​This week the House of Commons is back in session in Ottawa.

The government has introduced two bills intended to provide relief for some Canadian families struggling with higher interest rates and inflation.
 
The two bills are C-30 “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit)” and Bill C-31 “An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing”.
 
Bill C-30 proposes to raise the GST rebate to a low-income earner by 50% of what they normally would receive on their GST rebate.

This one-time measure, over the proposed 6-month time frame, will cost the treasury $2.5 billion.
 
What would the increase in the GST credit look like?

Here are a few hypothetical situations:

A low-income senior couple with a combined annual income of $45,000 would receive an additional $353.30.

A single student who makes $25,000 would receive an additional $612.
 
A single parent with one child and $45,000 in net income would receive an additional $257.15 .If they earned $50,000, that additional payment would go down to $132.15.

However, if that single parent earned above $55,000 in net income, they would receive no payment. 
 
Similarly, a couple with two children and $45,000 in net family income would receive a reduced extra payment of $337.65 (compared to $467 at $35,000 in net income), would receive $87.65 at $55,000 net family income.

The GST credit increase is completely phased out at a net income of $58,500 or above.

Bill C-31 proposes a two-year dental benefit for children under 12 that would provide a maximum of $650 a year per child, for two years, for families earning less than $70,390 a year.

Families that have an income between $70,390 and $90,000 would see the benefit reduced to somewhere between $390 down to $260, depending on the income cutoff.
 
What is interesting is that thus far the Liberals are proposing that this dental benefit would be “provided upfront, before the child sees the dentist, and parents won’t have to automatically submit receipts or return any unused money…” as reported by the National Post.

It should be noted that dental care programs for low-income children already exist in all provinces and territories except Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and almost 70 per cent of Canadians have dental coverage.
 
This creates two challenges.
 
Without any type of verification process the program could be open to abuse and fraud.
 
Secondly, without any verification or billing information being required, there is no opportunity for the government to compile data that can be used to assess and monitor how well this program is actually working.
 
The Canadian Dental Association has stated that “the federal government can best ensure funding will quickly and efficiently benefit those Canadians who need it most: namely, by collaborating with provinces and territories to stabilize and enhance existing provincial and territorial dental care programs.”
 
While this advice is reasonable the Trudeau Liberal Government has not followed it.
 
Scotiabank has also said that these new spending announcements will increases the likelihood the Bank of Canada will need to raise interest rates above 4%.

If that occurs, it will financially punish many citizens who will not benefit from these proposed new programs.
 
My question this week:

Are you supportive of Bill C-30 and C-31?

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

​In my last report I referenced the recent news that the Bank of Canada had once again increased its benchmark interest rate (also called the 'overnight rate') a further 75 basis points from 2.5% up to 3.25%.

Since March of this year, the rate has increased by 300 basis points, which is the largest increase in roughly 30 years. 

I closed off my report asking If your household “has, or will be adversely impacted by these increased interest rates, or even if you are in a situation where you are not impacted, I would appreciate hearing from you.”

Over the past seven days I have received a strong level of response to that question, and I would like to thank the many people who took the time to get back to me on this issue.

After hearing from so many, a clear pattern began to emerge.

For those who are wealthier, typically they were concerned about rising interest rates and the possibility of a recession but were otherwise not personally impacted. 

Some even reported that were earning more money because of higher interest on certain investments.

However, for many working families struggling to pay bills and having some outstanding debt, many were severally impacted.

Several people took the time to share, in detail, just how hard financially, in terms of actual dollars, they were attempting to mitigate and absorb.

The anxiety and stress that is being caused as the Bank of Canada continues to raise interest rates is causing serious hardship for some Okanagan families.

It is fair to say that some family households are carrying a far larger burden than others as interest rates continue to rise.

Many asked when will the increases end? 

This is a fair question without a simple answer.

Last week our Federal Finance Minister, while in Vancouver, stated:   "We also understand right now that our government has a real responsibility to be fiscally responsible".

Flash forward to this week and our same Finance Minister, with the Prime Minister while in New Brunswick, announced $4.5 billion in spending for “inflationary relief”. 

Why does this matter?

Many economists and major Canadian Banks are warning Prime Minister Trudeau that the relentless spending by his government is part of what is driving up inflation, making the problem worse.

Bank of Nova Scotia economist Derek Holt, in response to this week's $4.5 billion spending announcement, stated:

“It seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation,” and further stated “Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

As reported by Bloomberg, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Bank of Montreal and Bank of Nova Scotia, have all released reports expressing concerns over using revenue windfalls for additional spending.

I have two concerns: one,

1) My Conservative caucus and I have raised inflation and cost of living concerns formally with the government for months.

After a summer of silence, to now hear that some planned help for some families is welcome, although it is clearly not designed to be broad based enough to help the general population with the cost of living increases.

In addition, due to new legislation being required, it is an open question when these supports will be forthcoming. 

2) These supports are new spending which, as indicated earlier, will have inflationary results.

Conservatives have been proposing a 'pay as you go' rule where government departments should find an equal amount of savings before proposing new spending.

In Budget 2022 the government argues that it will have a 'policy review' where it anticipates it can find savings in its existing budget. Had it paired these new spending supports with savings elsewhere, the inflationary concerns would in many cases be offset or lessened. 

My question this week:

Are you concerned about the ongoing spending by PM Trudeau, or do you believe it is necessary in these challenging times of inflation and higher interest rates?

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

​Canadians woke up to news this week that the Bank of Canada has once again increased its benchmark interest rate (also called the 'overnight rate'), a further 75 basis points from 2.5% up to 3.25%.

Since March the rate has increased by 300 basis points, which is the largest increase in roughly 30 years.

For many Canadian households, how this increase in the benchmark interest rate will impact your household budget will depend on a number of factors.

For those who have a mortgage that is locked in or have a 'fixed payment' this may be of little concern.

For others who have a variable payment that rises with the cost of increased interest, this may be a very serious concern.

Some may have a variable rate mortgage where their costs simply go up or down with the prime rate (plus or minus any negotiated discount) which tracks the Bank of Canada benchmark rate.

Others with variable rate mortgages with a 'trigger rate' may be contacted by their bank or lending institution, advising them that because rates have risen significantly, their scheduled payment amount must be higher as the interest portion on their mortgage is now higher than the principal payment.

As we have had historic low interest rates for an extended period of time, these 'trigger rate' increases are not common and those with this kind of mortgage will likely have some 'sticker shock' when they see the revised payment amount. 

Conversely for those with an interest only line of credit or other forms of debt such as credit cards, there may also be a significant increased payment because of this interest rate increase. 

One of the challenges when trying to assess the impact to family households of these types of increases, on debt related interest payments, is a lack of region-specific information.

In addition, with many mortgage lenders in the marketplace, the impact on some borrowers may be very different from others as a result of contrasting lending practices.

While there is an Ottawa imposed “stress test” that is applied uniformly across the mortgage industry, as some citizens have pointed out, it does not take into account the increase in local property taxes that in many cases are also well above inflation.

In addition, for those who live in strata properties, insurance costs have also gone up with premium increases significantly beyond the rate of inflation.

For those that are impacted by higher interest rates, let us recognize that -- with less disposable income -- there is less money to put into our local economy. 

My purpose in raising these concerns related to the increase in the interest rate is to ask you if this is something that will impact your household to the point of serious concern?

If your household has, or will be adversely impacted by these increased interest rates, or even if you are in a situation where you are not impacted, I would appreciate hearing from you. 

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

​Since the partnership between the Liberals and NDP was formed back in late March of this year, one of the joint political messages has been “tax the rich”.

In terms of policy decisions, this translated into a new federal luxury tax on vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and boats priced over $250,000.

The tax rate is either 10% of the total post-tax purchase price, or 20% of value over a certain threshold, whichever is lesser.

For the purpose of this report, we will focus on boats.

The justification for this tax, from the Trudeau Liberal government, is anyone who can afford a boat costing $250,000 can afford to pay more in tax. 

Some readers are probably already wondering why even bother to mention a tax that only an incredibly small percentage of the population will need to be concerned with. 

I'm not writing to advocate for potential new boat owners but rather to explain the policy ramifications involved with taxation competitiveness.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) looked at the fiscal implications of the luxury tax, he concluded the luxury tax will generate government revenues of up to $760 million.

While this sounds positive, the downside is that the PBO also calculates there will be a sales decline of $2.9 billion. 

The PBO estimates that 75% of that loss — or $2.1bn — will be incurred by the recreational boat industry here in Canada.

In other words, this tax creates a loss of revenue.

As we heard from representatives of the Canadian marine industry, this tax is expected to create job losses and other economic hardships.  

As many will know, Campion Marine, an iconic made in Kelowna boat manufacturer, recently closed their doors creating the loss of roughly 100 well-paying jobs, as well as the loss of other economic contributions important to our regional and national economy. 

It must be acknowledged that there is already a provincial luxury tax in BC, and an additional federal luxury tax will hit BC harder than other parts of Canada.

The provincial and federal luxury taxes would be applied to boat purchases -- before GST would be applied.

That means the GST is also ultimately applicable to the provincial and federal luxury taxes- which creates an even higher final sale amount on the boat in question.

These added costs create a larger incentive for buyers wanting to avoid paying these taxes and have the means to go to other jurisdictions where the taxes aren't an issue.

I am not suggesting the luxury tax was the sole reason for the closure of Campion in Kelowna, as most of the boats Campion built would not have been impacted by this luxury tax.

However, it does point out a pattern that we as Canadians should take note of.

Global Okanagan News has reported that Campion will be moving production to Texas and Mexico.

In Texas, Campion would pay no luxury tax, no carbon taxes, nor would it pay higher payroll taxes on EI and CPP as well as the Provincial Employers Health Tax.

In other words, as these new extra costs make Canadian made products and services more expensive -- it makes the cost of doing business outside of Canada more attractive. 

For example, citizens may remember the Bombardier C-Series jet.

Despite Canadian taxpayers having invested roughly $1 billion into the development of this commercial jet, it is now built in Alabama and not Canada.

On another different but local note while Tolko industries has closed local lumber mills in communities of Kelowna and Merritt .

Tolko invested in several new lumber mills in places like Ackerman, Mississippi as well as Urania, Louisiana and Ruston, Louisiana.

This is not a problem that lands solely at the feet of the Federal Government.

Many Provincial Government policies also contribute to the lack of competitiveness and, in some cases, local government plays a role as well. 

My question this week:

Are you concerned about the growing number of well-paying mill and manufacturing jobs moving from Canada into the United States?

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

This week there was, on the surface at least, exciting news report by CTV that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between the Government of Canada and Mercedes Benz as well as Volkswagen to “secure access to Canadian raw materials for batteries in electric vehicles.” 

As a Member of Parliament with active mining operations in my riding, I can state firsthand on the significant importance of well-paying jobs as well as the considerable spin off economic benefits not just to the local community but the entire region.

It is also worth noting that, while Canada currently does not have an active lithium mining and processing industry, we are ranked number six for having the world’s largest lithium reserves behind countries such as Chile, Australia, Argentina, China and the United States. 

For those of you unfamiliar with lithium, it is a highly reactive metal that is used in rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles and other electronic products such as laptops and cell phones, as well as a growing list of other consumer goods.

As the world increasingly relies on electric battery powered vehicles and devices, this will result in increased lithium demand.

With this announcement I also have some concerns. 

As many in the mining industry will know, back in 2014, Ottawa rejected the New Prosperity Mine that would have been located west of Williams Lake.

In August of 2021 Ottawa again rejected another mine, the proposed “Grassy Mountain” mine, that would have been located in the southwest of Alberta.

Both rejections occurred under different federal governments, but for the same reason, due to potential adverse impacts on the local environment.

Since the Trudeau Liberal Government has come to power, they have also expanded the scope of impact assessment to include considerations such as “Gender-based Analysis Plus” to the scope of criteria that must be met. 

For some context there is a 16-page federal document to explain how this impact assessment process is intended to function.

Aside from these types of regulatory requirements and environmental concerns, proponents must also consult with local Indigenous communities.

However, if a local Indigenous community is strongly in support of a project, Ottawa may still reject the proposal for other reasons.

On a related note, a recent C.D. Howe Institute Report found that “business investment in Canada is about half what it is in the United States and is lower than in other OECD nations”. 

One of the stated reasons for our declining investment and productivity is related to “regulatory uncertainty” here in Canada.

There is a growing list of projects that have been cancelled in Canada, not just for environmental reasons, but also for political reasons. 

I mention this because if there is to be a sudden “boom” in new lithium mines, it raises the question where does the Federal Government prefer these mines are located?

There is also the question of water use, as it has been reported that the production of lithium through evaporation ponds uses a lot of water. Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one ton of lithium.

During the 2019 election the Trudeau Government had promised to create a new water regulator and has been dropping hints that it will be proceeding with such an agency.

It isn't known whether its mandate will inevitably conflict and act as another potential hurdle for new mines to navigate. 

Likewise, given the uncertainty of our current regulatory process, what changes is the Federal Government prepared to make that will accelerate the approval process of new lithium mines?

Currently the Trudeau Liberal Government has been silent on these details.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on the future of lithium mining here in Canada?

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

​For most Canadians identity theft is a concern however, unless you have personally been a victim of identity theft, most are unaware how serious the consequences can be and how challenging they are to rectify. 

In 2010 identity theft in Canada impacted just over 2 individuals per 100,000, however in 2020 that rate has increased significantly to 20 individuals per 100,000 people. 

In terms of actual numbers, since the COVID pandemic, reported identity theft incidents have increased to over 17,000 in 2020 and, while the data is not yet in for 2021, it is widely expected to have doubled.

One of the reasons for this significant increase in identity thefts relates to CERB (the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit).

CERB was a program that had very few safeguards against identity theft, and worse, made it a profitable activity among criminals and other unsavoury individuals.

Currently there are Canadians shocked to be told they must repay CERB benefits they never received, as they discover they have been a victim of identity fraud.

For those who have been victimized it is a very challenging situation to rectify as many institutions operate under a reverse onus environment where a victim of identity theft must prove they were not in any way responsible for the situation in question.

Many in frustration turn to the media and no doubt you have likely heard about identity theft as a result of media stories on this subject.

In my view governments at all levels are not doing much to combat this growing problem.

I would like to share the following idea with citizens for feedback.

If you are a user of “Google” online, you will know that if your account is accessed, or there is an attempt to access your account from a new location, you will receive a verification text or email asking you to confirm the login or attempted login details.

This is often called 'two step verification'.

Google of course is not the only online company using two or multi step verification, many other social media platforms have done this, as have a growing number of banks and credit unions, to verify one's identity when accessing online services.

Even logging into your account remotely with CRA now involved a 2-step verification process.

Unfortunately, when it comes to your credit rating, there is no credit rating organization that I could identify that uses a verification process or alert as Google does when someone accesses your credit file.

Giving how far technology has come in terms of accessibility and scale, I don't think it's unreasonable that someone  could sign up so that every time there is an inquiry on  their credit rating, that they should be contacted by the credit rating agency in question by a text or email and informed who is making the inquiry. 

The intent of this idea is to help cut down on identity theft and as consumers give more awareness over who is accessing your credit rating records. 

I am sure the credit agencies in question would argue that their credit files are exactly that- their files on your credit score -  and that any new requirement would make their system and those who rely on them slower.

However as these credit scores impact the ability for citizens to get a loan or mortgage, or in some cases rent a property, and making sure that credit scores are being used correctly with companies that you have decided to transact with and not nefariously by fraudsters is a legitimate counterpoint.

The costs of such an alert system have come down and it's in everyone's interests to minimize fraud.

I have done some research on this idea through the Library of Parliament and unfortunately due to how some financial services, like credit bureau's, are regulated provincially throughout Canada, through consumer protection laws, it is not something that could be addressed through a private member's bill otherwise I would consider tabling such a bill.

My question this week.

Would you support credit rating agencies advising you when there is an inquiry on your credit rating file?

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

​Since I was first elected I have used the summer months, generally passing on speaking opportunities, and embarking on a listening tour -- throughout the riding -- to hear the concerns of local citizens. 

One of the greatest things about this riding is the vast diversity of the people who live in our various communities. Some within more densely populated urban areas -- others in smaller towns and there are those in unincorporated rural areas. 

In turn each fall when the House resumes, I share the concerns raised in Ottawa.

This year, unlike any other, there is a different tone to what I am hearing.

Affordability, given record high inflation and the direction of our governments at all levels has been a concern in many communities. 

Healthcare, such as the inability to get a doctor or having to travel significant distances for a health care related services, are ongoing challenges.

Many citizens have talked about the sheer frustration of trying to drive in and out of Kelowna either via Highway 97 or the Coquihalla and the ensuing traffic gridlock adds stress and anxiety that some have said left them unwilling to make the trek.

Overall, there is a sense that various governments are failing to provide basic core services and are more focused on other areas that many view as non-essential.

There is also a concern of increased government secrecy and in inability to get simple, clear answers why services are delayed and when they will be restored and/or available locally. 

From my own perspective there is no question that, even as an elected official, it has become more challenging to obtain information from the federal government departments and agencies that I often deal with.

Likewise, I have heard of similar challenges from citizens attempting to obtain information from Interior Health.

From a traffic standpoint, aside from the flood related damage to the Coquihalla that is currently under repair, that last major Federal/Provincial partnership projects to decrease traffic congestion within this region was the widening between Summerland and Peachland as well as significant widening of portions of Hwy. 3 between Princeton and Hope. 

Both projects were completed prior to 2015 and there has been significant growth since.

The intent of this week’s report is not to pick on any one level of government or agency/department related to government but rather to ask a simple question.

How satisfied are you with the current state of government service delivery in your community?

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

​If you follow online new sources, you may have run across a few headlines this week on the theme of “Trudeau pushes ahead with fertilizer cut as farmers and provinces cry foul”.

Already a few inquiries have come into my office as farming is an active concern in many of the rural areas in our region.

What do these headlines mean?

Currently the Trudeau Liberal government has indicated that it intends to attempt to reduce fertilizer emissions in agriculture as part of the Liberals plan to reduce emissions by 30% in the year 2030.

This announcement has resulted in serious backlash, not just from farmers but several provincial governments as well.

The primary concern is that the potential reduction in the use of fertilizer will in turn decrease crop output which will result in lost revenue for farmers as well as higher prices for Canadians consumers in grocery stores. 

If you follow international news, similar measures recently announced in the Netherlands have resulted in massive protests by farmers that have shut down many parts of the Dutch economy including some key infrastructure. 

The farmers I have already heard from point out that fertilizer is expensive and is only used sparingly when and where needed.

They are seriously concerned that having unelected bureaucrats in Ottawa, with little to no experience in farming, picking arbitrary limits on fertilizer use that will have disastrous results for them, as well as Canadian consumers.

The Trudeau Liberal government has stated that their intent is not to reduce the use of fertilizer but rather to encourage “research and innovation” so that hopefully “better practices” will be found through technology. 

Another concern that has been raised is that for those countries who do not implement climate related restrictions on fertilizer use, they may end up with a competitive advantage yielding more crops at less cost over Canadian farmers. 

This is a valid worry given that Canada, in 2021, exported roughly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products.

This works out roughly just under 7% of our annual gross domestic product.

Any trade related losses will have serious repercussions to many Canadian farmers.

As we are also in an inflationary period and the hike in groceries has been repeatedly raised on my summer listening tour, in every part of our riding, we must also consider that if basic inputs like fertilizer are more expensive -- costs of production get passed onto consumers -- in this case in in higher grocery prices.

More and more people have told me that they want to support local and will search out for Canadian produce wherever they can, yet new, costlier policies make that more difficult.

My question this week:

Are you concerned with PM Trudeau’s intention to potentially impose this 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions in Canada by 2030?

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

​This week the Prime Minister made a rare, largely unannounced surprise visit to the Okanagan.

Normally an official visit by a Prime Minister occurs to make an announcement, participate in meetings or events like a caucus gathering and of course, to campaign in an election.
 
By in large this visit from the Prime Minister did not seem to involve any of these functions, including no party fundraiser (disclosure of which is required by law).
 
This appearance resulted in queries to my office as to why was the Prime Minister even here?

Compared to previous visits to the Okanagan, where the PM (Prime Minister) had participated in a BC Day celebration in Penticton or a ‘town hall’ event at UBC-O, this was a far more managed affair. 

As the Daily Courier reported, reporters were “invited to take pictures and videos but forbidden in advance to ask any questions. Any shouted queries would result in police-assisted eviction from the various premises.”
 
From my perspective threatening to use the police to evict journalists from asking questions raises serious concerns in a free and democratic country.
 
In this case by refusing to answer questions from journalists at various events it also means these events are intended to be used strictly as photo-ops.
 
Photo-ops at considerable expense to taxpayers given the use of the Government private challenger aircraft that even flew the small distance between Kelowna and Penticton to assist with this visit.
 
This last part raises another subject.

Many have pointed to the extravagance and excess of flying the short distance between Kelowna and Penticton, that was not only extremely costly to taxpayers, it also generates significant emissions from a Prime Minister demanding everyone else drive less and reduce their carbon footprint.
 
However, I am speculating the reason why the Challenger jet flew from Kelowna to Penticton is because the alternative would have required the PM and his entourage to drive back to Kelowna from the south Okanagan during peak rush hour traffic when the commuting time can be well over an hour and half- or at peak summer times- even two hours.
 
Obviously, the Prime Minister’s office would prefer the PM not be tied up in traffic for that length of time.

Unfortunately, as many citizens who reside and commute in the Okanagan will know, this can be a daily reality for everyone else.
 
Local Penticton MLA Dan Ashton has been calling for improved alternate routes to highway 97, that become even more necessary when a serious accident causes significant delays that can shut down sections of this highway for many hours at a time.
 
While transportation infrastructure such as Highway 97 is provincial in jurisdiction,  previous partnerships with the federal government resulted in the four-lane widening between Summerland and Peachland, as well as significant widening and creating 4 lane sections between Princeton and Hope.
 
My question this week:

How serious of a challenge do you see the highway 97 corridor through the South and Central Okanagan?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

It was early in March when I wrote about Canada’s response to the illegal attack on Ukraine by Russia.

As many will know PM Trudeau announced some strong Canadian sanctions against Russia.

At the time I stated that I believed “the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been doing an effective job given that one country, such as Canada, can only do so much to impact a country like Russia that we have limited trade with.”

I also committed my support for continued actions “against Russian and standing with the Ukraine as it fights off this Putin provoked military invasion”.

As it turns out, I was incorrect when I stated that “Canada, can only do so much to impact a country like Russia that we have limited trade with.”

Recently it was revealed that, here in Canada, some critical Russian pipeline infrastructure, (natural gas turbines) were being serviced in Montreal.

Under the trade export sanctions announced by PM Trudeau, these turbines would not be permitted to be sent back to Russia.

If the pipeline cannot be fully operational, it cannot raise peak revenues that Putin uses to finance his Russian war against Ukraine.

This is the very reason why the sanctions were announced.

However, the pipeline in question feeds natural gas to Germany and due to Germany’s efforts to decrease its domestic emissions it has increasingly relied upon Russian oil and gas.

As a result, Germany requested that Canada release the turbines so that they will be returned to Russia, and the pipeline can resume full operations and by extension supply Russian gas to Germany.

Prime Minister Trudeau approved a one-time permit to return these turbines.

While this is satisfying news to Germany, it has been met with outrage by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as well as many Canadians who strongly support Ukraine and understand full well what this pipeline revenue results in for Russia’s war machine against the Ukrainian people.

As President Zelensky stated “If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exception to sanctions, what exceptions will it want tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? This question is very dangerous," and further adding “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world."

While President Zelensky has called on PM Trudeau to reverse his decision allowing these turbines to be returned to Russia, thus far the Liberal government has refused citing the need to protect “German livelihoods”.

Currently the Nord Stream One pipeline that supplies natural gas to Germany from Russia is said to be running at 40 per cent of its capacity without these turbines.

My question this week:

Do you support PM Trudeau’s decision to return these turbines (first to Germany) who will in turn return them to Russia?

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

​With my annual summer listening tour underway, I have already heard concerns from many citizens in different parts of our region.
 
One of the largest concerns is about high gas prices.

For many citizens who must commute to work, the added prices can be devastating.
 
Likewise for seniors on a fixed income having to travel for medical appointments, the added costs cannot be recovered.
 
I have heard from many contract drivers who are not able to charge more despite having significantly increased costs.
 
Small business owners are receiving goods with significantly higher freight bills that must in turn be passed on to customers. 

For many this situation is causing serious financial hardship.
 
However, for those who strongly support carbon taxes on fuel, these higher gas prices are exactly what a carbon tax is designed to do.
 
When the Federal Finance Minister was recently asked about higher gas prices and the crippling effect they are having on many Canadians as well as the Canadian trucking industry, her response was clear:
 
“This price increase in fuel costs is a reminder of why climate action is so important” – Deputy Prime-Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
 
The challenge with this statement is that many countries, including our largest trading partner, the United States, do not have carbon taxes.
 
Further, other G-7 countries, including the United States, are actively taking measures to reduce the price at the gas pumps recognizing that higher gas prices have a compounding effect in significantly driving up inflation.
 
This Trudeau Liberal Government remains alone in the G-7 in taking no significant actions to reduce gas prices at the pumps.
 
Often members of this Liberal Government will talk about “carbon tax rebates”, arguing that some people come out further ahead.
 
The finance minister, who lives in Toronto, has publicly stated that her family does not own a car.

Certainly, for someone who lives in Toronto and does not own a vehicle, I have no doubt they would benefit from carbon tax rebates.
 
However, how about someone who lives in Hedley, B.C.?

In Hedley, there are no local supermarkets, no local primary care clinics, no local high school, and extremely limited public transit options, and so one is forced to commute long distances for basic services. 
 
There are many communities in our region that are forced to commute for services that are not locally available and paying heavily right now.
 
My question this week:

Are you being adversely impacted by higher gas prices?

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

​With the House of Commons adjourned until late September, I will once again be starting one of my favorite activities of the year, my summer listening tour.

This is an extremely important process for me as our Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola riding is geographically large with a diverse population.

Travelling to all areas within this riding and hearing the concerns from local citizens is critically important to the work that I do as a Member of Parliament.

One request that I have heard recently was for an update on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.

Since that time, I have had a few other citizens express similar requests and as a result I will share that update.

As you may recall, PM Trudeau announced that his Liberal Government had purchased the Trans Mountain Pipeline in 2016 for $4.5 billion from USA based Kinder Morgan.

The reason for this purchase was to spend an additional $ 7.4 billion to build the expanded Trans Mountain Pipeline.

The decision was controversial, however aside from the economic benefits and job creation, PM Trudeau also promised that “every dollar the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.”

Since then, the project has faced several challenges and the construction costs, as well as the estimated timeline for completion, have increased significantly.

How significant? 

Recently our Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) reviewed this project and found that the construction budget has now ballooned to $21.4 billion, and the estimated completion date is not until late in 2023.

The more alarming conclusion from the PBO is, due to the significant increase in costs and increased construction timeline, the Trans Mountain Pipeline is no longer expected to produce any profit to the Government of Canada.

In fact, the PBO forecasts that Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has a net current value of negative $600 million.

In other words, this investment is forecast to lose money for Canadian taxpayers.

It also means that the promise from PM Trudeau that “every dollar the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.” will not generate those dollars to fund those projects.

It will have the opposite effect as fewer tax dollars will be available.

My question this week is:

Are you satisfied with how the Trudeau Liberal government has been handling the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project?

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

​On Wednesday morning of this week many citizens awoke to breaking news that the “Top Mountie denies claim she interfered in N.S. shooting investigation".

This, by many accounts, is an alarming news story.

Currently in Nova Scotia the “Mass Casualty Commission” is independently reviewing the events related to the horrific mass shooting in 2020 that claimed the lives of 22 people.

As documents are now being released, a particularly noteworthy disclosure was from a Nova Scotia RCMP Superintendent that has been reported by the Halifax Examiner as:

"RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed."

This is a very serious allegation that has already resulted in denials from the former Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, as well as the RCMP Superintendent Brenda Lucki. 

Unfortunately, these denials do not explain how that RCMP Superintendent would have otherwise been aware that the Trudeau Liberal Government was indeed working on such a political announcement, that was subsequently released ten days later, using information that was not publicly available at that time.

What is also interesting is, while the RCMP Commissioner denies “interfering” in the investigation, she does not deny that the conversation occurred, nor that she confided to her RCMP colleagues in having made such a promise to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Minister of Public Safety.

This raises the obvious questions how this promise came to be and why does this matter?

It matters because the police must always be independent of government to secure the public trust.

It is critically important that law enforcement cannot be manipulated politically or used in a manner to achieve the political agenda of the Prime Minister.

In this case, it is not a secret that Prime Minister Trudeau did campaign on changing Canada’s gun laws.

The RCMP Commissioner does not deny requesting confidential information at the time (information being withheld to protect the integrity of the investigation) that ultimately appears to have been used by PM Trudeau within 10 days of these troubling events.

I believe this raises some serious questions and concerns and deserves further investigation so Canadians can learn the truth of what happened here. 

My question this week:

Is this something that concerns you or do you believe Opposition should move on and focus on other pressing concerns such as the lack of affordability and rising inflation here in Canada?

That is not to suggest that Opposition parties cannot focus on different topics but rather how seriously do you see this situation.

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

Almost daily I hear serious concerns from local citizens about the significant impact the current gas and diesel prices are having on many families.

As I reminded our Liberal Government in Ottawa recently, during debate on the Budget Implementation Act (BIA), in many parts of our region driving a vehicle is the only way some citizens can access healthcare and medical appointments or the nearest school.

The high gas and diesel prices also have another negative impact.

As I have also heard from many small and mid-sized business owners, the shipping and transport costs to receive goods has also increased significantly. 

This in turn means prices must be increased at a time when groceries and other items are already under cost pressures due to high inflation rates.

Ultimately high gasoline and diesel prices are having a negative impact on Canadian households and as well are causing economic harm.

This is why literally every other G-7 nations have governments that are actively implementing measures to try and provide cost relief to citizens on fuel prices as a way to help increase affordability and mitigate inflation.

Unfortunately, here in Canada, our Liberal Government, propped up by the NDP, refuses to take similar action to help citizens facing these devastating fuel prices.

This week, as the Official Opposition, we tabled a motion in the House of Commons that proposed the following measures:

• Temporarily suspending the GST collected on gasoline and diesel 
• Suspending the carbon tax
• Eliminating tariffs on fertilizer
• Enabling the free flow of goods across the Canadian border
• Supporting the recovery of the tourism sector 
• Protecting the jobs of federally regulated employees by immediately removing all federal COVID restrictions 
• Curbing speculation in the housing market by immediately launching a national public inquiry into money laundering.

This motion proposed measures to help increase affordability and help combat inflation, much like other G7 nations are doing

Unfortunately, the Liberal government voted this motion down with the support of the NDP.

I say unfortunately as it is estimated that inflation alone will cost the average Canadian an extra $2000 this year.

While these proposed measures would not address all of that additional cost, they would be a step in the right direction to ensure that citizens keep more of the money they earn in their household by sending less to Ottawa.

My question this week:

Do you believe the federal government should be playing a greater role in trying to increase affordability and at the same time make greater efforts to mitigate inflation?

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

​Sometimes Parliament resembles the movie “Groundhog Day”.

When I last wrote about proposed amendments to Canada’s firearm laws (introduced in the previous Parliament by the Liberals) it was in Bill C-21. 

Fast forward to the current Parliament, once again the Liberals Government have introduced “An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)” under another Bill C-21.

First, let's recap what the previous Bill C-21 proposed.

The former bill reflected PM Trudeau’s promise 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 amount.

As I wrote at that time, this announcement from the Prime Minister led to some confusion as military assault rifles in Canada have long been illegal in Canada.

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

What is an “assault style weapon”?

The term “assault style” is a political term used to characterize certain semi-automatic rifles that often are manufactured to look like an assault rifle.

Critics were quick to point out that the former Bill C-21 penalized legal gun owners for owing certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on their appearance and it did not remove any of these rifles from the streets.

Now let's review what's occurred since former Bill C-21 was tabled.

It has now been over two years and the critics have been proven correct as none of these semi-automatic rifles have been removed from streets and the Liberal Government has still not implemented a buyback program or determined how such a program would work.

This week, Prime Minister Trudeau announced another Bill C-21.

This time most notably proposing to “freeze” handgun sales.

Perhaps sensitive to the criticism that his former Bill C-21 targeted legal gun owners and not criminals using smuggled guns, Prime Minister Trudeau has been steadfast to point out that this new Bill C-21 does not target legal handgun owners. 

In other words, he is suggesting that nothing changes for all existing legal handgun owners here in Canada.

The proposed new law would only apply to potential new handgun owners or those looking to purchase an additional handgun. 

Critics are again pointing out that this new proposed law does not take any handguns off the streets and once again ignores the real gun problem that is criminals using smuggled, illegal handguns.

As I pointed out in my recent report from early May, in Bill C-5, the Trudeau Liberal Government is also proposing to eliminate some minimum mandatory sentences for several crimes that involve firearms.

From my own perspective the evidence shows that illegal handgun crime has risen in Canada under the Trudeau Liberal Government.  

The overwhelming majority of the handguns involved in these crimes are illegally smuggled across the Canada/United States border.

I believe the priority must be targeted enforcement to stop illegal guns from entering Canada.

Neither the former nor current Bill C-21 propose major comprehensive action on that front, although they do generate significant media headlines.

My question this week:

Do you believe this new Bill C-21 will make your community safer? 

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

​This week is a non-sitting week for the House of Commons allowing MPs to be back in their ridings to meet with and hear the concerns of local citizens.
 
One of the challenges in public office is, while some concerns may fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of either local, provincial or the federal government, other concerns overlap and fall under several jurisdictions.
 
I raise this point because one serious concern that I am hearing about from many communities in our region is prolific criminals and what many are calling our “catch and release” justice system.

Mayor of Kelowna, Colin Basran, as well as Kelowna-West MLA Ben Stewart, have met with me to share information and convey concerns, as have many citizens who are seeking answers to what remains a thorny issue.
 
In almost every community, there is a small but very well-known group of offenders that commit serious crimes on a habitual basis.
 
A recent news article from one community summarizes this situation well:
 
“A judge granted a prolific offender bail in court on Wednesday afternoon, giving him one more chance to abide by his conditions after being arrested multiple times for allegedly failing to meet them.”
 
The offender in question is reported to already have 60 convictions over the past decade.

The police are also extremely frustrated. In some situations, these criminals will again commit crimes within hours of being released while they await trial.
 
When you hear from victims, it is devastating.

One mobility challenged senior had her motorized scooter stolen from a secure underground garage. It was uninsured and she cannot afford to replace it. This senior has now become literally house bound and her quality of life has deteriorated immensely.
 
The criminal responsible was caught, charged, and immediately released and is again committing crimes within the community.
 
At the provincial level the NDP Government has admitted they are aware this is a serious problem but have no ideas how to resolve it.

NDP Attorney General David Eby has announced they will hire “two experts” to come up with ideas on how to take action on this serious problem.
 
Fortunately in our Conservative Opposition caucus, we have an new Member of Parliament with significant experience in this area.

Frank Caputo, the MP for Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, is a former Crown Prosecutor with experience in corrections who also served as a Law Professor at Thompson Rivers University.

MP Caputo recently tabled Private Members Bill C-274.

When he introduced this legislation, MP Caputo noted that roughly 5% of offenders commit 90% of the crimes occupying police resources. Many of these criminals are committing these crimes while awaiting trial for other crimes.
 
Bill C-274 propose to create a “presumptive detention” for those criminals accused of three or more indictable offences with a maximum penalty of five years or more.

This is not a mandatory requirement however it would allow judges more discretion to keep serious criminals in jail where they cannot continue to re-offend.

If a judge felt there was an exceptional reason or circumstance for a habitual offender to be released, they would still have the discretion to do so.
 
This bill will not resolve all of the challenges our local communities face with crime, however it most certainly could assist local law enforcement in dealing with serious, re-offending criminals.
 
I was proud to second Bill C-274 from MP Frank Caputo.

My question this week: do you support this proposed legislation?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​Back in January of 2021, when the idea of a “vaccine passport” first emerged that would prevent unvaccinated citizens to travel and have access to various public amenities and services, the idea was strongly opposed by PM Trudeau.

As PM Trudeau stated the idea of a vaccine passport was, and I quote directly, “fraught with challenges and would have "divisive impacts on community and country."

As we know the Prime Minister reversed his stance against vaccine passports and used vaccine passports as a wedge issue during last year’s pandemic election.

Indeed, as the Prime Minister himself confirmed in January of 2021, the implementation of the vaccine mandate has indeed created “divisive impacts”.

Fortunately, in all Canadian provinces, citizens who are vaccinated and not vaccinated can now enjoy equal access to public and private amenities and services with one glaring exception.

Air travel, which is a federally regulated sector, still requires proof of vaccination in order to fly.

For those who are vaccinated, which is the majority, this is not an inconvenience, although it had added to more congestion and some delays at many Canadian airports.

However, for those who are not vaccinated it has and continues to cause serious hardship in many situations.

For many who are unvaccinated it means being unable to see loved ones or to care for a sick and elderly parent in another part of Canada.

It means holidays alone.

These are not just cases of people who want to travel for a vacation.

I have heard of husband and wives being separated overseas and adult children separated from their parents who are in hospice.

It is often heartbreaking. 

As the official opposition we have raised this concern in Ottawa.

While the Government continues to insist it is “following the science” it has shown no such documentation to support the continued enforcement of this exclusionary policy.

For the record, I am fully vaccinated and have supported vaccination throughout the pandemic.

My question this week:

Do you believe it is time for the federal government to lift the vaccination requirement for train and air travel or is this something you would like to see remain in place?

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

One of the first terms I became familiar with, when I was elected as a Member of Parliament, was the term “Ottawa bubble”.  

So what exactly is the “Ottawa bubble”?

It can have a variety of different meanings .

From my own view, it describes how the culture and perspectives on Parliament Hill is often very different from what exists in many Canadian communities. 

One example of this is the current record high gas prices.

For many Canadians who are forced to commute for a variety of different reasons, the added costs are in some case adding hundreds of extra dollars to the monthly fuel bill.

For families already struggling with higher grocery bills and other inflationary cost increases, along with the rise of interest rates, I have heard reports of some households being out over an extra $500 a month that they cannot afford.

When our Conservative Opposition noted that the federal government was cashing in with GST on gas and diesel, as fuel prices rise, we proposed to temporarily suspend the GST on fuel sales. 

Our motion was defeated as the Liberal/NDP partnership literally laughed at us while voting against this motion.

There is little recognition from this Prime Minister on the effects that rising gas prices are having on families and commuters.

Another example of the “Ottawa Bubble” in action pertains to crime.

 I hear immense frustration from many communities who are upset by chronic offenders who continue to commit crimes only to be released back into communities where they re-offend. 

This is one of the reasons why we have mandatory minimum penalties (MMP) for crimes at the federal level to ensure that, for certain types of crimes, there is a mandatory penalty that must be applied. 

However recently the Trudeau Liberal Government introduced Bill C-5 that proposes to repeal fourteen different mandatory minimum penalties under the Criminal Code.

What are some of these offences proposed to be repealed?

Some examples include using a firearm or imitation firearm in commission of offence, possession of firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition.

It is also proposed to repeal mandatory minimum sentences on discharging firearm with intent, discharging firearm — recklessness, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm (if not part of a criminal organization).

To be clear, Bill C-5 does not suggest there should not be penalties for these offences but that penalties for these offences should be entirely at the discretion of the judge, to allow for more “flexibility”.

The Liberals are pointing to the fact that:

“Between 2007-2008 and 2016-2017, Indigenous and Black offenders were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP. In 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, Indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. The proportion of Indigenous offenders admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP has almost doubled between 2007-2008 and 2016-2017, from 14% to 26%”.

The Liberals have stated the intent of this bill is to “target” the data the shows the higher level of these incarceration rates.

My question this week:

Do you support repealing mandatory minimum sentences in favour of more judicial discretion in sentencing?

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

​If you are in public office, “polls” are increasingly part of the territory.
 
Governments themselves increasingly pay for polling data.

In 2020 it was revealed that the Trudeau Liberal Government had tripled its spending on polls.
 
One of the reasons why governments spend your money on polling is to determine what decisions and policies will be more politically popular with certain voting demographics.
 
As an example, right before PM Trudeau called the “pandemic election” last year, polling by Ipsos revealed that roughly 80% of Canadians supported the idea of mandatory vaccine mandates.

Over 70% supported the idea of vaccine passports.
 
As we know PM Trudeau campaigned heavily on these things during the election despite previously rejecting the idea of vaccine passports claiming that they would create "divisive impacts on community and country."
 
Another poll, this one from Angus Reid as reported by the Financial Post, also caught my attention.

The poll showed that 86% of Canadians support a national pharmacare program.
 
This of course is one of the announced objectives between the recent backroom deal made between the Liberals and the NDP in Ottawa.
 
However, a recent Leger poll asked this question differently.

If a national pharmacare program came with a hike in the GST to pay for it, the support dropped down to just 40%.
 
The purpose of my report this week is not actually about polling despite the increasing use being a topic of interest.
 
My report is actually about the promise of a national pharmacare as promised by the Liberal/NDP agreement.
 
Although pharmacare is a provincially funded and delivered program, I seldom hear complaints from citizens on the lack of availability of drugs or coverage from those in need.

Likely this is because BC already has an income based fully functional “Fair Pharmacare” program that works well that citizens in BC are already paying for.
 
This is a point raised by Premier John Horgan, who on behalf of all provincial premiers, has publicly pointed out that federal transfers for health care are the priority to deal with surgical backlogs over new federal program spending such as pharmacare.
 
This is consistent with what I hear from constituents with increasing alarm: the long surgery waitlists and lack of family doctors are pushing our provincial health care system to its limits.
 
My question this week: where do you see a greater need– more doctors or a national pharmacare program?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​As both interest rates and inflation continue to rise and negatively impact many households here in our region, I doubt there is much attention on the current discussion in Ottawa over the Trudeau Liberals invoking of the Emergencies Act earlier this year.

However, that does not mean that many Canadians should not be seriously concerned over what is transpiring in Ottawa on this subject.

To recap, in my February 16, 2022 report I explained the Emergencies Act is the replacement for the former War Measures Act.

The War Measures Act was only used once outside of wartime by Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the request of the Quebec Government in 1970.

The replacement Emergencies Act had never been used until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided to invoke it, claiming it was the only way to end the truck protests occurring in Ottawa in February.

As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association describes it:

“The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada" & when the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."

The purpose of my report this week is not to revisit the decision to invoke the act but rather to share my concerns with the process that led up to this decision.

To be clear invoking the Emergencies Act is the most serious action that a Canadian government can take against its own citizens. 

In this case some citizens alleged to be involved in the protests had their personal bank accounts frozen based on unverified leaked documents that were reported through some media sources.

This was done without formal verification of the facts and no due process whatsoever for those alleged to be involved.

Indeed, during the Emergencies Act debate in the House of Commons, close to a dozen Liberal MPs, as well as many NDP MPs, claimed that an act of “attempted arson” on behalf of the protestors was part of their justification to vote for invoking the act.

This was a media reported rumour at the time however the Ottawa police have stated that this allegation against the protestors was untrue. 

Likewise, some media also reported claims of “armed weapons” being found at the Ottawa trucker protests.

This claim was also cited by many Liberal and NDP MPs as justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

These allegations have so far been proven to be false. 

In other words, many of the claims argued by the Liberal Government, supported once again by the NDP, to justify invoking the Emergencies Act were entirely false. 

Fortunately, the law that allows for the invocation of the Emergency Act also requires that an independent review of the use of the act must occur after the fact.

At the same time several groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, are suing the Liberal Government, claiming the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act was not met.

A sentiment that I share and is the reason why I voted against invoking the act. 

Unfortunately the Trudeau Liberal Government revealed in the Supreme Court that they will claim cabinet confidence in order to withhold many of the reasons that led up to them deciding to invoke the Emergency Act.

My question this week:

Are you concerned that this Liberal Government decided to invoke the Emergencies Act and is now withholding the reasons why from Canadians?

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

​It will be six years this May since I opened my joint Summerland constituency office with Penticton MLA Dan Ashton.

At the time this was one of, if not the only, joint constituency offices in Canada shared by a federal MP and provincial MLA or MPP.

So rare of an occurrence, that CPAC, the Parliamentary affairs cable channel, flew out from Ottawa to cover the opening.

From my perspective a shared office made sense.

Often there may be confusion as to what level of government; federal or provincial, is providing a service that a citizen may be having difficulty with. 

It also makes sense from a cost saving perspective as fixed costs and resources can be shared.

As I have stated many times while there may be three levels of government in Canada, there is only one taxpayer.

After six years in operation the office remains a success.

Citizens of Summerland can have a one stop shop to make inquiries on provincial or federal concerns as well as meet with their local MP or MLA without having to travel to a nearby community. 

Unfortunately, despite the success of increased service and the savings of a shared office, the idea has not caught on in other regions across Canada.

Fortunately, as of this week, that is about to change.

By the time you read this week’s report I will have announced the opening of my second shared constituency office, this time with Kelowna-Mission MLA Renee Merrifield.

This shared office will be located at the existing office of Renee Merrifield located at #102, 2121 Ethel Street, in Kelowna.

With this new location the citizens of Kelowna, who fall within my riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, will now have a much closer location to access their MP and federal services they may be having challenges with accessing.

For those not familiar with how constituency offices operate, due to privacy, citizens must sign a written consent form that allows an MLA or MP to make inquiries on your behalf.

All personal information shared with a constituency office is protected and is not subject to Freedom of Information laws. 

I should also add that constituency offices are strictly non-partisan.

The dedicated staff are there to assist you free of any political considerations or obligations whatsoever.

My question this week:

Do you think there should be more emphasis on shared service delivery between different levels of government?

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

​Since my report last week the Trudeau Liberal government introduced the 2022 federal budget document.
 
As is often the case with government budgets, various media organizations, political pundits, as well political parties will often characterize a budget in various ways and this one was no different.
 
From the perspective of the Finance Minister, she has labelled the budget as a “return to fiscal responsibility”.

Largely on account of her budget proposing to spend less money than the previous pandemic related budgets.
 
In other words, this is intended to be more of a “back to normal” budget.

This raises an important question.

What is ‘normal’ in terms of the federal budget going forward, post COVID?
 
For some context, in 2015, the final year of the Harper government. total federal spending was just over $248 billion.
 
In the 2019-2020 fiscal year, with the Trudeau Liberal majority government, spending was just over $338 billion.

That's a significant increase of $90 billion.
 
Leaving out the COVID pandemic period, where total federal spending in the 2020-2021 fiscal period hit a record high of $608 billion, we are now facing this new “back to fiscal reality” Liberal budget that proposes a total of $434.3 billion in spending.
 
To recap, pre-COVID spending was $338 billion and the Liberals “new normal” is now $434 billion.

An increase of $96 billion over pre-COVID spending.

What this means is that some of the “temporary” spending measures are now becoming permanent.
 
It is also worth pointing out that in the Liberals previous 2019 budget, they included forecasts of future spending in the amount of $358 billion for this current fiscal year.

This amount, as it turns out, is short by $76 billion from the today's budget.
 
While this 2022 budget includes yet another deficit, this time in the amount of close to $53 billion, the Liberals argue this is all affordable.
 
The Liberal “affordability” argument is based on the principal that as Canada’s economy grows– the added GDP growth will increase government revenues at a faster pace than the increases in government programing spending, and by extension, lower the debt to GDP ratio.
 
While this is true and applies to all governments when it comes to budgeting, it also depends upon some constants such as the rate of growth and spending being sustained at proportional levels.
 
In the case of this Liberal government, as is well documented, even when excluding COVID related spending, this Prime Minister will always increase spending well beyond what was forecast, and further increase our deficit in the process.
 
Even in this current, “back to fiscal reality” budget, many of the Liberals campaign promises are missing from it. 

Likewise, the recent backroom deal with the NDP calls for, among other programs, national pharmacare, which is completely un-funded.
 
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a national pharmacare program could cost close to $20 billion a year. 

So as these various Liberal/NDP promises are eventually announced, this will increase our deficit spending. 

Let us all hope that Canada's economic growth does not also decline.
 
My question this week.

Are you satisfied with the “new normal” of Liberal budgetary spending?

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

It is not a secret that traditional print media organizations have struggled financially as advertisers have increased spending on online advertising.

This has forced some media organizations to adapt to this new dynamic by downsizing and in some cases closing their doors, a situation that no one in a healthy democracy embraces.

In 2019 the Trudeau Liberal Government announced a controversial program by creating a $600 million dollar media subsidy fund.

This program raised concerns, even from some journalists, who questioned how media could be independent and criticize a government that was subsidizing it.

Others questioned how and who would decide what media organizations would or would not receive this bailout funding, and based upon what criteria.

In response to those concerns the Liberal Government did what it generally does when facing controversy and that is to make promises they have no actual intention of fulfilling.

The Minister, at the time, when asked if the Liberal Government would be transparent and disclose in detail how decisions were made on who received this money and why, answered: “Absolutely”.

Flash forward to 2022, and while we do know who is on the five-member panel making these decisions, it remains a secret what media organizations were deemed eligible for this funding and how much they received.

It is also a secret what media organizations were rejected for this funding and the reasons why.

Full credit to the relatively small number of media organizations who have openly disclosed they did not apply for this funding.

The vast majority are silent on if they applied and received this funding.

Also, this week the Liberals have introduced Bill C-18 “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada”.

According to the Liberals this bill “regulates digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contribute to its sustainability.”

What this really means is that the Liberals are proposing that online companies such as Facebook and Google will be forced to pay eligible Canadian media organizations for content that is shared on their platforms.

As many experts and stakeholders in Ottawa are pointing out, this raises serious concerns.

The purpose of advertising is ultimately to drive customers to a business.

Therefore, many media organizations share links of their content on social media sites hoping to drive traffic to their websites.

The vast majority of these media organizations sell their own online advertising, so the added traffic from platforms such as Facebook and Google help increase the revenue generated.

Now Bill C-18 proposes to financially penalize these same platforms for the fact that users share links that ultimately benefit the media  organizations in question. 

This process, it is proposed, would be regulated by the CRTC.

This once again raises the concern by what process will “eligible” media be determined or rejected?

Will eligible organizations be disclosed, or will this once again be a “secret”?

My question this week relates to Bill C-18.

Do you agree with the Liberal Government's increasing attempts to regulate “approved” online content?

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