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

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

What does a pandemic virus mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has been the response of the Federal Government? 

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

The majority of the funding will be distributed as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where does the Liberal Government stand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However in this situation I am greatly concerned.

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

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

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

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

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

It is also understandable that others will oppose certain projects. 

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

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

​My question this week –

Do you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the Teck Frontier project? 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why a majority? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week’s motion is summarized as:

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

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

I would submit it is critically important for many reasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​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.