​If you follow online new sources, you may have run across a few headlines this week on the theme of “Trudeau pushes ahead with fertilizer cut as farmers and provinces cry foul”.

Already a few inquiries have come into my office as farming is an active concern in many of the rural areas in our region.

What do these headlines mean?

Currently the Trudeau Liberal government has indicated that it intends to attempt to reduce fertilizer emissions in agriculture as part of the Liberals plan to reduce emissions by 30% in the year 2030.

This announcement has resulted in serious backlash, not just from farmers but several provincial governments as well.

The primary concern is that the potential reduction in the use of fertilizer will in turn decrease crop output which will result in lost revenue for farmers as well as higher prices for Canadians consumers in grocery stores. 

If you follow international news, similar measures recently announced in the Netherlands have resulted in massive protests by farmers that have shut down many parts of the Dutch economy including some key infrastructure. 

The farmers I have already heard from point out that fertilizer is expensive and is only used sparingly when and where needed.

They are seriously concerned that having unelected bureaucrats in Ottawa, with little to no experience in farming, picking arbitrary limits on fertilizer use that will have disastrous results for them, as well as Canadian consumers.

The Trudeau Liberal government has stated that their intent is not to reduce the use of fertilizer but rather to encourage “research and innovation” so that hopefully “better practices” will be found through technology. 

Another concern that has been raised is that for those countries who do not implement climate related restrictions on fertilizer use, they may end up with a competitive advantage yielding more crops at less cost over Canadian farmers. 

This is a valid worry given that Canada, in 2021, exported roughly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products.

This works out roughly just under 7% of our annual gross domestic product.

Any trade related losses will have serious repercussions to many Canadian farmers.

As we are also in an inflationary period and the hike in groceries has been repeatedly raised on my summer listening tour, in every part of our riding, we must also consider that if basic inputs like fertilizer are more expensive -- costs of production get passed onto consumers -- in this case in in higher grocery prices.

More and more people have told me that they want to support local and will search out for Canadian produce wherever they can, yet new, costlier policies make that more difficult.

My question this week:

Are you concerned with PM Trudeau’s intention to potentially impose this 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions in Canada by 2030?

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

​This week the Prime Minister made a rare, largely unannounced surprise visit to the Okanagan.

Normally an official visit by a Prime Minister occurs to make an announcement, participate in meetings or events like a caucus gathering and of course, to campaign in an election.
 
By in large this visit from the Prime Minister did not seem to involve any of these functions, including no party fundraiser (disclosure of which is required by law).
 
This appearance resulted in queries to my office as to why was the Prime Minister even here?

Compared to previous visits to the Okanagan, where the PM (Prime Minister) had participated in a BC Day celebration in Penticton or a ‘town hall’ event at UBC-O, this was a far more managed affair. 

As the Daily Courier reported, reporters were “invited to take pictures and videos but forbidden in advance to ask any questions. Any shouted queries would result in police-assisted eviction from the various premises.”
 
From my perspective threatening to use the police to evict journalists from asking questions raises serious concerns in a free and democratic country.
 
In this case by refusing to answer questions from journalists at various events it also means these events are intended to be used strictly as photo-ops.
 
Photo-ops at considerable expense to taxpayers given the use of the Government private challenger aircraft that even flew the small distance between Kelowna and Penticton to assist with this visit.
 
This last part raises another subject.

Many have pointed to the extravagance and excess of flying the short distance between Kelowna and Penticton, that was not only extremely costly to taxpayers, it also generates significant emissions from a Prime Minister demanding everyone else drive less and reduce their carbon footprint.
 
However, I am speculating the reason why the Challenger jet flew from Kelowna to Penticton is because the alternative would have required the PM and his entourage to drive back to Kelowna from the south Okanagan during peak rush hour traffic when the commuting time can be well over an hour and half- or at peak summer times- even two hours.
 
Obviously, the Prime Minister’s office would prefer the PM not be tied up in traffic for that length of time.

Unfortunately, as many citizens who reside and commute in the Okanagan will know, this can be a daily reality for everyone else.
 
Local Penticton MLA Dan Ashton has been calling for improved alternate routes to highway 97, that become even more necessary when a serious accident causes significant delays that can shut down sections of this highway for many hours at a time.
 
While transportation infrastructure such as Highway 97 is provincial in jurisdiction,  previous partnerships with the federal government resulted in the four-lane widening between Summerland and Peachland, as well as significant widening and creating 4 lane sections between Princeton and Hope.
 
My question this week:

How serious of a challenge do you see the highway 97 corridor through the South and Central Okanagan?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

It was early in March when I wrote about Canada’s response to the illegal attack on Ukraine by Russia.

As many will know PM Trudeau announced some strong Canadian sanctions against Russia.

At the time I stated that I believed “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 also committed my support for continued actions “against Russian and standing with the Ukraine as it fights off this Putin provoked military invasion”.

As it turns out, I was incorrect when I stated that “Canada, can only do so much to impact a country like Russia that we have limited trade with.”

Recently it was revealed that, here in Canada, some critical Russian pipeline infrastructure, (natural gas turbines) were being serviced in Montreal.

Under the trade export sanctions announced by PM Trudeau, these turbines would not be permitted to be sent back to Russia.

If the pipeline cannot be fully operational, it cannot raise peak revenues that Putin uses to finance his Russian war against Ukraine.

This is the very reason why the sanctions were announced.

However, the pipeline in question feeds natural gas to Germany and due to Germany’s efforts to decrease its domestic emissions it has increasingly relied upon Russian oil and gas.

As a result, Germany requested that Canada release the turbines so that they will be returned to Russia, and the pipeline can resume full operations and by extension supply Russian gas to Germany.

Prime Minister Trudeau approved a one-time permit to return these turbines.

While this is satisfying news to Germany, it has been met with outrage by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as well as many Canadians who strongly support Ukraine and understand full well what this pipeline revenue results in for Russia’s war machine against the Ukrainian people.

As President Zelensky stated “If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exception to sanctions, what exceptions will it want tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? This question is very dangerous," and further adding “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world."

While President Zelensky has called on PM Trudeau to reverse his decision allowing these turbines to be returned to Russia, thus far the Liberal government has refused citing the need to protect “German livelihoods”.

Currently the Nord Stream One pipeline that supplies natural gas to Germany from Russia is said to be running at 40 per cent of its capacity without these turbines.

My question this week:

Do you support PM Trudeau’s decision to return these turbines (first to Germany) who will in turn return them to Russia?

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

​With my annual summer listening tour underway, I have already heard concerns from many citizens in different parts of our region.
 
One of the largest concerns is about high gas prices.

For many citizens who must commute to work, the added prices can be devastating.
 
Likewise for seniors on a fixed income having to travel for medical appointments, the added costs cannot be recovered.
 
I have heard from many contract drivers who are not able to charge more despite having significantly increased costs.
 
Small business owners are receiving goods with significantly higher freight bills that must in turn be passed on to customers. 

For many this situation is causing serious financial hardship.
 
However, for those who strongly support carbon taxes on fuel, these higher gas prices are exactly what a carbon tax is designed to do.
 
When the Federal Finance Minister was recently asked about higher gas prices and the crippling effect they are having on many Canadians as well as the Canadian trucking industry, her response was clear:
 
“This price increase in fuel costs is a reminder of why climate action is so important” – Deputy Prime-Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
 
The challenge with this statement is that many countries, including our largest trading partner, the United States, do not have carbon taxes.
 
Further, other G-7 countries, including the United States, are actively taking measures to reduce the price at the gas pumps recognizing that higher gas prices have a compounding effect in significantly driving up inflation.
 
This Trudeau Liberal Government remains alone in the G-7 in taking no significant actions to reduce gas prices at the pumps.
 
Often members of this Liberal Government will talk about “carbon tax rebates”, arguing that some people come out further ahead.
 
The finance minister, who lives in Toronto, has publicly stated that her family does not own a car.

Certainly, for someone who lives in Toronto and does not own a vehicle, I have no doubt they would benefit from carbon tax rebates.
 
However, how about someone who lives in Hedley, B.C.?

In Hedley, there are no local supermarkets, no local primary care clinics, no local high school, and extremely limited public transit options, and so one is forced to commute long distances for basic services. 
 
There are many communities in our region that are forced to commute for services that are not locally available and paying heavily right now.
 
My question this week:

Are you being adversely impacted by higher gas prices?

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