​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.