The last seven days have not been like any that I have experienced in my time on Parliament Hill. 

The release of an audio recording of a conversation between the former Justice Minister and the former Clerk of the Privy Council is unprecedented. 

The content of this recorded conversation was also disturbing as it verified and confirmed that indeed the former Justice Minister was being pressured to authorize a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) to SNC Lavalin. 

This pressure was being applied despite the fact that an independent prosecutorial decision had already been made that SNC Lavalin did not meet the criteria for using a DPA. 

The recorded conversation also confirmed that the Prime Minister was “going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.”

The release of this recording led to a series of events that ultimately resulted in Mr. Trudeau removing Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus. 

Ms. Wilson-Raybould has also been denied the right to run again as a Liberal Party candidate.

This decision by Mr. Trudeau has outraged many Canadians including first nation’s leaders such as Grand Chief Stewart Phillip who has called this Liberal caucus expulsion of these two women a “witch hunt”.

My thoughts? 

To me this issue is about credibility. 

Throughout this entire situation the details provided by Ms. Wilson-Raybould have been verified as being factual and accurate. 

In contrast, Mr. Trudeau first denied that this situation even occurred and has since provided differing versions of events, many of which do not reconcile.

Although the Prime Minister did issue a waiver, it has a restriction that prevents the former Justice Minister from discussing meetings that occurred after the period she was no longer the Justice Minister.

To this day it remains unknown if Mr. Trudeau’s newly appointed Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti will grant a DPA to SNC Lavalin or not.

Closer to home here in BC, Mr. Louis De Jaeger who is the vice-president of the Chilliwack-Hope federal Liberal riding association has resigned in support of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Jane Philpott.

I have also heard many expressions of disbelief and anger over this cabinet expulsion from a wide variety of citizens. 

 Mr. Trudeau insists this decision was made because trust had been broken and as a result these two individuals could no longer remain as members of the Liberal caucus team. 

 My question this week: 

 On the question of credibility do you believe Mr. Trudeau or Ms. Wilson-Raybould?

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

​In last week’s report I provided some highlights on the recent 2019 budget and asked citizens if they liked what they saw in the budget so far. 

I also made a commitment to share my own thoughts on this budget as an opposition Member of Parliament. 

Most critics have labelled this budget as an ‘election year goodies’ budget that targets certain voting demographics that the Liberals hope will translate to votes in the October election.

While I do not disagree with that sentiment, I would submit that most every sitting government in an election year tables a budget that it believes will be politically popular. 

My concern with this budget is somewhat different.

As you may have heard, household debt levels here in Canada are at an all-time high. 

Household debt as a percentage of gross income in 2016 was 166%. 

In January of 2019 that has now increased to 176%. 

Why do I mention that in the context of this budget?

The new “Canada Training Benefit” on the surface sounds like a good program encouraging job skills retraining. 

However when you read the fine print only $250 is available per year up to a career maximum of $5,000.

The challenge that I am already hearing is the majority of training programs cost well in excess of that amount. 

Many skills training programs are literally thousands of dollars or more. 

For many workers to benefit from this $250 training credit it will mean borrowing thousands and increasing household debt.

Similarly, to access the credit of $5,000 towards the purchase of a new electric car for most would mean borrowing up to the maximum for the program amount of $45,000. 

This again results in more household debt for anyone borrowing for a new vehicle purchase.

A similar situation is created with the new home buyers program. 

Rather than eliminate the GST on affordable new housing (as has been done with the PST provincially), this budget only offers more options that encourage borrowing. 

Borrowing $10,000 more from your RRSP, up to maximum of $35,000, is  an option that few new home buyers can access.

The new first time home buyers incentive on the surface sounds helpful. 

The program can help provide between 5-10% of the down payment towards a maximum CMHC insurable mortgage up to $480,000, not counting the total down payment.

The challenge with this program is also in the fine print. 

The maximum $480,000 mortgage value is also based on the programs maximum allowable household income level of $120,000 annually. 

In a community where the average household income is $70,000, the maximum value under this program is set at 4 times the income, meaning a CMHC insurable mortgage limit of just $280,000. A significant difference.

These are just a few examples that all point towards increased household debt in order to access the benefits of these programs that ironically are themselves being offered by a $19.8 billion deficit budget.

My question this week: 

At this current rate of spending, by 2040, an additional $271 billion in new debt will have accumulated, not factoring in household debt levels. 

Are you concerned about this?

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

The Liberal 2015 campaign promise was to deliver three years of “modest” $10 billion dollar deficits with a return to a balanced budget in 2019. 

 This week the Liberals presented the 2019 budget that clearly reveals Mr.Trudeau not only broke his “very cast in stone” promise to return to a balanced budget but also that he made no effort to do so.

 The 2019/20 deficit forecast is set at close to $19.8 billion. 

 This is on top of the $60 billion in deficits added in the first three Liberal budgets. 

 The current budget indicates there is no path to balance until at least the year 2040, by that point racking up an additional $271 Billion in new debt.

 So where is all of the money going? 

  Program spending is a significant part with an increase of $22.8 billion in spending over the next five years. 

 A brief summary of some of that from the 2019 Budget:

 A new job retraining program for eligible workers aged between 25-64 that will provide up to $250 per year to a career maximum of $5000.

An increase to the maximum a first time home owner can borrow from their RRSP from 25,000 that will now be increased to a limit of $35,000.

A new shared equity home ownership plan where CHMC will provide a shared matching contribution between 5-10% towards the down payment on a new or existing home. Citizens with a household income under $120,000 may qualify. This will be limited to a purchase price that cannot exceed more than four times the annual household income

Those who can afford to purchase a new electrical vehicle may now be eligible for up to a $5,000 federal credit on the purchase.

There is also a commitment to spend $35 million over 4 years to create a new federal Canadian drug agency, assumedly in Ottawa, that can work towards bulk buying drugs on a national scale. 

Aboriginal communities will also receive $1.4 billion over 7 years to forgive outstanding legal fees resulting from treaty and land negotiations. Indigenous groups that have already paid these fees can be eligible to have them repaid under this program.

Interest rates on Canada Student Loans will be lowered to prime and will be interest-free for 6 months after graduation.

$553 million has been budgeted over the next 3 years to attempt to fix the failed Phoenix pay system.

There will also be changes to the GIS income earning threshold so that a working senior may claim more income without affecting the GIS support levels.

This is only a brief summary of some of the measures contained in the 2019 federal budget. 

Many critics have largely labelled it a “political goodies budget” specially targeting certain voting demographics that the Liberals hope will translate to votes in the October election. 

I will reserve my own thoughts in an upcoming MP report. 

My question this week: 

Do you like what you see in the 2019 Budget so far?

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

Although this is a constituency week with the House of Commons recessed, much attention remains on Parliament Hill for a few important reasons. 

Public safety was a primary concern, as Transport Minister Marc Garneau made the decision to ground the use of the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft in Canada.

This decision is following the recent tragic crash of a similar 737 Max 8 aircraft flown by Ethiopian Airlines that resulted in the devastating loss of all passengers and crew on board, including 18 Canadians, with several from B.C.

 At the present time there is no schedule on when this order will be lifted.

Air Canada, WestJet and Sun Wing Vacations are all working, in support of this decision, to resolve the many impacts on Canadian travelers who will be affected by this order.

 While on the topic of airlines, recently I met with Air Canada over the potential loss of flights at the Penticton airport.

Although Penticton is no longer in my riding, many citizens in communities that I do represent will be adversely impacted by this proposed new schedule as Penticton is their closest regional airport.

Air Canada is aware of the concerns and has made a commitment to look at how potential scheduling changes could be incorporated to help mitigate this situation.

Currently, the last flight in to Penticton results in the aircraft and crew staying in overnight before becoming the first flight out in the morning. 

Any potential solution must bear this in mind as the new schedule no longer has the aircraft and crew overnighting in Penticton, which complicates the ability to schedule the early morning flight the next day. 

We will look forward to what Air Canada comes up with in response to the concerns that were raised.

The other issue in Ottawa this week was the surprise move by the Liberals on the Justice Committee to use their majority to adjourn the meeting before any debate or discussions could occur over recalling former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

This discussion arises from recent statements provide to the Justice Committee by the Prime Minister's former Principal Secretary, Gerald Butts and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick.

These statements, that the Liberals also blocked from being given under oath, had some inconsistencies with the previous testimony from Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

Both opposition parties agree that in order to clarify these inconsistencies, Ms. Wilson-Raybould should be given the opportunity to respond.

To date, the Liberals have used their majority to block this from happening.

This action by the Liberals is leading some, including the opposition, to raise concerns over a possible cover-up. 

My question this week:

Do you believe that Ms. Wilson-Raybould should have the opportunity to appear before the Justice Committee for a second time to respond to these recent statements? 

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

​Although the House of Commons is not sitting until Monday, March 18 much attention remains focused on Parliament Hill as the Justice Committee is meeting this week and hearing more details on the growing fallout of allegations of political interference coming from the highest levels of the Trudeau Liberal government.  
 
This ongoing situation also recently saw the former Liberal President of the Treasury Board, Jane Philpott, announcing her resignation from Mr. Trudeau’s cabinet referencing a loss of confidence in how the government has handled the situation with SNC Lavalin.
 
My intent in this week’s report is not to further discuss the ongoing SNC Lavalin details but rather another recent Government policy announcement that was announced but largely overlooked as a result of the SNC-Lavalin situation occurring in Ottawa.
 
Last week the federal government announced marijuana pardon legislation for those individuals who have a previous conviction for the simple possession of cannabis. 
 
The Liberal Government describes Bill C-93 as “An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.”
 
The Liberals have stated they would like to see the law passed by the summer of 2019. 
 
The stated goal of the bill is to break down barriers for those individuals with a criminal record related to cannabis possession now that legalization has occurred.

Currently there is a $631 fee for a pardon along with a waiting period that are both proposed to be waived under this bill.  
 
Estimates from Ottawa indicate this bill could apply to as many as 400,000 Canadians although it is unknown how many will actually apply.

Total costs for this bill with the processing of pardons could be in excess of $300 million. 
 
It should also be noted that a pardon is not the same thing as an expungement that formally removes all records related to the office in question. 

This is an important distinction because there can be situations when a pardon is not recognized at the border of another country resulting in a refusal of entry.

My concern with this bill is one of cost and fairness. 
 
While I support the principal of issuing a pardon, I do not believe it is fair that Canadians without criminal records are paying for a program requires no financial contribution from those who will access this program. 

My question this week asks the same question. 
 
Do you support Bill C-93 being fully funded by taxpayers? 
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

As I sit down to write my weekly report I must admit to being at a loss for words.

Earlier today on Parliament Hill, the former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould shared her details related to the emerging situation with SNC Lavalin.

To be candid this testimony was shocking and has left Ottawa reeling.

 Ms. Wilson-Raybould stated on the record that she was the target of a “consistent and sustained” effort by Prime Minister Trudeau and his most senior staff to politically interfere in the criminal case against SNC-Lavalin.

The testimony included references allegedly quoted from Mr. Trudeau’s Principal Secretary, stating that there would be (political) interference, that there was no solution without some interference.

 In addition, Mr. Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Katie Telford, allegedly said they were “sick of legalities”.

Other comments included statements such as “we need to get re-elected.” and that if the former Justice Minister changed her mind that the they would line-up people to write op-eds claiming everything was legal.

The testimony from Ms. Wilson-Raybould ultimately referenced the Prime Minister, Clerk of the Privy Councillor, former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Finance Minister and the Chief of Staff to the Finance Minister.

 In total 11 people were raised in a series over 10 calls and 10 meetings.

Ultimately Ms. Wilson-Raybould was told “He's (Mr.Trudeau) going to find a way to do it one way or another”.

The testimony later revealed that the former Justice Minister’s deputy minister was allegedly informed by the Clerk that there would soon be a “new (Justice) Minister and that the first thing the deputy should do with the new minister is have a discussion about SNC (Lavalin) and the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement).

I will share some of the final words in her prepared statement from Ms. Wilson-Raybould:

“I hope and expect that the facts speak for themselves. I imagine Canadians now fully understand that in my view, these events constituted pressure to intervene in a matter, and that this pressure or this political interference to intervene was not appropriate.” 
My question this week relates to this statement:

Do you believe that Mr. Trudeau and his inner circle attempted to pressure the former Justice Minister to politically interfere in the criminal case against SNC- Lavalin?

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

In my MP Report from last week I summarized the developing situation regarding the details, or in this case lack thereof, surrounding the resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould from Mr. Trudeau’s cabinet. 

 There are growing questions around the criminal prosecution case against SNC-Lavalin and allegations of pressure from the Prime Minister’s office to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement instead.

 Since that time some significant new details have emerged. 

  Later last week, Liberals on the parliamentary Justice Committee blocked Ms. Wilson-Raybould and staff from the Prime Minister's office from appearing at the committee to answer questions.

 Over the recent Family Day long weekend we learned that Gerald Butts, Mr. Trudeau’s most trusted adviser, was resigning claiming he did not want to become a distraction in this growing controversy. 

This week, Liberals on the Justice Committee have done a flip flop and now will support Ms. Wilson-Raybould to appear at the Justice Committee, although it is unclear what questions she will be able to answer as Mr. Trudeau has thus far refused to waive client/solicitor privilege.

To date, the reasons why Ms. Wilson-Raybould resigned remain unknown. 

As Mr. Trudeau continues to refuse to waive privilege and has ducked questions about calling an inquiry, Canadians remain in the dark.

 From my perspective, this is quite alarming considering that Mrs. Wilson-Raybould and now Mr. Butts have both resigned over an issue that Mr. Trudeau continues to hide behind privilege to avoid the truth from coming out. 

The reason I use the term “hide” is to make a comparison to the fact that when the Senator Duffy investigation was underway, former Prime Minister Harper waived client/ solicitor privilege to assist the investigation in a transparent and accountable manner.  

My question this week does not involve this situation but rather pertains to a recent funding announcement made by the Liberal Government. 

 Last week the Liberals announced $40 million in funding to Blackberry to help develop autonomous vehicle technology. 

Full credit to CBC who covered the event and then asked the CEO of Blackberry ``if his company needed the government subsidy”. The answer was a candid NO. 

 In other words $40 Million was just given away by Mr.Trudeau to a company that did not require the subsidy.

 More recently we learned that the Liberal Government has appointed a retired Radio Canada journalist to be the director of the two debates for the upcoming federal election. 

The leadership debates, one to be in English and the other French for upcoming October 2019 election is a part time position with a term that expires in March of 2020 and a reported salary between $124,000 and $187,000.

 My question this week:

 Do you believe these types of spending decisions are an appropriate use of your tax dollars? 

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

​
This week my Summerland office was visited by an individual living on a fixed income who is very concerned about being unable to afford the monthly gas bill. 
 
This individual also questioned why the carbon tax on the monthly gas bill was higher than the actual commodity cost of the gas used. 

It was also asked, with the temperatures dropping below freezing this week throughout the Okanagan, “why was the (Provincial) NDP Government punishing citizens and cashing in on extra carbon tax revenue while people try to keep the pipes from freezing and try to stay warm”.

Fair questions.
 
Part of the answer to this question is due to the federal Liberal Government carbon tax plan. 
 
British Columbia, signed onto this Trudeau Liberal plan, that calls for an annual increase of carbon taxes to $50 a tonne by 2022.

In B.C. there is a “Climate Action Tax Credit” meant to help offset these costs however the maximum payable to an individual is only $11.25 a month and the income threshold is $35,000 before a 2% penalty deduction is taken from that $11.25 a month. 

In this case the individual’s monthly carbon tax on gas alone is higher than the climate rebate and with a net income of just over $41,000, the monthly climate rebate is reduced to just 54 cents.

Meanwhile in the House of Commons on Tuesday, during question period, Prime Minister Trudeau stated, and I quote: “low-income families do not benefit from tax breaks because they do not pay taxes.”

This was a remarkably untrue statement from the Prime Minister. 
 
Currently a Canadian earning over $12,000 or more is, as we all know, paying federal income tax. 
 
In fact the current federal income tax rate for citizens earning up $46,505 is taxed at a rate of 15%.

Also a fact, when the Liberal Government came into power in 2015,the low income tax rate was left unchanged. 
 
It was citizens earning currently between $46,605 up to $93,208 that received the 1.5% tax cut.

In addition to paying income tax, low income citizens also pay GST, PST here in BC, carbon tax, provincial income taxes (after a certain threshold) as well as other government fees and charges and property taxes, if they own a residence.

The suggestion by the Prime Minister that lower income citizens do not pay taxes is patently false and I am hopeful the Prime Minister will clarify that and apologize to those lower income taxpayers who deserve to be acknowledged for paying their fair share. 

My question this week relates to the carbon tax. 
 
Does it seem fair that government carbon tax revenues will increase solely due to sub-zero temperatures, because citizens are forced to increase their use of energy to keep warm?

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

​If you follow virtually any Canadian news source you have likely heard about the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei. 

Recently I was asked why there was so much media reporting about Huawei.

The answer is not a simple one. 

Huawei is a world leading technology company that among other activities produces hardware such as servers and other technologies that enable 5G wireless networks. 

5G networks enable autonomous vehicles and other automated machinery to operate and is widely considered to be essential for the emerging new digital economy.

Although Huawei is not the only company that manufactures 5G devices, it is the most controversial. 

Currently many of Canada’s allies including the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have all banned Huawei citing security concerns. 

Currently other countries, including Canada, are reviewing the status of Huawei. 

One of the concerns is that a new law in China requires any domestic firm to assist the Chinese government when requested to do so. 

Another concern is allegations that Huawei has circumvented trade sanctions against countries such as Iran and North Korea.

It is based on these types of allegations that the United States has requested that Canada arrest Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver for extradition to the United States where she will face charges such as bank fraud, obstruction of justice and theft of technology from the United States Justice Department.

In a response that many believe is related to this action several Canadians in China have now been imprisoned in some cases under very questionable circumstances. 

The situation has become very complicated diplomatically as Prime Minister Trudeau was forced to fire John McCallum, the former Liberal cabinet Minister that Mr. Trudeau had appointed to be Canada’s Ambassador to China. 

It should be noted that Huawei denies accusations of corporate espionage and spying; that said the Polish government recently arrested a Huawei employee on spying charges. 

The Czech government has also warned their citizens against using Huawei equipment for security reasons.

China has also warned Canada that there will be consequences to Canada if Huawei is banned. 

Conservatives believe that Canada, as a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence network, should stand with our allies in banning Huawei from participating in our 5G rollout in Canada. 

To date the Liberal Government continues to state that it is reviewing this situation with no decision yet being made. 

My question this week: 

Do you agree that Huawei should be banned from participating in the 5G network in Canada?

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

This week, the newly updated Canada Food Guide was released

The previous guide had been unchanged for 12 years. 

The new food guide takes a very different approach than the previous versions did.

Foods are no longer categorized into groups such as ‘dairy’ or ‘meat’ and terms such as ‘beef’ have been replaced by the term ‘protein’.

Suggested serving sizes have also been eliminated and instead the guide advises “notice when you are hungry and when you are full.”

The new guide also recommends more plant based food consumption including an effort to avoid saturated fat, sugars and sodium where possible.

Although some disagree with the approach, overall I believe this promotes healthier eating habits. 

What is new is that guide also makes recommendations on how you should eat and provides some other interesting suggestions.

“Grow, harvest, fish, hunt and prepare food in traditional ways.” is one such recommendation that may be more challenging for those living in urban centres.

There is also the recommendation to drink more water. 

The food guide even provides helpful information that you can drink water “hot or cold” and that you can “drink water with your meals”, in the event you were unaware of that tidbit.

If you are shopping, the guide recommends you “shop for sales” and “check out flyers and coupons” because this can make food shopping more affordable, also in the event you were unaware of that fact.

Other recommendations are to cook more meals at home and to be aware of “food marketing”. 
The guide suggests that being aware of food marketing can help you “question why you want to purchase a certain food or drink”.

Overall, while I believe the new food guide is well intended and promotes a healthier diet, I do question if Canadians need to be advised on how to eat, shop and interpret food marketing.

My question this week:

Do you prefer a food guide the focuses on nutrition, portion sizes and diet or do you prefer the new direction with advice on how to eat, shop and more? 

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

​This is the final week the House of Commons will sit for 2018 before resuming in late January of 2019. 

This week will also be the last time the current 42nd Parliament will sit in original House of Commons for at least 10 years. 

How will this impact our Canadian Parliament? 

First, a little background.

Although the House of Commons and the Peace Tower have become an internationally  recognized landmark, there are actually three buildings on Parliament Hill. 

What many Canadians refer to as the “House of Commons” is known as Centre Block.

It is called Centre Block because it is the centre building of the three large Victorian high gothic style buildings that form the core of the legislative precinct. 

The East Block building is located to the immediate east of Centre Block and connected by underground tunnel was built in 1866 and contained the original office of Sir John A. Macdonald.

The West Block building, you guessed it, is located to the west of Centre Block. It was closed in 2011 to undergo a large scale refit and renovation. 

Part of that renovation project included substantial modifications so that the House of Commons chamber could be relocated into West Block while the Centre Block building is renovated.

So when we return to Ottawa in January, we will call West Block home.

On a different subject, on December 18th, Canada’s new impaired driving laws will come into effect, creating significant changes from current regulations.  

For example, police will be able to compel a driver provide an oral fluid sample on demand. 

This test can be used to determine THC level per millilitre (ml) of blood, not unlike current assessment related to blood alcohol content. 

There is also a new provision that will allow for mandatory roadside screening, even if an officer does not have a reasonable suspicion of drug or alcohol use. 

Fines are also being increased to a $1000 minimum up to $2000 for first time offenders.

Repeat offenders can face jail time and possible prohibitions from driving. There are also legislative changes that can restrict some types of legal defence arguments for those facing impaired driver charges. 

For the most part I have heard strong support for these changes. 

However, some have stated opposition to mandatory roadside screening. 

Our current laws indicate that an officer must first have reasonable suspicion before requesting any roadside screening.

That will be my question for this week.

Do you support the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” being removed, as roadside screening will now become a mandatory requirement?

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

There are unusual things happening in Canada right now.

This week we learned that a song written in 1944, “Baby It’s Cold Outside”, will no longer be played during the holiday season by broadcasters such as CBC, Rogers and Bell media. 

Earlier this year, the City of Victoria removed the statue of John A. Macdonald in front of Victoria City Hall.

And soon I predict entering into Canada illegally from the United States to claim asylum will no longer be termed as "illegal".

It will instead become an “irregular entry”.

Why?

In early October, CBC reported that our Liberal Government quietly changed the Canadian immigration department website.

Where it once read “illegal crossings into Canada” it now reads “irregular crossing into Canada”.
The Liberal Government is also set to sign the UN Compact on Migration.

Part of the compact text, clause 33(c), reads: “educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology”.

In other words, this could be interpreted to mean reporting on irregular crossings into Canada is acceptable but reporting on “illegally crossing into Canada” may become unacceptable. 

How would this be enforced?

The UN Migration Compact is a non-binding agreement, however in Mr. Trudeau’s recent budget update,  a $595 million media subsidy fund was announced.

This media subsidy will inevitably have some terms and conditions that will be required to be met.

Possibly compliance with UN agreements could be one of them.

Canadians have always strongly supported legal immigration into Canada.

Many Canadians have endured a lengthy process, often considered to be “waiting in line” fairly, and following all of the rules and regulations.

​This is why crossing a border between official border crossings is illegal and not irregular.

While there are some provisions to ensure those in a life or death situation can cross a border, these cases are quite rare. 

Currently Canada has over 38,0000 people who have entered Canada illegally since January 2017 and this in turn has placed a huge backlog on the refugee process and taxes Provincial social services systems, such as is the case with Ontario and Quebec.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that illegal immigration, on average, costs taxpayers over $14,000 for each individual case. It is estimated over $340 million was spent in fiscal 2017-18 and the costs are expected to increase by another 400 million in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. The costs paid by Provinces is not included in these figures.

Quebec has recently announced that it will accept nearly 8,000 fewer immigrants and refugees in 2019 compared to 2018.

These types of announcements impact all citizens trying to legally come to Canada who might desire to live in Quebec. 
From my perspective, supporting legal immigration is how one joins our Canadian family.

Suggesting that coming to Canada “irregularly” implies a very different meaning from entering illegally. 

I strongly support legal immigration as I believe all Canadians do. 
My question this week:

Do you believe that crossing a border between official border crossings is illegal or should it be termed as irregular?

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

During the 2015 election campaign Justin Trudeau made a promise, and I quote directly, "In 2019/20, we will balance the budget". 

Last Thursday the Liberal Government introduced a budget update that confirms this is yet another broken promise from Mr. Trudeau. 

The Liberal fall fiscal update announced that the annual federal budget deficit is projected to increase by nearly $2 billion to $19.6 billion next year.

The debt to GDP ratio that Mr. Trudeau had promised, and again I quote directly, “In 2019/20, we will reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”  will actually hit 30.9%

Canada’s federal debt is projected to hit $688 billion in the current fiscal year and the most recent projections indicate that it will increase to $765 billion by 2023-2024.

Depending on interest rates the cost of servicing that level of debt would be roughly $34 billion a year.

To put $34 billion in debt service fees into perspective, the Government of Canada transferred just over $37 Billion to Canadian provinces and territories in fiscal 2017-18 to help provide for health care costs.

So where is the majority of this new spending going in the fall fiscal update?

As former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has commented "We're deficit-financing the corporate sector,”.

The Liberals have introduced an accelerated tax write-off program allowing manufacturers to immediately recover the full cost of machinery and equipment.

The NDP have categorized this program as a $14 Billion “giveaway for Canada’s richest corporations, and offering nothing to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet and facing record levels of household debt.”

To be fair to the Liberal Government, there are other measures announced in the fall fiscal update not related to the accelerated machinery and equipment write off.

One of those is a new $595 Million fund to subsidize some Canadian media organizations.

This particular announcement has raised serious concerns from many prominent journalists on the important role of journalistic independence from government.  

The Liberals have indicated they will appoint a panel to decide who is and who is not eligible for funding under this program.

From my perspective this raises concerns.

If a media organization is denied funding what recourse does it have?

Should it change the style or tone of reporting?

Cover different stories?

Hire a lobbyist?

The fact that the Liberals introduced this media subsidy in an election year raises many  more concerns.

​My question this week: 

Are you concerned by this government's introduction of an arbitrary media subsidy fund going into an election year?

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

Last Friday evening I hosted a community town hall in West Kelowna.

I host these forums so that citizens can hold me to account and so I can hear what concerns are on people’s minds.

Often concerns raised locally may be very different from the major subjects of debate in Ottawa.

One such local concern, raised from a number of people, was the United Nations (UN) Migration Compact.

This is a subject that has received very little, if any attention in Ottawa.

What is the UN Migration compact? 

Technically it is called the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration”.

It is a 34 page agreement that contains 54 points under 23 stated objectives.

Created in July of 2018, it is scheduled for ratification from signatory countries, including Canada, in a meeting hosted by Morocco on December 10 and 11 of 2018.

Already this document has proven to be controversial.

Israeli PM Netanyahu asserted:

"Israel will not accede to, and will not sign, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants. This is what we have done and this is what we will continue to do."

It has been reported that the Austrian Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache has said:

“Migration is not and cannot become a human right,” and that Austria would not be a signatory to this agreement. 

Countries such as Australia, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and the United States have also stated they will not be signing the agreement.

Our Conservative Immigration Shadow Minister, MP Michelle Rempel, stated:

“By allowing nearly 38,000 people to enter Canada illegally from the safety of upstate New York then claim asylum, Trudeau has undermined the integrity of Canada’s borders. Canada’s borders should not be compromised by abuses of our asylum system, and should not sign this compact.”

The Liberal Minister for Immigration has co-authored a report that indicates Canada was actively involved in the drafting of the Compact and that “Canada is committed to the task of leading and encouraging other partners to realize its ambitious goals, to ensure that action breathes life into the words of the Compact.”

Supporters of the compact on migration contend “The UN’s global compact on refugees could be a game-changer—and Canada is well-placed to help make it a reality”. 

Critics are concerned that many countries, including Canada, currently have immigration systems that are not working well in dealing with illegal immigration and that the UN compact offers no technical solutions to this problem.

From my perspective it is worth noting that the UN compact on migration is a non-legally binding, cooperative framework of the signatory states.  

For those who would like to read the agreement it can be found here:

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf

My question this week:

Considering this is a non-binding agreement, do you support or oppose Canada signing on to the UN Migration Compact?

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

In my late October MP report, I referenced the serious concerns I was hearing from citizens on breaking news that Statistics Canada is demanding access to certain Canadians’ personal financial and banking information, including all transactions along with bank account balances, without citizens’ consent.

Since that time Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and the Official Opposition have been able to ask Prime Minister Trudeau about these very serious concerns in the House of Commons. 

In response the Prime Minister has made it clear that he strongly supports Ottawa bureaucrats having access to your personal financial information.

The Prime Minister has also stated that Statistics Canada is actively engaged with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on this file. 

There is a problem with that statement. 

The Privacy Commissioner has publicly stated that he had no idea Statistics Canada wanted data on 500,000 households, until Global News published these details.

Further, the Privacy Commissioner has also stated that Statistics Canada is falling “way short” of its stated objective of being transparent.

Why does this matter? 

Recently the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology had an opportunity to question the head of Statistics Canada on this program and learned some troubling new information.

Although initial reports suggested that 500,000 Canadians would be targeted annually, the actual number is 500,000 households. 

This means that everyone living within your family home would also be subject to having their personal financial information taken without their consent. 

Statistics Canada also admitted that it is intentionally taking more information than it believes is necessary. 

This means each year, 150,000 households more than necessary will have their financial data taken without consent.

Another troubling admission is that although Statistics Canada will “anonymize” your personal financial data, the agency also admitted that your original data, including your identity, will not be deleted and that if it is deemed necessary to reunify your data, Statistics Canada will retain the ability to do so.

When asked specifically why not delete this personal contact information, the agency did not provide an answer. 

We also learned that Statistics Canada can charge fees to private corporations for providing them with neighbourhood by neighbourhood aggregated data, however Statistics Data insists that this is not “selling” your data, but is recovering fees for service. 

I have had constituents share with me that they feel large companies, like Facebook and Amazon, already have a significant amount of private transactional and personal information as it is.

Currently Statistics Canada has claimed this pilot program to take your private financial data without your consent is on hold pending the investigation from the Privacy Commissioner.

This week the Globe and Mail reported that 74% of Canadians they surveyed are opposed to Statistics Canada taking their personal financial data without their consent. 

Locally I am hearing even higher levels of opposition.

The Trudeau Liberal Government remains strongly supportive of your private financial information being taken without your consent and has claimed that citizens’ concerns that are raised by both the Conservative and NDP opposition is simply “fear mongering”.

My question this week:  

Are you concerned about your financial information being taken without your consent and shared with Ottawa bureaucrats or do you believe this is all a case of fear mongering?

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

​This week there was more attention than usual on US politics as many watched the results of the US mid-term elections.

Closer to home in Washington State there also was a vote to implement a state carbon tax.

This vote was Initiative No. 1631 which proposed a carbon tax of $15/ton and was rejected with a majority 56% of roughly 2 million voters saying no.

This was the second time a Washington State carbon tax has been rejected by a majority of voters with the previous initiative being voted down in 2016.

Why does this matter to Canadians?

Here in BC, some of our industries compete with industries located in Washington State.

When an industry in a jurisdiction paying carbon taxes cannot compete with that same industry in another jurisdiction, not paying carbon taxes, there is a serious concern for economic harm and job losses.

This situation is called “carbon leakage”.

Carbon leakage is even referenced in the current BC NDP Provincial budget document.

Here is how “carbon leakage" is defined in that budget document:

“Industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price:

If Industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

In Ottawa, the Trudeau Liberal Government has also acknowledged this same principle.

Liberal MP Sean Fraser, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, recently admitted that when it comes to big industrial emitters in “trade-exposed industries”, the Liberal Government has recently softened carbon tax on big polluters because in the absence of carbon tax relief the carbon tax could potentially have jobs leave and it will do nothing for emissions.

In New Brunswick, the Trudeau Liberal Government has given a 95.5% percent exemption on carbon tax that applies to coal fired power.

Coal power is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Atlantic Canada. The largest emitter is the Irving Oil refinery who imports oil from Countries that also do not have carbon taxes.

BC is also not immune from carbon tax exemptions.

As one example, despite the BC NDP Government signing onto the Trudeau national carbon tax, the new BC LNG investment will be exempt from the carbon tax increases called for in that agreement.

This is not an isolated incident where a polluting industry in BC has secured some form of carbon tax relief.

Why do I raise these points?

The challenge is that increasingly some of Canada’s largest polluters are being given exemptions from paying carbon tax.

These carbon tax exemptions seldom draw major national media headlines and many citizens are unaware they are occurring.

However for the average citizen and for small business owners there is no carbon tax relief.

Here in BC, more increases in carbon tax remain on the horizon.

My question this week is one of fairness.

With large scale polluters increasingly being given carbon tax relief, do you think it is fair that, here in BC, average citizens are being asked to pay more carbon tax?

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

Recently I have been overwhelmed by citizens asking what can be summarized by the following question:

“Is it true that Statistics Canada is 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?”.

When news of this potential sharing of your personal financial information with Ottawa bureaucrats first broke (full credit to Global News) the Official Opposition immediately began hearing very serious concerns, even outrage, from many Canadians.

This was similar to what occurred when it was announced the Liberal Government was going to claw back employee discounts and treat them as taxable benefits. 

In that case when the Official Opposition raised these concerns, the Liberals announced it was a policy directive that was not signed off by the Minister and would not go forward.

Our hopeful expectation was this might be a similar situation. 

Unfortunately in question period this week Prime Minister Trudeau has confirmed that he fully supports your personal banking information being shared with Ottawa bureaucrats without either your consent, or your knowledge.

The Prime Minister has stated that he believes your data will remain secure. The fact that you have not consented to your financial data being shared and that you will not be  notified that your banking information has been taken is perfectly acceptable and is something he supports.

On Thursday my opposition colleague MP Candice Bergen presented over 800 pages of government documents showing hundreds of incidents of privacy breaches affecting thousands of citizens over the past 19 months.

Fortunately on October 31st,  the Privacy Commissioner announced he will launch an formal investigation into these proposed actions from Statistics Canada.

In my view, this is not 1984. No government should be using Orwellian techniques to harvest your personal private banking information.

Your personal financial information belongs to you and you have a right to know when it is being accessed and for what purpose. 

The Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and our Official Opposition caucus do not support this Liberal supported assault on your personal financial privacy. 

My question this week is a simple one: 

Do you? 

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

  

​This week you may have seen or heard media reports regarding a carbon tax rebate plan announced by the Trudeau Liberal Government.

What is this new carbon tax rebate plan?

The Federal Liberal Government has mandated a national carbon tax to be implemented across Canada allowing individual Provinces and Territories some flexibility to set the parameters of how this carbon tax program will be implemented.

As an example, here in British Columbia, a carbon tax has been in place since 2008. The Provincial NDP Government has announced it will continue to increase this carbon tax to meet the federal standard set by Prime Minister Trudeau.

Other provinces, most notably Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick have either openly refused a carbon tax or have enacted other environmental policies that Mr.Trudeau has decided do not meet his carbon tax threshold.

In these four provinces (and these four provinces only) residents will soon be getting annual carbon tax rebates from the federal government. 

In Manitoba the rebate is $336, Ontario is $300, NB is $248 and Saskatchewan the yearly rebate is $598. 

In British Columbia the rebate is zero.

One local citizen recently shared with me that this Liberal carbon tax policy essentially rewards provinces who have rejected the Liberals carbon tax. 

An interesting observation.

In my view, this Liberal rebate is an admission that their national carbon tax is not truly revenue neutral and that people will pay more in costs related to the carbon tax.  

The intent in these four provinces, according to the Liberals, is to return a larger carbon tax rebate than what the Liberals calculate citizens in these provinces will pay in increased carbon taxes. 

In other words, the Liberals are suggesting that if you live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick you will make money and come out ahead after paying a carbon tax. 

This same carbon tax credit, that will be implemented through income tax returns, will also apply to the territories. 

In August the Trudeau Liberals also lowered the amount of carbon tax that some of Canada’s largest polluters will pay as a result of “competiveness” concerns as many of Canada’s largest trading partners do not have a national carbon tax.

It should also be noted that the recently negotiated USMCA trade agreement between Canada, USA and Mexico is also silent on the subject of a North American carbon tax meaning that competiveness concerns will remain.

My question this week: 

Do you believe government claims that you will come out ahead financially after paying increased taxes?

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

​Back in June of this year the National Energy Board reported that crude oil-by-rail exports from Canada set a new record of 204,558 barrels per day. 

Industry analysts predict that by the end of this year, oil exports could increase to 300,000 barrels. 

The International Energy Agency has predicted that by the end of 2019 Canadian oil by rail exports could hit 390,000 barrels a day with the potential to possibly hit peak levels of as much as 590,000 barrels. 

For some added context, in 2012 the shipment of oil by rail was roughly 30,000 barrels of oil per day. 

I mention these things because the efforts to block the Trans Mountain pipeline have been successful to date and have only served to increased shipment by rail, a less environmentally efficient option.

At the same time the production of oil in Alberta continues to increase.

Currently oil production is on pace to hit 5.6 million barrels per day by 2035, an increase of over 30% to current production levels. In the absence of increased pipeline capacity it is clear why oil by rail exports will only continue to increase.

Aside from the logistical challenges, there is also the current inability to access new markets that are willing to pay more for Canadian oil then is currently the case with exporting to the United States. 

Industry experts predict that roughly $1 billion a month is being lost in potential increased revenue from accessing new markets.

As many will know the Federal Liberal Government has paid $4.5 Billion to purchase the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and has repeatedly stated it will spend an additional $7-9 billion to build the expanded project. 

Currently the project remains at an impasse with no clear deadline being set by the Government for completion let alone construction.

What if there was another way? 

Independent Senator Doug Black has tabled a private members bill in the Senate. 

Bill S-245 “An Act to declare the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada”. 

As many know, the BC NDP Government has been making efforts to block the Trans-Mountain pipeline. 

Bill S-245 proposes that the authority of class 29 of section 91 and paragraph (c) of class 10 of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to be used to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada.

This bill passed in the Senate and is before the House of Commons this week. 

Given that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Trans-Mountain project is in Canada’s national interests, it will be interesting to see if the Liberals support this Senate bill going forward.

My question this week:.

Do you support Senate Bill S-245 and the intent to declare this project necessary for the general advantage of Canada? 

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

With so much Canadian media reporting on the recent appointment of a US Supreme Court Justice, many Canadian stories tend to get lost in the shuffle. 

One of the stories that I suspect few have heard about is the progress of the Trudeau Liberals vaunted $35 Billion Infrastructure Bank.

I first raised my concerns about this bank when it was introduced by the Liberals in 2016.

I questioned the move to develop yet another expensive federally funded agency where none was needed. In a subsequent MP report in 2017, I raised the concern that the Infrastructure Bank doesn’t actually build any infrastructure. 

The Liberal Government has stated that the purpose of the Infrastructure Bank is to attract international investors who would invest privately and ultimately build infrastructure here in Canada.

This raises the question as to where the Infrastructure Bank is today, in late 2018. 

CBC recently reported the Infrastructure Bank has only been involved in one project since it was created.  

The project in question is committing a $1.28 billion loan to help build a $6.3 billion transit project in Montreal.

What is interesting about this particular project in Montreal is that it in no way was instigated by the Infrastructure Bank.

This Montreal light rail project was already in progress before the Infrastructure Bank was created.

Another interesting aspect to the Montreal light rail project is that it is being constructed by a French construction firm with the rail cars being built in India.

That single project aside, my earlier concerns about the Infrastructure Bank being an expensive and unnecessary waste remain.

Access to information requests have revealed some staggering costs to run this new Infrastructure Bank. 

Almost $11.4 Million has been spent on salaries, compensation and other administration expenses while close to another $ 1.4 million has been spent on capital expenses.

To recap, the Liberal Government has now spent close to $12.8 million on the Infrastructure Bank.

That is $12.8 million that could have been spent building actual infrastructure that is instead paying for expensive administration.

On a different note, earlier this week the Liberal Government announced it was providing $1.44 million towards a “near net zero” private grocery store in an Liberal Cabinet Minister’s riding in Ontario.

This project was not funded through the Infrastructure Bank but rather through Natural Resources Canada.

My question this week is do you believe the Infrastructure Bank is a good investment of $35 billion in tax dollars or is it an expensive, wasteful and unnecessary abuse of resources?

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

This week Canadians learned that a draft agreement has been reached between the United States, Mexico and Canada with ongoing renegotiation of the NAFTA deal. 

The new agreement, subject to ratification is called the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement otherwise referred to as the USMCA.

This agreement involved a significant number of concessions from Canada from the previous NAFTA agreement.

Some of those concessions are listed down below.

Dairy: the United States received increased access to the Canadian dairy sector- roughly 3.6%. The Liberal Government has promised it will compensate Canadian dairy farmers for their losses.

Auto sector: Canada has agreed to a maximum number of vehicles that can be produced in Canada (2.6 Million) and be exported to the United States without duty. As well, to avoid duties, 75% of the parts used in the manufacture of the vehicles, must originate from USMCA partner countries. 

Drugs: Canada has agreed to extend patent protections for biological pharmaceutical drugs to 10 years. This change is widely expected to increase the cost of some prescription drugs.

Copyright Laws: Canada has agreed to extend the terms of a copyright from 50 years up to 70 years. A change that many experts have called a “capitation on Canada’s copyright policy”.

De Minimis: this is a term that represents the amount of goods a person can bring across the border without being hit by duties.The basic exemption when crossing the border in person will increase to $40 of US goods up from the current $20. For online shipment (e-commerce) the level is increased to $150 CAD.

Trade autonomy: one more alarming concession that has many concerned in Ottawa is language that may restrict Canada's ability to negotiate a trade deal with a "non-market" country, for example, China. This is an emerging topic requiring more clarification.

BC Wine: on a topic closer to home another concession is that BC Grocery stores current selling only BC wines will be required to also sell wines from the United States…a problem that many thought could occur and made their concerns known when this provincial program was first put into place.

What has not changed is that an independent arbitration panel will still be used in the event there is a trade dispute. Many view preserving this as one of the few key wins for Canada in this new agreement that shall have a 16 year expiry date with an option to renew for another 16 year term.

Things not addressed in the new USMCA:

United States tariffs on Canadian produced steel and aluminum remain in effect as do the punitive tariffs on Canadian

Softwood Lumber.

In addition the United States “Buy American” provisions also remain in effect.

Is this a good deal or a bad deal for Canada? 

That is the question for Canadians to decide upon and will also serve as my question for this week:

Do you think the many concessions that the Liberal government made, went too far or is this simply the price to be paid for a new North American trade agreement?

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