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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Prime Minister is wrong.

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

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

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

Will this lead to an election? 

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

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

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on a possible fall election? 

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

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

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

What was announced?

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

What is on the current list?

The following plastic items:

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

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

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

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

This creates a challenge for the government with the classification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

With Prime Minister Trudeau having prorogued Parliament, a situation was created where the government must now start over in submitting bills and legislation through the House of Commons. 

This is also an important process because it indicates what the government views as important priorities for Canadians.

This week the government tabled two new bills into the House of Commons.

Bill C-6 'An Act to amend the Criminal Code (to ban conversion therapy)' and,

Bill C-7 'An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).'

Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as therapy that “aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, or to change an individual’s gender identity to match the sex they were assigned at birth.”

This bill proposes five new criminal code offences that include: “causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy, removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, profiting from providing conversion therapy and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy”.

Bill C-7 has come about after a Quebec court ruled that the, previously passed into law, medically assisted dying legislation was unconstitutional because it is too restrictive. 

More specifically the requirement that only people who are facing "foreseeable death" can receive aid to die is considered to narrow of a criteria.

It has also been argued this can lead to a situation where there is additional pain and suffering.

The new bill proposes several changes, some of those include: removing the requirement for a person’s natural death to be reasonably foreseeable in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

It is also proposed to introduce “a two-track approach to procedural safeguards based on whether or not a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

At the same time it is proposed that “existing safeguards will be maintained and certain ones will be eased for eligible persons whose death is reasonably foreseeable.”

There will be “new and modified safeguards will be introduced for eligible persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable”.

I should add that it is the intent of the new proposed legislation to exclude eligibility for individuals who suffering solely from mental illness.

In addition, there will be some proposed changes to the waiver process.

My question this week:

What are the priorities you would like to see coming forward in Parliament?

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