In 2013, when Justin Trudeau was the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he made public comments on the use of omnibus legislation and stated “I wouldn’t use them, period,”.

Since that time, that despite this promise, the Trudeau Liberal Government has continued to use omnibus legislation.

Most commonly in Budget Implementation Bills, often referred to as “BIA’s”.

It was within a BIA that changes were made to the Canada Labour Code that impacts federally regulated workplaces.

Some examples of federally regulated workplaces include banking, the telecommunications sector as well as much of the air, rail and marine transportation industries.

The changes will come into force next week, on September 1st, and propose significant changes that I will provide a few examples of:

Shift changes: Employers will need to provide 24 hours’ notice of a change or addition to a work period or shift. Subject to exemptions for emergencies.

Overtime refusal: Employees will have the right to refuse overtime. Subject to exemptions for emergencies.

Notice of schedule: Employers will be required to provide 96 hours’ notice of an employee’s work schedule. Employees may refuse shifts starting less than 96 hours after the schedule is received.

Leave for Aboriginal practices: Aboriginal employees, who have at least three consecutive months of continuous employment, may take up to five days unpaid leave each calendar year to participate in traditional Aboriginal practices.

Personal leave: Employees will be entitled to personal leave of up to five days per calendar year, including three days with pay, after three consecutive months of continuous employment.

Holiday pay: The 30-day length of employment requirement for holiday pay will be eliminated. All employees will now be entitled to holiday pay.

Although this is just a summary of some of the many changes, I am certain most would agree that these changes are undeniably employee friendly.

This fact should not be surprising, given that we are on the eve of a federal election.

However,  breaking news out of Ottawa this week from “The Logic” has revealed “that some companies have already been granted temporary exemptions, effective September 1." 

It has been further reported that other exemptions may be pending.

In other words, some federally regulated employees expecting these new changes to be in effect on September 1st will be disappointed.

As to what employers have been exempted and why remains a subject without answers.

I believe it is everyone’s interests, regardless of their thoughts on these new laws, that we protect our legislative processes to ensure that special favours are not seen to advance the cause of some, at the expense of others.

This leads to my question for this week. 

Should the Trudeau Government publish a list of all of the exempted employers, including any related lobbying efforts by said employers, and provide the rationale for these exemptions?

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

This week an unusual event occurred as the Ethics Committee convened in Ottawa to vote on calling Federal Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, to appear before the committee in relation to the his recent ethics report that concluded:

"The Prime Minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould. The authority of the Prime Minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown's chief law officer,"
At this ethics committee meeting Green Party leader Elizabeth May stated:
“This is really scandalous, the Prime Minister is guilty here of the kind of offense in which resignation is appropriate.” 

She also clarified that she was not making a direct request for a resignation.
Despite the Green party, NDP, Conservatives and even one Liberal MP voting for the Ethics Commissioner to appear as a witness at the Committee, the Liberal majority blocked this from occurring.
The fact that a non-partisan, independent officer, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, is now blocked by the Liberal majority from appearing at an all-party Parliamentary Committee is deeply troubling and raises serious concerns. 
We know that the Ethics Commissioner has publicly stated that he was also blocked from receiving required information to view “the entire body of evidence” when preparing his latest report.
We also know that claims from the Trudeau Liberals that the improper pressure applied to the former Attorney General was “all about jobs” is patently false.  
The report from Mr. Dion, titled "Trudeau II", confirmed that Finance Minister Bill Morneau admitted that no study was ever undertaken to validate any potential job losses that have been repeatedly claimed by the Government.
It also known that while Mr. Trudeau has stated publicly that the “buck stops with him”, the report reveals privately that:

“Mr. Trudeau's counsel argued that even if his ministerial staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council act on behalf of the Prime Minister when engaging with other ministers or their representatives, Mr. Trudeau cannot be vicariously liable for the actions of his staff…”
This suggests that if whatever information the Ethics Commissioner has been denied by government officials becomes public, the Prime Minister could potentially attempt to place blame on his staff.
In other words, this smells like a cover-up.

My question for this week: 
Does the Liberal's blocking Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion from appearing before the Ethics Committee concern you?
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​Canadian political history was made as Prime Minister Trudeau was found guilty for the second time in contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.

In the ruling released this week by Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, the guilty verdict related to the actions of Mr. Trudeau in seeking to influence a decision of the Attorney General of Canada in relation to the prosecution of SNC Lavalin.

This situation led to the resignation of Ms.Jody Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal cabinet, before Mr. Trudeau removed her and Ms.Jane Philpott (whom likewise resigned from cabinet due to concerns on the subject) from the Liberal caucus.

The report released this week, known as “Trudeau II” raises some very troubling findings.

The Commissioner found "The Prime Minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould. The authority of the Prime Minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown's chief law officer,"

The Commissioner noted that he was denied some of the required information to view “the entire body of evidence” and that some witnesses were also unable to share certain information because of these same restrictions. 

Ultimately his conclusion was "The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the Attorney General."

Since the report was publicly released Mr. Trudeau stated that he “takes responsibility for the mistakes that I made” yet at the same time he has also stated that he disagrees with some of the Commissioners findings.

Having now read the Commissioners report in full I also have a few thoughts.

When this SNC Lavalin situation was first reported in the Globe & Mail, Mr. Trudeau told reporters “The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false,” 

Later at a March 7,2019 news conference Mr. Trudeau stated  “In Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s case she did not come to me & I wish she had,” 

The challenge with this statement is that the Trudeau II report clearly reveals that on September 17 of 2018 Ms. Wilson-Raybould did meet with Mr. Trudeau and relayed her concerns directly to him.

In other words the comments made by Mr. Trudeau in March of 2019 do not reconcile with the facts of September 17th of 2018 as outlined in the report.

My question this week: What do you think the Prime Minister should do in light of this serious report? 

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

As we approach the October election, one of the significant concerns in British Columbia is the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMX) and by extension the increase in related oil tanker traffic.

In previous reports I have referenced many aspects of this project however one area I have not covered has been about oil tankers.

The intent of my report today will be to provide some additional information on this topic.

For the record, there are five types of oil tankers that range in size from the 230 metre long Panamax class up to the 415 metre long ULCC class.

For a frame of reference the Exxon Valdez was the second largest VLCC class at 330 metres in length.

The tankers involved in the TMX project are the second smallest Aframax size at 245 metres.

For some comparison, the BC Ferries “Spirit” class of vessels are 167 metres long.

In terms of capacity, an Aframax tanker can carry up to 750,000 barrels of oil.

The Exxon Valdez VLCC class can carry close to 2,000,000 barrels of oil.

In terms of tanker sailings, the completion of the TMX project would result in roughly 34 tanker sailings per month.

Currently there are 5 sailings.

One question on the minds of  the many citizens I have heard from is; what has changed since the days of the Exxon Valdez? 

One of the more significant changes relates to construction.

Tankers involved with the TMX project are double hulled construction, which is now subject to Canadian and International regulation.

Other changes relate to regulation and procedures.

Today regulatory requirements include a certificate of insurance, arrangements with the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation for spill response readiness. 

Both the tanker and the terminal are required to complete unique spill response plans.

From a procedural stand point, a tanker at the berth is always enclosed with a pre-deployed oil spill boom with a second boom ready for deployment.

No tanker will enter the region without a professional pilot on board and a fully loaded tanker departing must carry two pilots.  

All cargo loading is under the supervision of a loading master who must stay on board while the loading is underway.

Aside from these changes, there are also additional use of tethered and un-tethered tugboats acting as escort vessels throughout the arrival and departure process. 

Aside from these measures, the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation would also significantly increase both resources and location of resources for enhanced spill response capacity and faster response times. 

I have provided this information for greater context and understanding of how marine oil tanker traffic would change with the expansion of the TMX project as well as how tanker safety has also changed. 

My question this week relates solely to tankers:

How do you feel about an increase in tanker traffic from 5 tankers up to roughly 34 a month?

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