It was roughly one month ago that I last wrote about Bill C-10.

For those unfamiliar with Bill C-10, it is the Liberal government bill that aims to, among other things, "provide the CRTC with new powers to regulate online audio and audio-visual services, allowing the CRTC to create conditions of service and other regulatory requirements under which these online broadcasters would operate in Canada."

If you have been following Bill C-10 closely, you will know that critics of this bill have raised some very serious concerns.

I continue to receive a growing number of calls and emails from local citizens who are strongly opposed to Bill C-10.

The concerns I hear locally are different from the concerns heard in Ottawa, where industry and cultural groups have lined up, depending on whether they win or lose more control over their revenues.

The concerns I hear locally are largely around freedom of expression, however more and more I am also hearing about C-10’s impact to 'net neutrality'.

For those of you unfamiliar, net neutrality is a principle that internet service providers should treat all internet data equally.

In other words, certain internet content should not be sped up or slowed down, censored, or blocked, based on discretionary criteria.

It is an important principle and one that PM Trudeau defended in 2017: “digital technology and use of the internet is the lever to create economic growth and opportunities for citizens right across this country, we need to continue to defend net neutrality and I will.”

The concerns raised point to the fact that Bill C-10 enables unelected bureaucrats at the CRTC to have the power to regulate and force these online companies to put in place regimes or algorithms that may misplace or censor content posted online by Canadians.

The problem is much of the content on these social media sites is unique content created by Canadians, and posted to their social media accounts.

While the intent is to ensure Canadian content, the question is who decides these definitions for the CRTC? 

Instead of you having the choice, your choices could be limited, based on a yet to be announced criteria set and enforced by the CRTC.

Further, if certain content is prioritized because it meets an arbitrary standard or other content is pushed so far back that it is difficult to find or censored, there is no question that would be in contrast with the principle of net neutrality. 

This is the core concern that I am hearing from many local citizens.

People do not want unelected and accountable bureaucrats using an arbitrary process to decide what does and does not meet their objectives.

My question this week:

Do you want the CRTC to have the tools to regulate your internet content?

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

At the time I write this weeks report, British Columbia has received just over 2.93 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

Of that, over 85% has already been administered, meaning approximately 2.5 million citizens have now received a single dose of vaccine.

Just over 130,000 have now received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine

With the population of slightly over 5 million B.C., this means we are not at a threshold where roughly 50% of our population has at least one dose of vaccine.

Canada wide, this number is not far behind, with 46% of the population now having received one dose of vaccine.

In other words, Canada is now roughly halfway finished vacating one half of our population.

The question that's increasingly being asked is, what comes next?

In the Unites States, the CDC has released guidelines that outlines many activities that are now considered safe and do not require mask wearing or social distancing. 

In the UK there is now a four-stage roadmap that outlines the lifting of restrictions at each stage.

In stage 3, for example, most businesses will be able to fully re-open.

This week the UK intends to announce the country is now in Stage 3.

The EU is also in the process of creating a harmonized list of travel regulations and restrictions, as well as creating an electronic travel certificate.

Unfortunately, here in Canada we still do not have a detailed re-opening plan from our federal government. 

The Public Health Agency of Canada has recently posted some information but not to the level of detail needed by many Canadians.

As a result of this, the Business Council of Canada has written an open letter to the Prime Minister requesting a plan to reopen the Canadian economy.

This letter offers advice to the Prime Minister:

“Canadians also want to know when it will be safe to travel again to see friends and loved ones. To avoid rising levels of confusion and frustration, your government should collaborate with officials in the United States and other countries in setting benchmarks that would enable the easing of border restrictions and travel quarantines. 
A clear and predictable plan for a gradual and safe return to a more normal life would instill public confidence while demonstrating concern for the physical, mental and economic health of Canadians. As business and community leaders we stand ready to work with you to ensure a safe and sustainable recovery.”

The intent of my report this week is not to criticize the federal government for a lack of a plan but rather to ask a question to the citizens of Central Okanagan, Similkameen and Nicola.

When it comes to re-opening our local and national economy what are the concerns you would like to see addressed?

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

This week the Prime Minister created a bit of a stir in Ottawa when he announced his latest sound bite; that Canadians can enjoy a "one-dose summer”.

The comment appears to be an admission that at best, those Canadians who want to be fully vaccinated with two doses of COVID vaccine, will only be able to receive one dose by summer.

The expectation is that every Canadian can be in this “one-dose” situation by the end of June. 

The required second dose would occur at some point in the fall.

What does a “one dose” summer look like compared to a “two dose” summer as we now witnessing in the United States?

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not provided a clear definition of what a “one dose summer” really means.

In fairness much of health policy is provincial, however here in the Okanagan, we receive a considerable amount of business as a result from our proximity to the Canada /USA border.

Increasingly I am receiving questions from many in the tourism and hospitality sectors who are receiving booking requests from fully vaccinated US citizens and they are unclear how far down the road they must continue to decline these requests, which in turn amounts to a significant loss of revenue.

I am also increasingly hearing from frustrated Canadians who would like more certainty on what will be the plan for the border re-opening so they can visit family and attend to other commitments.

On these points PM Trudeau continues to say Canada will "align policy on ‘vaccine passports’" with other countries.

Unfortunately, this is not a clear answer on what his expectations will be for fully vaccinated US citizens desiring to do business here in Canada. 

While this is an important question for many small businesses who depend on US visitors here in the summer months, it may or may not be a concern to other citizens.

That leads to my question this week:

When it comes to the Canada /USA border what are your thoughts on a potential re-opening?

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

​In late November of 2016 a common media headline was “Trudeau kills Northern Gateway pipeline” after the PM announced his government would not continue with the project.

The announcement to kill the Northern Gateway project also honoured an election commitment from Prime Minister Trudeau, who had previously stated that “the Great Bear Rain Forest was no place for a pipeline.”

The decision to kill the Northern Gateway pipeline project was also politically popular with many who had supported the Prime Minister in the 2015 election.

As many will know, the Prime Minister also announced that he would be supporting and approving the Trans-Mountain pipeline project, a decision that outraged many of those who celebrated the demise of Northern Gateway.

Pipeline politics are indeed very much part of our democratic process as evidenced by the opposition to the Trans-Mountain pipeline from the BC Premier Horgan and his NDP Government, promising to use “every tool in the tool box “to try and stop it.

Why does this matter? 

Because pipeline politics are also popular with certain politicians south of our Canada/United States border.

Many will know that President Biden, shortly after occupying the Oval Office, used the power of the Presidential Veto to officially end the Keystone XL pipeline project.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed to connect Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska over 1,947-kilometres to transport Canadian crude oil to US refineries.

Keystone XL is not the only pipeline being targeted by United States politicians. 

The Line 5 pipeline, built in 1953, runs from Superior, Wisconsin and feeds oil refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.

Line 5 also carries natural gas and is considered a critical supply source of oil and gas to the Ontario and Quebec economies.

The challenge is a portion of Line 5 runs underwater where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac.

The risk for environmental damage related to a potential spill of a pipeline that carries up to 540,000 barrels a day of oil and natural gas liquids has resulted in Michigan State Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordering the revocation of the easement for the pipeline and that it be shutdown.

Enbridge, the owner and operator of this pipeline, is exploring legal options as well as mediation to avoid the shut down that is currently set to come into effect next week. 

This possible pipeline shutdown has also created considerable political tension as the Trudeau Liberal Government is said to be using all diplomatic channels in Washington and with President Biden to avoid this pipeline from being shut down.

I strongly support pipeline projects however this issue raises a question to those who oppose pipelines, that is seldom asked: 

Considering PM Trudeau politically killed the Northern Gateway pipeline, much as President Biden did for Keystone XL, both citing risk and environmental reasons, why is Governor Gretchen Whitmer not entitled to follow their lead?

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

​I will begin this weeks report by sharing part of a conversation I once had with a now retired provincial cabinet minister. 

The former Minister shared an observation that one of the challenges in government, when attempting to try and resolve a problem, is the need to be very careful to ensure that the proposed solution does not create more new, unanticipated problems.

I am reminded of this as the Liberal Government has tabled, and recently amended, Bill C-10: “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

Few would dispute that in an age of increased digital steaming, and various online media platforms, that the Broadcasting Act and the oversight regulation with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is badly in need of updating.

The challenge, as the now retired former cabinet minister would remind us, is how make these much-needed updates without inadvertently creating new problems?

Recently the Liberal Government removed a critical exemption to Bill C-10, that in my view and the view of many other experts and stakeholders, will create serious setbacks to our Charter protected right of free expression.

When Bill C-10 was first proposed it exempted 'unique user generated content' from the bill.

For example, if a Canadian created and posted their own video on YouTube, Facebook, Tik Tok or any other online social media platforms, their content was exempted by the changes proposed in Bill C-10. 

However, during clause by clause examination of Bill C-10 in the Industry, Science and Technology committee, the Liberals removed this exemption.

Removing this exemption means that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the CRTC could have the power to regulate, remove and censor what Canadians post to their own social media.

This in turn can also limit what Canadians are able to see online in Canada.

Instead of Canadians having the choice, the choices could be limited based on a yet to be announced criteria set and enforced by the CRTC.

The Liberals so far defend this amendment stating that the intent is to limit the broadcast of unlicensed content online to protect copyright holders, who have lobbied for these changes.

That ultimately is the problem with the Liberal approach in Bill C-10.

Rather than resolving the unlicensed content issue through copyright law, the government proposes to cut it off at the broadcasting level, allowing Canadian's content to be sacrificed in the process.

In a statement on the bill’s Charter compliance, justice officials argued that the original exemption, removed by the Liberals, alleviated potential concerns of breaching section 2 (b) of the Charter on free expression.

With the exemption's removal, many are speculating on what impacts this bill will have.

This approach by the Liberals, according to one of Canada’s foremost law professors, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa,  is a “shocking and likely unconstitutional speech regulation.”

Professor Michael Geist further notes:

“We would never think of subjecting the content of the letters, emails or blog posts to CRTC regulation, yet Canadian Heritage Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Liberal government believe it is appropriate to regulate a new generation’s form of speech – TikTok videos, Instagram posts, Facebook feeds, and YouTube videos – as if they are the equivalent of broadcast programs.”

For the record I share the concerns of Professor Geist. 

My question this week:

Do you support or oppose this amendment to Bill C-10?

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

​This week the Liberal Government tabled its first budget in over two years.

In her budget speech, the Finance Minister stated that we must build:

“a more resilient Canada: better, more fair, more prosperous and more innovative.”

This raises the obvious question.

Who has been governing Canada for the past five years to have made Canada so un-resilient, so un-fair, so unprosperous and lacking in innovation?

This is generally the pattern of Liberal budgets and this one is no exception.

By the numbers this budget promises a massive level of spending, all told some $143 billion in new spending over the next six years.

Where is it all going? 

Despite promises not to use omnibus budgets, this Liberal budget comes in at over 700 pages, so it is only possible to highlight some of the proposed spending areas.

$30 billion has been earmarked for daycare and early learning over the next five years.

This will require partnerships with the provinces to fully implement.

Ultimately the goal is to provide $10 per day daycare.

$18 billion in promised spending over the next five years in an effort to close the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

$17 billion is promised to be spent in future years on the promotion of what the Liberals have termed the “green recovery effort".

There is also a $12 billion promise to extend COVID business aid programs as well as other income support measures.

Another announcement is $12 billion over five years to increase the OAS benefit that includes a one-time bonus payment of $500 expected at some point later this year.

I should also add this is not a tax and spend budget.

Many speculated this budget would include a “wealth tax” or other significant tax increases. 

From my read of this budget so far, while there have been some minor increases in places, there are no significant tax increases.

How does all this spending get paid for? 

While there is no actual debt reduction plan, the Liberals indicate that the levels of spending will decrease over time as many support programs will be wound down and that, combined with economic growth, will offset this spending.

What is ignored in this budget? 

Surprisingly there is no significant increase to Federal health transfers, when compared to what was requested by Provincial Premiers.

I say surprisingly as this is the most significant priority request from provincial governments with healthcare system under significant pressure right now.

For those hoping for a universal basic income or a national pharmacare program, these items are left out of the budget. 

Also given that this budget takes Canada to a debt to GDP ratio of roughly 50%, there is limited fiscal capacity to potentially add these programs.

My question this week:

Based on what you have read here, and likely heard reported elsewhere, what are your thoughts on this budget?

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

Spoiler alert.

This weeks MP report will likely only be of interest to boaters.

More specifically boaters who operate motor driven boats and are currently required to hold a Transport Canada 'Operator Card for Pleasure Craft'.

For those of you who hold this 'Pleasure Craft Operators Card, chances are at some point in your past you wrote an exam that was administered by a third party operator and, if you passed, were issued a 'Pleasure Craft Operator Card'.

These cards are required to be carried by skippers at all times when operating a motorized vessel and in the majority of cases have no date of expiry. 

The only exception to this requirement was for those who were renting a powerboat or personal watercraft such as a Sea-Doo or WaveRunner.

This exemption was based on the fact that it was not practical to be able to administer the test in such a short period of time and that boat rental agencies provide safety instructions for operators who are renting the boats in question.

The reason for my report this week is that Transport Canada is considering making significant changes to this program.

How will these changes potentially affect you if you currently hold this card?

For starters the cards may no longer become permanent. 

There may be a new requirement to take a new course potentially every five years.

The courses themselves may also become considerably more expensive as Transport Canada has proposed that course operators pay a fee of $5000 for a five-year term. 

It is also proposed that there would be an additional fee payable to Transport Canada for each individual who passes the course and receives a new 'Pleasure Craft Operator Card'.

In addition, is a proposed elimination of the exemption for those who would rent a powerboat or personal watercraft. 

This proposal has generated significant concern from local boat rental agencies as it is unclear how a test could be administered in a short period of time as well as the economics of the added costs to the boat rental industry, of which we have many here in the Okanagan.

I am not a boater however the comments I have heard from boaters are greatly concerned about these proposed changes.

As one boater shared with me – our local lakes are not serviced by the Canadian Coast Guard, for the most part the Okanagan does not have many of the costly to service navigation aides located in other bodies of water, and it is proposed to remove VHS weather services that many boaters do use.

In other words, the concerns can be summarized that the federal government is offering less services to local boaters but wanting to take more money from them in return.  

In fairness, Transport Canada they have indicated that the current program, as it exists, generates no revenue for the federal government but does carry costs.

The fees raised by these changes will contribute towards the costs of Transport Canada to administer this program.

My question this week is to boaters – Are you supportive of these changes? 

Unfortunately, the window of time Transport Canada provided to comment on these proposals has expired but more information can be found here:

https://letstalktransportation.ca/pcoc

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

​If you have lived in the Okanagan long enough, chances are you may have come across the odd sign at a local business that reads:

“No shirt, no shoes, no service”.

Now imagine reading a sign that reads “No COVID vaccination passport, no business.”

While that may sound extreme, in New York City (as one example), there is a passport program being launched this month geared at allowing vaccinated individuals to attend sports, arts and entertainment venues.

In Israel there is a COVID-19 vaccine passport program called “Green Pass” that provides proof of vaccination via a QR code.

Individuals with a “Green Pass” are allowed to attend certain public places, including theatres and concerts.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), IBM and others are in the process of developing apps that provide a similar vaccination verification service.

Many airlines are working with these app developers to put these vaccine verification app programs into use.

Regardless of what Canada decides on the topic of proof of vaccination, for many who travel for work or pleasure, it is likely those Canadians may require Canadian vaccination documentation in order to satisfy requirements, either from other countries, or travel related organizations like airlines.

Another example is the cruise ship industry.

Celebrity Cruises, Royal Caribbean, Crystal Cruises, Virgin Voyages, American Queen Steamboat Company and Victory Cruise Lines have all announced various vaccination verification requirements.

Currently our Federal Health Minister, Hon. Patty Hajdu, has met with health ministers from other G-7 countries to discuss the potential for proof-of-vaccine documents related to travelling.

My question this week is:

What are your views on the subject of vaccination passports?

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

In November of 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote an open letter to Canadians.

In that letter among other promises the PM offered this:

“….we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa. Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve- you.”

I believe these words that the Prime Minister wrote to Canadians in 2015 are important and must be honoured. 

As the Official Opposition, it is also our role to hold the Prime Minister and his Liberal Government accountable for these and other promises made to Canadians.

Accountability is vital.

It is why, in 2006, former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper created the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to help hold your government accountable.

It should also be noted that the creation of the PBO was the result of a campaign promise made by former PM Harper to create more accountability in Ottawa, in response to the former Liberal government sponsorship scandal.

Why does this matter? 

Because accountability and transparency are under threat in Ottawa.

In 2018, the Trudeau Liberal Government tabled a budget that included a $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan.

What's deeply troubling is when the PBO requested the documents to review this infrastructure spending plan, no documents were provided.

As a result, in March of 2018 the PBO publicly reported:

“Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist.”

Fast forward to January of 2020 and now a minority government, we, as the Official Opposition, tabled an opposition day motion that is summarized as:

“…given the PBO 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”.

Although the Trudeau Liberal Government vigorously opposed this motion, it passed with 166 votes in favour and 152 opposed. 

Now here we are now in March of 2021(almost April), three years after the PBO first raised the alarm bells, and the Auditor  General recently released the audit (Report 9) of the “Investing in Canada” Infrastructure plan.

Unfortunately, the Auditor General also stated:

“Overall, Infrastructure Canada—as the lead department for the Investing in Canada Plan—was unable to provide meaningful public reporting on the plan’s overall progress toward its expected results.”

This relates to $186.7 BILLION in spending. 

My question this week:

Should this be acceptable conduct from your government?

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

This week in the virtual House of Commons, the Conservative opposition party tabled an 'opposition day motion' that called for the Liberal government to introduce a data driven COVID re-opening plan within 20 days to support “gradually, safely and permanently lifting COVID-19 restrictions.”

As is often the case with opposition day motions, the Liberal government has offered up a litany of reasons that suggest they will oppose this motion that, at the time of this report, has not yet been voted on.

Why the need for a re-opening plan? 

As Canadians know, vaccinations are now underway and regrettably Canada is currently significantly behind many countries, including the United States.

Already many local small businesses involved in tourism, as well as accommodation providers are receiving reservation requests from fully immunized American citizens for potential upcoming vacation stays.

For an industry that has been devastated by this pandemic, the opportunity for bookings and accompanying revenue is desperately needed.

Unfortunately, for this industry, and many others, they are unclear how and when to respond to these requests.
There are also remains a critically important question.

Many citizens are currently under various restrictions and requirements.

While the Prime Minister has promised that all citizens who are wanting to be immunized by the end of September will be, we do not know what vision the PM has following this time frame.

This relates to the obvious question.

For Canadian citizens who eventually are fully vaccinated, how will that potentially change federal restrictions for them on travel beyond Canadian borders?

Likewise, if other countries propose a requirement that fully vaccinated citizens produce vaccination verification documentation, how does this Government propose to respond to this?

Many Canadians want and deserve to know what the game plan is once vaccines in Canada have been fully administered. 

The answers to these questions are also very badly needed by those in the travel and aviation sectors who have been decimated by this pandemic.

While the Liberal government MP's arguing against this motion have largely suggested that expectations for a re-opening plan is “too soon”, it must be noted that USA President Joe Biden and British PM Boris Johnson have both released public plans for economic reopening.

We all know that COVID restrictions have had serious economic and mental health impacts on many Canadians. 

It is important that we all have clarity on when and how the federal government believes regular economic and social life will be able to resume.

My question this week:

Do you believe it is a reasonable expectation that the Liberal government present a data driven, gradual re-opening plan much as the USA and UK have already done?

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

​Last month I did a report on Bill C-21: “An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)”.
 
This report touched on the Liberal Government's latest firearms bill that, among other measures, also places new restrictions on certain types of “assault style” semi-automatic rifles but has been criticized for not removing these same rifles from the public.
 
As former NDP official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair recently stated,

“Trudeau got pummeled, with longtime gun-control allies saying they felt “betrayed” and saying his government lied to them.”

The reason for this criticism relates to the fact that previously PM Trudeau stated:

"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."
 
As critics have pointed out, if PM Trudeau believes this to be true, why is his bill allowing these rifles to remain in Canada?

While there is often debate on targeting legal gun owners as opposed to criminals, one fact that data backs up is that the majority of gun crime in Canada is committed by guns that have been illegally smuggled into Canada.
 
The statistics show roughly 80% of Canadian gun crimes are committed with firearms illegally smuggled into Canada from the United States.
 
This raises another question – why not target illegal gun smuggling?
 
My Conservative colleague, MP Bob Saroya from Markham-Unionville (Ontario), recently tabled his private members bill C-238 to do precisely that.
 
Bill C-238 proposed to significantly increase the minimum sentences for illegally smuggling guns into Canada, as well as being found in possession of an illegally smuggled gun.

The minimum sentence would increase from one year to three years, or 5 years if it were a second conviction for illegally smuggling guns into Canada.
 
On January 27, 2021, Bill C-238 was defeated by just 21 votes.

116 Conservative MP's, along with 31 members of the BLOC, 2 Liberals and 1 Independent all supported this bill.
 
Opposed were 142 Liberals, 23 NDP, 3 Independent and the 3 Green MPs. 
 
That brings me to this week’s question –

Would you have supported Bill C-238 to increase the minimum sentences for smuggling or possessing guns illegally smuggled into Canada?

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

​It was back in October of 2020 that I last referenced the proposed ban of some single use plastics announced by PM Trudeau at that time.

This proposed ban that the government proposes, by the end of 2021, includes grocery store bags, straws, coffee stir sticks, six-pack can holding rings, plastic cutlery and certain food takeout containers if they are made from hard-to-recycle plastics.

In my October MP Report, I also asked the question “What are your thoughts on this proposed ban of single use plastics?”

Most citizens I heard from were generally or enthusiastically supportive of this proposal.

Since October of last year, in my role as the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I have also heard feedback on this proposal from a number of different stakeholders.

One of the primary concerns is that the proposed method to ban these single use plastics is to amend Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and add these plastics to the list of “toxic” items that are currently banned.

As critics point out, the challenge to this method is that the science does not support these plastics being on a list that includes toxic items such as asbestos, mercury, acetamide and lead, among other items.

The reason why this distinction is being made is to point out that the greater risk to plastic pollution is not to human health, but rather the inability to properly dispose of this plastic that often becomes an unacceptable form of pollution to our environment.

There are also other challenges.

Industry stakeholders have raised concerns that alternatives to single use plastics could significantly increase the load on local landfills by as much as 4 times current volumes.

There are also technical challenges, as single use plastics can significantly and economically extend the shelf life of food, as well as providing many important resources in healthcare particularly during a pandemic.

Syringes, PPE and other critically important items depend upon single use plastics.

In summary, the need for science and a thorough review, as well as detailed consultation will be of vital importance as we move forward on this subject.

However, one topic that we must act upon now is the importance to deal with plastic waste.

To that end I would like to commend Conservative MP Scot Davidson from York—Simcoe, who introduced his private member’s Bill C-204 into Parliament.

Bill C-204 proposed that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is amended to prohibit the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal.

As some may recall in 2019, Canadian taxpayers footed the bill for Canadian waste that was transported to the Philippines to be shipped back to Canada for proper disposal.

It cost $1.14 million to ship sixty-nine shipping containers of garbage from the Philippines Port of Subic Bay to Vancouver, where it was properly disposed of.

Not all of this garbage was single use plastics, but this example underscores the need for Canadians to deal with our own garbage, much as Bill C-204 proposes, when it comes to plastic waste.

I am pleased to say that Bill C-204 passed in the House of Commons with 178 votes from the Conservatives, BLOC, NDP, Green and Independents all supporting it.

Only the Liberal Government members were opposed.

My question this week:

Do you support the principles of Bill C-204?

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

​It was a little over one year ago, March 9, 2020, that Canada announced its first documented COVID-19 related death.

Today there are now over 22,000 COVID-19 related deaths.

On March 15, 2020, Canada wide lockdowns began to emerge in various provinces and territories. 

Over the past year the Federal Government has introduced, revised, and updated many pandemic related support programs for Canadian families and businesses.

With many of these programs now being extended in various ways over the past year, Statistics Canada recently released a report that provides important analysis on how these support programs have impacted Canadians.

This is important information given that Canada has borrowed and spent more on COVID related programs than virtually any other developed nation.

Despite this spending, we now know that Canada’s economy shrank 5.4% last year.

What is interesting about the data from Statistics Canada is, while it stated the obvious: “households did experience notable declines both in wages and salaries”, the data also revealed that “the value of COVID-19 support measures provided by governments more than compensated for those losses.”

The Stats Can data further reported that middle income households “on average they gained roughly $2,500 more than they lost.”

Further reporting that “young and middle-aged households gained around $3,000 more through COVID-19 support measures than they lost in wages and salaries.”

As Bloomberg reported on this Statistics Canada data: “Canadians received C$20 in government transfers for every dollar of income lost…”.

Ultimately the value of the federal government transfers to households increased by $119 billion in 2020, compared to pre-pandemic 2019.

However, the total decline in income for 2020 was a loss of $6 billion by comparison.

In other words, the spending on the various pandemic support programs has resulted in far more money going out the door over the measured decline in actual income.

Where is most of this emergency money ending up?

According to the data, into savings accounts.

In fact Canadian household savings as a percentage of nominal GDP are at the highest levels since the 1980s.

As with all data, it is important to recognize that not all households will be experiencing the impacts of COVID-19 and government support programs the same way.

Many are indeed struggling, in particular lower income households.

From a federal government perspective, this data does indicate serious challenges.

Despite spending record amounts of money, Canada is falling behind in both GDP growth as well as employment.

In addition, the current levels of support are financially unsustainable and further have seriously reduced Canada’s fiscal capacity to respond to a future pandemic or other economic crises. 

The Statistics Canada data has seen critics suggesting that the Federal Government overspent and achieved poor results in return.

The PM has insisted that the Federal Government “went into debt so Canadians wouldn't have to.”

Aside from the fact that it will be future generations of Canadians who will have to pay for this debt, my question this week is this:

Are you satisfied with the Government of Canada COVID support programs overall?

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

This week’s report is about Bill C-21: “An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)”.

For those with little interest in Canada’s firearm laws this report may not be of concern.

For others it has become a bill of significant interest.

For some background, in May of last year Prime Minister Trudeau announced that “1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms” were being banned and that a “buy back” plan was going to be introduced so owners of these newly restricted rifles would be able to “sell” them to the government at a yet to be determined rate.

At the time, this announcement from the Prime Minister led to some confusion as military assault rifles in Canada have long been illegal.

Further the term “assault style” has no legal definition within the Canada Firearms Act.

What is an “assault style weapon”?

The term “assault style” is a recently deployed piece of political rhetoric used to characterize eleven different types of semi-automatic rifles.

These can be ordered in up to 1,500 different variations from various manufacturers.

Why did the Prime Minister decide to ban these particular semi-automatic rifles?

In his words: 

"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."

Bill C-21 is the legislation that further addresses these “assault style” rifles and proposes other firearms related measures as well.

What is most surprising about this bill is, contrary to commonly expressed opinion, it does not actually remove “assault style” weapons from within Canada.

Legal owners of these weapons can continue to own them however with new restrictions that include a ban on permitted use (none), no import, no further acquisition, no sale and no bequeathal.

Critics have questioned why, if the PM believes that there is “no place for such weapons in Canada.", is Bill C-21 proposing to allow these weapons to remain in Canada?

Another measure proposed in Bill C-21 is a measure that will allow municipalities to prohibit legal hand guns from being stored or transported anywhere within a municipality if a by-law to that effect is passed.

Critics of this by-law, including one local Mayor, have pointed out this is a form of downloading federal responsibilities onto municipalities.

From my own perspective, considering guns are illegally smuggled across the Canada/United States border, it is unclear why PM Trudeau believes that criminals with illegal firearms would view a municipal border any differently.

As far as illegal gun smuggling, Bill C-21 is largely silent as most of the measures are proposed against legal gun owners with one exception.

Bill C-21 proposed to extend the maximum term of imprisonment from 10 years to 14 years for those convicted of illegally smuggling guns into Canada.

My concern with this measure is that gun smuggling charges often occur well after the fact.

The need to be proactive and stop illegal guns from entering Canada should be a priority, not once again targeting legal gun owners. 

While there are other measures in this bill, most building on already existing laws and regulations, this is a summary of the areas I have heard the majority of concern around.

My question this week:

Do you believe Bill C-21 will help stop illegal gun crime in Canada? 

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

It was seven years ago that I had an opportunity to hand deliver a petition from over 15,000 concerned citizens of the Okanagan (15,258 to be exact) to former Conservative Justice Minister Steven Blaney opposing the parole release of Mr. David Ennis.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar, David Ennis (formerly David Shearing), is the mass murderer who brutally took the lives of the West Kelowna residing Johnson and Bentley family of 6, who were on a camping trip in August of 1982. 

While this horrific and tragic act took place close to 40 years ago, Mr. Ennis may be again coming before the parole board in July of this year.

This painful event once again haunts the family and friends of the victims. 

One of these family friends is West Kelowna resident Tammy Arishenkoff, who was a classmate of the Johnson girls.

Over the past decades, whenever Mr. Ennis has been before the parole board, Tammy has dutifully collected a petition from the thousands of citizens opposed to the release of David Ennis.

I would like to sincerely thank Tammy Arishenkoff for her efforts in this regard and also to recognize the many citizens who have participated in this petition process.

We must always remember the victims in acts of deplorable and senseless violence.

With the potential parole board hearing for Mr. Ennis in July of this year, Tammy Arishenkoff is once again leading the petition charge to gather together citizens opposed to the parole release of David Ennis.

The petition is located here:
https://www.change.org/p/parole-board-of-canada-keep-david-ennis-aka-david-shearing-convicted-mass-murderer-behind-bars-deny-parole?redirect=false

My question this week:

Will you sign this petition?

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

​One interesting aspect about a minority government is the ability for the opposition parties to out vote the government in parliamentary committees. 

In Ottawa, we are seeing many documents being released that relate to how the Trudeau Liberal government has been responding to the pandemic.

These documents were released because the opposition party members on the Parliamentary Health Committee were able to pass a motion that these documents would be made public, against the wishes of the Liberal members of the committee, who wanted to keep them secret.

This week we learned more. 

One of these released documents, an email, was quite alarming.

A section of this email read:

“The rationale here is to present a new metric to distract somewhat from unattractive delivery numbers being reported. Hajdu goes into QP with these numbers, updated weekly, so we’re in safe territory:”

This email related to challenges the federal Government was encountering at the time with the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE). 

What's alarming is that knowing that media reports were not flattering, the response of the Liberal Government was to deliberately manipulate the data to create a distraction.

This Liberal plan involved sending manipulated numbers with the Health Minister into Question Period.

Global News has also obtained documents that they reported as:

“Senior political staffers from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office and the office of another federal Liberal cabinet minister privately discussed how to withhold information from Canadians about the government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis last June, newly released emails show.”

From my perspective this is part of a reoccurring pattern.

Despite this Prime Minister promising to be “open by default”, we instead see a culture of secrecy within his government.

As the Opposition, it is our responsibility to hold the government accountable.

This is a fundamental part of democracy.

Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent and what actions the federal government is undertaking on their behalf. 

Even more alarming is a Liberal Government majority would have withheld this information and Canadians would be in the dark on what was really going on, aside from the Prime Ministers official announcements.

My question this week:

How important is it to you that government truly is “Open by default” with its citizens?

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

Here in Canada we have witnessed firsthand the challenges of COVID vaccine administration due to lack of procurement supply from the Trudeau Liberal government.

To put this in perspective, Washington State between January 25-29th went from having administered over 500,000 doses of COVID vaccine to 616,589 doses.

That is an increase of 116,589 doses in a matter of days.

Here in B.C., over the same time frame, we went from having administered 119,850 doses up 129,241 doses. 

This is an increase of just 9,391 doses by comparison.

This is by no means a criticism of the Provincial Health Officer or any of the regional health authorities.

Simply put, provinces cannot vaccinate citizens without sufficient vaccine supply.

For these reasons Canada has now fallen to 15th place in terms of total doses of vaccine administered per country.  

Canada drops even further behind if factoring in the total number of vaccination doses administered per 100 people in the population.

With that being said, for developing and third world countries, this situation is far more dire. 

For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) partnered with GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance) to pool funds from wealthy countries to provide COVID vaccine for poor and developing countries. 

This partnership is called the COVAX program.

In May of 2020, the Prime Minister announced a $600 million contribution to this global effort.

Of this $600 million, $475 million will be spent in direct contributions and the $125 million remainder to the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFI).

This week we learned that the Trudeau Liberal Government has made the decision to access vaccines from the COVAX program that is intended to help poor and developing countries.

Canada is the only G-7 country to do this.

This decision has raised serious concern.

The Globe and Mail has reported that the organization “Doctors Without Borders” has warned there is a danger that Canada’s use of COVAX could contribute to global health inequities. 

The vaccine in question is 1.9 million doses of the, yet to be approved in Canada, AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Trudeau Liberal Government to access vaccine from the COVAX program?

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

​On January 25th, documents tabled in the House of Commons from Global Affairs Canada revealed some troubling information.

Prime Minister Trudeau announced at a press conference on May 16, 2020 that his Government had made a deal with China based CanSino Biologics related to developing a COVID vaccine.

The documents produced this week reveal that just three days later, on May 19, 2020, the Trudeau Liberal Government was advised by Global Affairs Canada that “a shipment of Ad5-nCoV vaccine candidate seeds destined for Canada was being held by the General Administration of Customs of China at Beijing Capital International Airport”.

In other words, the Chinese State Government was refusing to issue the required approval allowing the export of this vaccine to Canada, effectively blocking the shipment.

While this information was known to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, it was hidden from Canadians and not publicly disclosed until July 6, 2020.

48 days later.

Prime Minister Trudeau did almost daily new conferences throughout June from Rideau Cottage (while the House of Commons was not in session) and not once did the Prime Minister disclose this important information to Canadians. 

Why not?

Despite knowing the China based CanSino vaccine virus was blocked on May 19, 2020, it would not be until the beginning of August that Procurement Minister Anita Anand finally announced a deal with Pfizer for vaccine supply.

By this point countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan had already made agreements with Pfizer for the COVID vaccine.

Why does this matter? 

Because this week Canada will receive no Pfizer vaccine at all and over the next four weeks, Canada’s Pfizer vaccine deliveries will be cut in half with up to 400,000 doses delayed.

Here in British Columbia, currently 85% of all received vaccine has now been administered.

As a result of the lack of supply, B.C. must now delay the required second dose to 42 days after the first dose. 

For the record, Pfizer indicates the required 2nd dose is to be administered 21 days after the first dose.

In short B.C., much like the rest of Canada is now falling behind other countries.

In fact at the time of this week’s report, in terms of total number of vaccination doses administered, Canada currently ranks in 13th  behind such countries as India, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Italy and others.

For some added context, Washington State (population 7.6 million) has now administered 500,000 doses of vaccine and it currently stepping up vaccination rates.

By comparison B.C. (population 5.07 million), at of the time of this report, has administered 122,359 doses.

Unfortunately, with B.C. almost running out of current vaccine supply and with future supply shortages unique to Canada, this problem will only get worse.

Other countries with agreements with Pfizer have not been anywhere near as adversely impacted by this current supply shortage, as compared to Canada.

The Federal Government continues to maintain that Canada has the “most diverse portfolio of any country for vaccines” and that delivery will be on schedule.

My question this week:

Are you satisfied with the performance of the Federal Government in procuring COVID vaccine? 

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

​By the time you read this weeks report, newly sworn in United States President Joe Biden may well have signed an executive order rescinding the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. 

The Keystone XL pipeline is proposed to connect Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska over 1,947-kilometres to transport Canadian crude oil to US refineries. 

The potential loss of the Keystone XL pipeline would have a significant impact for Canada, in particular Alberta, in terms of job losses and billions lost from corporate income taxes, carbon taxes as well as royalty payments.

The loss of the Keystone XL pipeline will also mean that US based refineries will have to increase importing crude oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, countries that have much weaker environmental and labour standards than here in Canada.

A potential increase of shipments of oil by rail between Canada and the United States is also a likely outcome with the loss of the Keystone XL pipeline.

This outcome is not only more costly; but it is less efficient and less safe. 

For these reasons, the Keystone XL pipeline has been long supported by the Conservative Party both when in government and now in opposition. 

It has also been long supported by Prime Minister Trudeau.

In fact, during his time in opposition, Justin Trudeau was clear that “one of the big things the Prime Minister needs to get right is getting our resources to market.”

Mr. Trudeau also stated that if a US President veto’s Keystone XL “the Prime Minister has not fulfilled that responsibility.”

Justin Trudeau was clear that if the Keystone XL pipeline is blocked by the United States that the “Prime Minister take personal responsibility for this diplomatic failure”.

By Mr. Trudeau’s own words this potential Keystone XL pipeline failure is one that he, as the Prime Minister today, must now take full responsibility for.

Those who follow this Prime Minister closely will know that he will not likely take any responsibility for this "diplomatic failure."

The reality is the Keystone XL pipeline has been a target of US Democratic Presidents for some time now, including under both President Obama and now President Biden.

This was just as true in 2013 as it is today.

From my perspective, blaming this solely on a Canadian Prime Minister would be just as unfair in 2021 as it was in 2014.

I mention this as an Opposition MP because I feel it is important that our criticisms as opposition should be fair and accurate to the government in power. 

This was a courtesy that was not extended by the current Prime Minister when he served in the opposition and I recall having these same thoughts when I sat on the government side of the house during that time.

My question this week:

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline being built?

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

This week Canada had some good news: the Prime Minister announced a new deal that will result in an additional 20 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine coming to Canada.

Unfortunately, this additional vaccine supply will not make it to Canada until sometime between April or May.

This is very important because this week CBC reported that British Columbia has now “slowed its pace” administering the vaccine while the province awaits for more vaccine supply to arrive.

Another decision that B.C. has had to make, related to the lack of supply for the COVID vaccine, is that the required 2nd dose will now be administered 35 days after the first dose. 

The reason for this is to ensure as many vulnerable citizens receive the first dose as possible and to maximize the limited supply.

The challenge with this is that Health Canada states the following:

“The vaccine is given by an injection (0.3 mL) into the muscle of the arm. For the vaccine to work best, you need to get 2 doses: a single dose and then a second dose 21 days later. Based on studies in about 44,000 participants, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 beginning 1 week after the second dose. This means that people may not be fully protected against COVID-19 until at least 7 days after the second dose.”

B.C. has indicated that extending the 2nd dose to 35 days is ‘approved’ by the World Health Organization as well as the Federal Government.

This is noteworthy as Health Canada is the regulatory agency that approves the use of any vaccine or drug based on its arms length, evidence based process.

However, some groups of B.C. Doctors have opposed this move suggesting it is potentially “unscientific, unsafe and unethical.”

The B.C. Nurses Union has also been reported as questioning this move stating that nurses “follow the other guidelines from the manufacturer around storage and handling of this vaccine," pointing out that; "now we're going to deviate?"

It is unfortunate B.C. is in this situation.

It is well known that the Trudeau Liberal Government, for reasons unknown, made their first deal with the China based CanSino Biologics to deliver vaccine.

The Chinese Government ultimately blocked this vaccine from coming to Canada.

As a result of that deal collapsing, Canada did not secure the large quantities of vaccine it now has on order from other manufactures in as timely of a manner.

My question this week is not a political one.

If you received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine (as some citizens now have, here in the Okanagan) do you believe it is a reasonable expectation to receive the second dose within the 21 day timeframe as set out by the manufacturer?

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

​By now you have heard that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed worldwide, including within Canada.

Currently two vaccines have been approved for use by Health Canada; the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. 

Without getting into the technical details, both vaccines require two doses to be deemed effective.

Pfizer-BioNTech requires a second dose to be given 21 days after the first dose, while Moderna is 28 days apart from the first dose.

The timing between the first dose and the second dose is important, given the limited supply of available vaccine 

For example, at the beginning of this week British Columbia had received 54,625 doses combined of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine.

In turn 28,209 of these doses have now already been administered to those who fall under Stage 1 priority.

Who is Stage 1 priority here in BC?  

A brief summary of this list includes “residents, staff and essential visitors to long-term care and assisted-living residences.” 

In addition, “Individuals in hospital or community awaiting a long-term care placement” as well as “Health care workers providing care for COVID-19 patients in settings like ICU, emergency departments, medical/surgical units and paramedics”.

Remote and isolated Indigenous communities are also included in Stage 1.

Some have looked at the 54,625 doses of vaccine delivered to B.C. and questioned why only 28,209 doses have been administered to date, pointing out this vaccination rate is only around 51%. 

Herein lies the challenge.

Since two doses are required per person, the 54,625 doses allows for 27,312 individuals to receive both shots of the vaccine.

BC has now administered over 28,000 doses.

That means that there is not enough vaccine supply available for all of those vaccinated individuals to receive their second dose.

The supply to give those required second doses has not yet arrived, here in BC.

This additional vaccine supply must first land in Canada, then is transported to BC and finally distributed to various vaccination sites within our province to be available for those needing the required second dose within that 21-28 day window.

This illustrates the immense challenges that Provincial Health Authorities are dealing with given the very limited COVID supply that the Federal Government has managed to procure.

For some context, while BC has received 54,625 doses, nearby Washington State, with a population 2.6 million people more B.C., received over six times more doses at 358,025.

It is important to understand, with the limited supply of COVID vaccine here in BC, citizens must continue to take all precautions as a result.

To put it bluntly, it will be some time before the vaccine delivery will make a significant impact.

My question this week:

Are you satisfied with how the vaccine is being distributed in Canada? 

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

As Canadians prepare for a 2020 holiday season unlike any other, we are all feeling the collective impacts of travel restrictions.

For some, this may be the first Christmas spent somewhere that is not your usual destination with your friends and family.

With so many different travel restrictions, many have turned to Canada Post or other couriers, not just to acquire goods, but also to send gifts to loved ones who are unable to come home.

For those of you in B.C. who may have attempted to ship a bottle of our amazing Okanagan wine or your favourite local craft beer or an artisan distilled spirit to friends or family in another province through Canada Post, you likely discovered your shipment was refused.

With so many restaurants running at reduced capacities and travel restrictions resulting in less local winery visits and sales, one of our key local industries, like many others, has been significantly impacted by this pandemic.

Unlike some other industries who can take advantage of online sales to the rest of Canada, our local producers of wine, craft beers and spirits are shut out of major provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario solely because of provincial liquor monopolies and their restrictive policies. 

For this reason, before Parliament adjourned, I introduced my latest private members, Bill C-260.

This bill, often referred to as the "Buy, Ship & Sip bill" would amend the Canada Post Act so that Canada Post can bypass these repressive provincial monopolies.

Strong support from consumers as well as industry has been received thus far, but it is unclear if the government and other opposition parties will support the bill. 

I will provide a further update on this once Parliament resumes.

Before I close this week's report, I would like to sincerely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and joyous holiday season.

Particularly I would like to thank all front-line workers and also those in working in healthcare and seniors’ homes.

For all of our essential service workers this holiday season will mean considerable time away from their families serving the public.

My question this week:

How will you spend this holiday season differently from years past?

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

​Back on June 3rd I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion a very simple question:

 “Mr. Chair, can the minister please tell us the current balance of the EI account?”

I ended up having to ask the Minister three times for an answer to this question.

The Minister promised, and I quote: “out of respect for this House, I would prefer to give (the member) an accurate answer, which I promise to provide as soon as possible.”

That was in June and we are now in December and the Minister still has not answered this question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) also took note of the Liberal government secrecy around the EI account and referenced this topic in last week’s PBO report, pointing out that there was no “outlook for the Employment Insurance Operating Account.”

The PBO has further stated:

"Given that forecasted EI expenses far exceed projected program revenues, the EI Operating Account is on track for a cumulative deficit of $52 billion by the end of 2024.”

Why does this matter? 

By law, the EI premiums that Canadians pay must cover the expenses of the Employment Insurance program.

If the expenses exceed the revenue, as is currently the case, the Government must, within a seven-year time frame, recover the deficit of EI funds that have been paid out.

The PBO report points out:

“The Government has not indicated in Fall Economic Statement 2020 (FES 2020),  or elsewhere, whether it plans to address the projected shortfall in EI revenues through higher premium rates, reduced benefits or through payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

This is a critically important question. 

It is very concerning that the Liberals have, for five months now, refused to disclose the current status of the EI account to Canadians.

Why the secrecy?

Canadian workers’ pay into the EI fund every pay period.

The EI fund belong to workers and Canadians deserve a full accounting from the Trudeau Liberal government on the status of the EI account and if it is currently sustainable.

My question this week –

Do you think the Trudeau Liberal government is serving the interests of Canadians well by withholding the EI account balance from you?

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

One of the roles of the official Opposition is to hold the Government to account on where your tax dollars are spent.

Historically journalists have also been part of this process and more recently, at least in Ottawa, also the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Since mid-March, when the pandemic began, and up until the end of November, the Federal Government has spent approximately $240 billion on various pandemic programs and services.

For some context, on that works out to over $6,300 for every Canadian.

This raises the obvious question as to where that money has gone.

Recently Canada’s former Parliamentary Budget Officer was quoted as saying, after looking at the Trudeau Liberals latest fiscal update:
 
“It's impossible to read. I have done this for years and I can't even follow the money,"

As Parliamentarians in the official Opposition, we have experienced similar frustrations trying to get more detailed financial information from the Finance Minister, thus far without much success.

Fortunately, the investigative journalists at CBC have also been looking at this topic and have made some important progress.

The large numbers have been well known as they are publicly available.

The $240 billion breaks down into three categories.


$105.6 billion was spent on programs for individuals, $16.1 billion on supports for government related programs and finally $ 118.3 billion on programs for businesses. 

It is this last category, and attempting to identify exactly where these business supports have gone, that has raised many concerns.

CBC has used corporate filing information to track down over 400 companies that have received financial assistance from the federal government.

The Financial Post has taken this investigation further and identified, to date, 68 publicly traded companies that received this taxpayer financial assistance in the form of wage subsidies and at the same time paid out shareholder dividends. 

In other cases, executive bonus money has been reported to have been paid out as well as stock buy back programs have been used.

The Liberal Government has been clear that the wage subsidy program is to be used to pay workers, not to pay for dividends or executive bonuses.

However, at the same time the Liberal Government is refusing to disclose what other companies accessed these funds. 

Were it not for investigative journalism, the public would be unaware of these 68 companies that have been identified to date.

My question this week:

Given the Liberals refusal to disclose this information, should it be a requirement for a company applying for taxpayer assistance programs to be publicly listed as a recipient of this funding? 

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

​It may seem difficult to believe today but there was once time where Parliament was a highly secretive place where citizens had no access to what actually occurred during debates.

Not only did this make it incredibly difficult for citizens to hold elected officials to account, it also created a situation where the public would hear different and competing characterizations of events that could differ significantly between opposition and government. 

Fortunately, a gentleman by the name of Thomas Hansard came along and began publishing the events that occurred within the British Parliament and eventually this evolved into the system now known as “Hansard”.

Today we reference the Hansard Index as the key resource to information about what is said by Members of Parliament, in the House of Commons, during a session of Parliament.

This is not only transcribed into written text, but we also have audio and video records as part of the Hansard Index.

Hansard is how citizens can hold elected officials to account and allow Canadians to view debates and form their own opinions on events without partisan influence. 

An example of this dates back to February of 2018, when the House of Commons was debating the idea of taxing online streaming services such as Netflix.

During this debate the NDP asked Prime Minister Trudeau why online companies such as Netflix and Facebook do not charge sales tax to Canadians.

The Prime Minister, in reply stated:

“It is not web giants that the NDP wants to charge, it is taxpayers. The New Democrats want to make taxpayers pay more taxes.”

When the NDP followed up with a second question on this the Prime Minister this time stated:

“Once again, the New Democrats are misleading Canadians. They are talking about making web giants pay their fair share. It is not the web giants they want to pay more in taxes; it is taxpayers. We made a commitment to taxpayers that they would not have to pay more for their online services. We on this side of the House plan to keep that promise.”

This week the Trudeau Liberal Government released what they called, a fiscal update.

In this update there is increased spending that will result in the budget deficit hitting at least $388.8 billion in 2020-21.

While there has been much discussion on the spending, there has been less focus on the fact that this budget update also proposes new taxes.

Specifically, the Liberal fiscal update proposes to tax online streaming services such as Netflix.

The Trudeau Liberals have indicated they expect to take $1.2 Billion out of Canadians pockets from these new online taxes over the next five years.

Back in August, when Parliament was prorogued, and the Prime Minister was asked by a reporter if he would increase taxes, his answer was clear:

“No. The last thing Canadians need is to see a rise in taxes right now,”

My question this week:

What do you think of the Prime Minister’s performance in this matter?

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