Every summer since I was first elected I have traveled throughout every community in my riding as part of my annual summer listening tour.

Citizens deserve to be heard and meeting with people directly in their home communities is a very important part of being a Member of Parliament.

The feedback and concerns that I hear are part of the focus for when the House of Commons resumes typically in September.

 This year, the House is not expected to resume given that the next federal election will be in October.

I am frequently reminded at how far away the "Ottawa bubble" is when it comes to those who live in Canadian rural communities.

In several parts of my riding there are no public transit options.

Where there was once Greyhound service in some areas, it now no longer exists.

Some areas have no access to natural gas for home heating.

There is also a lack of internet access in many areas and in some cases no wireless signal whatsoever.

For this reason, both the Provincial and Federal Government have promised to increase rural internet connectivity.

Despite these promises, as many rural residents without wireless service can confirm, little to no progress has been made.

Recently, with the fall election fast approaching, the Liberal Government made yet another promise with regards to rural internet connectivity.

The Liberals announced a down the road program to pay $600 million over 10 years to what was described as an "Ottawa based company" to launch low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

LEO satellites orbit at a height of roughly 1,000 kilometers, compared to conventional satellites that are typically orbit the earth at a range over 30,000 kilometers.

LEO satellites can provide much faster wireless connections to hard to reach, isolated locations.

LEO satellite technology is an emerging industry with several international private sector companies investing in new technology in a race to get LEO satellites launched.

This leads to my question for this week.

The Liberal government's track record on rural internet connectivity has not been stellar.

As the Auditor General concluded in a report from last year, the connectivity program did not get value for money.

The AG also determined that the Trudeau Government was hindered by having no overall rural connectivity strategy.

This remains unchanged.

People in rural and remote communities deserve better than a program where under 15% of the promised funding for internet infrastructure to date, has been spent, as is the case under this Liberal government.

My question to you:

Should the next government prioritize having a comprehensive strategy to make sure rural and remote communities have internet connectivity?

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

In less than two months, the writ will be dropped and the official campaign for the October federal election will begin.

I referenced the "official" campaign getting underway because by all accounts active campaigning has already begun.

So, what does “dropping the writ” actually mean?

A writ is “dropped” when the Prime Minister presents the Governor General with an instrument of advice recommending the House of Commons be dissolved. 

In turn the Governor General then issues a proclamation dissolving Parliament. 

Previously there was no maximum length for a writ period until the passing of  “Elections Modernization Act”, passed in this Parliament, that set that a maximum of length of fifty days.

Another change was the creation of a restricted pre-writ period that began back on June 30th of this year.

This newly created “pre-writ” period imposes restrictions, such as limits on advertising for political parties, prior to the official writ being dropped.

Previously spending limits were only imposed on political parties during the writ period.

How does this change things?

In the writ period the Government enters into, what is known in our Westminster form of government, as the “Caretaker Convention”. 

The Caretaker Convention recognizes the underlying principle that government must still run, however the elected political side of government cannot use taxpayer provided resources or other powers of government in an effort to influence the election. 

As an example, a Government Cabinet Minister or the Prime Minister could not fly, at taxpayer expense, to make major spending announcement or announce other changes in government policy intended for political gain. 

When the Trudeau Liberal Government created the new “pre-writ” period, they ensured that the restrictions on expenses (such as advertising) only applies to political parties.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers are not subject to any spending restrictions on their political activities during the pre-writ period.

The Liberals also ensured that the Caretaker Convention would not apply during the pre-writ period.

Meaning that taxpayer resources can be used while the PM and his Ministers fly around Canada making funding announcements precisely intended for political gain. 

Likewise government policies and project announcements can also be manipulated for partisan political purposes.

My question to you this week is one of fairness:

Do you believe that in addition to political parties, that this new pre-writ period should also equally apply to the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

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

The official opposition has the responsibility to hold the Government to account.

Part of this responsibility means looking at how the government spends your money on programs, projects and services to determine if there is value and results being delivered for taxpayers.

The opposition is also assisted in the work that we do through journalists, who not only hold the Government to account, but also the opposition- in fact all elected officials and all the citizens we represent.

One journalism organization that many Canadians outside of Ottawa may not have heard of is 'Blacklock’s Reporter' ,https://www.blacklocks.ca/,  a unique investigative news organization who stands alone in being the only reporter-owned and operated newsroom in Ottawa.

Recently through a series of access to information requests, Blacklock’s reviewed the Trudeau Liberal Government’s billion dollar 'Strategic Innovation Fund'.

This fund falls under the responsibility of Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Minister Navdeep Bains.

For the record I am the shadow cabinet critic for this Ministry.

The results of this access to information data, as reported by Blacklock’s, is alarming.

Publicly the Trudeau Liberal Government boasted that this program had loaned out a billion dollars and helped “to create nearly 56,000 jobs”.

Is this claim accurate?

In a word, no.

The access to information data reveals that in reality, as of March 31st of this year, only 6,613 jobs have been created.

To put that figure into perspective a total $1,051,716,827 in funding has been approved by the Trudeau Liberal Government, meaning each job has cost the equivalent of more than $159,000 per.

Records further revealed that of the $1.05 billion loaned out to date, only about half, a total $566.4 million, is due to be repaid with just over 50% due to be repaid by 2041.

It has not been explained why there is a deficiency of over 49,000 fewer jobs then what has been publicly claimed. 

My question this week:

Do you feel that the Liberals billion dollar “Strategic Innovation Fund” is meeting your expectations? 

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

Chances are you will have heard the term “fake news” and concerns of alleged and actual uses of inaccurate information to unduly influence an election result.

While this remains a hot button issue south of our border, we have also had a real example of this here in Canada.

During the recent Burnaby South by-election, NDP candidate and party leader Jagmeet Singh was featured in an inaccurate news story suggesting Mr. Singh resided in what was described as a “$5.5-million dollar mansion resplendent with ornate staircases and murals painted on ceilings”.

For the record Mr. Singh lives in no such residence.

The incorrect story, as is often the case, was circulated in many social media circles, often by political opponents of Mr. Singh.

It is currently unknown who was ultimately responsible.

What is more troubling is that inaccurate news stories can be sourced from third party organizations or individuals from other countries who may refuse to respect or cooperate with the laws of Canada or other countries.

With our Canadian federal election approaching in October, similar concerns have been raised over the potential for electoral interference occurring during this time period.

This week the Liberal government released the rules they will be creating in response to these concerns.

Ultimately it will be a group of unelected senior public servants in Ottawa who will decide if an incident that occurs is considered to be electoral interference or not. 

This group is made up of the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In the event they believe a situation is an act of intended electoral interference they will notify the Prime Minister, the leaders of the other political parties as well as Elections Canada and an announcement providing further information will be forthcoming. 

The challenge is that there is no actual definition of what type of incident or situation is defined as “interference”.

This decision will be up to the discretion of the people involved, who typically have often been appointed by the Prime Minister.

In this case the Prime Minister will not have the power to veto this process, if it concludes that an event or situation has transpired. 

Some who follow Ottawa very closely will know that statements made by the former Clerk of the Privy Council during the SNC Lavalin/Justice Committee hearings were criticized by many journalists and pundits alike for being overtly partisan.

I can state that I would not have confidence in this process if the former Clerk had not retired after losing confidence of the other Party leaders.

My question this week:

Do you have confidence that this process will effectively prevent or otherwise discourage outside electoral interference during the election?

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

The British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) is a provincial agency and is currently conducting a limited review into gasoline pricing in British Columbia.

This review will some federal implications and I believe this will be of interest to many citizens in our region.

The review was ordered by the BC NDP Provincial Government earlier this year after a public outcry on high gas prices at the pump and the April 1st increase to the carbon tax.

The reason the review is limited is because the BC NDP,  in the terms of reference to the BCUC, made one very important limitation:

“The commission (BCUC) may not inquire into the effects of provincial enactments or policy on gasoline and diesel prices in British Columbia,”

In other words provincial BC NDP energy policy and related taxation cannot be included in this review.

Early work from the BCUC (as reported by Mr. Rob Shaw of the Vancouver Sun) indicates that the National Energy Board (NEB) stated that the “refining margin on regular gasoline in Vancouver in April averaged 52.1 cents per litre”

To put that figure into context , that is approximately double the national average.

However, here is another interesting fact:

In the lower mainland, the total of the transit tax, provincial taxes including the carbon tax, federal excise tax, and GST add 52 cents per litre.

So the combined governments take in taxes is roughly equal to the oil companies refining margins. 

That amount would be less here in the Central Okanagan- Similkameen- Nicola as there is no local transit tax.

One other interesting consideration relates to the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX). 

Suncor has stated that pipeline capacity for refined products, that includes gasoline and diesel, has decreased by 30-36 million litres per month.

This in turn means this gasoline must be shipped by either rail or truck, which is more costly.

Parkland Fuel, the operator of the refinery in Burnaby, have also stated that because the TMX pipeline is at capacity, often carrying other products (diluted bitumen is one example), they have to pay a premium to secure supply capacity from other shippers. 

This is relevant as it is some of the first quantifiable evidence that the lack of available capacity for gasoline & diesel in the TMX pipeline is playing a role in creating higher gas prices at BC pumps.

As I wrote in my May 1st, 2019 report, the reason for the lack of capacity is due to the fact that the TMX pipeline must carry a range of different oil products ranging from gasoline to diluted bitumen.

The expanded new section of the Trans-Mountain pipeline (if built) would exclusively carry what is known as “heavy oils,” such as diluted bitumen, allowing the existing section to transport products such as gasoline & diesel to increase supply.

Ironically BC NDP Premier Horgan, who created the BCUC review to “get to the bottom” of high gas prices in BC, opposes the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion.

My question this week:

How much are you impacted by gasoline prices?

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