Dan Albas

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“I want the government to support this motion. Local leaders in British Columbia are worried about private property rights. Liberal members are ignoring them and refusing to protect people's property.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberals claim our concerns are false. But their own website still tells government lawyers not to defend property rights. The Prime Minister refuses to change this rule, even though we have asked him to many times.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this motion to protect private property rights. Recent court rulings and government rules have created confusion about land ownership in British Columbia, which hurts businesses and homeowners. The government must defend private property in court and in future agreements.”

“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.”

“The government's new budget adds about $3,400 of debt for every household. It doubles the deficit and raises costs instead of bringing the change they promised. I want to know which of their promises was false.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised change after a decade of a costly Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. Yesterday, they did not get change; they got more of the same. The Liberals are asking every Canadian household to shoulder roughly $3,400 of new debt from a Prime Minister who said he would be different. This costly credit card budget delivers more debt, more costs and more taxes, and it is doubling the deficit while life gets more expensive. Which promise was false, the promise of change, or the claim that doubling the deficit would somehow make Canadians better off?”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “This costly credit card budget means more debt.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since April 29.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill gives the minister too much power over space launches and takes power away from the normal review board. The minister could treat different companies unfairly. Who really benefits from this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I homed in particularly on the fact that the member has mentioned the administrative, arbitrary nature of the minister’s power. First of all, it would all be concentrated in the minister. He would actually be taking it away from the transportation tribunal that usually handles these things. Again, there is very little specificity as to what is in the public interest. The minister could literally give one indemnification rate to one market participant, and another to a different performer, totally distorting the market. Could the member please comment a bit about who would benefit from a regime that is so opaque and arbitrary?”

“This bill has national security gaps. It does not include our intelligence agency or the RCMP, and the space agency does not handle security. Does the member agree the bill needs to be changed to fix this?”

“Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the minister earlier this morning about the gaps in the bill when it comes to national security, he said not to worry and that we would be working with the Canadian Space Agency. However, the Canadian Space Agency does not do national security or intelligence, nor does it have a mandate to do so. CSIS is not included in the bill, and neither is the RCMP. Does the member believe that there needs to be a solid reprisal or a change to the bill to address this?”

“I agree that we should honour Marc Garneau. Even though we were in different parties, I think he is a hero for his service in the navy, in space, and in government.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Marc Garneau. I think this is important, because many of us in the House knew him. In addition to his successful career in the navy, he ended up leading the Canadian Space Agency. Later on he became a Liberal member of Parliament and eventually a minister. I remember Mr. Garneau very well. When I first came to the House, we may have had our political differences, but I have always believed him to be a hero, and I do believe we need to honour our veterans and honour public service. I thank the member opposite for mentioning the service of Marc Garneau.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 51 of 100

  Only 8% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“The government gives too much money to a space company. This bill also gives the minister full power to choose who gets permits. I worry this will only help government insiders and lobbyists.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s big contribution on this topic today, particularly about the uneasy relationship the government has with MLS. It seems crazy to me that something that is rented for $13,500 per year is effectively receiving $55,000 a day from the Government of Canada. Bear in mind that this property is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia. There are other key elements in this bill that would allow the minister to use total discretion in who he can give permits to and under what terms. Does the member feel that this will benefit insiders, well-connected Liberals and lobbyists?”

“The government says this space bill matches laws in the U.K. and the U.S. But the U.K. requires checks on national security, and the U.S. lets lawmakers decide who gets financial protection. Why does this bill do neither?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government has said multiple times that this would align Canada with other G7 countries, like the U.K. and the United States. The legislation in the U.K., the Outer Space Act 1986, literally says that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impede national security. In the United States, Congress decided that the giving of indemnification to participants in the space industry should be decided by Congress and not by the administration itself. Why would this legislation do neither?”

“This bill does not protect our national security. It leaves out security reviews, and the Canadian Space Agency does not have the job or power to keep us safe. Other countries protect themselves from these risks, but this bill does nothing to stop dangerous technology from falling into the wrong hands.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may or may not be aware, but the Minister of Transport, when I questioned him today about the glaring gaps in national security screening, said not to worry because we have the Canadian Space Agency. Well, the Canadian Space Agency has no national security mandate. In fact, the bill itself, Bill C-28, is completely silent on CSIS or any other national security review. If the Canadian Space Agency has expertise, maybe on a technological basis, but no authority when it comes to national security, who is in charge of making sure that our system is not going to be compromised? We can look at the United Kingdom and the United States: They have clear national security to make sure there are not dual-use technologies that can be applied against their people. There is nothing in this bill on that.”

“The space agency is not a security or spy agency. It does not have the legal power to do security checks on space cargo. I am asking the member if he is worried that the minister is relying on an agency that cannot do that job.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is an industrious member of the transport committee. I learn more each time I speak with him. Earlier today, the Minister of Transport told me in response to a question that the people at the Canadian Space Agency would help him make sure that payloads have national security screening. There would be no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS. The Canadian Space Agency is not a security or intelligence body. It has no statutory mandate to conduct national security investigations. It has expertise but zero authority. Is the member concerned that the minister would depend on an agency to do something it is not meant to do?”

“This bill does not require the government to consult our national security agencies before approving space launches. The United Kingdom requires this. This gap puts Canada's security at risk.”

“Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned his admiration for what the U.K. has done, in terms of its space program. In fact, the outer space program act of 1986 established very clearly under the U.K. model that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impact national security. There is no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS in Bill C-28 and no defined national security clearance. This completely contrasts with what the U.K. has. Does this member realize that there is a real existing gap that puts us at risk, compared to our G7 partners?”

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“We need fair competition and the right rules to succeed. Right now, insiders and people using our weak security rules are putting us at risk.”

“Madam Speaker, one might say the question is whether the speaker is working properly. I would simply say that if we have a competitive market with a proper regulatory structure, good things will happen, but right now, insiders and those who would exploit our national security gaps put us at risk.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“Government decisions must be open and clear. Giving one minister the power to make secret choices hurts democracy and the economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I am going to paraphrase the New York Times saying that democracy dies under darkness. When we have darkness and opaque processes, and the discretion of one particular minister who has market-distorting—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 26 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Canada only has one space launch pad because the government gave a failing company an overpriced $200-million lease. A healthy market would have multiple launch pads paid for with private money. We also do not have our own rockets to launch satellites, so this bill still leaves us relying on other countries.”

“Madam Speaker, this is how far down the government has gone, that the members are referring to a launch pad. In a competitive market that is well-regulated, there could be multiple launch pads, but we have only one. We have only one because the government has given a $200-million lease over 10 years, $55,000 a day, to a company that had a lease for the same property from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. In its own corporate notes, it states that this company was not a going concern, which means to the average person that it would be going out of business. Then, miraculously, the company got this lease after lobbying, and suddenly we are all supposed to pin our hopes on it. The gentleman across the way mentioned a company in his riding. We are very supportive of that, but I will remind the member that, first, a properly functioning market would have probably more than one spaceport. Second, we would probably see individual money being brought in, which could create that. Last, those satellites do not miraculously sprout wings and fly off into the stratosphere from the space pad. They need rockets. How can we support our industry, and how can we encourage industries to come here? Right now, if this thing were put to test right away, it would be other countries’ rockets.”

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“We must screen who uses our space launch sites and what they launch. Without our own Canadian rockets and proper screening, other countries like Russia or China could use Canada to launch things for their own goals, not ours.”

“Madam Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge what the minister himself said. He said that the world will want what Canada could have here. Well, the world is a lot of people, and some of them do not align with our values or our goals as a nation, so it makes sense that, if there is a gap where there is no screening over who owns what technology and what that technology is used for, that could be circumvented. Right now, which countries lead the world in rockets? We have the United States, Russia and China, all of whom would have some sort of interest in our north. Again, Canadian rockets are the fundamental part to making this sovereignty happen. We need a legislative framework, sure, but we also need to have Canadian rockets, or else this launch pad would just be a launch pad for other nations’ rockets and, without the proper screening, for payloads that are for their objectives, not ours.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  Only 4% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

  See full analysis →