Dan Albas
Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, for whatever reason, the Prime Minister has told us affordability is the best it has been in decades. Perhaps if he spent less time in Europe, he might be aware that we now have full-time workers living in RVs and trailers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of petitioners who have asked that the government recognize the very real pain that is being inflicted upon Falun Gong practitioners by the repressive government in Beijing.”
“The Liberals' inflationary spending and antidevelopment policies created this recession and cost of living crisis. These are Liberal choices. Only the Conservatives will end wasteful spending, cut bureaucracy, restore accountability and replace Liberal excess with results.”
“Mr. Speaker, Westbank First Nation is one of the indigenous communities in my riding. It obviously has its own governance agreement. Would the member enlighten us and say what he believes is a good message for people, not just in the Okanagan but right across B.C.? What would they like to hear from the Conservative Party right now?”
“This would push people into used ones, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, but only wealthy Canadians would probably be able to afford to buy new. Now fast-forward to this bill.”
“Warranties are consumer protections, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion here, but would a foreign manufacturer listen to Prince Edward Island? I do not know. I do not think that would be the case, because, while I respect the members who come from Prince Edward Island, it has a small population.”
The complete record
Every one of 312 lines we hold for Dan Albas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr. Chair, can the minister provide a total land acquisition cost today or confirm that the Department of Finance does not really have a final number because it is busy appraising entire urban neighbourhoods for real estate portfolios?”
“Mr. Chair, I realize the minister has been here for a couple of hours, but he has not answered very many questions, if any. I am hopeful he will answer this one. Internal documents outline a strategy for massive station area land assembly stretching up to two kilometres around a station, explicitly based on the Hong Kong “rail plus property” real estate model. Since his bill, Bill C-15 , fails to include land abandonment or buyback provisions, if the route changes in an Ottawa neighbourhood like Eastway Gardens, who keeps the excess land and development profits? Is it the government, Alto or the private consortium?”
“Mr. Chair, the government is already spending money on land acquisition for the Alto project while public consultations are still active. Why are taxpayers paying for the real estate before consultations are even finished and before the final route is even locked in?”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, you suggested that I should be using the proper title of a minister or a member. In my comments, if you review the tapes, I did quite rightly refer to the Minister of Transport . I understand you did not like, or maybe the Liberals did not like, the term “part-time”, but had I said the “effervescent” Minister of Transport, that would have been an adjective, the same as I would say a “part-time” Minister of Transport. If you do not find that this is correct, could you please inform me as to whether or not I should be referring to the “sometimes” House leaders—”
“Mr. Speaker, who is minding business at Pearson right now? That answer of 1,000 members someday is not going to work. If these gaps exist at Pearson, our largest airport, why would Canadians believe they do not exist somewhere else? Will the Liberal government commit, yes or no, to conducting the same security audits at every major airport in Canada and tabling those findings here in Parliament for all Canadians to see? If they will not, is it because this part-time Minister of Transport has no idea how bad it is, or does he just have no idea of what to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians go through airport security, they submit to invasive screening. Medical implants are flagged. Personal items are confiscated. They are even emptying their baby bottles, yet a worker at Pearson says someone could bring a cruise missile through without detection. Canadians have already been detained abroad because of security failures here at home. Will the part-time Minister of Transport admit that these failures put Canadians at risk and apologize to those whose lives and reputations have already been harmed by his inaction?”
“Mr. Speaker, a Pearson ramp worker said, “I walk right out through the terminal doors.... Nobody checks you”, and “We joke that you could walk out carrying a cruise missile”. That is from a W5 investigation exposing organized crime using travellers' baggage to traffic drugs through Pearson airport, a scheme that has been happening for a very long time. Given the transport minister 's silence on this brazen security failure, Canadians want to know, with the FIFA games set to start in weeks and over a billion dollars committed to security, if the Liberals are not taking this seriously now, why are Canadians to believe they ever will with our security?”
“Mr. Speaker, all throughout today's debate, Liberals continue to say that it is Conservatives who are being divisive and creating misinformation, among even worse items. Now, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, wrote in a letter from the city to all the landowners who were affected that the “City of Richmond was the only party at trial arguing that the Crown grants of fee simple necessarily extinguished Aboriginal title. The federal and provincial Crowns were each labouring under litigation directives that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment”. Does the member believe that the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, is offering misinformation and being divisive, or is he simply calling out both the federal and provincial governments for their failures to make arguments to protect B.C.'s private property owners' rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians are afraid and they do not have certainty right now. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14 telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. The Prime Minister likes to talk about things that we can control and focusing on them. Would the leader of the official opposition maybe tell the Prime Minister what is under our control here in Parliament and what the leader of the official opposition tends to do about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, British Columbia land title certainty is foundational. Families buy homes, secure mortgages and plan their futures on the strength of our land registry. Today, homeowners in Richmond are being told that certainty no longer exists because of the Cowichan decision. That ruling followed a federal choice. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. Why is the Prime Minister choosing Liberal ideology over British Columbian homeowners by continuing to tell federal lawyers not to defend their private property rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have Liberal members rise to talk about this all being part of reconciliation, but a judge in New Brunswick had a very different interpretation. In fact, when there was talk in a court case in New Brunswick about extinguishment and how it related to private property rights, the judge identified that the one way to dial reconciliation back in a negative direction would be to put the private property rights of the people who I mentioned at risk, those homeowners and business owners who have done everything that has been asked of them under the law. It causes frictions between first nations in British Columbia and Canada and the interests of homeowners and business owners, and now the government is making it all worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, if members read any newspaper in British Columbia, they are going to read about the mayor of Richmond, who has broadly raised this issue while the province and federal government said nothing. They made clear representation on private property rights. All we are asking in this motion today, and of Liberal members, is to start listening to British Columbians and those they have elected who have been raising this alarm. They have had lots of time. The fact that they are now sending out members from British Columbia who are just reading talking points, basically giving the same line without concrete action, says to me that they are prepared to vote against this, because they truly do not protect the private property rights of British Columbians or anyone else.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, Liberal members continue to throw out any concerns as misinformation. What is not misinformation is that in 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still enforced today despite multiple calls by Conservative members for the Prime Minister to show Canadians that he means what he says. He has yet to take us up on that offer. We have Liberals saying that it is all misinformation, but it is on the government website. If it is misinformation, is the government now the biggest misleader on this particular case? If we read the website, that is what it says. The member cannot say otherwise because it is the truth.”
“members to support this motion and send a clear message that, in Canada, private property rights matter. We hear the concerns raised by British Columbians. We know we have the means to address them. We are dedicated in service to ensuring that their rights and concerns are addressed, not in some far‑off land at some yet-to-be-determined time, but here and now, in this Parliament, in this country.”
“One can look at softwood lumber, American tariffs and an NDP provincial government, which appears to have no idea of what it is doing. We do not need to add property rights chaos to that list, but I guess it already has been. We have to make sure that we pull that off the list. This motion is a way to do that. The Prime Minister often says that we should focus on what we can control. Today, with this motion, the House can control something. We can restore certainty, and we can defend property rights. We can stand up for Canadians who, by every account, have done everything right. That is why I will be voting in favour of this motion. The Prime Minister, himself, has said, “private property rights are fundamental”. Today we will see if his words mean anything. I urge all hon.”
“It is freezing investment, encouraging litigation and forcing Canadians into a legal limbo with no clear path forward. This is despite the Prime Minister and all his Liberal members of Parliament, or as I have heard it described in the Toronto Star, his deputies, describing everything that the Conservatives say as not being true. It should not be this way. Behind closed doors, negotiations are occurring with public tax dollars on the line, while affected Canadians are left without consultation, clarity or protection. Lawyers disagree and experts disagree. Lawsuits are multiplying, and the government is failing to protect the interests of some of the very people it claims to serve. British Columbia already faces enough challenges.”
“Fourth, it demands a concrete plan from the Prime Minister within 30 days, complete with timelines, to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. Finally, it establishes a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights in Canada. These are not radical proposals, and they are not ideological. They are responsible. They only become controversial if one does not believe that private property rights are fundamental to our system, both our system of capitalism in this country and our Westminster system. We have always honoured these things, and the lack of certainty that we see today is causing real harm.”
“First, it calls on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case by clearly arguing that fee simple ownership has priority. I have heard the term “viable arguments”, but that does not necessarily mean they are making every argument. Second, the motion specifically calls for litigation directive number 14 to be replaced with a clear requirement that the federal government aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. Third, the motion requires that no agreement be concluded without explicit protection of fee simple property rights in all future negotiations with first nations, so everyone understands and has some certainty, something failed to have been done under this government and its predecessor.”
“Why did the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to stand up for property rights when it mattered? That remains unanswered, but what we do know now is that, after the damage has been done, the Prime Minister says he disagrees with this court decision. He now says that private property rights are fundamental and that his government will defend them. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister will have that opportunity with this motion. This opposition day motion gives the Prime Minister a chance to match his words with action, something that is increasingly difficult for the Prime Minister. Will he vote to defend private property rights, or will he vote against them once again? (1240) This motion proposes practical, substantive and achievable steps to help restore certainty and confidence.”
“This is what Liberals tend to do when they do not have a substantive answer to serious questions, because these are serious questions. To those making those accusations, I would offer this: It was the Liberal government that adopted litigation directive number 14. That directive restricted the arguments Crown lawyers could make in court to defend fee simple property rights. That is not rhetoric. That is documented policy. Litigation directive number 14 is not fearmongering. It is a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for the Prime Minister and his government, one it has refused to explain still being on the books and that is instructing lawyers within its employ. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly why his government has continued with this directive, and he has continued to avoid giving a clear answer.”
“It is the increased costs, the delay, the complexity and the unpredictability caused by this court ruling, as well policy reversals and an ever-changing legal landscape. As a result, investment is being shelved, jobs are at risk and confidence is eroding. What we already know is alarming. Fee simple titles held by the city of Richmond, the federal government and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority are now potentially invalid or ineffective due to this ruling. What we do not know yet is what the full impact will be on private landowners, people who worked hard, followed every rule, paid their taxes and put their entire life savings into their homes and businesses. They are worried, and rightly so. When these concerns are raised, members opposite respond by accusing critics of fearmongering or spreading misinformation.”
“Since the Cowichan ruling, I have received calls, and I was a bit shocked because Westbank First Nation is in the heart of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna and sits side by side with the City of West Kelowna. I have had people who live in Westbank First Nation ask me questions about their property and whether their investments are safe. This is not surprising because today's debate is really about a simple question that people in my riding are asking: Will the House of Commons stand up for Canadians who followed the rules and invested their life savings, or will it allow uncertainty and inaction to undermine private property rights in Canada? Business leaders are clear about what is driving this concern.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole . This past week, Canadians, particularly British Columbians, received deeply troubling news. A new survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that nearly three-quarters of businesses plan to reduce investment and one-third plan to reduce hiring because of the growing uncertainty around property rights and land title in this country. This uncertainty is not theoretical. It is very real. It affects homeowners, employers, municipalities and investors who believed that, in Canada, fee simple ownership meant certainty.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister of employment , in response to the member for Calgary East, was clearly reading off notes that had a member's picture on both sides, clearly making it a prop and making it very easy to be seen on the screen. This is something that I think you need to take a look at, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously a planned practice by the government, by that minister, to again present, as she made her comments, an example that had a clear photo on it. That is a prop. It does not follow the traditions of this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, the only thing the government delivers is more recycled talking points. Even The Globe and Mail says that, in this upside-down Liberal world, a spending increase of $26.8 billion is not a spending cut. For every $100 in new revenue, the government spends 97% of it. Will the government admit this costly credit card budget proves nothing has changed, or are Canadians now supposed to believe that doubling the deficit is fiscal responsibility?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised change after a decade of a costly Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. Yesterday, they did not get change; they got more of the same. The Liberals are asking every Canadian household to shoulder roughly $3,400 of new debt from a Prime Minister who said he would be different. This costly credit card budget delivers more debt, more costs and more taxes, and it is doubling the deficit while life gets more expensive. Which promise was false, the promise of change, or the claim that doubling the deficit would somehow make Canadians better off?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the member has raised, in his comments today, a very good example. If the oil and gas sector was regulated the way that the Minister of Transport is suggesting Bill C-28 should be regulated, it would be all-powerful and it would be for arbitrary reasons. I think industry participants would say it would not be fair if certain companies were insured and certain companies were not insured, and if certain companies could get a permit to start drilling and certain ones could not. That is an opaque system. It would not be tolerated in any investment-oriented enterprise like oil and gas. Could the member talk a bit more about how MLS lobbied the PMO and ministers over 150 times and somehow acquired this lease where it is getting $55,000 a day from the federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I homed in particularly on the fact that the member has mentioned the administrative, arbitrary nature of the minister's power. First of all, it would all be concentrated in the minister. He would actually be taking it away from the transportation tribunal that usually handles these things. Again, there is very little specificity as to what is in the public interest. The minister could literally give one indemnification rate to one market participant, and another to a different performer, totally distorting the market. Could the member please comment a bit about who would benefit from a regime that is so opaque and arbitrary?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the minister earlier this morning about the gaps in the bill when it comes to national security, he said not to worry and that we would be working with the Canadian Space Agency. However, the Canadian Space Agency does not do national security or intelligence, nor does it have a mandate to do so. CSIS is not included in the bill, and neither is the RCMP. Does the member believe that there needs to be a solid reprisal or a change to the bill to address this?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Marc Garneau. I think this is important, because many of us in the House knew him. In addition to his successful career in the navy, he ended up leading the Canadian Space Agency. Later on he became a Liberal member of Parliament and eventually a minister. I remember Mr. Garneau very well. When I first came to the House, we may have had our political differences, but I have always believed him to be a hero, and I do believe we need to honour our veterans and honour public service. I thank the member opposite for mentioning the service of Marc Garneau.”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's big contribution on this topic today, particularly about the uneasy relationship the government has with MLS. It seems crazy to me that something that is rented for $13,500 per year is effectively receiving $55,000 a day from the Government of Canada. Bear in mind that this property is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia. There are other key elements in this bill that would allow the minister to use total discretion in who he can give permits to and under what terms. Does the member feel that this will benefit insiders, well-connected Liberals and lobbyists?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has said multiple times that this would align Canada with other G7 countries, like the U.K. and the United States. The legislation in the U.K., the Outer Space Act 1986, literally says that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impede national security. In the United States, Congress decided that the giving of indemnification to participants in the space industry should be decided by Congress and not by the administration itself. Why would this legislation do neither?”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may or may not be aware, but the Minister of Transport , when I questioned him today about the glaring gaps in national security screening, said not to worry because we have the Canadian Space Agency. Well, the Canadian Space Agency has no national security mandate. In fact, the bill itself, Bill C-28 , is completely silent on CSIS or any other national security review. If the Canadian Space Agency has expertise, maybe on a technological basis, but no authority when it comes to national security, who is in charge of making sure that our system is not going to be compromised? We can look at the United Kingdom and the United States: They have clear national security to make sure there are not dual-use technologies that can be applied against their people. There is nothing in this bill on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is an industrious member of the transport committee. I learn more each time I speak with him. Earlier today, the Minister of Transport told me in response to a question that the people at the Canadian Space Agency would help him make sure that payloads have national security screening. There would be no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS. The Canadian Space Agency is not a security or intelligence body. It has no statutory mandate to conduct national security investigations. It has expertise but zero authority. Is the member concerned that the minister would depend on an agency to do something it is not meant to do?”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned his admiration for what the U.K. has done, in terms of its space program. In fact, the outer space program act of 1986 established very clearly under the U.K. model that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impact national security. There is no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS in Bill C-28 and no defined national security clearance. This completely contrasts with what the U.K. has. Does this member realize that there is a real existing gap that puts us at risk, compared to our G7 partners?”
“Madam Speaker, one might say the question is whether the speaker is working properly. I would simply say that if we have a competitive market with a proper regulatory structure, good things will happen, but right now, insiders and those who would exploit our national security gaps put us at risk.”
“Madam Speaker, I am going to paraphrase the New York Times saying that democracy dies under darkness. When we have darkness and opaque processes, and the discretion of one particular minister who has market-distorting—”
“We are very supportive of that, but I will remind the member that, first, a properly functioning market would have probably more than one spaceport. Second, we would probably see individual money being brought in, which could create that. Last, those satellites do not miraculously sprout wings and fly off into the stratosphere from the space pad. They need rockets. How can we support our industry, and how can we encourage industries to come here? Right now, if this thing were put to test right away, it would be other countries' rockets.”
“Madam Speaker, this is how far down the government has gone, that the members are referring to a launch pad. In a competitive market that is well-regulated, there could be multiple launch pads, but we have only one. We have only one because the government has given a $200-million lease over 10 years, $55,000 a day, to a company that had a lease for the same property from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. In its own corporate notes, it states that this company was not a going concern, which means to the average person that it would be going out of business. Then, miraculously, the company got this lease after lobbying, and suddenly we are all supposed to pin our hopes on it. The gentleman across the way mentioned a company in his riding.”
“We need a legislative framework, sure, but we also need to have Canadian rockets, or else this launch pad would just be a launch pad for other nations' rockets and, without the proper screening, for payloads that are for their objectives, not ours.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge what the minister himself said. He said that the world will want what Canada could have here. Well, the world is a lot of people, and some of them do not align with our values or our goals as a nation, so it makes sense that, if there is a gap where there is no screening over who owns what technology and what that technology is used for, that could be circumvented. Right now, which countries lead the world in rockets? We have the United States, Russia and China, all of whom would have some sort of interest in our north. Again, Canadian rockets are the fundamental part to making this sovereignty happen.”
“Being able to go to a tribunal to be able to rectify these things gives people confidence that they can move forward. If they have to take the government to court over something as simple as an error on a permit, that is ridiculous. One might ask why the government would want it this way. That is what we are asking. Why would the government be giving itself unfettered discretion unless it had a plan to do something with that?”
“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member's intervention here today because it highlights that the government has a penchant for giving itself ultimate discretion at the expense of someone else. There is no greater sign of this than the government's actually removing access to a tribunal. Tribunals are there for administrative fairness. Let me give an example. If a space firm that is operating legally in Canada is not favoured by the government for whatever reason, maybe they used the wrong lobbyist, had an application come in with a tight time window, or has a spelling or technical error that could easily be rectified, the minister could simply say, “Sorry”. That launch would then be scuttled at great cost to that individual company.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada believes in Canadians and their know-how. We have a strong record, from Diefenbaker and the Alouette I, the first Canadian satellite to be launched. Brian Mulroney created the space act, which is the framework for much of the Canadian missions where we partnered with other countries, to the great success of Canadarm, among other projects. It was Stephen Harper, in 2014, who created a space sovereignty framework that this government, in this new legislation, seems to be ignoring completely. When we talk about sovereignty, it is non-negotiable, yet under this particular bill, it is discretionary.”
“I would like to say that it is always a pleasure to be here and to debate these important topics on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I urge my colleagues to take the time to look into Bill C-28 to see with their own eyes not only what is there, which is the fact that almost all of the power would be given to one person, but also the large gaps in the bill that this Parliament could and should address.”
“We have, most of the time, the rule of law, but if a large company were looking to make a strategic investment in Canada and seize this regime, and unless they have an inside track with a lobbyist who has the ability to get them what they want, I question that this is the right approach. (1045) If the government is serious about our sovereignty, it should be serious about accountability. If it is serious about security, it should put it right into the statute, right into Bill C-28 . If it is serious about market activity, it should stop designing laws that reward discretion over discipline. Parliament should not approve a framework that asks Canadians to trust what they cannot see.”
“With what I heard today from the minister in his responses to me on national security and indemnification, it is clear that he has either not done the work or is silent on purpose. We need Parliament, not a minister, setting the rules for this space. We do not need legislation that privatizes reward, nationalizes risk and leaves Canadians in the dark. Space policy, I would argue, is too important, too expensive and too sensitive to be governed this way. Again, capital flows to stability. The minister is right that Canada has some wonderful attributes. We are a country that is politically stable.”
“That is not the rocket fuel this industry needs or wants. We need taxpayers protected from unknowable exposure. We need national security safeguards that are automatic and non-negotiable. Once a satellite is in orbit and it does not use Canadian spectrum, the government has no responsibility or power over that satellite. That satellite, as I said, could be at the behest of a state actor and, let us be mindful, the People's Republic of China does require its companies, under its national security laws, to comply with whatever they are asked of by the authoritarian government in Beijing. The Russians also have an interest in the north and its surveillance of the north. These are questions that the official opposition members are asking for some accountability on and some better answers.”
“I believe we have Canadian know-how, and we have proven it, time and time again, but this is not a bill for our times. This is a bill for insiders. Let me be very clear. I have not been speaking about Canadian space launch capacity. This is an argument against governing it badly. Canada needs domestic launch and re-entry infrastructure. I am sure we can all agree on that. We also need clear, predictable and competitive rules, or else we are only going to track businesses that we will end up identifying, and we will not innovate because there will not be a sphere of competition that drives innovation, reduces costs and sees new ways and approaches come forward. This is because, under this act, there would not be the incentive to do so. It would be more incentive to get a better lobbyist than to get a better rocket.”
“This is a problem, considering that there is so much to be said about the Liberal government's penchant for insiders. We know of the MLS launch. We know of the public record, which has been widely distributed, about it not being a going concern, then 158 conversations with the PMO and different ministers later and, wow, suddenly there is a $200-million lease for a property that was previously leased from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. It is now $55,000 a day. Again, opaque processes, uncertainty and the discretion of one individual are not a recipe for the rule of law. It is a recipe for inside activity. I have said a lot about these things because I am concerned and because I am a proud Canadian. I believe in innovation. I believe in progress.”