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 6 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is breaking records with the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment. If failure was an Olympic sport, the government would own the podium. The Prime Minister came to West Kelowna, held a press conference and promised to negotiate a win on softwood lumber. He even said Canada would “write our own story”. Well, his story so far is that tariffs have doubled, mills have closed, hundreds of people are out of work and their families have been sold out by the government in places like Grand Forks. If this is the story the Prime Minister wanted to write, was the title he had in mind “How to Fail Big”?”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order about relevance. We know the member is new to this place and does not know the difference between Private Members' Business and public bills. Maybe you could educate him on that and, while doing that, ask him to turn the volume down.”
“Madam Speaker, let us bear in mind that there was an election. There are a lot of new faces here. Many are not just new; they represent different parties than in the previous parliament. They deserve the benefit of being able to consult their constituents and bring forward ideas. It seems to me that those here today speaking from the Liberal Party are very frustrated that new members of Parliament may have questions for them, questions that maybe they do not think are important but that I believe this Parliament will find important. I hope we can improve this legislation together.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very kind comment. My mother used to say that I had a face made for radio. It is important to discuss how best to improve the government's approach, even if the government does not want to hear it. Like the hon. member, I too hope that this bill will be improved.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals tabled Bill C-26 two years before doing anything with it. This is the very first day that we actually have the ability to discuss Bill C-8 , but the government does not like to hear that it is being held accountable. I know that we can improve the legislation, and my constituents have views on it. I would hope the deputy House leader would actually listen and encourage, in a minority government, debate about a very profound piece of legislation that can have an impact on people's lives. This will probably be a once-in-a-generation discussion, so I would hope the member would not simply try to push away that there are concerns with the bill—”
“Conservatives at committee are going to be talking about privacy rights, even if the ministers and the members on that committee do not want to talk about this, because we are there to make sure—”
“He basically said that even though Statistics Canada would anonymize the data, it was very simple to reassemble it, to realign it and have someone's complete information. I can tell members that Canadians care very much about their privacy rights. In a world where we are more interconnected and utilize technology all the time, where our digital thumbprint, so to speak, is everywhere, people care about where that information goes. Under this regime, the government has given itself almost a complete pass when it comes to the management of the privacy of Canadians. (1335) The government would essentially do the same thing Statistics Canada did, saying they could take the information, order the information and use it however they want without any oversight. That is wrong.”
“We called on the chief statistician to account for this new collection of a massive amount of information. By the way, to their credit, someone at the big banks leaked it to the media. That is the only way we would have known about it. We brought the chief statistician of the day forward, who assured the committee that Statistics Canada was going to, basically, anonymize all of the information. Within four questions, that argument crumbled. It crumbled, and so did the collection exercise, because it became quite apparent that Statistics Canada had not informed the minister that it was doing this, something it is required to do under law. I was very lucky to have some privacy experts reach out to me and give me some direction about what to ask, and the chief statistician's whole argument crumbled.”
“I think the Liberal Party needs to listen, in a minority government, to other viewpoints that say this should have happened and it should have passed. Maybe the Liberals could have waited a bit longer, but they did not. They decided to put their own electoral interests ahead of societal interests. It is important to know that it rests with the government, but we are here now. We are offering similar critiques and are happy they were listened to, in part, in the last Parliament and have been incorporated into the bill, but there are still some oversights. For example, with respect to privacy, in a previous Parliament when I was on the industry committee, Statistics Canada ordered Canada's banks to give it holus-bolus a large amount of information, everything from mortgages to debits.”
“It should be on the merit of the idea for the betterment of Canadians. What I will say is when a party, particularly the governing party, is given tremendous powers and uses that authority for its own purposes, that becomes a problem. I can already see some of my friends across the way starting to waver, wondering where I am going with this. When the Prime Minister dropped the writ and effectively launched an election this past spring, there were consequences. The fact that this bill did not make it through and become law is 100% on the Liberal government today. I wanted to make sure I stated that for the record, because when a Prime Minister puts his own government's interest ahead of the public interest, it should be called out, and they should be held accountable.”
“(1330) Conservatives believe strongly in the need to protect our national security and to make sure these critical systems we depend on will function when Canadians need them the most, during times of emergency or if we are attacked by our adversaries abroad. I believe the government understands this issue and is trying to find the legislation necessary. That is where I am going to stop saying what I agree with and point out a few things. It seems the government has smartened up a bit and adopted certain amendments that were pushed by Conservatives at committee stage in the last Parliament. That is a good thing. A good idea should be seen as such, and it should not matter which side it comes from. That is a problem we have in this place. Too often it is on who proposes an idea that one decides the merit of it, and that is wrong.”
“The NSICOP reports talk about how we are frequently targeted by authoritarian regimes. For example, the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing is cited in the reports, as is Russia. There are also non-state actors who will try to hack into our different systems, so it makes sense to people when we say that the government should protect our information, health records, tax records and any personal information we have. People understand that, and they want their government to be secure, particularly when we start talking about national defence or our different security and intelligence systems. However, people do not always assume that the same protections that government encourages and codifies in its own practices are being done in the private sector. Bill C-8 would create a set of provisions to do that.”
“One only has to think about the incident in Toronto when suddenly Rogers flickered and no one was able to access their accounts. In fact, business owners were not able to do Interac transactions, and of course, small and medium-sized businesses had no way to take payment, because many of us rely almost exclusively on credit and debit cards. When most people stop and think about how dependent they are on technology and how interdependent these systems are, they quickly come to the conclusion that there should be something there. I believe, as every member in this place would probably believe, that the government has a responsibility to protect its own systems. That has been done over time. Has it been perfect? No. There have been privacy breaches and attacks by entities.”
“This is a small example of the vulnerabilities that currently exist within our system that hopefully Bill C-8 will address. There are two components to this particular legislation. One, as I was referencing, refers to the Telecommunications Act, and the other would create new provisions surrounding cybersecurity. I think most Canadians understand the dependence we now have on our ability to communicate with one another and access information quickly. If the systems that we so heavily depend on in our modern life were to become compromised, the disturbance that could have is not just about the inconvenience of, for example, not being able to access Environment Canada's weather reports. There could be other issues when it comes to banking.”
“I can only imagine someone trying desperately to reach their family and loved ones or to connect with work to say why they could not be there. To not have the ability to do that caused a lot of consternation in the community. The member for Parkland put forward a motion for us to study this further, and some of the things we found out in regard to it were not reassuring. For example, there is no regulation surrounding what telecommunications companies have to have as backup. Essentially, a telecommunications company, such as Rogers or Telus, often have backup generators, but there is no provision to say for how long. We saw a system strained by a tornado, and the damage and fear were compounded by the telecommunications companies not having sufficient gas in generator tanks for them to continue service after the tornado incident.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in this chamber to talk about a very serious matter: those who are and are not addressed in the bill before us, Bill C-8 . Let me hearken back to a previous parliament when I had my first opportunity to work with the splendid member for Parkland . We were both on the industry committee, and during our time on that committee, Ottawa had a tornado incident. This tornado scared a lot of people and caused a lot of damage to Ottawa. Many people were quite surprised that after about eight or so hours, they were not able to use their cellphones to get in touch with their loved ones. This surprised me, because most people assume that in an urban centre such as Ottawa, there is continuous service, even after a strenuous event such as a tornado.”
“I thank all members for their support of this important cause to strengthen protections for women who are victims of coercive, controlling behaviours and abuse.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to table a petition urging the government to criminalize coercive abuse through the reintroduction of former Bill C-332 . The bill, which has already undergone rigorous legal and procedural review, offers a clear and focused approach to addressing intimate partner violence by specifically targeting coercive control. Families have lived with the devastating impacts of coercive abuse. A constituent in my riding of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has been actively involved in community efforts and advocacy surrounding the issue. Their insights reflect the urgent need for legal reform to protect vulnerable women from this insidious form of abuse. This petition supports reviving that bill in its original form to ensure swift, effective action.”
“Madam Speaker, when Highway 97 shuts down because of landslides, wildfires or serious accidents, Okanagan residents, including cancer patients and essential workers, are stranded. Many are forced onto dangerous, poorly marked forest roads, like FSR 201. The Harper-Campbell governments' successful four-laning between Summerland and Peachland now requires $24 million in stabilization work. As a funding partner, the federal government has a clear obligation to contribute a share. Will the federal government commit to half the costs, so the province can stabilize the corridor and upgrade FSR 201, giving Okanagan motorists a safe, reliable alternative to Highway 97?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for such a serious speech. I know he is a serious MP and will be working on these issues at the public safety committee on behalf of his constituents. Speaking of his constituents, I had the pleasure of representing many of them in the Nicola Valley, and I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the member how they are doing, and if he could please pass on my best to each and every one of them.”
“The proposed divestment of the land by the Government of Canada jeopardizes this important asset, so the petitioners have asked the government to halt the divestment of the land occupied by the Penticton Shooting Sports Association and secure a renewed lease to ensure its continued operations as a community, public safety and family-oriented recreational facility. I would like to thank the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay for her advocacy. Along with me and other Conservative members, petitioners are trying to impress upon the government that it is not too late to stop the process and continue the good works of the facility.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand on behalf of the petitioners for petition e-6572, which is in regard to the Penticton Shooting Sports Association. The petitioners want people to know that the Penticton Shooting Sports Association, which is located on land managed by the Government of Canada, provides essential training facilities for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other law enforcement agencies and community members. The association also does a lot of other things, including hunter education, firearms safety courses and proper firearms training for youth and cadets, as well as of course being a welcoming space for families.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. With so many steel and shipbuilding jobs at stake, it is beyond belief that the former minister refused to push back and demand that these boats be made in Canada. Canadian unions and shipyards deserve a federal government and provincial governments that believe in them, listen to them and, most importantly, stand up for them. When BC Ferries first flagged the deal to the federal government, did the former minister not have a duty to inform the House, and I am asking the new part-time minister, or do the Liberals think Canadians cannot handle the truth?”
“Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail has revealed that the former minister of transport was warned in May about BC Ferries buying ships from a Chinese state-owned shipyard, six weeks before the public was told, yet the minister claimed surprise in this House. I am going to give the new minister the opportunity to break tradition with his predecessor and tell us the truth. Did she mislead Parliament, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that he would be elbows up and buy Canadian. He broke that promise when he rewarded the Communist Chinese government a billion-dollar loan to buy ferries for B.C. as it tariffs our seafood and ag producers. That is not elbows up. It is another Liberal broken promise, another Liberal bait and switch, because the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. Newly uncovered documents show senior Liberals were only concerned about their political interests. They did nothing to cancel the contract and ensure that our shipbuilders could participate. When will the Prime Minister stop rewarding Beijing, cancel this loan and buy Canadian?”
“Mr. Speaker, she is just going to write a cheque to them with no conditions. During the election, the Liberals were all elbows up and talking about team Canada in the face of unjustified American tariffs on steel and aluminum, and I thought it was bad enough that the government has been elbows down since the election on protecting Canadian jobs. Now, does the government not see that by going along to get along with David Eby, it is not on team Canada, but on team China?”
“Mr. Speaker, David Eby, the Premier of British Columbia, has doubled down and made the plan for BC Ferries to purchase four new vessels from a Chinese state-owned enterprise his own. The Minister of Transport has said she will give BC Ferries $36 million this year. Will the minister commit today that she will personally guarantee that not one cent of this transfer will go to the Chinese shipyard? Will she stand up against David Eby's moral failure, support Canadian jobs in steel and shipbuilding and make this transfer conditional on BC Ferries supporting jobs here in this great country?”
“Does the member believe, as I do, that by saying that a provincial premier has a veto, the legislation would essentially create, again, 13 economies and not one national economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically point out that I believe that the member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong was saying that the previous Trudeau government had failed, over 10 years, to create a regulatory environment where private sector capital could form and come together to build big projects, whether they be mines or other forms of infrastructure we need to be successful in our economy. Bill C-5 is literally an admission of that. One of the fatal flaws of the legislation is that the Prime Minister would be giving a carve-out to each provincial premier, and saying that something is in the national interest is essentially saying that it overweighs provincial interests.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech. The last Liberal questioner raised the issue of first nations consultations and made it sound like the Liberal government has that all covered. It has decided to appoint an advisory board. Does the member share my wonder as to why the government makes no legal reference to this advisory committee or panel in Bill C-5 , in legislation? It seems the government wants to say that consultations are part of the law, yet it does not include any reference to the advisory committee it has put together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Minister of Transport's speech here today. First of all, she did mention interprovincial trucking, yet the bill has nothing to do with interprovincial trucking. I would like the minister to account for whether or not she is prepared to show some leadership in that area. More than that, the minister has talked about consensus. Essentially, the Prime Minister has given a veto to every provincial premier. That means that the bill would enshrine 13 different economies by giving each provincial premier a veto. Would the minister please explain why there is this contradiction? We cannot have one national economy if we have 13 different decision-makers when it comes to getting big projects built.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about consensus. When I read Bill C-5 and then I see what the Prime Minister has said publicly, that each provincial premier will be able to have an effective veto, that to me does not say one national economy. It actually enshrines 13 different economies, based on the preferences of each premier. Can the member opposite simply comment on the consensus part being a complete contradiction to the whole aim of the legislation for one national economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's tone tonight. During the last 10 years, we have seen the Trudeau government bring in policy after policy: Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 , the energy cap proposal and, on top of that, the energy regulations. We said at the time that the Liberals are making it difficult for private capital to form in the country for these big projects because of uncertainty. The new Liberal government has put forward Bill C-5 , which basically says that the whole system the Trudeau government put in place was completely over the top and has chased everything away. I know the member has talked about getting rid of some of these other things. Which would he prefer, Bill C-5 or for the government to address the awful regulatory environment created under the 10 years of the previous government?”
“Let me commend you, Madam Speaker, on making that particular loud Liberal voice quiet. I respect your authority and our colleagues here. What I would simply say is this. We came here after a hard-fought election to get things done. I may not necessarily agree with everything in Bill C-5 , but I do recognize that the regulatory environment the previous government created had grown unwieldy and out of control. We could not build important public infrastructure. That needs to change. That is why I am supporting the bill at second reading.”
“Madam Speaker, I will say it once again for my Quebec colleague. It is because the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party agitated against the Harper government's reworking of our environmental system to get private sector formations and important infrastructure built. They used it politically to win elections. That is something they chose back then. By putting forward Bill C-5 , the government, under the current Prime Minister , admits it has gone too far. Would I want it to address C-69 and get a system that works well for everyone instead of using this loophole in Bill C-5 to work around the system and create other issues? Absolutely. Right now, we need to start getting our resources to new markets away from the Americans. That is something the people in Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna have told me.”
“Madam Speaker, this is the arrogance that comes from that other side. They cannot accept a yes. There was an election. I argued that the Liberals had done such a poor job under Justin Trudeau that they actually wrecked our regulatory environment so that private capital formation was impossible in this country. Now, with this Bill C-5 coming forward, this Liberal government is admitting it was a complete failure. Rather than addressing Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 and all the other things that I have mentioned, they are doing a workaround. They won an election. I want to see projects go forward. This is not my first policy option. With the arrogance that this party is putting out while they do this, they should be mindful that Joe Clark thought he had a majority as well.”
“We are left with rather modest steps, despite huge promises to the contrary. At least those steps are in the right direction, but this bill could and should have been much more ambitious. I would like to sincerely thank all members for taking the time to listen to my comments and concerns today.”
“I mention that last part, because none of the Chinese steel is subject to any industrial carbon tax, unlike here in Canada, where Canadian steel remains subject to the Liberals' industrial carbon tax. On an interview with CTV Atlantic, the Prime Minister was clear that steel made by industry would be targeted for increases to offset his political 180° turn on the consumer carbon tax. This, of course, makes our Canadian steel more expensive and less competitive against Chinese steel with no carbon tax. If this Liberal government was truly serious about building one Canadian economy, why ignore the fact that Canadian industries need a regulatory environment that is competitive and that creates incentives for investment that would lead to great-paying Canadian jobs? [ Translation ] Bill C‑5 completely misses the mark on those points.”
“[ English ] A few months ago, when campaigning to become the new Liberal leader, our now Prime Minister flew into Kelowna, and while there he told supporters that he would use emergency government powers to build energy projects. A part of that was the “build baby build” thing we heard so much during the election. Of course, in Bill C-5 , there is no such language about using emergency government powers to build anything. Instead, what they say here is that there must be consensus, and of course, the NDP Premier of B.C., David Eby, has already said “no”. He will not support any new Canadian pipelines built with Canadian steel that export Canadian oil and gas by getting it to tidewater. He will, however, say yes to B.C. ferries built with Chinese steel by Chinese workers in a Chinese state-owned shipyard.”
“Instead of fixing this, which would be the obvious solution, the Liberals created Bill C‑5 , which proposes to circumvent and accelerate these regulatory hurdles through a new political process, subject to everyone's agreement, of course. The exact mechanism of this political process is an enigma. I would like to point out that, in the past, our former Liberal government kept trying to try to buy jobs in the electric vehicle battery sector. As we now know, many of these investments, as the Liberals call them, completely failed, as is often the case when governments pick winners and losers by using politics as a criterion. I also have to come back to another point that concerns me.”
“While the Liberal government will allow provinces and territories to veto major projects, we also have to recognize that many interprovincial trade barriers are erected in exactly the same way when one province essentially refuses to come to an agreement with the others. That is what frustrates me about this bill, because it contains a certain amount of double-talk and mixed messages. I must also point out the obvious. Since 2015, the Liberals have passed several bills, such as Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48 , that have killed many Canadian energy projects. The Liberals know this, of course, but they are too arrogant to admit the obvious. (1625) Fundamentally, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment that is no longer accessible to the private sector.”
“He also suggested that the elimination of these internal trade barriers will create another $200 billion of economic activity into our Canadian economy. I am not certain if this is wishful thinking or wilful political misrepresentation as a result of the recent election. Either way, I submit that expectations have been created that Bill C-5 will just not live up to. [ Translation ] This is not to say that the federal government should not do everything it can to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. To some extent, this part of Bill C‑5 certainly does propose that, and that is why I am prepared to support it. However, I must also return to the need for consensus found in the other part of Bill C-5.”
“Long-time members of this place might recall that I proposed a private member's bill to remedy this and create true free trade in Canadian wine, or so I had hoped. In those days, the NDP was our official opposition, hard to believe now, I know, which looked to slow down my bill. However, with the help of some Liberals, in particular, former Liberal MP Scott Brison, my bill was accelerated and passed in this House and the other place. Immediately after, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia adopted the spirit of my bill; other provinces, not so much. One actually made regulatory changes to block what my bill had achieved. I mention this because the Prime Minister has, unfortunately, made some outlandish statements, promises really. One was that there will be no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1.”
“When I was first elected to this place as someone totally wet behind the ears and a rookie MP, I was fortunate to draw quite highly in the private members' lottery order of precedence. Back in 2011, before the NDP was in power in British Columbia, tourism was not under attack and, indeed, there were a great many Canadian visitors in my riding every summer. Visiting local wineries, even in those days, with over 200 of them, has always been an immensely popular thing to do. Unfortunately, for visiting tourists from other provinces, they could not buy wine at those wineries to take back home with them. Why? Because there was an archaic Prohibition-era federal law that made it illegal to transport wine in person or to have it shipped across the provincial border.”
“In fact, a cynic might suggest that parts of this bill are designed to fail because the Prime Minister just spent an entire election making big promises that he had no intention of fulfilling. Why did he not get anything built, someone might ask the Prime Minister, who could then reply that there was no agreement on what to build. There, I submit by design, is a huge flaw within this bill. However, we also know this bill contains other measures, in particular, under “Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada”, taking action or, in this case, legislatively proposing to take action on internal trade barriers, which have long been a passion of mine. I will expand on that point.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member of Parliament for Mirabel . For the record, Bill C-5 is not perfect and, with respect, there are a few concerns I must point out. Let me start with the glaringly obvious. This bill is dubbed as the “one Canadian economy act”, and yet one of the first things we learn is that provinces and territories must provide consent on major projects. In other words, they have a veto. When a veto is provided to 13 different provinces and territories, we are not creating one Canadian economy. If anything, it is completely the opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who sits on the transport committee with me, for his speech today. The government likes to talk about one national economy, yet we see in the second half of Bill C-5 , and the Prime Minister has said publicly, that provincial premiers are going to have a veto. That means 13 different economies by its very nature. Could the member expound upon whether he finds there is a contradiction here in what the government says and what it legislates?”
“Does the member think that the government has really lost an opportunity, instead of going back to the drawing board and redrawing Bill C-69 , getting rid of the unconstitutional elements and red tape? Is that not where their focus should be?”
“Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal member gave a bit of the nickel tour, and I will give the copper tour, or a penny tour. In my old riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, there were two copper pit mines, one just outside Princeton and one outside Logan Lake, and both companies at the time wanted to expand their operations, but they were actually concerned that they would be subject to Bill C-69 . It would add a whole lengthy process that, in the day, would not be better than the provincial one and would just cost them, as Bill C-69 measures things that are not contemplated provincially or are calculated in a different sense, making nothing but work and paper for accountants.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite having world-class shipbuilders such as Seaspan in Vancouver, BC Ferries has chosen a Chinese state-owned enterprise to build four new ships, even though the Prime Minister has declared China the biggest security threat to Canada. Meanwhile, the Liberals are providing BC Ferries with $36 million, with no conditions to protect Canadian workers. Will the minister grow a spine of Canadian-manufactured steel and make Canadian jobs a requirement for this funding, or will she side with Premier Eby in selling out our ship- and steel-building industries?”