​Canada Day has long been one of my favourite days of the year. 

It is the one day where we, as a country, come together to celebrate all that makes us proud Canadians. 

This year will be much different.

We will not have the large community gatherings, parades, the local entertainers, the important cultural performers or the end of day fireworks. 

In our riding we have seen more and more inclusion of Indigenous First Nations in our celebrations, which has been very positive.

This year we will all find new and different ways to celebrate what it means to us to be Canadians, as we collectively honour our great nation.

Over these past few challenging months, we have recognized the many brave and courageous Canadians who loyally served us in healthcare, in seniors care, in emergency services and in essential services, often retail work environments.

All of these people are deserving of our gratitude and our appreciation and we thank them.
 
I would also like to take a moment to sincerely thank and recognize members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 

Yes the RCMP, like any organization, have challenges and certainly have bad actors. 

When these bad actors present themselves, it is vital that these institutions use due process and hold those responsible to account in a transparent way, so that public trust is upheld.

However, it is also important that we not tarnish all RCMP officers with the same brush.  

We must recognize those who bravely serve our communities and never forget the many officers that have made the supreme sacrifice, in the line of duty, for Canada. 

It is often the families of the fallen who are left to deal with their loss privately, while the public moves on.

In addition, we must not overlook that in many communities, the RCMP may be the only resource available. 

The lack of resources for mental health services should be rightfully directed to the various levels of government to rectify. 

Before I close this week’s report I would like to share a few observations.

When we see the recent spike in COVID related cases south of the border and elsewhere, it should serve as an important reminder that we must continue to be cautious and vigilant at all times.

We should also reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a country, that for many decades, has embraced universal health care.  

Our healthcare system is not perfect, but no Canadian who might feel they have COVID related health symptoms is afraid to seek out medical help for fear of being unable to afford the cost of that care. 

That is a wonderful part of being Canadian.

As we reflect on being Canadian, let us not allow hate to divide us, let us embrace a country where we can all share what makes us unique.

Happy Canada Day to one and all! 

My question this week: 

How will you celebrate Canada Day this year? 

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

​Some citizens currently receiving the CERB benefit were shocked and alarmed to receive news this week that they “will not receive a (CERB) payment when you complete your next report”. 

The reason?

“When you first applied for the CERB, you received two payments; a payment of $2,000 as well as a payment following your initial report. This $2,000 was an advance on four weeks of the CERB, which was issued in order to get money in your pocket as quickly as possible”.

The communication from the Trudeau Liberal Government than goes on to say:

“Because of this advance, you will not receive not receive a payment when you complete your next report”.

In other words, because the initial CERB payment was deemed to be an ‘advance’, it is now being fully clawed back.

For many citizens, who were completely unaware that this initial $2,000 was considered to be an advance, they are now seriously adversely impacted having had no prior warning this situation was going to occur.

According to the Liberal Government, when people submitted their first reports, they were told in advance that this would occur and how this would happen.

As the Opposition Shadow Minister with the critic portfolio for this file, I feel that it is important that we refer back to media reports on April 8 of 2020. 

In particular Global News reported the headline “Did you get 2 CERB payments? It’s not a mistake, Minister says”.

The article further quotes that:

“Treasury Board President Jean-Yves Duclos clarified during a press conference on Wednesday. The second deposit is a retroactive payment.”

For many Canadians who heard the President of the Treasury Board declare this $2000 was a “retroactive payment” and relied on that in good faith, they are shocked and confused to be told the payment was actually an “advance” and will be now clawed back.

Aside from the confusion created on part of the government, I also question the government’s logic on this.

If the intent was to “advance” funds “in order to get money in your pocket as quickly as possible”, this raises an important question.  

We can assume the intent to rush the payment was to avoid placing people into dire financial circumstances. 

So how does fully clawing back an entire CERB payment, with no advance notice, not end up putting citizens into a dire financial situation now?

All of this confusion occurred because the Liberal Government did not clarify that this was not a “retroactive payment” but rather an advance. 

The Prime Minister has had many morning appearances outside of his cottage where this could have easily been clarified.

It has not been.

This follows a trend.

For example, when the CERB program was first announced by the Minister of Employment, Ms. Qualtrough said in the House of Commons that the benefit was non-taxable.

We now know it is taxable.

Similarly, the Prime Minister provided erroneous information regarding student eligibility on the CERB program that to this day not been clarified.

All of these communication errors could result in citizens having support funds “clawed back” unexpectedly.

My question this week:

Does the Prime Minister have an obligation to correct and clarify inaccurate information that Canadians rely on? 

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

​This week the government announced that the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) will be extended by a further 8 weeks, which means the benefits will no longer end this July for the earliest applicants.

There have also been reports that the government may change some of the requirements to remain on CERB, although at this time these changes have yet to be confirmed.

Increasingly we are hearing about other reported challenges created because of the CERB.

Many employers trying to restart businesses have indicated they are often unsuccessful in bringing some employees back, who would prefer to remain on CERB.

This could be due to childcare or workplace safety issues.

In other situations, a worker may be financially penalized if they earn more than the CERB income threshold and may end up actually having less household income from working, rather than not working and just collecting CERB.

This occurs because a worker may earn up to $1,000 and still collect the full response benefit.

However any amount over $1000 and the entire CERB benefit is cut off.

For both workers and employers this makes our economic recovery even more difficult.

One possible option is to provide incentives rather than penalties for citizens getting back into the workforce.

For example, instead of clawing back the entire CERB payment if someone makes more than $1,000 a month, perhaps they could be able to keep 50 cents of the CERB payment for every dollar made from working above that threshold.

The need to modify the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit to transition the re-opening of our economy is an important one.

However, we have to remember that workers should not be forced back into the workplace until it is safe to do so.

My question this week:

Do you think the CERB benefit should be reworked and if so how is the best way to do so?

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, the House of Commons special COVID Committee has just adjourned until next week.
 
The Liberal Government was to introduce a new bill today, an omnibus bill, to propose measures and revisions to the various COVID-19 assistance response programs.
 
One of these measures was a new, one-time non taxable $600 payment (expected mid August) that would help some but not all Canadians living with a disability, as it would go to only those who have been approved for the Disability Tax Credit (DTC).
 
What became obvious early on was that due to this being an omnibus bill, some measures were not supported by all parties.
 
As an example, the NDP opposed to penalties for citizens who intentionally defrauded the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) benefit program.
 
The Bloc Québécois also had various demands, such as that the Liberal Government providing a fiscal update that, despite hundreds of billions in spending, the government has refused to account for. 
 
At one point things looked promising as the Liberal government agreed to split the omnibus bill so that a separate bill, proposing the one time $600 disability payment, could be potentially debated and passed independently.
 
However, the Liberal government wanted their legislation to pass all stages in less than a single day, while the Conservative opposition has been clamouring for the responsible return of Parliament.

One that would follow health protocols with less than 50 MP's, but would allow Parliamentarians to scrutinize the proposed bills, have a regular question period, request emergency debates and file questions on the order paper. 

Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected this proposal.
 
As the minority Liberal government only needs the support of one party to pass legislation forward, some have suggested that by refusing to make a concession to any of the three opposition parties, the Liberals engineered this failure.
 
Why would a minority government engineer a failure? 
 
Simply to present an argument to Canadians that a minority Parliament is not working and to build a case for a majority and an election.
 
I do not necessarily buy into this argument as the Liberals, by their own admission, have other means to deliver the one time disability tax credit payment through the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) without this bill by using an Information Sharing Agreement.
 
Information Sharing Agreements are regularly used by government agencies such as CRA to communicate with other federal departments on important benefits like the Canada Child Benefit, Old Age Security or the Guaranteed Income Supplement or GST credit.  
 
When the Liberals wanted to sideline regular sittings of Parliament, they were able to make a deal with the NDP to do so.

That deal, to possibly provide 10 days of paid sick leave, was largely an issue that requires Provincial governments to support if it is to occur.
 
In this case, all of the demands from the opposition parties depended on actions from the Liberal government and it would appear these demands were considered too significant to be met.
 
My question this week:

Were opposition parties correct to stick to their demands or should the Liberals have made a concession with one or more of the parties to move a split bill forward?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​When the Canadian Emergency Reponse Benefit (CERB) program was launched, Government of Canada civil servants estimated the total costs of the program would be roughly $35 Billion in this fiscal year.

However, we now know that the government is projecting the CERB to cost up to $60 billion when it wraps up later this year. 
 
We also now know that that the Trudeau Liberal Government instructed civil servants to ignore fraudulent applications.

It has been revealed that instructions were given to approve applications that did not meet the CERB guidelines that were set by the Liberal Government in the first place.

This is part of the reason why the revised total for the CERB program will be much higher than expected. 
 
These significant expenditures will come up for debate shortly, and without regular Parliament being in session, there will be only four hours of debate to scrutinize this additional spending.

This is completely unacceptable.

We need time to dig into the books and ensure that taxpayers are being respected.

Sadly, due to the Liberal government and their NDP allies, that will not happen.
 
Recognizing that CERB fraud has become a significant problem, the Liberal Government has now announced what the media reports as a “CRA snitch line”.

Using this  "snitch line", suspected fraudulent claims may be reported.

This same method will also be accepting suspected fraud reports of the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) programs.
 
Revenue Canada has confirmed it will take all necessary steps to recover any funds obtained by fraud.

The purpose of my report this week is not to criticize the government for taking these steps but rather to inform citizens of the efforts being undertaken by the government to address the problem of fraud, after the fact.
 
These are important challenges to be aware of.

These are challenges that would be important to include in debate in Ottawa.

Unfortunately, with just four hours of debate being made available, divided among all members of the House, it will be a challenge.
 
I remain of the strong view that it was a serious mistake for the NDP to support this Liberal Government in shutting down Parliament during this crisis. 
 
 My question this week.

Do you believe regular sittings of Parliament must be resumed as a priority?

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

​This has been a highly unusual time in Ottawa.

Last week the leader of the Bloc Quebecois threatened the Trudeau Liberal government.

What was the threat?

That the Bloc would not support resuming regular in-person sittings of the House of Commons unless Prime Minister Trudeau agreed to a number of Bloc demands.

Not to be outdone, the NDP also used the threat of returning to regular Parliament as a bargaining chip against Prime Minister Trudeau.

In the case of the NDP, they offered to support continuing the suspension of Parliament in exchange for the Liberal Government attempting to implement mandatory paid sick leave for employees.

As you may have heard, the Trudeau Liberal Government, desperately not wanting regular sittings of Parliament to resume, accepted the NDP terms and are currently having discussions with the provinces and territories.

The reason why there are discussions, or more likely negotiations, is because, with the exception of federally regulated workplaces, the vast majority of Canadian workers full under provincial labour legislation. 

It is deeply troubling that both the Bloc and the NDP used the resumption of regular sittings of Parliament as a bargaining chip against Prime Minister Trudeau.

While the NDP are claiming a victory for their efforts to derail regular sittings of Parliament in return for a commitment for mandatory paid sick leave, there is an inconvenient truth that the NDP is avoiding.

Had regular sessions of Parliament resumed, the NDP could have introduced mandatory sick leave as an opposition day motion, where it could be properly discussed and debated on the floor of the House of Commons.

Already during this Parliament there have been Opposition Day motions that have been passed despite the minority Liberal Government voting against them.

Not only are there no Opposition Day motions, there will also be no private member’s business as well as a loss of other Parliamentary debates and discussions.

All of this will be in effect until September 21st of this year, where the same political bargaining situation could resume.

Let's be honest, this was not a health and safety related deal between the NDP Opposition and the Liberal Government.

MP's will continue to sit in Ottawa, in person, four days a week from now until June.

The difference is, that instead of sitting in regular Parliament for those four days, MP's will instead continue to sit as part of the special COVID-19 committee.

As mentioned previously, the special COVID-19 committee meetings have limitations for opposition parties as well as for individual Members of Parliament.

I will state publicly that I am deeply disappointed in the NDP, who have denied the Official Opposition from being able to fully hold this Liberal government to account.

The job that voters sent us to do, to raise concerns on their behalf in Ottawa, is now seriously limited.

If the NDP did not want to do the job voters elected them to do, they could have remained at home in their ridings and allowed the Official Opposition to hold the Government to account.

Instead they cut a deal that diminishes our role to hold the government accountable during a critical time in Canadian history.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on this?

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

​In my report last week, I referenced media reports on public servants being directed to ignore potential cases of fraud for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB).

It had been reported that potentially “200,000 (CERB) applications have already been “red-flagged” as possibly fraudulent because of dubious claims of past employment income and other factors.”

Since my report, it's been additionally reported that even the CERB applications where applicants clearly did not meet the eligibility requirements, public servants have been instructed to ignore those facts and ensure the payments are processed regardless.

The Liberal Government’s response to these concerns has been to suggest that applications cannot be scrutinized in a timely manner and that all fraudulent claims will be clawed back.

Unfortunately, this response from the Prime Minister fails to recognize that public servants actively discovered these issues of non-compliance and in turn shared them with media organizations after having been told to ignore them. 

In other words, it is possible to have integrity screening at the same time CERB applications are being processed.

The Prime Minister has made the political decision to ignore potential cases of fraud.

Why does this matter?

For every program this government has created, it has also created an eligibility criteria.

This process often results in some people not meeting that criteria and potentially falling through the cracks.

That is why it has been important for the Government and Opposition to work together to identify these areas so they can be addressed.

Fortunately because of that work, many of these cracks have been filled.

To ignore fraud will put some Canadians into a situation where the funds they received, but were not entitled to, will be clawed back.

This could happen at a future date where they might not have these funds available.

This can result in other benefit support payments being garnisheed, creating a new level of hardship.

In the case of CERB, there are now close to 8 million people collecting this $2,000 monthly benefit.

The most recent Statistics Canada labour-force survey showed that roughly three million people had become unemployed.

It was further reported that another 2.5 million people were working less than half their normal hours because of the COVID lockdown.

This is a total of 5.5 million people who, based on the Liberal Government’s CERB eligibility criteria, would potentially be eligible for the benefit.

With close to 8 million people now collecting the CERB benefit, there is a considerable debate on why these numbers do not more closely reconcile.

Meanwhile our federal Auditor General is reported as stating that a “lack of government funding has created significant technological, cyber security and staffing issues for the office, hampering his ability to fulfill his mandate.”

The office of the Auditor General has requested additional funding of $10.8 million from the yet to be delivered 2020-21 federal budget.

My question this week:

Do you believe there is enough fiscal oversight on how your tax dollars are being spent during this pandemic?

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

​There are now currently 7.7 million Canadians collecting theCanadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) across Canada.

This CERB benefit program was one that had support of MP's from all parties in the House of Commons.

I believe that most Canadians would agree with the importance of a financial assistance program to assist citizens during an unprecedented economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 virus pandemic.

At the same time, I also believe that Canadians would expect the government to distribute these funds with integrity and in a manner that is respectful of your tax dollars.

Unfortunately this week we learned that may not be the case.

Both the CBC, and in greater detail, the National Post have reported some alarming news.

To quote from the National Post:

“A memo told employees not to halt payment or trigger investigations for potential abuse, while department has suspended 'compliance and enforcement' of EI program”

It has been further reported that potentially “200,000 (CERB) applications have already been “red-flagged” as possibly fraudulent because of dubious claims of past employment income and other factors.”

And now we learn that federal civil servants have been instructed to ignore CERB applications they consider potentially fraudulent.

I had the opportunity to directly ask the Prime Minister during a recent virtual Parliament session if he or any of his Ministers had signed off on this disturbing memo that instructs civil servants to ignore potential cases of fraud.

Despite asking several times, the Prime Minister refused to directly answer my questions, if he or any Minister signed off on this policy.

The Prime Minister will only state “In this unprecedented situation, our focus has been on helping as many people as possible, as quickly as possible,”.

While I suspect no one will dispute the desire to assist those in need, the question remains, did the Prime Minister or one of his Ministers direct civil servants to ignore fraud?

This is potentially $400 million per month in fraudulent CERB payments.

The Prime Minister stated that, at some point in the future, his government will clean up fraudulent claims "after the fact”  but then who authorized this policy to ignore fraud as it happens?

The PM only now declaring his government will clean up after the fact, once the possible fraud has been leaked by civil servants, raises serious and troubling questions on how this government spends your tax dollars.

My question this week:

Is there ever a time where you believe a government should intentionally ignore potential fraud when it comes to a taxpayer financed program?

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

​I do not normally issue a “spoiler alert” in my weekly reports however this week I will focus on the recently announced semi-automatic rifle ban from the Prime Minister.

For those with no interest in this subject, this report may be of little value to you.

Aside from strong personal opinions on this recent announcement, I have also been hearing some confusion and misunderstanding that I will attempt to clarify.
 
From a misunderstanding perspective, many citizens have correctly pointed out that military assault rifles in Canada have long been illegal. 
 
It has been suggested by many that the Liberal Government is intentionally attempting to mischaracterize certain semi-automatic rifles, selected for this ban, as being “military grade” or “assault style” and using other terms that have no legal definition in Canada. 
 
This is true, many of the terms used to describe the rifles chosen for this ban do not exist within the Canada Firearms Act.
 
Another point of confusion has been the headline:

“Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms”.

While I have already referenced the misleading “assault style” term that does not exist within the Firearms Act, the number “1,500 firearms” has also led to confusion.
 
There is essentially eleven different types of semi-automatic rifles that have been arbitrarily selected for this ban. 

Because these eleven types of rifles are manufactured by several different manufacturers, and in multiple different configurations, there are potentially 1,500 different variations of these core eleven rifle designs affected by this ban.
 
As for why these eleven rifle designs were selected by Prime Minister Trudeau, the PM has stated: 
 
"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."
 
CBC has also reported that the PM has “acknowledged that most firearms owners are law-abiding citizens, he said hunters don't need this sort of firepower.”
 
The last statement reported from CBC is of interest.

The semi-automatic rifle ban is not being done through a bill nor being debated and voted on in Parliament.

Instead the PM has decided to carry out this ban through an executive regulation change, known as an 'Order In Council'.
 
Having now read this particular order, buried at the bottom is this sentence: 

“Recognizing that some Indigenous and sustenance hunters could be using previously non-restricted firearms for their hunting and may be unable to replace these firearms immediately, the Amnesty Order includes provisions for the limited use of these firearms for such purposes.”
 
This statement clearly acknowledges that in actual fact, these rifles are used for hunting and provides an amnesty to allow Aboriginal hunters to continue to use them accordingly. 
 
The Liberal Government has yet to explain this contradiction.
 
The rifle ban also proposes a “buy back” plan where owners of these restricted rifles will, at some point in the future, be able to receive financial compensation for “selling” these rifles to the government at a currently unknown rate.

There is also a two-year amnesty for owners of these restricted rifles, while the government determines future steps on how the buy-back will work.
 
From my perspective, this issue should come before Parliament where it can be studied at committee stage.

Committee stage review is a critically important part of a bill’s progress, where experts and other affected groups can provide evidence on the proposed piece of legislation. 
 
Ultimately evidence can lead to amendments and that is how legislation can be improved to better serve Canadians.

It also allows democratically elected MP's the opportunity to vote on such a bill, so citizens can hold us to account.
 
As it currently stands, this Order in Council allows none of these things to occur and that is not how our Parliament should deal with this topic, in a transparent and democratically accountable manner.
 
My question this week:

Do you agree?

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

​Normally, at this time of year, I would be referencing the April 30  deadline to file your personal income tax.

Instead I will be outlining the changes that have been made to the income tax filing deadline.

As part of the federal government COVID-19 response effort, the filing deadline has been extended to individuals to June 1st of 2020. 

This change applies to all Canadians who file an individual tax return with the Canadian Revenue Agency.

If you owe taxes for the 2019 taxation year the payment deadline has also been extended to September 1st of 2020.

For self-employed individuals the filing deadline remains unchanged at June 15, of 2020.

It should also be pointed out that if you are expecting an income tax refund or to qualify for other benefits, such as the GST/HST credit or the Canada Child Benefit, the earlier you can file your return the less likely you are to encounter a delay in receiving these benefits.

There is also now more information available for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program. 

This program details indicate that It offers “forgivable loans to eligible commercial property owners so that they can reduce the rent owed by their impacted small business tenants by at least 75% for the months of April, May and June, 2020.”

At the moment to qualify a commercial property owner (landlord) must meet the following criteria:

• own property that generates rental revenue from commercial real property located in Canada.

• the rental property in question must have a mortgage secured by the commercial real property, occupied by one or more small business tenants.

• The landlord must have entered or will enter into a rent reduction agreement for the period of April, May, and June 2020, that will reduce impacted small business tenant’s rent by at least 75%.

• The rent reduction agreement with your tenants must include a moratorium on eviction for the period of April, May and June 2020.

​• And finally a commercial landlord must have declared rental income on their tax return (personal or corporate) for tax years 2018 and/or 2019.

The initial feedback I have heard from commercial landlords has not been positive. 

Landlords who do not have a mortgage cannot, at the present time, apply for this program.

Another common complaint is that the program forces a landlord to undertake a loan with no guarantees or recourse if a tenant defaults.

If anything by agreeing to a non-eviction clause for three months, a landlord could be faced with even higher costs from participating in this program.

From the angle of a small business tenant, if the landlord does not qualify for this program or refuses to apply because of the poorly designed terms,  they will receive no assistance whatsoever.

In my view, this program fails to achieve the intended goals to help small and mid-sized business with a meaningful rent reduction and I am hopeful that the federal government will make further changes to fine tune this program.

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. 

This week, not unlike last week, and the week before, the Government has announced another “Emergency Assistance” program.

This latest program is the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) and is intended to provide supports for those students who do not qualify for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB).

The formal details of this new program have not yet been released, and will require legislation, however the general guidelines of the program are as follows: 

Eligibility for this CESB program is said to apply to “post-secondary (college and university) students who are currently in school, are planning to start school in September 2020, or graduated from school in December 2019, if they have lost work or cannot find work due to the pandemic.”

It is also open to working students “earning less than $1,000 per month who also able to apply for the benefit if their hours have been cut due to COVID-19.”

This benefit will provide monthly support payments of $1,250 from May 1st until August of 2020. 

This amount can be increased to $1,750 monthly for those students who are caring for someone with a disability.

There will also be other measures ranging from increased student grants and financial assistance to enhanced scholarships and other initiatives. 

As this program will require an in person sitting of Parliament to be implemented, the exact details will become further defined. 

In my view this new program will definitely be of benefit for many students who clearly did not qualify for the CERB program and had fallen through the cracks.

The reason why I referenced “clearly” in the context of not qualifying for the CERB program is for good reason. 

Some students have expressed both confusion and even frustration trying to determine if they are eligible for the CERB benefit or not.

The confusion is related to recent comments the Prime Minister made in the House of Commons in Question Period stating that: “students who had a job last summer or who worked during the school year are eligible for the CERB if they earned over $5,000. Many students are eligible.”

In fact, the actual legislation has additional requirements including, that aside from earning over $5,000, the benefit Q&A specifically states “If you are a student who had a job last year and were planning on working this summer you do not qualify for the benefit”.

As the Opposition, we continue to push the Liberal Government for clarification on this as many students, based on hearing the Prime Minister’s comments, applied for the CERB benefit in good faith. 

Unfortunately, as the Liberal Government, BLOC, NDP and Green Party all voted to have only one question period per week, there are fewer opportunities to raise important issues like this one in Parliament.

At this point in time a virtual Parliament has been reported by the non partisan Clerk of the House of Commons as not feasible at this time. 

By comparison the British Parliament will sit with reduced numbers for three days a week, along with virtual option for those not in person.

My question this week relates to the House of Commons: 

Do you support the decision for the House to sit with reduced numbers only one day per week?

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

In many ways the ongoing responses coming out of Ottawa resembles the movie “Groundhog Day”.

In this case, the Government makes a major program announcement only to be followed one week later by another announcement that is often significantly different from what was announced the week previously.

For example, in my March 18th report I referenced the newly announced the “Emergency Care Benefit” program and the “Emergency Support Benefit Programs” and shared details of these initiatives.

By my March 25th report, both of these support programs had essentially been cancelled with the creation of new “Canadian Emergency Response Benefit Program(CERB)”

There has been a similar pattern for small and mid-sized business where at first a 10% wage subsidy was announced and was said to sufficient. 

Two weeks later a new wage subsidy program was announced that provided benefits of 75% of wages, provided losses could be established from this time of year one year ago.

Last week, this was again changed to reflect losses occurring since January 1st of this year. 

Currently the biggest challenge of the wage subsidy program is that benefits expect to be a minimum of 6 weeks away. 

Many businesses have stated is too long for them to survive.

This week, the Government announced new eligibility criteria for the CERB benefit program. 

A summary of the key changes in eligibility are as follows:

• Those who earn wages but earn less $1000/month will become eligible to apply for CERB.
• Those expecting a seasonal job that no longer exists will be able apply for CERB.
• Those who have run out of EI after January 1, 2020 will be eligible to receive further support.

Unfortunately, when I and other members asked for when these changes will take effect, the Minister responsible said the timeline for changes is unclear. 

Some changes may come faster as they only require a regulatory change. 

Others may require a legislative change and require Parliament’s approval which can take longer. 

Virtually every one of the changes and re-announcements that have occurred over the past month has been made because

Ottawa has, at first, vastly underestimated the significance of need that exists in our communities.
In short these programs as announced, failed to do what was required.

Too many Canadians in need were falling through the cracks.

As the Opposition, all parties have raised these serious concerns and in my view the Government has been listening to these concerns.

There are still cracks remaining and citizens in need that require assistance that they currently still do not qualify for.

However, with the Government and Opposition working together on a “Team Canada” approach I believe, with the CERB eligibility expansion announced this week, this list is getting smaller and we will continue to ensure this progress continues.

My question to you.

Are you satisfied with the work the Government and Opposition are doing in Ottawa on your behalf?

​I can be reached via email at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca  or by phone at 1-800-668-8711.

​This week, after some delay, the Finance Minister announced more information on the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) program and will require the recall of Parliament before it can be implemented.

The CEWS program is intended to provide financial assistance to Canada’s business community who are in many cases are facing significant economic losses as a result of the COVID-19 virus.

The CEWS will subsidize wages of workers at a rate of 75% of the first $58,700 earned by employees, representing a benefit of up to $847 per week.

This program would be in place for a 12-week period, from March 15 to June 6, 2020.

In order to qualify, an employer must “suffer a drop in gross revenues of at least 30 per cent in March, April or May, when compared to the same month in 2019”to access the subsidy. 

For any new business created after this time frame, at the moment, that business does not qualif, although details may change.

There is no limit to the size of the employer who is eligible and non-profit organizations will also qualify.

Only public sector employers will not qualify.

Any eligible employer accessing this wage subsidy will have it based on the actual wages paid to employees.

Although employers are expected to demonstrate they will attempt to pay the remaining 25% of the wages, it is not required to access the program.

It is unclear how the government will define an attempt to pay the 25% wage top up.

For those that qualify for the CEWS, and make application for the program, it is expected that there will be a 6 week delay before the subsidy will actually be available.

The application process for CEWS is also currently unavailable at this time.

My thoughts? 

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) has stated that for some business with small margins, there could be a massive loss of jobs without ever reaching the loss of 30% of gross revenue- a fair point.

From my perspective I am concerned that new businesses, of which we have many in our region, do not at present qualify for the program.

This is something I am hopeful will change.

The 6 week timeframe is also a challenge given that all public information indicates our current public health restrictions are not expected to change over the next 6 weeks.

This means that many businesses will lack the cash flow to hire staff and take advantage of this program.

My remaining concern is that the businesses who are most able to wait the 6 weeks, and are minimally impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, and  can take advantage of this program, are not necessarily the businesses who most need the assistance.

My question this week:

Do you think the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy will provide the support for those business most in need?

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

It has been seven days since my report last week on the subject of the COVID-19 virus. 

Since that time the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded the spread of the outbreak, from declaring a public health emergency last week, to now declaring the virus to be a pandemic. 

What does a pandemic virus mean?

A new virus is often described in following three different ways. 

‘Outbreak’ which is summarized as an unusual but small virus. 

‘Epidemic’ where the virus is growing larger and is spreading. 

The term ‘Pandemic’ applies where the virus has worldwide impacts and is considered out of control.

In terms of numbers, last week there were 33 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 20 in Ontario, 12 in British Columbia and one in Quebec. 

As of today there are now confirmed 93 cases with 36 in Ontario, 39 in British Columbia, 4 in Quebec and 14 in Alberta. 

There has also been the first COVID-19 related death confirmed in a North Vancouver care home. 

Some more positive news, of the 36 confirmed cases in Ontario, five have now recovered.

From a global perspective, last week’s numbers showed that the virus had infected close to 90,000 people in 60 countries and killed more than 3,000 people.

As of this week, there have now been nearly 120,000 people in 115 countries infected and more than 4,000 people have died as a result of the virus.

Fortunately it has also been stated that more than 60,000 people have recovered.

What has been the response of the Federal Government? 

The Prime Minister recently announced $1 billion in funding related to the COVID-19 virus. 

The majority of the funding will be distributed as follows: 

$500 million to Provinces and Territories, $275 Million in research, $100 million in additional public health response, including funding for Indigenous Services Canada and $50 million in international aide.

The remaining funds will be spent in areas such as communications and public education, personal protective equipment, repatriation of Canadians, work sharing and changes to the EI sickness benefits program, intended to waive the usual one week waiting period to obtain EI sickness benefits. 

There is also a government general information line at 1-833-784-4397 for Canadians who have any immediate questions about COVID-19.

For clarification purposes, here some measures that other countries are undertaking to further contain the virus that are not being taken in Canada.

Measures such as, vigorous screening processes upon entry, mandatory quarantine for those who do enter from high risk countries or potentially stopping incoming and outgoing flights from high risk areas.

I mention that as there has been some confusion as to what screening efforts exist, or in this case do not exist, here in Canada relative to other countries.

My question this week:

Do you think the Federal Government is doing enough to help prevent the spread of COVID–19 in Canada?

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

​

​Although the House of Commons is not sitting this week, the Prime Minister announced that he is assembling a “COVID-19” Cabinet Committee to help co-ordinate the response of the federal government to this emerging health threat.

If you are unaware, “COVID 19” is the official name that the World Health Organization (WHO) has used to define the novel coronavirus outbreak, which has also been declared as a public health emergency.

Here in Canada, there have been 33 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 20 in Ontario, 12 in British Columbia and one in Quebec. 

South of the border, in Washington State, there have been 28 confirmed cases and 9 deaths reported as a result of the COVID-19 virus, at the time of writing my weekly report. 

New cases are also being reported in states like California as well as New York.

To date the virus has infected close to 90,000 people in 60 countries and killed more than 3,000 people, the majority in China. 

Our Canadian Chief Public Health Officer has acknowledged that Canada may not be able to contain and limit the virus if it continues to spread around the world. 

There is also a government general information line at 1-833-784-4397, for Canadians who have any immediate questions about COVID-19.

In response to the economic impact from the virus outbreak, the Bank of Canada announced it is cutting the key interest rate by half a percentage point, lowering it to 1.25%.

Last week federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu warned people should consider stockpiling enough food and medicine in case of a potential outbreak of the COVID-19.

Many criticized this warning, suggesting it was unnecessary given the low chance of infection here in Canada.

The public health officer has also stated that governments, businesses and individuals should prepare for an outbreak or pandemic.  

As a result, provincial health officials are actively monitoring for COVID-19 cases in communities across Canada.

Our public health officer has also asked that travellers arriving from Iran to self-isolate for two weeks to help prevent potential infections.  

In turn Global Affairs Canada is currently advising citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Iran, Northern Italy, and to exercise a high degree of caution if travelling to Japan.

Locally, the Interior Health Authority has confirmed one case of COVID-19 has occurred somewhere within the Interior Health region but refuses to reveal the area where that case has been confirmed.

On this point, I have heard some concerns expressed from the public that it should be possible to reveal the location of the community in question without releasing the name of the patient.

My question this week: 

Do you feel that you have the right to know if a COVID-19 infection has been confirmed within your community?

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

​One of the challenges, with so many different events occurring in Ottawa, is that some become overlooked.

This occurred last week as the 3rd party opposition Bloc Québécois had their first Opposition Day in the House and tabled the following motion:

Mr. Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly): “That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.”

After debate on this motion was complete a vote was held with the Bloc, Conservative and NDP voting in favour of the motion passing with the governing Liberals opposed.

In the last parliament, this opposition motion would have been defeated however in this minority parliament, the motion passed.

Prior to this motion passing, the maximum time for the special employment benefit on EI was limited to 15 weeks, a limit that has been in place since 1971.

Unfortunately, how many Canadians might benefit from this change is unknown as the motion was not studied by committee prior to being submitted by the Bloc, as would have been the case with a bill.

This is one of the challenges in a minority parliament where a motion can be established politically and passed very quickly, potentially without sufficient scrutiny. 

In this case, EI is a program funded by contributions from both workers and their employers.

This represents an extension of an existing EI benefit that could be of significant financial assistance to a person facing one of life’s greatest heath challenges.

In certain cases, it very well be the only time some workers might access the EI benefits they have long paid into.

As a result, I supported this motion although I did state some reservations for the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny. 

My question this week:

Do you agree with the motion to extend “the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.”

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

In Ottawa, the issue drawing the most debate are the illegal blockades in several areas around Canada, relating to the approval of the $6-billion, 670 kilometre proposed Coastal GasLink Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) pipeline.

The opposition of this pipeline project is by five Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and their supporters, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who believe this project should not proceed without the consent of the five Chiefs' in question.

On the other side of this proposed LNG project are the supporters.

In this case, all twenty First Nations along the route, represented by democratically elected Chiefs' & Councils', have signed letters of support for the project.

These letters of support provide financial, employment and training benefits estimated at close to $1 billion to the aboriginal communities along the 670 km pipeline route.

The debate has been focussed largely on the Prime Minister’s lack of any announced plan on how to deal with the blockades that could soon threaten both our economy and public safety.

Aside from economic interests, chemicals to treat domestic water systems, to de-ice planes so they can fly safely, in addition to propane to heat homes, food, as well as oil and gas, all depend on rail transport to reach Canadian destinations.

So where does the Liberal Government stand?

Does it stand with the will of democratically elected Chiefs' and Councils' who represent the majority of aboriginals in this region who support this LNG project and the much needed benefits?

Or does the Liberal Government stand with the minority of those who oppose this project, in many cases the same interests and activists who frequently oppose Canadian energy projects?

For many this is a complex issue that requires differing interpretations and definitions of the role of unelected Hereditary Chiefs as opposed to democratically elected Chiefs and band councils.

Many point out the need for full reconciliation as a solution while others suggest the Indian Act needs to be abolished.

The Prime Minister has stated that “more dialogue” and “patience” is the solution.

From my perspective I feel it must be pointed out that in no democratic system of governance is there ever 100% agreement on any issue.

I would submit that different perspectives and differing solutions that can be meaningfully debated is part of a healthy democracy.

However in this situation I am greatly concerned.

It would seem that some believe that having all 20 different First Nations’ communities along the route signing letters of support for this LNG project by democratically elected band council's is not enough.

The activists and protestors seem to suggest that the five Hereditary Chiefs' in opposition must also fully support this project or it should be cancelled.

In other words there is an expectation for 100% agreement.

This is a threshold that I believe very few, if any, healthy democratic societies could ever hope to achieve. 

First Nations are very diverse and it is completely understandable that some will support projects they believe are in the best interests of their community.

It is also understandable that others will oppose certain projects. 

This is not unlike what we see with many B.C. municipalities who frequently take different positions on a variety of topics. 

Listening to former Chiefs, such as former Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross, I believe democratically elected Chiefs' and Councils' who support projects that can help lift their communities out of poverty must be respected by the democratic will of the community.

​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.

The House of Commons is adjourned this week to allow for MPs to be back home in our ridings where we can meet with local citizens and other groups and organizations. 

The opportunity to hear concerns and challenges citizens have with our federal government is critically important to the work that we do as Members of Parliament.

This week I am hearing many concerns over the protests that occurred at the BC legislature over opposition to the construction of the Coastal GasLink LNG pipeline.

I have also heard concerns over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project now that reports recently stated construction costs of the pipeline expansion are expected to cost $12.6 billion. A significant increase from the previous $7.4 Billion amount the was announced by PM Trudeau when his Liberal government decided to purchase the pipeline.

There is also another energy related project that I suspect will soon become more well known. 

The Teck Frontier oil sands mine project potentially located north of Fort MacKay, AB is currently awaiting a federal approval from the Trudeau Liberal cabinet.

So what is the Teck Frontier project? 

It is a $20.6-billion project that will create roughly 7,000 jobs during construction and generate $12 billion in tax revenues for Ottawa and $55 billion in tax and royalty revenues for Alberta over its 41-year life. 

The project has spent a decade in various stages of licensing and reviews and has been given conditional approval from the joint federal-provincial review panel who declared the project to be in the public interest.

However, that environmental review process works differently then the process that exists today.

Opponents of the projects point out that the mine will generate an estimated 4.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

There are also concerns related to wetlands, forest impact, wildlife as well Indigenous groups who support or oppose the project to name a few.


If the Trudeau Liberal Government approves the project, opponents question how the Prime Minister can meet his promise that Canada will be net zero on GHG emissions by 2050.

If the project is rejected by the Liberal cabinet, supporters of the project believe serious harm will occur with the relationship between Alberta and the Federal Government that could threaten national unity.

While some dismiss these concerns, it should also be recognized that major GHG emitting projects have not been treated equally by this Liberal Government across Canada. 

One example in Quebec is a cement factory that was given an exemption from an environmental review.

This cement factory will emit between 1.8 and 2.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year and will be the largest GHG emitter in the entire province of Quebec.

Another example is from New Brunswick, where the Trudeau Liberal Government gave a 95% carbon tax exemption from dirty coal power.

The Belledune power plant, which burns a combination of coal and petroleum coke, emits up to 2.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses annually and was the second largest source of greenhouse gases in Atlantic Canada for 2016.

At that same time the largest emission generator in Atlantic Canada was the Irving Oil Ltd. refinery in Saint John. It is well known that refinery frequently receives oil offshore via tanker from countries who have no carbon taxes and little, if any, environmental policies
 
My question this week, do you think Canadian energy projects should be treated on an equal basis?

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

​It is interesting to note that this minority Parliament is the 14th minority in Canadian history.

Many of Canada’s previous minority governments have lasted anywhere from one to two years, although some longer.

One reason why minority governments tend not to last relates to the efforts of the minority Government to attempt to form a majority.

Why a majority? 

Having a majority is how a Government can fully implement its agenda.

In recent times majority governments typically see 75% - 80% of all legislation put forward being passed.

Often this requires parliamentary tactics such as “time allocation” or “closure” to achieve this, however these are also legitimate Parliamentary procedures.

In minority government the success rate for passed legislation is much lower. 

National Post columnist John Ivison recently observed that former Harper minority governments averaged under 50%.

To date, there have not been any Government bills defeated in our Parliament, however the Government did lose two opposition day motions. 

One motion was to create the Canada/China review committee and most recently a motion to call on the Auditor General to review the Liberal Government's infrastructure spending plan in an effort to find out why there are delays in projects getting built.

On the subject of Government bills introduced to date, I will give the Liberal government some credit for introducing legislation likely to get passed. There have been just five Government bills introduced. Two of these are operating bills such as appropriations and oaths of office.

Bill C-4, the “Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act”, and most recently Bill C-5 “An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code”.that parallels a former Private Member’s Bill from retired Conservative MP and interim Leader Rona Ambrose that calls for mandatory training for judges to help provide greater understanding for the impact of sexual assaults on victims.

The final one is Bill C-3, “An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, that proposes to create independent public complaints and review commission (PCRC) that will be merged with the current RCMP independent civilian review and complaints commission(CRCC).

The intent of the PCRC is to provide independent civilian review of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA).

While it is unclear if this proposed legislation will be successful, I believe that the intent to increase public accountability at the CBSA is a long overdue and needed measure. 

My question this week is, do you agree with Bill C-3 to create a merged independent civilian based review commission for the RCMP and CBSA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week’s motion is summarized as:

“That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer posted on March 15, 2018, that “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan” and that the “PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist”, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government’s Investing in Canada Plan”

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

I would submit it is critically important for many reasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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