​The headlines on inflation this week were; “inflation rate drops to 5.2% in February”.

However, a closer inspection reveals that; “Prices for food purchased from stores in February were up 10.6 percent compared with a year ago, the seventh consecutive month of double-digit increases.”

Anyone buying groceries will know that food prices continue to increase.

This can be even more significant for those who live in rural communities where there may be less local grocery store competition. 

Recently a local business owner, who manufactures food products found in many local grocery stores, brought to my attention one of the reasons why this occurs.

As we all know, trucking of goods is significant in our grocery store food chain.

The business owner I met mentioned shipping charges have increased dramatically due to the rising fuel cost. Now, the shipping company adds a surcharge solely for the carbon tax. 

Given that the carbon tax in BC is set to increase on April 1st to $65/tonne, this small business owner is very concerned that his company will again have to raise prices, as these costs must be passed along.

Unfortunately, this is all part of made-in-Canada food inflation and does not end there.

Also occurring on April 1st, the Trudeau Liberal Government is set to raise the excise tax on wine, beer and spirits by over 6%.

Remember that increased trucking costs apply to these industries as well.

For Canadian consumers, you will be asked to pay more when many can no longer afford to pay all their bills at the end of the month.

There is also the compounding effect.

For the business owner I mentioned, who is facing higher costs due to the carbon tax surcharge for the raw goods that his company receives; resulting in higher prices, those finished goods are shipped again to local grocery stores.

These carbon tax surcharges must be passed to consumers at local grocery stores, particularly those in rural areas with higher shipping costs. 

For more wealthy citizens, higher grocery prices are not a problem.

However, this is a massive financial burden for many families with variable rate mortgages who may now pay $1000 more monthly just in added interest charges.

Likewise, higher grocery prices have created significant additional hardship for those on a fixed income.

In every region of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, I have spoken with staff or volunteers at local food banks who have told me the uptick of demand, coupled with record-high inflation, is incredibly challenging for their operations.

While most of those now receiving support at food banks are seniors, many are also families where, despite the parents working one or more jobs, higher housing and rising grocery bills are forcing these families to rely on food banks to supplement their budgets. 

My question this week:

How does food inflation personally impact you or your family?

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

Why does Canada have such runaway food inflation when we grow so much food?

A common question.

There are a couple of main reasons: rising fuel costs increase farmers' production costs, and transportation.

As we import many different foods, exchange rates also matter.

A weaker Canadian dollar means imported goods cost more for consumers.

Sylvain Charlebois, a food researcher from Dalhousie, has said that a lack of competition in the grocery space also contributes to higher food costs, saying:

"All these discount stores are connected to just a handful of grocers controlling the Canadian market – they are essentially co-operative arms of the mainstream supermarkets, rather than competitors." 

Speaking of mainstream supermarkets, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (AGRI) last week, Parliamentarians questioned the CEOs of some of Canada's largest grocery store chains around food inflation.

At one point, Galen Weston, CEO of Canadian grocery store giant Loblaws, was asked, "How much profit is too much profit?". 

The reply from Mr. Weston was, "We're a big company, and the numbers are very large, but it still translates right down to the bottom line at one dollar [of profit] per 25 dollars of groceries."

There is no question that companies such as Loblaws have always been profitable and continue to see increased revenue as inflation and population rise. 

In February 2023, Loblaws reported a fourth quarter profit of $529 million. This fourth quarter profit was roughly ten percent higher than last year's fourth quarter. 

While on the topic of Loblaws, in 2019 the Trudeau Liberal government gave this extremely profitable company $12 million to purchase new, more energy-efficient, refrigerators.

I will continue to follow this subject closely and look forward to reading the final report on this crucial topic from the AGRI committee.

The Trudeau Liberal government recently announced that Volkswagen would build a "gigafactory" to produce electric vehicle batteries in St. Thomas, Ontario.

While undeniably goods news on many levels, it raises the critical question of how much this new Volkswagen battery factory will cost Canadian taxpayers.

The answer to that is that we don't know. 

The Trudeau Liberal government has refused to disclose how much taxpayers must pay Volkswagen to build this factory.

Volkswagen, like Loblaws, is also a highly profitable company.

The same can be said for tire manufacturer Michelin.

This week, PM Trudeau announced that Michelin would receive $44.3 million in federal funding to modernize a tire manufacturing plant in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. 

Selective taxpayer-financed subsidies to wealthy corporations are not a new topic here in Canada -- provincially or federally. 

​What is new is that the amounts are becoming staggeringly high.

This most recent announcement regarding the Volkswagen gigafactory sets a new standard for secrecy.

My question this week:

Are you concerned by the lack of disclosure on taxpayer funds by the Trudeau Government with corporate subsidies like this?

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

​From my experience as a Member of Parliament, one of the most rewarding roles is the great honour of attending a citizenship ceremony.

Participating in a ceremony where new Canadians take their oath of citizenship is a very special moment and a reminder of how truly fortunate we all are to call Canada home.

The oath of citizenship ceremonies has been a proud Canadian tradition since 1947. I suspect the vast majority who have had the opportunity to participate in or observe such a ceremony would all agree what a heartwarming and unforgettable event these ceremonies are.

I mention these things as it was with great sadness; I have recently discovered that the Trudeau Liberal government may soon provide an option for new Canadians to skip the Citizenship ceremony and instead click a box online over the internet, potentially without the presence of a citizenship judge, family members, elected officials, guests or anyone else.

Why?

According to the same Trudeau Liberal government, the answer is speed. For reasons unknown, the immigration process has become so backlogged under this Liberal government that there is now a backlog of 358,000 citizenship applications waiting over two years or more.

Eliminating the Citizenship ceremony could potentially increase the speed of an application by as much as ninety days (according to the government).

This is also what I find troubling. If one is in a two-year lineup and can shorten the wait by ninety days, many would likely elect to do so.

The bigger question is why this backlog has become so severe under this Liberal Government?

The COVID pandemic is partly to blame; however, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) recently investigated the “Express Entry Immigration Process.”

The PBO, who released this report earlier this week, revealed some eyebrow-raising information.

While governments often cite lack of staffing as a common reason for failures in program delivery, the PBO determined that in the case of this specific immigration program, the current staffing is “more than sufficient to meet the processing time” requirements of this program.

The PBO stated that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is, and I quote directly, “estimated to have 65% more staff than would be required to meet the goal. 

When the PBO asked further questions of IRCC, the department, and again I quote directly, “declined to provide information about the resources that would have been required to meet processing time goals in past years, citing that this information represents Cabinet confidences.”

In other words, the department is hiding behind cabinet confidentiality, which suggests that the cabinet ultimately has the information and does not want it released publicly so that it cannot be held accountable for these severe delays in immigration processing times.

In my view, this is a case where instead of fixing the problem at the top and firing the Minister to appoint a new Minister, the proposed fix is to undercut, if not potentially eliminate, citizenship ceremonies.

I say potentially as it is unknown how many would still opt for an in-person citizenship ceremony if they were told that could increase the wait time by up to another three months.

As a counterpoint, perhaps some may view a traditional, in-person citizenship ceremony in today’s environment as a waste of time and would support an online oath process done over the internet.

My question to you this week: 

Do you believe an in-person citizenship ceremony is still essential?

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

​Back in late November, I did an MP report that covered several issues that constituents raised with me.

One of the concerns was the high cost of home heating.

A resident had sent me their home heating bills and shared that they had to go on the “equal payment plan” to afford the cold winter months.

For the individual in question, that worked out to 12 equal payments of $170 monthly for $2,040 for the year.

It was also pointed out that nearly a quarter of that bill, $473 (23%), was solely paying for the carbon tax.

As is often the case, the individual in question is not eligible for the provincial  BC Climate Action Tax Credit'. (In BC, individuals earning $79,376 or more do not qualify for this credit).

This led to the question about the BC carbon tax, and would the province fall in line with Prime Minister Trudeau’s mandate and raise it beyond the previously agreed $50 a tonne?

Back at the end of November, we did not know the answer to this question.

Previously B.C. signed onto the federal Pan-Canadian Climate Strategy.

This agreement, dictated by PM Trudeau, called for the carbon tax in BC to rise to $50 per tonne as of April 1, 2022, which it did.

With the agreement now being concluded, up until yesterday we did not know what the BC NDP government would do on April 1st of, 2023.

Now we have the answer.

In yesterday’s BC budget, the BC NDP announced it is increasing the carbon tax ($ CAD/tonne CO2e) on April 1st to $65/tonne.

The BC NDP further revealed that they intend to increase the carbon tax every year until it reaches $170/tonne by 2030.

How does this impact you?
 
Based on the NDP’s budget forecast this year, citizens in B.C. will pay an extra $600 million. By 2030 this could be as much as $5 billion a year in total carbon tax paid.

One thing that did surprise me in the provincial budget documents was a note in the supplementary tax information that pointed out, “rural communities may have higher indirect carbon tax burdens (e.g. through higher shipping costs resulting in a higher price for goods) and colder regions of the province may have higher carbon tax costs for home heating.”

This surprised me as governments, both provincially and federally, who support carbon taxes rarely admit so candidly that it does adversely impact those who live in rural communities.

Federally we also know that the Bank of Canada has confirmed that the carbon tax does increase inflation here in Canada.

Yet heating and shipping costs aside, rural areas will attest that their residents don’t have publicly funded public transit as an alternative to the carbon tax. To get to work, medical appointments, kids to school require transportation. 

My question this week is not about if you support the carbon tax but rather the inequality in how rural residents end up paying more of it.

Do you believe that provincial and federal governments should make more effort to offset the impact of the carbon tax on those who live in rural areas?

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

One of the bombshell stories that is of significant concern is a leaked report from Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) documenting how Communist Chinese Government officials and their agents interfered in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

A quote from the National Post summarizes the concern, “According to CSIS documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) operatives orchestrated cash donations to political campaigns, had business owners hire “volunteers” for specific election campaigns and boasted that it’s “easy to influence Chinese immigrants to agree with the Peoples Republic of China's (PRC) stance.”

What was the goal of these efforts?

“To install a minority Liberal government.” 

According to the documents, the support for Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada is due to the Communist Chinese Government viewing the Liberals as more pro-China in contrast to what a potential Conservative government would be.

The second goal of the CCP was a minority Parliament because it is said that Beijing “likes it when the parties in Parliament are fighting with each other, whereas if there is a majority, the party in power can easily implement policies that do not favour the PRC.”

Was this clandestine campaign successful in interfering in our Canadian democratic process?

China’s former Consul General stationed in Vancouver stated she “helped defeat two Conservative candidates in 2021.”

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that number is significantly higher and may have contributed to losing eight or nine electoral districts.

What is the Trudeau Liberal government doing about this? So far, basically nothing, aside from attempting to downplay the situation and express concern around the leaking of the documents. 

I am not suggesting that Communist Chinese Government agents ‘stole the election,’ as I believe Canadian voters ultimately decided the outcome of the last election. However, I am deeply concerned about reports of a foreign government manipulating our democratic process.

If a single electoral district can be manipulated in an election due to foreign interference, we should all be concerned, and the government of the day has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure the proper authorities- like the Commissioner of Elections (that investigates violations) and the RCMP have the evidence they need to prosecute any violations.

As some may have diplomatic immunity, our government should expel any suspects at the very least.

How else can we prevent future violations?

The Leader of the Official Opposition, Hon. Pierre Poilievre, supports following the lead of Australia and the United States in creating a foreign agent registry. This would be similar to the domestic lobbyist registry Canada uses but would apply to individuals in Canada who foreign governments pay to influence our political processes.

For whatever reason, Prime Minister Trudeau has refused to substantially answer the questions from journalists and the opposition on this matter and whether he will immediately implement such a registry here in Canada.

Two questions this week:

Are you concerned about potential foreign influence in our elections? Do you support creating a foreign agent registry?

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

​Riding boundaries are reviewed every ten years, and the changes can be significant depending on where you live.  

Here in the southern interior, we will be receiving one new electoral district (often referred to as a riding), which, to accommodate this new riding, will have a domino effect as the non-partisan Federal BC Electoral Boundaries Commission recommends significant riding boundary adjustments.

After extensive hearings, the Commission has made extensive revisions to Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, the riding I represent.

This riding will essentially split into geographical regions that will end up in five different ridings, assuming these changes are adopted. 

Given the status of our minority Parliament, we do not know exactly when our next federal election will be.

While Canada has a fixed-date election law that says the next scheduled election must occur on or before October 20, 2025; this does not stop a Prime Minister from calling a snap election, as we saw in 2021.

If there is a snap election, the existing riding boundaries will be in effect.

If it occurs after Spring 2024, these new boundaries will take effect. 

One of the most significant changes is that communities such as Merritt and Logan Lake would be located in a proposed riding called "Kamloops-Thompson-Nicola," which, as the name implies, would include part of Kamloops.

Another significant change is that communities such as Princeton, Keremeos, Cawston and Hedley would join the proposed riding of "Similkameen-West Kootenay," which would also include the City of Penticton as well as the Penticton Indian Band.

What remains of my existing riding – the communities of Summerland, Peachland, West Kelowna, Westbank First Nation, and parts of Kelowna will become part of a new proposed riding called "Okanagan Lake West– South Kelowna."

The existing Kelowna boundaries will be moved further south to include all of Southern Kelowna, such as Okanagan Mission.

They will extend east as far as the area around the McCulloch reservoir.

For Kelowna residents, the new proposed riding to be called "Kelowna" includes a much larger area of the City of Kelowna, including an eastern portion that also consists of the Big White ski resort area.

This riding will no longer have the communities of Lake Country or Okanagan Centre, which will join a new proposed riding called "Vernon Monashee."

In addition to this MP report, my office has arranged a separate mail out with a map for each affected region (Okanagan, Similkameen & Nicola Valleys) so that the residents I represent may review this proposal in more detail. 

It is challenging for the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission to balance population growth with the input of many community considerations. 

This second report proposal, in this case, is significantly different from the first draft proposal submitted last fall, mainly because the Electoral Boundaries Commission listened to and attempted to accommodate many of the concerns they heard. 

On the same theme, I sincerely thank the Federal BC Electoral Boundaries Commissioners and staff for all their work in submitting this report. I would also like to thank those who took the time to participate.

In my view, federal elected officials should avoid directly commenting on these changes to avoid any perception of attempting to influence boundary changes that may either enhance or work against partisan political interests. 

I believe it is crucial for both local and regional government representatives and local citizens to be aware of these proposed changes and consider the accessibility of current electoral boundaries compared to what is proposed.

My question this week is:

Are you satisfied with these proposed changes?

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

​This week Canada's premiers are in Ottawa for what has often been reported as "negotiations" with Prime Minister Trudeau for a new agreement on the Canada Health Transfer.

The "Canada Health Transfer" (CHT) transfers a portion of the federal taxes you send to Ottawa back to provinces and territories to help cover the costs of providing healthcare. 

I use the term 'negotiations' loosely because, in reality, the federal government typically sets out what the increase will be to the CHT.

Provinces have little choice but to accept whatever amount of money the federal government establishes as reasonable.

The CHT is estimated to be $45.2 Billion for the 2022/23 fiscal year.

Prime Minister Trudeau announced that over the next ten years, the increase to the CHT will be $196.1 billion, which represents $46.2 billion in new funding on top of what was previously budgeted.

There is also $25 billion set aside for bilateral deals and some other "top-ups" in specific areas.

Overall, the new funding agreement will lead to an increase of 5% in the CHT over the next five years.
 
The agreement also includes some "strings" like data sharing between the provinces and the federal government and upholding the Canada Health Act to protect Canadians' "access to health care based on need and not ability to pay."

Recently the Province of Ontario announced intentions to increase the use of private clinics to help clear surgical waitlists.

In a media interview with the Toronto Star, the plan by the Province of Ontario was called "innovative" by PM Trudeau.

As a result of the PM's praise for increased involvement of private healthcare, many, including some Liberal MPs, have expressed concern and, in some cases, condemnation of the PM's comments.

The leader of the NDP has accused Prime Minister Trudeau of placing Canada's universal health care system under threat.

Earlier this week, Global News reported on an Ipsos poll that suggested 59% of adults surveyed expressed support for the private delivery of publicly funded health services, adding further fuel to this discussion.

The CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs said: "...in the 30 years he has studied public opinion in Canada, he has never seen such a shift in support toward privatization."

Getting back to the CHT announcement, as is often the case, the premiers unanimously expressed disappointment noting that the increase in funding was insufficient to address the severe challenges facing provincial healthcare systems.

Here in BC, as reported by the Vancouver Sun, our share of this increased funding over the next ten years works out to $600 million a year.

The BC provincial budget for healthcare spending was $23.8 billion in 2021-2022.

The provinces were asking for an annual increase to the CHT of $28 Billion.

What PM Trudeau announced this week is, on average, less than $5 billion in new funding a year.

My question this week:

Do you think PM Trudeau should have further increased the Canada Health Transfer, or do you view the announced increase as reasonable?

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

​This week the House of Commons is back in session for the first time in 2023.

As it would happen, this week was also the same week several opposition MPs received written answers to order paper questions on Parliament Hill.
 
What are order paper questions? 
 
Unlike the short rapid-fire format of Question Period, which often results in either a non-answer or an answer to a different question, an order paper question is a written question from a Member of Parliament that, after 48 hours notice, will be posted on the “Order Paper” with the intent that the responsible Minister will provide a substantive answer within 45 House Sitting days.

However, that is not always the case.
 
Each Member of Parliament is allowed a maximum of 4 questions on the order paper at any time. This week I received a reply to one of my order paper questions asking the federal government how many cancelled contracts were between January 1st, 2019 and December 12th, 2022 and what, if any, cancellation fees taxpayers must bear.
 
The answer I received back was an incomplete accounting as some departments still need to give a number; however, from those that did, there are over half a million dollars in penalties paid out for over 300 cancelled contracts.

Some cancelled contracts were up to $11.7 million, which seemed low compared to other expenses now coming to light.
 
My Conservative colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, Michelle Rempel-Garner, had a different question.

During the pandemic, the Trudeau Liberal Government created “quarantine hotels” where travellers entering Canada via air between February 21st, 2021, and August 9th, 2021, were forced to stay in to meet the then-in-place requirement for a mandatory three-night stay as they awaited their Day 1 COVID test results.
 
MP Rempel Garner discovered that between the two hotels contracted for this service at the Calgary airport in fiscal 2022 (which was after the Federal government had lifted travel restrictions), they still paid out $6,790,717.46 to the operators of these two hotels.
 
MP Rempel Garner further learned that during this same time frame, only 15 people stayed at these hotels under this program. That amounts to over $452,000 per person!
 
Only more shocking is the admission that the government could have cancelled these contracts by giving their 30-day notice, but they only bothered to do so sometime late in the fall of 2022.
 
So what we have learned from these two order paper questions is that it is far more economical for the Government of Canada to cancel contracts where they are not needed.
 
At the same time, from my own order paper experience, this particular federal government does not cancel contracts often, meaning taxpayers will continue to pay more for services that are no longer needed.

From my perspective, what is most alarming is that when Conservatives question the Ministers responsible for spending $6,790,717.46 to provide a quarantine hotel for just 15 people, they offer no resignation or apology, only a shrug.
 
My question to you this week:

There was a time when there was strong public opposition to careless spending by any level of government, regardless of political stripe.

Are those days over, or are the taxpayers of Canada owed an apology from Prime Minister Trudeau over this poorly managed program?
 
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Although the House of Commons does not resume sitting until next week, all-party Parliamentary committees are currently sitting and reviewing essential subjects of national interest.

One of the Parliamentary Committees sitting this week is INDU (Committee on Industry and Technology), which is currently reviewing the proposed takeover of Shaw Communications by Rogers Communications.

This proposed deal has faced several obstacles, including being opposed by Canada’s Competition Bureau, which recently went to Federal Court to block the deal.

The Federal Court ruled against the Competition Bureau, leaving the final decision to approve or reject this proposed deal to the Liberal Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, who is also the MP for Saint-Maurice—Champlain in Quebec.

Aside from the Competition Bureau’s opposition to this proposed deal, an initial study from the INDU Committee resulted in four recommendations, one being that “the Committee believes the merger should not proceed.”

The primary concern of many opponents to this proposed deal is that it could result in even less competition in an industry that already has very little competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers.
Canadians pay some of the highest cell phone bills in the world.

In fact, during the 2019 election, PM Trudeau promised that his Liberal government would reduce cell phone bills by 25% within two years, saving the “average Canadian family $1,000” a year.

On February 9th of last year, in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Trudeau stated, “We promised Canadian families that we would reduce the cost of their cell phone bill. Today, I am happy to announce that we have met our 25% price reduction target. In fact, we have done so three months ahead of schedule.”

In my MP Report from February 23rd last year, I asked whether your wireless cell phone bills have decreased by 25%, as Prime Minister Trudeau claimed.

The response to this question was overwhelming, and almost every reply I received indicated that what the Prime Minister stated was patently false.

Many individuals even shared their wireless bills, which provided a well-documented cost increase.

Several citizens also noted that wireless plans had changed so that they now paid separately for the plan and the phone instead of being combined, as was the case previously.

In every example I received from citizens, people were paying more overall.

Recently Professor Michael Geist, who is one of Canada’s foremost law professors and also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, wrote on this proposed deal and the upcoming political decision that Minister Champagne must make to approve or reject this takeover.

​Professor Geist stated: “Minister Champagne and the government can choose to stand up for Canadian consumers and say this deal doesn’t go ahead on their watch. Or they can stand with big telecom companies and choose to make matters even worse. It’s Champagne’s choice.”
I have two questions for you this week: 

How concerned are you over the size of your monthly wireless bill? If you were the Minister, what would you do?  

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

​Recently Prime Minister Trudeau's former star Finance Minister, the Honourable Bill Morneau, authored a book titled “Where To From Here, A Path to Canadian Prosperity”.

As is common when promoting a new book, Mr. Morneau has done several media interviews.

What is less common, is that Morneau levied some heavy and serious criticism against Prime Minister Trudeau and his office known as the PMO.

Mr. Morneau makes several allegations along a theme suggesting PM Trudeau often ignores or rejects “carefully considered calculations” for announcements that sound good or are too focussed on the “news cycle and social media” dictating decision-making, arguing that “Trudeau lost sight of fiscal prudence and the goal of securing Canada's long-term prosperity.”

The former Finance Minister summarizes PM Trudeau’s style of governance by stating:

“During the period when the largest government expenditures as a portion of GDP were made in the shortest time since the advent of World War II, calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest."

As a member of the official opposition,  none of this comes as any surprise as these comments do tend to accurately reflect the governing style of PM Trudeau.

What does come as a surprise is PM Trudeau’s former Finance Minister now openly coming out and stating it so publicly. 

My reason for sharing the comments of the former Finance Minister is not to focus on the style of governance by this Trudeau Liberal government but rather something else. 

In his book, Mr. Morneau alleges that PM Trudeau “used vaccine mandates as a wedge issue during the 2021 election” and suggests that doing so “further polarized the debate in Canada.”

The question for this week's report relates to this statement.

As we enter 2023 and have now been collectively dealing with the impacts and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic going on three years now, many people have experienced this period very differently.

So my question this week:

Based on your own experiences in life, do you encounter more polarization today compared with what you experienced pre pandemic?

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

This week began with a significant announcement from the Trudeau Liberal Government that $19 billion will be spent to acquire 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, in a deal that will require a further $70 billion in related maintenance costs over the lifetime of the aircraft. 

You may recall that these are the same F-35 that Prime Minister Trudeau made comments ranging from ““we will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter bomber” to the “F-35 “did not work” and that “It no longer makes sense, if it ever did, to have a stealth, first-strike capacity fifth-generation fighter,".
Trudeau’s opposition to the F-35 was to the point that he stated, “for Canadian taxpayers it will be a nightmare".

Unlike PM Trudeau, as a member of the official opposition, I will not criticize the announcement to purchase the F-35 this week, aside from pointing out Trudeau’s politically motivated hypocrisy in opposing this aircraft back in 2015. 

Our current fleet of CF-18s entered service in 1982 and are now over 40 years old.

Aside from the age and added maintenance costs, the Royal Canadian Air Force also reports pilot recruitment challenges in part because of the lack of an advanced, modern-day aircraft to fly.

The F-35 is an advanced fighter jet that is also used by many of Canada’s allies including the United States.

I supported the decision by the former Conservative Government to back the F-35 and I likewise support the current Liberal Government in finally recognizing the former Conservative Government was correct in believing the F-35 is the best aircraft to replace our fleet of aging CF-18 aircraft. 

One other topic that has come out of Ottawa of late relates to the explosive growth in the use of private consultants by the Trudeau Liberal government. 

For some background, in 2015 PM Trudeau promised “to save billions by reducing the use of external consultants.” (as reported by the National Post).

Flash forward to this week, reports are that this same Trudeau Liberal Government has increased the use of private consultants by close to 60% since 2015.

At the same time the Trudeau Liberal Government is significantly outsourcing work to private consultants, it has also grown the size of the public service from 342,000 employees in 2015/16 to 391,000 employees in 2020/21.

This in turn has raised annual payroll costs from just under $40 billion to over $60 billion.

Despite this significant growth in the size of the federal public service, as well as increased private consultants, many Canadians will know that accessing public services such as obtaining a passport or immigration has rarely taken longer.

In response to this, the official opposition will be putting forward a motion to the Government Operations Committee, that will require the Trudeau Liberal Government to produce all written records related to a specific contractor that will include contracts, conversations, records of work done, meetings held and more.

The opposition believes this information should be studied and made publicly available.

As the leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Pierre Poilievre has stated:

“We think that when you have qualified public servants to do the job, we should not be contracting out the same work to high-priced consultants who charge more,” adding; “By contracting everything out, you end up paying more. We intend to bring that work in-house.”

My question this week:

Do you share concerns of Pierre Poilievre and the Official Opposition over the growing use of private consultants by the Trudeau Liberal Government?

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

One of the tasks I undertake at the beginning of every new year is a review the various ways I interact with, communicate and receive comments and concerns from the many citizens within our region.

Over the years I have noticed that the communication preferences have changed.

As an example, requests for in person meetings have declined but telephone calls and emails have increased significantly.

More recently I have also noticed an increase in requests for online “zoom“ meetings.

My goal has always been to provide whatever tools are necessary for citizens to reach me and hold me accountable. 

This is why I still have a 24/7, 365 day a year answering service to return your calls at times convenient to you.

Likewise, I have also made changes to better accommodate for online zoom meetings.

For 2023, my summer listening tour will continue (which has generated many private member's bills and policy changes federally) and likewise I will also continue to write my weekly reports such as this one and provide an opportunity for input as I have long found this to be a very valuable exercise. 

We also will send out printed materials to inform citizens, such as informing them on proposed boundary changes for federal ridings by the electoral boundary commission. The feedback we received was sent to the Commission and we will see how the Commission responds in its final report.

Having said all of that, I also like to receive feedback from local citizens on your preferred method of communication.

Would you like to see more community town halls or opportunities for one-on-one meetings in person?  

Likewise, do you prefer online video conferences or does a phone call suffice?

More printed materials and if so, what kind? 

Your input is important to me,
On a related note, I would also like to sincerely thank the many citizens who do make the effort to reach out and share comments and concerns.

I am often surprised on some issues where there may be a consensus on an issue but in other issues where it might appear like there should be a consensus but instead there is a wide diversity of views. 

Ultimately your input and concerns are what I take back to Ottawa and, as the official opposition, can lead to opposing or working with the government on various bills and legislation.

My question this week:

By what means do you most value to communicate directly with your elected officials?

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

Canadians awoke this week to media headlines that “Canada’s inflation rate fell to 6.8% in November”.

Unfortunately, this headline does not tell the entire story.

While the CPI did come down slightly core inflation in other areas increased.

As an example, food inflation increased by 11.4% year over year in November, a fact that will not come as a surprise for anyone who has visited a grocery store recently. 

Likewise, for those facing mortgage interest rate increases, Statistics Canada reports a 14.5% increase. 

This is an averaged rate, as many with variable rare mortgages have been experiencing increases well beyond this amount.

One of the many challenges with inflation is that items such as groceries and paying your mortgage, rent or line of credit all come from your household net income after you have already paid income taxes.

This higher inflation means you have less purchasing power, as your income does not keep pace with the rise in your cost of living.

Unfortunately, on January 1st of 2023, another round of payroll deductions from the federal government is increasing – in this case increased EI and CPP premiums -- meaning your net take home pay is going to be less.

This also affect employers.

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) reports: “on January 1, (EI) premiums for employers are set to increase by as much as 5.2% per employee. Altogether, the increases in CPP and EI could cost business owners up to $325 more per employee — a 6.7% increase from 2022.”

These increased payroll costs are passed on to consumers and this only further helps to fuel inflation. 

For the record, the Conservative Official Opposition did request the Trudeau Liberal government delay the increase to the EI premiums (something the Federal Government has done previously) however in this case PM Trudeau refused to do so.

On April 1st there will be another round of tax increases related to the elevator excise tax on alcohol, that automatically increases each year thanks to the Trudeau Liberal government. 

Additionally, on April 1st  carbon taxes are slated to increase by $15/ a ton, from the current $50 to $65 a ton. 

So 2023 is going to be a more expensive year for many Canadians and, as the Official Opposition, we will continue to make the point that many Canadians can no longer afford to take home less.

Before I close this week my final report for the year, I would like to sincerely wish all citizens Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas! 

I would also like to sincerely thank all first responders, our military personnel and those in public service work that means they will not be home with their families this Christmas. 

​Finally this week's question:

What would you most like to see from your federal government in 2023? 

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

Last week I wrote about the recent Auditor General's (AG) report on COVID related pandemic benefit payment programs to both individuals and businesses.

In this report it was suggested that as much as $27.4 billion in benefit payments must be further investigated to determine if there was proper eligibility.

The AG mentioned that much of this situation has arisen due to the Federal Government allowing “self-attestation” from businesses and individuals as sufficient proof of eligibility to receive the benefits, despite potentially not actually meeting the eligibility criteria.

I asked the question “What are your thoughts on the government's use of an attestation in delivering timely support programs?”

Over the past week I have heard a significant amount of feedback from local citizens on this topic.

I raise this point again because the federal government is going to use attestation in the delivery of a new support program that is not pandemic related.

Recently the Trudeau Liberal Government announced the “Canada Dental Benefit” program (that was a result of its partnership with the NDP) where we once again see attestation being used as the criteria to determine eligibility. 
In this program, estimated to cost between $1.3 -$1.5 billion annually, there is no direct payment to a dentist as most dental care plans require.

Instead, this program (as it is currently structured) sends funds directly to qualifying parents with children below 12.

What is interesting about this approach is how it differs from the Trudeau Liberal government approach to funding healthcare here in Canada. 

As some will be aware, the federal government has a program known as the “Canada Health Transfer” (CHT) that transfers a portion of the federal taxes you send to Ottawa back to provinces and territories to help cover the costs of providing healthcare. 

Currently the CHT is forecast to be roughly $45.2 Billion for the 2022/23 fiscal year.

Provinces throughout Canada, including here in B.C., are currently facing many healthcare related challenges.

Lack of staff, staff burnout, lack of capacity and poor service delivery are all challenges faced in hospitals across Canada.

The Premiers have all been united and clear that the federal government must increase the CHT to help solve these critical healthcare challenges given that healthcare is a provincially provided service.

Unfortunately for these Premiers, when it comes to healthcare, there is no attestation for an increase in the Canada Health Transfer.

Instead, as the PM stated in question period that he believes any funding increase must have strings attached, in other words not a “blank cheque”. 

This 'Ottawa knows best' approach is commonly used with this Liberal government and will often include studies and consultation that ultimately means there is no immediate increase in funding for the Canada Health Transfer.

Contrast that with the Premiers, who regardless of political stripe, are all unanimous that this is a crisis situation and federal health care funding (without strings attached) must occur ASAP.

​My question this week:

Do you support the Canada Health Transfer being increased immediately, or do you agree with PM Trudeau that Ottawa imposed conditions should be attached before increasing any funding? 

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

​This week Canada’s Auditor General, Karen Hogan, released Audits 9 and 10 that focused on the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Report 9 focused on vaccines. While the audit notes that Canada secured a sufficient supply of vaccine doses, it was also critical over significant levels of vaccine waste. 

The auditor notes that there are approximately 32.5 million doses worth an estimated value of $1 billion that will have end up wasted due to not being administered or redistributed elsewhere prior to the expiry date.

Report 10 focused on COVID benefit payments. Here the Auditor General found several areas of serious concern. For example, she found there have been $4.6 billion of benefit payments paid to ineligible individuals.

The AG further estimates that a minimum of $27.4 billion in other benefit payments must be further investigated to determine proper eligibility.

The AG’s audit also found concerns with subsidy programs that were targeted to businesses.

As one example, the AG stated that potentially as many as 50,000 businesses may have received emergency wage subsidy payments (CEWS) in total value of$9.87 billion. These businesses may have also been ineligible. 

Previously some media organizations have published stories of publicly traded companies that continued to pay executive bonusses, while at the same time collecting CEWS support from taxpayers.

Overall, the Auditor General notes that the government using “attestation” from businesses and individuals resulted in many situations where benefits were paid to those who were ineligible.

While the Government conceded this would be a foreseeable problem at the time, it also committed to doing a more thorough review and vetting of applicants after the fact.  

Here the Auditor General has been critical and notes the Government has presented no formal plan of action on this 'thorough review and vetting'. 

This raises the question how much of this potentially misspent money will ever be repaid to taxpayers.

Currently the Government of Canada has reported that it has collected just $2.3 billion from those who did not qualify for the benefits.

How much more will be collected remains unknown.

There is also the added challenge that the Trudeau Liberal Government has thus far not accepted the findings of the Auditor General’s report as is commonly the response from government. 

In Question Period this week the Minister of National Revenue, Diane Lebouthillier, stated that: “the CRA does not agree with the Auditor General's calculations concerning recipients who were not eligible for the wage subsidy. The CRA's actual audits indicate that compliance with the subsidies was high and that the Auditor General's figure is exaggerated. This is not the Auditor General's fault. We all know that she was pressured by the opposition to produce this report.”

For the record none of the opposition parties have any influence or involvement over how the Auditor General conducts an audit or what the findings may or may not be. 

There was a time when citizens were not supportive or even outraged if the government was not careful and prudent in the spending of tax dollars. 

However, in this case, by allowing for attestation instead of verification, the Trudeau Liberal Government was taking applicants at their word that they were eligible for funding.

My question this week:

What are your thoughts on the government's use of an attestation in delivering timely support programs?

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

​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.