Dan Albas · TranslatePolitics.ca

Statements by Members

The Economy

2026-06-18

“The Prime Minister is out of touch. People are struggling! Look at all the sad stories. The big spending he promised to cut is causing the problem. I blame him. Vote for us instead.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act

2026-06-12

“I'm asking you to say something nice about my party.”

Private Members' Business

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

2026-06-11

“This bill is trying to push manufacturers to make more durable products. That might sound nice, but it will actually make them more expensive. I think it's bad to force higher prices on consumers and meddle with foreign manufacturers. I'm against this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is also a pleasure to be speaking today about Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. In a former Parliament, I served as the critic for the environment for the Conservatives. One of the big criticisms I had of Liberal policies was about the Liberals' promise, in one of their platform pledges, that they would make all home appliances Energy Star. One might think that Energy Star sounds like a very good thing. If everyone had Energy Star appliances in their homes, they would have access to the lowest electrical usage machines available in Canada or in North America for laundry, dishwashing and all things. However, many people do not know that, first of all, Energy Star is an American designation that essentially says that to be Energy Star, a product has to be among the top 25% most energy-conserving products out there. Someone might ask what is wrong with that. The first thing it does is it raises prices, because energy-reducing technology costs more. It usually uses advanced technology and chips, which also costs more. Essentially, if a person is a private citizen of low income, like a pensioner, is someone who is starting out or is a single mother, and suddenly their dryer, washer or dishwasher blows out and they have to go to the local store, they would only get access to a quarter of the inventory out there, with the most expensive products only. 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. I will quote the preamble: Whereas Canadian households bear significant costs when they have to replace electronic products and essential home appliances prematurely; Whereas consumers increasingly depend on electronic products and essential home appliances in their everyday lives; Whereas product durability and repairability help protect consumers, reduce household expenses and boost the competitiveness of a responsible economy; Whereas transparency about the useful life of products and the support available for them fosters a fairer and more competitive market; And whereas Parliament considers it desirable to establish a national framework for products marketed in Canada in order to promote minimum standards of durability and repairability; These are all noble things, and I am happy to see the Liberal Party, or at least one member, recognize that we should all be focused on affordability. This exactly opposite to their approach in previous iterations. The Trudeau government was trying to raise standards to make things more costly. Now this particular member is doing a U-turn. Where have we seen this before? It is in other environmental areas, such as the carbon tax. Many of the people who are currently sitting in the Liberal Party used to say that Conservatives should support a carbon tax, which would save Canada, lower our emissions, stop forest fires, and everything else. During the 2021 election, a minister of the Crown said to me that I had a “moral failing” for failing to support their increased emissions targets, which were going from 40% to 45%. Because I would not support that increased goal, they said I had a moral failure, yet now the same Liberal Party members of Parliament have done a U-turn, and so much so that even the former Quebec lieutenant has said that he does not feel that he can be effective in that caucus anymore and has simply said, “I'm out.” It is very interesting to see these changes, and I am sure that some members opposite would understand why some of us feel like we have political whiplash because of the quick changes. It is really important for us to point out a couple of things. First of all, this particular bill tries to push manufacturers on the aspect of durability. One thing we have to bear in mind is that none of these manufacturers are here in Canada. We are very integrated north-south. In the North American market, almost all of the manufacturers for washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are in the United States. Obviously, some come from places like Korea and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that this particular bill is trying to push manufacturers to do things differently when they are not here in Canada. Therefore, there is, first of all, that disconnect in the approach that is taken. The second thing I would say is that the Liberals always seem to believe they have an outsized influence on these things. If a manufacturer is in the United States, who are they making their products for? They are not making Energy Star products specifically and marketing only them. They are selling to a wide variety of people. One of the biggest challenges here is that if we are asking to make things more durable, industry will say this makes them more expensive. How does that work? Well, if something is more durable, perhaps it requires more steel. If something is more durable, perhaps it uses less plastic. To make something more durable, perhaps it has to use a more expensive alternative refrigeration system. Again, these are important questions to be asking, because, essentially, asking for something to be more durable and wanting it to be cheaper are contradictory concepts. This is being placed in a far-removed conversation, because they are not Canadian manufacturers and the manufacturers do not consider Canada to be their primary target. In fact, we benefit here in Canada by having access to other markets because the economies of scale in places like the United States give us cheaper products. If we were to suddenly say to them that they have to do these things, when they are not our manufacturers and are not manufacturing things with the Canadian market in mind, that conversation would not go anywhere. This bill states this in the “National framework” component: The Minister must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial governments responsible for consumer protection This is an interesting part, because provinces can, if they choose, set a level playing field when it comes to things like warranties. 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. It is one of those curious aspects of our Constitution, to wax eloquently about our Constitution for a moment, that at the founding of our country, we gave authority to deal with these large manufacturers to the provinces. The provinces can enforce basic standards of contract, which include things like warranties. However, the federal government would be expected here to create, through the Minister of Industry, a framework that would affect things all across the country and a group of companies that are not Canadian. I am opposed to this particular bill, but I do look forward to hearing the arguments of other members on it today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

2026-06-11

“I'm saying Bill C-26 is a fake process. The government can already make deals with provinces to spend money on housing. I think this bill is just a show to make the minister look good after failing to do enough on housing. The minister should admit this bill is just a distraction from his lack of action.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground, but ultimately Bill C‑26 is a sham of a process. Why? It is because the minister and the government already have the ability to come to provincial agreements. He could go to the NDP government in our home province of British Columbia and do a deal, and then go to the Minister of Finance and have it funded through the estimates process. To be wasting time in this chamber is, in my belief, more to address the minister's shortfalls when it comes to being seen as politically competent and when it comes to supplying housing, a priority that was made out in the last election. Will the minister not just admit today that Bill C‑26 is a fig leaf for his government's lack of action and a waste of the time of this House?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Main Estimates, 2026-27

2026-06-08

“Stay on topic! Talk about the launch pad project and the military's involvement.”

“You think this Maritime Launch”

“I want you to know this is a real problem. But I don't actually have a federal solution. I'd rather you ask the province for help.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this debate to the floor. It is a deplorable situation where people are exploited, particularly in their golden years, out of everything they have made and hope to pass on to their children. I appreciate the member doing that. One of the challenges is that bank officials do not necessarily understand, and when someone comes in who seems to have full use of their faculties, they are loath to either start asking questions or even stop a transaction. Provincial governments can make a big difference. Right now, if someone loses the ability to make good judgments for themselves, oftentimes a court order has to be received by family members who are concerned. Basically, it is like a light switch, saying that someone who had autonomy to make their own decisions is no longer able to do that. I know the member has Mr. David Eby's number on speed dial. Is he prepared to talk to the province about changing the provincial laws so they are not like a light switch?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government isn't being transparent. They say they're solving a problem, but they haven't really said what the problem is. I want the national defence committee to make them hand over documents about this deal.”

“I don't want to talk about your thing. I want to talk about my thing. The government is taking your money and giving it to a private company. The company is making big profits. A year ago, they almost went bankrupt. Seniors are almost bankrupt too. But the government bailed out the private company, not seniors. That's what I want to talk about.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about $20 million that would be allocated from the Department of National Defence and given to a private company. As much as I appreciate the member's concern for seniors, the fact is that if we as an opposition, whether the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens or the Conservatives, simply talk about anything other than what the government is actually doing, it is taking our money and giving it to a private interest. There are already signs of huge profits being taken for a company that, a year ago, disclosed to its investors that it was not a going concern, meaning it was close to bankruptcy. I recognize that under the Liberals, not only are seniors close to bankruptcy but MLS was too. Where did the government choose to put its money in bailing out MLS versus seniors? That is what we are here to talk about, and that is what I will be talking about here tonight.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like this spending. Government is giving $200 million to a company but it won't even own the thing. Norway did it for less and they own theirs. There are better things to spend money on. If we need this the government should own it, not some company.”

“I want to complain about a program that spends money in another riding. I don't like deficit spending or programs that help Liberal insiders. I think spending on those programs is wasteful.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes. I want to begin where we should always begin, with judgment. Archibald Lampman, a Canadian poet who worked right here in Ottawa, once wrote, “The pulse of the great machine goes on forever, dead and blind, and no voice or sound of human will disturbs its deep and ceaseless grind.” The reason I share this is because Canadians are watching the decision about Maritime Launch Services in such bewilderment. They are asking if this is an actual attempt at Canadian space sovereignty or something else altogether. Many who have looked into this decision closely have questions. The more they look and the more they research, the more this looks like a decision that was hastily made and that just happens to support well-connected Liberal insiders and lobbyists surrounding Maritime Launch Services. The Liberal members will stand in this House and argue this $200-million expenditure is a necessary investment to secure Canada's place in a global space economy. They will justify this spending, just as Liberals always justify deficit spending, to grow the economy, meet the moment, invest in our future and protect our sovereignty. We have heard it all before, over and over again, with the superclusters, the SDTC green slush fund, planting billions of trees and subsidizing EV battery plants. I could go on and on. Liberals will always find new ways to burn tax dollars on projects that benefit Liberal friends and insiders, but these projects always fizzle out and leave nothing but debt and unanswered questions behind. Let us look at the so-called space sovereignty spending, the $20 million in this allocation. If this was truly a national investment, we would, of course, be building a national asset. As an example, when Norway decided it needed its own sovereign launch capacity, it acted with the discipline of a sovereign state. It built its own infrastructure, it owns the land, it owns the pad and it owns the capability. It has an asset directly under its control. Who owns NASA? The people of the United States through the U.S. government. Who will own Maritime Launch Services, the spaceport that we are talking about? This is where it gets a tad murky. At the present time, online information suggests that 26% of the ownership is held by individuals, close to 12% is listed as institutional owners and the remaining balance of 60% is unknown. This is for a national asset, something that the Liberals tell us is necessary for our space sovereignty. In other words, the Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what other democratic countries are doing when it comes to protecting and creating space sovereignty. This means we are not building a true national asset. Instead, we are building a private company's balance sheet. We are paying $200 million for the privilege of using a facility we do not own, under terms that strip away our sovereign leverage and hand it to a private entity. That is the difference between acquiring an asset and assuming an obligation. They are not the same thing. Make no mistake, this is giving away public tax dollars to create private equity, a scheme that a Brookfield investor would no doubt approve of. The government claims this is about growing the economy, yet the math reveals a different reality. This is not a market player; it is a public dependency. When 97% of a company's revenue is derived from a single taxpayer-funded contract, that is not a commercial enterprise. That is a ward of the state. We are told that this is a burgeoning spaceport, yet look at the reality at Spaceport Nova Scotia this week. We are being asked to cheer for suborbital test flights that generate zero revenue and serve only as public relations demonstrations for a foreign firm. In this case, we have a launch happening very soon with T-Minus Engineering testing their technology on our soil. Who is T-Minus Engineering? It is a privately held Dutch company. The government's position relies on the claim that we are buying capability, but are we really? How can this Liberal government claim to be buying capability when the regulatory framework to govern that very capability does not even yet exist? Now, the Minister of Transport had admitted in this House that we needed Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, to establish a proper framework. Meanwhile, the Liberals are bypassing the legislative process, stretching the outdated Aeronautics Act to fit rocket science and pushing the machine forward without the very safety, environmental and financial guards they admit are necessary. Let me just say this again. Two foreign-owned, Dutch Barracuda rockets will be tested suborbitally, and they are paying no revenue to Maritime Launch Services. Through public disclosure, we can see that this is, again, a company 90% of whose revenue is from one single contract with the Government of Canada. The government claims this arrangement protects the national interest, but it is also ignoring that with these tests it is putting on right now and the launch pad, the Government of Canada bears the ultimate legal and financial liability. As proposed within Bill C-28, the minister gets to pick what private operators are indemnified and what public taxpayers will pay in case of a catastrophic accident or spill over the ocean. Those things do happen. This would fall on the Government of Canada. Again, if these rockets fail, cause damage or contaminate our water, the responsibility does not reside with the public firm, which is the Dutch company I was mentioning, nor with MLS itself, but with the Canadian taxpayer. We are socializing the risk of catastrophic failure while privatizing the potential gain for shareholders and lobbyists. Let me address now the financial absurdity at the heart of this deal. The provincial government lets this land for roughly $13,500 per year, yet, through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. This is not an investment. This is an excessive, indefensible transfer of wealth. While the public carries the liability, the corporate structure shows all the hallmarks of a venture designed to enrich the insiders rather than to launch satellites. We have seen massive share dilution, with hundreds of millions of shares issued while insiders reduce their own exposure. The Liberals have been totally silent about this. This is not how a healthy, productive market behaves. This is an inversion of market principles, where the government is using public money to insulate a company from the rigours of competition, or from the risks that come from the business itself. The government's position is that we must pay this price to play this game. My position is that we are paying a premium so private corporations like MLS can play the game. Some might ask why Conservatives are not ambitious enough, why we are not for the type of investment this represents for our space sovereignty. Well, ambition is not the issue here. We all want a robust Canadian space sector, but ambition without discipline is a policy of failure. By the government's own test, the capability is not demonstrated. The value is not realized. Ownership is absent, and the risk is entirely public. This is not an investment. This is an obligation with downside exposure. Canadians are paying up front, bearing the risk and carrying the liability for a capability that does not yet exist. We are being asked to trust the great machine as it grinds onward, indifferent to the taxpayer. As Conservatives, we refuse to participate in this gamble with other people's money. For these reasons, we cannot support this allocation. Again, I would just remind the government that this is not a case of problem and solution, where the problem is a lack of space sovereignty and the solution is MLS. This solution has been imposed on the Canadian taxpayer. Conservatives will not support it, and we will fight against a government that puts its own needs and those of insiders before our sovereign ability to advance this field in a proper fashion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to attack this program as wasteful so my party can claim it would spend money better.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-04

“Shirley in my riding can't afford groceries. She and her friends think the government forgot seniors. The government needs new solutions, not just recycled rebates. Tell Shirley why she can't afford things. Is it because we're in a recession or just a technical recession?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-02

“The hon. member and I disagreed on many things. We had a lot of arguments. But we were always professional and respectful. I thanked him for his service. Being an MP is hard work. We have staff who help us. They don't get enough credit. They should be thanked every day. Some MPs continue to serve Canada even after they leave Parliament. The Prime Minister asks them to keep helping. They say yes. I think they could ask more former MPs to help too. I wish the hon. member well. We disagreed but I respect his service.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the departure of the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano, who will be leaving this place to serve Canada abroad in a new capacity. The member and I have spent a good deal of time on opposite sides of some very important debates, such as on net-zero legislation, the 2 billion trees initiative and broader Conservative concerns about the government's environmental approach. Those disagreements were real. I stand by them, just as I am sure the hon. member does. While most of those exchanges were during his time as the minister of the environment and minister of natural resources, I also want to thank him for his service as the minister of fisheries. I know he cared very much in that role about salmon policy, and it is always welcome, as I have said many times, to have another British Columbian voice in Ottawa, particularly one in a position of authority. In fact, when it comes to the debates we had, I suspect we may both continue to believe we were on the right side of those debates. Perhaps the only fair way we can resolve that is to compare notes in the years ahead, say, in 2030, and maybe again in 2050, when the results of those policies are clear. What is worth noting is that even through those disagreements, we never lost the ability to have a conversation. Whether it was in the House, at committee, at the parliamentary gym or even when we found ourselves seated next to each other on a long flight, there was always professionalism and mutual respect. As a fellow British Columbian, I can attest to the travel demands that come with representing a riding on the west coast. It is not always an easy schedule. I recall mentioning to the member at the gym that perhaps in his new role, he might finally find himself ahead of events happening in Ottawa rather than living life feeling three hours behind. I recall one moment during COVID at committee when I yielded my time, and of course, members would know that the opposition never has tricks for ministers when they show up at committee. When I yielded my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to question the minister on his net-zero bill, in that instant, a minister's staffer sprung, or I should say flung, into action, diving onto the desk, pulling one book out and somehow switching it with a completely different book. It was a small moment, but it allowed the minister to switch the answers fitting the perspective of a Conservative to that of a Green member of Parliament. It may have been a small moment, but it reflected not only the preparation but also the strength of the people we count on. Moments like this remind us that none of us do this work alone. We often rely on dedicated staff who work behind the scenes, often under pressure, to help us perform our duties as elected officials as ably as possible. They may not often be recognized, but they should be, and we should thank them not just today but, I believe, every day. There comes a time when many who serve here look for new ways to continue contributing. Canadians have been well served by former parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels who have stepped into roles abroad. It was Prime Minister Harper who began appointing experienced political leaders such as Gary Doer, followed by Gordon Campbell. Prime Minister Trudeau continued this practice, with Stéphane Dion and John Horgan of British Columbia. These individuals said yes to continuing to serve and to putting their years of insight and experience to work for Canada in a new way. I suspect having a prime minister make that personal call helps in one's decision-making. I would just point out before I finish that there are many experienced parliamentarians who have since left active political life whose insight and perspective could likewise be drawn upon. On that basis, I wish the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano well. While I have said we have disagreed, I respect his willingness to serve and have no doubt he will continue to do so in his next role.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-29

“I'm using my time to thank an opposition MP and say the government messed up. Their big expenditure didn't fix the problem. Is this really the best way they could spend your money?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for standing up in this House on the very important topic of air passenger protection regulations and the government's absolute mess of it. The member mentioned that we are in a recession and the economy is contracting. What is not contracting? It is the backlog of the CTA. It has around 97,000, perhaps even 100,000 cases in backlog. That means people are waiting three years to have someone hear their case. Instead of the government fixing the system and simplifying the rules, it provided $75 million over three years to make the CTA process faster, and by this particular provision in the bill that she mentions, it shows that it has been a complete disaster. Could the member please let us know if she thinks that this is the best use of her constituents' money in this bill and by the government?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“If airports get sold off to private owners, they'll suck out all the money for profit, raise fees on people flying, and leave the airports with no money to fix things. This is a bad idea.”

“The government wants more power to collect information on airports. Has it told Parliament how much the airports are worth?”

“You're putting all the risk on the public and all the profit in private hands. Is this even a real partnership? I'm not sure you know what the word means.”

“You talk and talk but never answer simple questions. I ask again: are taxpayers taking all the risk for your 'public-private partnership'? Yes or no?”

“The government should tell taxpayers how much it's spending to buy all this land.”