​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 

​Recently the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced that a project would be undertaken on the Fraser River to remove an abandoned 75 year old, nearly 200’ long, former transport vessel.
 
The reason for the removal is that “there are imminent risks of pollution threat, hull corrosion, possible sinking and fire”. 

The cost of this project is estimated to be $3.3 million, that may or may not be recoverable from the vessels owners, assuming they can be identified.
 
That the Federal Government is taking action against derelict and abandoned vessels will certainly be welcome news in many areas that have experienced firsthand the adverse environmental impact of this problem.
 
My issue is not with this project itself, but rather the importance of being proactive. 
 
Here in the Okanagan, we face the very serious threat of aquatic invasive freshwater mussels.

These mussels can clog water intakes causing serious damage to irrigation infrastructure as well as domestic and civic water systems.
 
Further, as an invasive species, an infestation of these mussels can also create serious adverse impacts on local fish habitat such as the pacific salmon, and other freshwater ecosystems.
 
If an infestation did occur in Okanagan Lake, considering the connected Okanagan river drainage system as well as other surrounding freshwater lakes, the threat of other regions being seriously impacted through contamination would be significant and likely.
 
The Okanagan Basin Water Board predicts that the costs of managing an infestation are estimated to be $42 million per year in the Okanagan valley alone. 
 
These would be costs forced onto local taxpayers, pending other financial support from the Provincial and Federal Government.
 
It is easy to understand why it makes far more sense to be proactive in this situation, provide additional resources now, to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, than to spend significantly more funds addressing an infestation after the fact.
 
Despite this reality, the Federal Liberal Government continues to largely ignore this threat creating a situation that I believe all citizens of the Okanagan should find unacceptable.
 
If this Government can prioritize $12 million to help Loblaws purchase new refrigerators, surely it can also prioritize the roughly $2 million in annual funding requested from the Okanagan Basin Water Board to protect the interior freshwater lakes of the Okanagan and British Columbia.
 
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.
  

With the House sitting, there are more events to share than can be summarized in my weekly report. 

However, there is one event in particular that I believe is deserving of mention despite not being as high profile as other recent events such as the Throne Speech.

Tuesday of this week was the first “Opposition Day” in the House of Commons.

This is the day where an opposition party, in this case the Official Opposition Conservative Party, sets the agenda in the House of Commons with a motion of its own.

Our motion was summarized as follows:

 “That, in light of the prolonged diplomatic crisis with China, the House appoint a special 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.”

It is no secret that Canada’s relations with China have deteriorated considerably in recent years.

Two Canadians are currently being held unjustly in Chinese custody.

Canadian Canola farmers have lost 40% of their export market due to unfair Chinese trade restrictions.
 
Locally in Summerland, a senior care home that is now owned by the Chinese Government has created serious concerns for the residents of this facility and their families with little accountability. 

We must also recognize that there are opportunities for having a more constructive relationship with China.

Cleaner burning BC LNG can be used instead of coal in Chinese power plants to lower global emissions.

Locally grown Okanagan cherries exported into China create a very lucrative market.

Tourism is another opportunity.

What's most important about this particular opposition day motion is that it was opposed by the Liberal government.

This is not unlike what occurred in the last Parliament, where the Liberals blocked a proposed committee investigation into claims of inappropriate pressure by Canadian officials on former Canadian diplomats who had been posted in China and were speaking as private citizens.

A pattern Canadians also witnessed with parliamentary committee attempts to further examine the SNC Lavalin affair where the Liberals would use their majority to block and ultimately shut down those efforts.

It was widely observed that unelected powerful people working in the Prime Minister’s Office were calling the shots and had a significant role in stonewalling attempts to provide transparency and accountability to Canadians.

That changed this week.

Despite the Liberals opposing the opposition day motion, the three major opposition parties all supported it.

This was a true victory for Canadian democracy with this minority Parliament.

Now it will be democratically elected Parliamentarians having a significant role in how we can examine our relations with China.

Unelected Liberal Prime Ministerial political appointees can no longer look the other way and ignore this most serious situation. 

My question this week:

Do you support the creation of this all party committee to review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship? 

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

​Finally Members of Parliament have returned to Ottawa.

For members of the Opposition it also a time to become familiar with what our critic roles will be to kick off this new parliament.

I am pleased to announce that the entire Okanagan region will be well represented with prominent critic roles:

Conservative MP Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, British Columbia), Critic for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Conservative MP Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, British Columbia), Critic for Interprovincial Trade

NDP MP Richard Cannings  (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), Critic for Natural Resources

My new portfolio will be the Conservative critic of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

As critics, it is part of our job to hold the government to account.

It is also our responsibility to not just oppose but also to propose policy and solutions that we believe can be of benefit to the citizens that we are elected to serve.

The Governor General will deliver the Prime Minister's Throne Speech outlining the priorities of the Liberal minority government in the upcoming Parliament.

This leads me to my question this week.

What is the one issue that you most want to see referenced in this week’s Throne Speech as a priority of the Federal Government?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-888-665-8711. 

​One of the reasons why I write weekly MP reports is so citizens can be informed and follow events occurring in Ottawa and by extension hold myself and MP's from other parties to account.
 
As much as I would like to share events occurring in Ottawa this week unfortunately the House of Commons is still not in session. 
 
Despite the election occurring back in late October, Prime Minister Trudeau has waited until Thursday, December 5th to recall the House for a Throne Speech.

After the Throne Speech the House is not scheduled to sit again until Monday, January 27th of 2020.
 
The House of Commons was last in session in late June of this year and, with the exception of the brief throne speech on December 5th, it will have sat vacant for over half a year. 
 
While it is understandable that this is an abnormal time, as a result of the federal election, it is concerning that nearly three months will have passed, since the election, before the House assumes regular sittings.
 
I raise this because the BC Forest industry, as one example, is in a crisis situation.

Citizens in Kelowna are deeply concerned that 174 residents who worked at the local Tolko lumber mill are now out of work.
 
This week the BC NDP Government announced, in the fiscal update, that revenue received from the BC forest sector has decreased by $110 million.

That is government revenue that now must be made up either through reductions in spending or increased taxes elsewhere.
 
Also this week Canfor announced that 10 lumber mills will be shut down for a two week period, temporarily displacing over 2,000 workers.
 
These critically important points deserve to be raised on the floor of the House of Commons for response from the Liberal Government.
 
Not all problems in the forest industry can be solved by Government.

The current timber shortage and devastation from the mountain pine beetle are two examples of that.
 
However we also have to recognize that some BC forest companies. currently closing down lumber mills in BC. are not leaving forestry.

Instead they are investing in and opening up new lumber mills in the United States.
 
This is deeply concerning when BC forest companies leave BC to invest in other regions.

Many of the regions they are investing in have different government policies.
 
As an example, a lumber mill operating is some of these US jurisdictions does not have higher payroll costs such as increased CPP or the BC NDP created Employer Health Tax.

They also do not pay carbon taxes or are subject to added duties at the border due to a lack of a softwood lumber agreement.
 
These are some areas where the Federal Government can show leadership.

Unfortunately with the House not sitting, the ability to raise these issues and hold the government to account is denied. 
 
My question this week:

Do you think it is reasonable that the Prime Minister has waited until December the 5th to table a Throne Speech?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​On Wednesday Prime Minister Trudeau announced his new cabinet.

Anyone who thought having less seats and a minority Government would in turn result in a smaller cabinet will be disappointed to learn otherwise.

By the numbers the new cabinet now has 37 Ministers in contrast to the 31 Minister's announced by the PM after the 2015 majority.

In order to add so many new Ministers in some cases a new Ministry had to be created.

As an example we now have a Minister of Middle Class Prosperity.

This is perhaps the first time where a well-known political talking point has now become a Ministry.

At this point it is unclear what will be the mandate of this or any Ministry as the official mandate letters have yet to be released.

Not counting PM Trudeau, of the remaining 36 Ministers, 18 are female and 18 are male as the gender quota policy of the Prime Minister remains unchanged.

What has changed is the distribution of responsibilities.

In the last Parliament, women were appointed Ministers or leaders in areas such as the Environment, Foreign Affairs, Justice and Attorney General, House Leader and President of Treasury Board,

In the 2019 Cabinet, all of the roles mentioned above, including Finance, Transport, and National Defence are filled by men.

It is also of interest that the only two Ministers, successfully re-elected, and not returned to cabinet were both women. 

There of course is also considerable discussion over who was demoted and promoted however I believe these types of discussions tend to diminish the contributions of the Minister and the portfolio in question, often unfairly.

I will also add that there are seven new faces at the cabinet table and I am certain that there will be no dispute for them serving in cabinet is a promotion.

Regionally the big winner of this cabinet is the City of Montreal, who now has seven Ministers serving in Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet.

17 Minister's are from Ontario and 11 are from Quebec, compared to 4 from BC.

Another significant change is that there is no longer a Minister for Democratic Institutions.

For those hoping that Mr. Trudeau would eventually honour his promise to end the first past the post voting system this seems increasingly unlikely as a result of this move.

Other Ministerial portfolios also no longer exist.

As an example there is no longer a Minister of Sport nor is there a Minister of Science.

This leads to my question for this week: 

Given that there is no longer a Minster of Science or Sport, are you supportive that there is now a Minister of Middle Class Prosperity?

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

By this time next week it is expected that Prime Minister Trudeau will have announced his cabinet choices for the upcoming 43rd Parliament.

In turn the Opposition parties will also announce their respective official critics in response.

​The first week of December, Canada’s 43rd Parliament will be convened to elect the Speaker followed by the Liberal minority government delivering its first Speech from the Throne- an outline of the Government’s priorities.

The content of the Throne Speech is still unknown, although this week the Prime Minister has been meeting with leaders of the other opposition parties as well as some Provincial leaders.

As I mentioned in last week’s report, it is important to recognize that the Prime Minister only requires the support of one of the three major parties in order to secure enough votes to prevent the government from falling.

For opposition parties, while it is easy to oppose, there must also be awareness that if all of the three major opposition parties oppose the Liberal minority government, it would fall and trigger an election.

I believe that Canadians elected a minority government in order to see greater cooperation and compromise in Ottawa.  

The Throne Speech presents an opportunity for the Prime Minister to reflect that sentiment or it may also be used to gain the support of one opposition party at the expense of others in a more divisive manner.

At this point, I am working on future private members legislation as well as preparing issues of local importance to raise with new cabinet ministers, once they have been announced.

It is also my intention to work with our Okanagan MP's on a regional level to address areas of common concern such as the threat of invasive species to Okanagan Lake from freshwater mussels.

The struggles of the BC forest sector and the loss of local lumber mill jobs is another concern, more so as we increasingly see BC forest companies investing and creating new jobs in the United States. 

These situations affect all of us and hopefully within a minority Government, front and backbench MP's can better work together across party lines to see more results being achieved and less photo-ops staged for political reasons.

This leads to my question for this week:

On the local or regional level. what challenges do you see where increased leadership from the federal government can play a role?

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

This week I am back in Ottawa for the first time since the recent election.

It is a bittersweet occasion having to say goodbye to some colleagues who I have worked with for years who were not re-elected.

It is also an exciting time for those who are newly elected stepping into the House of Commons for the very first time.

Being in the House of Commons as an elected representative on behalf of the citizens we represent is an immense honour.

That we have, both departing and newly arriving Members of Parliament, is all part of a healthy democracy.

This is why honouring Veteran’s Week is critically important and on that point,  I encourage you to take part in your local Remembrance Day ceremony.

When I reflect on the great importance of Remembrance Day, I am reminded of a visit by former British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011.

During his visit Mr. Cameron reminded the House of Commons that: “in the world’s toughest times and darkest hours, Canada has always defended democratic freedom and fought against tyranny.”

As Canadians we have been defined by the sacrifices of the brave men and women who serve in honour of our nation.

On this week, in what is the 11th month, on the eleventh day and at the eleventh hour, Canadians will give pause to honour and reflect on the sacrifice of those brave soldiers who have served.

Let us give thanks to our veterans for all that we have and may we never forget.

My question this week:

Will you be attending a Remembrance Day service?

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

It is a great honour to be in a position to resume writing my weekly MP reports to you after our recent federal election. 
Before I go any further I would like to sincerely thank the over 63,000 citizens who came out to polls and advance polls to make your vote count. 
I would also like to thank the many volunteers who worked tirelessly on the many different campaigns.

These volunteers play a key role in furthering the interests of our Canadian democracy.
And finally I would like to recognize and thank the other candidates who put their names forward to serve.

These individuals put their lives on hold for many months covering the vast expanse of our Central Okanagan- Similkameen- Nicola riding. All the candidates of this recent election care about their communities and our great country.
As you have likely heard, we have a minority Liberal Government that will be returning to Ottawa.

I have been asked questions what that might look like. 
Our House of Commons has 338 seats, however one Member of Parliament will be elected to serve as the Speaker effectively leaving 337 seats, although the Speaker does have a vote in the event of a tie.
The Liberals lost 20 seats in this recent election reducing their total seat count to 157.

That is short of having a majority in the House of Commons.

The NDP also lost seats going from 44 down to 24. 
However because the Liberal and NDP seats combined add up to 181, if the two parties were to agree to support a budget or government bill, the Liberals could stay in power.

Another scenario discussed is if the Liberals invited other parties to join them in their cabinet, which is referred to as a coalition government.

Either way the two or more parties could carry a majority vote.

The Prime Minister has stated that he will not, formerly or informally, pursue such a coalition but to govern from a minority position. 
Although the Conservative Party did gain 28 seats, and won the popular vote over the Liberal Party, it remains as the Official Opposition.
The Bloc party in Quebec increased their seat count winning 32 seats in Quebec and the Green Party added one more seat and now has 3 in total, with two in B.C. and one in Atlantic Canada.
From a historical perspective there have only been three times in Canadian history where an elected Government did not also win the popular vote. 1979,1967 and 1926.

Although only once before in Canadian history has a first term majority government been defeated and only three times in history has a first time majority government been held to minority status upon re-election.
Because of the loss of the popular vote, minority government status, and the fact that the Liberal Party was completely shut out of Alberta and Saskatchewan while there was a significant re-emergence of the Bloc in Quebec, many have stated concerns that Canada is facing a potential unity crises.
That leads to my question for this week.

Are you concerned about Canadian unity as a result of the October 21, 2019 election?

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

With the federal election date of October 21st, at some point in September, the Prime Minister will present the Governor General with an instrument of advice recommending the House of Commons be dissolved. 

In turn the Governor General issues a proclamation dissolving the 42nd Parliament.

The Prime Minister then presents an order in council to the Chief Electoral Officer requesting the writ of an election. 

At this point the writ is considered “dropped” and the formal “writ period” will get underway.

Part of what will occur during the writ period are debates among party leaders as well as local candidates.

One new change on the national level is the Trudeau Liberal Government's creation of a 'Leaders’ Debates Commission'.

In the past the major televised debates between party leaders were organized by a consortium of media broadcasters.

More recently leader’s debates have also been hosted by organizations such as Macleans Magazine and the Munk Debates.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission is still largely organized by a consortium of media broadcasters however this process is done independently working with an appointed 'Debates Commissioner'.

The purpose of the Leaders’ Debates Commission is to organize two televised debates, one in English and the other in French as was done previously.

Because the process has been finalized in a formal structure there are also rules on what leaders can and cannot participate in the debate. 

One of the rules states “At the time the general election in question is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party”.

This means for a new political party, such as the People’s Party of Canada, they do not meet this guideline.

There are other debates that will be occurring again such as the Munk Debate on foreign policy (as one example) that other major party leaders have agreed to attend.

It has now been reported that Prime Minister Trudeau has declined all other debate invitations and will only appear in the debates organized by the Leaders’ Debates Commission.

My question this week is as follows:

Do you believe the Prime Minister only attending one English debate and one French debate is enough or would you like to see the Prime Minister participating in more debates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leads to my question for this week. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently there are 5 sailings.

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

One of the more significant changes relates to construction.

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

Other changes relate to regulation and procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week relates solely to tankers:

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

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

Every summer since I was first elected I have traveled throughout every community in my riding as part of my annual summer listening tour.

Citizens deserve to be heard and meeting with people directly in their home communities is a very important part of being a Member of Parliament.

The feedback and concerns that I hear are part of the focus for when the House of Commons resumes typically in September.

 This year, the House is not expected to resume given that the next federal election will be in October.

I am frequently reminded at how far away the "Ottawa bubble" is when it comes to those who live in Canadian rural communities.

In several parts of my riding there are no public transit options.

Where there was once Greyhound service in some areas, it now no longer exists.

Some areas have no access to natural gas for home heating.

There is also a lack of internet access in many areas and in some cases no wireless signal whatsoever.

For this reason, both the Provincial and Federal Government have promised to increase rural internet connectivity.

Despite these promises, as many rural residents without wireless service can confirm, little to no progress has been made.

Recently, with the fall election fast approaching, the Liberal Government made yet another promise with regards to rural internet connectivity.

The Liberals announced a down the road program to pay $600 million over 10 years to what was described as an "Ottawa based company" to launch low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

LEO satellites orbit at a height of roughly 1,000 kilometers, compared to conventional satellites that are typically orbit the earth at a range over 30,000 kilometers.

LEO satellites can provide much faster wireless connections to hard to reach, isolated locations.

LEO satellite technology is an emerging industry with several international private sector companies investing in new technology in a race to get LEO satellites launched.

This leads to my question for this week.

The Liberal government's track record on rural internet connectivity has not been stellar.

As the Auditor General concluded in a report from last year, the connectivity program did not get value for money.

The AG also determined that the Trudeau Government was hindered by having no overall rural connectivity strategy.

This remains unchanged.

People in rural and remote communities deserve better than a program where under 15% of the promised funding for internet infrastructure to date, has been spent, as is the case under this Liberal government.

My question to you:

Should the next government prioritize having a comprehensive strategy to make sure rural and remote communities have internet connectivity?

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

In less than two months, the writ will be dropped and the official campaign for the October federal election will begin.

I referenced the "official" campaign getting underway because by all accounts active campaigning has already begun.

So, what does “dropping the writ” actually mean?

A writ is “dropped” when the Prime Minister presents the Governor General with an instrument of advice recommending the House of Commons be dissolved. 

In turn the Governor General then issues a proclamation dissolving Parliament. 

Previously there was no maximum length for a writ period until the passing of  “Elections Modernization Act”, passed in this Parliament, that set that a maximum of length of fifty days.

Another change was the creation of a restricted pre-writ period that began back on June 30th of this year.

This newly created “pre-writ” period imposes restrictions, such as limits on advertising for political parties, prior to the official writ being dropped.

Previously spending limits were only imposed on political parties during the writ period.

How does this change things?

In the writ period the Government enters into, what is known in our Westminster form of government, as the “Caretaker Convention”. 

The Caretaker Convention recognizes the underlying principle that government must still run, however the elected political side of government cannot use taxpayer provided resources or other powers of government in an effort to influence the election. 

As an example, a Government Cabinet Minister or the Prime Minister could not fly, at taxpayer expense, to make major spending announcement or announce other changes in government policy intended for political gain. 

When the Trudeau Liberal Government created the new “pre-writ” period, they ensured that the restrictions on expenses (such as advertising) only applies to political parties.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers are not subject to any spending restrictions on their political activities during the pre-writ period.

The Liberals also ensured that the Caretaker Convention would not apply during the pre-writ period.

Meaning that taxpayer resources can be used while the PM and his Ministers fly around Canada making funding announcements precisely intended for political gain. 

Likewise government policies and project announcements can also be manipulated for partisan political purposes.

My question to you this week is one of fairness:

Do you believe that in addition to political parties, that this new pre-writ period should also equally apply to the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

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

The official opposition has the responsibility to hold the Government to account.

Part of this responsibility means looking at how the government spends your money on programs, projects and services to determine if there is value and results being delivered for taxpayers.

The opposition is also assisted in the work that we do through journalists, who not only hold the Government to account, but also the opposition- in fact all elected officials and all the citizens we represent.

One journalism organization that many Canadians outside of Ottawa may not have heard of is 'Blacklock’s Reporter' ,https://www.blacklocks.ca/,  a unique investigative news organization who stands alone in being the only reporter-owned and operated newsroom in Ottawa.

Recently through a series of access to information requests, Blacklock’s reviewed the Trudeau Liberal Government’s billion dollar 'Strategic Innovation Fund'.

This fund falls under the responsibility of Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Minister Navdeep Bains.

For the record I am the shadow cabinet critic for this Ministry.

The results of this access to information data, as reported by Blacklock’s, is alarming.

Publicly the Trudeau Liberal Government boasted that this program had loaned out a billion dollars and helped “to create nearly 56,000 jobs”.

Is this claim accurate?

In a word, no.

The access to information data reveals that in reality, as of March 31st of this year, only 6,613 jobs have been created.

To put that figure into perspective a total $1,051,716,827 in funding has been approved by the Trudeau Liberal Government, meaning each job has cost the equivalent of more than $159,000 per.

Records further revealed that of the $1.05 billion loaned out to date, only about half, a total $566.4 million, is due to be repaid with just over 50% due to be repaid by 2041.

It has not been explained why there is a deficiency of over 49,000 fewer jobs then what has been publicly claimed. 

My question this week:

Do you feel that the Liberals billion dollar “Strategic Innovation Fund” is meeting your expectations? 

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

Chances are you will have heard the term “fake news” and concerns of alleged and actual uses of inaccurate information to unduly influence an election result.

While this remains a hot button issue south of our border, we have also had a real example of this here in Canada.

During the recent Burnaby South by-election, NDP candidate and party leader Jagmeet Singh was featured in an inaccurate news story suggesting Mr. Singh resided in what was described as a “$5.5-million dollar mansion resplendent with ornate staircases and murals painted on ceilings”.

For the record Mr. Singh lives in no such residence.

The incorrect story, as is often the case, was circulated in many social media circles, often by political opponents of Mr. Singh.

It is currently unknown who was ultimately responsible.

What is more troubling is that inaccurate news stories can be sourced from third party organizations or individuals from other countries who may refuse to respect or cooperate with the laws of Canada or other countries.

With our Canadian federal election approaching in October, similar concerns have been raised over the potential for electoral interference occurring during this time period.

This week the Liberal government released the rules they will be creating in response to these concerns.

Ultimately it will be a group of unelected senior public servants in Ottawa who will decide if an incident that occurs is considered to be electoral interference or not. 

This group is made up of the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In the event they believe a situation is an act of intended electoral interference they will notify the Prime Minister, the leaders of the other political parties as well as Elections Canada and an announcement providing further information will be forthcoming. 

The challenge is that there is no actual definition of what type of incident or situation is defined as “interference”.

This decision will be up to the discretion of the people involved, who typically have often been appointed by the Prime Minister.

In this case the Prime Minister will not have the power to veto this process, if it concludes that an event or situation has transpired. 

Some who follow Ottawa very closely will know that statements made by the former Clerk of the Privy Council during the SNC Lavalin/Justice Committee hearings were criticized by many journalists and pundits alike for being overtly partisan.

I can state that I would not have confidence in this process if the former Clerk had not retired after losing confidence of the other Party leaders.

My question this week:

Do you have confidence that this process will effectively prevent or otherwise discourage outside electoral interference during the election?

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

The British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) is a provincial agency and is currently conducting a limited review into gasoline pricing in British Columbia.

This review will some federal implications and I believe this will be of interest to many citizens in our region.

The review was ordered by the BC NDP Provincial Government earlier this year after a public outcry on high gas prices at the pump and the April 1st increase to the carbon tax.

The reason the review is limited is because the BC NDP,  in the terms of reference to the BCUC, made one very important limitation:

“The commission (BCUC) may not inquire into the effects of provincial enactments or policy on gasoline and diesel prices in British Columbia,”

In other words provincial BC NDP energy policy and related taxation cannot be included in this review.

Early work from the BCUC (as reported by Mr. Rob Shaw of the Vancouver Sun) indicates that the National Energy Board (NEB) stated that the “refining margin on regular gasoline in Vancouver in April averaged 52.1 cents per litre”

To put that figure into context , that is approximately double the national average.

However, here is another interesting fact:

In the lower mainland, the total of the transit tax, provincial taxes including the carbon tax, federal excise tax, and GST add 52 cents per litre.

So the combined governments take in taxes is roughly equal to the oil companies refining margins. 

That amount would be less here in the Central Okanagan- Similkameen- Nicola as there is no local transit tax.

One other interesting consideration relates to the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX). 

Suncor has stated that pipeline capacity for refined products, that includes gasoline and diesel, has decreased by 30-36 million litres per month.

This in turn means this gasoline must be shipped by either rail or truck, which is more costly.

Parkland Fuel, the operator of the refinery in Burnaby, have also stated that because the TMX pipeline is at capacity, often carrying other products (diluted bitumen is one example), they have to pay a premium to secure supply capacity from other shippers. 

This is relevant as it is some of the first quantifiable evidence that the lack of available capacity for gasoline & diesel in the TMX pipeline is playing a role in creating higher gas prices at BC pumps.

As I wrote in my May 1st, 2019 report, the reason for the lack of capacity is due to the fact that the TMX pipeline must carry a range of different oil products ranging from gasoline to diluted bitumen.

The expanded new section of the Trans-Mountain pipeline (if built) would exclusively carry what is known as “heavy oils,” such as diluted bitumen, allowing the existing section to transport products such as gasoline & diesel to increase supply.

Ironically BC NDP Premier Horgan, who created the BCUC review to “get to the bottom” of high gas prices in BC, opposes the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion.

My question this week:

How much are you impacted by gasoline prices?

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

This week the Prime Minister made what many view as a difficult political decision; to once again approve the construction of the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project. 

The total expected cost of the expansion and acquisition is now estimated to be around $14 billion. 

The Prime Minister indicated that construction would begin during this year’s summer construction schedule and has not announced how the $14 billion will be repaid.

The day before this announcement was made the Liberals also tabled a motion to “declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency”.

For the record, a resolution of the House is defined as a “declaration of opinion or purpose; it does not require that any action be taken, nor is it binding.”

The Conservatives proposed amendments to the motion that called on the government to acknowledge that it is not on track to hit its Paris GHG reduction targets and also to recognize that climate change is a global problem. 

Although the Conservative amendments were supported by the Green Party, they were voted down by the Liberal majority, who ultimately passed the original motion with the Conservatives opposed.

From those who are strongly opposed to the Trans-Mountain pipeline project, I am already hearing outrage that the Prime Minister would approve this $14 billion oil pipeline project the day after declaring a national climate emergency in Canada. 

To understand their opposition to the Trans-Mountain project, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada, it will increase the nominal pipeline capacity from the current level of 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. 

The upstream GHG emissions associated with 890,000 barrels per day is estimated to be between 20 and 26 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

However, as the expansion project is adding 590,000 barrels per day the upstream GHG emissions are estimated to be between 14 to 17 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year with the expansion.

NDP MP Peter Julian, who is from BC,  commented that "The Liberals are slapping each other on the back because they passed a motion that is meaningless. [On Tuesday] they are going to rubber-stamp the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will dramatically increase greenhouse gas production in the country. The hypocrisy is beyond belief," 

The Liberals continue to insist that the environment and the economy go hand-in-hand.

So my question this week is not about whether you support the Trans-Mountain pipeline. 

Instead, my question is;

Do you believe that oil pipeline expansion projects, that increase GHG emissions, actually go hand in hand with the environment as the Liberal government insists?

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

As the Official Opposition, it is our job to hold the government accountable and at the same time to provide information to citizens that the government may not widely share or present in great detail.

An example of this can be found in the recent media headline “Trudeau announces ban on single-use plastics by 2021”. 

This was an actual media headline quoted directly from a Global news story.

I believe most Canadians are supportive of the idea of taking action on the growing problem of plastic pollution that can have devastating impacts, particularly in sensitive marine habitats.

Often these sensitive marine habitats are polluted by developing countries that do not have proper waste disposal and recycling systems or rogue fishing operations that break maritime waste management protocols. 

However, as Canadians, we should always look to make improvements to ensure a clean environment. 

The idea of taking action on this front requires a credible plan in order to be successful and on that note the Prime Minister’s plan to ban single use plastics is deserving of scrutiny.

For starters, the Prime Minister actually made no promise to ban single use plastics by 2021. 

The date of 2021 is an interesting one as the leader of the NDP made a similar promise recently, only setting their date at 2022.

So what did the Prime Minister actually say? 

The promise was to “ban harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021”.

Note the word "early".

So the actual promise has no firm deadline whatsoever. 

One may also ask what is exactly meant by a “harmful single use plastic”? 

In this case the promise suggests this will be determined by “scientific evidence” and where ”warranted”. 

In other words there is no clear definition.

What we do know about the Canadian plastic sector is that it has estimated annual sales of $10 billion in plastic resin and a further $25 billion in products for a total value of $35 billion, roughly 5% of sales in our domestic manufacturing sector.

From a waste perspective, some of the most common forms of plastic waste are found in plastic packaging that comprises 43% of total plastic waste.

Automotive plastic waste is 9%, textiles 7% and electronic equipment is 7%. Other uses make up the remainder.

A few more important questions remain unanswered. 

What is the specific timeline? 

What happens when there is not an alternative replacement product to a single use plastic, such as in the medical field? 

What would be the total costs to achieve this plan and who would pay for it? 

Since provinces have jurisdiction over waste management and recycling, have they been consulted and are all provinces supportive?

If I sound skeptical, it is largely because I am. 

It appears this plan to reduce single use plastics is well meaning but short on details- more so with a fall election in the offing.

This Prime Minister has a habit of making promises.

For example:

A balanced budget in 2019. 

The 2015 election was to be the last to use first past the post. 

A Liberal Government would not use omnibus budget bills that he makes no effort to fulfill. 

My question this week:

Do you believe this is a credible plan to reduce single use plastics? 

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

​As I mentioned in last week’s report, as the House of Commons now enters the final few weeks before the summer adjournment and in this case the final scheduled sitting before the election in October, there are some added challenges for the government.

As the government attempts to prioritize bills it would like to see passed through the House, those bills must also pass through the Senate.

 This has become more challenging in recent times as the Senate has demonstrated an increased willingness to either amend or attempt to delay some bills.

One of those bills currently before the Senate is Bill C-48.

What is Bill C-48?

It is called the “Oil Tanker Moratorium Act” and it applies exclusively to coastal B.C.- more precisely the north coast. 

Before I reference the Senate, I will share some of my own concerns with this bill.

First, is the inherent contradiction of this proposed legislation.

As we know, Mr.Trudeau is proposing to increase the tanker traffic off the west coast with the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project.

It is the north coast where he is proposing to ban all oil tankers.

Many have pointed out the contrast in acknowledging risk in one geographic region, and yet ignoring that same potential for risk in another region.

From a safety perspective, the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation can provide spill response service in both geographic regions.

Likewise the Pacific Pilotage Authority, a crown corporation, can also provide the same world-respected marine pilots to navigate these vessels in both regions. Companies such as Seaspan (as an example) can also provide multiple tugboats to assist with docking and escort services in both areas.

In other words the same safety conditions the Prime Minister trusts in one geographic region can be equally provided in another. 

So why a proposed ban in one region and not the other? 

The simple answer is politics, and this is where the Senate, currently debating Bill C-48, has weighed in.

As CBC Reports, a Senate committee investing this bill has concluded that “the bill is a cynical, intentional bid to cripple the economy of Prairie provinces, particularly Alberta, and curry political favour elsewhere in the country.” 

The same CBC report further states this is “driven by the calculation that the ruling Liberals have few seats to lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan.”  

I will note the Liberals currently have 3 seats in Alberta, and 1 in Saskatchewan compared to 17 in BC.

It should also be pointed out that there are 30 different First Nation bands who have joined together to launch a lawsuit trying to stop this tanker ban from going forward. 

They call this proposed tanker ban an unjustified infringement of their aboriginal rights and title.

They point out that this proposed tanker plan would thwart their ability to create economic support for their community through the development of an oil export facility.

At the moment it remains unclear how the entire Senate will vote on the Senate Transportation and Communications committee recommendation to kill Bill C-48. 

My question for you this week:

Do you support Bill C-48 and the moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the North coast?

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