​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.