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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Why request prorogation? 

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

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

Is it unusual for the house to be prorogued? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concern now is funding. 

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

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

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

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

Make no mistake, the risks are very real. 

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The total cost financially is unknown to date.

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

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

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

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

My thoughts?

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

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

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

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

My question this week;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short, over concerns related to competitiveness. 

In my view these concerns are quite valid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is case work? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week is, do you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I support this decision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To that end, my question this week:

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

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

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

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

It was not without controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That may explain price changes.

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

What is the “Carbon Tax Cover-Up”? 

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

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

At least I attempted to.

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

What does this report say? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will this actually reduce emissions?

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

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

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

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

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

Some areas have even lost Greyhound as an option.

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

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

Ottawa of course, does not have these problems. 

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my view this is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

What can Canada do?

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

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

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

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

Here in Canada, costs of doing business have increased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I mention all of these things?

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week relates to NAFTA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts?

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

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

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

This deadline served as an ultimatum to the Liberal Government.

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

The Prime Minister had other options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question to you this week: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was this measure?

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

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

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

So why propose these changes? 

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

My thoughts? 

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

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

It is important to hear constructive arguments from both sides.

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

​If you have been following the subject of the Trans Mountain pipeline project this week, it has taken yet another confusing turn.


On Wednesday the Trudeau Liberal Government announced that it would use tax dollars to compensate Trans Mountain pipeline developer Kinder Morgan for financial losses which could result from B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan’s attempts to delay or obstruct the project. 


As is often the case with an announcement from this Liberal Government, the potential cost of compensating Kinder Morgan is unknown.

Likewise the definition of costs related to these delays has also yet to be defined.

 
The project is expected to cost roughly $7.4 Billion and the Liberal Government has also hinted that possibly if not Kinder Morgan, another company could be brought in to complete the construction. 

In response, Kinder Morgan has indicated that the May 31, 2018 deadline for “clarity on a path forward” remains a priority as a result of the required construction window. 

Kinder Morgan also stated that they are not in “alignment” with the Liberal Government on this announcement and that discussions are ongoing.

The Prime Minister has continued to state his strong support for the Trans-Mountain pipeline and that his Government has made a commitment that the pipeline will get built as it is in Canada’s national interest.

From my perspective, the pipeline subject is a polarizing one with many citizens either strongly opposed or strongly in favour.

For the record I support the Prime Minister in approving this project. 

I have heard little support for this private project being publicly subsidized by taxpayers, largely because of continued inaction from the Federal Liberal Government. 

My question this week:

Whether or not you are in favour of this project, do support the Prime Minister’s idea that taxpayers should compensate Kinder Morgan for losses which may result from delays? 

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

​This week I would like to provide an update to my April 25th report on the growing problem of illegal immigration.

There have been over 20,000 illegal crossings over the Canadian border from the United States to apply for refugee status in Canada.

It has been reported that an unofficial RCMP station is being constructed near the location where most of the illegal border crossing occurs and that the Liberal government has issued a tender notice to construct a temporary refugee camp also near the Canada USA border.

As to the question if these border crossings are illegal or irregular, the Prime Minister has now commented on this matter in Question Period and stated “Crossing a border between official border crossings is illegal.” 

Both locally here in the Okanagan, and in Ottawa, Liberal MP's are increasingly feeling the heat from families of citizens trying to legally enter Canada, and finding more and more delays.

This heat is causing these same Liberal MP's to push back. 

Apparently pointing out the growing illegal border entry problem is “stoking fears”, according to one local Liberal MP.

While in Ottawa, the Public Safety Minister has stated that “coming across the border in a way that tries to circumvent the law, or defy proper procedure is not a free ticket to Canada,"

The Liberal Government provided statistics that stated that asylum seekers must go through a rigorous process and that they estimate that more than 90% of irregular migrants do not fit the criteria and will have to leave Canada.

Unfortunately for the Liberal Government, this week a media headline came out that stated that they have used misleading statistics. 

The article, using information from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), reported that “of the 2,552 irregular border crossers who had their claims finalized in 2017, nearly half, 1,360, were approved.”

Another problem not mentioned by the Liberal government is related to actual deportations. 

The IRB data provides information on the total number of illegal entries referred to the agency, including the original country of origin.

The data is further broken down to how many claims are accepted, rejected, abandoned or withdrawn, including pending claims..

However data relating not just to deportation orders but successful deportations is missing. 

The lack of successful deportations is a fundamental part of this problem.

Media sources have reported that only 1% of illegal border crossers have actually been physically deported from Canada. 

To summarize this issue, we have the Liberal Government suggesting 90% of illegal border crossers will not qualify for status here in Canada, contrasted with the IRB’s own data that shows close to a 50% approval rate, while only 1% of those who are rejected have actually been deported from Canada.

While Liberal MP's can make accusations that they believe raising these concerns is “stoking fears on immigration”, I categorically reject that view. 

From my perspective, supporting legal immigration to Canada is how we ensure fairness for those citizens who are making every effort to fully comply with Canadian law. 

My question this week is:

Do you agree?

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

​One of the concerns I am increasingly hearing about is high gasoline and diesel prices at local gas stations. 

This is understandable concern given that in Vancouver, gas prices are now the highest in North America. 

Recently it has been reported that BC NDP Premier John Horgan plead with the Federal Liberal Government to “do something about soaring Metro Vancouver gas prices”. 

In my view, this was an incredulous comment when one considers that on April 1st of this year, the BC NDP provincial government raised the carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, making it more expensive.

So, will the Federal Government intervene?

The short answer is no.

In Ottawa, the Trudeau Liberal Government is implementing a national carbon tax in Canada that will force all provinces to continue to raise carbon taxes across the board.

The only choice the provinces have is to either institute their own carbon tax/cap and trade system, or else the Federal Government will do so for them.

Ultimately the entire point of carbon taxes is to increase the costs to the point where consumers can no longer afford to burn carbon and will use less of it.

Supporters of carbon taxes believe this is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Critics point out that carbon taxes unfairly penalize rural residents, who may not have alternatives such as public transit or availability of renewable energy in their area. 

More recently, some believe that carbon taxes may disproportionately impact women and those who are on a fixed income.

So, the question to be asked is how much will a national carbon tax cost Canadians? 

This is a question that we, as the Official Opposition, asked via a freedom of information request.  

Unfortunately, the documents returned from the Department of Finance, on what the projected annual costs per household of the carbon tax would be, revealed nothing. 

Why?

The actual amounts were all redacted by the Department of Finance and therefore hidden from Canadians. 

Due to this highly questionable redaction, the Office of the Information Commissioner has now launched an official investigation to determine why the data about the financial costs of a carbon tax per household is not being released to Canadians.

As a result of this redaction, the Official Opposition tabled a motion in the House of Commons that read in part “given the Liberal government made a specific campaign promise to Canadians that "government data and information should be open by default, the House hereby order that all documents be produced in their original and uncensored form indicating how much the federal carbon tax proposed in Budget 2018 will cost Canadian families”

The motion, unfortunately, was defeated by the Trudeau Government, with assistance from the NDP.

In my opinion, if a Government is going to impose a tax on the citizens, there should be an obligation to be open and transparent on what the actual costs of the tax will be to Canadians.  

This particular debate is not about should there be a carbon tax or not. 

This debate is entirely about what the Department of Finance projects the cost to Canadians of a carbon tax to be.

My question this week is in two parts: 

Do you believe Canadians are entitled to know what the Department of Finance projects the costs of this carbon tax will be?

Part two, why do you think the Trudeau Liberal Government is attempting to hide this data from Canadians? 

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

For those who follow Canadian politics closely, all eyes were focused on Ottawa last Sunday for a summit meeting hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau with Alberta and BC NDP Premiers Rachel Notley and John Horgan. 
The topic of the meeting was the growing dispute between Ottawa, British Columbia and Alberta over the construction of Trans Mountain pipeline. 
The media headlines that followed this meeting were candid.

“Trudeau has failed to resolve pipeline crises” and more recently 

“Kinder Morgan project a test of Trudeau’s competency, puts his 18 B.C. seats at risk, say pollsters”.

While this is occurring, Prime Minister Trudeau has remained firm in his statement that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be built.
From my time on the Government side of the House, it is my opinion that media headlines are not always fair to elected officials. 
The expectation that Mr.Trudeau could resolve this pipeline stand off in a single meeting are overly optimistic and more so when you consider both provincial NDP Premiers politically benefit from their respective positions.  
From a political perspective, the real challenge for the Prime Minister, who is in a situation of his own making, is whatever actions he ultimately makes will come at a steep political cost to the Liberals.

The Prime Minister is also well aware of this fact, and rather than take any decisive action, he has suggested he may ultimately work with the project proponent, Kinder Morgan, to mitigate investor risk in the Trans Mountain project. 
Although no formal announcement has been made, I am already hearing strong opposition from some Canadians at the thought of throwing, and I will quote directly, “public money into the coffers of an oil giant”
Meanwhile, Alberta continues to move forward a bill in their provincial legislature that could limit the supply of Alberta gasoline to British Columbia.
A move that the Premier of Saskatchewan has also voiced support for.  

In British Columbia, the NDP Government has called Alberta’s threat a “bluff” and remains committed that they will not change their position.
What happens next? 

At this point, it is all speculation and rather than engage in 'what if' scenarios, I will provide a factual update when more information is available.  
While the debate on potentially restricting oil flow between two provinces rages on, one subject that has my full attention is the upcoming decision by our Supreme Court on the Comeau case. This decision should be rendered later this week.
Many will know that for decades provinces have prohibited the inter-provincial direct consumer shipping of alcohol over provincial borders. 
In fact, there are many items and even services that face similar restrictions that amount to inter-provincial trade protectionism. 
In the last Parliament, I had a bill passed that removed the Federal Government from some of these restrictions but only a handful of provinces followed suit. 

Ultimately this lead to the Comeau case that came before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). 
The Comeau case argues in favour of section 121 of our Charter: “All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces”. 
In the event the SCC rules in favour of this definition, it could potentially create significant new opportunities for many local industries and producers to access important new markets in Canada.

Something I believe most Canadians support.
My question this week:

Do you support the idea of open provincial borders and increased inter-provincial trade?

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

Although the House of Commons is not in session this week, the return of Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet for an emergency meeting in Ottawa to discuss what many are describing as a “constitutional crisis” has been a subject of national attention.
What is the crisis?

As many will know, there has been an emerging conflict between the New Democrat led Provincial Governments of Alberta and British Columbia related to the Trans-Mountain Pipeline project. 
The BC NDP have threatened to use every tool possible to stop the project. In response, the Alberta NDP introduced provincial legislation this week that will enable cuts of Alberta fuel that is shipped to British Columbia.
Why is this a constitutional crisis? 
When a pipeline project crosses a provincial or international boundary, it is regulated federally.

In this case, Prime Minister Trudeau has approved the pipeline, and has stated his strong support that the pipeline will be built. 
From a constitutional perspective, many experts question if BC has the legal authority to block the Trans Mountain pipeline. Likewise the constitutional validity of Alberta’s intention to reduce gas shipments into B.C. is also being questioned.
Politics are also at play given that both NDP Premiers political survival relies heavily on advancing their respective positions. 
To add further tension to this challenging issue, the proponent of the Trans-Mountain pipeline, citing opposition from the BC NDP Government, has set a deadline of May 31, 2018 for certainty on the project or it will be potentially abandoned.
Ultimately this falls onto the shoulders of Prime Minister Trudeau, who has declared this project to be in Canada’s national interest and has accused BC NDP Premier John Horgan of “trying to scuttle our national plan on fighting climate change,”.
For the Trudeau Liberal Government, who currently hold 18 seats in B.C., they are aware that many who oppose the Trans Mountain pipeline do not see building it as supporting the fight on climate change.

Many view it as the opposite, a point that Mr.Trudeau and his Environment Minister do not seem to reconcile. 
The problem the Prime Minister now faces is that by declaring the Trans-Mountain pipeline to be in Canada’s national interest, if the project does not get built under his leadership, both the Prime Minister and Canada as a confederation will have little credibility in establishing national policy if usurped by regional interests. 
For this reason many are suggesting a constitutional crisis is at hand. 

What will happen next? 
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is set to leave Canada again for yet another round of travel to Lima, Peru, the UK and France. 
It could be assumed that his senior adviser and cabinet ministers will continue to explore a course of action ranging from withholding federal transfer funds from BC or potentially turning a blind eye in the event Alberta carries out the threat of reducing gasoline flow to B.C.

It is also conceivable that other courses of action may be identified. 
From a financial standpoint the Federal, BC and Alberta Governments will lose close to $47 Billion in royalties and taxes over the next 20 years should the project not move forward. 
This amount does not include over $400 million in agreements with in excess of 50 First Nations communities who do support the Trans-Mountain pipeline or $922 Million to local government in BC.
As I have previously stated, I believe the Prime Minister made the right decision to support the Trans-Mountain pipeline and I am hopeful that Mr.Trudeau will demonstrate federal leadership to ensure this project is built. 
My question this week:

Do you think the Prime Minister is doing enough to ensure that this important energy infrastructure gets built?

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

​As members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, it is part of our job to hold the Government to account.

As many who follow my weekly MP reports will know, this is a common theme of mine but I also believe it is just as important to propose alternative solutions to problems and to formulate creative ideas which could address many issues.  

Frequently, these suggestions, alternatives and ideas come from articulate and well-meaning citizens in our region.
 I also believe there are times when Government deserves credit for actions and decisions, or in this case reconsideration of a previous decision. 

 In an MP Report roughly one month ago, I explained the controversy around what is regarded as the Atwal incident that occurred on the Prime Minister’s recent trip to India.
 As a reminder of this incident, Mr. Trudeau’s National Security Advisor was put forward in a confidential news conference.
 
Quoting from a reporter at the news conference, this high ranking National Security Official was “peddling what must be one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories ever advanced by a Canadian government” suggesting “That the terrorist invited by the Liberals to Mumbai, may have been planted there by the Indian government or maybe by Indian security agencies or perhaps by factions in the Indian government.”
To add to the confusion the Liberals later suggested the Atwal invitation was authorized by a lone Liberal MP from British Columbia.

Due to the contradictions contained in these  two explanations, the Opposition tabled a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (known as SECU) to meet with Mr.Trudeau’s National Security Advisor and learn more about this alleged conspiracy theory. 

Unfortunately, the Liberal members of this committee used their majority to block this motion.
Later a similar Opposition motion came before the House of Commons and when the Liberals used their majority to defeat that motion, an all-night filibuster was held in an effort to pressure the Liberals into allowing the National Security Adviser to appear before Parliament. 
This week I can report some encouraging news.  

The Liberal Government has reversed the decision and will now allow the National Security Advisor to appear before interested parliamentarians. 
Why is this important?

Ultimately Members of Parliament are elected on behalf of citizens.

If Members of Parliament are blocked from holding public officials to account or if the Government can use non-partisan civil servants without accountability, our democracy is ultimately threatened.
This reversal is a positive step towards increasing both transparency and accountability in Ottawa and will optimistically be a trend that continues.

It is my hope that the Liberals will also reverse the decision to block faith organizations from the opportunity to participate in the summer jobs program without first accepting a values test that many feel is contrary to the Canadian Charter.
My question this week:

 Are you concerned when Government imposes a values test in order to be eligible for a taxpayer funded program?

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

There are many news events going on in Ottawa on a weekly basis, meaning that some events may be overlooked when the revelations of a Facebook data breach consume most media headlines. 
 
One of the overlooked events this past week may have been the release of the “Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada” report. 
 
This report basically audits and summarizes how well Canada is doing at meeting our goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (GHG) 
 
Before I go further, here's some background information on this topic summarized from my September 22nd, 2016 MP Report. 

• Shortly after the 2015 Federal election our 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.
• While at the Paris conference, the Liberal Government made several comments in support of increasing GHG reduction targets while criticizing the record of the former Conservative Government.
• Despite this criticism, the Liberal Government announced it would adopt the very same GHG reduction targets that were set by the previous Government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. 
 
For added context: 

• In 1993, former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien promised to reduce our GHG emissions to 20 per cent below 1988 levels by 2005. This promise was broken.
• In 1997, Chretien signed the Kyoto accord to reduce our emissions by a smaller amount of six per cent below 1990 levels that would be achieved by 2012.
• In 2006, when the Liberals were voted out of office, Canada was 30 per cent over that target and as a result, Mr. Harper eventually withdrew Canada from the Kyoto agreement that had set binding targets. 
• In 2009, at the Copenhagen climate conference, Mr. Harper matched the U.S. target to cut GHG emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 per cent by 2013 in what is a non-binding agreement. 

​These remain the exact targets being used the Trudeau Liberal Government.
 
This leads to the question how are we doing today?

A question that was looked at by the “Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada” audit report. 
 
The answer?

From my perspective, not well.
 
To quote the report directly “Canada is not expected to meet its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” 
 
CBC also reported “As of 2015, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, Canada was nearly 200 million tonnes short of that goal, which is the equivalent of the emissions produced by about 44 million cars each year. That is twice the number of vehicles registered in Canada.”
 
The audit found that only five Provinces and one Territory even have a 2020 emission reduction target and of those, only Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were on track to meet those targets.
 
 It should also be pointed out that these same two Provinces also had the lowest targets. 
 
The report indicates that as much as this Liberal Government uses the talking point that “the environment and the economy go hand in hand”, in reality there are still trade-offs and Canada remains far from achieving our GHG emissions reduction targets. 
 
My question this week:

What do you think it means to say “The Economy and the Environment go hand in hand”?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711.