​This week Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released the 2021 Economic and Fiscal update report for Parliamentarians.
 
The reports tells us that:

“Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government has spent, or has planned to spend, $541.9 billion in new measures over 2019-20 to 2026-27, of which $176.6 billion (or about one third) is not part of the COVID-19 Response Plan”.
 
The PBO also notes that there is $57.8 billion in new spending that will be related to the Liberals 2021 election platform.
 
One interesting observation from the PBO is that Canada has now recovered 106% of jobs that were lost at the outset of the pandemic.
 
Despite this positive news, the PBO notes that the government has also dropped previously announced plans to wind down stimulus spending by the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year.
 
Noting that the labour market in Canada has now recovered, the PBO questions the need to continue to spend billions on stimulus spending despite previous plans to wind that spending down.
 
From my perspective here locally, one of the most frequent concerns that I hear is from pensioners and families who are struggling to keep up with inflation at the pumps and at the grocery stores.
 
I have also heard from small and medium sized business owners about the difficulty they have filling jobs, and worsening supply chain issues leading to shortages that lead to increased prices for goods and services.
 
Many are worried that more stimulus spending may only further increase inflationary pressures making goods even less affordable.
 
Given Canada’s current employment numbers, low interest rates, coupled with higher levels of government spending both in Canada and the United States during a time where we have seen continued supply chain issues, leads to bigger questions around inflation.

Statistics Canada has recently reported that Canada’s inflation in December was running at 4.8%.

Economists have noted that this is the largest surge of inflation we have seen in 30 years.
 
My question this week relates to stimulus spending and its role in the economy.
 
While the debate in Ottawa will continue on the need for more stimulus spending versus winding it down, what is your opinion here locally on stimulus spending?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​Recently my email inbox, as well as a significant number of calls to my office have raised significant opposition to a proposed annual home equity tax.
 
The overwhelming feedback on this topic has come somewhat as a surprise to me as this what not a major media story nor have I raised this topic in a weekly report.

Because of the level of responses I have received to this proposed homeowners equity tax will be the focus of this week's report.
 
First off – what is it?

Recently a Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) funded report from a group known as “Generation Squeeze”.

This report recommended an annual home equity tax on residences values in excess of $1 million dollars or more.
 
The proposed tax would be 0.2% for homes with a value between $1 million up to $1.5 million and would increase again to 0.5% up to $2 million and would ultimately increase to 1% on homes valued over $2 million payable annually like income taxes.
 
What if you could not afford to pay the annual home equity tax?

The program would be designed to defer the balance owing with a rate of interest charged on the outstanding balance.

The idea being the balance owing would be paid when the home is sold, or title transferred through an inheritance.
 
How does this make housing more affordable?

In theory the government would use this tax revenue to invest in affordable housing.

The report's author also believes it would create a disincentive for those who invest in housing for a monetary return.
 
My thoughts?

To be candid I oppose this tax proposal.

As has already been shared with me, there are citizens who now find themselves living in homes with a value in excess of a million dollars and would be subject to such a tax despite not having purchased a “million dollar home”.

As these individuals point out, they could never afford to purchase a million-dollar home.

On the surface they can “sell” and cash in on the increase in their home value but as has been pointed out, with the average price of a home in Kelowna now over $1 million, it is pointless as your gains would be wiped out trying to purchase in the current market.

As we have seen large jumps in home values throughout BC in recent years, it would be only a matter of time before more and more households qualify to pay this tax regardless of their household income.
 
 It has also been pointed out that selling a million-dollar home in itself negatively can impact your equity as real estate commissions and the BC property purchase tax are much higher on homes with a value in this price range.

As one individual shared with my office, they are only a “millionaire” homeowner on paper and could not afford to sell and buy another home at the current market rates as it is all relative.
 
I have heard other reasons why citizens are opposed to this idea.

One common question is what happens in the event that housing markets decline, having a natural effect on reducing your home equity, when at the same time the home equity tax you owe would continue to increase.

There is also a challenge when the value of the home you own does not necessarily accurately reflect your household income and by extension the ability to pay a home equity tax.
 
From own perspective I don’t believe the Government has a revenue problem that requires a home equity tax.

The challenge is spending.

As one example, our current Liberal Government has invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

I believe our shares in this bank should be sold and those funds would be better spent investing here in Canada, building Canadian infrastructure.
 
Final and important point.

The Liberal Government has stated that they will not be implementing this home equity tax.
 
My question this week:

Do you support the idea of a home equity tax to fund affordable housing?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.c.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

In a recent report, I referenced an exchange that I had in June of 2020 with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

In the exchange I was asking the question; “Can the Minister please tell us the current balance of the EI account?"

As it would turn out I never did receive an answer to that question from the Minister in question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) also noticed the Liberal government secrecy around the EI account balance.
The PBO stated:

“Given that forecasted EI expenses far exceed projected program revenues, the EI Operating Account is on track for a cumulative deficit of $52 billion by the end of 2024.”

Why does this matter?

As I pointed out back in my December 2020 report;

“by law, the EI premiums that Canadians pay must cover the expenses of the Employment Insurance program. If the expenses exceed the revenue, as is currently the case, the Government must, within a seven-year time frame, recover the deficit of EI funds that have been paid out.”

Why mention this now? 

As of January 1st, 2022, the EI premiums many Canadians pay will potentially increase.

Next year, on January 1st. of 2023, when a two-year freeze on EI increases expires, EI premiums will increase again.

The EI increase for this year is based on the maximum insurable earnings increasing from $56,300 to $60,300. 

This works out to a maximum weekly EI benefit increase in from $595 to $638 per week.

In turn the maximum annual EI premium will increase to $952.74 as opposed to $889.54 in the previous year.

Next year the EI premiums will start to increase more significantly from $1.58 per $100 of insurable earnings up to $1.83 per $100 of insurable earnings by the year 2027.

Obviously, these EI premium increases mean many workers may have less net take home pay as a result.

At the same time, a recent University 2022 food prices study, prepared by researchers with Dalhousie University, the University of Guelph, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of British Columbia, has forecast that food prices in Canada will increase between 5% to 7% in 2022.

In other words, at a time when many households may see net income drop, the purchasing power of your dollar will be less because of these inflationary pressures. 

My question this week: 


How much are you concerned about this situation?

​I can be reached via email at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or by telephone at 1-800-665-8711 (toll free).

Last week was the final sitting of the House of Commons before the winter break.

As is often the case, the government is typically in a hurry to pass certain bills before the House adjourns.
 
This year was no different as Bill C-3 “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code” was deemed a priority as it contained a provision to provide 10 days of paid sick leave in federally regulated workplaces.
 
In a majority situation, a sitting government  always has parliamentary tools available such as “closure” and “time allocation” to essentially force a bill through Parliament.
 
However, in a minority Parliament where a sitting government can be outvoted by the opposition parties, it becomes trickier for the government to pass a bill.
 
This is often where backroom deals and agreements are made between the government and one or more opposition parties.
 
In the case of Bill C-3, in the effort to reach an agreement between the government and the official opposition, a different approach was used.

In this case my Conservative colleague, MP Scott Aitchison from Parry Sound-Muskoka, proposed amending Bill C-3 to include a proposed Conservative MPs private members bill that would provide bereavements benefits to parents who have lost a child.

This Private Members Bill was authored by MP Tom Kmiec from Calgary- Shepard who, in 2018 sadly experienced the loss of a child and proposed this bill to help other parents in this tragic situation.

For this proposal from MP Scott Aitchison to work, it required support from the Liberal Government. On that note Liberal Labour Minister Seamus O'Regan from St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, was the champion on moving this important proposal forward within the Liberal Government. 

Ultimately this agreement reached between the government and the official opposition helped pave the way for Bill C-3 to have an expediated passage through Parliament.

Subsequently the Senate has also now passed Bill C-3 and this bill has received royal assent.

The reason I have shared this experience is because it is an important example of our Canadian Parliament working together to benefit Canadians.

As MP Aitchison pointed out “no parent should have to choose between going to work and mourning the loss of a child”.

Thanks to the efforts of these Parliamentarians, this private member’s bill is now part of a Government Bill that has become law.

These are some of the important things that can and do occur when Parliament is sitting (virtually or in person) when MPs are doing the work in the House that Canadians elected us to do.

Unfortunately, in the past few years because of prorogation and this early fall election and significant delay in recalling the House after our Parliament has not sat nearly as often as per the usual Parliamentary calendar.

Regular demonstrations of accountability such as debate on bills, Ministers presenting themselves and their policies open to scrutiny at committee and ultimately confidence votes are all fundamental to our system of responsible government- where a government must show maintains the confidence of the House.

I believe we need our Canadian Parliament to sit more frequently as has been the case in previous years but has deteriorated considerably under the current government

My question this week:

Are you concerned about our Parliament sitting less frequently? 

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

This week will be the last week the House of Commons sits before the winter break.

It is frustrating as the House of Commons only began sitting less than a month ago, on November 22.
The House will resume on Monday, January 31st.

Much of the work that has been done over the past few weeks involved electing a new Speaker and establishing parliamentary committees, while only a limited number of government bills have come before the House.

However, one important event that did occur this week was a “fiscal update” from the government. 

What is a “fiscal update”?

In the absence of a properly tabled budget, a fiscal update provides an opportunity for the government to reveal our fiscal status, as well as announce and introduce budgetary measures that were not in the previous budget.

By the numbers in the 2021/22 fiscal update, this year’s deficit is forecast to hit $144.5 billion.

While that is an incredibly large number, it is actually down from the $154.7 Billion forecast that was in the previous budget.

On the surface there is other positive news.

The fiscal update shows the deficit declining for the next five years being reduced to $13.1 billion in 2026/27.

However, I mention “on the surface” because this fiscal update contained very few of the many Liberal election promises that are expected to be released in the upcoming budget in the spring of 2022.

There was also new spending measures announced in this fiscal update.

In total there is COVID related spending of roughly $13 billion. 

The includes $3.3 billion that was just announced in this update to expand rapid tests and enact other measures such as border testing and tracking.

For British Columbia there has been $5 billion set aside in this budget update to assist with clean up and rebuilding form the flooding.

There has also been $4.5 billion allocated towards costs related toward the Omicron variant and a total of $4 billion to provide support to indigenous communities. 

From my perspective there are a few areas for concern.

Much of this forecast will be significantly changed once the Liberal budget is introduced where there will be newly announced spending measures.

There may also be newly announced taxation measurers.

The challenge with any new taxation measures is that, with rising inflation (currently at 4.7% here in Canada), your net after tax income has less buying power.

If taxes are increased that further lowers your net income that combined with taxation means many households have less money to buy basic necessities. 

For those on a fixed income, inflation is very challenging. 

Another challenge this fiscal update illustrates is the cost of debt servicing.

The interest that we pay on our public debt for 2020/21 is $20.4 billion. 

By 2026/27 these interest costs are forecast to rise to $40.9 Billion.

For context the Canada Health Transfer today is $45.9 Billion and is forecast to rise to $55.2 billion in 2026/27.

In other words, over the next five years the cost to service our debt is doubling and increasing at a rate faster than our health transfers are increasing.

​My question this week:

Are you concerned about the rising costs of inflation?

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

​Earlier this week many saw the media headline “Trudeau announces Boycott of Beijing Olympics” 

This early headline led to some confusion before subsequent media headlines clarified: “Canada announces diplomatic boycott of Beijing Olympics, athletes will still compete”.

There was only a brief period of time where some confusion existed, however what was interesting, is that when athletes were thought to be part of this boycott, many citizens had strong views and were keen to share them.

When it was later clarified the boycott was only diplomatic in nature and did not include athletes the comments quieted down significantly.

The few comments I have now heard back locally range from “what is a diplomatic boycott” to “why does anyone care if diplomats attend or not?".

While this remains a significant topic of discussion in Ottawa it is not one I am hearing locally.

If anything, this serves as a reminder just how quickly the focus of Ottawa can change from day to day. 

My focus remains back on communities like Princeton and Merritt as well as the surrounding rural and Indigenous communities.

With winter conditions now in effect, the clean up and rebuilding is much more challenging.

The impacts of flood damage to our highway system has resulted in significant commercial truck traffic on Highway 3, which in turn has led to more accidents on this highway which leads to additional emergency road closures. 

At this time it is still unknown if regular traffic will be allowed on this route that is currently restricted to essential travelling only.

That is also having an impact on families as connected communities are no longer connected.

This is also not an ideal situation for truckers.

For many who could make a trip from the coast to the interior and return in a single shift, that is no longer possible. 

Overnight trips are now normal in many cases and that can be increased if an accident results in further delays. 

Those travelling via air, for a variety of different reasons, are finding higher fees as well as new and significant restrictions that are changing frequently and with little notice because of the new omicron covid variant.

To make this situation more challenging, the border staff are sometimes not up to speed on government policy changes resulting in many unfortunate and unfair incidents.

I appreciate the efforts of Ministers and their staff who have been assisting my office on behalf of local citizens who have found themselves in demanding circumstances. 

I also know that there is anger out there.

As an elected official I hear frequently from citizens who are unhappy with how government services at different levels have responded to these various situations. 

It is in my view it is appropriate that elected officials hear your concerns when government services are not meeting your expectations. 

I mention this because it is critically important that frustration and anger should not be taken out on front line staff who are doing the best that they can in very challenging situations. 

Let us not forget that many front-line service providers and emergency responders are also facing some of the very same challenges in their personal lives.

My question this week:

What is your greatest local concern at this time? 

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

​At the time of writing this week’s report Merritt, Princeton and the surrounding areas, including Indigenous communities in these regions, are once again threatened by heavy rainfalls that has resulted in more evacuation orders being issued.

I am certain all Canadians join me in expressing our strong support to those have been severely impacted by these devastating floods.

Already, with some clean up underway, local governments in both Merritt and Princeton, as well as nearby Indigenous communities, have reported damage that is easily in the tens of millions.

Here in Canada, we have a federal program called the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA).

It lays out the terms of federal assistance that is available to provincial and territorial governments in the event of a disaster. 

As a rough guideline for a per capita expenditure up to $3.27 per person there is no federal financial assistance available.

For per capital expenditures that exceed that amount, the first $6.56 per capita will result in the federal cost share being raised to 50% while the next $6.56 increases the federal share up to 75% and any amount over that is a 90% federal cost share.

The federal cost share will only apply to eligible expenditures.

The first challenge is that these federal funds can only be directly paid to provincial or territorial governments and cannot be paid directly to local governments.

Due to the federal program being limited to provincial or territorial governments, this results in a secondary provincial disaster program for local governments being required.

Here in B.C. the provincial program is called the “Disaster Financial Assistance for local communities”.

This program works differently from the federal program in that once a disaster is declared that in turn makes it eligible for the program funding, each accepted claim has a maximum cost sharing limit of 80 percent of the total eligible damage, less the first $1,000.

The issue for small communities like Merritt and Princeton is that, with damages in the tens of millions of dollars and a very small tax base, there is absolutely no ability to fund the required 20% of the critically required repairs and rebuilding of civic infrastructure. 

This creates a situation where local Mayors and Council are facing extremely difficult decisions with bills piling up that are not in the budget and well beyond communities’ abilities to pay for them.

This is one of the serious concerns that the Mayors of these communities have shared with me and in turn I directly asked the Prime Minister about in the House of Commons earlier this week. 

When I asked the Prime Minister about this, the answer I received was basically “the Federal Government will be there”. 

What does this mean?

Statutorily, through legislation, the Federal Government is already obligated to “be there” to provide disaster assistance.

However, when it comes to municipalities, the unaffordable 20% funding requirement remains in effect.

Unless there is a new definition from the federal government to what “being there” of “having the backs” of these communities means the current disaster funding formula remains in effect and is insufficient. 

Which brings me to my question for you this week:

Do you believe the Federal Government should address the 20% disaster funding requirement for local communities such as Merritt and Princeton, who have been devastated by these floods? 

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

​This week, more than two months since the September federal election, finally the House of Commons is back in session again.

The first order of business is always to elect a new Speaker, which is a democratic process voted on by all Members of Parliament.

This year there were seven different candidates for Speaker before the MP from Nipissing—Timiskaming Ontario, Anthony Rota, was re-elected to this same role he had in the previous Parliament.

With the Speaker elected, the next order of business was the throne speech, that was for the first time since her appointment as Governor General, read by Mary Simon in three different languages.

The title of this year’s throne speech was “Building a resilient economy” and contained many of the same promises that the Liberals made in the recent election.

Over the next week in the House there will be debate on the throne speech from both government and the opposition.

There are also some ongoing procedural debates occurring in Ottawa this week. 

Topics such as how vaccination and medical exemptions are regulated within the House of Commons is one active topic of discussion.

Another is the ongoing debate between in person Parliament and a hybrid Parliament where MPs do not have to physically be in the House of Commons to participate in votes or debate.

The Liberal Government is also expected to be tabling some Government bills that they expect to be passed before the House rises in mid-December.

When these bills are tabled I will provide more information on them in future weekly reports.

Finally, this week I have joined with other opposition MPs from British Columbia and have requested an emergency debate regarding the disastrous flooding situation in parts of British Columbia including the communities of Merritt and Princeton in my riding.

At the time of writing my report this week I can announce that the request for the emergency debate has been granted and will occur during the evening hours of Wednesday, November 24th,2021.

I have been in regular contact with elected leaders and members of both Princeton and Merritt and have serious concerns that adequate levels of provincial and federal government resources can be delivered in the manner requested and as needed.

This will be a topic I will raise both Provincially and Federally to ensure communities such as Merritt and Princeton receive the supports, they need.

My question this week relates to hybrid versus in person parliament. Is it your preference that MPs show up to work in Ottawa to participate in votes and debate or are your supportive of the hybrid model where debate and votes can occur with MPs back in their home riding?

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

​There is a saying in social media…” I can’t un-see that”…often associated with online posts the depict some sort of rarely seen, almost impossible to comprehend act or event conveniently captured in a manner that generates “likes” for viewers.

Sadly, here in Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, Fraser Valley and in parts of Vancouver Island this past week, we cannot and will not ever un-see the devastation and destruction caused by record levels of rainfall and resulting flooding.

Merritt, a community over 7,000 people strong, is currently evacuated.

Motorists are still stranded in various places throughout the central and southern regions of B.C. 

Many grocery stores are running low on some basic groceries. Supply chains, for the moment, are stressed.

For the people in Merritt and Princeton, B.C. they are experiencing devastation on a level never before encountered.

Both of these communities have also suffered break downs in local infrastructure, with basic community services such as water and sewer being threatened.  

As an added challenge, in Princeton, a natural gas line has been compromised and many residents are without heat with a predicted low forecast of -8 overnight.

At the time of writing this report this week from Ottawa, I have just concluded a meeting with our Federal Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Bill Blair and a number of my colleagues who represent ridings in the Fraser Valley that are also threatened with flooding and evacuation orders.

I would like to publicly thank Minister Blair who has consistently reached out and made himself available through this ongoing disaster.

We have had assurances, both from Minister Blair and the Prime Minister, that the Federal Government will stand by to assist regions of British Columbia severely impacted by these floods and related mud slides.

To the good people of Merritt and Princeton, as well as the surrounding areas, please know that federally we will do everything possible to assist in the days, weeks and months ahead.

My phone is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and every effort will be made to ensure you are called back as promptly as possible. 

There is no question that our region has experienced a challenging six months, between wildfire threats and now serious flooding and mudslides.

The resulting damage is yet to be assessed but it will on a massive scale.

Aside from damage to homes, properties, community, and provincial infrastructure, there is also the serious toll on the people who call these areas home and the most impacted. 

The reality is that as our climate increasingly changes, we are not as prepared as we need to be for these resulting disasters.
 
My question this week:

What solutions do you believe would most enhance our emergency preparedness? 

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

​This week it was the Leader of the Official Opposition's turn to announce his appointments of shadow cabinet critics in the new Parliament.

I was honoured to be returned to the role of Shadow Minister for Environment & Climate Change.

This news arrived to me as I was attending the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

As I mentioned in my report last week, it was earlier at this conference where PM Trudeau announced that:

“Canada will impose a hard cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector”.

An announcement that provoked much discussion given that the exact details of this announcement to get emissions to net zero by 2050 within this Canadian industry remain unknown.

I also raised the concern that other countries such as Saudi Arabia and USA, who import oil & gas into Canada, are not following this policy of setting emissions caps or a “price on pollution”.

My weekly question was “How do you think the Government should deal with oil and gas imports from other countries that are not subject to these same types of policies?”.

There was a significant amount of well thought out responses to this question and I would like to sincerely thank those who took the time to share their ideas.

One other challenge has also since emerged. 

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has stated that at no time did the Prime Minister or the Minister for Environment & Climate Change ever pick up the phone to consult with, or otherwise communicate, about the policy promise to cap Canadian oil & gas emissions.

This is problematic because oil and gas regulation in Canada remains an area of provincial jurisdiction. 

It is also my concern that actions to reduce our emissions here in Canada are important.

Likewise, the need for the federal government to work with the Provinces is critical.

Taking action on our environment should not be done divisively in a manner that pits regions of Canada against each other. 

I believe strongly that the Prime Minister has an obligation to work with the Premiers and that includes consultation and communication on policies that are within Provincial jurisdiction.

My question this week is:

Do you agree?  

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

​In last week’s report I referenced the closure of the Kelowna International airport (YLW) to international flights and asked:

“Do you support the Kelowna Airport being re-opened to International flights as have been many other airports in Canada?"

I would like to thank all of those who took the time to respond and can state the responses were both overwhelming and almost unanimous in support of international flights returning to YLW.

Fortunately, we had some excellent news this week as Transport Canada announced eight more Canadian airports will, as of November 30th, 2021, again be open to international arrivals and departures. 

The list of these eight airports St. John’s, Hamilton, Waterloo, Regina, Saskatoon, Kelowna, Abbotsford and Victoria.

I would like to sincerely thank all of those who worked in support of this announcement.

On the topic of International travel, currently over 39,000 delegates have registered to attend the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, making this the largest attended COP climate conference in history.

Blacklock’s, a journalism organization out of Ottawa, reports that the official Canadian delegation at the COP26 conference is 277 delegates, 30 Environment Canada staff, 17 press aides as well as a videographer & speechwriter for the Prime Minister and 4 CBC reporters.

In the interests of full disclosure, members of the opposition also attend this conference.

I am attending on behalf of the Official Opposition as the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, as is the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, Bloc MP Kristina Michaud and Green Party MP's Elizabeth May and Mike Morrice.

Several government ministers including Prime Minister Trudeau are also attending this conference and the prime minister has made several announcements of behalf of Canada.

One of the more noteworthy announcements was a promise that “Canada will impose a hard cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector”

At the moment the exact details of this announcement are unknown however the goal is to get emissions to net zero by 2050 within this Canadian industry.

One of the challenges is that other countries who produce oil and gas are not following Canada in setting emissions caps, nor are they setting a “price on pollution” when it comes to oil and gas.

A further complication is that different regions of Canada use oil and gas that is imported from these countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

That leads to my question for this week: 

How do you think the Government should deal with oil and gas imports from other countries that are not subject to these same types of policies?

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

​This week Prime Minister Trudeau finally announced his new cabinet, after waiting over one month since the September election.

Not unlike what occurred under former Prime Minister Harper, the new cabinet announced yesterday by PM Trudeau is significantly larger with 39 members, one under 40 members, the largest that appointed  by Prime Minister Harper in 2015.

For contrast, the first cabinet announced by Prime Minister Harper in 2006 was just 26 members, likewise Prime Minister Trudeau’s first cabinet announced in 2015 was 31 members.

In total there are eight “rookies” in this new cabinet, and one former Minister returning, while two current Liberal MPs were dropped from the cabinet.

Unfortunately, we still must wait until November 22nd, 2021 before Prime Minister Trudeau recalls Parliament.

On a personal note, I am frustrated by the long wait for Parliament to return.

One reason for this relates to the expiry of Canada’s pandemic response benefit programs that occurred on October 23rd, 2021.

By now you have likely heard that the Liberal Government will not be renewing these programs as they previously existed, but instead have announced new assistance programs that will be more targeted.

The Liberal Government has further announced that these new programs will be more focused on incentivizing a return to work.

For the record I fully support the stated goal of the Liberal Government in this regard, however I believe this same principle should apply to Parliament and getting MPs back to work in Ottawa as well.

As is often the case with Government programs reading the fine print is always the key to ensuring the programs are working as intended and are accessible to those in need.

In this case the details of many of these programs require clarification and proper Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight is an important part of this process.

Another challenge with Parliament not sitting is that it limits the ability to raise issues of concern within the House of Commons.

One example of this is the continued closure of direct to the Kelowna Airport (YLW) international flights, in particular from the United States.

Recently I have heard from several in the accommodation and tourism sector who are literally losing tens of thousands of dollars of revenue as frequent customers from US destinations who are instead booking direct trips to other Canadian airports that have had their international flight status restored. 

As one small business owner recently vented in frustration – they do not want “government handouts” they simply want the opportunity to host their guests again.

They have also correctly pointed out this can save the government from providing expensive support programs.

My question this week:

Do you support the Kelowna Airport being re-opened to International flights as have been many other airports in Canada?

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

​It was in an October of 2018 MP Report that I referenced serious concerns raised by residents on news that Statistics Canada was demanding access to certain Canadians’ personal financial and banking information, including all transactions along with bank account balances, without their consent.

At that time, Prime Minister Trudeau made it clear that he supported Ottawa bureaucrats having access to this personal financial information.

The Prime Minister also stated that Statistics Canada was actively engaged with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in that data gathering effort.

We later discovered that the Privacy Commissioner had no idea Statistics Canada wanted this data from 500,000 Canadian households.

The Privacy Commissioner further stated that Statistics Canada was falling “way short” of its stated objective of being transparent.

It was also revealed that the Minister at the time was not notified of this Stats Canada data gathering effort, as is required under legislation.

Fortunately, this plan was halted.

I bring this up because an Ottawa based journalism outlet “Blacklock’s Reporter” has just revealed, through an access to information request, that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has recently been involved in a data gathering effort again involving your personal financial records.

According to Blacklock’s “nearly nine million mortgage holders” had their “Data obtained without borrowers’ informed consent” including  “personal income, municipal addresses, credit scores and household debts even for homeowners who were not CMHC customers.”

The report further states that, once again, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was never consulted on this data gathering effort.

When this similar situation occurred in 2018 with Stats Canada, Parliament was in session and we, as the Official Opposition, were able to ask questions of both the Minister and Prime Minister to hold the government accountable.

Unfortunately, we learned recently that the Prime Minister does not intend to recall Parliament until Monday, November 22nd.

Well over a month away from today and over two months since the September election.

This leads to my question for this week:

Do you believe two months to recall Parliament after an election is a reasonable period of time or should this occur within a shorter time frame?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-663-8711.

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.