Dan Albas

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, let us start off with the so-called clean fuel standard. The previous minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, under the Trudeau majority, originally started this. They actually said we should have one set of regulations to monitor solid, liquid and gaseous forms of energy. They wanted one ring to rule them all, one regulation to rule them all, and it became so burdensome and complicated that the government ended up shunting half of that framework away in favour of what we have now.

Rather than working with industry on a technical solution that would see good things happen in this country, like, for example, the use of Canadian biofuels and those kinds of things, instead, it encouraged more importation from the Americans that is still being used today to fill it with some of the clean mandates that the government does. They are not only complicated and just pie in the sky, they actually make it where we are dependent on the Americans at a time we should be helping ourselves.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

Today's debate is an important one because it goes directly to the affordability crisis Canadians are living through. Often in this place, along with much of the media, we tend to focus on things we most disagree on. Today I will start with what I hope we can agree on: Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living. They want practical solutions that lower costs now.

That brings me to fuel prices. In recent weeks, Canadians have seen sharp increases in the price of gasoline and diesel. Families felt it immediately, and so did farmers, truckers, tradespeople, small businesses and anyone who depends on transportation. Some will say that global events are to blame, and that may be true, but Canadians do not elect us to describe the problem and then do nothing. They elect us to find solutions.

This is why the Conservative official opposition has led the debate on gas prices and affordability. We are not shrugging our shoulders while Canadians struggle, nor have we simply named the problem, but we have proposed solutions.

What we are seeing, again and again, is that when Conservatives put forward solutions that work, reality catches up and the government is forced to change course. There is also a pattern Canadians can see clearly, which is the government consistently taking on only a fraction of the solution. On affordability, the Prime Minister removed the consumer carbon tax, but kept the industrial carbon tax and so-called clean fuel regulations, policies that continue to raise costs across the economy. On housing, instead of removing the GST completely to build supply, the government offered narrow measures that can increase demand without fixing the supply problem. On getting big projects built, the government asked for and received the support of the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5, but instead of designating and then streamlining these projects to get past the red tape, it has yet to designate a single project as a national interest project, as was named under the legislation.

All of these are half measures that may create some headlines but limit the real-world impact to Canadians.

That takes us to today's motion. The problem is clear: When costs surge due to higher fuel costs, the cost of everything rises, and when government adds layers of taxes and policy-driven costs on top of that surge, it makes a bad situation worse.

Now we have a new development. The Prime Minister announced that the federal government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting next week and lasting through the summer, but only to 10¢ a litre. That confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: Taxes at the pump matter and Canadians need relief.

Let me be clear: Canadians deserve relief. If the government finally takes a step in that direction, I think we should acknowledge it, but we will also point out what it has left on the table.

If someone were to ask my constituents a simple question, would they rather have a plan that delivers about 25¢ a litre of relief for the rest of this year or a plan that delivers about 10¢ a litre for a few months, especially when higher prices mean that Ottawa collects more GST and corporate tax revenue, most Canadians would know the answer right away. They would prefer our plan.

The question today before the House is whether we will do what Canadians need, not partially, temporarily or halfway, but with a plan that lowers costs across the economy and protects Canadians from price shocks beyond their control. Suspending only a small part of the tax temporarily while leaving these other federal charges and regulations in place is not a full solution.

The Conservative official opposition proposes that we can and should do the following: Suspend all federal fuel excise tax and GST on gas and diesel and permanently eliminate the so-called clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. If we take these steps, we could deliver meaningful and immediate relief at the pumps and reduce inflationary pressure throughout the supply chain.

Why does fuel matter so much? Virtually everything in our Canadian economy moves by commercial trucking at some point in the delivery chain: goods, groceries, building supplies and services. If it moves, it usually moves on a truck. When fuel costs rise, shipping costs rise, and when shipping costs rise, the price of what Canadians buy rises. That is how inflation gets embedded in day-to-day life.

It is not just trucking. Aviation, marine shipping and rail depend on fuel, as well as mines, forestry operations, major construction sites and heavy-duty equipment. Fuel is the major input cost across our entire economy. If we are serious about finding solutions to affordability, we cannot treat fuel costs as a small or isolated issue. Fuel costs drive the cost of living.

I want to return to a point we often hear from the Prime Minister, that we should focus on the things that we can control here in Canada, not the things that we cannot. On that principle, I will agree. We cannot control global conflicts, international choke points or the decisions of other countries, but we can control federal taxes and policies that increase the costs here at home. So the question is simple. If the government now agrees that suspending the federal excise tax helps Canadians, why not also suspend the GST on gas and diesel? Why not remove policies that permanently drive up costs for Canadian industries and consumers? Why not do everything we can to control and to protect Canadians from what we cannot control? That is what this motion is about.

It is also about recognizing when governments delay action, consequences are real and often permanent. Let me share a real example. At the end of 2025, the community of Crofton, British Columbia was devastated by the news that Domtar would permanently close the pulp mill in that community, costing about 350 well-paying jobs. It was a tragedy for those workers, their families and their community. Now, I am not going to claim that the closure was entirely the fault of government. It was not. However, did the government do everything it could have done to help prevent it? Well, the answer is no.

What is telling is what happened next. Following this closure, the B.C. NDP government announced it would ease industrial carbon pricing for pulp mills going forward. Now, why did it do that? It was because it took a closure and job losses for government to recognize an economic reality. If costs are piled onto a sector that is not competing internationally, costs that competitors may not be paying, that sector can be made less competitive and there can be accelerated closures and job losses. For the people of Crofton, that response was too little, too late.

That is exactly the risk when governments choose half measures and delay. They wait for harm to happen and then they say, “Oops, we had better fix that.” This House has a chance to act early, to choose solutions now, not apologies later. That is where the Conservative official opposition's role is clear, not just to name the problem but, whenever possible, to propose a solution.

The government often tells Canadians it is focused on affordability, competitiveness and resilience. Those are fine words, but words do not lower a grocery bill or fill a fuel tank. If this government is serious, it can prove it today, not with slogans but with a vote. It could vote for measures that actually reduce costs. This should not be that complicated. Canadians want relief that is real, measurable and immediate. They want us to find solutions. They want us to reduce costs that government controls, especially when families are being squeezed.

A temporary suspension of one tax is a start, but Canadians deserve a full plan, a plan like ours. That is what the official opposition is proposing. This is our chance to show Canadians we hear them. This is a chance to put solutions ahead of excuses. This is our chance to vote for affordability. All we have to do is vote in favour of this motion. It is really that simple.

[Peachland Legion, March 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to share with the House that on December 23, 1926, the Peachland Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69 was presented with its charter. I am proud to note that this original charter, issued by the British Empire Service League, still hangs on the wall of that legion to this very day.

The Peachland Legion was established in the aftermath of the First World War by returning soldiers, marking an incredibly proud moment for the small community of Peachland, British Columbia. For nearly a century, the legion has supported veterans who have served in the Second World War, Korea, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and more recent theatres where our men and women answered the call to serve. May we all stand in support of our veterans, who have sacrificed so much for our great country.

For 100 years, the Peachland Legion has withstood the test of time, and I am confident it will stand steadfast for generations to come. I invite the House to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Peachland Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69.

[Jail Not Bail Act, March 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the chamber and to speak on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Crime is one of the most serious concerns facing my riding today, with Kelowna also represented by a Liberal member, sadly becoming ground zero for the consequences of failed Liberal bail policies.

Before I speak directly to the jail not bail act, I think it is important to remind the House how we got to this place. In 2018, for purely ideological reasons, the former Trudeau Liberal government passed Bill C-75, amending the Criminal Code and fundamentally reshaping Canada's bail system. Although there were several changes, the guiding principle was very clear: Release should be the default position at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions possible. In that decision lies the heart of what Canadians now recognize as a catch-and-release justice system.

The results have been devastating. Between 2015 and 2022, violent crimes increased dramatically. The number of murders rose, gang-related homicides surged and violent gun crime more than doubled. These are not abstract statistics I speak of. They represent real victims, real families and real communities, our communities, paying the price. It became so serious that every provincial premier, regardless of their political stripe, jointly wrote to the federal government, demanding bail reform. That alone should have been a wake-up call to the seriousness of the problem, yet here we are in 2026 still debating how to clean up a mess that was created eight years ago by the former Liberal majority government.

Last week in Kelowna, a prolific career criminal, someone who had 67 criminal convictions, was once again released on bail. Can any member of the House guess what happened next? We all know the answer: This individual was released back into the very community he has repeatedly victimized, despite an extensive record that clearly demonstrated a pattern of reoffending. The situation became so serious that the RCMP took the unprecedented step of issuing a public warning upon his release. This is not normal. This is not normal policing. This is what happens when law enforcement is forced to manage risk created by bad legislation.

Out of respect for families affected by violent crime, I will not be retelling individual stories in this debate. We all have these stories. We all know the damage that has been done to our communities over and over, and the real damage to families and their lives.

I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the terrific work of my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the families, particularly in Kelowna, whose advocacy has given rise to what we now know as Bailey's law. This brings me to the legislation before us today.

Before I go further, I should say that I thank the member for Oxford for his leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the jail not bail legislation, which squarely puts public safety back at the centre of bail decision. I thank the member for his contributions. I thank him for the time he spends away from his family, educating Canadians on the problems created by the previous government, and for the solutions being proposed by him as a member of Parliament, a Conservative member who believes strongly that this country and our streets can be safe again.

The legislation reflects the concerns being raised in our communities by police and by provincial leaders across the country, and it puts forward a clear, principled alternative to the status quo. Canadians have heard a lot about government attempts to fix bail laws, including Bill C-14. While some amendments are welcome and have been pushed by our caucus as supportable, I want to acknowledge that on this bill, we have tried to work in good faith with the government. Despite Bill C-14's solutions, the fundamental problem remains untouched, and that is the principle of restraint. It still exists.

The principle, enshrined by the Liberal majority in 2017, continues to prioritize release over detention, even for repeat and violent offenders. It is the philosophical core of catch-and-release, and it is precisely why incremental changes since that time, whether they be Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament or Bill C-14 in the current Parliament, will not fix the problem. That is why the jail not bail act is necessary. Unlike Liberal half measures, the jail not bail act would confront the problem head-on.

First, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, not an afterthought and not one factor among many but the guiding principle that judges must take into consideration.

Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, applying reverse onus bail to the most serious crimes: firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and serious assaults. These are crimes where the burden should rest squarely on the accused to justify their release.

Third, the jail not bail act would strengthen bail decisions by requiring judges to consider the accused's full criminal history, not just the offence that is immediately before the court. It would also prevent individuals convicted of a major offence within the last 10 years who are already out on bail and who are charged again from being released yet again. Importantly, it would toughen the legal standard itself, replacing the vague threshold of substantial likelihood with a more realistic and protective test of what is reasonably foreseeable.

The bill would also close loopholes by prohibiting anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. Someone who has done a crime should not be able to be a guarantor for another. This would require meaningful enforcement of guarantor responsibilities. The bill would also require non-residents to surrender passports where appropriate.

These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense protections that put victims and our communities ahead of repeat offenders.

Recently I met with the City of Kelowna, along with the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, to discuss this issue. Representatives presented documents in which their executive summary stated very clearly that federal bail reforms have prioritized release over detention, even for chronic offenders. Their conclusion was clear: Kelowna supports presumptive detention and stricter bail conditions for chronic offenders.

I want to say that I stand with the City of Kelowna on these points, and I believe that most Canadians do. In fact, we held a town hall to discuss how we can stop crime in our neighbourhoods. We visited community leaders like those from the Uptown Rutland Business Association. We walked the streets with them to hear their concerns about criminality and public disorder. It became abundantly clear at our town hall that citizens in places like Kelowna and throughout the Central Okanagan are fed up. They want to know that when police charge and when people are prosecuted, people are held accountable and not simply released, only to harm families and communities again and again.

The jail not bail act would answer that question by doing what the government has refused to do: put public safety first, clearly, consistently and without apology backing up our RCMP officers, who work so hard to stop the crime, only to have those individuals released, while they are stuck with the paperwork and are arguing for more resources to deal with them.

I want to conclude by acknowledging the many members on all sides of the House who care about justice and public safety. I respect the work that the member for Oxford has done on the legislation, and I ask that all hon. members support the jail not bail act.

[Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious issue and a serious question, one that I will answer.

First of all, I believe that ultimately the changes promoted by the Bloc and the government that remove the good-faith clause when it comes to religious worship will inevitably be challenged in a court under the charter. I believe it will go from lower to higher courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. The challenge is that we will have an individual who has to go through the weight, burden and stress of defending their charter rights all the way through the system only to find out that this law was not well thought out and is not charter-compliant.

[Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, that member spent almost his full career in law enforcement. He knows how critically important it is for law and order to be expressed with clear rules and clear enforcement. As I have said, we have existing rules around violence and incitement. What we need is less talk from politicians and more backing of our police forces so they can make those charges, present the evidence and have the Crown prosecutors prosecute those who have threatened Canadians. Those who have harmed others need to be seen to be held accountable.

Right now, we have so much division because no one feels like anyone is in charge. We need to have law and order, and we need to have enforcement.

[Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9, March 10th, 2026]

He got the friendship cookies.

[Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member has to say, and I am sure my mom probably sent him friendship cookies to get him to say things like that publicly. I cannot see many other Liberal members saying that about me. The respect is mutual.

What I would simply say is that I have fundamental differences on Bill C-9. For example, the current law has it so that the Attorney General of Canada must give approval. That sets a very high bar. Unfortunately, as I said, there is divisiveness. In my province of British Columbia, there have been many divisive statements said by different ministers from the provincial government. We have seen where a former minister, a Jewish woman, was basically cast out of that caucus and cabinet for her viewpoints. Bringing it down to the attorney general level at the provincial level takes away a valuable safeguard. That is one of the principal reasons.

[Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I am also pleased to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

I have been fortunate to have spent enough time in this place to have sat on both sides of the House, which I consider a great honour. Over my time in this place, I have witnessed a great many bills come and go. Some of them make it to royal assent and others do not, for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes there will be consensus on a bill, when a majority of members of this place support a bill to move forward. However, more often than not, there will be disagreement.

Usually, that disagreement might be based on ideology. However, from time to time there are also bills that come forward that are so controversial that they may draw serious concerns from all sides of the political spectrum. Bill C-9 is one of those bills.

As we were reminded yesterday in this place, in the speech from the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Bill C-9 has raised serious concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Egale Canada. I am sure all members would agree that this is a very diverse set of different organizations. That one single bill could unite so many of these different groups and organizations to raise very serious concerns should be an alarm bell for every member of this place, and even more so as some of these groups and organizations are intended to be better protected by the bill.

They are also sending a strong message to all of us, and members do not have to take my word for it. I am certain that every member in this place has similar concerns shared to them by their constituents. In fact, if there is one thing I can say, it is that of all those I have heard from in emails or phone calls, or with whom I've met in person, not one single person has ever said, “Bill C-9 gets it right. Please support it and pass it.” Not one single person in my riding has said that to me. The only place I hear that is from Liberal MPs in this place, and that is really saying something. When some of the groups this bill seeks to protect say there are serious problems with the bill itself, I submit that we should all be listening.

However, the Liberals have now decided that they do not want to do that. They have decided that these groups and individuals do not deserve to be heard. We all know that is wrong, yet here we are again. I say “again” because, of course, that is how things would often work under the former Liberal government. With the help of the NDP, the Liberals would ignore the concerns of everyday Canadians and say, “Trust us,” and, “We know what is best for you,” while they imposed one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-enforced solutions. We know how that approach worked out for the former Liberal prime minister and the former NDP leader, but this is not meant to be a history lesson. This is a bill that the Liberals like to tell us is from the new Liberal government, even though it is beginning to act and sound, quite frankly, a lot like the previous Liberal government.

Let us pause for a moment here. It is not a secret that we already have existing laws that can deal with hate and that are completely and totally ignored right now. There are laws that are in force. When those groups, and lately it is often Jewish Canadians, look to government for leadership, they are not getting answers, accountability or action. Instead, they are getting Bill C-9, which is a classic way for the government to attempt to say, “We are doing something, and this is what we are doing.” It is a process, but there is nothing concrete.

As we all know, one of the most controversial parts of Bill C-9 is the proposal to remove the religious exemption clause. I think we can all agree on that. However, exemptions for “a legitimate purpose”, such as an educational, artistic or journalistic purpose, would not be captured by this offence.

In other words, there is a recognition in this proposed legislation for exemptions, just no longer for religious reasons, despite charter protections to the contrary. I know Liberals will say, “That is not who we mean to target by targeting the religious exemption for elimination.” For the purpose of this debate, suppose we were to give those Liberals the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that what the Liberals intend to happen in this proposed bill may not be what would end up happening once it becomes law.

When the Liberals changed the Criminal Code in provisions around bail, I am certain they did not intend those changes to result in a massive increase in serious crimes, yet that is precisely what occurred, as prolific offenders get the benefit of the doubt and are back on the street again on bail instead of being in jail. The principle of restraint is a principle that has created a big problem. We in the official opposition did warn the Liberals about changing that. We all know what happened. They simply discounted and ignored, arrogantly saying, “Everything you are saying is wrong and we are right,” a typical Liberal response in regard to these kinds of concerns.

In many ways, we are here again, like it is Groundhog Day, where it is not just the official opposition Conservatives who are warning the Liberals about this bill. It is a huge group of different organizations, all saying the same thing, because the Liberals continue to refuse to listen. They continue to push this into law, and then it is out of our hands as members of Parliament. Once that happens, it is in our communities and, again, it could be weaponized against the very people it is said to protect. More often than not, we are seeing that enforcement and public safety have become increasingly selective based on what group yells the loudest. That is not to mention judicial activism, where some rulings are raising serious concerns.

This is our current environment when it comes to enforcement, prosecution and sentencing. This is creating more division and, I would submit, a less tolerant attitude among many Canadians. Targeting faith, even though the stated intent is not to do so, would carry serious consequences and repercussions. Keep in mind that it is the very groups and organizations this bill is supposed to be trying to protect that are sounding the alarm bell on this. Why would we not want to listen?

In conclusion, while I would agree that the intent here is not nefarious but meant to be well-meaning, I submit that we need to take a step back and listen to those who are raising concerns. We need to address those concerns in a meaningful way. We cannot risk getting this bill wrong solely due to Liberal arrogance. We do not need more polarization, more weaponization or more divisiveness, all the things this bill could create more of if we do not get it right.

I met with a local pastoral association in my area of West Kelowna. The members of the association felt particularly targeted by this good-faith exemption being drawn out just for religious worship. They said, “It says 'academic', so a professor could say the same thing from the same holy book and receive a good-faith exemption. Someone could put on a play or put the same scripture on a painting and receive the exemption, but those people who are in a church in front of people of faith in pews, rather than students at a local university, could not.” They feel targeted.

That is precisely why I will be voting against this bill, as every single constituent I have heard from has asked me to do. I would encourage the members of the government to listen to the concerns of their constituents as well and do likewise. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has listened today and taken my comments into account. I hope that those comments track with their own experience and that they will have a similar response to my own.

[Internal Trade, March 10th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, producers in my riding find it easier to ship a bottle of wine to London, England, than to London, Ontario. Trade walls are blocking the growth of producers across this great country. The Prime Minister tells Canadians that we need to focus on the things we can control. Parliament has control over Canada Post and interprovincial shipping.

I invite the Liberals to steal this idea. They could do so today. Will the Prime Minister focus on what we can control, steal my bill, finally tear down these walls for all Canadian consumers and producers, and free the beer?