​When I first was elected as a Member of Parliament, I fast discovered it was not uncommon for citizens to share personal documents with me on issues they were finding to be challenging to deal with when it comes to the federal government.

While that fact has not changed, what has surprised me is the extent to how much the list of challenges has grown.

Some examples:

Many citizens can longer receive a passport within a reasonable period of time.

Immigration backlogs have never been worse and some citizens, to their shock and dismay, discover supporting documents to their application have literally disappeared from their file.

Air travelers who experience immense frustration from travel cancellations have discovered the air passenger bill of rights is not helping them.

Many citizens in rural areas still cannot receive broadband internet despite promises to the contrary over the past five years.

Increasingly I receive winter gas bills from citizens who can no longer afford their home heating. 

On that note one recent home heating bill caught my attention.

The person who sent the bill to me pointed out that they had to go on the “equal payment plan” in order to afford the cold winter months.

For this individual that means 12 equal payments of $170 a month for a total of $2,040 for the year.

They also pointed out that close to a quarter of that bill $473 (23% actually) was solely paying for the carbon tax.

As this individual is not eligible for the BC climate action rebate, (In B.C. individuals earning $79,376 or more are not eligible for this credit) the question was asked how much higher the carbon tax would be next year.

This is a good question as on one hand that carbon tax in B.C. is provincial and yet on the other hand when BC signed onto the federal Pan-Canadian Climate Strategy they agreed to the guidelines will called for the carbon tax in BC to rise to $50 per tonne as of April 1, 2022.
$50/tonne is the current rate.

So what happens next? 

Prime Minister Trudeau wants to triple the carbon tax here Canada at the following rate schedule:

The minimum Carbon Pollution Price ($ CAD/tonne CO2e) for 2023  is $65.

In the following years:

2024 $80
2025 $95
2026 $110
2027 $125
2028 $140
2029 $155
2030 $170

As the Canadian Climate Strategy was only in effect until the end of 2022, it is unknown if the BC NDP government will continue to follow the Trudeau Liberal government in this direction.

If it does, as you can see for 2023, this would be a 30% increase over the current carbon tax rate.

It is easy to understand why the Bank of Canada has confirmed that the carbon tax does help to increase inflation here in Canada.

My question this week:

Do you support B.C. continuing to follow the federal Liberal government in tripling the carbon tax by the year 2030 to $170/tonne?

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

​In late April I wrote about Trudeau Liberal government invoking the Emergencies Act.

I pointed out that many of the reasons that the majority of Liberal and NDP MPs had cited to justify voting for invoking the Emergencies Act had since been proven as false and untrue.

For example, there was no “act of attempted arson” on behalf of the protestors nor were any guns found in Ottawa during the protest.

I further pointed out that the law governing the use of the Emergencies Act also requires that an independent review must occur after the act is invoked.

For the past 28 days now the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) has been conducting hearings into the invoking of the Emergencies Act.

This week took a very interesting turn as cabinet ministers took the stand.

While direct questions to the ministers have yielded little useful information as to how the Trudeau Liberal government believed that the legal threshold had been met to invoke the Emergencies Act, the normally confidential and private messages shared between ministers has been far more of interest.

One text message exchanged between the Minister of Public Safety, Minister Marco Mendicino and the Minister of Justice, Minister David Lametti read as follows:

“Police have all of the legal authority they need to enforce the law they just need to exercise and do their job” 

This was the statement from Minister of Public Safety. 

This is particularly relevant as the legal standard to invoke the Emergencies Act is clear.

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' and when the situation 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.'"

The last part is key “when the situation 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada".

This was precisely the argument that the official opposition, a few Liberal MP's and other academics and legal scholars opposed to invoking the Emergencies Act all referenced.

To hear the Minister of Public Safety state, privately in a text message to the Justice Minister, that “Police have all of the legal authority they need to enforce the law they just need to exercise and do their job” is a candid admission that they knew this situation could be deal with under existing Canadian laws.

If you are following the PEOC in the news, you may have heard that the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) David Vigneault confirmed that CSIS did not believe the legal standard had been met to invoke the Emergency Act (as is required under law).

You may have also heard that, in spite of this fact, the CSIS Director still advised PM Trudeau to invoke the Emergency Act.

Why would Mr. Vigneault advise that, given that the legal standard had not been met?

The Commission has been told by the CSIS Director his recommendation was based on a new legal opinion from Justice Canada.  

The obvious question is, what was this legal opinion?

Unfortunately, the Trudeau Liberal Government is claiming privilege and refuses to reveal this legal opinion.

My question this week:

Considering this new information, do you believe the use of the Emergencies Act was justified? 

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

I have been increasingly hearing about from parents with young children concerned about a serious shortage of children’s pain relief medicine at local pharmacies and grocery stores. 

Recently a citizen from Kelowna, returning from a trip to Washington State, sent me pictures from some USA based grocery stores and asked why the same problem was not occurring in the United States.

He asked what Prime Minister Trudeau was doing to resolve this problem. 

While it is true that the United States does not have this problem to the same extent than Canada, it is less clear as to the reasons why. 

Fortunately, early this week, Health Canada issued a statement that may help resolve this critical shortage.

Health Canada indicated that the agency has “secured foreign supply of children’s acetaminophen that will be available in retail stores and pharmacies in the coming weeks.”

Now the reason why I suggest this may help resolve this critical shortage is because Health Canada is refusing to reveal precisely how much supply they have “secured” nor will they reveal exactly where in Canada it will be distributed. 

After two years of very detailed drug procurement and distribution information from Health Canada, during the pandemic, this sudden refusal to disclose these same basic details and the lack of transparency raises serious questions and concerns. 

Why would this information be withheld from Canadians?

On an unrelated note, this week a continued investigation into how the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) managed to spend $54 million on the “ArriveCan app” after it was originally budgeted to cost $80,000. 

The ArriveCan app is no longer mandatory for those travelling into Canada. 

CBSA was to turn over documentation related to this boondoggle to the House of Commons standing committee on government operations and estimates this week, to meet a pre-established production order and deadline.

So far CBSA has declined to reveal exactly where the money went and who ended up with it. 

When a committee or the House itself passes a production order- as was the case here - that order is equivalent to a court order, and government, elected to serve the House, must respond.

While these two situations are not directly related, they do point to a disturbing pattern. 
Citizens elect Members of Parliament to represent them at the federal government level in Ottawa.

Parents wondering about what actions are being taken to rectify the critical shortage of children’s pain medication deserve to know what is being done, with significant details.

Likewise, when a federal department somehow manages to spend $54 million on an app, Canadians deserve to know where that money went and who profited from it.

These should not be considered partisan questions and Canadians deserve to have answers to these questions.
Instead, we see stonewalling, excuses, and a complete and total disregard for Canadians right to know basic information on how and where their money is being spent.

My question this week:

Are you concerned by this growing lack of transparency, or do you view this as the official opposition sweating what you consider small and insignificant details?

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

Late last week the Trudeau Liberal government released a Fall Economic Statement, promoted as a “mini-budget”.

Why? One can assume that it was a clever play on words suggesting this fiscal announcement was small when in reality it proposes to significantly increase more deficit spending.

First some context.

You may recall that PM Trudeau was elected in 2015 with a promise to run several “small” deficits before he made what he called a “cast in stone” promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019.

The promises at that time were “small deficits” of $ 9.9 billion in 2016, $9.5 billion in 2017, $5.7 billion in 2018 and a return to a $1 billion surplus in 2019.

How did those promises turn out? They didn't.

In reality the size of these deficits were much larger.

A $17.8 billion deficit in 2016, a $19 billion deficit in 2017, a $14 billion deficit in 2018 and a $39.4 billion deficit in 2019.

Keep in mind that all of this was before the pandemic.

Fast forward to what the Trudeau Liberal Government announced in their mini-budget last week.

A deficit this year of $36.4 billion, followed by a $30.6 billion deficit in 2023, another $25.4 billion deficit in 2024, with a further deficit of $14.5 billion in 2025 that will lower to a $3.4 billion deficit in 2026 and finally a $4.5 billion surplus in 2027.

Aside from the obvious that this Liberal Government has never established itself as being able to come even close to meeting the fiscal promises it makes, there is another challenge.

Once again we are in a situation where these are all deficit forecasts, meaning the actual deficits could be much higher, as has been the case in the past with this particular Liberal government.

In fact, even within this “mini-budget” the government also includes a “downside scenario” in which the federal deficit this year could be as high as $49.1 billion, followed by $52.4 billion in 2023 and $42.3 billion in 2024.

In this downside scenario, instead of a small surplus in 2027, there would still be a deficit of $8.3 billion.

There is also one more alarming trend.

As prices rise with inflation, so do the taxes on all those goods and services that now cost more, meaning the government actually receives more tax money from struggling consumers trying to pay the bills.

As an example of this, the actual federal government revenue received was actually $19 billion higher in this “mini-budget” than was forecast in last April’s budget.

In other words, at a time when the federal government is receiving increased tax revenues, at your expense -- due to higher prices -- it is taking this extra revenue and still spending it while creating deficits significantly larger than what they first campaigned on back in 2015. 

As I mentioned last week, Desjardins (from Quebec) now forecasting that Canada’s debt servicing costs will hit $49.8 billion next year and we could be spending more money servicing debt than the total of the Canada Health Transfer spending for 2022/23, that is expected to rise to $45.2 billion.

​My question this week:

Do you find this “mini-budget” credible?

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

Ottawa is a very busy place this week with many different topics dominating media stories.

The ongoing inquiry into the invoking of the Emergency Act continues and many surprising details are being revealed to the public.

This will be a topic for a future report.

Also occurring this week is a request to the Speaker from the NDP asking for an emergency debate in the House of Commons over the Province of Ontario's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to impose a contract on CUPE workers in the Ontario public educations system.

As this is a Provincial matter, it is unknown at this point if the Speaker will agree to a request for this emergency debate.

Somewhat overlooked in many media reports this week was the Bank of Canada coming out and stating that they have “not ruled out another oversized interest rate hike to fight sky-high inflation”.

With many families seriously struggling to pay increased interest on debt in mortgages, lines of credits and elsewhere, these comments will be of very serious concern. 

However, it is not just individual households that will be seriously impacted by a further increase in interest on debt.

As many will know, for every year since being elected, the Trudeau Liberal Government has deliberately run deficit budgets that have significantly increased Canada’s debt.

For those who have been following closely, they will know the Trudeau Liberal government has consistently defended their deficit budgets by stating this spending is “affordable due to low interest rates”

Back in my criticism of the Liberal budget early last year, I warned about rising interest will mean rising payments on that debt, a term known as “debt servicing”. 

In fact, I pointed out that the interest that we paid on our public debt for 2020/21 was $20.4 billion. 

I also pointed out that by 2026/27 these debt servicing costs were forecast to rise to $40.9 Billion.

For context I gave the example that the Canada Health Transfer that was $45.9 Billion (at the time) was forecast to rise to $55.2 billion in 2026/27.

I did this to raise the issue that over the next five years the cost to service our debt is doubling and increasing at a rate faster than our health transfers are increasing.

I viewed this as a very serious concern and many local citizens agreed.

Flash forward to this week and Desjardins (from Quebec) has forecast that Canada’s debt servicing costs will hit $49.8 billion next year.

To put $49.8 billion in debt servicing charges into perspective, the total of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) for 2022/23 is expected to rise to $45.2 Billion.

In other words, the situation that I was worried about has now occurred over a much shorter period.

With Canada’s debt servicing now forecast to see us spending more money on debt servicing than we are spending in funding the entire Canada health transfer to the Provinces and Territories, here is my question for you this week:

What actions would you like to see from the Federal Government in response to this situation?

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