​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.

​Early this week I was contacted by a local journalist for reaction to reports that the government delegation headed by PM Trudeau to attend the Queens funeral in London had cost $397,000 for the 5-night stay.
 
One room was reported to have cost $6,000 per night and included a private butler.

The Trudeau Liberal government so far refuses to disclose who stayed in that room.
 
For the record, this was a non-partisan delegation that included past Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers as well as other dignitaries and elected officials.
 
When I was asked for my reaction, I was taken back to ten years ago when it was revealed a former Conservative cabinet minister had charged taxpayers $16 for a glass of orange juice, ironically also while travelling in London at an expensive hotel.
 
My reaction is the same then as it is now.

It is totally unacceptable there is not greater respect for the spending of tax dollars.

In the case of former Minister Bev Oda, the Minister did the honourable thing and resigned after her expenses were reported. She also repaid the expenses out of her own pocket.
 
In this case the Trudeau Liberal Government will not even tell us who should be held accountable for staying in a $6,000 a night hotel room.

That is totally unacceptable.
 
Also announced this week is the Bank of Canada is once again raising the overnight interest rate to 3.75%.

This is another increase from the previously announced increase of 3.25%
 
I am hearing from many families who are seriously struggling financially, as the increased payments on household debt have become unsustainable for them.
 
As one family recently shared, they are now coping with the extra payments solely through their line of credit however, the interest of the line of credit is also increasing, and they have calculated they can make two more months of payments before they max out their line of credit.
 
Many have also expressed concerns that if there is a cold winter having high heating bills on top of everything else will be the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.
 
Unfortunately, as the Official Conservative Opposition, every effort we have made to have carbon tax increases delayed or GST removed from fuel have been opposed by the Liberal/NDP partnership.
 
With the Bank of Canada now confirming that carbon taxes increase inflation, this would be one measure the Trudeau Liberal Government could undertake to help many struggling Canadians and yet they refuse.

At a time when many are struggling, the Liberals do not have any concern with renting a $6,000 a night hotel room,

I am seriously concerned PM Trudeau does not appreciate or understand just how real the financial challenges that some Canadians are facing.
 
I should also add that many that I hear from, in this challenging fiscal situation, have good jobs and as a result do not qualify for many of the rebate and assistance programs that are available.
 
This Liberal government once promised to help the middle class and yet everyday I hear from more middle-class families who cannot afford to make ends meet.
 
My question this week:

Do you think Canadians that heat their homes with natural gas or propane should be punished with a carbon tax for attempting to stay warm in the cold winter months?

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

Canadians awoke to news this week that Canada’s rate of inflation means that prices will continue to rise at a rate of 6.9%.
 
The “upside” ,according to some media headlines, is that inflation rate increase of 6.9% is not accelerating as quickly as the 7% rate as it had last month.

Unfortunately for grocery prices, it is even worse as the rate of food inflation is currently at 11.4%.

This is the fastest increase since 1981 and is causing considerable discomfort for constituents I have spoken with, particularly those with low or fixed incomes who are feeling triple squeezed by higher gas, groceries and housing costs.
 
On the subject of food inflation, this week the House of Commons voted unanimously for an NDP motion that proposes a number of measures to closely examine the profits of Canada’s largest grocery stores.

I should add that several economists and other experts in this area have reported that they believe the data will show excess profiteering is not the cause of rapidly rising grocery prices.
 
From my perspective I believe it is important that this area is properly scrutinized and that grocery stores are accountable to elected officials to explain their pricing structures.
 
Also occurring in Ottawa is the ongoing Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) that is hearing testimony from a variety of sources as it probes whether the Trudeau Liberal government met the standard for invoking emergency powers found in the Emergencies Act as required by law.

While not a court of law, the Commission has several powers to call for evidence and to hear testimony and has expressed that it would like for the public to submit their views on this matter.

For those wishing to share a submission or email on this subject directly with the Commission, please go to the following link:
 
publicorderemergencycommission.ca/share-your-views/
 
Before I close this week, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of  fallen RCMP officer Constable Shaelyn Yang, who was fatally stabbed while checking on a homeless individual camping in a Burnaby park.
 
Constable Yang was an RCMP mental health and homeless outreach officer.
 
This indirectly leads to my question for this week.

Now that our civic elections are complete and many new mayors and councillors were elected, often at the expense of incumbents, it has been suggested by some that one drive for change was public safety.
 
My question this week:

How concerned are you about how well all levels of government combined are addressing public safety concerns?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

​At the top this week,  I would like to congratulate Kelowna-Lake Country MP Tracy Gray in her new Shadow Cabinet role as the critic for Employment, Future Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

As the labour market tightens, wait lists for skilled immigration grow and economic winds blow, this will be a key portfolio and I wish her well.

I would also like to congratulate North-Okanagan Shuswap MP Mel Arnold in his continued role as the Associate critic for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

His work on aquatic invasive species is near and dear to many of us that want to protect freshwater lakes like the Okanagan.

If you follow Canadian politics closely you may have heard that the Leader of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, announced his new shadow cabinet on Wednesday.

While it has been a great honour to serve in a variety of different portfolios in the opposition shadow cabinet, I will not be part of this shadow cabinet and as someone who long believed in accountability and transparency, I would like to share the reason why.

A member of my family was diagnosed with an illness and so I asked to be withdrawn from consideration for a role in the upcoming shadow cabinet. 

This decision will allow for more time to be spent on issues unique to our riding and also more time for my family, as being in shadow cabinet is a serious time commitment.

As far as issues unique to the riding, we have one very important one. Local government elections.

In every community across British Columbia, many good people have put their name forward to serve.

In some cases, they may be running for re-election for the first time.

In all these situations we are fortunate that people have come forward with a passion and dedication to potentially serve as elected officials. 

Local Government is important as it provides many of the day-to-day services families rely upon.

Increasingly, as our climate changes, we also see many local mayors and councils facing extreme situations never thought possible.

I can state firsthand that Federal and Provincial disaster assistance programs are not meeting the demands of communities facing these situations.

Who you elect to represent you and your community is critically important.

I encourage all citizens to scrutinize your local candidates closely, ask tough questions and more importantly make sure you get out and vote.

My question this week:

Do you plan on voting in the October 15 local government election?

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

​During the years of the Conservative majority government, lead by the Rt. Honourable Stephen Harper, I was fortunate to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to Treasury Board.

Once I was appointed and sworn in, I was advised of the increased rules and regulations that applied to this position, that did not apply to a regular Member of Parliament.

These new rules and regulations existed because, as a Parliamentary Secretary, you represent the Crown.

As a Parliamentary Secretary, you cannot write letters of support on behalf of individuals and organizations to independent judicial or quasi-judicial processes of government, to avoid the appearance that you are attempting to unduly influence those processes. 

This is an area quite heavily scrutinized and enforced by the ethics commissioner. 

Unfortunately in 2013, my colleague at the time, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Hon. John Duncan, forgot this requirement and made a honest mistake.

John wrote a letter on behalf of a constituent to the Canada Revenue Service (CRA) tax court.

The letter, although well intended, resulted in a weeks’ worth of significant negative media stories and ultimately Minister Duncan did the honourable thing and tendered his resignation to Prime Minister Harper, who accepted it. 

I raise this issue is because this week it was revealed a similar situation occurred last month.

This time, Liberal MP Greg Fergus, who serves as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, also wrote a letter – in this case to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to advocate for a television channel's application to the CRTC for lucrative mandatory carriage with Canadian broadcasters.

This of course directly contravenes the federal guidelines that specifically prohibit parliamentary secretaries from making such interventions.

Much as with the situation with John Duncan, Liberal MP Greg Fergus stated it was an “honest mistake” however, unlike the situation with John Duncan, no resignation has yet been offered.

Likewise, chances are if you had not read about this letter in my report this week, you may not have heard about it through most Canadian media, as this letter did not receive anywhere near as much media attention as it did in 2013. 

Why is that? 

How is it that what once was an ethical lapse considered deserving of a resignation is now a non-issue?

I am not suggesting a media bias or that there is a double standard, only that the ethical standards that Ministers of the Crown, and by extension Parliamentary Secretaries, were once held to have greatly diminished under Prime Minister Trudeau. 

My question to you this week:

Is this something that concerns you or is this also something you view as a non-issue?

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

With the House of Common back in session, Opposition Day is back. Opposition days, also known as 'supply days'  are where the opposition parties can table a motion for debate in the House.

For the Official Conservative Opposition, the motion we tabled this week read as follows:

“That, in the opinion of the House, given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.”

Triple the carbon tax?

I have found that many Canadians are unaware that the Trudeau Liberal Government plans to raise the carbon tax from the current level of $50 a tonne to $170 a tonne by 2030, with increases each and every year.

This breaks the promise the Trudeau Liberals made in 2019 when they stated that “The plan is not to increase the price(carbon tax) post-2022”.

This new rate will also apply to carbon taxes created under provincial law, such as British Columbia.

Should a provincial government refuse to increase their carbon tax in step with the federal government, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the federal government can impose its own carbon tax as a backstop.

Why does the Official Opposition believe this is a problem? 

As we have watched 40-year high inflation take hold in Canada, one of the key drivers of inflation is the high price of gasoline.

Higher gas prices not only harm household budgets, but they also increase transportation costs and in turn raise prices on groceries and other consumer goods – all increasing inflation.

Earlier this year the Bank of Canada was asked to calculate the cost of the carbon tax ,at current levels, and how that affects inflation here in Canada.

The answer from the Bank of Canada was alarming: “if the charge (carbon tax) were to be removed from the three main fuel components of the consumer price index (gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil) it would reduce the inflation rate by 0.4 percentage points. In other words, if that policy had come into effect at the start of the year, January’s inflation rate would have been 4.7% instead of 5.1%.”

Defenders of the carbon tax will often reference that there are rebates. 

Unfortunately, rebates do not fairly reflect the differences in services available here in Canada.

For someone in Toronto who does not own a car they will likely come out ahead under any carbon tax. 

However, for someone living in a rural community, like Hedley B.C., where there is no high school, no middle school, no hospital, no major grocery stores, and very limited transportation options, they are forced to drive to communities such as Princeton and Keremeos and are much more severely impacted by the carbon tax as a result.

There is also a larger problem that our major trading partners, the United States and Mexico, do not have a carbon tax which means that producers located in those countries can undercut Canadian producers and at the same time there is no actual emission being reduced. 

Finally, we must also recognize that not every factor that drives inflation is within the control of the Canadian Government. 

International supply chain factors and Putin’s war against the Ukraine are all outside of the control of the Bank of Canada,  when the Bank raises interest rates.

This leaves the question what can the Government of Canada do to help increase affordability and reduce inflation? 

As the Bank of Canada has confirmed the carbon tax is inflationary, the Official Opposition is calling on the Trudeau Liberal government to stop its planned tripling of the carbon tax.

​My question this week:

Do you agree?

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

​This week the House of Commons is back in session in Ottawa.

The government has introduced two bills intended to provide relief for some Canadian families struggling with higher interest rates and inflation.
 
The two bills are C-30 “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit)” and Bill C-31 “An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing”.
 
Bill C-30 proposes to raise the GST rebate to a low-income earner by 50% of what they normally would receive on their GST rebate.

This one-time measure, over the proposed 6-month time frame, will cost the treasury $2.5 billion.
 
What would the increase in the GST credit look like?

Here are a few hypothetical situations:

A low-income senior couple with a combined annual income of $45,000 would receive an additional $353.30.

A single student who makes $25,000 would receive an additional $612.
 
A single parent with one child and $45,000 in net income would receive an additional $257.15 .If they earned $50,000, that additional payment would go down to $132.15.

However, if that single parent earned above $55,000 in net income, they would receive no payment. 
 
Similarly, a couple with two children and $45,000 in net family income would receive a reduced extra payment of $337.65 (compared to $467 at $35,000 in net income), would receive $87.65 at $55,000 net family income.

The GST credit increase is completely phased out at a net income of $58,500 or above.

Bill C-31 proposes a two-year dental benefit for children under 12 that would provide a maximum of $650 a year per child, for two years, for families earning less than $70,390 a year.

Families that have an income between $70,390 and $90,000 would see the benefit reduced to somewhere between $390 down to $260, depending on the income cutoff.
 
What is interesting is that thus far the Liberals are proposing that this dental benefit would be “provided upfront, before the child sees the dentist, and parents won’t have to automatically submit receipts or return any unused money…” as reported by the National Post.

It should be noted that dental care programs for low-income children already exist in all provinces and territories except Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and almost 70 per cent of Canadians have dental coverage.
 
This creates two challenges.
 
Without any type of verification process the program could be open to abuse and fraud.
 
Secondly, without any verification or billing information being required, there is no opportunity for the government to compile data that can be used to assess and monitor how well this program is actually working.
 
The Canadian Dental Association has stated that “the federal government can best ensure funding will quickly and efficiently benefit those Canadians who need it most: namely, by collaborating with provinces and territories to stabilize and enhance existing provincial and territorial dental care programs.”
 
While this advice is reasonable the Trudeau Liberal Government has not followed it.
 
Scotiabank has also said that these new spending announcements will increases the likelihood the Bank of Canada will need to raise interest rates above 4%.

If that occurs, it will financially punish many citizens who will not benefit from these proposed new programs.
 
My question this week:

Are you supportive of Bill C-30 and C-31?

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

​In my last report I referenced the recent news that the Bank of Canada had once again increased its benchmark interest rate (also called the 'overnight rate') a further 75 basis points from 2.5% up to 3.25%.

Since March of this year, the rate has increased by 300 basis points, which is the largest increase in roughly 30 years. 

I closed off my report asking If your household “has, or will be adversely impacted by these increased interest rates, or even if you are in a situation where you are not impacted, I would appreciate hearing from you.”

Over the past seven days I have received a strong level of response to that question, and I would like to thank the many people who took the time to get back to me on this issue.

After hearing from so many, a clear pattern began to emerge.

For those who are wealthier, typically they were concerned about rising interest rates and the possibility of a recession but were otherwise not personally impacted. 

Some even reported that were earning more money because of higher interest on certain investments.

However, for many working families struggling to pay bills and having some outstanding debt, many were severally impacted.

Several people took the time to share, in detail, just how hard financially, in terms of actual dollars, they were attempting to mitigate and absorb.

The anxiety and stress that is being caused as the Bank of Canada continues to raise interest rates is causing serious hardship for some Okanagan families.

It is fair to say that some family households are carrying a far larger burden than others as interest rates continue to rise.

Many asked when will the increases end? 

This is a fair question without a simple answer.

Last week our Federal Finance Minister, while in Vancouver, stated:   "We also understand right now that our government has a real responsibility to be fiscally responsible".

Flash forward to this week and our same Finance Minister, with the Prime Minister while in New Brunswick, announced $4.5 billion in spending for “inflationary relief”. 

Why does this matter?

Many economists and major Canadian Banks are warning Prime Minister Trudeau that the relentless spending by his government is part of what is driving up inflation, making the problem worse.

Bank of Nova Scotia economist Derek Holt, in response to this week's $4.5 billion spending announcement, stated:

“It seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation,” and further stated “Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

As reported by Bloomberg, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Bank of Montreal and Bank of Nova Scotia, have all released reports expressing concerns over using revenue windfalls for additional spending.

I have two concerns: one,

1) My Conservative caucus and I have raised inflation and cost of living concerns formally with the government for months.

After a summer of silence, to now hear that some planned help for some families is welcome, although it is clearly not designed to be broad based enough to help the general population with the cost of living increases.

In addition, due to new legislation being required, it is an open question when these supports will be forthcoming. 

2) These supports are new spending which, as indicated earlier, will have inflationary results.

Conservatives have been proposing a 'pay as you go' rule where government departments should find an equal amount of savings before proposing new spending.

In Budget 2022 the government argues that it will have a 'policy review' where it anticipates it can find savings in its existing budget. Had it paired these new spending supports with savings elsewhere, the inflationary concerns would in many cases be offset or lessened. 

My question this week:

Are you concerned about the ongoing spending by PM Trudeau, or do you believe it is necessary in these challenging times of inflation and higher interest rates?

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

​Canadians woke up to news this week that the Bank of Canada has once again increased its benchmark interest rate (also called the 'overnight rate'), a further 75 basis points from 2.5% up to 3.25%.

Since March the rate has increased by 300 basis points, which is the largest increase in roughly 30 years.

For many Canadian households, how this increase in the benchmark interest rate will impact your household budget will depend on a number of factors.

For those who have a mortgage that is locked in or have a 'fixed payment' this may be of little concern.

For others who have a variable payment that rises with the cost of increased interest, this may be a very serious concern.

Some may have a variable rate mortgage where their costs simply go up or down with the prime rate (plus or minus any negotiated discount) which tracks the Bank of Canada benchmark rate.

Others with variable rate mortgages with a 'trigger rate' may be contacted by their bank or lending institution, advising them that because rates have risen significantly, their scheduled payment amount must be higher as the interest portion on their mortgage is now higher than the principal payment.

As we have had historic low interest rates for an extended period of time, these 'trigger rate' increases are not common and those with this kind of mortgage will likely have some 'sticker shock' when they see the revised payment amount. 

Conversely for those with an interest only line of credit or other forms of debt such as credit cards, there may also be a significant increased payment because of this interest rate increase. 

One of the challenges when trying to assess the impact to family households of these types of increases, on debt related interest payments, is a lack of region-specific information.

In addition, with many mortgage lenders in the marketplace, the impact on some borrowers may be very different from others as a result of contrasting lending practices.

While there is an Ottawa imposed “stress test” that is applied uniformly across the mortgage industry, as some citizens have pointed out, it does not take into account the increase in local property taxes that in many cases are also well above inflation.

In addition, for those who live in strata properties, insurance costs have also gone up with premium increases significantly beyond the rate of inflation.

For those that are impacted by higher interest rates, let us recognize that -- with less disposable income -- there is less money to put into our local economy. 

My purpose in raising these concerns related to the increase in the interest rate is to ask you if this is something that will impact your household to the point of serious concern?

If your household has, or will be adversely impacted by these increased interest rates, or even if you are in a situation where you are not impacted, I would appreciate hearing from you. 

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

​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.

​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.

​With the House of Commons adjourned until late September, I will once again be starting one of my favorite activities of the year, my summer listening tour.

This is an extremely important process for me as our Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola riding is geographically large with a diverse population.

Travelling to all areas within this riding and hearing the concerns from local citizens is critically important to the work that I do as a Member of Parliament.

One request that I have heard recently was for an update on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.

Since that time, I have had a few other citizens express similar requests and as a result I will share that update.

As you may recall, PM Trudeau announced that his Liberal Government had purchased the Trans Mountain Pipeline in 2016 for $4.5 billion from USA based Kinder Morgan.

The reason for this purchase was to spend an additional $ 7.4 billion to build the expanded Trans Mountain Pipeline.

The decision was controversial, however aside from the economic benefits and job creation, PM Trudeau also promised that “every dollar the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.”

Since then, the project has faced several challenges and the construction costs, as well as the estimated timeline for completion, have increased significantly.

How significant? 

Recently our Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) reviewed this project and found that the construction budget has now ballooned to $21.4 billion, and the estimated completion date is not until late in 2023.

The more alarming conclusion from the PBO is, due to the significant increase in costs and increased construction timeline, the Trans Mountain Pipeline is no longer expected to produce any profit to the Government of Canada.

In fact, the PBO forecasts that Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has a net current value of negative $600 million.

In other words, this investment is forecast to lose money for Canadian taxpayers.

It also means that the promise from PM Trudeau that “every dollar the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.” will not generate those dollars to fund those projects.

It will have the opposite effect as fewer tax dollars will be available.

My question this week is:

Are you satisfied with how the Trudeau Liberal government has been handling the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project?

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

​On Wednesday morning of this week many citizens awoke to breaking news that the “Top Mountie denies claim she interfered in N.S. shooting investigation".

This, by many accounts, is an alarming news story.

Currently in Nova Scotia the “Mass Casualty Commission” is independently reviewing the events related to the horrific mass shooting in 2020 that claimed the lives of 22 people.

As documents are now being released, a particularly noteworthy disclosure was from a Nova Scotia RCMP Superintendent that has been reported by the Halifax Examiner as:

"RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed."

This is a very serious allegation that has already resulted in denials from the former Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, as well as the RCMP Superintendent Brenda Lucki. 

Unfortunately, these denials do not explain how that RCMP Superintendent would have otherwise been aware that the Trudeau Liberal Government was indeed working on such a political announcement, that was subsequently released ten days later, using information that was not publicly available at that time.

What is also interesting is, while the RCMP Commissioner denies “interfering” in the investigation, she does not deny that the conversation occurred, nor that she confided to her RCMP colleagues in having made such a promise to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Minister of Public Safety.

This raises the obvious questions how this promise came to be and why does this matter?

It matters because the police must always be independent of government to secure the public trust.

It is critically important that law enforcement cannot be manipulated politically or used in a manner to achieve the political agenda of the Prime Minister.

In this case, it is not a secret that Prime Minister Trudeau did campaign on changing Canada’s gun laws.

The RCMP Commissioner does not deny requesting confidential information at the time (information being withheld to protect the integrity of the investigation) that ultimately appears to have been used by PM Trudeau within 10 days of these troubling events.

I believe this raises some serious questions and concerns and deserves further investigation so Canadians can learn the truth of what happened here. 

My question this week:

Is this something that concerns you or do you believe Opposition should move on and focus on other pressing concerns such as the lack of affordability and rising inflation here in Canada?

That is not to suggest that Opposition parties cannot focus on different topics but rather how seriously do you see this situation.

I can be reached via email at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or at 1-800-665-8711.