is materially different than previous generations, many would agree with that.

Young people often share with me that graduating with thousands of dollars in student loans is a massive barrier to them planning for the future and is also a significant source of stress and anxiety.

I have proposed Bill C-317 as a means to help with the challenge’s students and employers face.

​My question this week –

Do you support Bill C-317?

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

​Today is the last day the House of Commons will sit before it recesses for the summer.

If you have been following media reports, you will also know that many are speculating this may well be the final sitting of Canada’s 43rd Parliament as rumours abound that the Prime Minister will call an election before the House is scheduled to return in September.

Do I believe the election rumours? 

Curiously the Liberal omnibus budget Bill C-30, that is scheduled to be passed later today, extends current pandemic related benefits into September.

There is no question that Prime Minister Trudeau will not want to head into an election without the pandemic benefits freely flowing as cutting off these benefits would be very unpopular politically.

So it is conceivable that the Prime Minister desires to have an election using the ongoing benefits for political purposes.

Although the Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly stated that our current spending levels are not sustainable, our Prime Minister and his Finance Minister have stated that as long as interest rates remain low, they believe this spending is “affordable”.

The Prime Minister has also recently used terms such as ‘toxicity’ and ‘obstructionism’ and has made claims that Parliament is “dysfunctional”.

Collectively many believe that all of this points to a pending potential summer election being called by the Prime Minister.

Form my own perspective, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Prime Minister and his Government were just found to be in contempt of Parliament by the Speaker.

A vote was held and passed to censure the Defence Minister for his failing to take action to prevent acts of sexual misconduct from occurring against women in our Canadian Armed Forces.

This week the Canadian Forces ombudsman released a scathing report in which he stated:

"When leaders turn a blind eye to our recommendations and concerns in order to advance political interests and their own self-preservation or career advancement, it is the members of the defence community that suffer the consequences,"

This was an obvious shot across the bow at the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister.

Is Parliament dysfunctional?

I was troubled that the Prime Minister made this allegation.

On Tuesday of this week, while other Party Leaders and MP's were physically in Question Period, there was only one single Liberal MP in the House.

The Prime Minister and all of his Ministers were all absent.

When one is not in the House of Commons, to suggest it is “dysfunctional” does a disservice to those who are there serving the interests of Canadians who we are elected to represent.

On the topic of a potential election, my question is a simple one.

Would you support a summer election?

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

​By the time you read this, it is extremely likely that the Federal Government will have announced some sort of plan for a phased re-opening of the Canada/ USA border as well a plan for international travel at Canadian airports.

It is expected that the United States will announce a similar phased re-opening for the American border to Canadian residents.

While the details of either country’s plans are not yet known, it has been widely speculated that entry to the United States may only be open to Canadian citizens who have been fully vaccinated.

For those unfamiliar with the term, “fully vaccinated’, it applies to citizens who have received two doses of an approved vaccine within a period of time where the vaccine is determined to be in effect.

What is unknown at this point are the expectations or criteria that Canada would have for US citizens crossing the border into Canada.

It should also be noted that the House of Commons is in session for roughly ten more days before it will rise for the summer recess.

This means when the details of the phased border re-opening are public, there will be a limited amount of time to address any concerns in Ottawa.

My question this week: 

Given that an announcement on the US/Canada border is coming in the very near future, what concerns do you have that you would like to see addressed?

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

​Last week, in the House of Commons, the NDP used their Opposition Day to table a motion that in the words of South Okanagan - West Kootenay NDP MP Richard Cannings “called on the government to take the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action seriously.  It asked the government to finally fund the investigations that are needed to let us all know the truth. And it asked the government to stop fighting indigenous children in court.”

As MP Cannings went on to point out:

“that motion was passed unanimously in the House of Commons, though shamefully a few cabinet ministers abstained and the rest of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, didn’t even show up to vote.”

For the record I voted in support of this motion and participated in the emergency debate on this topic.

During the debate one of the concerns that I shared is that we must be careful in Ottawa to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

From the local Indigenous communities I have heard from, many are still in shock and others are holding community meetings. I am told there are many discussions underway.

I should also add that none of the Indigenous communities within my riding expressed support or opposition to this NDP motion, nor has other guidance been offered at this point.

This in my view raises a concern, when elected officials in Ottawa debate and vote on a motion with very little input or consultation with Indigenous leaders.

Some could rightfully call this an “Ottawa knows best approach”.

I believe we must recognize that this approach has historically not served our country well.

On balance I supported this NDP motion as I believe the intentions were sincere.

However, I also believe we must take great caution when moving on a motion without proper direction from those Indigenous communities who will be most impacted by decisions made in Ottawa.

“Meaning well” and being “well intentioned” does not mean actual outcomes will unfold as hoped or intended.

As Prime Minister Trudeau recently stated:

“If it (true reconciliation) were only done by ministers, if it were only done by Ottawa, to solve these challenges, it might have been done long ago, but it would have been done wrong,” 

My question this week:

While this NDP motion was well intended, do you believe Parliament should take greater caution in the future to receive direction and input from communities that will be impacted?

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

​From time to time I receive requests to cover specific topics in my weekly reports to local citizens.

Recently my Summerland office received a request from an individual wanting to know how much employment has changed within the Federal Government of Canada during the pandemic. 

Although the data for the current year of 2021 is not available, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat does have this information available for 2020 that in turn can be compared to 2019.

In 2020 the total number of FTE (full time equivalent employees) working within the Public Service of Canada was 300,450.

This is an increase of over 12,000 positions since 2019 where the total number of FTE positions was 287,983.

How do today’s number compare to historical trends? 

In 2010, the furthest date back this information is publicly posted there was 282,980 FTE positions.

Total FTE positions in the Public Service does not include paid consultants.

Recently the Financial Post reported the growth of paid consultants in Ottawa.

As the Globe and Mail reported the “costs for “professional and special services” are expected to hit $16.4 billion by 2022”.

In 2015, the year this current Government came to power, this amount was $9.5 Billion.

Before I close this week’s report, I would like to take a moment to share a few words that I believe the vast majority of citizens in the riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola share.

We are collectively shocked, saddened and outraged at the discovery of an unmarked gravesite for 215 children at a former Indigenous residential school in Kamloops.

This discovery is difficult to put into words. 

While we have had an emergency debate in Ottawa on this horrific discovery, the Prime Minister has also stated:

"Canada will be there to support Indigenous communities as we discover the extent of this trauma and trying to give opportunities for families and communities to heal,"

For the record, I stand with the Prime Minister and as the Official Opposition we will be supporting the work of the Government, working in partnerships with Indigenous communities, to help ensure that they receive support and accountability for this dark part of our past.  

I would in particular ask that we all think of the Tk’emlúps teSecwépemc First Nation who made this deeply disturbing discovery.

I would also ask that we remember many families in Indigenous communities throughout our region who had children in residential schools.

Many who did not return.

I have no weekly question this week.

Please consider what we can do to support our local Indigenous communities who have been so deeply impacted by this loss.
 

It was roughly one month ago that I last wrote about Bill C-10.

For those unfamiliar with Bill C-10, it is the Liberal government bill that aims to, among other things, "provide the CRTC with new powers to regulate online audio and audio-visual services, allowing the CRTC to create conditions of service and other regulatory requirements under which these online broadcasters would operate in Canada."

If you have been following Bill C-10 closely, you will know that critics of this bill have raised some very serious concerns.

I continue to receive a growing number of calls and emails from local citizens who are strongly opposed to Bill C-10.

The concerns I hear locally are different from the concerns heard in Ottawa, where industry and cultural groups have lined up, depending on whether they win or lose more control over their revenues.

The concerns I hear locally are largely around freedom of expression, however more and more I am also hearing about C-10’s impact to 'net neutrality'.

For those of you unfamiliar, net neutrality is a principle that internet service providers should treat all internet data equally.

In other words, certain internet content should not be sped up or slowed down, censored, or blocked, based on discretionary criteria.

It is an important principle and one that PM Trudeau defended in 2017: “digital technology and use of the internet is the lever to create economic growth and opportunities for citizens right across this country, we need to continue to defend net neutrality and I will.”

The concerns raised point to the fact that Bill C-10 enables unelected bureaucrats at the CRTC to have the power to regulate and force these online companies to put in place regimes or algorithms that may misplace or censor content posted online by Canadians.

The problem is much of the content on these social media sites is unique content created by Canadians, and posted to their social media accounts.

While the intent is to ensure Canadian content, the question is who decides these definitions for the CRTC? 

Instead of you having the choice, your choices could be limited, based on a yet to be announced criteria set and enforced by the CRTC.

Further, if certain content is prioritized because it meets an arbitrary standard or other content is pushed so far back that it is difficult to find or censored, there is no question that would be in contrast with the principle of net neutrality. 

This is the core concern that I am hearing from many local citizens.

People do not want unelected and accountable bureaucrats using an arbitrary process to decide what does and does not meet their objectives.

My question this week:

Do you want the CRTC to have the tools to regulate your internet content?

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

At the time I write this weeks report, British Columbia has received just over 2.93 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

Of that, over 85% has already been administered, meaning approximately 2.5 million citizens have now received a single dose of vaccine.

Just over 130,000 have now received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine

With the population of slightly over 5 million B.C., this means we are not at a threshold where roughly 50% of our population has at least one dose of vaccine.

Canada wide, this number is not far behind, with 46% of the population now having received one dose of vaccine.

In other words, Canada is now roughly halfway finished vacating one half of our population.

The question that's increasingly being asked is, what comes next?

In the Unites States, the CDC has released guidelines that outlines many activities that are now considered safe and do not require mask wearing or social distancing. 

In the UK there is now a four-stage roadmap that outlines the lifting of restrictions at each stage.

In stage 3, for example, most businesses will be able to fully re-open.

This week the UK intends to announce the country is now in Stage 3.

The EU is also in the process of creating a harmonized list of travel regulations and restrictions, as well as creating an electronic travel certificate.

Unfortunately, here in Canada we still do not have a detailed re-opening plan from our federal government. 

The Public Health Agency of Canada has recently posted some information but not to the level of detail needed by many Canadians.

As a result of this, the Business Council of Canada has written an open letter to the Prime Minister requesting a plan to reopen the Canadian economy.

This letter offers advice to the Prime Minister:

“Canadians also want to know when it will be safe to travel again to see friends and loved ones. To avoid rising levels of confusion and frustration, your government should collaborate with officials in the United States and other countries in setting benchmarks that would enable the easing of border restrictions and travel quarantines. 
A clear and predictable plan for a gradual and safe return to a more normal life would instill public confidence while demonstrating concern for the physical, mental and economic health of Canadians. As business and community leaders we stand ready to work with you to ensure a safe and sustainable recovery.”

The intent of my report this week is not to criticize the federal government for a lack of a plan but rather to ask a question to the citizens of Central Okanagan, Similkameen and Nicola.

When it comes to re-opening our local and national economy what are the concerns you would like to see addressed?

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

This week the Prime Minister created a bit of a stir in Ottawa when he announced his latest sound bite; that Canadians can enjoy a "one-dose summer”.

The comment appears to be an admission that at best, those Canadians who want to be fully vaccinated with two doses of COVID vaccine, will only be able to receive one dose by summer.

The expectation is that every Canadian can be in this “one-dose” situation by the end of June. 

The required second dose would occur at some point in the fall.

What does a “one dose” summer look like compared to a “two dose” summer as we now witnessing in the United States?

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not provided a clear definition of what a “one dose summer” really means.

In fairness much of health policy is provincial, however here in the Okanagan, we receive a considerable amount of business as a result from our proximity to the Canada /USA border.

Increasingly I am receiving questions from many in the tourism and hospitality sectors who are receiving booking requests from fully vaccinated US citizens and they are unclear how far down the road they must continue to decline these requests, which in turn amounts to a significant loss of revenue.

I am also increasingly hearing from frustrated Canadians who would like more certainty on what will be the plan for the border re-opening so they can visit family and attend to other commitments.

On these points PM Trudeau continues to say Canada will "align policy on ‘vaccine passports’" with other countries.

Unfortunately, this is not a clear answer on what his expectations will be for fully vaccinated US citizens desiring to do business here in Canada. 

While this is an important question for many small businesses who depend on US visitors here in the summer months, it may or may not be a concern to other citizens.

That leads to my question this week:

When it comes to the Canada /USA border what are your thoughts on a potential re-opening?

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

​In late November of 2016 a common media headline was “Trudeau kills Northern Gateway pipeline” after the PM announced his government would not continue with the project.

The announcement to kill the Northern Gateway project also honoured an election commitment from Prime Minister Trudeau, who had previously stated that “the Great Bear Rain Forest was no place for a pipeline.”

The decision to kill the Northern Gateway pipeline project was also politically popular with many who had supported the Prime Minister in the 2015 election.

As many will know, the Prime Minister also announced that he would be supporting and approving the Trans-Mountain pipeline project, a decision that outraged many of those who celebrated the demise of Northern Gateway.

Pipeline politics are indeed very much part of our democratic process as evidenced by the opposition to the Trans-Mountain pipeline from the BC Premier Horgan and his NDP Government, promising to use “every tool in the tool box “to try and stop it.

Why does this matter? 

Because pipeline politics are also popular with certain politicians south of our Canada/United States border.

Many will know that President Biden, shortly after occupying the Oval Office, used the power of the Presidential Veto to officially end the Keystone XL pipeline project.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed to connect Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska over 1,947-kilometres to transport Canadian crude oil to US refineries.

Keystone XL is not the only pipeline being targeted by United States politicians. 

The Line 5 pipeline, built in 1953, runs from Superior, Wisconsin and feeds oil refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.

Line 5 also carries natural gas and is considered a critical supply source of oil and gas to the Ontario and Quebec economies.

The challenge is a portion of Line 5 runs underwater where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac.

The risk for environmental damage related to a potential spill of a pipeline that carries up to 540,000 barrels a day of oil and natural gas liquids has resulted in Michigan State Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordering the revocation of the easement for the pipeline and that it be shutdown.

Enbridge, the owner and operator of this pipeline, is exploring legal options as well as mediation to avoid the shut down that is currently set to come into effect next week. 

This possible pipeline shutdown has also created considerable political tension as the Trudeau Liberal Government is said to be using all diplomatic channels in Washington and with President Biden to avoid this pipeline from being shut down.

I strongly support pipeline projects however this issue raises a question to those who oppose pipelines, that is seldom asked: 

Considering PM Trudeau politically killed the Northern Gateway pipeline, much as President Biden did for Keystone XL, both citing risk and environmental reasons, why is Governor Gretchen Whitmer not entitled to follow their lead?

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

​I will begin this weeks report by sharing part of a conversation I once had with a now retired provincial cabinet minister. 

The former Minister shared an observation that one of the challenges in government, when attempting to try and resolve a problem, is the need to be very careful to ensure that the proposed solution does not create more new, unanticipated problems.

I am reminded of this as the Liberal Government has tabled, and recently amended, Bill C-10: “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

Few would dispute that in an age of increased digital steaming, and various online media platforms, that the Broadcasting Act and the oversight regulation with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is badly in need of updating.

The challenge, as the now retired former cabinet minister would remind us, is how make these much-needed updates without inadvertently creating new problems?

Recently the Liberal Government removed a critical exemption to Bill C-10, that in my view and the view of many other experts and stakeholders, will create serious setbacks to our Charter protected right of free expression.

When Bill C-10 was first proposed it exempted 'unique user generated content' from the bill.

For example, if a Canadian created and posted their own video on YouTube, Facebook, Tik Tok or any other online social media platforms, their content was exempted by the changes proposed in Bill C-10. 

However, during clause by clause examination of Bill C-10 in the Industry, Science and Technology committee, the Liberals removed this exemption.

Removing this exemption means that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the CRTC could have the power to regulate, remove and censor what Canadians post to their own social media.

This in turn can also limit what Canadians are able to see online in Canada.

Instead of Canadians having the choice, the choices could be limited based on a yet to be announced criteria set and enforced by the CRTC.

The Liberals so far defend this amendment stating that the intent is to limit the broadcast of unlicensed content online to protect copyright holders, who have lobbied for these changes.

That ultimately is the problem with the Liberal approach in Bill C-10.

Rather than resolving the unlicensed content issue through copyright law, the government proposes to cut it off at the broadcasting level, allowing Canadian's content to be sacrificed in the process.

In a statement on the bill’s Charter compliance, justice officials argued that the original exemption, removed by the Liberals, alleviated potential concerns of breaching section 2 (b) of the Charter on free expression.

With the exemption's removal, many are speculating on what impacts this bill will have.

This approach by the Liberals, according to one of Canada’s foremost law professors, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa,  is a “shocking and likely unconstitutional speech regulation.”

Professor Michael Geist further notes:

“We would never think of subjecting the content of the letters, emails or blog posts to CRTC regulation, yet Canadian Heritage Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Liberal government believe it is appropriate to regulate a new generation’s form of speech – TikTok videos, Instagram posts, Facebook feeds, and YouTube videos – as if they are the equivalent of broadcast programs.”

For the record I share the concerns of Professor Geist. 

My question this week:

Do you support or oppose this amendment to Bill C-10?

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

​This week the Liberal Government tabled its first budget in over two years.

In her budget speech, the Finance Minister stated that we must build:

“a more resilient Canada: better, more fair, more prosperous and more innovative.”

This raises the obvious question.

Who has been governing Canada for the past five years to have made Canada so un-resilient, so un-fair, so unprosperous and lacking in innovation?

This is generally the pattern of Liberal budgets and this one is no exception.

By the numbers this budget promises a massive level of spending, all told some $143 billion in new spending over the next six years.

Where is it all going? 

Despite promises not to use omnibus budgets, this Liberal budget comes in at over 700 pages, so it is only possible to highlight some of the proposed spending areas.

$30 billion has been earmarked for daycare and early learning over the next five years.

This will require partnerships with the provinces to fully implement.

Ultimately the goal is to provide $10 per day daycare.

$18 billion in promised spending over the next five years in an effort to close the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

$17 billion is promised to be spent in future years on the promotion of what the Liberals have termed the “green recovery effort".

There is also a $12 billion promise to extend COVID business aid programs as well as other income support measures.

Another announcement is $12 billion over five years to increase the OAS benefit that includes a one-time bonus payment of $500 expected at some point later this year.

I should also add this is not a tax and spend budget.

Many speculated this budget would include a “wealth tax” or other significant tax increases. 

From my read of this budget so far, while there have been some minor increases in places, there are no significant tax increases.

How does all this spending get paid for? 

While there is no actual debt reduction plan, the Liberals indicate that the levels of spending will decrease over time as many support programs will be wound down and that, combined with economic growth, will offset this spending.

What is ignored in this budget? 

Surprisingly there is no significant increase to Federal health transfers, when compared to what was requested by Provincial Premiers.

I say surprisingly as this is the most significant priority request from provincial governments with healthcare system under significant pressure right now.

For those hoping for a universal basic income or a national pharmacare program, these items are left out of the budget. 

Also given that this budget takes Canada to a debt to GDP ratio of roughly 50%, there is limited fiscal capacity to potentially add these programs.

My question this week:

Based on what you have read here, and likely heard reported elsewhere, what are your thoughts on this budget?

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

Spoiler alert.

This weeks MP report will likely only be of interest to boaters.

More specifically boaters who operate motor driven boats and are currently required to hold a Transport Canada 'Operator Card for Pleasure Craft'.

For those of you who hold this 'Pleasure Craft Operators Card, chances are at some point in your past you wrote an exam that was administered by a third party operator and, if you passed, were issued a 'Pleasure Craft Operator Card'.

These cards are required to be carried by skippers at all times when operating a motorized vessel and in the majority of cases have no date of expiry. 

The only exception to this requirement was for those who were renting a powerboat or personal watercraft such as a Sea-Doo or WaveRunner.

This exemption was based on the fact that it was not practical to be able to administer the test in such a short period of time and that boat rental agencies provide safety instructions for operators who are renting the boats in question.

The reason for my report this week is that Transport Canada is considering making significant changes to this program.

How will these changes potentially affect you if you currently hold this card?

For starters the cards may no longer become permanent. 

There may be a new requirement to take a new course potentially every five years.

The courses themselves may also become considerably more expensive as Transport Canada has proposed that course operators pay a fee of $5000 for a five-year term. 

It is also proposed that there would be an additional fee payable to Transport Canada for each individual who passes the course and receives a new 'Pleasure Craft Operator Card'.

In addition, is a proposed elimination of the exemption for those who would rent a powerboat or personal watercraft. 

This proposal has generated significant concern from local boat rental agencies as it is unclear how a test could be administered in a short period of time as well as the economics of the added costs to the boat rental industry, of which we have many here in the Okanagan.

I am not a boater however the comments I have heard from boaters are greatly concerned about these proposed changes.

As one boater shared with me – our local lakes are not serviced by the Canadian Coast Guard, for the most part the Okanagan does not have many of the costly to service navigation aides located in other bodies of water, and it is proposed to remove VHS weather services that many boaters do use.

In other words, the concerns can be summarized that the federal government is offering less services to local boaters but wanting to take more money from them in return.  

In fairness, Transport Canada they have indicated that the current program, as it exists, generates no revenue for the federal government but does carry costs.

The fees raised by these changes will contribute towards the costs of Transport Canada to administer this program.

My question this week is to boaters – Are you supportive of these changes? 

Unfortunately, the window of time Transport Canada provided to comment on these proposals has expired but more information can be found here:

https://letstalktransportation.ca/pcoc

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

​If you have lived in the Okanagan long enough, chances are you may have come across the odd sign at a local business that reads:

“No shirt, no shoes, no service”.

Now imagine reading a sign that reads “No COVID vaccination passport, no business.”

While that may sound extreme, in New York City (as one example), there is a passport program being launched this month geared at allowing vaccinated individuals to attend sports, arts and entertainment venues.

In Israel there is a COVID-19 vaccine passport program called “Green Pass” that provides proof of vaccination via a QR code.

Individuals with a “Green Pass” are allowed to attend certain public places, including theatres and concerts.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), IBM and others are in the process of developing apps that provide a similar vaccination verification service.

Many airlines are working with these app developers to put these vaccine verification app programs into use.

Regardless of what Canada decides on the topic of proof of vaccination, for many who travel for work or pleasure, it is likely those Canadians may require Canadian vaccination documentation in order to satisfy requirements, either from other countries, or travel related organizations like airlines.

Another example is the cruise ship industry.

Celebrity Cruises, Royal Caribbean, Crystal Cruises, Virgin Voyages, American Queen Steamboat Company and Victory Cruise Lines have all announced various vaccination verification requirements.

Currently our Federal Health Minister, Hon. Patty Hajdu, has met with health ministers from other G-7 countries to discuss the potential for proof-of-vaccine documents related to travelling.

My question this week is:

What are your views on the subject of vaccination passports?

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

In November of 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote an open letter to Canadians.

In that letter among other promises the PM offered this:

“….we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa. Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve- you.”

I believe these words that the Prime Minister wrote to Canadians in 2015 are important and must be honoured. 

As the Official Opposition, it is also our role to hold the Prime Minister and his Liberal Government accountable for these and other promises made to Canadians.

Accountability is vital.

It is why, in 2006, former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper created the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to help hold your government accountable.

It should also be noted that the creation of the PBO was the result of a campaign promise made by former PM Harper to create more accountability in Ottawa, in response to the former Liberal government sponsorship scandal.

Why does this matter? 

Because accountability and transparency are under threat in Ottawa.

In 2018, the Trudeau Liberal Government tabled a budget that included a $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan.

What's deeply troubling is when the PBO requested the documents to review this infrastructure spending plan, no documents were provided.

As a result, in March of 2018 the PBO publicly reported:

“Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist.”

Fast forward to January of 2020 and now a minority government, we, as the Official Opposition, tabled an opposition day motion that is summarized as:

“…given the PBO posted on March 15, 2018, that “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan” and that the “PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist”, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government’s “Investing in Canada Plan”.

Although the Trudeau Liberal Government vigorously opposed this motion, it passed with 166 votes in favour and 152 opposed. 

Now here we are now in March of 2021(almost April), three years after the PBO first raised the alarm bells, and the Auditor  General recently released the audit (Report 9) of the “Investing in Canada” Infrastructure plan.

Unfortunately, the Auditor General also stated:

“Overall, Infrastructure Canada—as the lead department for the Investing in Canada Plan—was unable to provide meaningful public reporting on the plan’s overall progress toward its expected results.”

This relates to $186.7 BILLION in spending. 

My question this week:

Should this be acceptable conduct from your government?

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

This week in the virtual House of Commons, the Conservative opposition party tabled an 'opposition day motion' that called for the Liberal government to introduce a data driven COVID re-opening plan within 20 days to support “gradually, safely and permanently lifting COVID-19 restrictions.”

As is often the case with opposition day motions, the Liberal government has offered up a litany of reasons that suggest they will oppose this motion that, at the time of this report, has not yet been voted on.

Why the need for a re-opening plan? 

As Canadians know, vaccinations are now underway and regrettably Canada is currently significantly behind many countries, including the United States.

Already many local small businesses involved in tourism, as well as accommodation providers are receiving reservation requests from fully immunized American citizens for potential upcoming vacation stays.

For an industry that has been devastated by this pandemic, the opportunity for bookings and accompanying revenue is desperately needed.

Unfortunately, for this industry, and many others, they are unclear how and when to respond to these requests.
There are also remains a critically important question.

Many citizens are currently under various restrictions and requirements.

While the Prime Minister has promised that all citizens who are wanting to be immunized by the end of September will be, we do not know what vision the PM has following this time frame.

This relates to the obvious question.

For Canadian citizens who eventually are fully vaccinated, how will that potentially change federal restrictions for them on travel beyond Canadian borders?

Likewise, if other countries propose a requirement that fully vaccinated citizens produce vaccination verification documentation, how does this Government propose to respond to this?

Many Canadians want and deserve to know what the game plan is once vaccines in Canada have been fully administered. 

The answers to these questions are also very badly needed by those in the travel and aviation sectors who have been decimated by this pandemic.

While the Liberal government MP's arguing against this motion have largely suggested that expectations for a re-opening plan is “too soon”, it must be noted that USA President Joe Biden and British PM Boris Johnson have both released public plans for economic reopening.

We all know that COVID restrictions have had serious economic and mental health impacts on many Canadians. 

It is important that we all have clarity on when and how the federal government believes regular economic and social life will be able to resume.

My question this week:

Do you believe it is a reasonable expectation that the Liberal government present a data driven, gradual re-opening plan much as the USA and UK have already done?

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

​Last month I did a report on Bill C-21: “An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)”.
 
This report touched on the Liberal Government's latest firearms bill that, among other measures, also places new restrictions on certain types of “assault style” semi-automatic rifles but has been criticized for not removing these same rifles from the public.
 
As former NDP official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair recently stated,

“Trudeau got pummeled, with longtime gun-control allies saying they felt “betrayed” and saying his government lied to them.”

The reason for this criticism relates to the fact that previously PM Trudeau stated:

"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."
 
As critics have pointed out, if PM Trudeau believes this to be true, why is his bill allowing these rifles to remain in Canada?

While there is often debate on targeting legal gun owners as opposed to criminals, one fact that data backs up is that the majority of gun crime in Canada is committed by guns that have been illegally smuggled into Canada.
 
The statistics show roughly 80% of Canadian gun crimes are committed with firearms illegally smuggled into Canada from the United States.
 
This raises another question – why not target illegal gun smuggling?
 
My Conservative colleague, MP Bob Saroya from Markham-Unionville (Ontario), recently tabled his private members bill C-238 to do precisely that.
 
Bill C-238 proposed to significantly increase the minimum sentences for illegally smuggling guns into Canada, as well as being found in possession of an illegally smuggled gun.

The minimum sentence would increase from one year to three years, or 5 years if it were a second conviction for illegally smuggling guns into Canada.
 
On January 27, 2021, Bill C-238 was defeated by just 21 votes.

116 Conservative MP's, along with 31 members of the BLOC, 2 Liberals and 1 Independent all supported this bill.
 
Opposed were 142 Liberals, 23 NDP, 3 Independent and the 3 Green MPs. 
 
That brings me to this week’s question –

Would you have supported Bill C-238 to increase the minimum sentences for smuggling or possessing guns illegally smuggled into Canada?

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

​It was back in October of 2020 that I last referenced the proposed ban of some single use plastics announced by PM Trudeau at that time.

This proposed ban that the government proposes, by the end of 2021, includes grocery store bags, straws, coffee stir sticks, six-pack can holding rings, plastic cutlery and certain food takeout containers if they are made from hard-to-recycle plastics.

In my October MP Report, I also asked the question “What are your thoughts on this proposed ban of single use plastics?”

Most citizens I heard from were generally or enthusiastically supportive of this proposal.

Since October of last year, in my role as the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I have also heard feedback on this proposal from a number of different stakeholders.

One of the primary concerns is that the proposed method to ban these single use plastics is to amend Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and add these plastics to the list of “toxic” items that are currently banned.

As critics point out, the challenge to this method is that the science does not support these plastics being on a list that includes toxic items such as asbestos, mercury, acetamide and lead, among other items.

The reason why this distinction is being made is to point out that the greater risk to plastic pollution is not to human health, but rather the inability to properly dispose of this plastic that often becomes an unacceptable form of pollution to our environment.

There are also other challenges.

Industry stakeholders have raised concerns that alternatives to single use plastics could significantly increase the load on local landfills by as much as 4 times current volumes.

There are also technical challenges, as single use plastics can significantly and economically extend the shelf life of food, as well as providing many important resources in healthcare particularly during a pandemic.

Syringes, PPE and other critically important items depend upon single use plastics.

In summary, the need for science and a thorough review, as well as detailed consultation will be of vital importance as we move forward on this subject.

However, one topic that we must act upon now is the importance to deal with plastic waste.

To that end I would like to commend Conservative MP Scot Davidson from York—Simcoe, who introduced his private member’s Bill C-204 into Parliament.

Bill C-204 proposed that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is amended to prohibit the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal.

As some may recall in 2019, Canadian taxpayers footed the bill for Canadian waste that was transported to the Philippines to be shipped back to Canada for proper disposal.

It cost $1.14 million to ship sixty-nine shipping containers of garbage from the Philippines Port of Subic Bay to Vancouver, where it was properly disposed of.

Not all of this garbage was single use plastics, but this example underscores the need for Canadians to deal with our own garbage, much as Bill C-204 proposes, when it comes to plastic waste.

I am pleased to say that Bill C-204 passed in the House of Commons with 178 votes from the Conservatives, BLOC, NDP, Green and Independents all supporting it.

Only the Liberal Government members were opposed.

My question this week:

Do you support the principles of Bill C-204?

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