​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.
  

​It was a little over one year ago, March 9, 2020, that Canada announced its first documented COVID-19 related death.

Today there are now over 22,000 COVID-19 related deaths.

On March 15, 2020, Canada wide lockdowns began to emerge in various provinces and territories. 

Over the past year the Federal Government has introduced, revised, and updated many pandemic related support programs for Canadian families and businesses.

With many of these programs now being extended in various ways over the past year, Statistics Canada recently released a report that provides important analysis on how these support programs have impacted Canadians.

This is important information given that Canada has borrowed and spent more on COVID related programs than virtually any other developed nation.

Despite this spending, we now know that Canada’s economy shrank 5.4% last year.

What is interesting about the data from Statistics Canada is, while it stated the obvious: “households did experience notable declines both in wages and salaries”, the data also revealed that “the value of COVID-19 support measures provided by governments more than compensated for those losses.”

The Stats Can data further reported that middle income households “on average they gained roughly $2,500 more than they lost.”

Further reporting that “young and middle-aged households gained around $3,000 more through COVID-19 support measures than they lost in wages and salaries.”

As Bloomberg reported on this Statistics Canada data: “Canadians received C$20 in government transfers for every dollar of income lost…”.

Ultimately the value of the federal government transfers to households increased by $119 billion in 2020, compared to pre-pandemic 2019.

However, the total decline in income for 2020 was a loss of $6 billion by comparison.

In other words, the spending on the various pandemic support programs has resulted in far more money going out the door over the measured decline in actual income.

Where is most of this emergency money ending up?

According to the data, into savings accounts.

In fact Canadian household savings as a percentage of nominal GDP are at the highest levels since the 1980s.

As with all data, it is important to recognize that not all households will be experiencing the impacts of COVID-19 and government support programs the same way.

Many are indeed struggling, in particular lower income households.

From a federal government perspective, this data does indicate serious challenges.

Despite spending record amounts of money, Canada is falling behind in both GDP growth as well as employment.

In addition, the current levels of support are financially unsustainable and further have seriously reduced Canada’s fiscal capacity to respond to a future pandemic or other economic crises. 

The Statistics Canada data has seen critics suggesting that the Federal Government overspent and achieved poor results in return.

The PM has insisted that the Federal Government “went into debt so Canadians wouldn't have to.”

Aside from the fact that it will be future generations of Canadians who will have to pay for this debt, my question this week is this:

Are you satisfied with the Government of Canada COVID support programs overall?

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

This week’s report is about Bill C-21: “An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)”.

For those with little interest in Canada’s firearm laws this report may not be of concern.

For others it has become a bill of significant interest.

For some background, in May of last year Prime Minister Trudeau announced that “1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms” were being banned and that a “buy back” plan was going to be introduced so owners of these newly restricted rifles would be able to “sell” them to the government at a yet to be determined rate.

At the time, this announcement from the Prime Minister led to some confusion as military assault rifles in Canada have long been illegal.

Further the term “assault style” has no legal definition within the Canada Firearms Act.

What is an “assault style weapon”?

The term “assault style” is a recently deployed piece of political rhetoric used to characterize eleven different types of semi-automatic rifles.

These can be ordered in up to 1,500 different variations from various manufacturers.

Why did the Prime Minister decide to ban these particular semi-automatic rifles?

In his words: 

"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."

Bill C-21 is the legislation that further addresses these “assault style” rifles and proposes other firearms related measures as well.

What is most surprising about this bill is, contrary to commonly expressed opinion, it does not actually remove “assault style” weapons from within Canada.

Legal owners of these weapons can continue to own them however with new restrictions that include a ban on permitted use (none), no import, no further acquisition, no sale and no bequeathal.

Critics have questioned why, if the PM believes that there is “no place for such weapons in Canada.", is Bill C-21 proposing to allow these weapons to remain in Canada?

Another measure proposed in Bill C-21 is a measure that will allow municipalities to prohibit legal hand guns from being stored or transported anywhere within a municipality if a by-law to that effect is passed.

Critics of this by-law, including one local Mayor, have pointed out this is a form of downloading federal responsibilities onto municipalities.

From my own perspective, considering guns are illegally smuggled across the Canada/United States border, it is unclear why PM Trudeau believes that criminals with illegal firearms would view a municipal border any differently.

As far as illegal gun smuggling, Bill C-21 is largely silent as most of the measures are proposed against legal gun owners with one exception.

Bill C-21 proposed to extend the maximum term of imprisonment from 10 years to 14 years for those convicted of illegally smuggling guns into Canada.

My concern with this measure is that gun smuggling charges often occur well after the fact.

The need to be proactive and stop illegal guns from entering Canada should be a priority, not once again targeting legal gun owners. 

While there are other measures in this bill, most building on already existing laws and regulations, this is a summary of the areas I have heard the majority of concern around.

My question this week:

Do you believe Bill C-21 will help stop illegal gun crime in Canada? 

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

It was seven years ago that I had an opportunity to hand deliver a petition from over 15,000 concerned citizens of the Okanagan (15,258 to be exact) to former Conservative Justice Minister Steven Blaney opposing the parole release of Mr. David Ennis.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar, David Ennis (formerly David Shearing), is the mass murderer who brutally took the lives of the West Kelowna residing Johnson and Bentley family of 6, who were on a camping trip in August of 1982. 

While this horrific and tragic act took place close to 40 years ago, Mr. Ennis may be again coming before the parole board in July of this year.

This painful event once again haunts the family and friends of the victims. 

One of these family friends is West Kelowna resident Tammy Arishenkoff, who was a classmate of the Johnson girls.

Over the past decades, whenever Mr. Ennis has been before the parole board, Tammy has dutifully collected a petition from the thousands of citizens opposed to the release of David Ennis.

I would like to sincerely thank Tammy Arishenkoff for her efforts in this regard and also to recognize the many citizens who have participated in this petition process.

We must always remember the victims in acts of deplorable and senseless violence.

With the potential parole board hearing for Mr. Ennis in July of this year, Tammy Arishenkoff is once again leading the petition charge to gather together citizens opposed to the parole release of David Ennis.

The petition is located here:
https://www.change.org/p/parole-board-of-canada-keep-david-ennis-aka-david-shearing-convicted-mass-murderer-behind-bars-deny-parole?redirect=false

My question this week:

Will you sign this petition?

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

​One interesting aspect about a minority government is the ability for the opposition parties to out vote the government in parliamentary committees. 

In Ottawa, we are seeing many documents being released that relate to how the Trudeau Liberal government has been responding to the pandemic.

These documents were released because the opposition party members on the Parliamentary Health Committee were able to pass a motion that these documents would be made public, against the wishes of the Liberal members of the committee, who wanted to keep them secret.

This week we learned more. 

One of these released documents, an email, was quite alarming.

A section of this email read:

“The rationale here is to present a new metric to distract somewhat from unattractive delivery numbers being reported. Hajdu goes into QP with these numbers, updated weekly, so we’re in safe territory:”

This email related to challenges the federal Government was encountering at the time with the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE). 

What's alarming is that knowing that media reports were not flattering, the response of the Liberal Government was to deliberately manipulate the data to create a distraction.

This Liberal plan involved sending manipulated numbers with the Health Minister into Question Period.

Global News has also obtained documents that they reported as:

“Senior political staffers from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office and the office of another federal Liberal cabinet minister privately discussed how to withhold information from Canadians about the government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis last June, newly released emails show.”

From my perspective this is part of a reoccurring pattern.

Despite this Prime Minister promising to be “open by default”, we instead see a culture of secrecy within his government.

As the Opposition, it is our responsibility to hold the government accountable.

This is a fundamental part of democracy.

Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent and what actions the federal government is undertaking on their behalf. 

Even more alarming is a Liberal Government majority would have withheld this information and Canadians would be in the dark on what was really going on, aside from the Prime Ministers official announcements.

My question this week:

How important is it to you that government truly is “Open by default” with its citizens?

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

Here in Canada we have witnessed firsthand the challenges of COVID vaccine administration due to lack of procurement supply from the Trudeau Liberal government.

To put this in perspective, Washington State between January 25-29th went from having administered over 500,000 doses of COVID vaccine to 616,589 doses.

That is an increase of 116,589 doses in a matter of days.

Here in B.C., over the same time frame, we went from having administered 119,850 doses up 129,241 doses. 

This is an increase of just 9,391 doses by comparison.

This is by no means a criticism of the Provincial Health Officer or any of the regional health authorities.

Simply put, provinces cannot vaccinate citizens without sufficient vaccine supply.

For these reasons Canada has now fallen to 15th place in terms of total doses of vaccine administered per country.  

Canada drops even further behind if factoring in the total number of vaccination doses administered per 100 people in the population.

With that being said, for developing and third world countries, this situation is far more dire. 

For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) partnered with GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance) to pool funds from wealthy countries to provide COVID vaccine for poor and developing countries. 

This partnership is called the COVAX program.

In May of 2020, the Prime Minister announced a $600 million contribution to this global effort.

Of this $600 million, $475 million will be spent in direct contributions and the $125 million remainder to the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFI).

This week we learned that the Trudeau Liberal Government has made the decision to access vaccines from the COVAX program that is intended to help poor and developing countries.

Canada is the only G-7 country to do this.

This decision has raised serious concern.

The Globe and Mail has reported that the organization “Doctors Without Borders” has warned there is a danger that Canada’s use of COVAX could contribute to global health inequities. 

The vaccine in question is 1.9 million doses of the, yet to be approved in Canada, AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Trudeau Liberal Government to access vaccine from the COVAX program?

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

​On January 25th, documents tabled in the House of Commons from Global Affairs Canada revealed some troubling information.

Prime Minister Trudeau announced at a press conference on May 16, 2020 that his Government had made a deal with China based CanSino Biologics related to developing a COVID vaccine.

The documents produced this week reveal that just three days later, on May 19, 2020, the Trudeau Liberal Government was advised by Global Affairs Canada that “a shipment of Ad5-nCoV vaccine candidate seeds destined for Canada was being held by the General Administration of Customs of China at Beijing Capital International Airport”.

In other words, the Chinese State Government was refusing to issue the required approval allowing the export of this vaccine to Canada, effectively blocking the shipment.

While this information was known to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, it was hidden from Canadians and not publicly disclosed until July 6, 2020.

48 days later.

Prime Minister Trudeau did almost daily new conferences throughout June from Rideau Cottage (while the House of Commons was not in session) and not once did the Prime Minister disclose this important information to Canadians. 

Why not?

Despite knowing the China based CanSino vaccine virus was blocked on May 19, 2020, it would not be until the beginning of August that Procurement Minister Anita Anand finally announced a deal with Pfizer for vaccine supply.

By this point countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan had already made agreements with Pfizer for the COVID vaccine.

Why does this matter? 

Because this week Canada will receive no Pfizer vaccine at all and over the next four weeks, Canada’s Pfizer vaccine deliveries will be cut in half with up to 400,000 doses delayed.

Here in British Columbia, currently 85% of all received vaccine has now been administered.

As a result of the lack of supply, B.C. must now delay the required second dose to 42 days after the first dose. 

For the record, Pfizer indicates the required 2nd dose is to be administered 21 days after the first dose.

In short B.C., much like the rest of Canada is now falling behind other countries.

In fact at the time of this week’s report, in terms of total number of vaccination doses administered, Canada currently ranks in 13th  behind such countries as India, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Italy and others.

For some added context, Washington State (population 7.6 million) has now administered 500,000 doses of vaccine and it currently stepping up vaccination rates.

By comparison B.C. (population 5.07 million), at of the time of this report, has administered 122,359 doses.

Unfortunately, with B.C. almost running out of current vaccine supply and with future supply shortages unique to Canada, this problem will only get worse.

Other countries with agreements with Pfizer have not been anywhere near as adversely impacted by this current supply shortage, as compared to Canada.

The Federal Government continues to maintain that Canada has the “most diverse portfolio of any country for vaccines” and that delivery will be on schedule.

My question this week:

Are you satisfied with the performance of the Federal Government in procuring COVID vaccine? 

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

​By the time you read this weeks report, newly sworn in United States President Joe Biden may well have signed an executive order rescinding the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. 

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

The potential loss of the Keystone XL pipeline would have a significant impact for Canada, in particular Alberta, in terms of job losses and billions lost from corporate income taxes, carbon taxes as well as royalty payments.

The loss of the Keystone XL pipeline will also mean that US based refineries will have to increase importing crude oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, countries that have much weaker environmental and labour standards than here in Canada.

A potential increase of shipments of oil by rail between Canada and the United States is also a likely outcome with the loss of the Keystone XL pipeline.

This outcome is not only more costly; but it is less efficient and less safe. 

For these reasons, the Keystone XL pipeline has been long supported by the Conservative Party both when in government and now in opposition. 

It has also been long supported by Prime Minister Trudeau.

In fact, during his time in opposition, Justin Trudeau was clear that “one of the big things the Prime Minister needs to get right is getting our resources to market.”

Mr. Trudeau also stated that if a US President veto’s Keystone XL “the Prime Minister has not fulfilled that responsibility.”

Justin Trudeau was clear that if the Keystone XL pipeline is blocked by the United States that the “Prime Minister take personal responsibility for this diplomatic failure”.

By Mr. Trudeau’s own words this potential Keystone XL pipeline failure is one that he, as the Prime Minister today, must now take full responsibility for.

Those who follow this Prime Minister closely will know that he will not likely take any responsibility for this "diplomatic failure."

The reality is the Keystone XL pipeline has been a target of US Democratic Presidents for some time now, including under both President Obama and now President Biden.

This was just as true in 2013 as it is today.

From my perspective, blaming this solely on a Canadian Prime Minister would be just as unfair in 2021 as it was in 2014.

I mention this as an Opposition MP because I feel it is important that our criticisms as opposition should be fair and accurate to the government in power. 

This was a courtesy that was not extended by the current Prime Minister when he served in the opposition and I recall having these same thoughts when I sat on the government side of the house during that time.

My question this week:

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline being built?

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

This week Canada had some good news: the Prime Minister announced a new deal that will result in an additional 20 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine coming to Canada.

Unfortunately, this additional vaccine supply will not make it to Canada until sometime between April or May.

This is very important because this week CBC reported that British Columbia has now “slowed its pace” administering the vaccine while the province awaits for more vaccine supply to arrive.

Another decision that B.C. has had to make, related to the lack of supply for the COVID vaccine, is that the required 2nd dose will now be administered 35 days after the first dose. 

The reason for this is to ensure as many vulnerable citizens receive the first dose as possible and to maximize the limited supply.

The challenge with this is that Health Canada states the following:

“The vaccine is given by an injection (0.3 mL) into the muscle of the arm. For the vaccine to work best, you need to get 2 doses: a single dose and then a second dose 21 days later. Based on studies in about 44,000 participants, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 beginning 1 week after the second dose. This means that people may not be fully protected against COVID-19 until at least 7 days after the second dose.”

B.C. has indicated that extending the 2nd dose to 35 days is ‘approved’ by the World Health Organization as well as the Federal Government.

This is noteworthy as Health Canada is the regulatory agency that approves the use of any vaccine or drug based on its arms length, evidence based process.

However, some groups of B.C. Doctors have opposed this move suggesting it is potentially “unscientific, unsafe and unethical.”

The B.C. Nurses Union has also been reported as questioning this move stating that nurses “follow the other guidelines from the manufacturer around storage and handling of this vaccine," pointing out that; "now we're going to deviate?"

It is unfortunate B.C. is in this situation.

It is well known that the Trudeau Liberal Government, for reasons unknown, made their first deal with the China based CanSino Biologics to deliver vaccine.

The Chinese Government ultimately blocked this vaccine from coming to Canada.

As a result of that deal collapsing, Canada did not secure the large quantities of vaccine it now has on order from other manufactures in as timely of a manner.

My question this week is not a political one.

If you received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine (as some citizens now have, here in the Okanagan) do you believe it is a reasonable expectation to receive the second dose within the 21 day timeframe as set out by the manufacturer?

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

​By now you have heard that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed worldwide, including within Canada.

Currently two vaccines have been approved for use by Health Canada; the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. 

Without getting into the technical details, both vaccines require two doses to be deemed effective.

Pfizer-BioNTech requires a second dose to be given 21 days after the first dose, while Moderna is 28 days apart from the first dose.

The timing between the first dose and the second dose is important, given the limited supply of available vaccine 

For example, at the beginning of this week British Columbia had received 54,625 doses combined of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine.

In turn 28,209 of these doses have now already been administered to those who fall under Stage 1 priority.

Who is Stage 1 priority here in BC?  

A brief summary of this list includes “residents, staff and essential visitors to long-term care and assisted-living residences.” 

In addition, “Individuals in hospital or community awaiting a long-term care placement” as well as “Health care workers providing care for COVID-19 patients in settings like ICU, emergency departments, medical/surgical units and paramedics”.

Remote and isolated Indigenous communities are also included in Stage 1.

Some have looked at the 54,625 doses of vaccine delivered to B.C. and questioned why only 28,209 doses have been administered to date, pointing out this vaccination rate is only around 51%. 

Herein lies the challenge.

Since two doses are required per person, the 54,625 doses allows for 27,312 individuals to receive both shots of the vaccine.

BC has now administered over 28,000 doses.

That means that there is not enough vaccine supply available for all of those vaccinated individuals to receive their second dose.

The supply to give those required second doses has not yet arrived, here in BC.

This additional vaccine supply must first land in Canada, then is transported to BC and finally distributed to various vaccination sites within our province to be available for those needing the required second dose within that 21-28 day window.

This illustrates the immense challenges that Provincial Health Authorities are dealing with given the very limited COVID supply that the Federal Government has managed to procure.

For some context, while BC has received 54,625 doses, nearby Washington State, with a population 2.6 million people more B.C., received over six times more doses at 358,025.

It is important to understand, with the limited supply of COVID vaccine here in BC, citizens must continue to take all precautions as a result.

To put it bluntly, it will be some time before the vaccine delivery will make a significant impact.

My question this week:

Are you satisfied with how the vaccine is being distributed in Canada? 

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

As Canadians prepare for a 2020 holiday season unlike any other, we are all feeling the collective impacts of travel restrictions.

For some, this may be the first Christmas spent somewhere that is not your usual destination with your friends and family.

With so many different travel restrictions, many have turned to Canada Post or other couriers, not just to acquire goods, but also to send gifts to loved ones who are unable to come home.

For those of you in B.C. who may have attempted to ship a bottle of our amazing Okanagan wine or your favourite local craft beer or an artisan distilled spirit to friends or family in another province through Canada Post, you likely discovered your shipment was refused.

With so many restaurants running at reduced capacities and travel restrictions resulting in less local winery visits and sales, one of our key local industries, like many others, has been significantly impacted by this pandemic.

Unlike some other industries who can take advantage of online sales to the rest of Canada, our local producers of wine, craft beers and spirits are shut out of major provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario solely because of provincial liquor monopolies and their restrictive policies. 

For this reason, before Parliament adjourned, I introduced my latest private members, Bill C-260.

This bill, often referred to as the "Buy, Ship & Sip bill" would amend the Canada Post Act so that Canada Post can bypass these repressive provincial monopolies.

Strong support from consumers as well as industry has been received thus far, but it is unclear if the government and other opposition parties will support the bill. 

I will provide a further update on this once Parliament resumes.

Before I close this week's report, I would like to sincerely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and joyous holiday season.

Particularly I would like to thank all front-line workers and also those in working in healthcare and seniors’ homes.

For all of our essential service workers this holiday season will mean considerable time away from their families serving the public.

My question this week:

How will you spend this holiday season differently from years past?

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

​Back on June 3rd I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion a very simple question:

 “Mr. Chair, can the minister please tell us the current balance of the EI account?”

I ended up having to ask the Minister three times for an answer to this question.

The Minister promised, and I quote: “out of respect for this House, I would prefer to give (the member) an accurate answer, which I promise to provide as soon as possible.”

That was in June and we are now in December and the Minister still has not answered this question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) also took note of the Liberal government secrecy around the EI account and referenced this topic in last week’s PBO report, pointing out that there was no “outlook for the Employment Insurance Operating Account.”

The PBO has further 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? 

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.

The PBO report points out:

“The Government has not indicated in Fall Economic Statement 2020 (FES 2020),  or elsewhere, whether it plans to address the projected shortfall in EI revenues through higher premium rates, reduced benefits or through payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

This is a critically important question. 

It is very concerning that the Liberals have, for five months now, refused to disclose the current status of the EI account to Canadians.

Why the secrecy?

Canadian workers’ pay into the EI fund every pay period.

The EI fund belong to workers and Canadians deserve a full accounting from the Trudeau Liberal government on the status of the EI account and if it is currently sustainable.

My question this week –

Do you think the Trudeau Liberal government is serving the interests of Canadians well by withholding the EI account balance from you?

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

One of the roles of the official Opposition is to hold the Government to account on where your tax dollars are spent.

Historically journalists have also been part of this process and more recently, at least in Ottawa, also the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Since mid-March, when the pandemic began, and up until the end of November, the Federal Government has spent approximately $240 billion on various pandemic programs and services.

For some context, on that works out to over $6,300 for every Canadian.

This raises the obvious question as to where that money has gone.

Recently Canada’s former Parliamentary Budget Officer was quoted as saying, after looking at the Trudeau Liberals latest fiscal update:
 
“It's impossible to read. I have done this for years and I can't even follow the money,"

As Parliamentarians in the official Opposition, we have experienced similar frustrations trying to get more detailed financial information from the Finance Minister, thus far without much success.

Fortunately, the investigative journalists at CBC have also been looking at this topic and have made some important progress.

The large numbers have been well known as they are publicly available.

The $240 billion breaks down into three categories.


$105.6 billion was spent on programs for individuals, $16.1 billion on supports for government related programs and finally $ 118.3 billion on programs for businesses. 

It is this last category, and attempting to identify exactly where these business supports have gone, that has raised many concerns.

CBC has used corporate filing information to track down over 400 companies that have received financial assistance from the federal government.

The Financial Post has taken this investigation further and identified, to date, 68 publicly traded companies that received this taxpayer financial assistance in the form of wage subsidies and at the same time paid out shareholder dividends. 

In other cases, executive bonus money has been reported to have been paid out as well as stock buy back programs have been used.

The Liberal Government has been clear that the wage subsidy program is to be used to pay workers, not to pay for dividends or executive bonuses.

However, at the same time the Liberal Government is refusing to disclose what other companies accessed these funds. 

Were it not for investigative journalism, the public would be unaware of these 68 companies that have been identified to date.

My question this week:

Given the Liberals refusal to disclose this information, should it be a requirement for a company applying for taxpayer assistance programs to be publicly listed as a recipient of this funding? 

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

​It may seem difficult to believe today but there was once time where Parliament was a highly secretive place where citizens had no access to what actually occurred during debates.

Not only did this make it incredibly difficult for citizens to hold elected officials to account, it also created a situation where the public would hear different and competing characterizations of events that could differ significantly between opposition and government. 

Fortunately, a gentleman by the name of Thomas Hansard came along and began publishing the events that occurred within the British Parliament and eventually this evolved into the system now known as “Hansard”.

Today we reference the Hansard Index as the key resource to information about what is said by Members of Parliament, in the House of Commons, during a session of Parliament.

This is not only transcribed into written text, but we also have audio and video records as part of the Hansard Index.

Hansard is how citizens can hold elected officials to account and allow Canadians to view debates and form their own opinions on events without partisan influence. 

An example of this dates back to February of 2018, when the House of Commons was debating the idea of taxing online streaming services such as Netflix.

During this debate the NDP asked Prime Minister Trudeau why online companies such as Netflix and Facebook do not charge sales tax to Canadians.

The Prime Minister, in reply stated:

“It is not web giants that the NDP wants to charge, it is taxpayers. The New Democrats want to make taxpayers pay more taxes.”

When the NDP followed up with a second question on this the Prime Minister this time stated:

“Once again, the New Democrats are misleading Canadians. They are talking about making web giants pay their fair share. It is not the web giants they want to pay more in taxes; it is taxpayers. We made a commitment to taxpayers that they would not have to pay more for their online services. We on this side of the House plan to keep that promise.”

This week the Trudeau Liberal Government released what they called, a fiscal update.

In this update there is increased spending that will result in the budget deficit hitting at least $388.8 billion in 2020-21.

While there has been much discussion on the spending, there has been less focus on the fact that this budget update also proposes new taxes.

Specifically, the Liberal fiscal update proposes to tax online streaming services such as Netflix.

The Trudeau Liberals have indicated they expect to take $1.2 Billion out of Canadians pockets from these new online taxes over the next five years.

Back in August, when Parliament was prorogued, and the Prime Minister was asked by a reporter if he would increase taxes, his answer was clear:

“No. The last thing Canadians need is to see a rise in taxes right now,”

My question this week:

What do you think of the Prime Minister’s performance in this matter?

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

​This week the House of Commons is sitting in Ottawa in a hybrid format.

One of the Liberal Governments signature bills – Bill C-12 -- has come before the House for debate.

Bill C-12 is the “Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act” that the Liberals say will respect “transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.”

Here is some history on where Canada stands with GHG emission reductions.

In 1993, former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien promised to reduce our GHG emissions to 20% of 1988 levels by 2005.

That promise was broken.

In 1997, then Prime Minister Chretien signed the Kyoto accord that promised to reduce our emissions by a smaller amount of 6% below 1990 levels that would be achieved by 2012.

In 2006, when the Liberals were voted out of office, Canada was 30% over that target and as a result, former Prime Minister Harper withdrew Canada from the Kyoto agreement.

In 2009, at the Copenhagen climate conference, former PM Harper matched the U.S. target to cut GHG emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% by 2013, in what was a non-binding agreement.

In 2015, shortly after the election Prime Minister Trudeau sent the largest Canadian delegation in history to attend the Paris Climate Change Conference, at a cost in excess of $1 million dollars.

And we know, while there in Paris, despite often criticizing the former Harper Government, this Liberal Government adopted those exact same targets.

The targets the Liberals adopted in 2015 are reported as being astray by 123 million tonnes in 2020, meaning that once again we are failing to meet our GHG emissions target reductions.

In Bill C-12, the Liberal government has taken a different approach.

Rather then announcing a new plan for today, the Prime Minister has announced that Canada will achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

How does that happen?

The legislation is silent on that.

Rather than providing a roadmap on how to achieve that goal, this bill instead proposes that it will be to some extent the current government, but mostly future governments to set binding climate targets to figure out a solution by 2050.

This would be accomplished by requiring future federal governments to set five-year interim emissions reduction targets over the next 30 years but that process would not begin until 2030.  

Critics have pointed out this means that there will not be any binding target for the current Trudeau Liberal government.

Many have also asked what happens under Bill C-12 if a future federal government fails to reach its emissions targets, as in the past and present, with our current Liberal Government. 

The answer is that there is no formal penalty built into this bill.

This fact has drawn a strong rebuke from many critics.

The bill also calls for the creation of a 15-person panel who will make recommendations to the Minister of the Environment.

What is most interesting about this bill is that it will not hold the current government accountable for it’s many climate related promises made since 2015. 

It is largely focused on future governments, that the current government does not need to be accountable for.

My question for you this week:

What are your thoughts on Bill C-12? 

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

It was back in January of 2019 that I last referenced the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei.

In that weekly report I mentioned that this technology company, aside from wireless devices, also produces hardware such as servers and other technologies that enable 5G wireless networks. 

5G networks empower autonomous vehicles and other automated machinery to operate and is widely considered to be essential for the emerging new digital economy.

The reason why Huawei is frequently referenced is because many of Canada’s allies including the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have all banned Huawei 5G technology citing security concerns. 

The Conservative Opposition believes that Canada, as a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence network, should stand with our allies in banning Huawei from participating in our 5G rollout in Canada.

After my January 2019 report, the former Liberal Public Safety Minister, Ralph Goodale, stated his Liberal government would make a decision on Huawei before the 2019 federal election. 

That was May 1st 2019.

Then on July 30th 2019, the Trudeau Liberal Government broke that promise and said the decision would not be made until after the 2019 election.

Fast forward to present day and it's been over a year since the federal election and still Canadians cannot get a clear answer from this Liberal Government on whether they stand with our 5G allies or not, when it comes Huawei.

This week the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons tabled the following motion:

“That, given that (i) the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, is threatening Canada’s national interest and our values, including Canadians of Chinese origin within Canada’s borders, (ii) it is essential that Canada have a strong and principled foreign policy backed by action in concert with its allies, the House call upon the government to: (a) make a decision on Huawei’s involvement in Canada’s 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion; and (b) develop a robust plan, as Australia has done, to combat China’s growing foreign operations here in Canada and its increasing intimidation of Canadians living in Canada, and table it within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.”

Although the vote has not yet occurred in the House of Commons at the time of my writing, early indications are that this motion will also be supported by the NDP and Bloc Québécois.

My question this week: How would you vote on the Conservative opposition day motion?

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

Last week, with so much Canadian media attention focused on the American election, many events in Ottawa did not receive the headlines they might have.

The increasing lack of transparency we are experiencing from this Trudeau Liberal government, that promised it would be “open by default”, is a growing concern of mine.

I will provide some examples.

Last week Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), released several reports. 

One of these reports was an assessment on how much the Liberal Government's pay equity program would actually cost.

This program aims to level out pay disparities between men and women in the public service.

I will quote directly from the PBO: 

"The PBO requested the Government’s fiscal analysis of how much more money is expected to be spent to comply with the legislation. However, the Government refused to share this data."

This is alarming.

The PBO has suggested the federal wage bill costs could rise by $477 million starting in 2023-24.

The PBO also reported that the Finance Department had provided a 

“thorough public accounting every other week until August, but that practice ended when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.”

Since the PM appointed a new Finance Minister, there have been no financial reports made available to the PBO, or to Canadians for that matter.

Yet another example occurred back on June 3, 2020.

In my former portfolio, as the shadow cabinet critic for employment, workforce development and disability inclusion, I asked if the Minister could please tell us the current balance of the EI account.

Despite the Minister promising this information as of this week, it has still not been made available. 

This is very troubling as the EI account belongs to workers and the EI premiums paid must be sustainable. 

Considering so many Canadians pay into the EI fund with every pay cheque, why will this government not tell Canadians the balance of the EI account?

When this Prime Minister was elected, he wrote an open letter to Canadians where he;

“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.”

In reality we are witnessing a Liberal Government that refuses to provide critical information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and to other Members of Parliament.  

To this day several Parliamentary Committees continue to be filibustered by Liberal MP's.

We gone through the longest period in Canadian history without a federal budget being presented.

A budget that is a necessary economic plan to get us through these challenging times.

My question this week: 

Are you concerned by this growing lack of transparency from this Liberal government? 

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

​One of the oldest tactics of government is to release potentially unpopular or embarrassing information late on a Friday afternoon. 

This was a tactic to attempt to avoid the daily Monday-Friday print media cycle in the hopes that by Monday, different stories might take up the headlines.

In the days of social media, and the widespread use of the internet, governments have had to become more innovative in how they release information that may be unpopular or embarrassing.

Case in point on Tuesday, when many Canadians were closely watching the USA election unfold, the Trudeau Liberal Government released the details of their proposed Bill C-10 -- “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act”.

For those who subscribe to streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus, and other non-Canadian based streaming services, this bill may be of interest to you.

Bill C-10 proposes that these non-Canadian online streaming services be forced to “contribute to the creation, production, and distribution of Canadian music and stories.”

The Liberal Government has suggested this could result in these streaming companies paying as much as $880 million into what the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decides is "approved content" within this mandate.

For critics this raises a few notable concerns.

Many believe that consumers should have the choice to decide what shows and music they subscribe to and download, not content forced onto them by the CRTC.

Many have also predicted any costs, above and beyond what is already invested into creating Canadian content, will simply be passed onto to consumers in the form of higher fees.

Another path streaming companies could take, instead of charging more, is to offer less content.

Rather than fund newly mandated Canadian content, some platforms may respond to new regulations by simply dropping their amount of total content available to stream, in order to artificially raise their amount of Canadian content. 

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault is reported as saying he does not expect that forcing streaming services to pay as much as $880 million annually to support this mandatory content will lead to higher subscription costs or potentially less content for customers.

So who does the Minister believe will pay?

Supporters of this bill point out that Canadian based companies providing these types of services are already forced to comply with this Canadian content requirement, as dictated by the CRTC, and argue this simply levels the playing field.

My question this week:

Do you support the CRTC dictating to online streaming companies, such as Netflix, how much mandatory Canadian content they must offer at the expense of Canadian consumers?

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

​Each week when the House of Commons is in session, I attempt to provide an overview on some of the events going on within the House.
 
Sometimes MPs will know well in advance what matters will be coming before the House and other times, often when bills or motions are introduced, it may well be a surprise.
 
The latter was this week when the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Yves-François Blanchet, introduced the following opposition day motion: 
 
“That the House demand an official apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada for the enactment, on October 16, 1970, of the War Measures Act and the use of the army against Quebec’s civilian population to arbitrarily arrest, detain without charge and intimidate nearly 500 innocent Quebeckers.”
 
I am not suggesting that this is not an important subject for a debate- it was a controversial event- however I will admit that I was surprised as there are so many very concerning issues arising from this pandemic.

With COVID-19 cases rising in Quebec, Ontario and even B.C., there are more challenges for small businesses, persons with disabilities and families, so it surprised me that the Bloc would choose now to debate an issue that happened half a century ago.
 
An example of this is a recent report released this week from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) that raises some very troubling concerns regarding the mental health and well being of Canadians during this pandemic.
 
Here in B.C., there have been over 100 deaths from toxic drugs for six consecutive months.

Once the CERB benefit began to be paid out monthly, deaths increased to 175 in May, June and July, according to the data compiled by PHAC.
 
Parents, friends, family members, advocates and those working in areas that support vulnerable and at-risk citizens, have spoken out publicly of the harm that CERB support payments have caused to those fighting addictions.
 
At the same time, we must also recognize that many Canadians have also increased their use of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco during this pandemic.
 
Surveys from Statistics Canada indicate that alcohol consumption has increased up to 19%, cannabis use is up over 8% and tobacco smoking rates also went up by close to 4% over pre-pandemic levels.
 
This week Statistics Canada also revealed that between March-July the number of businesses closing exceeded the number either opening or re-opening by 82,000.
 
For many Canadians, these are clearly very stressful times.

I believe we must recognize that our current approach in dealing with COVID has created challenges to the mental well being of many citizens.
 
To date, both the provincial and federal governments have been focusing on the many efforts being undertaken to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak.
 
However, there have not been many opportunities for you to comment on how you feel about your governments response to COVID-19.
 
So my question this week:

How do you feel about the federal government response to COVID-19 thus far?

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

​As I write this week’s report we are currently in a tense situation in Ottawa as there is a serious threat of a possible fall election.

This raises the obvious question, how did we get to this point?

As many will know over the summer months many disturbing details emerged as a result of the Trudeau Liberal Government giving the WE Charity foundation a sole-sourced contract in excess of $500 Million.

The fallout included the Prime Minister apologizing, multiple ethics investigations being launched and finally the departure of Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

There were also several parliamentary committees sitting and hearing evidence on the details how it was that the WE Charity foundation received a sole-sourced contract in excess of $500 Million.

In August, despite the fact that the House of Commons was already adjourned until September 21, the Prime Minister broke his promise to never use prorogation and prorogued Parliament until September 23rd in order to shut these committees down.

Now that Parliament has resumed, these same Parliamentary committees have attempted to resume hearing this evidence but were unable to do so as the Liberal members filibustered them.

In order to avoid the filibustering, the Conservative opposition used an opposition day motion in the House of Commons to propose that a new Parliamentary Committee be created, that would not be chaired by a Liberal MP, and would reflect the minority status of this Liberal Government.

Although this motion was initially supported by the NDP and Bloc Québécois opposition parties, the Trudeau Liberal Government declared it a confidence motion. 

This means that if the motion was to pass, the Government would fall and trigger an election.

To be clear, both the Leader of the Conservatives as well as the Leader of the NDP have stated it is not their intention to provoke an election.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is so determined to prevent the WE information from being further studied at any Parliamentary committee, he would rather call an election. 

This raises the obvious question as to what may be hiding in the redacted documents and other unknown details.

The Prime Minister has argued that this motion is by default an expression of a lack of confidence in his Liberal Government as justification for declaring this a confidence vote.

The Prime Minister is wrong.

Until Canadians have all the information how can anyone determine if they have confidence or do not have confidence in this situation?

The entire point of creating a committee would be to learn the facts so that Canadians can have an informed view on what really transpired.

However the Prime Minister at the moment is determined to prevent that from occurring.

Will this lead to an election? 

At the moment there is considerable negotiating going on and I am hopeful the Prime Minister will back down.

The PM may not like a Parliamentary Committee studying the actions of his government however Canadians elected a minority government for a reason and the PM must respect that.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on a possible fall election? 

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

One of the challenges for any government is what is referred to as “getting your message out”.

For example, with so many different media stories in circulation last week, the announcement regarding the potential ban of certain single use plastics may have been missed.

What was announced?

In summary, a list of plastic items that the government hopes to ban by the end of 2021.

What is on the current list?

The following plastic items:

• Grocery store bags
• Straws 
• Coffee stir sticks
• Six-pack can holding rings
• Plastic cutlery
• Certain food takeout containers if they are made from hard-to-recycle plastics.

​As is often the case with most government announcements, concerns have already been raised.

In order to legally facilitate this ban, the government has suggested it will add these plastics to the “toxic substances list” that exists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Unfortunately, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada has pointed out that these types of plastics are not toxically harmful in the same manner that substances such as mercury, asbestos and lead are.

This creates a challenge for the government with the classification.

Another concern that has been raised stems from trade related issues.

An outright ban on these plastics may contradict principles of the recently renegotiated NAFTA deal, now frequently referred to as the CUSMA (Canada United States Mexico Agreement).

There is some debate on the legitimacy of these trade related concerns, however it is clear that some consultation will be required.

The broader level of concern being heard more from a local level is understandably from the food and beverage industries and more so given that there is currently a pandemic and we are currently witnessing a greater public safety related reliance on single use plastics compared to more normal times.

It has also been communicated to me that, during a crisis, single use plastic may be necessary in a range of areas, from seniors care homes to helping to feed wildfire firefighters and other emergency responders.

It is critically important that alternatives to single use plastics are readily and affordably available considering there will be a significant uptake in demand.

As many of these alternatives will likely be made from wood or cardboard, I see a long-term economic benefit to parts of my riding, and to British Columbia in general, given that our forest industry could play an active role in this.

Consultation will be important, as will a timeline that respects the pandemic and the ability for alternative products to become readily available.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on this proposed ban of single use plastics?

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