233067
Dan-in-Ottawa

Government doesn't know best when it comes to online harms says MP

Online Harms Act harmful

This week, I’ll focus on Bill C-63, "An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts."

Before I begin, I want to remind everyone of Bill C-18, "An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada,” because, as I noted in my column on this bill in May, a government, despite having the best intentions, can exacerbate the problem if it hastily pursues quick solutions.
After Bill C-18 received royal assent and became law, Facebook and Instagram, as predicted by many industry participants and experts, permanently ceased your ability to share news links in Canada on their platforms.

The policy has significantly impacted numerous media organizations that relied on Facebook and other platforms for driving substantial traffic to their online news websites, which in turn, increased their revenue.
I bring up Bill C-18 not as an "I told you so" moment, but to highlight what occurs when a government ignores advocacy groups and critics.

Regrettably, we see this pattern repeating with Bill C-63. Critics, industry participants and advocacy groups are once again being disregarded by the Liberal government, which insists it knows best.

It's important to make the internet safe for Canadians by reducing criminal content targeting children. I think most Canadians would agree with that. However, with the current government, which often appears to be driven by polls, the specifics of achieving this task demand meticulous scrutiny.

Michael Geist, a law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa has pointed out creating a digital safety commission charged with enforcing the law and with the inclusion of Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions with overly broad penalties and the potential to weaponize speech complaints raises red flags.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also pointed out the creation of a digital safety commission, composed of government appointees given “vast” authority and “sweeping” powers to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them and serve as judge, jury, and executioner undermines the fundamental principle of democratic accountability.

The decision of the government with Bill C-63, which gives non-judicial groups sweeping powers over the internet, is worrisome. These officials, appointed by the government, will be complaint-driven and will require less evidence than in a court of law. They will decide what is considered online hate or harmful content and can fine Canadians based on those decisions.

Conservatives believe we need tougher actions against illegal online content. We believe online criminals should face jail time, not just fines.

My question this week:

When it comes to protecting the online safety of Canadians, do you believe an approach such as C-63 is better than the status quo online? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.





MP feels national pharmacare plan is politically driven

Pharmacare politics

Last week, I talked about the ongoing partnership between the federal Liberal government and the federal NDP.

The (government) introduced a new bill it claims will create a national pharma-care program that would be managed by the federal government.

I ended my report with the following question: "Do you already have pharmacare coverage? If so, are you satisfied with your current pharmacare coverage, or do you believe a federal pharmacare plan would benefit you? Why or why not?"

I'm thankful to everyone who took the time to give detailed responses to those questions, as it helped me better understand the views of those I represent.

When I wrote the last week’s column, the details of the (proposed) plan from the Liberal/NDP partnership weren't out yet. Late last week, the government introduced Bill C-64, "An Act respecting Pharmacare", and I can now provide more information.

Most notably, the first part of the opening summary of Bill C-64 states: "This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare…"

This admission is important as it clarifies the Bill does not establish a national pharmacare plan, contrary to what has been mistakenly reported by some media outlets.

Another noteworthy aspect is: “The minister may, if the minister has entered into an agreement with a province or territory to do so, make payments to the province or territory in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage…”

That clause is notable as it explicitly indicates funding could be provided directly to a province to enhance an existing provincially provided pharmacare program.

For provinces such as Quebec and Alberta, which have already expressed potential interest in opting out of a federal pharmacare plan, that clause could influence their decision.

Many people are asking which drugs will be covered and how this will work.

While Bill C-64 does not specify certain drugs, it does suggest prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes would be the primary focus.

The proposal includes publishing a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products. It also suggests creating a committee of experts to provide specific recommendations.

I find the latter point particularly interesting. The government frequently endorses pan-Canadian strategies. While these strategies often appear effective on paper, their practical application can yield different results.

For instance, the Liberals' Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change has led to a federal carbon tax being imposed on some provinces against their will.
One province is now openly opposing the federal government on this issue. Another province was exempted from the national carbon tax, resulting in lower overall costs through a ‘cap and trade’ mechanism. Additionally, a carbon tax exemption on home heating oil was recently established, predominantly benefiting Atlantic Canada.

All these decisions are politically driven. Remember, Bill C-64 was a political promise resulting from the partnership between the Liberals and NDP to support Prime Minister Trudeau in this minority Parliament.

In my opinion, Bill C-64 seems to create the illusion of establishing a national pharmacare program. It allows the Liberals and NDP to claim political cover for a promise they haven't fulfilled.

Given that healthcare, and by extension pharmacare, continue to be provincially delivered services, I am concerned this will introduce another expensive layer of bureaucracy in Ottawa, primarily for political reasons.

My question this week is as follows:

Do you support the establishment of this so-called national pharmacare program, or do you believe existing provincial programs should remain the primary service delivery system? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.



MP has questions about new federal pharmacare program

MP's pharmacare concerns

Regular readers of my column know I usually pose a question on a specific topic at the end of each column.

I want to express my gratitude to the many (readers) who take the time to share their thoughts and views on these questions. I read every comment and find the feedback invaluable in guiding my work on your behalf in Ottawa.

This week, I have an important question to discuss. But first, let me provide some background.

Recently, the Liberal and NDP “partnership” announced a deal for a federally-administered national pharmacare program. At the time of writing this column, the details were not publicly released, so the exact workings of this program are currently unknown.

However, we do possess some general information relevant to this topic.

Firstly, healthcare is a service provided at the provincial level. In British Columbia, we have the Fair PharmaCare program. This program assists with the cost of numerous prescription drugs and some medical supplies, such as insulin pumps, ostomy supplies, and certain prosthetics, based on income.

In Canada, many provinces offer provincial programs similar to the enhanced pharmacare coverage provided by companies like Pacific Blue Cross. These costs are often shared or entirely covered by the employer.

The Province of Quebec has already indicated it may (opt out of of the new) pharmacare program, raising the question of whether Quebec will have the right to withdraw with full financial compensation. Similar views were also expressed by the Province of Alberta.

One concern some people have is if a national pharmacare program is implemented, private sector employers might stop offering enhanced pharmacare benefits to their employees, leaving them to rely on the federal program instead.

This concern arises from the belief the federal program might not provide as generous benefits and could also be more expensive for taxpayers to maintain. Consider the $60 million that the Liberals spent developing the ArriveCan app, which is reportedly under an RCMP investigation.

The fact that the Information Commissioner is also investigating allegations of large amounts of deleted documents, suggests those concerns are well-founded.

Eight years ago, the government was advised by its consultants not to launch its new payroll system until all the issues were resolved. Despite investing more than $500 million, the Phoenix federal payroll program still pays some federal public servants inaccurately and inefficiently.

The truth is that despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government significantly increasing the size and cost of the federal public service since taking office, Canadians often do not receive better services. In fact, many Canadians have experienced a serious decline in services.

My primary concern is Canadians may end up with an inferior pharmacare plan that provides less coverage, costs more and establishes a huge new bureaucracy in Ottawa.

So, I have a few questions for you this week:

Do you already have Pharmacare coverage? If so, are you content with your current pharmacare coverage, or do you think a federal pharmacare plan would be beneficial to you? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.



232731


Excise escalator tax on alcohol is 'taxation without representation' says MP

Automatic tax increase

My office, which serves the large Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola riding, maintains a 24/7, 365-day-a-year telephone answering service to ensure accessibility.

This is driven by my belief all citizens should be heard, including those unable to communicate during standard work hours due to work or caretaking commitments.

One such group of individuals who have (difficulty) voicing their concerns to me while working around the clock, are farmers. Many have shared with me they anticipate a devastating 80% to 100% loss of their crops due to this year's cold snap. While the total damage is still unknown, preliminary reports are alarming.

The provincial government runs a crop loss program, significantly underwritten by the federal government. However, the process from initial assessments to receiving cheques can take considerable time, as the wheels of government move slowly. This poses challenges for small and medium-sized farm operations, potentially causing major short-term cash flow issues.

Farmers, already dealing with crop damage, are bracing for another challenge.

On April 1, the federal carbon tax (outside B.C.) and B.C.'s provincial carbon tax will rise from $65 to $80 per tonne, as mandated by the Trudeau government. This represents an increase of more than 20% in the carbon tax, surpassing the current inflation rate.

While certain farm fuels are exempt from the tax, other inputs like fertilizers, natural gas for heating barns and diesel for transport, are all subject to the carbon tax. These additional costs contribute to higher prices for Canadian produce, causing inflation at your local grocery store and makes Canadian agriculture exports less competitive against countries without a carbon tax.

The Conservative official Opposition caucus will continue to oppose carbon taxation. My focus this week, however, is on the annual excise escalator tax established by (the government) in 2017. Those involved in value-added agricultural businesses, like wineries, are particularly affected.

Products produced after April 1 will be subject to a 4.3% increase due to the government’s automatic “excise escalator tax” on beer, wine and spirits. This tax, which increases annually and is pegged to inflation, does not require a parliamentary vote, essentially bypassing Parliament.

I have strongly opposed this form of taxation without representation and at the time put forward a motion to block its adoption.
Unfortunately, the government used its majority to legislate this excise escalator tax.

Given the current crisis in our local agricultural sector, and the ongoing negative impacts of carbon tax increases on farmers, now is not the time to further increase excise taxes. If the escalator tax increase were debated in the House, a vote could be held, allowing constituents to hold their Members of Parliament accountable for their vote.

My question to you this week is:

Do you support this automatic escalator tax? Why or why not?

You can reach me at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.

Dn Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.



More Dan in Ottawa articles



230801
About the Author

Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for the riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola and the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

Before entering public life, Dan was the owner of Kick City Martial Arts, responsible for training hundreds of men, women and youth to bring out their best.

Dan  is consistently recognized as one of Canada’s top 10 most active Members of Parliament on Twitter (@danalbas) and also continues to write a weekly column published in many local newspapers and on this website.

Dan welcomes comments, questions and concerns from citizens and is often available to speak to groups and organizations on matters of federal concern. 

He can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711.



230970
The views expressed are strictly those of the author and not necessarily those of Castanet. Castanet does not warrant the contents.

Previous Stories