Dan Albas

Mr. Speaker, last year, I warned the government that wildfires, landslides and accidents regularly shut down Highway 97, leaving Okanagan residents stranded. The Liberals responded that they were committed to working with provinces to find a solution that works for everyone. Since then, the Bald Range wildfire cut my region in two, and this week, a serious accident closed the Bennett Bridge for hours. West Kelowna mayor-elect Stephen Johnston said, “we need immediate action to create greater stability”. Will the Government now honour its commitment, work with British Columbia and upgrade the FSR 201 before the next closure becomes a crisis?

Mr. Speaker, there has hardly been a more challenging time for Canada's small wineries, craft breweries and distilleries. My bill, Bill C-262, would allow Canada Post and other carriers to ship their products directly to Canadians across provincial borders. When I tabled my bill this past March, the minister responsible said he supported the goal of removing these barriers. With President Trump's ban on Canadian alcohol imports taking effect next week, our small producers need action. When will the Liberals get off the sidelines, adopt my bill and let our producers sell their made-in-Canada products directly to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna to present e-petition 7258, in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-262 in order to allow beer, wine and spirits produced by Canadian producers to be shipped by Canada Post or other trusted carriers to anywhere in the country. This is in recognition of the work done by Ron Kubek of Lightning Rock Winery in Summerland. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has put a ban on Canadian importations. Now is the time for the government to act and to help out producers such as Ron Kubek and all the great small family wineries, distilleries and breweries across this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I know that in question period it can be very difficult to have everything running the way you would want, but I will bring to your attention that the hon. member, the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency, in his response to a Conservative member's question, did indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to use a member's last name. In fact, the use of the term “long-term” effect, is salting his statements—

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary, being so well briefed on the subject, will be able to shine some light on it. In part 3 of Bill C-39, there is a significant change to the geographic certification process. I would ask the good parliamentary secretary to please speak to it, to explain exactly what the government is trying to do and how significant this change would be. It used to be that only a union could ask for certification of this site, but what the government is planning is quite different than that. Also, is the government going to be putting any kind of charter statement on those provisions in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals wanted to say they were going to fix supply chains, they created a supply chain office. When they had issues with building homes, they suddenly built Build Canada Homes, which is a very original name. When they had issues with major projects, they built the Major Projects Office. In this bill, Bill C-39, they want to deal with a national trade corridor, so they are going to create an office to deal with that. Does the member see a pattern, and does he think any of these things are helping on any of the issues I have mentioned?

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification. As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member. Instead of cutting red tape, the first part adds regions of national interest and additional layers of administration. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way?

Mr. Speaker, on TV this weekend, the transport minister gave a master class in dodging simple questions. When asked if airport privatization will hike prices, he said he could not say no. He actually promised partially regulated fees. If a pilot announced that the landing gear was partially working, nobody would fly, and under this government, soon no one will be able to afford to. The Liberals are out of touch and costing Canadians more. Is the minister so out of touch that he thinks a partially regulated price hike is a bargain for families, or is he selling our airports just to enrich Liberal insiders and friends?

Mr. Speaker, it has been 11 years, and it is getting worse all the time. In fact, the minister's dodge ball routine in the House might win him points with the Prime Minister, but every time he ducks, the Canadian taxpayer behind him takes the hit. Canadians asked for lower airfares, not a new Liberal surcharge on visiting grandma. The Liberals are all talk and no results. Our Conservative plan is to save Canadians money. Which is it? Is the minister going to admit he has completely given up on keeping air travel affordable for families, or does he just want to turn our airports into a country club for the wealthy and elite?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the leader of the official opposition's speech today. I would like him to comment on the following examples. I have noticed a pattern with the Liberal government and with its predecessor. In 2023, the Liberals established a national supply chain office, because they were all concerned about supply chains. They created the office, and yet we see food inflation being quite high in Canada. It continues to be a concern, especially in my riding. We saw, in 2025, in Bill C-5, that they created a Major Projects Office that is supposed to get big projects built. As we have seen, and as the member has said, zero projects have been built or have been approved by that office. We now have the Minister of Transport creating a national trade corridor office to do the same thing. Does he see a pattern and is this bureaucracy actually helping or hurting?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia, I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver—Capilano on his victory and welcome him to this chamber. I remember that when I came to Ottawa, my predecessor was also a minister. I know how difficult it is when people say that we have big shoes to fill. I took it as a challenge. I hope the member does too. In the member's speech, he talked about a lot. I would like to hear how his election was, what he heard on the streets of his riding and what his priorities as a member of Parliament in this parliamentary session are.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the administrative burden. Under Bill C-39, proponents would be allowed to do preliminary, early site work, but only if the minister deemed it in the public interest. Why is the government creating such subjective ministerial discretion instead of just simple, clear, predictable rules? Why add to the red tape?

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is my honour. I would also like to take a brief moment to welcome our newest members in this place. I am certain I am not alone when I say that a member's first time sitting in the chamber is one they will never forget. Mind you, things work a bit differently these days from when I first came as a new member of Parliament. Much like our new members of Parliament, I too first joined this place as a rookie MP on the government side of the House with a majority, only in those days, if a majority government introduced an omnibus bill the same way the Liberal government has with Bill C-39, the crowds went wild, and I do not mean in a happy way either. Whether “anti-democratic”, “dictator” or “bully”, the accusations and media headlines were rampant. Heck, omnibus bills were considered so bad that in one election, the Liberals even promised that, if elected, they would never, ever use them, and yet here we are. To be fair, I always looked at omnibus bills a little differently. I went on the record at the time to suggest that when facing challenging times, it is better to be accused of trying to do too much instead of too little, and indeed, this bill proposes to do some interesting, but also some very different, things. Many have suggested the bill could have and should have been split up. We are still early in this debate, and I am sure that topic will be coming up. The Liberals will argue, and I quote them on this, “Canada’s new government has a mandate to build big, build bold, and build now.” Wait a moment. I got it wrong. That is what the Liberals said about the last mega bill that would build Canada strong. Members might remember it as Bill C-5. For Bill C-39, the Liberals' new talking point is, “This legislation will give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Members will, please, forgive me for getting those two quotes just a little mixed up. They sound so similar that it is easy to understand how the Liberals even get mixed up. Now, I credit the PMO's communication shop for creatively saying basically the same thing over and over again, only slightly differently so that, hopefully, people focus more on the words and less on the results. Of course, as an opposition member of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not point out that over this past year, not a single shovel went into the ground for a brand new project that did not exist more than a year ago. There were literally no new projects. It has gotten so desperate that Liberals now try to claim pre-existing projects as proof of progress. “Building at speeds not seen in a generation” was the promise, but in reality, it is about talking about building at speeds not seen in generations, but the actual building part, not so much, and the building part, let us all agree, is really the most important part. Here we are today, once again, with a new bill that would “give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Apparently, the reason nothing has been done over the past year is that we lacked the tools we need. This is the country that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and so much more. It is amazing how over the past 159 years, we have built the greatest country on earth, with all kinds of amazing achievements, but suddenly we no longer have the tools we need to build any more. This begs the question, what happened to the tools? Well, in 2015, the Liberals happened. It is interesting that there is a segment in the backgrounder for Bill C-39 that reads: the [Canadian Energy Regulator] will conduct the assessment under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with the Impact Assessment Agency. Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel. Let me just read that last part one more time: “Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” I hope everyone here heard that. Let us go over that again. Since the Liberals brought in the Impact Assessment Agency review process in 2019, “no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” How many projects? None, zero, zip, nada. That is an incredible feat when we think about it. It has been seven long years and not a single project has ever met the threshold imposed by the Liberals. Here is the best part: along come the Liberals proposing to remove the very same red tape they themselves created. Think of all the lost opportunities over those seven years. It was so damaging. I know that on the government side, there is a particular minister fond of saying, “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives”, unless, of course, it is axing the carbon tax, repealing the electric vehicle sales mandate, rolling back the planned capital gains tax increases or temporarily removing part of the federal fuel excise tax. These are all things that Conservatives called for. However, let us be fair. We did not ask for some of the changes to the Canada Labour Code that are proposed in this bill. In fact, we are having a hard time even understanding where the Liberals came up with some of these proposals. They said they spent the summer consulting different groups, but which groups and where? It all seems a bit suspicious to us. We all know that the bill also includes a new power that would allow the Minister of Labour to intervene to end a work stoppage, but only if the work stoppage is deemed to be contrary to the national interest. That is where this bill becomes extremely concerning for Canadians. The modern Liberal government has gotten into a very bad habit of doing things that serve the interests of Liberal Party friends and insiders, rather than the interests of Canadians. If my colleagues doubt that, I will give them an example. Not so many years ago, the Liberals gave the green light to and approved the Rogers takeover of Shaw. Critics warned the Liberals not to do that and warned what would happen if they did, but the Liberals of course know better. The Liberals promised that more jobs would be created and that rates would go down, and just in case there was any doubt about this, the minister promised that he would watch Rogers like a hawk after the takeover. What happened? Let us go through it. Shaw was popular in my riding. Citizens started bringing in their new Rogers bills with rate increases. Even though they had contracts with Shaw, those contracts were raised by Rogers because the fine print allowed Rogers to charge more for the old Shaw equipment they had been renting. This happened to seniors and single mothers. As for the jobs that were promised by the minister, there is a new Rogers call centre in Morocco, and I am certain that the good people of Morocco probably appreciate those jobs. This was a complete and total massive failure by the Liberals that benefited their friends on Bay Street and sold out Canadians on main street, like my constituents, and across the whole spectrum. As for the minister who promised to watch this deal like a hawk, he will say he does not take any lessons from Conservatives, or, it would appear, from anyone else for that matter, because there were lots of people who warned him. Getting back to the bill we have at hand, it is easy to understand why many Canadians are a tad uneasy when the Liberals say that a Liberal minister gets to decide what is and what is not in the Canadian interest. People who have those concerns, of course, are even more skeptical because the Liberals packaged all of those changes up in a nice omnibus bill. I mention this last point for the benefit of the new Liberal members of Parliament who may be unaware of some of the greatest hits from previous Liberal governments that were authored by members of the current Liberal government. Before I close, I also have to reference that this bill also proposes some changes from an environmental perspective. One of those changes is a timeline to complete certain reviews in one year. At the same time, the Liberals are also promising indigenous communities and environmental groups that everything is going to work out like it previously did, and telling them to relax and not worry. Believe it or not, when you propose to do things differently but promise that nothing will change, that causes people to worry, and even more so when it is buried in an omnibus bill, where some people think the Liberals intentionally did this shocker to avoid proper scrutiny. Now, let us keep in mind that I am simply passing on concerns. Madam Speaker, excuse me. I would like to take a moment to catch my breath.

Madam Speaker, bear in mind that I am merely passing on concerns that others have expressed to me, because, at the end of the day, choosing to introduce an omnibus bill is a choice, and that choice has consequences. We must not forget that there is a reason why a previous Liberal government promised never to resort to omnibus bills. Of course, that promise was sincere, was it not? Surely the Liberals would never make a promise they had no intention of keeping just to get elected, would they? Did they say they were going to spend less? I am getting off topic. For a recap of where we are today, I feel it is a bit like a sci-fi franchise movie. In episode one, the government needed a big bill to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-5. About a year later, when everything promised in year one did not happen, it of course needed a sequel, another new omnibus bill, to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-39. I suspect next year or later in this Parliament we may live to see another so we can finish the trilogy.

Madam Speaker, one would assume that if someone wanted to invite capital to come to Canada we would make sure our permitting system worked well. Maybe the government thought Bill C-5 was enough. Maybe the feedback it got back was not, so now it needs to do a sequel. We will see this member for the trilogy.

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. Recent events include a bomb and shooting threats targeting Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally by the Falun Gong community that showcases traditional China before Communism and exposes these atrocities. The petitioners publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong and to end transnational repression abroad. I would like to thank the petitioners who were key to this: Mike and his friend Kelloway. I would certainly be open to meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, either in his office or in my study, to further discuss the petition. I wish everyone a good summer.

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. Families who do not have the benefit of luxury, million-dollar inflight catering are spending over 120% of their income on food and rent alone. Some Canadians, who are not Liberal friends or insiders and do not receive luxury Liberal appointments, have even turned to crowdfunding to make ends meet. In my riding, the Central Okanagan Food Bank is now serving 12,000 people. That is a 20% increase. Despite record deficit spending after he promised Canadians he would spend less, the Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to take his country into a recession. Make no mistake. 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?