Dan Albas

[Aerospace Industry, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, get the minister some rocket fuel. The Liberals are experts at paying a lot for nothing. They have turned a gravel pit into a money pit.

A former Liberal MP got $237 million for ventilators that went straight into the scrap heap. A Nova Scotia wind farm, tightly connected to former Liberal MPs, got a $206-million loan. Liberal insiders are making bank, while too many Canadians are at the food bank.

When will a satellite be launched from our $200-million parking lot?

[Aerospace Industry, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, when someone leases a new vehicle, they get a new vehicle, but when the Liberals leased a spaceport, all they got for $200 million was a gravel parking lot. I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it is in a Liberal riding or that the justice minister's former staffer was the lobbyist for the project or that former Liberal premiers are on the company's advisory board. Clearly, there are no Liberal insiders getting rich at all.

Canadians have only one question: Why are so many Liberal insiders getting so rich off taxpayers on this boondoggle of a lease?

[Daffodil Month, April 21st, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, while there is much we may debate in the House, today I want to begin with what unites us, which is standing with Canadians affected by cancer. April is Daffodil Month, a time for us to show support for Canadians living with cancer, their families and caregivers.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary cancer caucus, I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for its leadership and non-partisan support.

I also recognize my co-chair, the member for Vaudreuil, and Senator Andrew Cardozo, as well as the patient advocates, researchers and volunteers who make this work possible.

Daffodil Month also reminds us why access to innovation matters. Clinical trials are often a last resort, and they can be a lifeline. As journalist Don Martin recently shared, a clinical trial can quite literally mean the difference between life and death, yet too many Canadians still face unnecessary delays. That is why the Canadian Cancer Society has set a big achievable goal: no more than 75 days from a clinical trial registration to enrolling patients. This means more trials, more innovations and more lives saved here in Canada. This is a goal we can achieve together.

Let us support the work of the Canadian Cancer Society and give those facing a cancer diagnosis hope.

[Lawful Access Act, 2026, April 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about Internet service providers, ISPs, in general. Obviously, there are going to be some distinctions between other large Internet companies other than ISPs, but I think that for the most part, that is what we are going to be talking about in committee.

Simply, right now it is the Wild West. Some ISPs are retaining data for longer than a year and some are doing it for zero days because there is no particular requirement on them. First of all is having a requirement: We need to decide as parliamentarians what is reasonable. We can look at other jurisdictions to see what they have, but we do need to have rules in place so that we can have the rule of law in this space.

[Lawful Access Act, 2026, April 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential for the opposition to be able to fulfill the role entrusted to it by Canadians. It is particularly important to demand evidence and ask the government to share its reasoning and thought process, especially that of the minister responsible. It is also important for the opposition to press the government to make improvements and to consider our amendments for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Lawful Access Act, 2026, April 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Hull—Aylmer's comments. As members of the House of Commons, it is important that we communicate issues clearly and accurately, especially online. There is also an opportunity to make amendments to improve the bill, depending on the nature of the bill, which could be a private member's bill or a government bill. In this case, we are talking about a government bill.

I hope that, if the member participates in the committee study, he will take a closer look at part 2, especially the techniques, equipment and system proposed in the bill.

[Lawful Access Act, 2026, April 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

A part of me wants to say that we really should not be here, again, having this debate today. It is not just because it is a Friday and not because the debate is unimportant. It is. On the contrary, it is absolutely essential.

Sometimes, in the House, we are our own worst enemy. I say that candidly because this is not the first time Parliament has debated efforts to modernize lawful access legislation. More than 14 years ago, when I sat on the government side of the House, I supported similar initiatives. Before that, the previous Liberal government under Paul Martin attempted and also failed to move this work forward. Each time Parliament fails to act, the cost is not political. The cost is borne by Canadians.

The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online, rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight. That is not what Bill C-22 proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us. Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.

This issue also goes far beyond individual victims. Canada is not only rich in natural resources. We are rich in research, intellectual property, innovation and data. Where is that value increasingly stored and accessed? It is increasingly stored and accessed online. Essential services, banking, health records, commerce and even the operation of the Parliament now depend on digital infrastructure. This is not ideology. It is reality.

As Canadians move online, our ability to protect them has fallen behind. I often explain it in this way. In the physical world, if there is a hit-and-run accident and a licence plate number is recorded, police can lawfully use that information to identify the registered owner and begin an investigation. That does not give access to private conversations. It simply provides a lawful starting point. Online, even when establishing those basic facts, it can take much longer, while the harm continues.

Bill C-22 is an attempt, imperfect, as all legislation ultimately is, to modernize investigative tools while maintaining judicial oversight. However, I want to pause a moment and address concerns that Canadians have directly raised with me, including constituents who oppose the bill. Some fear that Bill C-22 could require digital service providers to embed surveillance capabilities that may weaken security. Others are concerned about the retention of metadata involving people who are not under investigation. Still others worry that future governments could expand the scope of this law through regulation without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

I understand this mistrust. Too many Canadians feel that governments no longer listen. I did not enter politics to reinforce that cynicism. I entered public life because I believe that trust in our institutions must be earned, and it is only earned through accountability, something that I hope Liberal members of the House also believe in.

As a Conservative, I believe in limited government, in checks and balances, and in a government that thinks of Canadians, not for them. That is why it matters to be very clear about what Bill C-22 does and does not do. It does not authorize warrantless access to private communication. It does not eliminate judicial oversight. It does not give government the power to read the content of Canadians' messages without court approval. Much like wiretap authorities that Canadians have accepted for decades, police must make their case to a judge, meet defined legal thresholds and operate within strict limits. That is not unchecked power. That is the rule of law.

Let me ground this debate in the real experiences Canadians are facing. In my former riding, police investigated a case where a woman was shaken down by scammers claiming to be the Canada Revenue Agency and demanding payment in bitcoin. The officers in Merritt knew a crime had been committed, but they could not quickly determine whether the perpetrators were even in the country. Pursuing charges would have required significant time and resources, resources that many small-town RCMP detachments simply do not have.

In West Kelowna, a retired professional was convinced to install remote access applications on her phone and private computer, unknowingly giving criminals full control over her financial life. She lost more than $100,000. Even more disturbing, she was told that contacting the police or even her member of Parliament would place her in violation of national security laws. Fear and deception did the rest.

Perhaps the most disturbing are the countless cases supported by organizations like the Kelowna Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, where children who have already suffered abuse endure further trauma while authorities work urgently to identify, locate and stop the spread of child sexual exploitation materials.

In each of these cases, time matters. Delay magnifies the harm.

RCMP officers in the Central Okanagan are already carrying the highest caseloads in British Columbia. They are not asking for unchecked authority, they are asking for lawful, court-supervised tools that would allow them to establish basic facts quickly and protect victims sooner.

That brings me back to the role of Parliament. I want to address a broader point about how Parliament must legislate in the digital age, because this bill is not unique in facing these challenges. Technology evolves faster than legislation ever can. That creates real tension between clarity and flexibility, and between certainty and adaptability.

Canadians are right to be cautious when laws rely on regulations and technical definitions that may change over time. That caution is healthy in a free society. As Conservatives, we have always believed the answer to that tension is not blind trust in government but strong parliamentary oversight. It is Parliament, not the executive, that must define limits, ask hard questions and ensure delegated authorities are narrow, justified, proportionate and, above all else, accountable.

That responsibility does not end at second reading. It continues at committee, through expert testimony, proposed amendments and rigorous scrutiny of how these powers would operate in the real world. It also continues after passage, through ongoing review and accountability.

Canadians should expect nothing less. Protecting privacy and protecting public safety are not competing ideals. They are complementary responsibilities. When the law is outdated, vague or unclear, both privacy and safety suffer. Criminal networks exploit legal uncertainty far more effectively than law-abiding citizens ever could.

Our task as legislators is to ensure the law is precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles, while still effective enough to protect the people it is meant to serve. Avoiding that challenge altogether is not neutral. It leaves victims exposed, strains already overburdened police services and erodes confidence in the rule of law. That is the biggest challenge we have. When people believe that the justice system is simply catch-and-release, or that if they phone, like the woman in Merritt, and are simply told they do not have the resources, people lose faith in our institutions. That must change, and not just with Bill C-22. We need to see stronger sanctions. We need to see jail, not bail. We need to re-earn the confidence of Canadians who are so disconcerted over the state of our system.

That is why we need to ask the tough questions at committee, get into the weeds and fully understand and weigh the tradeoffs between public safety, privacy and individual liberty. Addressing these concerns transparently is not a flaw in this process; it is Parliament doing its job.

The question before us is whether Parliament will once again allow inaction to become the default or whether we will act carefully, responsibly and within appropriate limits. Our future is undeniably online. If we are serious about protecting Canadians in the future, we must be willing to modernize our laws while respecting people's rights and values.

I believe we can do that. I believe Parliament is capable of getting it right.

[Points of Order, April 16th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, while we are just talking about corrections, I just want to thank the Secretary of State for Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions for delineating the difference between Connor McGregor and Connor McDavid. I will say, to his credit, that he is more right than when people, Canadians, phone into the CRA and ask questions.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that supply chains take a while to react to certain things. The Trump administration stripped out a number of bipartisan policies that were put in place under a large budget measure a few years ago. It essentially took the carrots away for biofuel manufacturing that scaled up so massively. This is one of the reasons Canada continues to import a lot of its biofuels from outside the country: to be able to fill the so-called clean fuel standards that are here today. These guys have not done so much, as the Americans have taken away those carrots.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my friend a very good piece of advice. He should not soak in anything that I say. There are many other speakers in this place he should marinate in.

I will say this. At the end of the day, the government has an opportunity put before it. Time and time again, when Conservatives put forward great policies that are not only good for Canada but electorally popular, the government then implements a small part of them, and Canadians suffer because of that. We have fewer houses because of its plan and higher costs because of its industrial carbon tax. I hope that, in this case, Liberals can agree with Conservatives that affordability should be the main thing. They have an opportunity today to support a better solution.