Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

DAN ALBAS -- Why take the time to submit a Private Members Bill (PMB) when there little to no chance it might pass? The answer is to raise awareness to an issue

Conservative MP Dan Albas

Last week the House of Commons adjourned for what will likely be the last sitting of the 42nd Parliament prior to the October election. As a result of the adjournment, many government and private member bill's will also ultimately fail, because they did not make it through the House or the Senate prior to this adjournment.

For sake of interest, here is a summary of some of the government bill's that will not be moving forward.


  • Bill C-27 “An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985”,


  • Bill C-28 “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge)”,


  • Bill C-34 “An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act and other Acts”,


  • Bill C-38 “An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)”.


  • Bill C-87 “An Act respecting the reduction of poverty”.


  • also not receiving royal assent was Bill C-42 “An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the Pension Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.”


There were roughly 18 different government bills that did not receive royal assent.  In total, the government introduced 102 bills, although some were routine such as appropriation acts or were related to the annual budget.

As this government had a majority, all of these bills could have received royal assent and became law ... which raises the question, “Why didn't they?”

The answers are varied.

Some bills are controversial, such as proposed changes to pension benefits. In other cases where controversial measures were essentially abandoned or the proposed changes were instead incorporated into an omnibus budget bill where they would not be singled out and extensively debated.

Some bills passed through the House of Commons but did not pass through the Senate. This was particularly common to private member’s bills (PMB).

One example of this was NDP MP Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), with his Bill C-354 “An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)” that completed first reading in the Senate but will move no further.

The various Private Members Bills that I have also sponsored will not move forward. So why take the time to submit a PMB when there little to no chance it might pass? 

The answer is, to raise awareness to an issue.

In the example of MP Cannings' bill, to increase the use of wood in Government buildings. If there is wide spread support for the issue in question then a current or future Government can always adopt the idea.

This was something I experienced with two of my PMB's tabled in this Parliament.

The first proposed to amend the Bank Act to allow credit unions to continue using terms such as bank, banker and banking, as well as my legislation to have Registered Disability Savings Plans receive the same protection from creditors that are in place for RRSPs.

Both of these legislative initiatives were quietly adopted and passed via government omnibus budget bills.

This leads to my question this week:

"Do you support Members of Parliament drafting and proposing Private Member Bills, even if there is a small chance for success or do you view it as a waste of time?"

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca
You can also reach me Toll Frere at 1-800-665-8711
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...
Post a Comment
Read more

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more