​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.

​Prime Minister Trudeau has long held a firm position on the Lockheed Martin F-35 multi-role jet fighter aircraft.

In 2015 his promise to Canadians was clear “we will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter bomber”.
 
PM Trudeau further stated 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,".
 
Things changed this week as the Trudeau Liberal Government announced that it has now decided that the F-35 will be the preferred replacement aircraft for the CF-18. 

Negotiations will now begin to purchase 88 new F-35 fighter jets at a currently estimated cost of around $19 billion. 
 
What was also very interesting about this Liberal decision was that recently released documents obtained under 'Access to Information' revealed the Liberal Government communication strategy to justify purchasing the F-35 was developed two years ago, in 2020.
 
Why was a “communications strategy” required? 
 
As reported by the Ottawa Citizen it was to: “justify how the federal government could purchase the F-35 even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s claimed Canada wouldn’t buy the stealth fighter and had no use for it".
 
What was in this communication strategy? 
 
Advice to avoid “dealing with the direct statements from the Liberals that the F-35 would not be purchased. Instead, the focus was on the procurement process itself.”

This is largely what Procurement Minister Filomena Tassi did at the announcement that PM Trudeau did not attend.
 
This is not the first time the Liberals have played politics when it comes to replacing aging equipment required by our forces.
 
Many may recall that in 1992 the Liberals also campaigned to cancel the EH-101 helicopter replacement for the aging Sea-King helicopter.

This cancellation cost taxpayers $478 million in penalties when the Liberals cancelled the $4.8 billion EH-101 helicopter order that was to replace the aging Sea-Kings.
 
Cancelling the replacement for the Sea-King did not negate the need to replace this aging helicopter, it only delayed it further, and at a much greater cost to taxpayers.
 
In fact when the same Liberal government, only a few years later announced the replacement of the Sea-King, the new helicopters came at an increased cost said to be $6.2 billion. 

When that contract was finally signed for 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters the total cost had increased more to $7.6 billion.
 
Because of the many delays created by this Liberal cancellation, an additional $495 million maintenance contract was required to keep the 55-year-old Sea-King helicopters safely in the air.
 
I mention all of this because playing politics with military procurement does little more than leave our forces with aging, less effective aircraft that is very costly to fly.

It also drives up the eventual replacement costs to taxpayers. 
 
My question this week:

Do you support the purchase of the 88 Lockheed-Martin F-35 jet fighters?

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

The House of Commons is in session this week and the week began with some interesting developments.

Most notable was an announcement between the Liberals and the NDP that a back-room deal has been reached that will result in the NDP supporting all Liberal confidence votes until the next election in 2025.

This deal essentially gives Prime Minister Trudeau the majority government he was unable to achieve at the ballot box in last year’s $600 million federal election.

In exchange for offering their support, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh received promises from PM Trudeau that the Government will work towards implementing some key NDP programs.

Some of the more significant programs include potential “dental coverage for low-income Canadians” that would start with children under 12 this year and be expand to those under 18, seniors and persons living with a disability next year. 

Full implementation is promised by 2025 although coverage would be restricted to families with an income under $90,000 annually.

At this point we do not know what dental services would be covered and to what extent.

Another promise involved in this deal is, and I quote directly:

"Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023.” 

The details of how this program would work given that provinces like BC already have a successfully working pharmacare program are unknown.

The deal also includes promises related to “tackling the climate crisis”, a “better deal for workers” that includes a prohibition from using replacement workers or “scabs", during a strike or lockout in a federally regulated sector.

There are also promises on reconciliation, a “fairer” tax system, and “making democracy work for people”. 

From my perspective what is most fascinating about this deal is that it was only back in September of 2021 that PM Trudeau, as reported by CBC, “dismissed the NDP as an unserious option, saying the NDP has presented a vague plan to spend $200 billion more over the next five years while offering few details".

What the PM claimed was "unserious" then,  he is supporting now- all in an exchange for power. 

Meanwhile NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also said in September that: "We think Mr. Trudeau is bad for Canada because he's failed on the crises and made things worse, not better".

The National Post this week has reported that: “Some MPs in the NDP caucus oppose the party’s confidence deal with the Liberals".

As the Official Opposition, we view this as a power grab by PM Trudeau.

The PM could have introduced any of these measures since coming to power in 2015 and has failed to do so.

In fact, when the NDP proposed some of these measures through Opposition Day motions the Trudeau Government has consistently voted against them.

Likewise, nothing prevents Prime Minister Trudeau from proposing any of these actions in a government bill going forward that the NDP would clearly support.

However, none of that would give the Prime Minister the effective power of a majority and the added unaccountability and lack of transparency that comes with that. 

My question this week:

Do you share the concerns voiced by unnamed NDP MPs that oppose this backroom deal?

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

​I had already written my report for this week and my question to you was going to be:

“Do you think it is time for the Federal Government to announce a plan and tell Canadians when federal mandates in areas such as air travel and at the Canada /USA border will be revised and updated?”.

I had yet to send it out when some good news arrived.

On Thursday, March 17th, the Federal Government has suggested it will indeed be revising and updating some of the current restrictions in federally regulated sectors, more specifically when travelling to Canada.

CTV has reported that “as of April 1, the federal government will be lifting the pre-arrival COVID-19 testing requirement at the border for fully vaccinated travellers." 

Passengers may still be subjected to random PCR testing at the airport, and travellers will still have to use the ArriveCAN app to enter their proof of vaccination and other required information,” 

While this ongoing requirement of utilizing a government app will still post a challenge for those without a smartphone, this is a significant step as it eliminates the current testing requirement that has resulted in many travellers, particularly destined for Canada’s tourism sector, to avoid coming to Canada.

For many here in the Okanagan tourism industry who depend upon visitors from United States, the federal restrictions on air travel, as well as at the border, have been resulting in cancellations and lost business. 

Likewise for some Canadians with family members located outside of Canada, there have also been hardships as many have been unwilling to navigate around the ongoing restrictions.

Recently the Global Business Travel Association along with other group such as Destination Toronto had called for the pre-departure testing requirement for fully vaccinated travellers to be removed no later than April 1.

It had also been brought to my attention that for many citizens fleeing Ukraine attempting to come to Canada would be more challenging to navigate and comply with Canada’s federal restrictions.

I welcome the Federal Government for announcing these changes.

We are all deeply shocked and saddened by the ongoing death and destruction in Ukraine and I know that many citizens will do everything possible to help accommodate those who may soon be coming to Canada.

Eliminating some of the regulatory challenges to help make it easier to come to Canada is an important step.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Federal Government announcing this elimination of the pre-arrival COVID-19 testing requirement?

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

​The atrocities of the Putin regime, as it continues to take the lives of innocent Ukrainians, remains a serious international concern for democratic nations.

Our Federal Government continues to explore and identify new actions to assist Ukraine, as well as targeting new measures to sanction Russia.

The Government and all Opposition parties remain in support of these ongoing efforts.

At the same time, we also recognize that there is only so much impact one country -- the size of Canada, can have.

Canada’s sanctions against Russia are further complicated by the fact that we have overall, very limited dealings with Russia.

This raises the question as to what can Canada do both in the short term and the long term to restore peace, stability, and respect for democratic sovereignty to the Ukraine?

In the short term, aside from efforts already underway, Canada could also join with other European countries and allow Ukrainians to travel to Canada without requiring a visa.

This measure is supported by the Official Opposition however the Government thus far has not agreed to implement this policy.

In the longer-term Canada should no longer ignore that Russia supplies 40% of Europe’s natural gas as well as a significant amount of oil.

This dependence on Russian oil and gas has limited Europe from taking more proactive stances against previous instances of Putin’s aggression in the Ukraine.

Further by purchasing Russian oil and gas the proceeds from the sale of these natural resources are used by Putin to finance the Russian military campaign currently committing war crimes again Ukrainians. 

This should not be tolerable.

If Canada was able to get our natural gas and oil to the Atlantic via pipeline, we would become a valuable alternative energy supplier for Europe to displace Russian oil and gas.

Likewise, if the Keystone XL pipeline was built the capacity of this pipeline would more than offset the current levels of Russian oil imported into the Unties States annually.

This would result in USA importing more energy from its trusted ally and closest trading partner here in Canada instead of looking to countries such as Iran or Venezuela for increased energy supply.

The major obstacle to doing this is of course politics.

Killing pipelines here in North America has become a hallmark of progressive politicians both here in Canada and in the United States.

These policies have been to the benefit of Russia, and potentially now Venezuela and Iran.

None of these countries have an environmental record or regulatory regime anywhere near approaching what exists here in Canada.

We must also not overlook that even within North American when pipelines are not built, we instead see a greater reliance of foreign oil and gas importations as well as greater use of oil by rail with our domestic oil and gas.

My question this week:

Do you believe Canada should play a great role in exporting our oil and gas to displace the European reliance on Russian oil and gas?

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

​When I wrote my report last week Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine had not yet begun.

One week later and we are now bearing witness to the atrocities of war due to the actions of the Russian President.

Over the past seven days we have also witnessed the incredible bravery of a proud Ukrainian nation determined to fight for their homeland that has inspired the free world to come together in response to this brutal invasion.

With sanctions growing by the day and more nations joining in to stand with Ukraine, the financial impacts are now beginning to show an impact in Russia.

In Ottawa there has been widespread support among all the parties behind the government to take increased action against the Putin regime.

From my own perspective I believe 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 will continue to support the government in taking actions against Russian and standing with the Ukraine as it fights off this Putin provoked military invasion.

While I am writing this week's report, the Bank of Canada has announced that the key interest rate is being increased to 0.5%.

This is potentially the first interest rate increase with more to follow.

To some this will be of little concern, however I am already hearing from others who are very concerned.

Why?

In November of 2021, the consumer credit rating agency Equifax reported that "Increasing credit activity in tandem with mortgage growth has pushed the overall consumer debt up to $2.2 trillion, an increase of 7.8 % in Q3 2021 when compared to Q3 2020.”

It was also reported that "average consumer debt (excluding mortgages) is now $20,739" 

For consumers who have variable rate mortgages, a line of credit or credit card debt increased interest payments mean there is less money remaining in the household budget after making your monthly or bi-weekly payments.

Worse, this comes at a time when many household budgets are already stretched coping with increased costs on groceries, gasoline, utilities, taxes, insurance other inflationary pressures.

As others have noticed, net take home pay was also decreased in January of 2022 on account of larger payroll deductions from increased CPP deductions.

My question this week relates to the increase in interest rates:

Is this a concern to your household budget?

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

​On Family Day, Monday, February 21, a vote was held in the House of Commons to “confirm the declaration of a public order emergency proclaimed on February 14, 2022.”

In other words, to confirm PM Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act here in Canada.

I seldom share my personal thoughts, but I will admit to being surprised by this.

Given that the only remaining blockade in Canada was in Ottawa, that had been cleared by police over the previous weekend, I had anticipated the order would be revoked on Monday.

I was wrong.

Not only did the Prime Minister insist on maintaining the Emergency Act, he also made the vote a “confidence vote” meaning if the vote did not pass, the PM would once look to call an election.

Two Liberals MPs, who joined the Conservative and BLOC position that was also backed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that the legal threshold to invoke the Emergency Act had not been met, admitted they would have to vote in favor of the motion solely because of the Prime Minister’s threat.

The NDP had already committed support for invoking of the Emergency Act, before the details of what was being proposed by PM Trudeau was tabled in the House. 

Ultimately the motion to invoke the Emergency Act passed with 185 votes in favour and 151 votes opposed, including my own.

Fortunately, two days later, on Wednesday, February the 23rd, the Prime Minister reconsidered and announced that the Emergency Act was being revoked.

I fully support this action by the Prime Minister to revoke these provisions of the Emergencies Act.

With so much attention on the trucker protest in Ottawa, and the debate in the House regarding the Emergency Act, other matters that occurred went largely unnoticed.

One item that was completely overlooked relates to your wireless cell phone bills.

On Wednesday February 9th, in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Trudeau made the following comment:

“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.”

This statement from PM Trudeau relates to his 2019 election promise that your cell phone bills would be reduced by 25% within two years saving the “average Canadian family $1,000” a year.

The leads to my question for this week.

Have your wireless cell phone bills gone down by 25% as Prime Minister Trudeau claims they have?

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

​It was two weeks ago that CBC reported that Canada’s Chief Public Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam stated: “all existing public health policies, including provincial vaccine passports, need to be "re-examined" — because it's clear now that Canada and the rest of the world will be grappling with COVID-19 for months or years to come.” 

Unfortunately, we have yet to see any sort of plan for our path forward from this Trudeau Liberal government.

As a result, earlier this week the official Conservative opposition tabled the following motion:

“That, given that provinces are lifting COVID-19 restrictions and that Dr. Theresa Tam has said that all existing public health measures need to be "re-evaluated" so that we can "get back to some normalcy", the House call on the government to table a plan for the lifting of all federal mandates and restrictions, and to table that plan by February 28, 2022.”

This motion by design did not dictate what that plan should look like only that we should have a plan.

It was a motion that Global News Chief Political Correspondent described as a “very reasonable proposition to the Government”.

Sadly, this Government is not, in my view, in a reasonable mood and opposed this motion. 

Fortunately, the BLOC was in support of this motion leaving the NDP to be the decider.

I regret to inform you that once again the NDP has sided with the Liberals and opposed this motion.

With no plan in place the illegal protests have continued and the tension in Ottawa has increased significantly.

As you may now be aware,  PM Trudeau announced he was invoking the Emergencies Act, which 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 has also never been used until PM Justin Trudeau decided to invoke it this week, despite opposition from many provincial Premiers most notably Quebec.

However, the Premiers of BC and Ontario do support the Emergencies Act being used.

What is the Emergencies Act? 

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 last reference is of particular importance: that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”

As all Canadians will know prior to the Emergency Act being invoked police were able to peacefully clear the Freedom protest that was occurring on the Ambassador Bridge under existing Canadian laws.

In British Columbia we have witnessed the RCMP clearing anti-pipeline and old growth logging protests over the past six months also under existing Canadian laws.

In summary, much as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also concluded, PM Trudeau has “not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act”.

So how does Prime Minister Trudeau get away with invoking this if the threshold is not met?

The Emergencies Act will need to be confirmed in the House of Commons where it is expected once again the NDP will prop up and support PM Trudeau and his minority Government.

My thoughts? 

Aside from the fact that it is well established that existing Canadian Laws can deal with protests, in reality this is largely an Ottawa problem where the Ottawa police for whatever reason have either been unable or unwilling to deal with. 

Now many Canadians will be subject to the Emergencies Act for what we hope will be a short period of time largely to solve an Ottawa problem.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the decision by PM Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act?

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

​This has been another unusual week here in Ottawa.

The protest of the truckers in the “Freedom Convoy” remains a topic of serious concern here in Ottawa and is one I continue to hear about from local citizens at home as well.

On Tuesday an unusual event occurred when a Liberal MP, Joël Lightbound, a Quebec MP from the riding of Louis-Hébert staged a press conference.

While it not uncommon for MPs to host media events, this one was highly unusual in that MP Lightbound raised some serious concerns of his against PM Trudeau.

Specifically MP Lightbound, as reported by media stated:

 “A decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize" Canadians over the topic of vaccination and vaccine mandates by PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party.

The Liberal MP stated it was time to “stop these divisive measures” and  “it is time we stopped dividing people, pitting people against each other”.

As CBC reported “people who question existing policies should not be "demonized" by their prime minister.” And "It's becoming harder and harder to know when public health stops and where politics begins,"

Ultimately by his own admission, MP Lightbound is concerned that the Prime Minister continued politicizing of vaccines and vaccine mandates risks undermining public trust in our country's public health institutions.

It is rare for a Liberal MP to publicly call out the actions of the Prime Minister and I would like to commend MP Joel Lightbound for sharing his concerns with Canadians at considerable risk to his own standing within the Liberal caucus.

From my own perspective I think we should all be mindful of the words of Prime Minister Trudeau from two years ago this February, when he said:

“There is always a place for Canadians to protest and express their frustrations, but we need to ensure that we also listen to each other. The reality of populism, and its siren song in our democracies these days, is a desire to listen only to ourselves and to people who agree with us and not to people of another perspective.”

My question this week: do you think it is time for the Prime Minister to follow his own advice or is he right to continue to ignore the concerns of those who oppose policies such as the vaccine mandates?

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

​For the most part, events that are the focus of attention in Ottawa are seldom the same concerns that I hear from citizens locally.

This is why Ottawa is often referred to as “the Ottawa bubble”.

This week all of that changed.
 
The focus of many across Canada has been on Ottawa as the trucker “freedom convoy” has arrived in addition to news mid-week that the Leader of the Official Opposition was also voted out as leader by a Conservative caucus vote.
 
By the time you read this there will likely be a new interim leader of the official opposition that will have been elected by Conservative MP's.
 
As for the “freedom convoy”, it is less clear what will become of this protest movement currently shutting down much of the downtown area around Parliament Hill.
 
During my time in Ottawa, I have been fortunate to sit on both the Government and Opposition sides of the House.

Over that time frame I cannot recall the exact number of different protests that have occurred on the front lawn of the House of Commons, but it is fair to say a great many.
 
It is unfortunate, but not uncommon, that fringe groups with a different message or agenda will also join in on a protest.

Sadly, this has occurred with the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa where some individuals have used the protest as an opportunity to spread hateful messages and symbols. 

Examples include use of Nazi and Confederate flags, disrespect of national moments, and other actions that have no place in Canada.
 
Fortunately, all Parliamentarians have condemned these hateful messages through various channels including some resolutions that passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

That said, there are many peaceful, law abiding citizens, the majority of them professional truck drivers, who have expressed other areas of concern most often not the opposition to vaccination but a mandatory vaccine mandate where one can lose their job if they are not vaccinated.

Other concerns have been raised against the Prime Minister specifically as well his Liberal Government.
 
From my perspective this is also not uncommon.

When I was on the Government side of the House there were often protests against former PM Stephen Harper.

Last year we witnessed protests where rail lines and some highways were shut down in opposition to energy projects.
 
During the protests last year PM Trudeau was quoted by CTV News as saying,

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the disruptions must be resolved through dialogue, not by ordering in the police.”

The PM further added...

“We are not the kind of country where politicians get to tell the police what to do in operational matters,”.

While Prime Minister Trudeau, in the past, has recommended dialogue as a means to resolving peaceful protests, in the case of this current protest, the Prime Minister is refusing to meet with any of them.
 
My question this week:

Do you agree with the Prime Minister’s decision?

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

​It was on June 1st of 2021 that the Liberal Government last increased the “stress test” for home buyers taking on a mortgage, which encompasses the vast majority of home buyers.

For those unaware, a stress test requires that a home buyer must qualify at a higher rate of interest compared to current lower interest rates to ensure they can still make their mortgage payments if interest rates rise.

In essence a stress test is intended to ensure that a home buyer has some excess fiscal capacity at their level of income to afford an increase on their mortgage payment if interest rates should increase.

While some may argue that the stress test protects people from potentially higher interest rates, in my experience many who are fortunate enough to pass the stress test and buy a home don't stop there.

They proceed to borrow to make additional purchases, like home improvement, furniture or car loans.

Why do I raise this now?

As many will know this week it was widely expected that the Bank of Canada (BOC) would raise the key interest rate however this did not occur. 

Instead, the current rate was maintained although the BOC did warn that:

“Interest rates will need to increase to control inflation. Canadians should expect a rising path for interest rates,”

This means for those with a variable rate mortgage. their monthly payments will be increasing in the near future. 

For those with a fixed rate mortgage, when their current rate expires, they may also face higher rates upon renewal. 

While stress tests are important public policy tools, there are also other challenges that remain. 

Based on feedback I am hearing from many households here in our region, there are new fiscal challenges emerging putting pressures on household finances.

Obviously with the highest in 30-year inflation, many citizens are now forced into paying more for goods, groceries and in some cases services and yet receive less value in return.

Gasoline and diesel prices have increased, likewise the cost of gas to heat your home has also increased, as have some of the taxes on your home heating. 

At the same time many citizens have also noticed, because of higher premiums for payroll deductions like the Canada Pension Plan, that their net take home pay is less from what it was last year.

In addition, despite Liberal Government promises to reduce your monthly cell phone bills by “25%” this has not occurred.

While the Liberal Government also promised not to tax online streaming services such as Netflix, as many now know, online streaming services are now taxed.

All of these increased taxes and fees take a bigger bite out of your household net income at a time when payroll deductions are doing the same.
 
Depending on how much the Bank of Canada raises the interest rate, I have heard from various citizens who indicate their monthly mortgage payment could increase as much as $400 to $800 a month, which is a significant hit to their net income.

Some have suggested increased interest rates combined with higher inflation, fees and tax increases is creating a situation they cannot afford.

More so as ever increasing CPP and Employment Insurance premiums (which the freeze on premiums ends this year) further erodes their net discretionary income. 

My question this week: 

Are you concerned about your own household affordability? 

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

​This week Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released the 2021 Economic and Fiscal update report for Parliamentarians.
 
The reports tells us that:

“Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government has spent, or has planned to spend, $541.9 billion in new measures over 2019-20 to 2026-27, of which $176.6 billion (or about one third) is not part of the COVID-19 Response Plan”.
 
The PBO also notes that there is $57.8 billion in new spending that will be related to the Liberals 2021 election platform.
 
One interesting observation from the PBO is that Canada has now recovered 106% of jobs that were lost at the outset of the pandemic.
 
Despite this positive news, the PBO notes that the government has also dropped previously announced plans to wind down stimulus spending by the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year.
 
Noting that the labour market in Canada has now recovered, the PBO questions the need to continue to spend billions on stimulus spending despite previous plans to wind that spending down.
 
From my perspective here locally, one of the most frequent concerns that I hear is from pensioners and families who are struggling to keep up with inflation at the pumps and at the grocery stores.
 
I have also heard from small and medium sized business owners about the difficulty they have filling jobs, and worsening supply chain issues leading to shortages that lead to increased prices for goods and services.
 
Many are worried that more stimulus spending may only further increase inflationary pressures making goods even less affordable.
 
Given Canada’s current employment numbers, low interest rates, coupled with higher levels of government spending both in Canada and the United States during a time where we have seen continued supply chain issues, leads to bigger questions around inflation.

Statistics Canada has recently reported that Canada’s inflation in December was running at 4.8%.

Economists have noted that this is the largest surge of inflation we have seen in 30 years.
 
My question this week relates to stimulus spending and its role in the economy.
 
While the debate in Ottawa will continue on the need for more stimulus spending versus winding it down, what is your opinion here locally on stimulus spending?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​Recently my email inbox, as well as a significant number of calls to my office have raised significant opposition to a proposed annual home equity tax.
 
The overwhelming feedback on this topic has come somewhat as a surprise to me as this what not a major media story nor have I raised this topic in a weekly report.

Because of the level of responses I have received to this proposed homeowners equity tax will be the focus of this week's report.
 
First off – what is it?

Recently a Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) funded report from a group known as “Generation Squeeze”.

This report recommended an annual home equity tax on residences values in excess of $1 million dollars or more.
 
The proposed tax would be 0.2% for homes with a value between $1 million up to $1.5 million and would increase again to 0.5% up to $2 million and would ultimately increase to 1% on homes valued over $2 million payable annually like income taxes.
 
What if you could not afford to pay the annual home equity tax?

The program would be designed to defer the balance owing with a rate of interest charged on the outstanding balance.

The idea being the balance owing would be paid when the home is sold, or title transferred through an inheritance.
 
How does this make housing more affordable?

In theory the government would use this tax revenue to invest in affordable housing.

The report's author also believes it would create a disincentive for those who invest in housing for a monetary return.
 
My thoughts?

To be candid I oppose this tax proposal.

As has already been shared with me, there are citizens who now find themselves living in homes with a value in excess of a million dollars and would be subject to such a tax despite not having purchased a “million dollar home”.

As these individuals point out, they could never afford to purchase a million-dollar home.

On the surface they can “sell” and cash in on the increase in their home value but as has been pointed out, with the average price of a home in Kelowna now over $1 million, it is pointless as your gains would be wiped out trying to purchase in the current market.

As we have seen large jumps in home values throughout BC in recent years, it would be only a matter of time before more and more households qualify to pay this tax regardless of their household income.
 
 It has also been pointed out that selling a million-dollar home in itself negatively can impact your equity as real estate commissions and the BC property purchase tax are much higher on homes with a value in this price range.

As one individual shared with my office, they are only a “millionaire” homeowner on paper and could not afford to sell and buy another home at the current market rates as it is all relative.
 
I have heard other reasons why citizens are opposed to this idea.

One common question is what happens in the event that housing markets decline, having a natural effect on reducing your home equity, when at the same time the home equity tax you owe would continue to increase.

There is also a challenge when the value of the home you own does not necessarily accurately reflect your household income and by extension the ability to pay a home equity tax.
 
From own perspective I don’t believe the Government has a revenue problem that requires a home equity tax.

The challenge is spending.

As one example, our current Liberal Government has invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

I believe our shares in this bank should be sold and those funds would be better spent investing here in Canada, building Canadian infrastructure.
 
Final and important point.

The Liberal Government has stated that they will not be implementing this home equity tax.
 
My question this week:

Do you support the idea of a home equity tax to fund affordable housing?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.c.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.