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 5 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Secretary of State for Sport referenced the “temporary” member for Battle River—Crowfoot . It is in the Standing Orders that we are supposed to use either the title of the leader of the official opposition or the name of the riding. To add any adverbs or adjectives undermines the decorum in this place, and as someone who is part of the government, he should know better.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister often speaks about the levers they can pull. He keeps slamming one called permanent grocery price hikes. His fuel tax fixation adds seven cents today and will rocket to 17¢ a litre, an outright hunger hike hitting every part of our food supply chain. When will the Liberal government finally show some common sense and pull the lever that pauses this food cost explosion, or is it simply intent on letting more Canadians go hungry to protect its radical ideology?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister often says that we should focus on what we can control. Well, I agree. His government controls the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard regulations that have driven our food inflation to double that of the U.S. A family of four now pays $17,600 a year, while two million Canadians line up at food banks, so which is it? Is the government driving up fuel costs to inflate the price of fertilizer and other farm inputs to satisfy its radical targets, or does the Prime Minister not see that taxing the tractor and then taxing the trucker ultimately means less food on Canadians' dinner tables?”
“Does the member believe that the minister responsible should make this her job, in order to fix that one job the patent office has, which is to approve patents that are worthy?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate being in the chamber to hear the speech from the hon. member from Manitoba. She has done an excellent job at the industry committee. In her speech, the member touched upon the need to have more Canadian innovation, particularly Canadian patents that are held in Canada. I know of several entrepreneurs who have told me that it can be years for the patents office, which has one job, to approve patents that can be used here in Canada. Entrepreneurs said that many of them will go to the United States instead, not because they do not want to have the IP here in Canada but because they get protections immediately because the United States has a faster process.”
“Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know about the justice committee right now is that when we are in transport committee and, for example, we are suddenly told that the justice committee has ended abruptly, we get those resources and we specifically say we would like to continue the filibuster to let that member of Parliament have his say and maybe perhaps finally finish. Unfortunately, even with all the extra resources, the chair still ends the meeting early and before that member stops talking so he will again have the floor the next meeting. All I know about this place is that there is a cascading effect, and if this member feels the government is playing games at his committee, I guarantee they are playing games at my committee. This needs to stop.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's intervention really does cause me to think of the reason I am here. As I said in my speech, we are here to be powerful voices for our constituents. I was here during the majority years when I first was elected in 2011. Sometimes I probably gave the government of the day a little too much latitude and not enough to the priorities of members in this space. This member right here is essentially shining the shoes of the government rather than listening to the voices of our constituents. I bet that member's constituents want to see those recommendations from Driver Inc. and also want to see a government that respects parliamentary committees, so we actually have meetings and get business done.”
“I cannot think of anything more important in our transportation system right now than having a safe highway, where we can have a safe, smooth and efficient exchange of goods using our trucking system, connecting with our ports, connecting with our jobs and connecting with our supply chains. This is one of those things where the government needs to listen, and particularly the chairs of the committee, all committees. Just because members do not have a majority on committee does not mean they do not need to follow the rules of democracy, which means basic things like votes and motions. Those are what parliamentary committees are set up for. I look forward to hearing from other members here tonight and answering their questions.”
“Number two, we need to change the undemocratic way that some chairs are choosing not to convene regular meetings during parliamentary sessions, gavelling out or taking advantage of technical situations, such as when translators are switching over. That is undemocratic behaviour that is unbecoming of the House. Lastly is the obstructionism coming from the Liberal Party, particularly one member on the transportation committee. This is not what my constituents sent me here for. They sent me to be a powerful voice as they have sent all of us to be powerful voices for their interests.”
“That is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the members on the transport committee on the opposition side, whether Conservative or Bloc. This member needs to stop and recognize that there are other voices that need to be heard, such as victims. Every day we do not have a step forward on that report is a day when we do not get to do those recommendations, which all members say that they want. It is so important for us to hear from some of those final voices before we give recommendations that could save a life. It could safe the life of one of the Speaker's family members or the life of one of our constituents, so we need to move forward with this. I have gone through a few things today. One is that we need to have an accountable government, with ministers coming to committee within a reasonable period of time.”
“That is purely undemocratic and unbecoming behaviour of a chair who is supposed to be an impartial referee for our parliamentary committees. This chair needs to think deeply on his role. The last one is obstructionistic. (1825) [ Translation ] The member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation keeps filibustering at committee. This behaviour is unacceptable. The Conservative Party and the other party, the Bloc Québécois, want to continue the study on the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada. [ English ] We want to hear from victims and other people who can provide the committee with necessary information. The longer this one particular member filibusters continually, using up all the time and resources, is another day that victims are not heard.”
“I could understand the reticence of a chair to hold meetings, unless there are emergencies, during the off period, during the summer when we are in our constituencies, working with our constituents, but when Parliament is in session and our committees are running, there is no reason why we should not be having regular meetings. During a meeting, we have seen the chair gavel out without the consent of the room, just leave and the meeting is over, even though there were resources, which was confirmed. We had one case where the chair suspended for technical reasons, walked out, and then all the Liberal members went while we were switching over to new translators and used that opportunity to effectively end the meeting.”
“I hope that eventually the members of the transport committee will encourage those ministers or former ministers to appear and to share their expertise so that Canadians can know their Parliament is working and there is accountability for ministers. I also mentioned the undemocratic or anti-democratic behaviour. I have to say, this pains me to no small extent. I work with the member of Parliament who acts as the chair of the transport committee on the all-party cancer caucus. Unfortunately, in his capacity as chair of the transport committee, Conservatives have twice had to invoke emergency powers under Standing Order 106(4) in order to force the chair to convene meetings while Parliament is in session. I will repeat that: meetings while Parliament is in session.”
“Again, let us be mindful that over $1 billion of federal taxpayer money is going to a corporation that is sending that money, effectively offshoring Canadian jobs in steel, aluminum and shipbuilding. We could not get the Minister of Public Safety to come, even though the former minister of transport, in her capacity as minister, wrote to the B.C. government outlining her concerns with national security with those vessels being procured from a hybrid, both military and civilian, Chinese shipyard. The fact that those ministers never came, to allow us to have a complete study, means we still have not been able to do our recommendations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would simply be mindful that no member was mentioned; I was talking about the House in general. I think all of us would consider that a strong presence by all parties would always be a welcome thing in a democracy. At committee, I have found the government and its members to be unaccountable, undemocratic and obstructionist. I will be talking about each one today. Unaccountable is when the transport committee sought to have the Minister of Public Safety and the former minister of transport, who is now just the member for University—Rosedale . We found it was like pulling teeth when we invited them to come and speak about the BC Ferries scenario.”
“Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the good citizens of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Unfortunately, it is to do something that is not in my nature, which is to be negative, but it has to be done. The government and its members have treated Parliament badly. One only has to take a look at the debate tonight. There are Liberal members here, but they are not in sufficient numbers that I would say shows they take this issue seriously—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. In British Columbia, food bank use is entrenched, with about one-quarter of families food-insecure. A family of four will pay about $1,000 more for food next year. We know this out-of-touch Prime Minister does not do his own shopping, but Canadians still have to pay at the till. Will he admit to B.C. families that he does not know a thing about grocery prices and that, under the Liberals, higher bills are the new normal, or will he adopt Conservative ideas to make life more affordable, like cutting inflationary spending and ending the industrial carbon tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal chair's conduct shows contempt for this institution. He has refused to convene meetings three times, and even suspended one for technical reasons before leaving, never to return. Worse, a Liberal MP has been filibustering for the past month, not only resisting hearing from victims, but deliberately delaying recommendations that could save lives. Every day those recommendations are stalled, the Liberals put Canadians at risk. That is shameful. A Conservative notice of motion has been filed, condemning this misconduct. The Liberal chair must decide if he is a political operative serving the government or an impartial chair serving this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal chair's behaviour shows contempt for this institution. He refused to call three meetings. On Tuesday, he even suspended the meeting for technical reasons and then never came back. That is obstruction and abuse of power. We were talking about the safety of our roads and the safety of Canadians. This is an urgent and serious issue. The Liberal chair needs to decide whether he serves the government or Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the previous point the member for Winnipeg North raised. I would like you to look back at the tapes. When the leader of the official opposition started reading from a budget book, you said it was being used as a prop. I think you, Mr. Speaker, need to analyze the use of official resources. Whether it be this fine fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice or a budget book, I think we need some consistency. If someone is directly reading from a text in order to make a point, I think it should be allowed in this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I believe that this year, we are at about $52 billion a year just to cover the debt management program. I remember raising the same questions and concerns with Bill Morneau when he was the minister of finance, when we had just over $1 trillion in debt. Now we are over $2 trillion in just a short period of time, less than 10 years later. We are right to be concerned. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. NDP promised more spending than revenues in its budgets, and it was downgraded. The member is correct that all of us in British Columbia are paying more in debt for the privilege of just servicing the debt. This is not going down on principle. On principle, as a country, we should be saying that we need to pay attention to the lines of where this is going. This is—”
“Mr. Speaker, with both the Liberal Party and the Bloc saying Stephen Harper this and Stephen Harper that, I think they have lost the plot. We just had an election in which the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye hundreds of times, even voters in this gentleman's province of Quebec. [ Translation ] The Prime Minister promised the people of the beautiful province of Quebec and across the country that he would spend less. That is not a promise I take lightly. [ English ] I do not take it lightly when someone makes a commitment, reverses himself and then says we are the problem because we do not understand. The Prime Minister made a promise to all of us that he would spend less, but he brought us a budget that does the opposite. That is the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that member gets really hot under the collar when people remind him that he has supported every Liberal budget since 2015. When Bill Morneau was the finance minister, I criticized him for allowing our debt to rise over $1 trillion. This member said nothing then. We went past $2 trillion, and we are now working our way to $2.5 trillion under the current government, but he is still saying nothing. I would get hot under the collar too if I was upset with myself, listening to criticisms that made me think twice, but that would mean the member would have to think at all. I have to think about that, whether he actually does.”
“He could decide not to finance BC Ferries' vessels built in China and let China finance its own shipbuilding industry, instead of Canada. All of those actions would cost very little, yet the Prime Minister refuses to take them, despite preaching that he would rather focus on things he can control. Instead, he is choosing to spend money, and not just a little. It has been spend, spend and spend. For these reasons, I believe the budget and the budget implementation act must be opposed, just as the Prime Minister argued during the election. We need to spend less.”
“Again, the fiscal anchors are completely adrift. The Prime Minister loves to say we should focus on the things we can control, but he does not follow his own words. He could control how much he spends. He could repeal the regulatory regime the previous Liberals created instead of drafting Bill C-5 to selectively manoeuvre around that regulatory mess. He has not done that. He could repeal the net zero mandate for electric vehicles, which automakers have said will harm their vehicle sales and their interests in Canada, but he has not done that either. He could repeal the industrial carbon tax, which makes Canadian steel more expensive and less competitive against steel from other countries that we compete against. However, he has refused to do that.”
“It is not unlike in the movie with Alec Baldwin, Glengarry Glen Ross , but instead of ABC, always be closing, it is ABS, always be spending. (1330) For all these reasons, I will, of course, be voting against the budget. Frankly, every member on the government side of the House should do the same, because they were elected on the promise to spend less, not unlike the elbows-up promise. However, that is a topic for another day. In closing, I would like to thank all members for taking the time to hear my comments. It is greatly appreciated. I expected the budget to be different. When the Prime Minister talked about the need to spend less, he made an excellent case for why he campaigned so heavily on the commitment. Many Canadians believed he would be the one Liberal Prime Minister who actually did what he said he would do, yet here we are.”
“It is easy to understand why the current Prime Minister criticized that record during the campaign and promised to fix it. Canadians expected a change in course, yet the budget from our new Liberal government follows exactly the same old path as the old one, only on a much larger scale. That is not what the Prime Minister nor any Liberal member of Parliament promised Canadians just a few months ago. In my riding, I have met constituents who have told me they voted for the current Prime Minister because they believed in him. They believed in his promises. After all, bankers are supposed to be trustworthy; they are not supposed to make promises they have no intention of keeping. That, to me, is the real rub. The new Prime Minister is not even trying to spend less. In that regard, he is exactly like the former prime minister.”
“Let us compare that to prime minister Trudeau's last budget, which projected $131 billion in deficits over the same period. Once again, the “spend less” Liberal Prime Minister is proposing to spend twice as much as his predecessor, despite having campaigned on so-called fiscal discipline. From my perspective, this is part of a troubling pattern. Guess what happened every time since 2015 that the old Liberal government set spending targets in a budget. It missed the mark every time. For example, in 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau promised modest deficits to fund infrastructure and invest in Canadians, followed by a cast-in-stone balanced budget by 2019. We all know the result: It was never honoured. The old Trudeau government created a fiscal mess with runaway spending.”
“I repeat: the Prime Minister who criticized his predecessor for spending too much and who promised Canadians that he would spend less is actually promising to spend twice as much. Honestly, who does that? Who criticizes their predecessor for their excessive spending, gets elected on a promise to spend less and then goes ahead and spends twice as much? The $78-billion deficit proposed by the current Prime Minister is the largest in the history of Canada outside a pandemic or global crisis. It is an astronomical figure, no matter how one looks at it. [ English ] That is not all. Budgets, as we know, also outline future spending plans, and here the picture becomes even more alarming. Over the next four fiscal years, the “spend less” Prime Minister is proposing deficits that total roughly $265 billion.”
“Literally hundreds of times at campaign stops across Canada, he looked Canadians square in the eye and told them that he would “spend less”. Not long ago in this place, in his throne speech, he was sharply critical of the former Trudeau Liberal government for dramatically increasing spending and running large deficits. He condemned it for allowing spending to grow by 9% annually and told us that he would reduce spending growth to under 2%. That was a clear and unequivocal Liberal promise. [ Translation ] What are we seeing in this Liberal budget? The Prime Minister , who advocated for spending cuts, announced a projected deficit of $78 billion. To put things in perspective, that is almost double the $42-billion deficit projected by the previous Trudeau government.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join the debate in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. This particular debate is noteworthy, and I will explain why. After 10 years of Liberal budgets under Justin Trudeau, this is the first budget under what the Prime Minister and his cabinet like to call the new Liberal government. Really, who could blame them? We all know that the old Liberal government frequently blew past its budget numbers and ignored its cast-in-stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. The last Trudeau government was a full-on fiscal disaster, so it is no wonder the new Liberal government wants to distance itself as far as possible from the old one. During the election, we heard the current Prime Minister loud and clear. He promised to spend less.”
“Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleague from British Columbia is an excellent addition to this place. I remember criticizing Bill Morneau when he was the minister of finance and they crossed the threshold of $1 trillion in debt. Fast-forward to several ministers since then, and we are now approaching well over $2 trillion. Is the member concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister said he would spend less, and is now spending more money than what Justin Trudeau had in mind last year at this time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I note the arrogance of that answer. He has not spoken to my constituents like I have on this issue. Right now, the only thing that is crossing provincial borders is this Prime Minister 's indecision. A pizza shop is more productive than the Prime Minister because at least it knows what business it is in and knows it needs to deliver in a competitive marketplace. Subsection 92(10) is clear. The power to act is his, so will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind premiers and process? Will he finally stand up for Canada, repeal the shipping ban, axe the industrial carbon tax and build a new pipeline to the Pacific that is in the national interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, on a pipeline to the Pacific, the Prime Minister finds himself in a dilemma of his own making. He, his ministers and his MPs say one thing in British Columbia and another in Alberta, and now he is perched squarely on the fence. Under subsection 92(10) of the Constitution, the decision is his government's alone, so will he side with the national interest to build a new pipeline, or will he bow to President Trump and keep us supplicant to American interests instead of diversifying our energy exports?”
“Does she believe that this needs to be a priority and that the government needs to at least give the money it says it will give?”
“Mr. Chair, as the opposition critic for transportation, I was quite intrigued to actually hear a Liberal talk about transportation. However, this is a take-note debate on softwood lumber, and that had only maybe a touchpoint on it. I would suggest that if the member is really serious about seeing improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, then it is provincial, and unless it is on indigenous reserves, a Canadian Armed Forces base or a national park, it has nothing to do with the federal power. I have a question for the member. Instead of wasting the time given to a very serious issue with a local issue of concern that she is obviously trying to put a little spotlight on for a clip at home, could she comment on the $1.25 billion this government has brought forward, which no companies that I know of or that I have heard of have accessed?”
“Mr. Chair, I just want to say that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford told me that Chemainus is curtailed, not closed, so I wish to clarify the record. However, I would like the member to clarify the record. She talked about significant wins. Has she spoken to anyone who works in softwood lumber, or is this a speech that has been given to her so she can mouth the words? For people in areas like Merritt and Grand Forks, who are seeing no work, and places like Chemainus, which has curtailments that are causing people to leave their apartments and their homes, this is a big deal. I would like an answer from her. What significant wins, and has she spoken to anyone in the industry who actually says that this is a significant win for them?”
“Mr. Chair, after 10 years of Liberal failure to secure a softwood lumber deal, the member says tonight that the Liberals have made significant wins. However, tariffs have tripled to 45%, costing Canadian producers over $10 billion. There are closed mills in communities like Houston, Vanderhoof, Port Alberni, Chemainus, Merritt and Grand Forks. Will the member admit that Liberals look as though they do not care about forestry workers or that this is simply because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating a softwood lumber agreement? Which one is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am from B.C., and David Eby has taken us off a fiscal cliff simply because the province said the exact same things and was downgraded. Now Canadians are paying nearly 50% more on their credit cards than in 2015, while the Prime Minister maxes out the taxpayers' credit card. The Parliamentary Budget Office says the government broke its own debt-to-GDP promise, and Fitch is warning of fiscal slippage. Is the costly credit card budget proof of reckless spending or proof of total economic mismanagement?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the Prime Minister abandoned his own fiscal anchor, the one he claimed was key to preserving Canada's AAA credit rating and keeping borrowing costs low. Fitch warns, “federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration.” Is the Prime Minister breaking his own fiscal promises because he is incompetent or because he just does not care about Canadians' future?”
“My condolences go to his wife, Mary Lynn, his children, Fiona, Andrew and Rachael, as well as Charles, Alexander and Mathew, and their families. I join the Peachland mayor and council in grieving. The district has suggested donations to the Peachland Food Bank, a cause Keith championed. Keith believed in giving back and lifting others up. Let us honour his legacy by doing the same. Rest in peace, Papa Thom.”
“Mr. Speaker, Keith Thom lived his life with purpose. He left a lasting legacy in Peachland and for all of us who knew him. Known to many as Papa Thom, he could light up a room, whether it was through music or a smile. As a dedicated municipal councillor and deputy mayor, Keith embodied kindness and service. He raised thousands for food banks during the pandemic and honoured our veterans, including his father, on his last visit to Holland. This pride showed in small gestures. At our last breakfast, he shared stories of retracing his father's steps in the liberation of the Netherlands, and he gave me this tie, the official tartan of British Columbia. I wear it today in his honour. These small acts of kindness were part and parcel to Keith.”
“There have been nothing but photo ops, fancy meetings and hollow letters of intent. Every time it is wheels up, Canadians are left with higher costs and no results. This is the House of Commons, where leaders should be accountable. Canadians deserve a Prime Minister who delivers, not one who simply racks up the air miles.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is called the House of Commons for a reason. It was created to serve the common people, not jet-setting elites, yet the Prime Minister did not get the memo. How else do we explain a leader who spends more time in the air than in this chamber? He even puts Justin Trudeau to shame. In 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau flew over 127,000 kilometres in 10 months, or roughly three times around the earth. The current Prime Minister , in just eight months, had 28 trips totalling 153,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the globe nearly four times. That is almost a whole month away from Canadians. What do we have to show for it? There is no softwood lumber deal, no relief for steel, autos or aluminum and no progress on Chinese tariffs for canola or our seafood harvesters. Even India slapped new duties on us.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is called the House of Commons for a reason. It was created to serve the common people, not jet-setting elites, yet the Prime Minister did not get the memo. How else do we explain a leader who spends more time in the air than in this chamber? He even puts Justin Trudeau to shame. In 2022, the then prime minister flew just over 127,000 kilometres in 10 months, or roughly three times around the earth. The Prime Minister , in just eight months, had 28 trips totalling 153,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the globe nearly four times. That is almost an entire month away from Canadians. What do we have to show for it? No softwood lumber— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 would still allow judges to release offenders and would still direct courts to apply the least onerous conditions if release is granted. It is the same loophole the member mentioned that let Bailey McCourt's killer walk free in Kelowna just hours after he was convicted of choking her. Why would the Liberals preserve a culture of automatic release when public safety should be paramount?”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the minister to ask me to walk down the aisle with him. Canadians made 2.2 million food bank visits last year, and seniors are sleeping in cars because rent has doubled. However, the Liberal government sent a billion taxpayer dollars to buy boats from Beijing and handed out eye-popping bonuses at the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Why is the Prime Minister using taxpayer dollars to reward insiders and offshoring Canadian jobs instead of helping Canadians afford food and a roof over their heads?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberals, insiders have never had it so good. Canadians, including 700,000 children, made 2.2 million food bank visits last year. Seniors are living in cars because rent has doubled. Meanwhile, the government gave $1 billion to buy boats from Beijing, offshoring Canadian steel and shipbuilding jobs, while executives at the Canada Infrastructure Bank pocketed fat bonuses. They laugh all the way to the bank while Canadian workers cry all the way to the food bank. When will the Prime Minister stop lining the pockets of insiders and start delivering an affordable life for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, they are cutting cheques to China. The Liberals can pretend that this was all BC Ferries' sole decision, but it was the government that created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, filled it with billions of taxpayer dollars and allowed the loan to go forward with no questions asked. Conservatives believe the loan should be cancelled, because if Canadian shipyards, Canadian steelworkers and Canadian jobs do not qualify for support, what is Canadian about it? If the government is more comfortable funding shipyards in the People's Republic of China than jobs here in Canada, why not just call it the “Beijing infrastructure bank” and be done with it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the controversial $1-billion loan to BC Ferries continues to take on water thanks to a CHEK News exclusive that shreds the bogus talking point that these ferries could not be built in Canada. We know that BC Ferries was presented a report that showed that Canadian shipyards could build these new vessels, creating thousands of jobs, billions in economic growth and pride in Canada's craftsmanship. Shamefully, they rejected this made-in-Canada option and instead went to Communist China. With so many Canadian workers at the food bank, can a member remind us again why the Prime Minister is continually selling us out?”