​With Parliament now actively underway the new dynamics of having a minority government are beginning to become more defined.

Back in late December, despite the Liberal Government voting against it, a special Parliamentary Committee with the mandate to “conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship including, but not limited to consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations.” was created.

This new Canada-China committee is now established with meetings being held this week.

I was also honoured to be one of the twelve Members of Parliament to be named to sit on this important all party committee. 

Much as the Canada-China committee was created by an opposition day motion, this week another opposition motion was tabled from the official Conservative opposition.

This week’s motion is summarized as:

“That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer 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”

It is often said that Infrastructure is a “not sexy but important” part of Government spending.

I would submit it is critically important for many reasons. 

As an example infrastructure costs are historically split three ways with local, Provincial and Federal Governments usually equally splitting 1/3 of the cost of the project.

This is an important point because citizens all pay taxes to those three different levels of government.

When either Federal or Provincial or in some cases both sources of funding are not made available, it means a local government must pick up either 66% or possibly 100% of the total infrastructure project costs.

These costs are then downloaded onto local taxpayers who continue to pay taxes to Ottawa and Victoria.

The absence of federal infrastructure funding can significantly raise costs for local citizens, more so in smaller rural communities with a limited tax base.

For whatever reason the Trudeau Liberal Government has not been very successful in delivering infrastructure projects despite having announced $187 Billion in infrastructure spending plans.

Rather than speculate on the reasons why, the Official Opposition Conservatives have tabled this motion.

With such a large amount of money being spent, bringing in the Auditor General to fully investigate will ensure there are clear answers.

Canadian taxpayers deserve accountability and transparency on how their tax dollars are spent.

Thus far it appears that once again the other opposition parties in this minority Government are supportive despite the Liberal Government‘s opposition.

My question this week:

Do you support the opposition motion to bring in the Auditor General to audit the Liberal Government’s infrastructure program? 

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

​One of the subjects that has been raised in many recent media headlines is renewed concerns of the expanded rights of United States border agents working in the “pre-clearance” area at Canadian airports.

“Pre-clearance” applies to passengers departing Canadian airports for United States destinations.

The concerns are based on recent amendments to the laws that relate to the Canada/USA Pre-Clearance agreement. United States border agents working in Canadian pre-clearance zones now have many of the same rights and abilities similar to what exist at U.S land based border crossings.
 
Some have suggested that these expanded powers may be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Critics have stated that “Trudeau's government is empowering foreign officials and disempowering Canadian citizens. He is kowtowing to American imperialism.”

From my perspective this is an area where, despite my being a member of the official opposition, I believe that the Trudeau Liberal Government has created a necessary balance in order for pre-clearance to have the opportunity to work successfully.

If a citizen is going to be refused entry into the United States, for whatever reason, it is far more convenient for that refusal to occur in Canada at a pre-clearance location, as opposed to being refused entry after landing in the United States, where a subsequent deportation and related unplanned air travel costs could present a far more serious inconvenience. 

In more extreme cases a citizen could be potentially held in the USA, pending deportation, creating an extremely stressful and unpleasant situation.

Pre-clearance here in Canada helps to increase efficiency and eliminate uncertainty, as well as mitigate the risks of dealing with an unexpected situation upon arrival in the United States.

For pre-clearance to work, it is understandable that the United States must have similar measures in place at all border crossings that provide entry into the country.

For these reasons, I believe the Liberal Government has achieved a balance that has resulted in the expansion of the pre-clearance program.

From most of the feedback I have received, pre-clearance has proven to be an easier, less stressful way to fly across the border for those citizens who decide to visit to the United States.
 
My question this week:

Are you supportive of the pre-clearance program operating in Canadian airports for USA bound travelers? 

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

​Before I begin my MP report, I would like to take a moment on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, to express sincere condolences to the families and friends who lost loved ones aboard Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.
 
This heartbreaking tragedy has been felt across Canada including here in the Okanagan.

Please know that our thoughts are with you at this very difficult time. 
 
Now on to my weekly report.

As some may be aware, medical assistance in dying was legalized in the last Parliament based on a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. 

During the last Parliament I wrote multiple reports on Bill C-14, technically known as “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)”.

I also canvassed support for this bill and our region was largely supportive. 
 
At the same time I also voiced some concerns with the proposed legislation, and several challenges have arisen in the legalization framework.
 
One of those challenges comes from the fact that in order to comply with the terms of the legislation, one must be considered to be “at the end of life” with the “reasonable foresee-ability of natural death” imminent. 
 
This can mean that someone who may otherwise meet the criteria and wish to access medically assistance in dying may have to suffer for a period of time until end of life can be diagnosed as 'imminent'.

In effect, this counters the original intent of the bill to medically assist individuals to end suffering from serious health challenges. 
 
Recently a Quebec Superior Court has ruled this aspect of the bill unconstitutional.

As a result the Federal Government has undertaken to review of the current legislation to comply with the court ruling.
 
As part of the review process, the Federal Government has created an online questionnaire that citizens can participate in.

I will be posting a link to that online questionnaire at the end of this article.

Please be advised that the deadline for submissions is January 27, 2020.

It should be noted that Parliament is also set to do its own review of the entire regime as the original legislation included a five year statutory review process and this will address areas outside of this Quebec court decision.
 
Since medically assisted dying has become legalized, over 6,700 Canadians have utilized the program. 
 
That leads to my question for this week:

What are your thoughts about this potential change to the medical assistance in dying legislation?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.
 
Here is a link to the government consultation:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html 

​Recently the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced that a project would be undertaken on the Fraser River to remove an abandoned 75 year old, nearly 200’ long, former transport vessel.
 
The reason for the removal is that “there are imminent risks of pollution threat, hull corrosion, possible sinking and fire”. 

The cost of this project is estimated to be $3.3 million, that may or may not be recoverable from the vessels owners, assuming they can be identified.
 
That the Federal Government is taking action against derelict and abandoned vessels will certainly be welcome news in many areas that have experienced firsthand the adverse environmental impact of this problem.
 
My issue is not with this project itself, but rather the importance of being proactive. 
 
Here in the Okanagan, we face the very serious threat of aquatic invasive freshwater mussels.

These mussels can clog water intakes causing serious damage to irrigation infrastructure as well as domestic and civic water systems.
 
Further, as an invasive species, an infestation of these mussels can also create serious adverse impacts on local fish habitat such as the pacific salmon, and other freshwater ecosystems.
 
If an infestation did occur in Okanagan Lake, considering the connected Okanagan river drainage system as well as other surrounding freshwater lakes, the threat of other regions being seriously impacted through contamination would be significant and likely.
 
The Okanagan Basin Water Board predicts that the costs of managing an infestation are estimated to be $42 million per year in the Okanagan valley alone. 
 
These would be costs forced onto local taxpayers, pending other financial support from the Provincial and Federal Government.
 
It is easy to understand why it makes far more sense to be proactive in this situation, provide additional resources now, to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, than to spend significantly more funds addressing an infestation after the fact.
 
Despite this reality, the Federal Liberal Government continues to largely ignore this threat creating a situation that I believe all citizens of the Okanagan should find unacceptable.
 
If this Government can prioritize $12 million to help Loblaws purchase new refrigerators, surely it can also prioritize the roughly $2 million in annual funding requested from the Okanagan Basin Water Board to protect the interior freshwater lakes of the Okanagan and British Columbia.
 
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.