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 3 of 7.
“Suddenly, it would have to go to court to challenge a decision, which would inevitably cost the taxpayer money because the justice department now would have to say what is in the public interest, but it is not defined by law. This is a recipe for uncertainty, and for the minister to say it would give certainty to a market that has yet to exist is a big warning sign flashing. I want to say, “Ottawa, we have a problem here.” (1040) The result here is a convergence of risk that includes broad executive power, opaque indemnification authority, reduced independent review, large financial commitments and no hard-wired national security screening. This, like space, is a vacuum, a vacuum of accountability. The reasons the minister could give to deny a permit would be as black as space. We would not be able to see transparently why it was denied.”
“That uncertainty would be either a yes or a no from the minister, with no explanation given other than a denial. The minister could say, “It is not in the public interest to give you this permit. I'm revoking it.” We could ask what the public interest is, but the minister would not have any responsibility to say what it is. Usually, in the Aeronautics Act, someone would go to an administrative tribunal that has a specialty in this, but guess what. The minister has exempted this act from that tribunal's auspices. Essentially, a company would have a window, based on weather conditions, to get a payload through the atmosphere.”
“There would be no statutory requirement for foreign ownership or control screening of launch operators or payloads. There would be no requirement for beneficial ownership transparency. There would be no statutory test for payload mission profiles or end use. There would be no mandatory integration of intelligence or national security assessments into the approval process. Instead, these issues would be left to regulation or the discretion of the minister in the public interest. I have served on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we have seen, time after time, what happens when the use of the term “public interest” is exercised without any details from Parliament as to what is in the public interest in this narrow set of circumstances. What happens is uncertainty. What would happen under this bill?”
“When indemnification decisions are left entirely to ministerial discretion, they inevitably become political decisions. They are influenced by timing, urgency, pressure and optics. None of those is a substitute for law. This bill would effectively ask Parliament to assume that every minister under every political circumstance would exercise his or her power perfectly. History suggests otherwise. Laws exist precisely because judgment is imperfect and politics change. Taxpayers should never bear catastrophic risk as the result of decisions they cannot see, cannot measure and cannot challenge. The weakness in this bill extends beyond indemnification. The government speaks often about sovereignty and security when promoting Bill C‑28 , yet the legislation fails to embed basic national security safeguards in statute.”
“In either case, the impact would be dramatic, but the decision would not be governed by rules set by Parliament. It would be by the politics of the day. If indemnification is loosened, taxpayers could be exposed to substantial and unquantified liability without ever knowing or realizing it. If it is withdrawn, a company could become commercially unviable almost overnight. In both cases, the consequences would be profound, yet the decision would occur behind closed doors. Taxpayers would not know what risks they were carrying. Parliament would not know what exposure it had approved. Only the minister would know. This is not transparency and accountability, and it is not responsible governance in a strategic sector involving public safety, national security and public money.”
“Its competitor, facing full commercial exposure, is placed at a structural disadvantage. Nothing in this bill would require indemnification to be offered on equal terms. Nothing would require similar risks to receive similar treatment. Nothing would require advanced disclosure to Parliament. Nothing would require public reporting afterward. This is not flexibility. That is state‑authorized market distortion. The political consequences of that structure are enormous. We already have a company operating in this space that has demonstrated financial instability and operational uncertainty. Under Bill C‑28 , the same company could benefit enormously if indemnification is loosened or be severely harmed if that protection is tightened or withdrawn.”
“Parliament would not be told what those minimum levels would be. They obviously would be left to regulation, to be answered by the minister and his officials at their discretion. The bill then goes much further. It would allow the minister to reduce or waive those requirements and to indemnify private operators against third party liability, entirely at ministerial discretion. Let us be clear about exactly what that means. Indemnification is not a technical detail. It is government-backed insurance. It transfers risk from private companies onto taxpayers. (1035) If one operator is indemnified and another is not, the indemnified operator enjoys a powerful competitive advantage. Its risk profile drops, its financing costs fall, and its tolerance for failure increases.”
“Who is reviewing each permit? Who is assessing each re-entry? Who is recalibrating liability exposure? Who is deciding whether an operator qualifies for indemnification and when it does not? Under this bill, almost all the responsibility would flow upward to one political office, not to an independent regulator, not to a transparent statutory process, but to the discretion of the minister. Good policy depends on systems, not personalities. Bill C-28 gives us neither. Nowhere in this design flaw is that more serious than in the indemnification and liability provisions of the bill. Bill C-28 would remove space launch and re-entry activities, which, by the way, are not even defined in the act. It would take those activities from a normal aviation insurance framework and replace them with a new concept called “financial responsibility”.”
“That might sound reassuring until we remember that as of this moment, Canada does not even have a full-time Minister of Transport. We are being asked to believe that a part-time minister already juggling multiple portfolios would somehow have the time, the capacity and the sustained focus to personally weigh launch permits, re-entry approvals, liability thresholds, indemnification decisions and national security considerations, sometimes under time pressure, sometimes under political pressure, while taxpayers carry the downside risk. This is not a governance model. This is wishful thinking dressed up as legislation, which leads to a very practical question that the government has not answered and cannot avoid. When this industry scales up, and the government insists that it will, who exactly is supposed to manage all of this?”
“Parliamentary control is weakened. When one reads this bill carefully, the pattern is unmistakable. Launch permits, re-entry approvals, site certification, emergency stop powers, land use restrictions, financial responsibility requirements, exemptions from those requirements and the indemnification of private operators would all be placed within the discretion of the Minister of Transport. This is where the bill starts to drift from concerning to almost surreal. This entire regime assumes that the minister would personally oversee permits, exemptions, indemnification decisions, emergency stop orders, land use restrictions and national security judgments in one of the most complex and high-risk emerging sectors of the economy.”
“We are entering a period of rapid growth in space-based activity. Satellite deployment, re-entry technologies and launch infrastructure are expanding quickly. Canada does not want to be left behind, and it should not be. The government argues that Bill C-28 is needed because Canada lacks a clear legislative framework for space launch and re-entry. That is true. These activities have been managed through aviation law and ad hoc decisions. That approach is no longer adequate. What is troubling is that Bill C-28 would not replace uncertainty with a clear law. It would replace it with discretion. Rather than having Parliament define rules, the bill asks Parliament to approve a framework and trust that the real decisions would be made later through regulation and ministerial judgment. The hardest questions are deferred. The risks are obscured.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to participate in debate, particularly when the official opposition has the opportunity to apply serious scrutiny to legislation that asks Parliament to hand broad authority away from itself and to the executive. Bill C-28 deals with space launch and re-entry. It is not ideological. Most Canadians support the idea of Canada having a domestic space capability. They understand its importance to innovation, economic growth and, increasingly, national security. I support that goal as well, but ambition does not excuse poor design. Supporting the objective does not mean giving the government a blank cheque, especially in a sector that involves public safety, national security and potentially significant taxpayer exposure.”
“Madam Speaker, the minister needs to talk about exactly why he has chosen the bill to give himself so much power. He would be approving permits and re-entries, launches, etc. The list goes on. Indemnification is essentially where the taxpayer offers insurance to private operators for indemnifying their launches. The way the bill is written, the minister could give special treatment to one firm and a different set of rules for another. How can the minister look at this Parliament in the eye and say that he is trying to attract capital with such an opaque system that would be so arbitrary in how it will be applied? If we want to do well in space, we need to have the rule of law, not the rule of one minister, where he can pick and choose winners and losers.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives agree that Canada has a proud history in space and that we have great talent and great opportunities in space. However, we have to set aside the past and future in terms of our idealism because what the minister was speaking about was sovereignty. We must be real. We must look at the bill as it is, right here and right now. In the bill, the minister has not even defined what launch and relaunch are. The minister has not introduced a bill that would protect our sovereignty. There is no national security screening of payloads. A firm from another country could use any rocket launch as an ability to put a dual-use satellite into orbit, undermining our sovereignty, particularly when satellites are looking at the north. I would like the minister to address these subjects.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the earlier reply to my question, the member said that Canadians elected a prime minister. I think that is a misnomer that we need to correct. Canadians elect MPs. In fact, last night on a panel, Althia Raj said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak. We've seen this with all types of legislation. I was struck after the by-election when he referred to his MPs in English as his ‘deputies’. At first he was saying that. I thought it was just an error in translation; he means ‘députés’, and then he was just saying it in English. But then he keeps repeating it, so I'm starting to wonder if he actually thinks members of Parliament are his deputies to do his bidding in the House of Commons, which is not their job.” Does the member believe he is the deputy to the Prime Minister , or does he serve his riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's presence. I hope he is doing well. What I would say is simply that the Chief Electoral Officer, years ago, went to the PROC committee and asked the government to do something about the ballot issue of having the longest ballot committee causing such consternation in repeated by-election after by-election, and even in the last election. Does the hon. member regret how his government let Canadian voters down by waiting so long to introduce the simple amendment to the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, get the minister some rocket fuel. The Liberals are experts at paying a lot for nothing. They have turned a gravel pit into a money pit. A former Liberal MP got $237 million for ventilators that went straight into the scrap heap. A Nova Scotia wind farm, tightly connected to former Liberal MPs, got a $206-million loan. Liberal insiders are making bank, while too many Canadians are at the food bank. When will a satellite be launched from our $200-million parking lot?”
“Mr. Speaker, when someone leases a new vehicle, they get a new vehicle, but when the Liberals leased a spaceport, all they got for $200 million was a gravel parking lot. I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it is in a Liberal riding or that the justice minister 's former staffer was the lobbyist for the project or that former Liberal premiers are on the company's advisory board. Clearly, there are no Liberal insiders getting rich at all. Canadians have only one question: Why are so many Liberal insiders getting so rich off taxpayers on this boondoggle of a lease?”
“As journalist Don Martin recently shared, a clinical trial can quite literally mean the difference between life and death, yet too many Canadians still face unnecessary delays. That is why the Canadian Cancer Society has set a big achievable goal: no more than 75 days from a clinical trial registration to enrolling patients. This means more trials, more innovations and more lives saved here in Canada. This is a goal we can achieve together. Let us support the work of the Canadian Cancer Society and give those facing a cancer diagnosis hope.”
“Mr. Speaker, while there is much we may debate in the House, today I want to begin with what unites us, which is standing with Canadians affected by cancer. April is Daffodil Month, a time for us to show support for Canadians living with cancer, their families and caregivers. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary cancer caucus, I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for its leadership and non-partisan support. I also recognize my co-chair, the member for Vaudreuil , and Senator Andrew Cardozo, as well as the patient advocates, researchers and volunteers who make this work possible. Daffodil Month also reminds us why access to innovation matters. Clinical trials are often a last resort, and they can be a lifeline.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about Internet service providers, ISPs, in general. Obviously, there are going to be some distinctions between other large Internet companies other than ISPs, but I think that for the most part, that is what we are going to be talking about in committee. Simply, right now it is the Wild West. Some ISPs are retaining data for longer than a year and some are doing it for zero days because there is no particular requirement on them. First of all is having a requirement: We need to decide as parliamentarians what is reasonable. We can look at other jurisdictions to see what they have, but we do need to have rules in place so that we can have the rule of law in this space.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is essential for the opposition to be able to fulfill the role entrusted to it by Canadians. It is particularly important to demand evidence and ask the government to share its reasoning and thought process, especially that of the minister responsible. It is also important for the opposition to press the government to make improvements and to consider our amendments for the benefit of all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Hull—Aylmer's comments. As members of the House of Commons, it is important that we communicate issues clearly and accurately, especially online. There is also an opportunity to make amendments to improve the bill, depending on the nature of the bill, which could be a private member's bill or a government bill. In this case, we are talking about a government bill. I hope that, if the member participates in the committee study, he will take a closer look at part 2, especially the techniques, equipment and system proposed in the bill.”
“Addressing these concerns transparently is not a flaw in this process; it is Parliament doing its job. The question before us is whether Parliament will once again allow inaction to become the default or whether we will act carefully, responsibly and within appropriate limits. Our future is undeniably online. If we are serious about protecting Canadians in the future, we must be willing to modernize our laws while respecting people's rights and values. I believe we can do that. I believe Parliament is capable of getting it right.”
“It leaves victims exposed, strains already overburdened police services and erodes confidence in the rule of law. That is the biggest challenge we have. When people believe that the justice system is simply catch-and-release, or that if they phone, like the woman in Merritt, and are simply told they do not have the resources, people lose faith in our institutions. That must change, and not just with Bill C-22 . We need to see stronger sanctions. We need to see jail, not bail. We need to re-earn the confidence of Canadians who are so disconcerted over the state of our system. That is why we need to ask the tough questions at committee, get into the weeds and fully understand and weigh the tradeoffs between public safety, privacy and individual liberty.”
“It continues at committee, through expert testimony, proposed amendments and rigorous scrutiny of how these powers would operate in the real world. It also continues after passage, through ongoing review and accountability. Canadians should expect nothing less. Protecting privacy and protecting public safety are not competing ideals. They are complementary responsibilities. When the law is outdated, vague or unclear, both privacy and safety suffer. Criminal networks exploit legal uncertainty far more effectively than law-abiding citizens ever could. Our task as legislators is to ensure the law is precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles, while still effective enough to protect the people it is meant to serve. Avoiding that challenge altogether is not neutral.”
“I want to address a broader point about how Parliament must legislate in the digital age, because this bill is not unique in facing these challenges. Technology evolves faster than legislation ever can. That creates real tension between clarity and flexibility, and between certainty and adaptability. Canadians are right to be cautious when laws rely on regulations and technical definitions that may change over time. That caution is healthy in a free society. As Conservatives, we have always believed the answer to that tension is not blind trust in government but strong parliamentary oversight. It is Parliament, not the executive, that must define limits, ask hard questions and ensure delegated authorities are narrow, justified, proportionate and, above all else, accountable. That responsibility does not end at second reading.”
“Perhaps the most disturbing are the countless cases supported by organizations like the Kelowna Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, where children who have already suffered abuse endure further trauma while authorities work urgently to identify, locate and stop the spread of child sexual exploitation materials. In each of these cases, time matters. Delay magnifies the harm. RCMP officers in the Central Okanagan are already carrying the highest caseloads in British Columbia. They are not asking for unchecked authority, they are asking for lawful, court-supervised tools that would allow them to establish basic facts quickly and protect victims sooner. That brings me back to the role of Parliament.”
“Pursuing charges would have required significant time and resources, resources that many small-town RCMP detachments simply do not have. In West Kelowna, a retired professional was convinced to install remote access applications on her phone and private computer, unknowingly giving criminals full control over her financial life. She lost more than $100,000. Even more disturbing, she was told that contacting the police or even her member of Parliament would place her in violation of national security laws. Fear and deception did the rest.”
“It does not give government the power to read the content of Canadians' messages without court approval. Much like wiretap authorities that Canadians have accepted for decades, police must make their case to a judge, meet defined legal thresholds and operate within strict limits. That is not unchecked power. That is the rule of law. (1250) Let me ground this debate in the real experiences Canadians are facing. In my former riding, police investigated a case where a woman was shaken down by scammers claiming to be the Canada Revenue Agency and demanding payment in bitcoin. The officers in Merritt knew a crime had been committed, but they could not quickly determine whether the perpetrators were even in the country.”
“Still others worry that future governments could expand the scope of this law through regulation without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. I understand this mistrust. Too many Canadians feel that governments no longer listen. I did not enter politics to reinforce that cynicism. I entered public life because I believe that trust in our institutions must be earned, and it is only earned through accountability, something that I hope Liberal members of the House also believe in. As a Conservative, I believe in limited government, in checks and balances, and in a government that thinks of Canadians, not for them. That is why it matters to be very clear about what Bill C-22 does and does not do. It does not authorize warrantless access to private communication. It does not eliminate judicial oversight.”
“That does not give access to private conversations. It simply provides a lawful starting point. Online, even when establishing those basic facts, it can take much longer, while the harm continues. Bill C-22 is an attempt, imperfect, as all legislation ultimately is, to modernize investigative tools while maintaining judicial oversight. However, I want to pause a moment and address concerns that Canadians have directly raised with me, including constituents who oppose the bill. Some fear that Bill C-22 could require digital service providers to embed surveillance capabilities that may weaken security. Others are concerned about the retention of metadata involving people who are not under investigation.”
“Children have been coerced and harmed in ways made possible by anonymity and speed online. This issue also goes far beyond individual victims. Canada is not only rich in natural resources. We are rich in research, intellectual property, innovation and data. Where is that value increasingly stored and accessed? It is increasingly stored and accessed online. Essential services, banking, health records, commerce and even the operation of the Parliament now depend on digital infrastructure. This is not ideology. It is reality. As Canadians move online, our ability to protect them has fallen behind. I often explain it in this way. In the physical world, if there is a hit-and-run accident and a licence plate number is recorded, police can lawfully use that information to identify the registered owner and begin an investigation.”
“The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online, rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight. That is not what Bill C-22 proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us. Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. A part of me wants to say that we really should not be here, again, having this debate today. It is not just because it is a Friday and not because the debate is unimportant. It is. On the contrary, it is absolutely essential. Sometimes, in the House, we are our own worst enemy. I say that candidly because this is not the first time Parliament has debated efforts to modernize lawful access legislation. More than 14 years ago, when I sat on the government side of the House, I supported similar initiatives. Before that, the previous Liberal government under Paul Martin attempted and also failed to move this work forward. Each time Parliament fails to act, the cost is not political. The cost is borne by Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, while we are just talking about corrections, I just want to thank the Secretary of State for Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions for delineating the difference between Connor McGregor and Connor McDavid. I will say, to his credit, that he is more right than when people, Canadians, phone into the CRA and ask questions.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member should know that supply chains take a while to react to certain things. The Trump administration stripped out a number of bipartisan policies that were put in place under a large budget measure a few years ago. It essentially took the carrots away for biofuel manufacturing that scaled up so massively. This is one of the reasons Canada continues to import a lot of its biofuels from outside the country: to be able to fill the so-called clean fuel standards that are here today. These guys have not done so much, as the Americans have taken away those carrots.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my friend a very good piece of advice. He should not soak in anything that I say. There are many other speakers in this place he should marinate in. I will say this. At the end of the day, the government has an opportunity put before it. Time and time again, when Conservatives put forward great policies that are not only good for Canada but electorally popular, the government then implements a small part of them, and Canadians suffer because of that. We have fewer houses because of its plan and higher costs because of its industrial carbon tax. I hope that, in this case, Liberals can agree with Conservatives that affordability should be the main thing. They have an opportunity today to support a better solution.”
“They are not only complicated and just pie in the sky, they actually make it where we are dependent on the Americans at a time we should be helping ourselves.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us start off with the so-called clean fuel standard. The previous minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, under the Trudeau majority, originally started this. They actually said we should have one set of regulations to monitor solid, liquid and gaseous forms of energy. They wanted one ring to rule them all, one regulation to rule them all, and it became so burdensome and complicated that the government ended up shunting half of that framework away in favour of what we have now. Rather than working with industry on a technical solution that would see good things happen in this country, like, for example, the use of Canadian biofuels and those kinds of things, instead, it encouraged more importation from the Americans that is still being used today to fill it with some of the clean mandates that the government does.”
“They want us to reduce costs that government controls, especially when families are being squeezed. A temporary suspension of one tax is a start, but Canadians deserve a full plan, a plan like ours. That is what the official opposition is proposing. This is our chance to show Canadians we hear them. This is a chance to put solutions ahead of excuses. This is our chance to vote for affordability. All we have to do is vote in favour of this motion. It is really that simple.”
“They wait for harm to happen and then they say, “Oops, we had better fix that.” This House has a chance to act early, to choose solutions now, not apologies later. That is where the Conservative official opposition's role is clear, not just to name the problem but, whenever possible, to propose a solution. The government often tells Canadians it is focused on affordability, competitiveness and resilience. Those are fine words, but words do not lower a grocery bill or fill a fuel tank. If this government is serious, it can prove it today, not with slogans but with a vote. It could vote for measures that actually reduce costs. This should not be that complicated. Canadians want relief that is real, measurable and immediate. They want us to find solutions.”
“It was not. However, did the government do everything it could have done to help prevent it? Well, the answer is no. What is telling is what happened next. Following this closure, the B.C. NDP government announced it would ease industrial carbon pricing for pulp mills going forward. Now, why did it do that? It was because it took a closure and job losses for government to recognize an economic reality. If costs are piled onto a sector that is not competing internationally, costs that competitors may not be paying, that sector can be made less competitive and there can be accelerated closures and job losses. For the people of Crofton, that response was too little, too late. That is exactly the risk when governments choose half measures and delay.”
“If the government now agrees that suspending the federal excise tax helps Canadians, why not also suspend the GST on gas and diesel? Why not remove policies that permanently drive up costs for Canadian industries and consumers? Why not do everything we can to control and to protect Canadians from what we cannot control? That is what this motion is about. It is also about recognizing when governments delay action, consequences are real and often permanent. Let me share a real example. At the end of 2025, the community of Crofton, British Columbia was devastated by the news that Domtar would permanently close the pulp mill in that community, costing about 350 well-paying jobs. It was a tragedy for those workers, their families and their community. Now, I am not going to claim that the closure was entirely the fault of government.”
“Aviation, marine shipping and rail depend on fuel, as well as mines, forestry operations, major construction sites and heavy-duty equipment. Fuel is the major input cost across our entire economy. If we are serious about finding solutions to affordability, we cannot treat fuel costs as a small or isolated issue. Fuel costs drive the cost of living. I want to return to a point we often hear from the Prime Minister , that we should focus on the things that we can control here in Canada, not the things that we cannot. On that principle, I will agree. We cannot control global conflicts, international choke points or the decisions of other countries, but we can control federal taxes and policies that increase the costs here at home. So the question is simple.”
“The Conservative official opposition proposes that we can and should do the following: Suspend all federal fuel excise tax and GST on gas and diesel and permanently eliminate the so-called clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. If we take these steps, we could deliver meaningful and immediate relief at the pumps and reduce inflationary pressure throughout the supply chain. Why does fuel matter so much? Virtually everything in our Canadian economy moves by commercial trucking at some point in the delivery chain: goods, groceries, building supplies and services. If it moves, it usually moves on a truck. When fuel costs rise, shipping costs rise, and when shipping costs rise, the price of what Canadians buy rises. That is how inflation gets embedded in day-to-day life. (1650) It is not just trucking.”
“If someone were to ask my constituents a simple question, would they rather have a plan that delivers about 25¢ a litre of relief for the rest of this year or a plan that delivers about 10¢ a litre for a few months, especially when higher prices mean that Ottawa collects more GST and corporate tax revenue, most Canadians would know the answer right away. They would prefer our plan. The question today before the House is whether we will do what Canadians need, not partially, temporarily or halfway, but with a plan that lowers costs across the economy and protects Canadians from price shocks beyond their control. Suspending only a small part of the tax temporarily while leaving these other federal charges and regulations in place is not a full solution.”
“The problem is clear: When costs surge due to higher fuel costs, the cost of everything rises, and when government adds layers of taxes and policy-driven costs on top of that surge, it makes a bad situation worse. Now we have a new development. The Prime Minister announced that the federal government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting next week and lasting through the summer, but only to 10¢ a litre. That confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: Taxes at the pump matter and Canadians need relief. Let me be clear: Canadians deserve relief. If the government finally takes a step in that direction, I think we should acknowledge it, but we will also point out what it has left on the table.”
“On affordability, the Prime Minister removed the consumer carbon tax, but kept the industrial carbon tax and so-called clean fuel regulations, policies that continue to raise costs across the economy. On housing, instead of removing the GST completely to build supply, the government offered narrow measures that can increase demand without fixing the supply problem. On getting big projects built, the government asked for and received the support of the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5 , but instead of designating and then streamlining these projects to get past the red tape, it has yet to designate a single project as a national interest project, as was named under the legislation. All of these are half measures that may create some headlines but limit the real-world impact to Canadians. That takes us to today's motion.”
“Some will say that global events are to blame, and that may be true, but Canadians do not elect us to describe the problem and then do nothing. They elect us to find solutions. This is why the Conservative official opposition has led the debate on gas prices and affordability. We are not shrugging our shoulders while Canadians struggle, nor have we simply named the problem, but we have proposed solutions. What we are seeing, again and again, is that when Conservatives put forward solutions that work, reality catches up and the government is forced to change course. There is also a pattern Canadians can see clearly, which is the government consistently taking on only a fraction of the solution.”