​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.