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 4 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge. Today's debate is an important one because it goes directly to the affordability crisis Canadians are living through. Often in this place, along with much of the media, we tend to focus on things we most disagree on. Today I will start with what I hope we can agree on: Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living. They want practical solutions that lower costs now. That brings me to fuel prices. In recent weeks, Canadians have seen sharp increases in the price of gasoline and diesel. Families felt it immediately, and so did farmers, truckers, tradespeople, small businesses and anyone who depends on transportation.”
“For 100 years, the Peachland Legion has withstood the test of time, and I am confident it will stand steadfast for generations to come. I invite the House to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Peachland Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to share with the House that on December 23, 1926, the Peachland Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69 was presented with its charter. I am proud to note that this original charter, issued by the British Empire Service League, still hangs on the wall of that legion to this very day. The Peachland Legion was established in the aftermath of the First World War by returning soldiers, marking an incredibly proud moment for the small community of Peachland, British Columbia. For nearly a century, the legion has supported veterans who have served in the Second World War, Korea, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and more recent theatres where our men and women answered the call to serve. May we all stand in support of our veterans, who have sacrificed so much for our great country.”
“I respect the work that the member for Oxford has done on the legislation, and I ask that all hon. members support the jail not bail act.”
“It became abundantly clear at our town hall that citizens in places like Kelowna and throughout the Central Okanagan are fed up. They want to know that when police charge and when people are prosecuted, people are held accountable and not simply released, only to harm families and communities again and again. The jail not bail act would answer that question by doing what the government has refused to do: put public safety first, clearly, consistently and without apology backing up our RCMP officers, who work so hard to stop the crime, only to have those individuals released, while they are stuck with the paperwork and are arguing for more resources to deal with them. I want to conclude by acknowledging the many members on all sides of the House who care about justice and public safety.”
“Recently I met with the City of Kelowna, along with the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations , to discuss this issue. Representatives presented documents in which their executive summary stated very clearly that federal bail reforms have prioritized release over detention, even for chronic offenders. Their conclusion was clear: Kelowna supports presumptive detention and stricter bail conditions for chronic offenders. I want to say that I stand with the City of Kelowna on these points, and I believe that most Canadians do. In fact, we held a town hall to discuss how we can stop crime in our neighbourhoods. We visited community leaders like those from the Uptown Rutland Business Association. We walked the streets with them to hear their concerns about criminality and public disorder.”
“It would also prevent individuals convicted of a major offence within the last 10 years who are already out on bail and who are charged again from being released yet again. Importantly, it would toughen the legal standard itself, replacing the vague threshold of substantial likelihood with a more realistic and protective test of what is reasonably foreseeable. The bill would also close loopholes by prohibiting anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. Someone who has done a crime should not be able to be a guarantor for another. This would require meaningful enforcement of guarantor responsibilities. The bill would also require non-residents to surrender passports where appropriate. These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense protections that put victims and our communities ahead of repeat offenders.”
“First, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, not an afterthought and not one factor among many but the guiding principle that judges must take into consideration. Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, applying reverse onus bail to the most serious crimes: firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and serious assaults. These are crimes where the burden should rest squarely on the accused to justify their release. Third, the jail not bail act would strengthen bail decisions by requiring judges to consider the accused's full criminal history, not just the offence that is immediately before the court.”
“Despite Bill C-14's solutions, the fundamental problem remains untouched, and that is the principle of restraint. It still exists. (1125) The principle, enshrined by the Liberal majority in 2017, continues to prioritize release over detention, even for repeat and violent offenders. It is the philosophical core of catch-and-release, and it is precisely why incremental changes since that time, whether they be Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament or Bill C-14 in the current Parliament, will not fix the problem. That is why the jail not bail act is necessary. Unlike Liberal half measures, the jail not bail act would confront the problem head-on.”
“I thank him for the time he spends away from his family, educating Canadians on the problems created by the previous government, and for the solutions being proposed by him as a member of Parliament, a Conservative member who believes strongly that this country and our streets can be safe again. The legislation reflects the concerns being raised in our communities by police and by provincial leaders across the country, and it puts forward a clear, principled alternative to the status quo. Canadians have heard a lot about government attempts to fix bail laws, including Bill C-14 . While some amendments are welcome and have been pushed by our caucus as supportable, I want to acknowledge that on this bill, we have tried to work in good faith with the government.”
“We all know the damage that has been done to our communities over and over, and the real damage to families and their lives. I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the terrific work of my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the families, particularly in Kelowna, whose advocacy has given rise to what we now know as Bailey's law. This brings me to the legislation before us today. Before I go further, I should say that I thank the member for Oxford for his leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the jail not bail legislation, which squarely puts public safety back at the centre of bail decision. I thank the member for his contributions.”
“Last week in Kelowna, a prolific career criminal, someone who had 67 criminal convictions, was once again released on bail. Can any member of the House guess what happened next? We all know the answer: This individual was released back into the very community he has repeatedly victimized, despite an extensive record that clearly demonstrated a pattern of reoffending. The situation became so serious that the RCMP took the unprecedented step of issuing a public warning upon his release. This is not normal. This is not normal policing. This is what happens when law enforcement is forced to manage risk created by bad legislation. Out of respect for families affected by violent crime, I will not be retelling individual stories in this debate. We all have these stories.”
“In that decision lies the heart of what Canadians now recognize as a catch-and-release justice system. The results have been devastating. Between 2015 and 2022, violent crimes increased dramatically. The number of murders rose, gang-related homicides surged and violent gun crime more than doubled. These are not abstract statistics I speak of. They represent real victims, real families and real communities, our communities, paying the price. It became so serious that every provincial premier, regardless of their political stripe, jointly wrote to the federal government, demanding bail reform. That alone should have been a wake-up call to the seriousness of the problem, yet here we are in 2026 still debating how to clean up a mess that was created eight years ago by the former Liberal majority government.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the chamber and to speak on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Crime is one of the most serious concerns facing my riding today, with Kelowna also represented by a Liberal member, sadly becoming ground zero for the consequences of failed Liberal bail policies. Before I speak directly to the jail not bail act, I think it is important to remind the House how we got to this place. In 2018, for purely ideological reasons, the former Trudeau Liberal government passed Bill C-75 , amending the Criminal Code and fundamentally reshaping Canada's bail system. Although there were several changes, the guiding principle was very clear: Release should be the default position at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a serious issue and a serious question, one that I will answer. First of all, I believe that ultimately the changes promoted by the Bloc and the government that remove the good-faith clause when it comes to religious worship will inevitably be challenged in a court under the charter. I believe it will go from lower to higher courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. The challenge is that we will have an individual who has to go through the weight, burden and stress of defending their charter rights all the way through the system only to find out that this law was not well thought out and is not charter-compliant.”
“Mr. Speaker, that member spent almost his full career in law enforcement. He knows how critically important it is for law and order to be expressed with clear rules and clear enforcement. As I have said, we have existing rules around violence and incitement. What we need is less talk from politicians and more backing of our police forces so they can make those charges, present the evidence and have the Crown prosecutors prosecute those who have threatened Canadians. Those who have harmed others need to be seen to be held accountable. Right now, we have so much division because no one feels like anyone is in charge. We need to have law and order, and we need to have enforcement.”
“Bringing it down to the attorney general level at the provincial level takes away a valuable safeguard. That is one of the principal reasons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member has to say, and I am sure my mom probably sent him friendship cookies to get him to say things like that publicly. I cannot see many other Liberal members saying that about me. The respect is mutual. What I would simply say is that I have fundamental differences on Bill C-9 . For example, the current law has it so that the Attorney General of Canada must give approval. That sets a very high bar. Unfortunately, as I said, there is divisiveness. In my province of British Columbia, there have been many divisive statements said by different ministers from the provincial government. We have seen where a former minister, a Jewish woman, was basically cast out of that caucus and cabinet for her viewpoints.”
“That is precisely why I will be voting against this bill, as every single constituent I have heard from has asked me to do. I would encourage the members of the government to listen to the concerns of their constituents as well and do likewise. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has listened today and taken my comments into account. I hope that those comments track with their own experience and that they will have a similar response to my own.”
“We cannot risk getting this bill wrong solely due to Liberal arrogance. We do not need more polarization, more weaponization or more divisiveness, all the things this bill could create more of if we do not get it right. I met with a local pastoral association in my area of West Kelowna. The members of the association felt particularly targeted by this good-faith exemption being drawn out just for religious worship. They said, “It says 'academic', so a professor could say the same thing from the same holy book and receive a good-faith exemption. Someone could put on a play or put the same scripture on a painting and receive the exemption, but those people who are in a church in front of people of faith in pews, rather than students at a local university, could not.” They feel targeted.”
“That is not to mention judicial activism, where some rulings are raising serious concerns. This is our current environment when it comes to enforcement, prosecution and sentencing. This is creating more division and, I would submit, a less tolerant attitude among many Canadians. Targeting faith, even though the stated intent is not to do so, would carry serious consequences and repercussions. Keep in mind that it is the very groups and organizations this bill is supposed to be trying to protect that are sounding the alarm bell on this. Why would we not want to listen? In conclusion, while I would agree that the intent here is not nefarious but meant to be well-meaning, I submit that we need to take a step back and listen to those who are raising concerns. We need to address those concerns in a meaningful way.”
“They simply discounted and ignored, arrogantly saying, “Everything you are saying is wrong and we are right,” a typical Liberal response in regard to these kinds of concerns. In many ways, we are here again, like it is Groundhog Day, where it is not just the official opposition Conservatives who are warning the Liberals about this bill. It is a huge group of different organizations, all saying the same thing, because the Liberals continue to refuse to listen. They continue to push this into law, and then it is out of our hands as members of Parliament. Once that happens, it is in our communities and, again, it could be weaponized against the very people it is said to protect. More often than not, we are seeing that enforcement and public safety have become increasingly selective based on what group yells the loudest.”
“I know Liberals will say, “That is not who we mean to target by targeting the religious exemption for elimination.” For the purpose of this debate, suppose we were to give those Liberals the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that what the Liberals intend to happen in this proposed bill may not be what would end up happening once it becomes law. When the Liberals changed the Criminal Code in provisions around bail, I am certain they did not intend those changes to result in a massive increase in serious crimes, yet that is precisely what occurred, as prolific offenders get the benefit of the doubt and are back on the street again on bail instead of being in jail. The principle of restraint is a principle that has created a big problem. We in the official opposition did warn the Liberals about changing that. We all know what happened.”
“Instead, they are getting Bill C-9 , which is a classic way for the government to attempt to say, “We are doing something, and this is what we are doing.” It is a process, but there is nothing concrete. As we all know, one of the most controversial parts of Bill C-9 is the proposal to remove the religious exemption clause. I think we can all agree on that. However, exemptions for “a legitimate purpose”, such as an educational, artistic or journalistic purpose, would not be captured by this offence. (1550) In other words, there is a recognition in this proposed legislation for exemptions, just no longer for religious reasons, despite charter protections to the contrary.”
“We know how that approach worked out for the former Liberal prime minister and the former NDP leader, but this is not meant to be a history lesson. This is a bill that the Liberals like to tell us is from the new Liberal government, even though it is beginning to act and sound, quite frankly, a lot like the previous Liberal government. Let us pause for a moment here. It is not a secret that we already have existing laws that can deal with hate and that are completely and totally ignored right now. There are laws that are in force. When those groups, and lately it is often Jewish Canadians, look to government for leadership, they are not getting answers, accountability or action.”
“The only place I hear that is from Liberal MPs in this place, and that is really saying something. When some of the groups this bill seeks to protect say there are serious problems with the bill itself, I submit that we should all be listening. However, the Liberals have now decided that they do not want to do that. They have decided that these groups and individuals do not deserve to be heard. We all know that is wrong, yet here we are again. I say “again” because, of course, that is how things would often work under the former Liberal government. With the help of the NDP, the Liberals would ignore the concerns of everyday Canadians and say, “Trust us,” and, “We know what is best for you,” while they imposed one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-enforced solutions.”
“That one single bill could unite so many of these different groups and organizations to raise very serious concerns should be an alarm bell for every member of this place, and even more so as some of these groups and organizations are intended to be better protected by the bill. They are also sending a strong message to all of us, and members do not have to take my word for it. I am certain that every member in this place has similar concerns shared to them by their constituents. In fact, if there is one thing I can say, it is that of all those I have heard from in emails or phone calls, or with whom I've met in person, not one single person has ever said, “Bill C-9 gets it right. Please support it and pass it.” Not one single person in my riding has said that to me.”
“However, from time to time there are also bills that come forward that are so controversial that they may draw serious concerns from all sides of the political spectrum. Bill C-9 is one of those bills. As we were reminded yesterday in this place, in the speech from the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South , Bill C-9 has raised serious concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Egale Canada. I am sure all members would agree that this is a very diverse set of different organizations.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I am also pleased to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore . I have been fortunate to have spent enough time in this place to have sat on both sides of the House, which I consider a great honour. Over my time in this place, I have witnessed a great many bills come and go. Some of them make it to royal assent and others do not, for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes there will be consensus on a bill, when a majority of members of this place support a bill to move forward. However, more often than not, there will be disagreement. Usually, that disagreement might be based on ideology.”
“Mr. Speaker, producers in my riding find it easier to ship a bottle of wine to London, England, than to London, Ontario. Trade walls are blocking the growth of producers across this great country. The Prime Minister tells Canadians that we need to focus on the things we can control. Parliament has control over Canada Post and interprovincial shipping. I invite the Liberals to steal this idea. They could do so today. Will the Prime Minister focus on what we can control, steal my bill, finally tear down these walls for all Canadian consumers and producers, and free the beer?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says Canada should strive to be our own best customer. Well, Conservatives could not agree more, and that is why we want a one Canadian economy where a craft brewer in the Maritimes, a distiller in Ontario or a vintner in the Okanagan can sell to any adult Canadian anywhere in this country. However, the Prime Minister's Canada Day deadline of last year to fix this has come and gone, leaving beer, wine and spirits stuck behind trade barriers. Will the government finally live up to its own rhetoric, support our common-sense Conservative bill and allow Canadians to finally be our own best customer?”
“I hope we can move past the prohibition era and the interprovincial trade barriers that still dog our country by working together across all parties to modernize a system Canadians have waited for for far too long. I would gladly work with all parties on accelerating this private member's bill or have the Minister of Finance include this framework in his next budget implementation act. If Parliament can pass this bill, then we can finally free the grapes and raise our spirits to a glorious pan-Canadian toast from coast to coast to coast. Let us free the beer. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“This bill creates a simple national framework for direct-to-consumer shipping. It ensures that Canada Post provides consistent interprovincial service and allows trusted carriers that follow the same standards to compete and offer Canadians more choice and better service. It replaces a patchwork system of outdated provincial rules with a single predictable coast-to-coast system. This matters for small wineries, craft breweries and distilleries that want to reach customers across the country. It matters for Canadians who want access to the best of every region. It matters for Parliament, because this is something positive, practical and long overdue.”
“Bill C-262. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a bill, seconded by the member of Parliament for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay , that brings long overdue modernization and national consistency to how Canadians can buy and ship Canadian wine, beer and spirits across provincial borders. As the Prime Minister often reminds us, we should focus on what we can control, and Parliament can control this. Canada should be our own best customer, not a place where our producers face some of their toughest barriers. Right now, it is still easier for a B.C. winery to ship to Texas than to Toronto. That makes no sense for consumers, small producers or a modern Canadian economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we can all ask the question of what we would do with $1 million, but I need to take a moment to think about $90 billion in one project, in one particular area. We could fix up the Trans-Canada Highway. We could establish northern Arctic ports. We could establish much more productive ports that would actually carry out some of the things the government says it is all about, increasing and diversifying our trade. We could spend $90 billion in a lot of different ways. I think the House needs to consider where we should be putting our money.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is absolutely important and imperative for Parliament to decide whether the best way to proceed is with Alto and whether Alto is the best regulatory body. It is a company, not a tribunal. Using an independent body such as the Canadian Transportation Agency would give a great deal of certainty to the communities affected and to property owners who are very concerned at this time. I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois and other members for working to improve this, because the Minister of Transport does not agree with us.”
“Mr. Speaker, what was said about Alto's authority is absolutely false. [ English ] It is anything but absolute. The government holds all the cards. It decides if there should be consultation. There is nothing in here that actually requires the government to do what we originally asked of the minister , to have an accelerated CTA process whereby communities could be heard and an independent tribunal could come down and weigh in on where the public interest is and where the private interest is, to make it so that it is fair. For the member to say that is fearmongering, no, that is called making a suggestion. That is called a win-win. Unfortunately, by taking the side of Alto and ultimately all of the authority that has been given—”
“As the member for Northumberland—Clarke stated previously, information is what gives people certainty. Unfortunately, through this particular bill, Bill C-15 , the government has put no onus on Alto to do that. Again, Conservatives support those affected property owners. We feel that the government has not looked out for their interests, but if the Liberals do not, the Conservatives will.”
“There would be no independent tribunal that could be appealed to. There is that, and again, freezing someone's assets on short notice is totally waiving many of the protections found in the Expropriation Act. When the government says it wants to be exempt from long-standing law so that it can give the insiders of Alto the ultimate authority, I think that the government has overreached. Conservatives will not support that type of process. Therefore, we will be looking to support reasonable amendments that start to take into account and to pull some of that power back to the property owners, because these property owners are worried. They are concerned, and so far, these consultation processes are consultation in name only. They are not meaningful, and they are not assuring the communities.”
“In every single procurement that the federal government goes through, and the Bloc Québécois member for Mirabel reminded us of this in the House, the federal government does not always do as it says it will. In fact, it can happen that the government will expropriate or freeze someone's land but then never use it, and there is nothing in Bill C-15 that would protect people from these things. We have a process set up by the government that would essentially allow it to play the hero and Alto to play the villain. We have now a situation whereby Alto essentially has been given the run of the road and could literally run over communities, go over traditional roads and infrastructure, and divide communities without even having to say it will fix it and build an overpass. There would be no process for that. Alto would get to decide.”
“Instead, Bill C-15 would just wipe all of that out. We offered the minister that, and the minister, just like with all these things, gave a tin ear. He would essentially be giving the keys to the castle to Alto and letting those communities fall into the moat. It is simply the worst way to run a procurement. Are there some reasonable amendments that have been brought up at report stage? I am happy to say that there are. The idea is that if a property owner is frozen and maybe they have a barn or hen house that burns down or a water or flood event happens, they should be able to restore that property. That is a simple courtesy to the people who are there, but I will also say that I have some tremendous concerns, because we always talk about the front end of expropriation and the frozen process, but there is also the back end.”
“Speaking of where the line should go, there are going to be cases where properties will have a crossing, and there will be many properties that will not. As we heard from previous members, for a property owner to suddenly find that the most direct path they have taken for 20 years to get to the hospital will be closed, and that there will be no overpass that will allow them quick access, has a tremendous effect on people who need to make life decisions, such as being close to health care. It also means routes are going to be slowed down, so an ambulance ride that would take 10 to 15 minutes might take over an hour now. These are things that are going to be decided by Alto, not by a tribunal that hears the evidence and that says what is reasonable given the stated goal of the project and given the community's very valid concerns.”
“They would be told that they could not make improvements to their property, and they would be trying to attempt a sale. I said to the minister and committee that this is not fair, but the minister simply said this would all be ironed out through that process. (1840) I should even take a step back. We challenged the minister to look at an accelerated CTA review that would not just allow the project to proceed with timeliness but also provide a process whereby communities could formally submit their thoughts. Instead, Alto is running a consultation process, and it is not the same as an independent tribunal, such as the CTA, that can review all the evidence and make a determination as to where the line should go.”
“They are near the end of their long career and want to be able to sell at a firm price, and suddenly they are told they cannot make improvements and their land is essentially frozen. As such, if they were about to sell their farm lot to their neighbour, whom they have known for many years, and suddenly the neighbour says they have zero ability to predict whether they will be able to use the land in the fashion that they planned for their model, this would simply drive the value of that property down. Who would blame that neighbour, and who would blame someone else for wanting to come in? It is so draconian, what the government is calling for, that they could actually say no to new improvements. While someone is going through this process, they would be given very short notice.”
“There is the Expropriation Act, but that is a long-standing act that decides how government should best proceed to work with property owners to have certainty, to treat them with respect and to actually give them an independent process to use to contest when expropriation happens. However, the government, in its attempt to be the hero, would simply throw all of the messiness to Alto by essentially, with Bill C-15 , abridging those property rights and the normal, usual process that would be followed through the Expropriation Act. When the minister came to committee, I asked him specifically. I said that he would give this power to Alto and essentially freeze people's property. He said that no, it was not like that, but one can imagine being a farmer who is just about to sell.”
“Essentially, when it comes to the designation of a line, the government has had a very short process for communities that would see this line, if it is ever finally created, divide their towns and their streets and, as we have heard from the previous member, affect their ability to access things like health care. These are important conversations that are not to be taken lightly. In fact, property rights are something that Conservatives believe in and stand for. We believe there should be a firm rule of law when it comes to how property rights are standardized, and obviously it is not common law solely.”
“Look at all the great things we are doing.” We will have a project with very scant details that was first announced by the previous prime minister and then re-announced by the government and cited as part of the building Canada legislation, Bill C-5 . By the way, the Liberals still have not gotten around to designating it formally under the act, as is required by law. This is a process whereby the Liberals simply say, “Look at us. Look at how great it is,” and then throw the implementation, not just to the bureaucracy, but in particular to Alto, a Crown corporation with a private component that goes with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, in the beautiful interior of British Columbia. Bill C-15 is an omnibus piece of legislation, and the Liberals, in their various forms of government, like in the Trudeau era and now followed by the new Prime Minister , have staked out that the omnibus is a perfectly legitimate piece of legislation. They throw essentially everything, including the kitchen sink, in there. What happens when we throw in the kitchen sink? It means we cannot keep our hands clean anymore. One of the problems that we have in this particular bill is around the high-speed rail network act. The government is making an effort to get in front of an announcement and say, “Look at us.”
“Mr. Speaker, Cassidy deVeer and Krista Paine from the Central Okanagan Canadian Home Builder's Association expressed many of the same concerns to me when they visited about the national building code and increased costs. I give the member that point. In the bill, it talks about developing land and constructing housing in Canada. That is better than what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done with funding Chinese vessels outside of Canada. It is nice to see that the Liberals have actually put some limitations in the bill. As I read through the entire bill, there is no designation to say that it must use Canadian products, such as wood. I would simply ask if this member believes the government has made a mistake. It says it is going to use Canadian wood, but that is not in the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, food inflation is double what it was when the Prime Minister took office and double that of the United States. Food bank use has more than doubled, and now bankruptcies are up, the highest they have been since the financial crisis, clocking in at a shocking 10.6% in British Columbia. Will the government admit that its taxes and deficits are driving Canadians into food banks and into bankruptcy, or will it just claim that everything is fine, proving that it is totally out of touch with reality?”