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. 

The week, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) released an analysis of the most recent Liberal Government budget. 

While sharp and measured non-partisan budget analysis is common from the PBO, one particular fact from the report has generated considerable attention on Parliament Hill.

The conclusion from the PBO was, and I quote it directly: 

“Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist. Roughly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure from 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse. Both legacy and new infrastructure programs are prone to large lapses.”

As I have mentioned in previous MP reports, it is not necessarily uncommon for some budgeted funds to lapse or to remain unspent for a variety of reasons. 

What is unique in this situation, is the finding from the PBO that an appropriate infrastructure plan does not exist at all. 

The Liberal Government has been subsequently asked about this in Question Period and to date has not provided any formal documented Infrastructure Plan.

This raises serious concerns on how $186 Billion is proposed to be borrowed and spent without a proper plan or how those funds are best invested for maximum return over the next twelve years.

After promising an Infrastructure Plan during the 2015 election, how can there be no plan in place?

This is a question only the Liberal Government can answer. 

A February 2018 analysis by the Globe & Mail newspaper indicated that Liberals may be playing old fashioned “pork barrel” type politics as 64% of infrastructure spending to date has been in areas of Canada where the Liberals are typically elected.

It would be interesting to submit an Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Prime Minister’s office for more analysis on the political involvement in the decision making process.  However, despite the Prime Minister’s election promise that his own office and any Minister’s office would be fully subject to FOI/ATIP legislation, this has not occurred. 

For the record, I am not suggesting the Liberals are playing favoritism with how and where they fund infrastructure projects. Although the data from the Globe & Mail reporting raises some serious questions, there may well be legitimate answers. 

Where I do fault the Liberal Government is, without a proper and coherent Infrastructure Plan along with the ability to FOI supporting documents, Canadians are largely being left in the dark about this process and how it works.

Considering that it will be Canadians shouldering this $186 billion of debt, in my view, more information is required. 

My question this week is about transparency:

Do you believe this Liberal Government is living up to the transparency commitments they made during the election and does this concern you? 

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

This week’s report is a reminder that in a little over a month, April 30th, the majority of Canadians need to complete and file their 2017 Canada Income Tax returns to avoid potential late penalties.
 
There are a few changes this year that may be of interest to you and your family.
 
For those who file paper returns, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will be mailing you a 2017 income tax return package. In the event you do not receive one or would like to obtain a paper copy you can call 1-855-330-3305 to request one be mailed to you. 
 
Also, for those who need help preparing their Income Tax Return, CRA offers Income Tax Clinics for those with modest income and simple tax situations.
 
Please visit our website, www.danalbas.com, and click on '2018 Income Tax Clinics'  for more information. 
 
Some things to bear in mind as you begin the process; there are several former tax credits available in recent years that have been eliminated by the Liberal Government 
 
 Here is a list of the tax credit programs that no longer exist: 
  
• Federal Education and Textbook 
• Children’s Fitness 
• Children’s Arts 
• Public Transit 

​Although most of what has often been referred to as “boutique” tax credits were eliminated, the Government did introduce a new specialized tax credit that is available for this taxation year.

Called the “Teacher and Early Childhood Educator School Supply” tax credit. it is primarily for teachers when purchasing classroom materials. 
 
There have also been what I believe, largely positive changes to existing credits.

For example, the Canada Caregiver tax credit now streamlines the former Family Caregiver tax credit, and some changes have also been implemented to the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) and the Medical Expense Tax Credit programs. 
 
Actual income tax rates for the current year remain unchanged from last year.

As some will know, there have been studies to suggest Canadians are paying more in taxes as a result of the elimination of many family focused tax credits.

However, critics of those studies point out that Canada Child Benefit (CCB) program may potentially offset any taxation increases as a result of the elimination of the credits.
 
Who is correct?

In my view, it depends entirely on the situation.

As an example, someone who takes public transit with no children will be adversely impacted with the loss of the Public Transit tax credit. However, depending on their income, a family with three young children, who are not active in sports or arts programs, could come out significantly ahead as a result of the enhanced CCB program

My question this week:

Do you feel further ahead this year because of these changes or behind?  

Drop me a line and let me know.
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711. 

​Last week, I wrote at length about Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent trip to India and addressed some of the criticisms that had been levied.

For example, there were allegations that the Prime Minister, and members of his cabinet, are sympathetic to radicalized operatives who support the Khalistan separatist movement in India.

At the time I wrote the report, I defended the Prime Minister and stated that I believed that Mr. Trudeau had attempted to refute these allegations and stated Canada’s long support for a united India. 

The day after, it was revealed that the Prime Minister had a guest invited to an official event who was convicted of an “an act of terrorism” after a failed attempt to assassinate an Indian cabinet Minister visiting Vancouver Island back in 1986.

The presence of this individual created an international uproar that led to the Prime Minister’s office engaging in damage control.

At one point Mr. Trudeau’s own, handpicked, 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.”

Soon after this news conference, the Prime Minister and his office realized that the media were not buying into this unusual conspiracy so it was suggested that a lone Liberal MP from British Columbia was responsible for the invite. The Prime Minister solemnly assured Canadians that this MP would receive a stern talking to once back in Canada. 

Subsequently, this MP apologized, took responsibility and resigned his chairmanship of the BC Pacific Liberal Caucus.

This appeared to be the end of this sad and embarrassing situation until the Prime Minister was asked about the validity of the conspiracy theory in Question Period. 

To the surprise of many, Mr. Trudeau stated, while standing in the House of Commons, that when a National Security Official says something to Canadians, it's because they know it to be true.

In other words Mr.Trudeau doubled down and backed the conspiracy theory. 

To date, the Liberal Government has provided no evidence to substantiate this serious international accusation.

In an almost unprecedented event, the Indian Government issued an official response denying the allegations in their entirety and by extension questioned the credibility of  Prime MinisterTrudeau.

Since that time, numerous pictures of the convicted terrorist have been circulating that show the individual and Mr. Trudeau together at various points in time.

Serious concerns remain, yet to be answered by Mr.Trudeau or his Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale.

As a result, 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 Adviser and learn more about this alleged conspiracy theory. 

Unfortunately, the Liberal members of this committee used their majority to block this motion. 

Given that the former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has also cast doubt on Mr.Trudeau’s conspiracy theory, many are deeply concerned over this lack of transparency that directly question the credibility of Prime Minister Trudeau.

My question this week:

How do you view the outcome of Mr. Trudeau’s trip to India given these recent developments?

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

This week the Liberal Government introduced the 2018 Budget. As is customary in Canadian democracy, it is the role of the Liberal government to promote what it views as the merits of their budget. As the Official Opposition, it is our job to illustrate the concerns we have with the budget.

​On that note, I have a few.

It has become clear over this mandate, that the Prime Minister excels in making promises but often falls short on the delivery of said promises. For example, we were promised Electoral Reform, a National Housing Strategy, Infrastructure Investment, new fighter jets for our military…the list goes on.

This budget is no exception.  

​Mr. Trudeau distinctly promised Canadians that after a series of small deficits, his Government would return to a balanced budget in 2019. This budget demonstrates that the Liberals have no intention whatsoever of returning to balance in 2019. Budget 2018 calls for yet another deficit of $18 Billion this year. Based on the current pace, Mr. Trudeau will add $450 billion to Canada’s national debt over the next 27 years. 

​Why is this a concern? 

In short: because you and I, pay interest on that debt. 

By the year 2022, which is only four short years away, it’s estimated that Canadians will be making annual interest payments of 33 Billion dollars on that outstanding debt! To put that number in context, the amount of the annual transfer, that the Government of Canada provides the Provinces to deliver health care to Canadians, is currently $36 Billion.

Another promise in this budget relates to a National Pharmacare Program, an idea that has long been championed by the NDP. What’s interesting is there is no actual money allocated to pay for a National Pharmacare Program. Rather, the Liberals announced that they will create an advisory panel to further study the idea. This idea has already been studied in Ottawa for close to a decade. When it came to legalizing marijuana, the Liberals made a commitment to do so by July 1st of 2018. In my view, if the Liberals were serious about creating a National Pharmacare Program, they would have made similar timeline commitment and attached dollars in this budget to make it happen. 

Regarding marijuana legalization, a seldom discussed proposal in this budget is a commitment to spend $546M over five years to enforce Federal pot legislation. This appears to be an admission that the Liberals now realize that illegal marijuana may well be a serious threat to undercutting legal marijuana. I mention this because one of the arguments for legalization from Mr. Trudeau was that there would be less need for law enforcement.

​While the budget proposes to spend $546 Million to enforce marijuana legalization, it also proposes to spend less than half of that amount to fight opioid addiction. The budget calls for $231 Million to be spent over the next five years to fight the opioid crisis. That said, it is unclear how this money will be divided up between the provinces and territories.

Things not in the budget? 

For the most part infrastructure, military, daycare, housing affordability and poverty reduction were items that received no significant upgrades or mention. The Liberals promoted this as a gender based budget and in fact used the word “gender” 359 times in a budget document that is 367 pages long.

My question this week:

Will this budget do anything to help you or your family? 

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

​In my report last week, I wrote about the trade war between BC and Alberta. This spat has resulted in many British Columbia wineries ending up as political pawns, currently shut out of the Alberta marketplace. 
I find this completely unacceptable.

This situation was in no way created by the BC wine industry but rather a politically motivated campaign by two NDP Provincial Governments.

​The greater challenge is the Trudeau Liberal Government has repeatedly stated the Trans Mountain pipeline project is in Canada’s national interest and will get built. 

However, missing from the Prime Minister's statements is when the Trans Mountain pipeline will be built and what measures he is prepared to invoke in order to ensure that Federal jurisdiction is not impugned. 

In the absence of any federal leadership on this file, BC and Alberta have been left alone to duke it out.
As the Official Opposition, we attempted to encourage the Liberals to show some leadership this week with a motion we tabled in the House of Commons. 

The motion was as follows:

“That, given the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is in the national interest, will create jobs and provide provinces with access to global markets, the House call on the Prime Minister to prioritize the construction of the federally-approved Trans Mountain Expansion Project by taking immediate action, using all tools available; to establish certainty for the project, and to mitigate damage from the current interprovincial trade dispute, tabling his plan in the House no later than noon on Thursday, February 15, 2018.”

I participated in the debate over this motion and also voted in support of it.

Unfortunately the motion was defeated. 

It was no surprise when the NDP opposed this motion. The NDP have consistently opposed pipeline projects in the House of Commons.

It was a surprise when, not only did the Liberals oppose this motion, they did so unanimously.

That means even Liberal Members of Parliament from British Columbia voted against a motion that would support their BC wine industry and direct the Prime Minister to do his job, show federal leadership and end this dispute that is causing serious harm to the BC wine industry.

This follows a similar pattern where last week, when Liberal MP's voted against a motion that directed any costs incurred to tax payers, as a result of a Member of Parliament receiving a gift or hospitality benefit found in a conflict of interest, be repaid by the Member in question. 

We already know that if a single parent is declared not to be eligible for the Canada Child Benefit, any benefits paid can result in a bank account being seized or wages garnisheed to recover those benefit payments. 

From my perspective it is not unreasonable to expect that a Member of Parliament receiving benefits they are not entitled to receive should also be repayable to taxpayers, if a cost is involved. 

It is my opinion that the Liberals are demonstrating an attitude of being entitled to entitlements. However, the Liberals continue to point out there is no law that suggests benefits obtained through a conflict need to be repaid if a cost occurs to taxpayers. 

My question this week:

If an elected official receives a benefit that is in a conflict of interest should any resulting costs to taxpayer be repaid?

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

​As of today we have a trade war brewing between duelling NDP Provincial Governments in BC and Alberta.

Make no mistake this provincial trade dispute will have economic repercussions for our region if it is not quickly resolved. 
As one example, within hours of the announcement from Premier Notley targeting BC wine, I heard from one small family run winery owner who now faces the challenge of what happens with the 6,000 cases of wine ordered in Alberta. Mortgages, payroll, taxes and utilities all must be paid for this winery to survive.

There are well over one hundred wineries that do business within the Province of Alberta and many of those wineries are located right here in the Okanagan as part of the roughly $70 million Alberta wine market.
Why is this happening?

As many will know, despite the fact that energy projects such as pipelines are entirely under federal jurisdiction, BC NDP Premier John Horgan announced efforts to attempt to block or otherwise delay the federally approved Trans Mountain pipeline project. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to insist this project is in Canada’s national interest and must move forward.
For the record, I fully support the Prime Minister’s decision on this. As I have previously stated, the Trans Mountain approval is subject to 157 binding conditions that are intended to address concerns ranging from First Nations, environment, project engineering as well as safety and emergency response.

The value of this project is just under $7-billion and will create 15,000 new jobs during construction. This pipeline will also generate $4.5 billion in federal and provincial government revenues. It should also be noted that this project replaces the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system between Edmonton, AB, and Burnaby, B.C. This existing pipeline is now over 50 years old.
Where I fault the Prime Minister, aside from continually voicing strong support for the Trans Mountain pipeline project, he has provided no further explanation on what actions his Government is prepared to invoke in order to see the pipeline project is constructed without political interference from the BC NDP Government.

In the absence of this firm directive from the Prime Minister, the Alberta NDP Government is now taking actions it believes are necessary to defend both the interests of Alberta and the national interest of Canada, as voiced by the Prime Minister. 
Innocent small family run BC wineries will now face very serious economic circumstances beyond their control and that is entirely unacceptable.

If the Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour in the Comeau case and ensures interprovincial trade of Canadian products is a constitutional right, this situation could be very different. 
However the motion I tabled in Ottawa to expedite the Comeau case, supported by the NDP and Green parties, was voted down by the Liberals.
What should happen?

We know that when Quebec based Bombardier was threatened in a trade dispute Prime Minister Trudeau cancelled an aircraft order with Boeing and released future military procurement policy that factors in Canada’s economic interests. 
In other words the Prime Minister stood up to defend Bombardier’s interests.

In my view if Prime Minister Trudeau truly believes the Trans Mountain pipeline project is in Canada’s national interests, he need to step up and ensure that project is built.
My question this week: Do you agree?

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

​I have in several of my previous weekly MP Reports covered the topic of single parents; most often single mothers, being unfairly denied Canada child benefit payments.

As a result of these reports I have received numerous pleas for assistance. I have also heard many disturbing situations having occurred as a result of often heavy handed and unfair actions by the Canada Revenue Agency. 
In fact, when one includes the efforts by CRA to tax employee discounts and the challenges that many citizens encounter when attempting to call CRA, I would submit that in the past twelve months no single federal agency has resulted in more public anger directed to my office than the CRA.

I say anger as a recently released report from the Auditor General revealed that CRA actually blocks more than half the calls it receives at call centres, where people are looking for assistance.  
This is an entirely unacceptable situation.

To be clear, this is not the fault of front line staff who I have often found try to be helpful.

Ultimately I fault senior management and the Minister responsible.

I mention these things because I was shocked this week to learn that the Trudeau Liberal Government authorized senior executives at CRA to receive on average a $35,000 bonus payment.
On top of that, it was also revealed that in the first fiscal year of the Liberal Government, overall executive bonus payments were not only significantly increased, they were double the rate of inflation!

That is almost twice as much as was increased to the rest of the public service!

For many public servants, who have been adversely impacted by the Phoenix payroll system, this is a troubling situation.

By the numbers, CRA executive bonus pay increases authorized by the Liberals was 3.2%.

The pay increase for the majority of the public sector was 1.25% in comparison.
As some may recall last year, it was reported that the Liberals had also increased the number of bureaucrats in Ottawa to the highest level in almost a decade. An increase of 14,000 more staff in the Ottawa capital region alone.

For the 2017 fiscal year, the overall number of federal staff, Canada wide, increased by another 3700 bringing the total number to 262,696. For some added context, in the year 2000 there was a total of 211,925 federal staff across all departments.
My question this week relates to executive bonus payments within the Federal Government:

Are you concerned with CRA bonus payments being awarded by the Liberals at more than twice the rate of inflation?

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

​In an early December MP report I covered the topic of "progressive trade" that has been frequently mentioned by the Trudeau Liberal Government.

In a more recent MP Report on the status of NAFTA discussions, I raised the topic of progressive trade and asked the question "Do you believe the prime minister should abandon the demand to include "progressive trade" language in trade negotiations or do you view this as something that Canada should be steadfast on"?

I am thankful that each week my MP Reports generate a considerable amount of feedback and on this particular question the response was overwhelming. 

The vast majority of the feedback I received was that the demand to include "progressive trade" language should be abandoned. 

It appears even the Prime Minister had taken this advice as this week we learned that Canada will now be signing on to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) deal that has since been renamed  the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The revised text that Canada agreed to contains no elements whatsoever related to the progressive trade values that had been previously demanded by the Liberal Government. 

The Official Opposition supports this agreement and on a personal note I would like to publicly credit the Prime Minister for demonstrating some flexibility and dropping demands that other countries would not accept. 

As I have previously pointed out most Canadians would not accept values from another country being imposed on Canada to accept a trade deal so it is an unrealistic expectation that other countries would adopt our values.

However. while I view most of this as a positive there is still another problem. 

In a word competitiveness.

Here in Canada, we will have an increase to CPP Premiums that employers contribute to. In addition we will soon have a national carbon tax that will be coming into effect that some economists predict will become a $30 Billion a year tax grab by the year 2022. Top income earners in many Canadian provinces are now facing a personal tax rate over 50% of what they earn.

The challenge is that all of these factors add costs to doing business here in Canada.

It should be noted that in many cases these same costs are NOT being imposed by other countries that Canada competes with. 

Further a free trade agreements means that a company can set up an operation in another country to take advantage of these lower costs and then freely access the Canadian marketplace and thereby undermine certain interests in Canada in terms of jobs and business investment. In return there may be a decrease in cost to consumers and foreign imports that may help some industries, in addition to more market access for our industries- like wood, agriculture and specialized manufacturing in our riding.

This, in theory, is where "Progressive Trade" comes in. 

If other countries were willing to adopt some of these labour and environmental policies that would correspondingly increase costs the international trade playing field would be more level and Canadian interest would be better protected. 

The challenge is that many other countries are well aware of this and are using a lower cost regulatory environment to be more competitive in attracting investment, not unlike what has just occurred with the United States significantly reducing business taxes.

As it stands Business investment peaked in 2014 under the former Conservative Government and since the Liberal Government has been in power has declined to the point where Canada now ranks 16th out of 17 OECD Countries in this category.

My question this week: are you concerned about the decline in business investment?

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

​There has been some confusion and misunderstanding regarding changes to the Canada Summer Jobs program for students that are deserving of some clarification.
 
This confusion has arisen because the Trudeau Liberal Government inserted a mandatory values test into the application process.

Applicants must attest that their organization's core mandate supports values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This seems like an innocent change however the Liberal Government also included a number of other rights to the list, including reproductive rights.
 
It is the demand to attest to reproductive rights that has created confusion and in some cases strong disagreement.
 
Why the confusion and disagreement?

Essentially because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no language specifically related to reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court struck down laws around this area and in the absence of any new laws, created a legal vacuum.
 
That said, the Charter does protect freedom of conscience and religion.

Many faith groups, who hold pro-life views, feel that their charter rights are being discriminated against in these changes to the Canada Summer Jobs program for students.
 
To be fair to the changes to the Canada Summer Job's guidelines, there is a disclaimer that states “an organization that is affiliated with a religion does not itself constitute ineligibility for this program.”

I view this as a positive indicator, given that faith groups perform many valuable community services, such as running soup kitchens, youth programs, sponsoring private refugees and other community charity related activities that help our most vulnerable.
 
The challenge is that many organizations of faith who may not necessarily be excluded from the summer jobs program have expressed a reluctance of applying due to their belief that the new restrictions discriminate against those who have pro-life views.  
 
Although I am clearly not a member of the Liberal Government, I believe these changes were more intended to prevent organizations that actively campaign for laws against the termination of a pregnancy from being eligible to receive summer student job funding.

Herein is another challenge because the right to oppose abortion is also protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
The bottom line is the Trudeau Liberals have politicized the Canada Summer Jobs program for students jobs by deciding certain charter rights have priority over others.

These kinds of decisions often end up before our Supreme Court.

As I write this week’s report, I believe a legal action against these changes may already be underway.
 
My question this week:

Do you agree with the changes to the Canada Summer Jobs  program for students, that reinterprets the Charter in this way?

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

​It is unusual to have Ottawa related political news occurring this time of year.

However, recently the unusual in politics has become the usual.

In late December, media were made aware of what they described as a "secret meeting" that occurred between Prime Minister Trudeau and Joshua Boyle. Joshua Boyle was recently freed after being held in captivity in Afghanistan for the previous five years.
 
Why media were suspicious of this particular meeting was due to the fact that the meeting, and the reasons for it, were not publicly disclosed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Journalists only discovered this meeting had occurred when members of the Boyle family circulated pictures on social media.
 
This week Ottawa police announced that Joshua Boyle was being charged with 15 different offences from alleged actions that include assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, public mischief and administering a noxious thing. These alleged offences are related to the period of time since Mr. Boyle returned to Canada in October 2017.
 
As a result of this situation there are serious questions being asked on why the Prime Minister requested a meeting with Mr. Boyle. By extension questions have been raised on security protocols that should protect the Prime Minister. The judgement of the advisers who represent Mr.Trudeau in allowing this meeting to go forward also come into focus.
 
The judgement of the advisers working in the PMO was also raised when the Prime Minister was recently found guilty of four counts of ethics violations. These violations were related to free luxury vacations the Prime Minister accepted from a registered lobbyist who receives millions in Government of Canada funding. 
 
The judgement of advisers and political staff is a subject that is seldom raised outside of Ottawa.
 
For obvious reasons, it is being questioned currently.

I have also had some questions on this topic and I can report that the most recently audited expenses for what is called the “Trudeau PMO” were $8.3 Million in the 2016-2017 fiscal period.

As a comparison this figure is higher than during any year in the previous Prime Minister’s last term in office.
 
All elected officials have staff and in the case of politically appointed staff, they typically only work in their capacity until the writ period, when the election is called. At that point, the vast majority will become unemployed.

Rehiring depends on who is re-elected and if employment is again offered.

In the case of the Prime Minister, some are suggesting a staff shakeup is required. Others see this as unfairly throwing the staff under the bus.

Most agree that answers are needed on why Prime Minister Trudeau met with Joshua Boyle and why this meeting was kept confidential.
 
My question this week – Do you believe Canadians deserve an answer to why this meeting was held between Prime Minister Trudeau and Joshua Boyle?

I can be reached by email Dan.Albas@parl.g.ca or at  1-800-665-8711. 

I had written my MP Report for today, and then we had some breaking news.
 
We learned that Prime Minister Trudeau has been found guilty on four violations of the Conflict of Interest Act in a report released by Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson.
 
The various conflict violations are related to a vacation that the Trudeau family and friends took on a private island owned by the Aga Khan in December of 2016.
 
Ultimately this relates to the fact that the Aga Khan Foundation is a registered lobbyist that receives millions of dollars in funding each year from the Federal Government. The Conflict of Interest Act is intended to ensure that elected officials do not personally benefit from their position of public office.
 
With the Prime Minister and also the Finance Minister recently being found in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, I am often asked, what is the penalty?
 
Currently the penalty for being found in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act is a fine that has a maximum of up to $500.
 
My question for this week- do you believe that the fine for a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act is sufficient at $500 or should it be higher or something else, other than money?
 
Now on to my original report.
 
I would like to take a moment to thank the residents of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.
 
We share a large, diverse and beautiful region together; the one constant is the friendliness of the people and the level of interaction and engagement, that from my perspective, is very high.
 
It is truly an honour to represent you and raise your issues of importance in Ottawa.
 
Recently, I was able to bring forward the challenges single parents, most often mothers, were having in dealing with the Canadian Revenue Agency in obtaining Canada Child Benefits. I asked the Minister of National Revenue about this in Question Period and have since been interviewed by CBC. This has now become a national story with wide reaching implications.
 
I credited the Minister’s office recently for resolving some of these issues, which will ensure some households will have a far more meaningful holiday season.
 
When an issue can be raised by Opposition and the Government can respond in a positive manner, it is an example that our democracy is working and for that we shall all be thankful.
 
On that note, I would like to sincerely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a safe and enjoyable holiday season.
 
Best wishes for a prosperous 2018 and a special thank you to our armed forces and first responders for the ongoing work that they do on our behalf.
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca  or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711.

​

I was not planning on mentioning the controversy surrounding a temporary ice rink the Liberal Government built in front of the Parliament buildings to celebrate Canada 150.

However, a nearby Liberal MP referenced this rink locally and defended the project against allegations of government waste. Unfortunately the Member of Parliament in question failed to mention the actual costs to build this temporary rink.

​That omission of relevant fact led to many citizens asking me what were the actual costs.

Originally the costs to build this temporary ice rink were quoted at $5.6 million dollars. The rink would only be open for just over three weeks in December. Later it would be donated to a community near Ottawa.

The public outcry over the costs in addition to the limited schedule led to an announcement extending the opening schedule to the end of February 2018. However, the extra costs of doing so are not clear.

​I will leave it up to local citizens to decide if $5.6 million dollars, plus additional costs not known, is money well spent for a temporary skating rink outside of the House of Commons.

More importantly I have have received a considerable response from many single parents, the majority of which are single mothers, who have encountered serious difficulty in dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency(CRA).

These single parents are having their Canada Child Benefit arbitrarily denied, reduced or clawed back. I will credit the Minister of National Revenue's office who has reached out and to date we have been able to successfully restore the benefits for one local single mother. I am currently working on a number of other cases.

I do believe it is important to give credit where it is due and on behalf of my constituents, I appreciate the assistance of the Minister’s office in these matters.

On a somewhat related theme, the House of Commons will adjourn this week.

Earlier today, the Finance Minister revealed details to the Liberal Government tax changes affecting Canadian small businesses, effective January 1st, 2018.

I am concerned over the timing of this announcement, being so close to the holiday season. Last year, the Liberals quietly released a report on Christmas Eve showing they would not balance the budget until at least the year 2050.

What is more concerning is these small business tax changes will add more discretionary power to the CRA in areas such as the dividends to family members, who help run those small businesses.

My greatest concern relates to the experience I have encountered with single parents and how unfairly the CRA may use their discretionary power. This could lead to the CRA unfairly penalizing Canadian small business owners without proof of any actual wrong doing. I have witnessed many examples where citizens do provide the required documentation only to be arbitrarily denied again by the CRA.

While I do appreciate the Minister of National Revenue's efforts, it is not practical to have the Minister`s office continue to intervene on a case by case basis for what should not be a problem in the first place.

This leads to my question for this week:

Do you believe the CRA should have ultimate and sole authority when interpreting the status of information reported by taxpayers?
By extension, should there be a greater burden of proof required from the CRA before they can arbitrarily and adversely impact a taxpayer?

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

The headlines coming out of Ottawa this week were unrelenting:

"Trudeau's trade deal with China turns into an embarrassment" and

"Trudeau breaks the three rules of doing business in China, leaves Beijing empty-handed"

At issue was a press conference in Beijing where it was widely expected that the Prime Minister would announce that Canada and China were entering into formal trade talks. That did not occur and even at the present moment it is unclear what the current status is of talks between Canada and China that are trade related.

The rumored stumbling block is the Trudeau Government's insistence on demanding what they call "Progressive Trade".

What is "Progressive Trade"?

Based on the Government's own definition, it is a trade deal that also has guarantees on topics such as labour, gender and environmental rights that are not normally part of a free trade agreement. There are many criticisms of this progressive trade policy -- as an example would Canadians accept societal values from another country demanded upon us in order to accept a trade deal?

I suspect many Canadians would not.

So it is no surprise that this progressive trade approach has been rejected in NAFTA, TPP and now Chinese trade related discussions thus far. Why does the Liberal Government insist on "progressive trade" language? It has been suggested this language is more aimed for Canadians to hear back at home, for political reasons. Obviously this is also confusing for our potential trading partners.

However, I believe there is another aspect to this.

For example, the Trudeau Liberals have insisted on a national carbon tax here in Canada. In the event Canada enters into a free trade agreement with a country that does not have a national carbon tax, our producers and manufacturers would be at a competitive disadvantage. Likewise Canada has significant worker protections with social programs such as EI, CPP, parental leave, medical leave, the right to collective bargaining and more.

Other countries, particularly China, do not typically offer similar protections for workers. As many of these programs are funded in part by employers once again a competitive disadvantage would be created in a free trade agreement.

Canada already has a trade deficit with China of roughly $45 billion annually and growing. Obviously there many other concerns related to Chinese human rights and environmental policies or lack thereof. In addition, past cyber-attacks on Canadian Institutions such as the National Research Council that Communications Security Establishment Canada identified as coming from a "highly sophisticated Chinese state-sponsored actor" have yet to be reference by the Trudeau Liberals as they continue to negotiate with China behind closed doors.

My question this week: are you in support of a "Progressive Trade" deal with China?

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

In last week’s report I referenced some of the challenges single parents, particularly single moms, were facing with the Canada Revenue Agency in receiving their Canada Child Benefit (CCB) support.

Since that report I have heard of literally dozens of more cases that illustrate the severity of this problem.
 
This matters because in many cases, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), with often dubious information at best, will send out an advisory informing a single parent that their marital status has been arbitrarily changed to married or common-law.

Typically this occurs because an ex-spouse has left the marriage and has not filed a change of address; often to avoid being found as child/spousal support payments are not being made either.
 
I have heard from many single mothers, the great lengths they have gone to attempt to prove an ex-spouse is no longer living at the same address. Even in cases where a restraining order is present, the CRA may still refuse to change the status of the single parent in question. 
 
What is most troubling about this conduct from the Canadian Revenue Agency is essentially single parents are being treated as guilty. The important Canada Child Benefits are being withheld, denied or reduced until such time they can prove to the satisfaction of CRA that they are innocent. Only then do they receive the benefit to which they are entitled.

I would submit nowhere else in Canadian society would we accept a presumption of guilt to deny single parents benefits that help care for children.

Yet I have witnessed evidence that demonstrates the Canada Revenue Agency is doing precisely that and it is wrong.
 
Keep in mind - in cases where fraud can be proven and established by CRA - the agency has the ability to garnishee wages, bank accounts and other assets. I mention this as I believe Canada Revenue Agency has sufficient tools to deal with fraud.They do not need to penalize single parents and label them guilty without due process.
 
From a political standpoint, this is all part of a disturbing trend.

In the last few months, the Canada Revenue Agency has attempted to go after staff discounts, began denying significant numbers of Type 1 diabetes applicants their Disability Tax Credit and now single parents, most often single mothers, are being targeted.
 
Although the Canada Revenue Agency may not give many single parents the benefit of the doubt, I will offer the benefit of the doubt that the Trudeau Liberal Government has not sanctioned these actions.

I will also publicly pass on that the Minister of National Revenue's office has recently reached out to my office suggesting they are well aware of this problem.

However I will also state that the Minister of National Revenue must get this agency under control, or the Prime Minister is going to need to find a new Minister who can.
 
My question this week:

Do you think it is fair that Canada Revenue Agency can unilaterally change the marital status of a single parent thus potentially penalizing the Canada Child Benefits and essentially say “prove us wrong”?  

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

​
When former Prime Minister Stephen Harper first introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit program that provided direct financial benefits to parents with kids, it was heavily mocked and criticized by the Liberal Opposition at the time.

Specifically, the Liberals suggested the money that would be provided towards supporting children under this program would instead be spent by parents on “beer and popcorn”.
 
Fast forward to the present, and the Liberal Government have not only continued this program,  with changes that adds a means test, they have also significantly increased the funding. 

In the House of Commons some Liberals refer to this program as the most significant social policy innovation in a decade as many believe it has helped to reduce child poverty in Canada.
 
The Canada Child Tax Benefit has become particularly important for divorced single parents who will often receive an increase of overall monthly financial support, if their household income has been reduced as a result of a divorce.

As with all taxpayer funded financial programs, there is a need for Government to confirm eligibility for a program and to take measures to protect against fraud. In the case of the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) this typically requires an applicant to provide various forms of documentation to confirm eligibility.
 
In my view, it is a reasonable expectation to provide this documentation.

Recently I have become aware of a number of cases where the Canada Revenue Agency may also request additional documentation from a separated or divorced spouse. The challenge in these circumstances is what if a separated or divorced spouse refuses to cooperate with the Canada Revenue Agency or cannot be located?
 
Amazingly, in these situations, the benefits of some single parents are being frozen or denied.

In some extreme cases, the Canada Revenue Agency has even gone so far as to change the tax status of a divorced or separated person to “married”.  This change in tax status may result in a single parent having their monthly assistance significantly reduced and in some cases they might be determined as ineligible for the program, as it is no longer universal. In those cases, a demand is made for repayment of any CCTB benefit paid prior to the ineligibility decision.

For a single mother or father, who have been legitimately divorced or separated, this can be an extremely stressful and traumatic situation. More so if the primary cause is a former spouse, who either cannot be located or refuses to provide documentation to the Canada Revenue Agency.
 
Currently I am pursuing this matter in Ottawa as I believe these actions that sometimes occur with the Canada Revenue Agency can adversely impact affected single parents unfairly. 

As some will know, the breakdown of a relationship is not always an amicable or pleasant experience. For the Canada Revenue Agency to penalize and deny some single parents financial support for children because of the inaction of a former spouse is, in my opinion, unreasonable and unfair. 
 
My question this week relates to fairness.

Is it fair that in some situations a single parent could be denied Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) benefits due to the inaction of a former spouse to provide supporting documentation?

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

This week in Ottawa, it was revealed that Finance Minister Bill Morneau is now being investigated by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

This investigation centers around his involvement in a pension bill that may have financially benefited a company that Mr. Morneau was reported to own roughly $21 million worth of shares in.

Ottawa pundits have observed that this is the first time both a sitting Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have been under ethics investigations at the same time.
 
As is often the case when a Government is under an ethics scandal, efforts are made to “change the channel”.

Early this week the Liberal Government announced it would publicly post an online “mandate tracker” where Canadians can see the Governments progress on key initiatives. In theory this a good idea, however in execution the Liberals have come up short on this one and I will explain why.
 
The first challenge with the Liberal mandate tracker is that it is not based on the promises that the Liberals made in order to get elected. Rather the mandate tracker is based on the mandate letters to the Ministers of the Liberal Government. For example, the Liberals promised to restore Canada Post door to door delivery. However in the mandate letter to the Minister who oversees Canada Post, only a review of door to door mail delivery was requested but not a restoral of service.

As the Liberals have conducted the review of door to door mail service, they can boast they have met this commitment even though it falls short of what was actually promised during the election.
 
The other challenge I have with the mandate tracker is that the Liberal Government themselves decide how much they have actually accomplished.

In other words, it is not the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any other independent and objective department providing this information.

Ultimately I would submit this mandate tracking idea could have had more usefulness to Canadians if it was handled differently.
 
Also this week we learned the long awaited details of the Liberal Government's new peacekeeping measures. As some may recall during the election, Mr. Trudeau had suggested that Canada was out of peacekeeping business and promised an increase in Canadian peacekeeping forces.  

This promise led to a commitment from the Prime Minister before the 2016 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference in the UK, to provide up to 600 troops and 150 police for a specific deployment that was promised to be announced at a future date.
 
Today we know this 2016 commitment will be yet another promise that is not fully honoured by this Prime Minister. Instead only 200 personnel and 50 police will be provided in primarily training and transport roles. There will be no specific deployment zone despite many promises and overseas trips to explore potential peacekeeping opportunities over the past two years.
 
I am not suggesting that Canada will not continue to serve a useful role in UN peacekeeping operations with this significantly reduced commitment. My observation is that once again we see a pattern where Mr. Trudeau is pleased to make a significant announcement with a photo opportunity, as was done in the 2016, only to move the goal posts at a later date.
 
My question this week- should the Prime Minister have fully honoured his 2016 commitment to the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference?

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

​The major issue reverberating around Ottawa this week was the recent release of the 'Paradise Papers'.

For those of you unfamiliar with the 'Paradise Papers' , they are leaked documents that contain the names of individuals who have involvement in offshore accounts that in some cases are used to avoid paying domestic taxes.
 
The reason this has become a political issue in Ottawa is that one of the names on the list happens to be the Liberal Party of Canada's chief fundraiser.

This same individual accompanied the Prime Minister to an exclusive dinner at the White House during the Obama administration. This in turn raised the question why a Liberal Party fundraiser was brought to an exclusive dinner when the Liberal Government's Natural Resource Minister was left off the guest list.

To date the Prime Minister has refused to answer this question.

From my perspective I think it is important to recognize that being named on the Paradise Papers is not indicative of having done anything illegal. The real issue is, we have observed the Canada Revenue Agency attempt to tax employee discounts. At the same time the Liberal Government attempted a large tax grab against farmers and small business owners.

Meanwhile individuals of immense wealth can utilize offshore accounts and family trusts here at home with no proposed taxation change whatsoever.

In many ways this creates two tiers of taxation where the wealthiest are treated differently by this Liberal government then everyday Canadians. 

This raises a question on exactly how much potential tax revenue is lost by these types of tax policies. Officially this is known as the “tax gap”. The tax gap is the Government's potential tax revenue as opposed to the amount of tax revenue it is actually able to collect. 

In the United States this type of taxation data has been tracked and publicly disclosed for many years. 
 
As the recent release of the Paradise Papers has brought the extent of this problem to light, many have questioned what the tax gap is in Canada.

Unfortunately the Canada Revenue Agency refuses to disclose this information. In fact, there has been considerable effort in Parliament by MP's and Senators alike to obtain this information. To date, there has been no success. Considering that some estimates believe Canada’s tax gap could be as high as $47 Billion annually, this is a serious and growing concern. 
 
The Liberal Government has justified the position of the Canada Revenue Agency, arguing that Canadians tax information is confidential and as a result this aggregated data should not be publicly released. The Liberals have also pointed out they are increasing the budget for the Canada Revenue Agency for enforcement and investigation purposes.
 
My question this week: do you believe that Canada Revenue Agency should join countries such as the United States, Sweden, Australia and others in publicly disclosing the tax gap?

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

​Although the topic of the Finance Minister and his assets that were not being held in a blind trust, leaving a potential conflict of interest investigation looming remains an active one in Ottawa, it will not be the topic of this week’s report.

Instead I would like to solicit your thoughts on the pending legalization of marijuana. 
 
For those of you unfamiliar, the Liberals in the last election openly campaigned on the legalization of marijuana. I raise that point as I believe the Liberals received a democratic mandate from voters to move ahead with marijuana legalization.

The intent of my column today is not to wade into ideological discussion on this topic but rather to hear concerns that in turn can be passed on in Ottawa.
 
Some of the concerns I have heard thus far are quite varied.

From landlords I have heard that insurance will not cover rental units where marijuana is present. From potentially approved and legally licensed growers I have heard concerns that they might be illegally undercut by those selling marijuana with a higher THC content under the table tax free.

More recently I have heard concerns from food vendors that their products at a wholesale level might be contaminated with marijuana and resold as edible marijuana potentially creating a liability concern.
 
From a law enforcement standpoint I have heard that it might be difficult if not impossible to determine the point of origin to determine between legal and illegal marijuana.

Locally NDP MP Dick Cannings has raised another concern that chronic users of Marijuana may have higher THC levels in their blood that could subject a user to be subject to potentially unfair criminal charges if operating a vehicle.
 
Those who frequently cross the border have questioned what impact legal marijuana use in Canada would have on someone crossing into the United States. Local Governments have asked about who will pay for potentially higher policing costs while the Provinces will be responsible for setting policy.

At this point there are no answers to any of these concerns that have been raised but given that the Liberal Government has promised to implement legalization in eight months, the answers will need to be found relatively soon. 
 
The above is only a small sampling of concerns that I have heard and do not include comments around secondary smoke and smoking marijuana in public places. I have also heard many questions from educators on how to restrict marijuana from teenagers given scientific evidence has shown potential harm for brain development among youth if using marijuana.
 
My question this week: what concerns do you have, if any, on the legalization of marijuana?

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

This week in Ottawa began with the Finance Minister under fire for failing to place his investments into a blind trust and also refusing to disclose them in the House. As a result the Liberals made the politically wise decision to move up the fall fiscal update. Select media in Ottawa were leaked certain details suggesting that this would be a "good news" fiscal update with increased revenues and a promise to further increase the child benefit program.

In the end we learned that the "good news" was the fact that the Liberals revised deficit was going to be just under $20 billion this year.

For the Liberals, this was good news as they had thought the deficit would be even higher.

For the Opposition, this deficit is basically double the size of the modest deficits the Liberals  promised. In fact the Liberals are now on a path to add $100 Billion in debt over the next 7 years with no plan to return to balance whatsoever.

I participated in a press conference with Diabetes Canada last Sunday where it came to light that many vulnerable citizens with ‎Type 1 Diabetes are being denied the Disability Tax Credit from the Canada Revenue Agency.

This has shocked both the people applying and physicians, as many have qualified in previous years but have been rejected with no clear explanation as to what has changed.

Subsequently I have raised this in Question Period with some urgency. The Government has denied this is an official change of policy and is working on this issue. If you someone you know with type 1 diabetes is having any difficulty with CRA,  please contact my office at 1-800-665-8711 for assistance.

My question this week: Do you see tabling a budget deficit that is roughly double the size of what was promised as "good news"?

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

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

On a final note,  I would like to pass on a sincere thank you to the many citizens who responded to my previous MP reports regarding the enforcement of the Bank Act.

For those of you unfamiliar, Ottawa had announced that it intends to prohibit Credit Unions from using the terms "bank' "banking" and "banker". Many citizens have shared with me strong opposition to these heavy handed tactics that will add cost and create confusion to consumers and unfairly impact Credit Unions.

As a result this week I tabled my private member’s bill C-379 that proposes to amend the Bank Act and allow Credit Unions to continue using the terms "Bank" "Banking" and "Banker".