Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

ALBAS -- It is often said that Infrastructure is a ‘not sexy but important’ part of government spending. I would submit it is critically important for many reasons



Conservative Party MP Dan Albas
With Parliament now actively underway the new dynamics of having a minority government are beginning to become more defined.

Back in late December, despite the Liberal Government voting against it, a special Parliamentary Committee with the mandate to “conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship including, but not limited to consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations” was created.

This new Canada-China committee is now established with meetings being held this week.

I was also honoured to be one of the twelve Members of Parliament to be named to sit on this important all party committee.

Much as the Canada-China committee was created by an opposition day motion, this week another opposition motion was tabled from the official Conservative opposition.

This week’s motion is summarized as:

That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer posted on March 15, 2018, that -- “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan-- and that the -- PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist” --  the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government’s Investing in Canada Plan.

It is often said that Infrastructure is a “not sexy but important” part of government spending. I would submit it is critically important for many reasons.

As an example infrastructure costs are historically split three ways with local, provincial and federal governments usually equally splitting 1/3 of the cost of the project.

This is an important point because citizens all pay taxes to those three different levels of government.

When either Federal or Provincial or in some cases both sources of funding are not made available, it means a local government must pick up either 66% or possibly 100% of the total infrastructure project costs.

These costs are then downloaded onto local taxpayers, who continue to pay taxes to Ottawa and Victoria.

The absence of federal infrastructure funding can significantly raise costs for local citizens, more so in smaller rural communities with a limited tax base.

For whatever reason, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government has not been very successful in delivering infrastructure projects despite having announced $187 Billion in infrastructure spending plans.

Rather than speculate on the reasons why, the Official Opposition Conservatives have tabled this motion.

With such a large amount of money being spent, bringing in the Auditor General to fully investigate will ensure there are clear answers.

Canadian taxpayers deserve accountability and transparency on how their tax dollars are spent.

Thus far it appears that once again the other opposition parties in this minority Government are supportive despite the Liberal Government‘s opposition.

My question this week:

Do you support the opposition motion to bring in the Auditor General to audit the Liberal Government’s infrastructure program?

I can be reached at:
Email: Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca
Toll Free: 1-800-665-8711


Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for the riding of Central Okanagan Similkameen Nicola. This riding includes the communities of Kelowna (specific boundaries), West Kelowna, Peachland, Summerland, Keremeos, Princeton, Merritt and Logan Lake.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

PEATS: I am writing with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community

The following is a copy of a letter sent to me, which was sent to BC’s Minister of Health Adrian Dix. It is with regards to the impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic in Dawson Creek.   Dear Minister,   I am writing to you today with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community. The closure, scheduled for the summer of 2024, is a result of the utterly burdensome terms and conditions imposed by the bureaucratic Northern Health. As a result, Dawson Creek stands to lose four doctors who have made this city their home, and who wish to continue serving the people of our community.   The impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic is a significant blow to our city. Not only will it result in the loss of highly qualified and dedicated healthcare professionals, but it will also deprive thousands of Dawson Creek residents of access to their primary physicians. At a time when healthcare se

Selina Robinson: "You broke my heart . . ." (The Real Story)

The mildly Zionist, innocuously leftish and now ousted advanced education minister’s letter to her New Democratic Party caucus colleagues, explaining why she has resigned the caucus to sit as an independent. The letter is an historic document, an artifact of the disgraceful cultural moment we’re living through. It’s important. It’s also a scorcher. It’s gathering a heck of a lot of attention . I’m printing it in full here. I’ve been insisting that what happened to Robinson is a much bigger deal and a completely different story than the one we’d all been led to believe. The necessary background: My piece in the National Post: The despicable untruths behind Selina Robinson's political lynching . More importantly , a Real Story investigation: The Problem With The Selina Robinson Story. . . It wasn't true. What follows is the story of what really happened. Let’s just get into it. Apart from punctuation and spelling I replicate the letter faithfully, with some further comm

Poll finds ignorance regarding BC NDP decision to co-manage public lands with indigenous (Western Standard)

. . . . The poll allowed British Columbians to give weight to key priorities. More than half say that the respect for reconciliation and the leadership shown by the government in including indigenous partners in decisions are both important to them. That said, concerns about further complicating resource development (which already necessitates the consideration of indigenous peoples' interests in relevant regions) and economic risks, are equally weighted by the population. ARI also found there is a sense the consultation timeline has been rushed. One-quarter (26%) say the current timeline offered by the government is acceptable. But more disagree, including half (48%) who want to see more consultation, extending deliberations into the fall or later this year, and one-quarter (27%) who want to kill the proposed changes entirely . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more