Dan Albas · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“I'm going to point out that the minister is avoiding questions and imply he's hiding something. Does this bill let the government or its friends make money off land they shouldn't?”

“It looks like the government is wasting money buying land for a project that isn't even approved yet. Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for this.”

Oral Questions

Business of the House

2026-05-26

“I'm arguing with you over a petty detail to score points and distract from the substance.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-26

“I want the government to check all major airports and show us the results. The current plan won't work. I don't trust the part-time minister to fix this. Does he even know what's going on?”

“I'm angry that airport security in Canada is so invasive, but it still doesn't catch everything. Someone could sneak a missile through! The Minister of Transport needs to take responsibility for these security failures. He should apologize to Canadians who have been detained abroad because of our weak security measures.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-25

“A TV program said criminals move drugs through an airport. The Minister didn't talk about it. The government spends a lot on security for one sports event. I don't believe the government will make us safer.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“You say we're being divisive and creating misinformation. But the mayor of Richmond says the city was the only one arguing that these land grants extinguished Aboriginal title, and that the federal and provincial governments didn't do enough to protect private property rights. Is the mayor lying and being divisive, or is he just calling out your failure to protect property rights?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, all throughout today's debate, Liberals continue to say that it is Conservatives who are being divisive and creating misinformation, among even worse items. Now, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, wrote in a letter from the city to all the landowners who were affected that the “City of Richmond was the only party at trial arguing that the Crown grants of fee simple necessarily extinguished Aboriginal title. The federal and provincial Crowns were each labouring under litigation directives that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment”. Does the member believe that the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, is offering misinformation and being divisive, or is he simply calling out both the federal and provincial governments for their failures to make arguments to protect B.C.'s private property owners' rights?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Liberals are messing this up. British Columbians are scared. We could fix it if the Prime Minister would just listen to Conservatives.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-07

“I'm accusing the Liberals of harming homeowners to pander to indigenous rights. I want the government to defend homeowners instead of making a priority out of indigenous land claims. I say this government is hurting families who own homes and secure mortgages. I blame the government's priorities for uncertainty in BC's land registry.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia land title certainty is foundational. Families buy homes, secure mortgages and plan their futures on the strength of our land registry. Today, homeowners in Richmond are being told that certainty no longer exists because of the Cowichan decision. That ruling followed a federal choice. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. Why is the Prime Minister choosing Liberal ideology over British Columbian homeowners by continuing to tell federal lawyers not to defend their private property rights?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“A judge said messing with private property rights would hurt reconciliation. The government is making it worse. We need to work together to fix this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have Liberal members rise to talk about this all being part of reconciliation, but a judge in New Brunswick had a very different interpretation. In fact, when there was talk in a court case in New Brunswick about extinguishment and how it related to private property rights, the judge identified that the one way to dial reconciliation back in a negative direction would be to put the private property rights of the people who I mentioned at risk, those homeowners and business owners who have done everything that has been asked of them under the law. It causes frictions between first nations in British Columbia and Canada and the interests of homeowners and business owners, and now the government is making it all worse. We need to work together to get back to a situation where everyone is comfortable with those relations moving forward.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government should listen. Just repeat after me: private property rights. When will the government make good on its empty promises? I want property rights to be protected. Why won't the government give us concrete action?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if members read any newspaper in British Columbia, they are going to read about the mayor of Richmond, who has broadly raised this issue while the province and federal government said nothing. They made clear representation on private property rights. All we are asking in this motion today, and of Liberal members, is to start listening to British Columbians and those they have elected who have been raising this alarm. They have had lots of time. The fact that they are now sending out members from British Columbia who are just reading talking points, basically giving the same line without concrete action, says to me that they are prepared to vote against this, because they truly do not protect the private property rights of British Columbians or anyone else.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You keep saying everything you don't like is misinformation. But this litigation guideline is real. It tells lawyers not to defend property rights. Saying that's misinformation means you're the ones misleading people. The Prime Minister could fix this, but he hasn't. You can't pretend the guideline isn't there just by calling everything you don't like misinformation.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Liberal members continue to throw out any concerns as misinformation. What is not misinformation is that in 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still enforced today despite multiple calls by Conservative members for the Prime Minister to show Canadians that he means what he says. He has yet to take us up on that offer. We have Liberals saying that it is all misinformation, but it is on the government website. If it is misinformation, is the government now the biggest misleader on this particular case? If we read the website, that is what it says. The member cannot say otherwise because it is the truth.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“People in my riding are asking if we will protect their property rights. The government isn't giving clear answers. I want the government to clearly defend property rights and lay out a plan to undo the chaos and uncertainty their inaction has caused. Will the Prime Minister match his nice words about property rights with real action this time?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole. This past week, Canadians, particularly British Columbians, received deeply troubling news. A new survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that nearly three-quarters of businesses plan to reduce investment and one-third plan to reduce hiring because of the growing uncertainty around property rights and land title in this country. This uncertainty is not theoretical. It is very real. It affects homeowners, employers, municipalities and investors who believed that, in Canada, fee simple ownership meant certainty. Since the Cowichan ruling, I have received calls, and I was a bit shocked because Westbank First Nation is in the heart of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna and sits side by side with the City of West Kelowna. I have had people who live in Westbank First Nation ask me questions about their property and whether their investments are safe. This is not surprising because today's debate is really about a simple question that people in my riding are asking: Will the House of Commons stand up for Canadians who followed the rules and invested their life savings, or will it allow uncertainty and inaction to undermine private property rights in Canada? Business leaders are clear about what is driving this concern. It is the increased costs, the delay, the complexity and the unpredictability caused by this court ruling, as well policy reversals and an ever-changing legal landscape. As a result, investment is being shelved, jobs are at risk and confidence is eroding. What we already know is alarming. Fee simple titles held by the city of Richmond, the federal government and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority are now potentially invalid or ineffective due to this ruling. What we do not know yet is what the full impact will be on private landowners, people who worked hard, followed every rule, paid their taxes and put their entire life savings into their homes and businesses. They are worried, and rightly so. When these concerns are raised, members opposite respond by accusing critics of fearmongering or spreading misinformation. This is what Liberals tend to do when they do not have a substantive answer to serious questions, because these are serious questions. To those making those accusations, I would offer this: It was the Liberal government that adopted litigation directive number 14. That directive restricted the arguments Crown lawyers could make in court to defend fee simple property rights. That is not rhetoric. That is documented policy. Litigation directive number 14 is not fearmongering. It is a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for the Prime Minister and his government, one it has refused to explain still being on the books and that is instructing lawyers within its employ. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly why his government has continued with this directive, and he has continued to avoid giving a clear answer. Why did the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to stand up for property rights when it mattered? That remains unanswered, but what we do know now is that, after the damage has been done, the Prime Minister says he disagrees with this court decision. He now says that private property rights are fundamental and that his government will defend them. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister will have that opportunity with this motion. This opposition day motion gives the Prime Minister a chance to match his words with action, something that is increasingly difficult for the Prime Minister. Will he vote to defend private property rights, or will he vote against them once again? This motion proposes practical, substantive and achievable steps to help restore certainty and confidence. First, it calls on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case by clearly arguing that fee simple ownership has priority. I have heard the term “viable arguments”, but that does not necessarily mean they are making every argument. Second, the motion specifically calls for litigation directive number 14 to be replaced with a clear requirement that the federal government aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. Third, the motion requires that no agreement be concluded without explicit protection of fee simple property rights in all future negotiations with first nations, so everyone understands and has some certainty, something failed to have been done under this government and its predecessor. Fourth, it demands a concrete plan from the Prime Minister within 30 days, complete with timelines, to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. Finally, it establishes a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights in Canada. These are not radical proposals, and they are not ideological. They are responsible. They only become controversial if one does not believe that private property rights are fundamental to our system, both our system of capitalism in this country and our Westminster system. We have always honoured these things, and the lack of certainty that we see today is causing real harm. It is freezing investment, encouraging litigation and forcing Canadians into a legal limbo with no clear path forward. This is despite the Prime Minister and all his Liberal members of Parliament, or as I have heard it described in the Toronto Star, his deputies, describing everything that the Conservatives say as not being true. It should not be this way. Behind closed doors, negotiations are occurring with public tax dollars on the line, while affected Canadians are left without consultation, clarity or protection. Lawyers disagree and experts disagree. Lawsuits are multiplying, and the government is failing to protect the interests of some of the very people it claims to serve. British Columbia already faces enough challenges. One can look at softwood lumber, American tariffs and an NDP provincial government, which appears to have no idea of what it is doing. We do not need to add property rights chaos to that list, but I guess it already has been. We have to make sure that we pull that off the list. This motion is a way to do that. The Prime Minister often says that we should focus on what we can control. Today, with this motion, the House can control something. We can restore certainty, and we can defend property rights. We can stand up for Canadians who, by every account, have done everything right. That is why I will be voting in favour of this motion. The Prime Minister, himself, has said, “private property rights are fundamental”. Today we will see if his words mean anything. I urge all hon. members to support this motion and send a clear message that, in Canada, private property rights matter. We hear the concerns raised by British Columbians. We know we have the means to address them. We are dedicated in service to ensuring that their rights and concerns are addressed, not in some far‑off land at some yet-to-be-determined time, but here and now, in this Parliament, in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-29

“The government keeps spending more but they just keep repeating talking points at us. Even the newspaper says their budget is bad. They need to admit their budget is still full of spending and debt. Do they really think doubling the deficit is responsible?”

“The Liberals made a lot of promises but they're just spending more money we don't have. Justin Trudeau said he'd be different but he's piling on debt. Now he wants every family to pay thousands more. Was he lying about change or lying about how more debt would help? Either way, he broke his word.”

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“I want the government to say why it is treating this company different from other companies. The company is making a lot of money. How did they get this special treatment?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member has raised, in his comments today, a very good example. If the oil and gas sector was regulated the way that the Minister of Transport is suggesting Bill C-28 should be regulated, it would be all-powerful and it would be for arbitrary reasons. I think industry participants would say it would not be fair if certain companies were insured and certain companies were not insured, and if certain companies could get a permit to start drilling and certain ones could not. That is an opaque system. It would not be tolerated in any investment-oriented enterprise like oil and gas. Could the member talk a bit more about how MLS lobbied the PMO and ministers over 150 times and somehow acquired this lease where it is getting $55,000 a day from the federal government?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm focusing on how this bill puts a lot of power in one minister's hands. He could play favorites and distort the space market. Who would benefit from a system this arbitrary?”

“You didn't answer my question about security. The space bill leaves out intelligence agencies. We need to fix that.”

“I want to look good by saying nice things about a former Liberal member and astronaut everyone likes.”

“I want to talk about a bill and suspicious spending. I want to hint that it will help Liberal friends.”