House of Commons photo

Track Dan

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is chair.

Conservative MP for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 51% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 November 27th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I believe that this year, we are at about $52 billion a year just to cover the debt management program. I remember raising the same questions and concerns with Bill Morneau when he was the minister of finance, when we had just over $1 trillion in debt. Now we are over $2 trillion in just a short period of time, less than 10 years later. We are right to be concerned. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. NDP promised more spending than revenues in its budgets, and it was downgraded.

The member is correct that all of us in British Columbia are paying more in debt for the privilege of just servicing the debt. This is not going down on principle. On principle, as a country, we should be saying that we need to pay attention to the lines of where this is going. This is—

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 November 27th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, with both the Liberal Party and the Bloc saying Stephen Harper this and Stephen Harper that, I think they have lost the plot. We just had an election in which the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye hundreds of times, even voters in this gentleman's province of Quebec.

The Prime Minister promised the people of the beautiful province of Quebec and across the country that he would spend less. That is not a promise I take lightly.

I do not take it lightly when someone makes a commitment, reverses himself and then says we are the problem because we do not understand. The Prime Minister made a promise to all of us that he would spend less, but he brought us a budget that does the opposite. That is the problem.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 November 27th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I know that member gets really hot under the collar when people remind him that he has supported every Liberal budget since 2015. When Bill Morneau was the finance minister, I criticized him for allowing our debt to rise over $1 trillion. This member said nothing then. We went past $2 trillion, and we are now working our way to $2.5 trillion under the current government, but he is still saying nothing.

I would get hot under the collar too if I was upset with myself, listening to criticisms that made me think twice, but that would mean the member would have to think at all. I have to think about that, whether he actually does.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 November 27th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join the debate in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. This particular debate is noteworthy, and I will explain why.

After 10 years of Liberal budgets under Justin Trudeau, this is the first budget under what the Prime Minister and his cabinet like to call the new Liberal government. Really, who could blame them? We all know that the old Liberal government frequently blew past its budget numbers and ignored its cast-in-stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. The last Trudeau government was a full-on fiscal disaster, so it is no wonder the new Liberal government wants to distance itself as far as possible from the old one.

During the election, we heard the current Prime Minister loud and clear. He promised to spend less. Literally hundreds of times at campaign stops across Canada, he looked Canadians square in the eye and told them that he would “spend less”. Not long ago in this place, in his throne speech, he was sharply critical of the former Trudeau Liberal government for dramatically increasing spending and running large deficits. He condemned it for allowing spending to grow by 9% annually and told us that he would reduce spending growth to under 2%. That was a clear and unequivocal Liberal promise.

What are we seeing in this Liberal budget?

The Prime Minister, who advocated for spending cuts, announced a projected deficit of $78 billion. To put things in perspective, that is almost double the $42-billion deficit projected by the previous Trudeau government. I repeat: the Prime Minister who criticized his predecessor for spending too much and who promised Canadians that he would spend less is actually promising to spend twice as much. Honestly, who does that? Who criticizes their predecessor for their excessive spending, gets elected on a promise to spend less and then goes ahead and spends twice as much?

The $78-billion deficit proposed by the current Prime Minister is the largest in the history of Canada outside a pandemic or global crisis. It is an astronomical figure, no matter how one looks at it.

That is not all. Budgets, as we know, also outline future spending plans, and here the picture becomes even more alarming. Over the next four fiscal years, the “spend less” Prime Minister is proposing deficits that total roughly $265 billion. Let us compare that to prime minister Trudeau's last budget, which projected $131 billion in deficits over the same period. Once again, the “spend less” Liberal Prime Minister is proposing to spend twice as much as his predecessor, despite having campaigned on so-called fiscal discipline.

From my perspective, this is part of a troubling pattern. Guess what happened every time since 2015 that the old Liberal government set spending targets in a budget. It missed the mark every time. For example, in 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau promised modest deficits to fund infrastructure and invest in Canadians, followed by a cast-in-stone balanced budget by 2019. We all know the result: It was never honoured. The old Trudeau government created a fiscal mess with runaway spending.

It is easy to understand why the current Prime Minister criticized that record during the campaign and promised to fix it. Canadians expected a change in course, yet the budget from our new Liberal government follows exactly the same old path as the old one, only on a much larger scale. That is not what the Prime Minister nor any Liberal member of Parliament promised Canadians just a few months ago.

In my riding, I have met constituents who have told me they voted for the current Prime Minister because they believed in him. They believed in his promises. After all, bankers are supposed to be trustworthy; they are not supposed to make promises they have no intention of keeping. That, to me, is the real rub. The new Prime Minister is not even trying to spend less. In that regard, he is exactly like the former prime minister. It is not unlike in the movie with Alec Baldwin, Glengarry Glen Ross, but instead of ABC, always be closing, it is ABS, always be spending.

For all these reasons, I will, of course, be voting against the budget. Frankly, every member on the government side of the House should do the same, because they were elected on the promise to spend less, not unlike the elbows-up promise. However, that is a topic for another day.

In closing, I would like to thank all members for taking the time to hear my comments. It is greatly appreciated.

I expected the budget to be different. When the Prime Minister talked about the need to spend less, he made an excellent case for why he campaigned so heavily on the commitment. Many Canadians believed he would be the one Liberal Prime Minister who actually did what he said he would do, yet here we are. Again, the fiscal anchors are completely adrift.

The Prime Minister loves to say we should focus on the things we can control, but he does not follow his own words. He could control how much he spends. He could repeal the regulatory regime the previous Liberals created instead of drafting Bill C-5 to selectively manoeuvre around that regulatory mess. He has not done that. He could repeal the net zero mandate for electric vehicles, which automakers have said will harm their vehicle sales and their interests in Canada, but he has not done that either. He could repeal the industrial carbon tax, which makes Canadian steel more expensive and less competitive against steel from other countries that we compete against. However, he has refused to do that. He could decide not to finance BC Ferries' vessels built in China and let China finance its own shipbuilding industry, instead of Canada.

All of those actions would cost very little, yet the Prime Minister refuses to take them, despite preaching that he would rather focus on things he can control. Instead, he is choosing to spend money, and not just a little. It has been spend, spend and spend.

For these reasons, I believe the budget and the budget implementation act must be opposed, just as the Prime Minister argued during the election. We need to spend less.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 November 27th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleague from British Columbia is an excellent addition to this place. I remember criticizing Bill Morneau when he was the minister of finance and they crossed the threshold of $1 trillion in debt. Fast-forward to several ministers since then, and we are now approaching well over $2 trillion.

Is the member concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister said he would spend less, and is now spending more money than what Justin Trudeau had in mind last year at this time?

Natural Resources November 26th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I note the arrogance of that answer. He has not spoken to my constituents like I have on this issue.

Right now, the only thing that is crossing provincial borders is this Prime Minister's indecision. A pizza shop is more productive than the Prime Minister because at least it knows what business it is in and knows it needs to deliver in a competitive marketplace.

Subsection 92(10) is clear. The power to act is his, so will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind premiers and process? Will he finally stand up for Canada, repeal the shipping ban, axe the industrial carbon tax and build a new pipeline to the Pacific that is in the national interest?

Natural Resources November 26th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, on a pipeline to the Pacific, the Prime Minister finds himself in a dilemma of his own making. He, his ministers and his MPs say one thing in British Columbia and another in Alberta, and now he is perched squarely on the fence.

Under subsection 92(10) of the Constitution, the decision is his government's alone, so will he side with the national interest to build a new pipeline, or will he bow to President Trump and keep us supplicant to American interests instead of diversifying our energy exports?

Softwood Lumber Industry November 25th, 2025

Mr. Chair, as the opposition critic for transportation, I was quite intrigued to actually hear a Liberal talk about transportation. However, this is a take-note debate on softwood lumber, and that had only maybe a touchpoint on it. I would suggest that if the member is really serious about seeing improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, then it is provincial, and unless it is on indigenous reserves, a Canadian Armed Forces base or a national park, it has nothing to do with the federal power.

I have a question for the member. Instead of wasting the time given to a very serious issue with a local issue of concern that she is obviously trying to put a little spotlight on for a clip at home, could she comment on the $1.25 billion this government has brought forward, which no companies that I know of or that I have heard of have accessed? Does she believe that this needs to be a priority and that the government needs to at least give the money it says it will give?

Softwood Lumber Industry November 25th, 2025

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford told me that Chemainus is curtailed, not closed, so I wish to clarify the record.

However, I would like the member to clarify the record. She talked about significant wins. Has she spoken to anyone who works in softwood lumber, or is this a speech that has been given to her so she can mouth the words? For people in areas like Merritt and Grand Forks, who are seeing no work, and places like Chemainus, which has curtailments that are causing people to leave their apartments and their homes, this is a big deal. I would like an answer from her.

What significant wins, and has she spoken to anyone in the industry who actually says that this is a significant win for them?

Softwood Lumber Industry November 25th, 2025

Mr. Chair, after 10 years of Liberal failure to secure a softwood lumber deal, the member says tonight that the Liberals have made significant wins. However, tariffs have tripled to 45%, costing Canadian producers over $10 billion. There are closed mills in communities like Houston, Vanderhoof, Port Alberni, Chemainus, Merritt and Grand Forks.

Will the member admit that Liberals look as though they do not care about forestry workers or that this is simply because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating a softwood lumber agreement? Which one is it?