​In my May 24th MP report, I shared details from the recent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report, "A Distributional Analysis of the Clean Fuel Regulations."

The report concluded with the statement: "In 2030, the cost of the Clean Fuel Regulations to households ranges from 0.62 percent of disposable income (or $231) for lower-income households to 0.35 percent of disposable income (or $1,008) for higher-income households."

The carbon tax and clean fuel regulations by 2030 will increase gas prices by 61 cents/litre.

After my May 24th report, a local small business owner, who produces value-added goods sold in many local grocery stores, shared some crucial data with my office.

This producer purchases bulk food items from Quebec and Atlantic Canada. His most recent shipping bill was $2,889.92.

However, what is truly alarming about this shipping bill is that carbon tax and increased fuel surcharges added up to $933.10.

This means that over 30% of this shipping bill is increased by rising fuel costs caused by policies such as the carbon tax, fuel surcharges, and other factors. This also means that this local food producer must raise their prices to consumers to absorb these increased costs.

Remember that when the goods leave this small business, they are trucked to local grocery stores where inflated shipping charges from policies like the carbon tax surcharge are added a second time, further driving up prices.

This is part of made-in-Canada inflation that the governor of the Bank of Canada has confirmed in writing to the Finance Committee.

While government policies, such as the carbon tax increase inflation here in Canada, the Bank of Canada announced this week that it is raising its benchmark interest rate to 4.75 percent to try and lower inflation.

In essence, the Bank of Canada is trying to fight against rising inflation caused by the Trudeau Liberal Government taxes and spending.

This is why former Liberal Finance Minister John Manley has described the Trudeau Liberals’ inflationary spending as “a bit like driving your car with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake…”

If you have heard that the Official Opposition Conservatives are threatening to use all Parliamentary procedural tools to delay the passage of the federal Liberal budget in Ottawa right now -- this is the reason why.

For some context, PM Trudeau is proposing $60 billion of inflationary spending, on top of increased carbon taxes and the increased clean fuel standard.

All of this will further increase inflation here in Canada.

Our Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called on PM Trudeau to present a plan to balance its budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates. This also includes the Liberals cancelling any future carbon tax increases.

Our Conservative caucus is united in that we must make the Bank of Canada's job of fighting inflation easier.

This, in turn, would allow the Bank of Canada to cut interest rates sooner at a time when many Canadians cannot afford their current mortgage payments, let alone with this latest increase.

My question this week:

Do you agree that this Liberal Government must stop fueling made-in-Canada inflation that makes the Bank of Canada’s job more difficult?

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

​As Parliament prepares to adjourn for the summer, the Canadian Government focuses on a few "need to have" bills rather than its long list of "want to have" bills. 

One of these bills is C-18, "An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada."

Online platforms like Facebook and Google have upended the traditional business models of news organizations, leading to a decline in revenue and the closure of many local newspapers in our riding and across the country.

C-18 is the Liberal legislation to force online companies such as Facebook and Google to pay eligible Canadian media organizations when a link to their online content is shared on these platforms. Most of these media organizations sell their own online advertising, so the added traffic from links on platforms such as Facebook and Google helps their advertising revenue. 

Charging platforms for every link shared by their users, who often want to raise awareness and discussion among their social media groups, raises concerns about how this law would impact not only the platforms but also the online media companies and everyday users of these platforms.

In response to C-18's proposal for mandatory payments for such media links, large platforms like Facebook and Google have threatened to allow the practice no longer. If this bill were to become law, it would harm the bottom lines of large media organizations and make it extremely difficult for small and independent media to expand and build an audience. 

In my experience, a government can have the best intentions, but it may inadvertently make the problem worse as it rushes to what it thinks are quick solutions. This is what is happening with this bill.

Bill C-18 is currently before the Senate, and my Conservative colleagues and I will continue to oppose it.

Much of the focus in Parliament remains on the serious topic of foreign interference in Canada by the Communist Government in Beijing. 

This issue took a significant turn when Erin O'Toole, MP for Durham and the former leader of the Official Opposition, revealed that he was recently briefed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

According to the CSIS briefing, the Chinese Communist Party is suspected of paying funds "through the United Front Work Department (UFWD) to create specific products of misinformation" about Erin O'Toole as the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. 

The briefing further alleges that the UFWD "supplied human resources, providing workers to campaign against Mr. O'Toole."

Mr. O'Toole is not the only Canadian Member of Parliament to receive such a briefing, that they were being targeted by Beijing, with fellow Conservative Member of Parliament Michael Chong and NDP Member of Parliament Jenny Kwan also receiving briefings. 

While I am personally outraged that these briefings took years, after intelligence agencies and officials within the government were aware of them, I am also profoundly shocked that the government has only expelled one diplomat thus far.

I expect far more solidarity from our government. 

Getting men and women of substance to run for office is difficult enough. While the House of Commons sets out its security protocols and tries to support all elected members to do their duties, when an MP or their family members are targeted, it should be the standard that the member in question is immediately apprised and that the government immediately respond accordingly. 

So far, the vague assurances and promises to do better are not reassuring many of us in Parliament.

These are grave concerns. 

With the ongoing stream of intelligence leaks that raise questions about the government's apparent lack of response to foreign interference, coupled with former top intelligence officials, several diaspora groups, and all of the opposition parties in the House of Commons calling for an independent public inquiry, one would expect the government to heed these calls and work on creating such an inquiry. 

However, Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal caucus refuse such a process. Their continued evasiveness has raised considerable debate on their motivation for not supporting such an inquiry.

This week's question concerns foreign interference in Canada. 

Do you support a fully independent public inquiry? 

Contact me at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.

​Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) released their latest report, "A Distributional Analysis of the Clean Fuel Regulations."

These regulations require liquid fossil fuel (gasoline and diesel) suppliers to reduce the amount of pollution from the fuels they produce and sell for use in Canada over time.

The PBO issued this most recent report to calculate how much money these new fuel regulations will cost Canadians.

According to the PBO, at the national level, "in 2030, the cost of the Clean Fuel Regulations to households ranges from 0.62 percent of disposable income (or $231) for lower-income households to 0.35 percent of disposable income (or $1,008) for higher-income households."

The PBO also concludes that these regulations will significantly impact lower-income households, who spend a larger share of their income on transportation and other energy-intensive goods and services.

Concerns remain about how these regulations, along with the carbon tax, will penalize those who live in rural communities and who are forced to do more driving due to fewer local services like health care and limited public transit options. 

Also back in Ottawa, the Prime Minister's appointed "special rapporteur," David Johnston, has recommended against a public inquiry into foreign interference in Canadian democracy.

The Prime Minister quickly accepted that there should be no public inquiry into foreign interference in our elections despite support for such an inquiry from all opposition parties.

Lastly, with Parliament set to rise in June, I will soon begin my annual summer listening tour.

Since I was elected the area MP -- every summer -- I have used this tour to hear citizens' concerns throughout the riding, which is home to a diverse set of communities and people.

If you would like to schedule a meeting during his summer listening tour, please get in touch with me by email or through my toll-free number below.

My question to you this week:

Do you support these new fuel regulations, considering the high cost of gasoline and the escalating carbon tax?

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

​For many Canadians, the recent rise in interest rates has led to a significant increase in their monthly payments for variable mortgages, lines of credit, and personal debt.

This has caused great concern as families struggle to make ends meet.

In addition to the rise in interest rates, there have been significant increases in property taxes, insurance, groceries, gasoline, diesel, and home heating, such as natural gas or propane.

This has made it even more difficult for Canadian households to service their debt, with many finding it unsustainable.
 
The challenge of servicing debt is not limited to households but extends to different levels of government as well.

With higher borrowing costs, governments must divert funds from other critical services to pay off their debt.

This can significantly impact the lives of Canadians, particularly those in rural communities who rely on government funding to repair their infrastructure and maintain essential services.
 
Recently, during a visit from the Finance Minister to the Finance Committee in Ottawa, the topic of debt servicing arose.

The Minister was asked how much the federal government is projected to spend on interest on the debt for the upcoming fiscal year.

However, the Minister refused to provide a number and called the question "fiscal fear-mongering by the Conservatives."

This response is troubling, as Canadians have the right to know how much is spent on debt servicing.
 
The federal government debt servicing charges for the current fiscal year are estimated to be $43.9 billion.

This means significant monies are unavailable to fund critical services such as healthcare or support rural communities.

The fiscal year 2021-2022 public debt servicing costs $20.4 billion.

Since this Minister took over the responsibility for finance, our debt servicing has effectively doubled and lacks any projection for a return to balance, which only makes the situation worse.

This issue will continue to be the elephant in the room for this government.
 
As a concerned Canadian, I urge the Finance Minister to take this matter seriously and provide clear answers regarding our country's fiscal issues.

Canadians deserve to know the truth about our finances and how our tax dollars are spent.
 
My question this week:

How concerned are you about federal government debt and the apparent lack of seriousness on this subject from our Finance Minister?

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

​I want to begin by sharing an unfortunate event from 2016.

That year, a rockslide damaged the regional irrigation canal located in the community of Oliver.

This canal runs from north of Oliver, down south to Osoyoos and is critical infrastructure serving many South Okanagan farming communities.

When it came time to fund the repairs, the local government budgeted to invest its fair share in the project. Likewise, the provincial government of the day also stepped up to cover its share.

Unfortunately, the answer was no from the federal government. The bureaucrats said that the project did not fit into any established grant programs and washed its hands of the problem.
 
This was not in my riding; however, the Member of Parliament who represented this region did raise the issue many times in Parliament but was ignored by the current Trudeau Liberal Government.

What was even more infuriating from my perspective was two years later, in 2019, the same Trudeau Liberal Government gave the mega-grocery corporation Loblaws over $12 million to help buy more energy-efficient refrigeration.

The net earnings of Loblaw Companies Limited reached approximately 1.99 billion Canadian dollars in the financial year ending December 31, 2022. For some context, the cost to repair the Oliver irrigation canal was estimated at $11.4 million.

Why do I mention this?

In 2021, communities such as Princeton and Merritt, BC, as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas, were devastated by flooding.

At the time, there was national media attention on this situation; Prime Minister Trudeau promised the citizens of these communities that he "had their backs" and "he would be there for them."

The Mayor of Princeton was given a special number to contact his office– yet when he tried to use this number, he was told to go speak with the province.
 
You may have heard recently that the Trudeau Liberal Government announced they were giving Volkswagen "up to $13 billion in subsidies over the next decade as part of a deal to ensure the automaker builds its electric-vehicle battery plant in southern Ontario."

According to Statista, Volkswagen's operating profit in the 2022 fiscal year increased by some 14.78 percent from the previous year and stood at roughly 22.1 Billion Euros.

What you may not have heard is that there are still citizens in Merritt and Princeton who cannot return home.

Likewise, there are many badly needed infrastructure projects required that these small communities need help to afford.

People in Merritt and Princeton pay taxes to Ottawa like anywhere else and all too often, rural Canada is ignored by this Liberal Government.
 
It is crucial that Ottawa hears directly from rural Mayors of these hard hit communities to understand better the struggles they face as they try to rebuild.

Last week, I invited Princeton Mayor Spencer Coyne and Merritt Mayor Michael Goetz to appear in Ottawa at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I want to thank both of these Mayors for attending and sharing the experiences of their communities and the many challenges they face.

This week's question: Do you think the Federal Government is properly supporting rural communities?

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

​This week, a leaked document revealed that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had briefed the Trudeau Liberal government two years ago about a foreign influence operation targeting a Canadian MP and his family. 

This Conservative Member of Parliament was Michael Chong, who represents the Ontario riding of Wellington-Halton Hills, and his family in Hong Kong were the targets of an orchestrated intimidation campaign by a diplomat representing the Beijing communist government posted in Canada.

The reason for the campaign was MP Michael Chong's criticism of Beijing's human rights record- particularly his motion calling on the Government of Canada to recognize that a genocide was being carried out by the Beijing communist government against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

Despite the shock of a foreign government targeting a Canadian MP and his family, the Trudeau Liberal Government did nothing about it.

MP Michael Chong was not previously notified of the intimidation campaign, nor was the diplomat representing the Beijing communist government expelled.

When questions arose in the House of Commons on Monday, Prime Minister Trudeau and his Public Safety Minister refused to admit when they became aware of the situation and what they had done about it.

On Tuesday, both the Prime Minister and Minister claimed they were unaware of the situation until it was raised in the media.

This raises the question of why they did not simply say so on Monday when the questions first arose and what action Prime Minister Trudeau will take in response to this latest information.

This report is the latest in a series of leaks from CSIS indicating interference in Canadian democracy by operatives related to the Beijing communist government.

These include reports of "Chinese" state-run police stations in several Canadian cities, a questionable Beijing communist government donation to the Trudeau Foundation, its meddling in various ridings in the last election, and a former Liberal MP, now an independent MP, raising concerns.

Despite these mounting concerns, the Prime Minister continues to avoid answering what he knew and when or denies having knowledge of such actions and events.

My question this week:

Are you concerned about growing interference in our Canadian democratic institutions?

I am interested in hearing what you think.

Please let me know at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.

​On May 1st, regardless of the current strike status of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), you must file and have your personal income tax returns received by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

This includes paying any taxes owed, or you will face penalties.

As Members of Parliament, we are responsible for keeping citizens informed about how the government spends their tax money. From my perspective, there is one area of spending that raises some concerns, and I will provide an example.

In January of this year, Prime Minister Trudeau visited a rare earth mine processing plant in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for a 'photo op' and announcement.

The Trudeau Liberal Government had recently announced $5 million in funding to help establish processing and production at the facility. "Rare earth elements," as the Government's press release pointed out, "are a critical mineral used in clean technology like electric vehicles and wind turbines."

This funding is part of the Liberal Government's "Critical Minerals Strategy," which calls for $3.8 billion in spending, or, as the Liberals would call it, "investing."

This week, the same rare earth mining company in Saskatoon announced that operations were being "paused" while the company seeks "alternative funding sources and partnerships for a sustainable business model."

The Financial Post also reported on this story and quoted the interim chair of the company's board as saying there is "no economic imperative" to complete the project at the current time, citing higher costs, lower prices, and no market for what the facility aimed to produce.

It is unclear at this point what will become of the $5 million "investment" of taxpayer dollars.

This also raises concerns about what type of due diligence the Trudeau Liberal government does before handing out taxpayer money for a photo op.

This year, the Trudeau Liberals also announced they will "give Volkswagen up to $13 billion in subsidies over the next decade as part of a deal to ensure the automaker builds its electric-vehicle battery plant in southern Ontario," as reported by the CBC.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, pointed out in response, "This money belongs to Canadians. Not to a foreign corporation. Not to Justin Trudeau. How much of Canadians' money is he giving to this foreign corporation?"

The Liberals defend this spending by claiming it will be a good deal for Canadians because of the long-term jobs and economic benefits.

However, in 2020, the Trudeau Liberals made similar promises when they provided $173 million to a Quebec-based drug manufacturer supposedly developing a COVID vaccine. The parent company of this facility, the Mitsubishi Chemical Group, announced in February of 2023 that the plant in Quebec would be closing. It is unclear what the status is of the $173 million in taxpayer-provided funding.

The same goes for a $125 million deal the Trudeau Liberal government announced in a partnership with the Maryland-based drug manufacturer Novavax, which, in March of this year, also stated it has "substantial doubt" about its ability to survive here in Canada.

My question this week is:

What are your views on government subsidies for private, for-profit corporations?

You can contact me at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

​As I write this week's report from Ottawa, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), the public sector union representing most of Canada's federal government workers, has announced that it is going on strike.

The key issues are reported to be wages and resistance from federal workers to return to the office instead of working from home.

The Trudeau Liberal government has publicly offered a 9% wage increase over three years. PSAC, however, has countered with a demand of 22.5% over three years.

With such a significant wage gap, it may take some time at the bargaining table to resolve this issue or find a path forward on returning to the office for work.

While this occurs, many government services, such as passport and immigration applications, will again be delayed.

Depending on the strike's duration, there may be delays in income tax refunds, and disruptions may occur at border crossings and other areas where federal workers are employed.

It should be noted that no worker enjoys going on strike.

For many, it disrupts household income as strike pay is often well below regular pay.

This situation is further challenging if a spouse is also on strike working in the public sector.

As some public sector workers have shared with me, wage gains can take several years to offset the income lost during a strike. For this reason and the public's impact,

I hope this strike is resolved quickly for all involved.

Another major topic making headlines in Ottawa this week is a bombshell report from CBC that the "Trudeau family vacationed with wealthy friends who donated to Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation" and that the "PM's New Year's trip to exclusive Jamaican locale cost taxpayers at least $160,000 for security and staff."

This comes after another recent bombshell news report that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stayed in a $6,000 per-night hotel suite while attending the funeral of Queen Elizabeth.

What is unusual about the $6,000 per night hotel room stay is that PM Trudeau was asked about this multiple times in Question Period.

Despite knowing he was the one who stayed in this $6,000 per night hotel room, he refused to admit this fact under direct questioning.

On a different topic, and one that is not making many headlines in Ottawa, is news that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN) has recently released a report recommending many changes to the Trudeau Liberals' failed air passenger rights framework.

There are 21 recommendations, including larger financial penalties for airlines and a more efficient process for compensation claims consisting of automatic payouts for travellers who encountered significant flight delays.

Another significant change would be to place the burden of proof on airlines to document why compensation should not be provided.

My question this week is, have you encountered a situation where your air travel was significantly disrupted, and if so, was the existing air passenger bill of rights helpful in resolving the problem?

Reach me at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.

For many decades, Canada has embraced and welcomed newcomers, and the country has long benefited from its immigration policies, regardless of which government is in power. 

However, there is growing evidence and concern that the immigration system may be failing to meet its objectives of serving national interests and providing new Canadians with the resources and opportunities they need to integrate into Canadian society fully.

A recent CBC story highlighted the significant backlog in processing federal work permits for asylum seekers, leaving them unable to work and facing severe financial hardship, compounded by high housing costs and a lack of affordable housing.

Meanwhile, there are employers throughout Canada who cannot obtain enough workers, and the federal government has proposed to add hundreds of thousands of new permanent residents in the coming years to address labour market needs.

However, welcoming near-record levels of new Canadians presents a challenge: these new citizens need affordable housing, schools, doctors, daycare, and other services.

While Ottawa sets the immigration levels, it is up to provinces and local governments to try and fill the housing demand this creates.

Moreover, many immigrants are underemployed, while many professions and trades require more labour, and foreign credentials are not easily recognized in many areas of the Canadian economy.

All of these problems are occurring in an environment where the overall size of the federal public service has increased, and the use of private consultants has surged.

Despite record spending and huge increases in the size of the federal public service, the Trudeau Liberal government is failing to deliver meaningful results that Canadians, and in particular newly arrived Canadians, depend on.

In summary, I believe it is crucial to ensure that immigration policies serve national interests and provide new Canadians with the supports and chances they need to join into Canadian society fully.

​My question this week is:

Do you agree?

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

​In early January of this year, I reported on concerns regarding the significant increase in the use of private consultants by the Trudeau Liberal government.

When first elected to our country's highest office in 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau promised to reduce the use of external consultants to save billions (as reported by the National Post). However, as I pointed out in my January MP report, the Trudeau Liberal Government has increased the use of private consultants by close to 60% since 2015.

This week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) released a new report on the overall size of the Federal Government: "Full-Time Equivalents in the Federal Public Service – 2023-24 Departmental Plans".

Despite the significant increase in the use of private consultants, the PBO has revealed that the overall size of the federal public government has increased from roughly 340,000 full-time equivalents (FTE) in 2014/15 to 413,000 FTEs in 2021-2022.

The 2023-24 departmental plans indicate that the number of FTEs is projected to reach 428,000 in 2022-23, representing an increase of 23,000 full-time people compared to the departmental plans from the previous year.

Interestingly, the long-term departmental plan forecasts that the federal public service will be reduced to 400,000 FTEs in 2025-26; however, the PBO has pointed out that "current plans do not include additional FTEs that will likely result from new measures announced by the Government in Budget 2023".

In terms of costs, as CBC recently reported, "Ottawa is projected to spend about $151 billion more next year than it did in 2014-15, the year before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his party won government in November."

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland's budget projects total expenses will be $496.9 billion in 2023-24 when there's no extraordinary pandemic-related spending. And under Freeland's current plan, spending will increase in the years to come. 

Her budget projects spending will reach $555.7 billion in 2027-28.

For context, this level of spending now exceeds sixteen percent of Canada's GDP, the highest it has been in over three decades, given that the Liberal Government no longer projects any return to a balanced budget and has abandoned all fiscal guardrails.

Since federal income tax returns are due on May 1st, 2023, many Canadians will know how much of their household income will go to Ottawa this year.

My question to you:

Is your household getting good value for the increased spending under Prime Minister Trudeau?

Please reach me at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

​This week, the Trudeau Liberal government presented the 2023 federal budget.

Before I continue, let's recap last year's budget.

They called the budget 2022 the "return to fiscal responsibility" budget.

Why? Although it had a deficit of $53 billion, the Liberals said it was "affordable."

They based this on their claim that they would restrain spending to less than GDP growth.

As I pointed out last year, Prime Minister Trudeau always spends more than planned, increasing our federal deficit.

The 2023 budget follows this pattern of excess spending, as I warned about last year.

Last fall, the Liberals predicted a fiscal plan that would balance in 2027.

However, the new budget has a revised $14 billion deficit in 2027.

The budget promises five more years of deficits, all larger than it promised last fall.

This year, the deficit will hit $43 billion. Over the next three years, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to increase.

The budget proposes about $43 billion in net new spending over the next six years, which includes a one-time grocery rebate, a 40% increase in Canada student grants, a $13-billion plan to expand dental care to families earning less than $90,000 a year, a new 15% refundable tax credit for clean electricity investments, and a refundable 30% tax credit for investments in clean tech manufacturing. 

The NDP Finance critic took credit for many of these new spending measures yesterday, citing they stemmed from an agreement between the Trudeau Government and the NDP to support the government on confidence matters.

The Liberals also said they would cut some discretionary spending. Still, it's unclear if this will make a big enough difference to their finances. Things will be even more tricky if they don't get enough money from cutting discretionary spending or if revenues drop.

The problem with ongoing deficit spending is that Canada's interest charges on the debt will hit $43.9 billion this year, an 80% increase from pre-pandemic 2020 levels.

Debt servicing is now higher than our annual budget for the military. By fiscal 2027/2028, interest charges on our debt will exceed $50 billion annually.

Considering these interest costs, the Federal Canada Health Transfer to the provinces will be $49.4 billion this year.

From my perspective, there is a pattern emerging.

In 2015, the Trudeau Liberals promised three years of "modest" deficit spending before a "cast in stone" promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. They didn't deliver on this promise.

Last year, the Liberals submitted a "return to fiscal responsibility" budget with a balanced budget promised. One year later, they abandoned this promise.

My question for you this week:

Do you think the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, is doing a good job with the country's finances?

Contact me at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

​The headlines on inflation this week were; “inflation rate drops to 5.2% in February”.

However, a closer inspection reveals that; “Prices for food purchased from stores in February were up 10.6 percent compared with a year ago, the seventh consecutive month of double-digit increases.”

Anyone buying groceries will know that food prices continue to increase.

This can be even more significant for those who live in rural communities where there may be less local grocery store competition. 

Recently a local business owner, who manufactures food products found in many local grocery stores, brought to my attention one of the reasons why this occurs.

As we all know, trucking of goods is significant in our grocery store food chain.

The business owner I met mentioned shipping charges have increased dramatically due to the rising fuel cost. Now, the shipping company adds a surcharge solely for the carbon tax. 

Given that the carbon tax in BC is set to increase on April 1st to $65/tonne, this small business owner is very concerned that his company will again have to raise prices, as these costs must be passed along.

Unfortunately, this is all part of made-in-Canada food inflation and does not end there.

Also occurring on April 1st, the Trudeau Liberal Government is set to raise the excise tax on wine, beer and spirits by over 6%.

Remember that increased trucking costs apply to these industries as well.

For Canadian consumers, you will be asked to pay more when many can no longer afford to pay all their bills at the end of the month.

There is also the compounding effect.

For the business owner I mentioned, who is facing higher costs due to the carbon tax surcharge for the raw goods that his company receives; resulting in higher prices, those finished goods are shipped again to local grocery stores.

These carbon tax surcharges must be passed to consumers at local grocery stores, particularly those in rural areas with higher shipping costs. 

For more wealthy citizens, higher grocery prices are not a problem.

However, this is a massive financial burden for many families with variable rate mortgages who may now pay $1000 more monthly just in added interest charges.

Likewise, higher grocery prices have created significant additional hardship for those on a fixed income.

In every region of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, I have spoken with staff or volunteers at local food banks who have told me the uptick of demand, coupled with record-high inflation, is incredibly challenging for their operations.

While most of those now receiving support at food banks are seniors, many are also families where, despite the parents working one or more jobs, higher housing and rising grocery bills are forcing these families to rely on food banks to supplement their budgets. 

My question this week:

How does food inflation personally impact you or your family?

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

Why does Canada have such runaway food inflation when we grow so much food?

A common question.

There are a couple of main reasons: rising fuel costs increase farmers' production costs, and transportation.

As we import many different foods, exchange rates also matter.

A weaker Canadian dollar means imported goods cost more for consumers.

Sylvain Charlebois, a food researcher from Dalhousie, has said that a lack of competition in the grocery space also contributes to higher food costs, saying:

"All these discount stores are connected to just a handful of grocers controlling the Canadian market – they are essentially co-operative arms of the mainstream supermarkets, rather than competitors." 

Speaking of mainstream supermarkets, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (AGRI) last week, Parliamentarians questioned the CEOs of some of Canada's largest grocery store chains around food inflation.

At one point, Galen Weston, CEO of Canadian grocery store giant Loblaws, was asked, "How much profit is too much profit?". 

The reply from Mr. Weston was, "We're a big company, and the numbers are very large, but it still translates right down to the bottom line at one dollar [of profit] per 25 dollars of groceries."

There is no question that companies such as Loblaws have always been profitable and continue to see increased revenue as inflation and population rise. 

In February 2023, Loblaws reported a fourth quarter profit of $529 million. This fourth quarter profit was roughly ten percent higher than last year's fourth quarter. 

While on the topic of Loblaws, in 2019 the Trudeau Liberal government gave this extremely profitable company $12 million to purchase new, more energy-efficient, refrigerators.

I will continue to follow this subject closely and look forward to reading the final report on this crucial topic from the AGRI committee.

The Trudeau Liberal government recently announced that Volkswagen would build a "gigafactory" to produce electric vehicle batteries in St. Thomas, Ontario.

While undeniably goods news on many levels, it raises the critical question of how much this new Volkswagen battery factory will cost Canadian taxpayers.

The answer to that is that we don't know. 

The Trudeau Liberal government has refused to disclose how much taxpayers must pay Volkswagen to build this factory.

Volkswagen, like Loblaws, is also a highly profitable company.

The same can be said for tire manufacturer Michelin.

This week, PM Trudeau announced that Michelin would receive $44.3 million in federal funding to modernize a tire manufacturing plant in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. 

Selective taxpayer-financed subsidies to wealthy corporations are not a new topic here in Canada -- provincially or federally. 

​What is new is that the amounts are becoming staggeringly high.

This most recent announcement regarding the Volkswagen gigafactory sets a new standard for secrecy.

My question this week:

Are you concerned by the lack of disclosure on taxpayer funds by the Trudeau Government with corporate subsidies like this?

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

​From my experience as a Member of Parliament, one of the most rewarding roles is the great honour of attending a citizenship ceremony.

Participating in a ceremony where new Canadians take their oath of citizenship is a very special moment and a reminder of how truly fortunate we all are to call Canada home.

The oath of citizenship ceremonies has been a proud Canadian tradition since 1947. I suspect the vast majority who have had the opportunity to participate in or observe such a ceremony would all agree what a heartwarming and unforgettable event these ceremonies are.

I mention these things as it was with great sadness; I have recently discovered that the Trudeau Liberal government may soon provide an option for new Canadians to skip the Citizenship ceremony and instead click a box online over the internet, potentially without the presence of a citizenship judge, family members, elected officials, guests or anyone else.

Why?

According to the same Trudeau Liberal government, the answer is speed. For reasons unknown, the immigration process has become so backlogged under this Liberal government that there is now a backlog of 358,000 citizenship applications waiting over two years or more.

Eliminating the Citizenship ceremony could potentially increase the speed of an application by as much as ninety days (according to the government).

This is also what I find troubling. If one is in a two-year lineup and can shorten the wait by ninety days, many would likely elect to do so.

The bigger question is why this backlog has become so severe under this Liberal Government?

The COVID pandemic is partly to blame; however, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) recently investigated the “Express Entry Immigration Process.”

The PBO, who released this report earlier this week, revealed some eyebrow-raising information.

While governments often cite lack of staffing as a common reason for failures in program delivery, the PBO determined that in the case of this specific immigration program, the current staffing is “more than sufficient to meet the processing time” requirements of this program.

The PBO stated that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is, and I quote directly, “estimated to have 65% more staff than would be required to meet the goal. 

When the PBO asked further questions of IRCC, the department, and again I quote directly, “declined to provide information about the resources that would have been required to meet processing time goals in past years, citing that this information represents Cabinet confidences.”

In other words, the department is hiding behind cabinet confidentiality, which suggests that the cabinet ultimately has the information and does not want it released publicly so that it cannot be held accountable for these severe delays in immigration processing times.

In my view, this is a case where instead of fixing the problem at the top and firing the Minister to appoint a new Minister, the proposed fix is to undercut, if not potentially eliminate, citizenship ceremonies.

I say potentially as it is unknown how many would still opt for an in-person citizenship ceremony if they were told that could increase the wait time by up to another three months.

As a counterpoint, perhaps some may view a traditional, in-person citizenship ceremony in today’s environment as a waste of time and would support an online oath process done over the internet.

My question to you this week: 

Do you believe an in-person citizenship ceremony is still essential?

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

​Back in late November, I did an MP report that covered several issues that constituents raised with me.

One of the concerns was the high cost of home heating.

A resident had sent me their home heating bills and shared that they had to go on the “equal payment plan” to afford the cold winter months.

For the individual in question, that worked out to 12 equal payments of $170 monthly for $2,040 for the year.

It was also pointed out that nearly a quarter of that bill, $473 (23%), was solely paying for the carbon tax.

As is often the case, the individual in question is not eligible for the provincial  BC Climate Action Tax Credit'. (In BC, individuals earning $79,376 or more do not qualify for this credit).

This led to the question about the BC carbon tax, and would the province fall in line with Prime Minister Trudeau’s mandate and raise it beyond the previously agreed $50 a tonne?

Back at the end of November, we did not know the answer to this question.

Previously B.C. signed onto the federal Pan-Canadian Climate Strategy.

This agreement, dictated by PM Trudeau, called for the carbon tax in BC to rise to $50 per tonne as of April 1, 2022, which it did.

With the agreement now being concluded, up until yesterday we did not know what the BC NDP government would do on April 1st of, 2023.

Now we have the answer.

In yesterday’s BC budget, the BC NDP announced it is increasing the carbon tax ($ CAD/tonne CO2e) on April 1st to $65/tonne.

The BC NDP further revealed that they intend to increase the carbon tax every year until it reaches $170/tonne by 2030.

How does this impact you?
 
Based on the NDP’s budget forecast this year, citizens in B.C. will pay an extra $600 million. By 2030 this could be as much as $5 billion a year in total carbon tax paid.

One thing that did surprise me in the provincial budget documents was a note in the supplementary tax information that pointed out, “rural communities may have higher indirect carbon tax burdens (e.g. through higher shipping costs resulting in a higher price for goods) and colder regions of the province may have higher carbon tax costs for home heating.”

This surprised me as governments, both provincially and federally, who support carbon taxes rarely admit so candidly that it does adversely impact those who live in rural communities.

Federally we also know that the Bank of Canada has confirmed that the carbon tax does increase inflation here in Canada.

Yet heating and shipping costs aside, rural areas will attest that their residents don’t have publicly funded public transit as an alternative to the carbon tax. To get to work, medical appointments, kids to school require transportation. 

My question this week is not about if you support the carbon tax but rather the inequality in how rural residents end up paying more of it.

Do you believe that provincial and federal governments should make more effort to offset the impact of the carbon tax on those who live in rural areas?

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

One of the bombshell stories that is of significant concern is a leaked report from Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) documenting how Communist Chinese Government officials and their agents interfered in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

A quote from the National Post summarizes the concern, “According to CSIS documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) operatives orchestrated cash donations to political campaigns, had business owners hire “volunteers” for specific election campaigns and boasted that it’s “easy to influence Chinese immigrants to agree with the Peoples Republic of China's (PRC) stance.”

What was the goal of these efforts?

“To install a minority Liberal government.” 

According to the documents, the support for Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada is due to the Communist Chinese Government viewing the Liberals as more pro-China in contrast to what a potential Conservative government would be.

The second goal of the CCP was a minority Parliament because it is said that Beijing “likes it when the parties in Parliament are fighting with each other, whereas if there is a majority, the party in power can easily implement policies that do not favour the PRC.”

Was this clandestine campaign successful in interfering in our Canadian democratic process?

China’s former Consul General stationed in Vancouver stated she “helped defeat two Conservative candidates in 2021.”

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that number is significantly higher and may have contributed to losing eight or nine electoral districts.

What is the Trudeau Liberal government doing about this? So far, basically nothing, aside from attempting to downplay the situation and express concern around the leaking of the documents. 

I am not suggesting that Communist Chinese Government agents ‘stole the election,’ as I believe Canadian voters ultimately decided the outcome of the last election. However, I am deeply concerned about reports of a foreign government manipulating our democratic process.

If a single electoral district can be manipulated in an election due to foreign interference, we should all be concerned, and the government of the day has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure the proper authorities- like the Commissioner of Elections (that investigates violations) and the RCMP have the evidence they need to prosecute any violations.

As some may have diplomatic immunity, our government should expel any suspects at the very least.

How else can we prevent future violations?

The Leader of the Official Opposition, Hon. Pierre Poilievre, supports following the lead of Australia and the United States in creating a foreign agent registry. This would be similar to the domestic lobbyist registry Canada uses but would apply to individuals in Canada who foreign governments pay to influence our political processes.

For whatever reason, Prime Minister Trudeau has refused to substantially answer the questions from journalists and the opposition on this matter and whether he will immediately implement such a registry here in Canada.

Two questions this week:

Are you concerned about potential foreign influence in our elections? Do you support creating a foreign agent registry?

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

​Riding boundaries are reviewed every ten years, and the changes can be significant depending on where you live.  

Here in the southern interior, we will be receiving one new electoral district (often referred to as a riding), which, to accommodate this new riding, will have a domino effect as the non-partisan Federal BC Electoral Boundaries Commission recommends significant riding boundary adjustments.

After extensive hearings, the Commission has made extensive revisions to Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, the riding I represent.

This riding will essentially split into geographical regions that will end up in five different ridings, assuming these changes are adopted. 

Given the status of our minority Parliament, we do not know exactly when our next federal election will be.

While Canada has a fixed-date election law that says the next scheduled election must occur on or before October 20, 2025; this does not stop a Prime Minister from calling a snap election, as we saw in 2021.

If there is a snap election, the existing riding boundaries will be in effect.

If it occurs after Spring 2024, these new boundaries will take effect. 

One of the most significant changes is that communities such as Merritt and Logan Lake would be located in a proposed riding called "Kamloops-Thompson-Nicola," which, as the name implies, would include part of Kamloops.

Another significant change is that communities such as Princeton, Keremeos, Cawston and Hedley would join the proposed riding of "Similkameen-West Kootenay," which would also include the City of Penticton as well as the Penticton Indian Band.

What remains of my existing riding – the communities of Summerland, Peachland, West Kelowna, Westbank First Nation, and parts of Kelowna will become part of a new proposed riding called "Okanagan Lake West– South Kelowna."

The existing Kelowna boundaries will be moved further south to include all of Southern Kelowna, such as Okanagan Mission.

They will extend east as far as the area around the McCulloch reservoir.

For Kelowna residents, the new proposed riding to be called "Kelowna" includes a much larger area of the City of Kelowna, including an eastern portion that also consists of the Big White ski resort area.

This riding will no longer have the communities of Lake Country or Okanagan Centre, which will join a new proposed riding called "Vernon Monashee."

In addition to this MP report, my office has arranged a separate mail out with a map for each affected region (Okanagan, Similkameen & Nicola Valleys) so that the residents I represent may review this proposal in more detail. 

It is challenging for the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission to balance population growth with the input of many community considerations. 

This second report proposal, in this case, is significantly different from the first draft proposal submitted last fall, mainly because the Electoral Boundaries Commission listened to and attempted to accommodate many of the concerns they heard. 

On the same theme, I sincerely thank the Federal BC Electoral Boundaries Commissioners and staff for all their work in submitting this report. I would also like to thank those who took the time to participate.

In my view, federal elected officials should avoid directly commenting on these changes to avoid any perception of attempting to influence boundary changes that may either enhance or work against partisan political interests. 

I believe it is crucial for both local and regional government representatives and local citizens to be aware of these proposed changes and consider the accessibility of current electoral boundaries compared to what is proposed.

My question this week is:

Are you satisfied with these proposed changes?

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

​This week Canada's premiers are in Ottawa for what has often been reported as "negotiations" with Prime Minister Trudeau for a new agreement on the Canada Health Transfer.

The "Canada Health Transfer" (CHT) transfers a portion of the federal taxes you send to Ottawa back to provinces and territories to help cover the costs of providing healthcare. 

I use the term 'negotiations' loosely because, in reality, the federal government typically sets out what the increase will be to the CHT.

Provinces have little choice but to accept whatever amount of money the federal government establishes as reasonable.

The CHT is estimated to be $45.2 Billion for the 2022/23 fiscal year.

Prime Minister Trudeau announced that over the next ten years, the increase to the CHT will be $196.1 billion, which represents $46.2 billion in new funding on top of what was previously budgeted.

There is also $25 billion set aside for bilateral deals and some other "top-ups" in specific areas.

Overall, the new funding agreement will lead to an increase of 5% in the CHT over the next five years.
 
The agreement also includes some "strings" like data sharing between the provinces and the federal government and upholding the Canada Health Act to protect Canadians' "access to health care based on need and not ability to pay."

Recently the Province of Ontario announced intentions to increase the use of private clinics to help clear surgical waitlists.

In a media interview with the Toronto Star, the plan by the Province of Ontario was called "innovative" by PM Trudeau.

As a result of the PM's praise for increased involvement of private healthcare, many, including some Liberal MPs, have expressed concern and, in some cases, condemnation of the PM's comments.

The leader of the NDP has accused Prime Minister Trudeau of placing Canada's universal health care system under threat.

Earlier this week, Global News reported on an Ipsos poll that suggested 59% of adults surveyed expressed support for the private delivery of publicly funded health services, adding further fuel to this discussion.

The CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs said: "...in the 30 years he has studied public opinion in Canada, he has never seen such a shift in support toward privatization."

Getting back to the CHT announcement, as is often the case, the premiers unanimously expressed disappointment noting that the increase in funding was insufficient to address the severe challenges facing provincial healthcare systems.

Here in BC, as reported by the Vancouver Sun, our share of this increased funding over the next ten years works out to $600 million a year.

The BC provincial budget for healthcare spending was $23.8 billion in 2021-2022.

The provinces were asking for an annual increase to the CHT of $28 Billion.

What PM Trudeau announced this week is, on average, less than $5 billion in new funding a year.

My question this week:

Do you think PM Trudeau should have further increased the Canada Health Transfer, or do you view the announced increase as reasonable?

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

​This week the House of Commons is back in session for the first time in 2023.

As it would happen, this week was also the same week several opposition MPs received written answers to order paper questions on Parliament Hill.
 
What are order paper questions? 
 
Unlike the short rapid-fire format of Question Period, which often results in either a non-answer or an answer to a different question, an order paper question is a written question from a Member of Parliament that, after 48 hours notice, will be posted on the “Order Paper” with the intent that the responsible Minister will provide a substantive answer within 45 House Sitting days.

However, that is not always the case.
 
Each Member of Parliament is allowed a maximum of 4 questions on the order paper at any time. This week I received a reply to one of my order paper questions asking the federal government how many cancelled contracts were between January 1st, 2019 and December 12th, 2022 and what, if any, cancellation fees taxpayers must bear.
 
The answer I received back was an incomplete accounting as some departments still need to give a number; however, from those that did, there are over half a million dollars in penalties paid out for over 300 cancelled contracts.

Some cancelled contracts were up to $11.7 million, which seemed low compared to other expenses now coming to light.
 
My Conservative colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, Michelle Rempel-Garner, had a different question.

During the pandemic, the Trudeau Liberal Government created “quarantine hotels” where travellers entering Canada via air between February 21st, 2021, and August 9th, 2021, were forced to stay in to meet the then-in-place requirement for a mandatory three-night stay as they awaited their Day 1 COVID test results.
 
MP Rempel Garner discovered that between the two hotels contracted for this service at the Calgary airport in fiscal 2022 (which was after the Federal government had lifted travel restrictions), they still paid out $6,790,717.46 to the operators of these two hotels.
 
MP Rempel Garner further learned that during this same time frame, only 15 people stayed at these hotels under this program. That amounts to over $452,000 per person!
 
Only more shocking is the admission that the government could have cancelled these contracts by giving their 30-day notice, but they only bothered to do so sometime late in the fall of 2022.
 
So what we have learned from these two order paper questions is that it is far more economical for the Government of Canada to cancel contracts where they are not needed.
 
At the same time, from my own order paper experience, this particular federal government does not cancel contracts often, meaning taxpayers will continue to pay more for services that are no longer needed.

From my perspective, what is most alarming is that when Conservatives question the Ministers responsible for spending $6,790,717.46 to provide a quarantine hotel for just 15 people, they offer no resignation or apology, only a shrug.
 
My question to you this week:

There was a time when there was strong public opposition to careless spending by any level of government, regardless of political stripe.

Are those days over, or are the taxpayers of Canada owed an apology from Prime Minister Trudeau over this poorly managed program?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Although the House of Commons does not resume sitting until next week, all-party Parliamentary committees are currently sitting and reviewing essential subjects of national interest.

One of the Parliamentary Committees sitting this week is INDU (Committee on Industry and Technology), which is currently reviewing the proposed takeover of Shaw Communications by Rogers Communications.

This proposed deal has faced several obstacles, including being opposed by Canada’s Competition Bureau, which recently went to Federal Court to block the deal.

The Federal Court ruled against the Competition Bureau, leaving the final decision to approve or reject this proposed deal to the Liberal Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, who is also the MP for Saint-Maurice—Champlain in Quebec.

Aside from the Competition Bureau’s opposition to this proposed deal, an initial study from the INDU Committee resulted in four recommendations, one being that “the Committee believes the merger should not proceed.”

The primary concern of many opponents to this proposed deal is that it could result in even less competition in an industry that already has very little competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers.
Canadians pay some of the highest cell phone bills in the world.

In fact, during the 2019 election, PM Trudeau promised that his Liberal government would reduce cell phone bills by 25% within two years, saving the “average Canadian family $1,000” a year.

On February 9th of last year, in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Trudeau stated, “We promised Canadian families that we would reduce the cost of their cell phone bill. Today, I am happy to announce that we have met our 25% price reduction target. In fact, we have done so three months ahead of schedule.”

In my MP Report from February 23rd last year, I asked whether your wireless cell phone bills have decreased by 25%, as Prime Minister Trudeau claimed.

The response to this question was overwhelming, and almost every reply I received indicated that what the Prime Minister stated was patently false.

Many individuals even shared their wireless bills, which provided a well-documented cost increase.

Several citizens also noted that wireless plans had changed so that they now paid separately for the plan and the phone instead of being combined, as was the case previously.

In every example I received from citizens, people were paying more overall.

Recently Professor Michael Geist, who is one of Canada’s foremost law professors and also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, wrote on this proposed deal and the upcoming political decision that Minister Champagne must make to approve or reject this takeover.

​Professor Geist stated: “Minister Champagne and the government can choose to stand up for Canadian consumers and say this deal doesn’t go ahead on their watch. Or they can stand with big telecom companies and choose to make matters even worse. It’s Champagne’s choice.”
I have two questions for you this week: 

How concerned are you over the size of your monthly wireless bill? If you were the Minister, what would you do?  

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

​Recently Prime Minister Trudeau's former star Finance Minister, the Honourable Bill Morneau, authored a book titled “Where To From Here, A Path to Canadian Prosperity”.

As is common when promoting a new book, Mr. Morneau has done several media interviews.

What is less common, is that Morneau levied some heavy and serious criticism against Prime Minister Trudeau and his office known as the PMO.

Mr. Morneau makes several allegations along a theme suggesting PM Trudeau often ignores or rejects “carefully considered calculations” for announcements that sound good or are too focussed on the “news cycle and social media” dictating decision-making, arguing that “Trudeau lost sight of fiscal prudence and the goal of securing Canada's long-term prosperity.”

The former Finance Minister summarizes PM Trudeau’s style of governance by stating:

“During the period when the largest government expenditures as a portion of GDP were made in the shortest time since the advent of World War II, calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest."

As a member of the official opposition,  none of this comes as any surprise as these comments do tend to accurately reflect the governing style of PM Trudeau.

What does come as a surprise is PM Trudeau’s former Finance Minister now openly coming out and stating it so publicly. 

My reason for sharing the comments of the former Finance Minister is not to focus on the style of governance by this Trudeau Liberal government but rather something else. 

In his book, Mr. Morneau alleges that PM Trudeau “used vaccine mandates as a wedge issue during the 2021 election” and suggests that doing so “further polarized the debate in Canada.”

The question for this week's report relates to this statement.

As we enter 2023 and have now been collectively dealing with the impacts and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic going on three years now, many people have experienced this period very differently.

So my question this week:

Based on your own experiences in life, do you encounter more polarization today compared with what you experienced pre pandemic?

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

This week began with a significant announcement from the Trudeau Liberal Government that $19 billion will be spent to acquire 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, in a deal that will require a further $70 billion in related maintenance costs over the lifetime of the aircraft. 

You may recall that these are the same F-35 that Prime Minister Trudeau made comments ranging from ““we will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter bomber” to the “F-35 “did not work” and that “It no longer makes sense, if it ever did, to have a stealth, first-strike capacity fifth-generation fighter,".
Trudeau’s opposition to the F-35 was to the point that he stated, “for Canadian taxpayers it will be a nightmare".

Unlike PM Trudeau, as a member of the official opposition, I will not criticize the announcement to purchase the F-35 this week, aside from pointing out Trudeau’s politically motivated hypocrisy in opposing this aircraft back in 2015. 

Our current fleet of CF-18s entered service in 1982 and are now over 40 years old.

Aside from the age and added maintenance costs, the Royal Canadian Air Force also reports pilot recruitment challenges in part because of the lack of an advanced, modern-day aircraft to fly.

The F-35 is an advanced fighter jet that is also used by many of Canada’s allies including the United States.

I supported the decision by the former Conservative Government to back the F-35 and I likewise support the current Liberal Government in finally recognizing the former Conservative Government was correct in believing the F-35 is the best aircraft to replace our fleet of aging CF-18 aircraft. 

One other topic that has come out of Ottawa of late relates to the explosive growth in the use of private consultants by the Trudeau Liberal government. 

For some background, in 2015 PM Trudeau promised “to save billions by reducing the use of external consultants.” (as reported by the National Post).

Flash forward to this week, reports are that this same Trudeau Liberal Government has increased the use of private consultants by close to 60% since 2015.

At the same time the Trudeau Liberal Government is significantly outsourcing work to private consultants, it has also grown the size of the public service from 342,000 employees in 2015/16 to 391,000 employees in 2020/21.

This in turn has raised annual payroll costs from just under $40 billion to over $60 billion.

Despite this significant growth in the size of the federal public service, as well as increased private consultants, many Canadians will know that accessing public services such as obtaining a passport or immigration has rarely taken longer.

In response to this, the official opposition will be putting forward a motion to the Government Operations Committee, that will require the Trudeau Liberal Government to produce all written records related to a specific contractor that will include contracts, conversations, records of work done, meetings held and more.

The opposition believes this information should be studied and made publicly available.

As the leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Pierre Poilievre has stated:

“We think that when you have qualified public servants to do the job, we should not be contracting out the same work to high-priced consultants who charge more,” adding; “By contracting everything out, you end up paying more. We intend to bring that work in-house.”

My question this week:

Do you share concerns of Pierre Poilievre and the Official Opposition over the growing use of private consultants by the Trudeau Liberal Government?

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

One of the tasks I undertake at the beginning of every new year is a review the various ways I interact with, communicate and receive comments and concerns from the many citizens within our region.

Over the years I have noticed that the communication preferences have changed.

As an example, requests for in person meetings have declined but telephone calls and emails have increased significantly.

More recently I have also noticed an increase in requests for online “zoom“ meetings.

My goal has always been to provide whatever tools are necessary for citizens to reach me and hold me accountable. 

This is why I still have a 24/7, 365 day a year answering service to return your calls at times convenient to you.

Likewise, I have also made changes to better accommodate for online zoom meetings.

For 2023, my summer listening tour will continue (which has generated many private member's bills and policy changes federally) and likewise I will also continue to write my weekly reports such as this one and provide an opportunity for input as I have long found this to be a very valuable exercise. 

We also will send out printed materials to inform citizens, such as informing them on proposed boundary changes for federal ridings by the electoral boundary commission. The feedback we received was sent to the Commission and we will see how the Commission responds in its final report.

Having said all of that, I also like to receive feedback from local citizens on your preferred method of communication.

Would you like to see more community town halls or opportunities for one-on-one meetings in person?  

Likewise, do you prefer online video conferences or does a phone call suffice?

More printed materials and if so, what kind? 

Your input is important to me,
On a related note, I would also like to sincerely thank the many citizens who do make the effort to reach out and share comments and concerns.

I am often surprised on some issues where there may be a consensus on an issue but in other issues where it might appear like there should be a consensus but instead there is a wide diversity of views. 

Ultimately your input and concerns are what I take back to Ottawa and, as the official opposition, can lead to opposing or working with the government on various bills and legislation.

My question this week:

By what means do you most value to communicate directly with your elected officials?

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

Canadians awoke this week to media headlines that “Canada’s inflation rate fell to 6.8% in November”.

Unfortunately, this headline does not tell the entire story.

While the CPI did come down slightly core inflation in other areas increased.

As an example, food inflation increased by 11.4% year over year in November, a fact that will not come as a surprise for anyone who has visited a grocery store recently. 

Likewise, for those facing mortgage interest rate increases, Statistics Canada reports a 14.5% increase. 

This is an averaged rate, as many with variable rare mortgages have been experiencing increases well beyond this amount.

One of the many challenges with inflation is that items such as groceries and paying your mortgage, rent or line of credit all come from your household net income after you have already paid income taxes.

This higher inflation means you have less purchasing power, as your income does not keep pace with the rise in your cost of living.

Unfortunately, on January 1st of 2023, another round of payroll deductions from the federal government is increasing – in this case increased EI and CPP premiums -- meaning your net take home pay is going to be less.

This also affect employers.

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) reports: “on January 1, (EI) premiums for employers are set to increase by as much as 5.2% per employee. Altogether, the increases in CPP and EI could cost business owners up to $325 more per employee — a 6.7% increase from 2022.”

These increased payroll costs are passed on to consumers and this only further helps to fuel inflation. 

For the record, the Conservative Official Opposition did request the Trudeau Liberal government delay the increase to the EI premiums (something the Federal Government has done previously) however in this case PM Trudeau refused to do so.

On April 1st there will be another round of tax increases related to the elevator excise tax on alcohol, that automatically increases each year thanks to the Trudeau Liberal government. 

Additionally, on April 1st  carbon taxes are slated to increase by $15/ a ton, from the current $50 to $65 a ton. 

So 2023 is going to be a more expensive year for many Canadians and, as the Official Opposition, we will continue to make the point that many Canadians can no longer afford to take home less.

Before I close this week my final report for the year, I would like to sincerely wish all citizens Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas! 

I would also like to sincerely thank all first responders, our military personnel and those in public service work that means they will not be home with their families this Christmas. 

​Finally this week's question:

What would you most like to see from your federal government in 2023? 

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

Last week I wrote about the recent Auditor General's (AG) report on COVID related pandemic benefit payment programs to both individuals and businesses.

In this report it was suggested that as much as $27.4 billion in benefit payments must be further investigated to determine if there was proper eligibility.

The AG mentioned that much of this situation has arisen due to the Federal Government allowing “self-attestation” from businesses and individuals as sufficient proof of eligibility to receive the benefits, despite potentially not actually meeting the eligibility criteria.

I asked the question “What are your thoughts on the government's use of an attestation in delivering timely support programs?”

Over the past week I have heard a significant amount of feedback from local citizens on this topic.

I raise this point again because the federal government is going to use attestation in the delivery of a new support program that is not pandemic related.

Recently the Trudeau Liberal Government announced the “Canada Dental Benefit” program (that was a result of its partnership with the NDP) where we once again see attestation being used as the criteria to determine eligibility. 
In this program, estimated to cost between $1.3 -$1.5 billion annually, there is no direct payment to a dentist as most dental care plans require.

Instead, this program (as it is currently structured) sends funds directly to qualifying parents with children below 12.

What is interesting about this approach is how it differs from the Trudeau Liberal government approach to funding healthcare here in Canada. 

As some will be aware, the federal government has a program known as the “Canada Health Transfer” (CHT) that transfers a portion of the federal taxes you send to Ottawa back to provinces and territories to help cover the costs of providing healthcare. 

Currently the CHT is forecast to be roughly $45.2 Billion for the 2022/23 fiscal year.

Provinces throughout Canada, including here in B.C., are currently facing many healthcare related challenges.

Lack of staff, staff burnout, lack of capacity and poor service delivery are all challenges faced in hospitals across Canada.

The Premiers have all been united and clear that the federal government must increase the CHT to help solve these critical healthcare challenges given that healthcare is a provincially provided service.

Unfortunately for these Premiers, when it comes to healthcare, there is no attestation for an increase in the Canada Health Transfer.

Instead, as the PM stated in question period that he believes any funding increase must have strings attached, in other words not a “blank cheque”. 

This 'Ottawa knows best' approach is commonly used with this Liberal government and will often include studies and consultation that ultimately means there is no immediate increase in funding for the Canada Health Transfer.

Contrast that with the Premiers, who regardless of political stripe, are all unanimous that this is a crisis situation and federal health care funding (without strings attached) must occur ASAP.

​My question this week:

Do you support the Canada Health Transfer being increased immediately, or do you agree with PM Trudeau that Ottawa imposed conditions should be attached before increasing any funding? 

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