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

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

What was announced?

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

What is on the current list?

The following plastic items:

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

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

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

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

This creates a challenge for the government with the classification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

I delayed writing this week’s report slightly in order to share my thoughts on the Liberal Government’s throne speech that was announced Wednesday. 

Afterwards the Prime Minister was scheduled to address Canadians on television and my report this week was written prior to that television event occurring.

For those unfamiliar with what a throne speech is, here is the definition from the House of Commons:

“The Speech from the Throne usually sets forth in some detail the government’s view of the condition of the country and provides an indication of what legislation it intends to bring forward.”

The challenge with today’s throne speech is that it takes many previous promises made by Prime Minister Trudeau, that ultimately became broken promises, only to be promised yet again.

I will give some specific examples of this.

In this throne speech the PM promises “the Government will immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada’s 2030 climate goal.”

This government has for, five years now, been making this promise and yet GHG emissions only continue to rise.

Once again a promise is made that does not reconcile with previous Trudeau Liberal policy decisions, that include giving a 95.5% carbon tax discount on coal power in New Brunswick.

Another promise is “the Government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and ambitions of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet.”

The Liberals have also been making this promise for five years now and there are still many areas of Central-Okanagan-Similkameen Nicola that do not even have a wireless cellular signal let alone high speed internet.

​There has been literally no progress in these areas.

Some will recall during the election last year, the Prime Minister promised a twenty five percent reduction on cellular phone bills.

Another lofty, but to date, unfulfilled promise.

These are a few examples of promises made from Prime Minister Trudeau.

Why am I critical of this?

To use an analogy, a session of Parliament is not unlike a dinner plate.

There is only so much room to load up on food.

If far too much food is loaded onto the plate, only so much can be eaten, and the rest is thrown away.

If you have ever been served an overloaded plate of food, odds are you will pick and prioritize the items your prefer and invariably decide what items are left behind.

This is why prioritizing is critically important when a government sets its legislative agenda to get bills through the house.

At Trudeau’s cabinet table are many of the same individuals who failed to deliver on these very same promises over the past five years when this Liberal government enjoyed a majority.

To repackage many of these same, now broken, promises and add news ones is simply not credible, given the track record of this Liberal government. 

What falls off the table remains to be seen.

My question this week:

Do you prefer a throne speech that realistically advances an agenda that can potentially move through the House or the current Liberal government approach that, while ambitious, will, as history demonstrates, result in more broken promises.

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

​My apologies in advance, my report for this week may not be of interest to many of you.

If you do not operate a VHF radio, most often found in marine applications, chances are this report will be of little concern.

For those who do operate a VHF radio you will no doubt be well aware that for many decades now, Environment Canada has broadcast active weather reports to VHF radio users 24/7 365 days a year.

These reports can all include severe weather warnings including small craft advisories.

Here in the Okanagan region, there are transmitters that ensure Penticton, Summerland, Lake Country, Vernon, Peachland, Kelowna, Lumby and Douglas Lake can receive these VHF radio reports.

This service is also provided across Canada via 230 Weather Radio Canada transmitters.

Currently Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is soliciting feedback on the possible decommissioning of 48 of these 230  transmitters.

The entire Okanagan VHF weather transmitter network is on the list of the potential 48 to be decommissioned, meaning this service would no longer be available in our region.

Other regions in B.C. potentially losing the same VHF weather service include Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley region along with the Kamloops area and will also affect people in Logan Lake.

Obviously much of this weather information can also be obtained through a smart phone, however it should be noted that there are still many areas in our region that do not have a wireless signal available.

I am told this is also a concern for outdoor enthusiasts who use this VHF weather information when engaging in back country activities. 

Currently this potential decommissioning proposal is one that Environment Canada is seeking input on.

For those impacted by this potential policy, you can contact Environment Canada directly by email at ec.radio.ec@canada.ca or by phone 1-877-789-7733.

My question this week:

 Are you concerned over the potential loss of VHF active weather service in the interior of B.C.?

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

​This week the new Official Opposition leader, the Honourable Erin O’Toole, announced his appointments to serve as his shadow cabinet critics.
 
I have been honoured to be named as the Shadow Minister for Environment & Climate Change.

This new role is of great interest to me as it relates well to our region in Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.
 
As we all know, living in the Okanagan region over the past decade, we have all witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts of flooding as our climate changes.
 
The “once in 200 year” flood has come and gone twice in recent years.

It is not uncommon to see temperature records being broken on any given day. 
 
The added heat and tinder dry forests can create wildfires of a size and scope rarely before seen.
 
These conditions, as we are again experiencing this week, can become so severe that air quality is seriously compromised.
 
However we also have other important challenges to be aware of.

We know that in many regions of Canada there are vulnerable species are at risk.

Here in B.C., the Mountain Caribou is a prime example of this.
 
We are also very aware of the ongoing threat of aquatic invasive species to our freshwater lakes, particularly here in the Okanagan, remains a serious problem, from freshwater Zebra and Quagga mussels.
 
All of these challenges require federal leadership as well as partnerships with provincial and local governments including First Nation communities.
 
I am looking forward to working with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, who is also from British Columbia.
 
My intent is to focus more on areas where we can agree and to spend less time debating areas of disagreement.
 
I believe that Canadians expect us to get to work to produce results.

All to often results in this area get lost in endless debate and lofty promises. 
 
I look forward to this new challenge and working with our great team of talented and hardworking MP's in Ottawa.
 
My question this week:

From your own views on the environment and climate change, what are your top concerns?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​In my November 2018 MP report, I focused on newly discovered revelations that Statistics Canada was “demanding access to certain Canadians personal financial and banking information, including all transactions along with bank account balances without citizens’ consent or even notification that this is going on”.

At that time, I raised this issue in the House of Commons and no surprise, Prime Minister Trudeau fully supported this effort by a government agency to take your personal financial information without your consent or even knowledge.

Later, at the Industry Committee, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada admitted that he had not been made aware of this program nor had he signed off on it, as is required under legislation.

After the Privacy Commissioner announced that he would launch a formal investigation into these proposed actions from Statistics Canada, the project was put on hold.

Why do I mention this incident today?

Earlier this week, Blacklock’s Reporter in Ottawa found a Canada Revenue Agency, Labour Board hearing disclosure, that "admits criminals infiltrated its (CRA) databases.

A CRA employee became "romantically involved with a biker gang member and used her access to give the gang personal information about their debtors & their lawyers.”

This information is not likely to impact the average Canadian.

I raise it because it reveals the extent that your personal information, within various departments at the Government of Canada, is not as secure as it should be.

It was also announced: “A proposed class action has been filed against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), accusing both the agency and the federal government of negligence and breach of privacy over the recent data breach incidents”. 

This lawsuit alleges that “several failings by the government and the CRA allowed at least three cyber attacks to take place”.

In turn this theft of personal identification can result in fraudulent CERB applications being made, that can adversely impact the citizens who had their personal data stolen.

What greatly troubles me is that the Prime Minister has essentially been silent on this.

There has been no ministerial accountability. 

In effect the PM and his cabinet effectively shrug this off and expect Canadians to accept this.

I have two questions this week:

Do you believe there should be ministerial accountability from the Prime Minister when your personal information is compromised?

Do you believe that someone should be held accountable?

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

​I am writing this week’s report from Ottawa as this is the week the House of Commons special COVID-19 Committee was scheduled to sit and we would have the opportunity to hold the Government to account.

Unfortunately, despite promising that he would not prorogue the House of Commons, Prime Minister Trudeau did precisely that and this week's sitting was adjourned.

Worse is the fact that the house does not sit again until the end of September.

Why is this a problem?

Last week the Prime Minister announced that the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) would be coming to an end in September and that the regular EI system along with three new benefits.

For instance, for those currently on CERB that are not EI eligible and cannot find work, they could apply for a $400/week benefit, or $500/ week if they have dependents.

While these new benefits must be debated and approved before they can be delivered, the government’s estimates these changes will cost Canadian taxpayers $37 billion.

Despite this announcement, there are still many unanswered questions.  

One example is many new and expecting parents have been sidelined by COVID-19 and unable to access parental leave.

This has left many without any parental supports during the pandemic.

Despite Parliament passing legislation that would allow this issue to be fixed by the Minister responsible, it has taken months of questioning by opposition members like myself, with government promising but yet failing to fix the problem.

Now, as part of this announcement, those seeking parental leave will only need 120 insurable hours instead of 600 hours- which should take effect at the end of September.

While the government has said this will be retroactive, this change comes very late.

There are also questions raised about new eligibility requirements.

In the case of an individual who only works full time for 3 weeks and accumulates 120 hours, they could potentially be eligible for 6 and ½ months of EI under one of the new programs.

How sustainable this is, in relation to the current EI premiums paid by workers, is an unanswered but important question.

In fact, as the Opposition shadow critic for this portfolio, I have repeatedly asked for the status of the EI account, however the Minister responsible refuses to provide an answer.

This is deeply concerning as the EI account belongs to workers.

There is no reason for the Minister to refuse to tell Canadians workers, who pay EI premiums, what the status of the EI account is.

It has generally been my experience that when this Liberal Government refuses to disclose information it is because that information often does not reflect well on the government’s management of your money.

This leads to my question this week: 

Do you believe it is acceptable for this Liberal Government to refuse to publicly post the current status of Canada’s EI account?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​As you may have heard this week the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue the House of Commons.

What does this mean? 

Prorogation is a parliamentary procedure where the current session of Parliament is ended.

This is done by a proclamation of the Governor General, at the request of the Prime Minister.

What happens next? 

The PM announced the date that the second session of the 43rd Parliament will begin is set for Wednesday, September 23rd.

There will be a throne speech, as is the custom of a new session of Parliament, and ultimately a confidence vote following that throne speech. In a minority Parliament that could potentially result in an election. 

Why request prorogation? 

Although there can be a variety of different reasons, the most common is for the government to outline a new or different direction.

Certainly, that is what Prime Minister Trudeau has indicated in this case.

While it makes sense that the government would want to outline a new direction in a throne speech, there is one other serious consideration that cannot be ignored.

With the exception of a one day sitting of the COVID Committee next Wednesday August 26th, the House of Commons was already adjourned until Monday, September 21st.

So why prorogue the House of Commons when it is already adjourned? 

The answer is the fact that several parliamentary committees were sitting and hearing evidence on the details that resulted in WE Charity foundation receiving a sole-sourced contract in excess of $500 Million.

Having read much of the evidence from these meetings, a clear pattern was emerging where details from witnesses would directly contradict what the Prime Minister had previously and publicly stated on the record.

As one example, the PM stated that when he first heard of the proposed WE Charity’s contribution agreement on May 8th, he “pushed back” and instructed the public service to do more “due diligence” before cabinet actually approved the agreement on May 28th.

However, at the Finance Committee, the Assistant Deputy Minister developing the program stated that "We entered into a negotiation of a contribution agreement with WE Charity in mid-May".

Clearly there was no evidence of any “push back” as the PM stated but rather there was a rush to get the sole-sourced contract completed. 

Now that the Prime Minister has prorogued Parliament, “no committee can sit during a prorogation."

This means that the Prime Minister has shut down the very committees who were studying and uncovering evidence on the WE contribution agreement that was contrary what the PM had said publicly.

It should also be pointed out that in 2015, the Prime Minister made a promise that his Liberal Government would never use prorogation to escape scrutiny.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament and shutting down these committees?

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

Back in May of 2020 the Trudeau Liberal Government announced their preference of four summer sittings of the House of Commons 'special COVID committee'.
These sittings were set in advance to occur on July 8, July 22, August 12 and August 26.

Many MP's and party leaders planned their schedules in order to participate on these days. 
As an example, this week I am in Ottawa where I was able to ask several questions to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
Unfortunately the Prime Minister planned his schedule to be away on this week's sitting and as such, could not be held accountable.
There are so many important questions right now. 
One asked by an NDP MP was: "How can Canadians currently receiving CERB plan for the transition to EI at the end of the month when it is just weeks away and they have no idea what the details will be?"
Unfortunately, the minister advised they are not in a position to provide any details until “next week." 

Next week is less than two weeks from the ending of the CERB benefit. 
If a citizen currently collecting CERB will end up receiving less funds on EI, this is something they will need to budget for.
I asked a number of questions including the challenge facing many expectant mothers who because of COVID were just short of accumulating the required hours to be eligible for the Canada maternity benefit.
Unfortunately, the minister was also unable to answer this question.
Also occurring this week, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois,Yves-Francois Blanchet, has demanded that that “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his finance minister and his (The Prime Minister’s) chief of staff resign.”
Mr. Blanchet has taken issue with details of the WE Charity contract as well as revelations the administration of the commercial rent relief program that went to a company where the husband of the PM’s Chief of Staff is employed as a senior executive. 
In order to carry out his threat, Mr. Blanchet indicated that the BLOC will table a confidence motion against the Trudeau Liberal Government this fall.
The only way such a motion could pass is if all three opposition parties, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and Conservatives voted in favour.
Generally speaking, this is how many minority governments ultimately fall.

My question this week relates to this potential non-confidence motion.
In the event the Bloc Québécois was to table a non-confidence vote in the Trudeau Liberal Government that could potentially trigger a fall election, would you vote in favour or against?
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​There are times, despite efforts to the contrary, that government at all levels end up running into situations where there is a “no-win” scenario.

Case in point, recently the Trudeau Liberal government announced a federal application (or ‘app’) for smart phones, designed to assist in COVID-19 contact tracing.

This app utilizes Bluetooth technology to exchange random phone codes whenever you are in close proximity to other users who are utilizing the same app on their cell phone.  

In the event one of these users has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, all other app users who were in proximity to this individual can receive a confirmation alert.

In order to satisfy individual privacy concerns the app does not use GPS tracking, nor does it record your identity or any of your personal identification. 

Currently this app is fully functional for the purposes of contract tracing in the Province of Ontario however it is my understanding that it will be coming to more provinces in the future. 

There have been some criticisms of the app, largely around the fact it is only compatible with smart phones that are not older than five years and also have the latest operating systems from Apple or Android installed. 

This leaves those with older devices, as well as those who do not use smart phones at all, out in the cold. 

It may turn out that some will be unaware that the app does not work with their existing phone, only to become surprised when it becomes clear that it will not operate on their device.

The bottom line here is the app is not perfect. 

From my perspective the government deserves credit for taking an innovative approach that has been successfully used in other jurisdictions. 

As with most technological approaches to public policy issues, it is only over time where further refining and enhancements of the technology can lead to widespread adoption and better results. 

I have written to the Privacy Commissioner in regard to this and his office has created a privacy framework for reviewing any Government of Canada contact tracing app.

Recently Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, stated that “Canadians can opt to use this technology knowing it includes very significant privacy protections," adding “I will use it.” 

After having done the research for this report and given my work involves a lot of travel and meeting various people at different kinds of Parliamentary meetings, I have chosen to install the app.

My question this week is:

Have you or would you download the Canada COVID-19 alert app on your handheld device?

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

While it would be relatively easy this week to cover the latest developments of the WE Charity Foundation, as they unfold at the Finance Committee, I would rather focus on outcomes of government policies.

More specifically when former Conservative Finance Minister, the late Jim Flaherty, created a very important policy to the Similkameen and Okanagan Valleys.

​On July 1st in 2006, Minister Flaherty announced that wines that were produced in Canada, with 100% Canadian grown grapes, would be fully exempt from paying the federal excise tax on alcohol.

This was a policy that, according to Wine Growers of Canada President Dan Paszkowski, has “resulted in more than 400 new wineries and 40 million litres of new wine sales. The annual economic impact of this growth is $4.4 billion annually. Now that was a smart federal program with a solid ROI”.

Here in the Okanagan, we have all witnessed many wineries and resulting spin off business emerge throughout literally every community. 

Flash forward to 2017, the Trudeau Liberal Government introduced a permanent measure to create an “escalator excise tax” in that year’s federal budget.

What is an escalator excise tax?

As I explained in my June 21st, 2017 MP Report, it is a tax that “would be levied on most wine, beer and spirits sold in Canada. Under an escalator tax essentially the tax rate is increased every year and is set by civil servants linked to inflation as opposed to having to come before the House for debate in the annual budget.”

As the Conservative opposition at that time, we opposed this tax.

Unfortunately, Australia, a country that exports a significant amount of wine into Canada, filed a trade challenge with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over this policy.

The reason is that the Trudeau escalator tax would increase the cost of Australian wine to Canadian consumers every year however, 100% Canadian grown and produced wines would be exempt.

This week it was quietly announced that the Trudeau Liberal government will, over the course of the next two years, remove the excise exemption for 100% Canadian grown and produced wines thus increasing their costs.

How this will impact our local wineries here in the Okanagan and elsewhere at this point remains unknown.

One of the challenges is B.C. wineries already pay a significant amount of taxes to local, provincial and federal governments, that competing wines outside of Canada do not pay.

There is also the added test that currently only three Canadian provinces allow winery to consumer shipping directly from outside of the home province.

With restaurants generally purchasing less wine on account of reduced hours and capacity, these are now tough times for an important local industry to our region.

Ironically with wines sales being reduced, the considerable amount of excise and sales tax on wine is also reduced, thus netting less government revenue in these areas.

My question this week comes back to the escalator tax:

Do you support a tax automatically increasing each year, set in legislation, as opposed to being fixed and reviewed each year in a budget?

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

Photo Credit: Nicholas Johansen/Castanet 

​This week the House of Commons reconvened briefly to allow Parliament to pass Bill C-20:

“An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures”.

Bill C-20 proposed a number of different measures, such as allowing the extension of the Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) until December 19, 2020.

The bill also included the ability of government to update much of the CEWS program criteria until November 21, 2020.

A CEWS “top-up” subsidy, of up to an additional 25%, will now be available for employers that have been harder hit by the pandemic and are in industries that may be require more time to recover.

Aside from the many changes to the CEWS program, Bill C-20 also allows the federal government to share some personal information.

The reason for this is to complete a one-time payment to Canadians with disabilities.

To qualify, an applicant must hold “a valid Disability Tax Credit (DTC) certificate (eligible persons not yet in possession of such a certificate would be able to apply for one up to 60 days after Royal Assent to be considered for the one-time payment)”.

Canadians currently receiving the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits or Quebec Pension Plan disability benefits as well as those receiving disability supports provided by Veterans Affairs Canada will also qualify.

Those who meet this eligibility criteria will receive a non-taxable, one-time payment of up to $600.

It is expected that approximately 1.7 million Canadians will qualify for this benefit.

Aside from the debate and passing of Bill C-20 in the House of Commons, there were also two days of question period.

While Prime Minister Trudeau did not participate in question period the first day, he did attend the second day and was questioned heavily on the decision of his government to sole-source a $910 million volunteer program to the WE Charity, that has since been cancelled.

As the shadow cabinet critic for employment, workforce development and disability inclusion, I was pleased that Parliament was able to pass the much-needed disability benefits in Bill C-20.

My question this week is not about Parliament.

In the Okanagan there have been reports of a growing number COVID-19 cases from local social gatherings.

How satisfied are you about the current actions undertaken by all levels of Government to contain COVID-19?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​This week Prime Minister Trudeau apologized for not having recused himself from a cabinet decision that awarded a, sole-sourced, $900 million program to be administered by a charity with close ties to the Prime Minister’s family.

It has been revealed members of the Prime Minister’s family received financial payments from the same WE Charity in question.

As you may have also heard, the Ethics Commissioner announced an investigation relating to Prime Minister Trudeau’s involvement in this decision.

This would make the third time that the Ethics Commissioner has investigated Prime Minister Trudeau.

The purpose of my report this week is not to question the Prime Minister’s judgement nor his apology or the ethics investigation, but rather the decision to outsource the program as many of its details are deeply concerning.

Many Canadians will know that, for decades now, the Canada Summer Jobs program has successfully matched students with employers and, for the most part, has been successfully and efficiently administered by the Government of Canada public service.

The only major complaint over the years has been a lack of funds to meet the all of the requests of potential employers.

Rather than increase funding by $900 million to the Canada Summer Student Jobs program and increase the mandate to include charities and not for profit organizations, the Trudeau Liberals came up with a different scheme.

$900 million was directly awarded to the WE Charity, who in turn intended to use teachers and camp operators to recruit students to become paid volunteers.

The recruitment fees payable to teachers and other organizations would be in excess of $10,000 for a certain number of students. The students in question would then be paid below minimum wage to ‘volunteer’ for a set number of hours.

Aside from the issue of paying volunteers, there is another challenge.

Even if the program was able to recruit 100,000 students who worked enough hours to earn the maximum credit of $5000, this only works out to $500 million.

Where does the other $400 million end up?

In recruitment fees?

Either way, it does not make sense to spend $900 million and have only $500 million reach students who are ultimately being paid less than minimum wage to volunteer.

At the same time, there are small business owners and other organizations who have applied for the Canada Summer Jobs program and have been denied placements due to a lack of funding.

The WE Charity and the Liberal Government have made the decision to end this project leaving the future uncertain.

As the Conservative Opposition, we have recommended the Trudeau Liberal Government should instead use that $900 million and invest it into the Canada Summer Jobs program and ensure that charities and non-profit organizations have the opportunity to apply.

My question this week is:

Do you agree?

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

​There has been growing demand for a fiscal update of the federal government finances following the spending response to the COVID-19 virus, as well as the revenue impact from having large sectors of our economy shut down.

This week the Liberal Government provided what it termed as a “fiscal snapshot”, as opposed to a proper full fiscal update.

The numbers, in a word, are staggering.

The deficit for this fiscal year is expected to hit $343 billion. To put that figure into perspective, during the world financial crises in 2009, the federal deficit at that time was $56 billion.

Our total debt in Canada is now expected to hit $1.06 trillion in 2021, significantly up from $685 billion in the previous fiscal year.

Keep in mind, this is the spending to date.

There are still many groups, individuals and organizations, who have received promises from the PM for additional financial supports that have yet to be delivered.

Also, of concern is that our debt to GDP has shot up to 49%, from what was projected to be around 30%.

Canada’s credit rating has also been downgraded by one major credit rating agency.

The credit rating downgrade is of concern because credit rating downgrades can increase the interest that is paid servicing the debt. 

Historically low interest rates are helping to keep debt servicing levels lower, and for now more manageable. 

The challenge is when interest rates rise, the debt servicing costs increase significantly.

I suspect anyone with a variable rate mortgage knows this well.

The more notable challenge is that this current level of borrowing and spending is unsustainable.

Many financial experts have already cautioned that Canada no longer has the required fiscal capacity in the event there is a serious second wave of the COVID-19 virus.

As the current program spending is unsustainable, the Trudeau Liberal Government will need to come up with a successful plan to transition Canada back into a situation where there is growth in GDP and employment.

At the same time there will also need to have a debt management plan that has a relationship to government revenues as well as expenditures. 

To date the Liberal Government has not released any plan of this kind.

There is no finger pointing in this weeks report.

We are all Canadians in this situation together and we will be dealing with these circumstances in our future.

My question this week:

How concerned are you at the lack of a transition plan to move Canada forward, and is now the best time for one?

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

​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.