​Since the partnership between the Liberals and NDP was formed back in late March of this year, one of the joint political messages has been “tax the rich”.

In terms of policy decisions, this translated into a new federal luxury tax on vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and boats priced over $250,000.

The tax rate is either 10% of the total post-tax purchase price, or 20% of value over a certain threshold, whichever is lesser.

For the purpose of this report, we will focus on boats.

The justification for this tax, from the Trudeau Liberal government, is anyone who can afford a boat costing $250,000 can afford to pay more in tax. 

Some readers are probably already wondering why even bother to mention a tax that only an incredibly small percentage of the population will need to be concerned with. 

I'm not writing to advocate for potential new boat owners but rather to explain the policy ramifications involved with taxation competitiveness.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) looked at the fiscal implications of the luxury tax, he concluded the luxury tax will generate government revenues of up to $760 million.

While this sounds positive, the downside is that the PBO also calculates there will be a sales decline of $2.9 billion. 

The PBO estimates that 75% of that loss — or $2.1bn — will be incurred by the recreational boat industry here in Canada.

In other words, this tax creates a loss of revenue.

As we heard from representatives of the Canadian marine industry, this tax is expected to create job losses and other economic hardships.  

As many will know, Campion Marine, an iconic made in Kelowna boat manufacturer, recently closed their doors creating the loss of roughly 100 well-paying jobs, as well as the loss of other economic contributions important to our regional and national economy. 

It must be acknowledged that there is already a provincial luxury tax in BC, and an additional federal luxury tax will hit BC harder than other parts of Canada.

The provincial and federal luxury taxes would be applied to boat purchases -- before GST would be applied.

That means the GST is also ultimately applicable to the provincial and federal luxury taxes- which creates an even higher final sale amount on the boat in question.

These added costs create a larger incentive for buyers wanting to avoid paying these taxes and have the means to go to other jurisdictions where the taxes aren't an issue.

I am not suggesting the luxury tax was the sole reason for the closure of Campion in Kelowna, as most of the boats Campion built would not have been impacted by this luxury tax.

However, it does point out a pattern that we as Canadians should take note of.

Global Okanagan News has reported that Campion will be moving production to Texas and Mexico.

In Texas, Campion would pay no luxury tax, no carbon taxes, nor would it pay higher payroll taxes on EI and CPP as well as the Provincial Employers Health Tax.

In other words, as these new extra costs make Canadian made products and services more expensive -- it makes the cost of doing business outside of Canada more attractive. 

For example, citizens may remember the Bombardier C-Series jet.

Despite Canadian taxpayers having invested roughly $1 billion into the development of this commercial jet, it is now built in Alabama and not Canada.

On another different but local note while Tolko industries has closed local lumber mills in communities of Kelowna and Merritt .

Tolko invested in several new lumber mills in places like Ackerman, Mississippi as well as Urania, Louisiana and Ruston, Louisiana.

This is not a problem that lands solely at the feet of the Federal Government.

Many Provincial Government policies also contribute to the lack of competitiveness and, in some cases, local government plays a role as well. 

My question this week:

Are you concerned about the growing number of well-paying mill and manufacturing jobs moving from Canada into the United States?

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

This week there was, on the surface at least, exciting news report by CTV that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between the Government of Canada and Mercedes Benz as well as Volkswagen to “secure access to Canadian raw materials for batteries in electric vehicles.” 

As a Member of Parliament with active mining operations in my riding, I can state firsthand on the significant importance of well-paying jobs as well as the considerable spin off economic benefits not just to the local community but the entire region.

It is also worth noting that, while Canada currently does not have an active lithium mining and processing industry, we are ranked number six for having the world’s largest lithium reserves behind countries such as Chile, Australia, Argentina, China and the United States. 

For those of you unfamiliar with lithium, it is a highly reactive metal that is used in rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles and other electronic products such as laptops and cell phones, as well as a growing list of other consumer goods.

As the world increasingly relies on electric battery powered vehicles and devices, this will result in increased lithium demand.

With this announcement I also have some concerns. 

As many in the mining industry will know, back in 2014, Ottawa rejected the New Prosperity Mine that would have been located west of Williams Lake.

In August of 2021 Ottawa again rejected another mine, the proposed “Grassy Mountain” mine, that would have been located in the southwest of Alberta.

Both rejections occurred under different federal governments, but for the same reason, due to potential adverse impacts on the local environment.

Since the Trudeau Liberal Government has come to power, they have also expanded the scope of impact assessment to include considerations such as “Gender-based Analysis Plus” to the scope of criteria that must be met. 

For some context there is a 16-page federal document to explain how this impact assessment process is intended to function.

Aside from these types of regulatory requirements and environmental concerns, proponents must also consult with local Indigenous communities.

However, if a local Indigenous community is strongly in support of a project, Ottawa may still reject the proposal for other reasons.

On a related note, a recent C.D. Howe Institute Report found that “business investment in Canada is about half what it is in the United States and is lower than in other OECD nations”. 

One of the stated reasons for our declining investment and productivity is related to “regulatory uncertainty” here in Canada.

There is a growing list of projects that have been cancelled in Canada, not just for environmental reasons, but also for political reasons. 

I mention this because if there is to be a sudden “boom” in new lithium mines, it raises the question where does the Federal Government prefer these mines are located?

There is also the question of water use, as it has been reported that the production of lithium through evaporation ponds uses a lot of water. Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one ton of lithium.

During the 2019 election the Trudeau Government had promised to create a new water regulator and has been dropping hints that it will be proceeding with such an agency.

It isn't known whether its mandate will inevitably conflict and act as another potential hurdle for new mines to navigate. 

Likewise, given the uncertainty of our current regulatory process, what changes is the Federal Government prepared to make that will accelerate the approval process of new lithium mines?

Currently the Trudeau Liberal Government has been silent on these details.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on the future of lithium mining here in Canada?

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

​For most Canadians identity theft is a concern however, unless you have personally been a victim of identity theft, most are unaware how serious the consequences can be and how challenging they are to rectify. 

In 2010 identity theft in Canada impacted just over 2 individuals per 100,000, however in 2020 that rate has increased significantly to 20 individuals per 100,000 people. 

In terms of actual numbers, since the COVID pandemic, reported identity theft incidents have increased to over 17,000 in 2020 and, while the data is not yet in for 2021, it is widely expected to have doubled.

One of the reasons for this significant increase in identity thefts relates to CERB (the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit).

CERB was a program that had very few safeguards against identity theft, and worse, made it a profitable activity among criminals and other unsavoury individuals.

Currently there are Canadians shocked to be told they must repay CERB benefits they never received, as they discover they have been a victim of identity fraud.

For those who have been victimized it is a very challenging situation to rectify as many institutions operate under a reverse onus environment where a victim of identity theft must prove they were not in any way responsible for the situation in question.

Many in frustration turn to the media and no doubt you have likely heard about identity theft as a result of media stories on this subject.

In my view governments at all levels are not doing much to combat this growing problem.

I would like to share the following idea with citizens for feedback.

If you are a user of “Google” online, you will know that if your account is accessed, or there is an attempt to access your account from a new location, you will receive a verification text or email asking you to confirm the login or attempted login details.

This is often called 'two step verification'.

Google of course is not the only online company using two or multi step verification, many other social media platforms have done this, as have a growing number of banks and credit unions, to verify one's identity when accessing online services.

Even logging into your account remotely with CRA now involved a 2-step verification process.

Unfortunately, when it comes to your credit rating, there is no credit rating organization that I could identify that uses a verification process or alert as Google does when someone accesses your credit file.

Giving how far technology has come in terms of accessibility and scale, I don't think it's unreasonable that someone  could sign up so that every time there is an inquiry on  their credit rating, that they should be contacted by the credit rating agency in question by a text or email and informed who is making the inquiry. 

The intent of this idea is to help cut down on identity theft and as consumers give more awareness over who is accessing your credit rating records. 

I am sure the credit agencies in question would argue that their credit files are exactly that- their files on your credit score -  and that any new requirement would make their system and those who rely on them slower.

However as these credit scores impact the ability for citizens to get a loan or mortgage, or in some cases rent a property, and making sure that credit scores are being used correctly with companies that you have decided to transact with and not nefariously by fraudsters is a legitimate counterpoint.

The costs of such an alert system have come down and it's in everyone's interests to minimize fraud.

I have done some research on this idea through the Library of Parliament and unfortunately due to how some financial services, like credit bureau's, are regulated provincially throughout Canada, through consumer protection laws, it is not something that could be addressed through a private member's bill otherwise I would consider tabling such a bill.

My question this week.

Would you support credit rating agencies advising you when there is an inquiry on your credit rating file?

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

​Since I was first elected I have used the summer months, generally passing on speaking opportunities, and embarking on a listening tour -- throughout the riding -- to hear the concerns of local citizens. 

One of the greatest things about this riding is the vast diversity of the people who live in our various communities. Some within more densely populated urban areas -- others in smaller towns and there are those in unincorporated rural areas. 

In turn each fall when the House resumes, I share the concerns raised in Ottawa.

This year, unlike any other, there is a different tone to what I am hearing.

Affordability, given record high inflation and the direction of our governments at all levels has been a concern in many communities. 

Healthcare, such as the inability to get a doctor or having to travel significant distances for a health care related services, are ongoing challenges.

Many citizens have talked about the sheer frustration of trying to drive in and out of Kelowna either via Highway 97 or the Coquihalla and the ensuing traffic gridlock adds stress and anxiety that some have said left them unwilling to make the trek.

Overall, there is a sense that various governments are failing to provide basic core services and are more focused on other areas that many view as non-essential.

There is also a concern of increased government secrecy and in inability to get simple, clear answers why services are delayed and when they will be restored and/or available locally. 

From my own perspective there is no question that, even as an elected official, it has become more challenging to obtain information from the federal government departments and agencies that I often deal with.

Likewise, I have heard of similar challenges from citizens attempting to obtain information from Interior Health.

From a traffic standpoint, aside from the flood related damage to the Coquihalla that is currently under repair, that last major Federal/Provincial partnership projects to decrease traffic congestion within this region was the widening between Summerland and Peachland as well as significant widening of portions of Hwy. 3 between Princeton and Hope. 

Both projects were completed prior to 2015 and there has been significant growth since.

The intent of this week’s report is not to pick on any one level of government or agency/department related to government but rather to ask a simple question.

How satisfied are you with the current state of government service delivery in your community?

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