Dan Albas

“I want the parliamentary secretary to explain the major changes to geographic certification in this bill. I also want to know if the Minister of Justice will provide a Charter statement on that part of the bill.”

“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?”

“The government always creates a new office whenever there is a problem, and this bill does it again for trade corridors. None of these offices have fixed the problems they were made for.”

“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?”

“I oppose this bill. The Liberals promised not to use giant bills like this. Their last big bill failed to deliver on its promises, and now they are using another one.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. The Liberals put too many unrelated changes into one big bill, which should be broken up. They say they want to build projects quickly, but no new projects started in the past year, and their own rules have blocked projects since 2019. The bill also lets a minister stop strikes by deciding what is in the national interest, which helps their friends instead of everyday Canadians. Rushing environmental reviews in this bill will also worry Indigenous groups and environmentalists.”

“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.”

“I want the member to answer my question. He claims he opposes red tape, but this bill adds more rules and government bureaucracy. Why does every Liberal solution grow the government instead of getting out of the way?”

“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.”

“This bill creates more red tape. It lets companies start early work on projects only if the minister personally approves it. The government should set clear, predictable rules instead of giving the minister that power.”

“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?”

“I congratulate the new member on winning his seat. I want him to tell us what voters in his riding told him and what his main goals are.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 26 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The government keeps creating new government offices to solve problems, but nothing gets done. They made offices for supply chains, major projects, and trade, but food costs are still high and no projects have been built. I am asking the leader of the official opposition if he agrees that all this extra bureaucracy is hurting Canada.”

“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?”

“Selling our airports will make flying too expensive for families. I want the transport minister to tell us if he is doing this just to make his party's friends rich.”

“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?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 83 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “is he selling our airports just to enrich Liberal insiders and friends?”.

  See full analysis →

“The government is spending 200 million dollars on a spaceport project that we will never own. Norway spent much less to own most of its spaceport. This is a bad deal for taxpayers, and I want an answer about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals talk about the Maritime Launch Services lease they say it is an investment, that somehow it is giving us space sovereignty within Canada. When Norway sought to create its own spaceport, it partnered with the private sector. However, for approximately $60 million of today’s Canadian dollars it was able to own 90% of the asset and partner with a private sector proponent. What we are saying here is that the $200 million going to an asset that we will never own, and for which 60% of the shares are unaccounted for as we do not know who owns them, is a big mistake. It is not a solution, but a bad deal for taxpayers. What does the member have to say with respect to that?”

“Seniors are being scammed out of their life savings. Banks often do not step in, and provincial laws make it hard for families to help without going to court. Will the member ask British Columbia to change its laws to fix this?”

“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?”

In response to a question from Ned Kuruc

“The government is hiding the details on this project. Norway spent 40 million dollars to build and own their own system, but the Liberals want to give 200 million dollars of public money away. We need real answers, and a committee should order the government to hand over the documents.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. The government has gone completely radio silent when it comes to transparency on this. It is claiming that MLS answers a problem it has not properly defined. As I said, in Norway they spent about $40 million to create their own infrastructure, which the people own. The Liberals would be giving $200 million of taxpayer money, financed by bondholders. We deserve answers. Maybe the member might want to go to the national defence committee and ask for a production order in relation to this.”