Dan Albas

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G Networks: when will the government make a decision regarding Huawei’s participation?

[Public Safety, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when British Columbians read about the scourge of money laundering, the stories of women being prostituted and billions being whitewashed through casinos and real estate, they expect a country dedicated to the rule of law to not sit idly by. However, that is exactly what the Liberal government has done. Last year it promised only $10 million to help provinces prosecute money launderers, but that money has not been spent. How can the Liberals find $12 million for Loblaws but cannot find any money to prosecute money launderers?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I certainly sympathize. In December 2018, we had an emergency debate in this place on the opioid crisis. Since that time, one of my communities, Princeton, has had Canada's highest number of deaths per capita from opioid overdoses. The member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country stated that this is an urgent issue in her community, and my community as well because I do represent part of Kelowna.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he has seen the so-called funding flow through in a way that tangibly affects his riding, and whether he thinks the government has done a good job on this front.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to welcome with all enthusiasm the new member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country. She has done so much in her community already and she will do so much more, especially given her story today of how much door-knocking she has done. I know her volunteers, family members and the community are so happy to see her in this role.

Christy Clark, the former premier of my province, once called Kelowna the “cradle of free enterprise”. Today, the member has talked about how important small business is to both the Okanagan and the way of life we have. In British Columbia, we pride ourselves on asking government to get out of the way. The member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country has mentioned some of the activities she would like to do to help small businesses in her riding. Could she mention one or two of those things today? I think we would all love to hear some of her intentions in the days ahead.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 11th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your new post. I look forward to your rulings and your working with the Speaker to make sure this House works well.

On doorsteps during the election, I heard from people whose concerns were getting a doctor or a referral to a specialist. Those are the areas where Canadians want to see some co-operation with our provincial counterparts.

I want to focus on something the member said about connectivity. The government, in the last Parliament, really failed in its connect to innovate program. The design of the program was not well received. The government opened up a second round without even telling more than 80% of the participants whether they were accepted or if they would receive funding.

I would like to hear the member talk about his community in terms of its need for connectivity. When a community loses a mill or a call centre, this is a way for small businesses to grow and hire people.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 11th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the member. He will do right by the people of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. Being a fellow British Columbian, I congratulate him on his election.

The member also mentioned the need to work with municipalities. I am wondering if he could express a bit more about the needs specifically around the infrastructure project, the sewage one, that goes under the Fraser River as that is an important topic and I want to keep it top of the government's mind.

[Natural Resources, December 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the largest private sector investment in Canadian history is now at risk due to the actions of the Liberal government. Now the disparaging comments by the environment minister toward liquefied natural gas have put the future in doubt, as we now see Chevron pulling out of the project in Kitimat.

We need a Canadian government that stands up for Canadian jobs. Changes are required to Bill C-69 to ensure that pipelines and facilities can be built.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his senior B.C. minister that belittling Canadian energy is the right thing to do?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his work as a member of Parliament. I certainly appreciate his re-election and particularly his courage. Very few people from British Columbia will admit that I am a friend. With that in mind, I will simply say this.

He is absolutely right that there are so many facets to this relationship. The minister did not ask for a trade strategy. The minister did not ask for a national security strategy. The minister said that we needed a new framework. A framework means that there are many parts. It is up to the House of Commons to decide and dictate to committees. All committees are mandated by this place and are servants to this place. When a committee does not come back with the estimates, it is deemed that they have been voted on and accepted.

Therefore, it is completely legitimate for us to task a committee, whether a special committee or regular committee, to do the work we intend it to do.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election, on being a willing participant today and on standing up for most of his caucus.

I would simply say is this. Very early on in the last Parliament, the NDP proposed a special committee to talk about pay equity. Certainly, that could have been done at the HUMA committee. However, Parliament decided that it wanted to have a special committee and have it report back, with recommendations, on a timely basis. As a body, we agreed to that and voted for it. I served on that committee and found it to be a very good experience.

I also served on the finance committee when we received a budget implementation act that had a provision for a DPA, a deferred prosecution agreement. When members tried to express that the finance committee should not be looking at something that would make such a radical change to the Criminal Code and that it should be the justice committee, the Liberals used their majority.

This is a different Parliament, but the same thing should happen here. Parliament and the House of Commons should decide together on what we think is the best approach going forward. I hope we would all discern that together, maybe by using different thoughts and approaches. However, this is the proposal we are putting forward. It is up to us to decide what this hung Parliament will start with.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and join in this debate. This is my first opportunity in the 43rd Parliament to thank the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola who have expressed their faith in me and want me to continue my work here on their behalf.

As this is our first official opposition day motion in this hung Parliament, it is important that the opposition pick an important topic, and this one is 100% appropriate. The government right now is struggling with its ongoing engagement with China, so is important that Parliament weigh in on this in this hung Parliament.

I would like to share with this place some of the reasons why I am supportive of the motion in the hope that all members will ultimately support it.

All must take heed that voters wanted to see more collaboration when it came to resolving the challenges our country faces. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom I will take a moment to congratulate on his appointment, takes the reins at a difficult and challenging time.

The minister has said publicly that the government needs a new framework when it comes to its engagement with China. This motion is a timely response to the minister's observation. A special committee can hear the concerns and the competing interests and recommend such a new framework to the government.

The government in its previous incarnation was unable to find its feet, and we are in a position in this Parliament, one where a minority government is not always in a position to lead from on high, where Parliament with its respective Houses can share one of its greatest strengths: its ability to deliberate. In the House of Commons, we can seize an issue, ground it in the day-to-day concerns of the people and make concrete recommendations to the government in this regard.

Before I go any further, let us step back several years to how things have changed and why we are debating this committee's creation today.

In 2012, one year after I was first elected to this place, former Prime Minister Harper returned from a visit to China with the diplomatic gift of two giant panda bears. At the time, some liked to mock this bit of diplomacy, but let us all recognize that today we would be very fortunate if the only problems we had with Canada-China relations were visits from panda bears.

Today things have deteriorated significantly since 2015. There are many reasons for this. However, pointing fingers of blame at this point is less helpful and not extremely constructive.

Let us instead focus on some of the challenges. We have bans or restrictions on some of our exports into China. The Liberals refuse to make a decision on what to do with Huawei. Agriculture and farming sectors have suffered significant financial consequences. The Liberal government meanwhile looks the other way and pretends as if there is nothing to see here.

In my own riding I have a seniors care home that is ultimately now owned by the Chinese government. The seniors in care in this home are not receiving the care they deserve. When I have raised this issue in this place, the Liberals point the finger of blame somewhere else. There is no accountability for the seniors in that care home, but that is not a surprise.

In the last Parliament, the Liberals blocked a proposed committee investigation into claims of inappropriate pressure on ex-China diplomats. One former Liberal cabinet minister, who the Prime Minister appointed as the ambassador to China, stated that, “Anything that is more negative against Canada will help the Conservatives, [who] are much less friendly to China than the Liberals.” This nudge, nudge, wink, wink approach from a former Liberal cabinet minister was never explained by the Prime Minister, who was finally forced to fire him. This meant we lost a significant amount of time with that failed approach.

Where are we now exactly? Can anyone candidly answer that question with any certainty? I suspect the best we can do is to speculate.

To be clear, I do not want to lay all of the blame for this challenging situation at the foot of the Prime Minister. There are, and always will be, situations outside the control of our federal government. However, we must also recognize that when we have a relationship that is on the rocks so to speak, more of the same approach is just not the solution.

If we are to be candid, who among us can clearly articulate what strategy the Prime Minister is following? I cannot say. At best, it could be categorized as part wishful thinking and part hoping for a magical solution. That is not an effective strategy or approach. I would submit that is why our relationship continues to fail and further deteriorate.

However, here is the thing. In the last election, Canadians sent us here with a new mandate and a desire for a new approach. The Prime Minister can no longer arrogantly dismiss different ideas and approaches as he did in the last Parliament with a Liberal majority.

The future of this important relationship, for the first time in a long time, is collectively in the hands of the House and not the Prime Minister's Office. If the members in this place decide to support this motion to create a new approach and collaborative solution to this problem, we, not the Prime Minister's Office, have the democratic power to make that happen, and what a wonderful thing that is. This motion brings the potential for accountability and transparency to this place on this relationship, to all of us as members.

I would also point out that the motion does disrespect the role of the government. However, it also provides a much greater role for the opposition. If we can work together for the Canadian interest, we have a real opportunity here to potentially reach a consensus. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are positives to a new and more prosperous relationship.

An example in my riding is the ability to export fresh cherries into China. It has been of significant benefit to many local fruit growers.

From an environmental perspective, many point to the potential of much cleaner-burning B.C. liquefied natural gas being used to generate power in China instead of coal power. If we could find ways to work together to lower emissions that benefit Canadians' interests and world interests, that is a win for all of us. We know that there is no carbon tax in China.

To summarize, the current relationship is somewhat broken. There are serious challenges that need a different approach. At the same time, there are also opportunities if we can find the ways to work together. I know I am up for the challenge. I know my colleagues on this side of the chamber are up for the challenge. The question, at the end of this vote, will be whether the other caucuses, government and other opposition parties, are up for that challenge?

I would like to think that collectively we are and would therefore support this special committee and help the Minister of Foreign Affairs develop a framework that is grounded in the concerns of everyday Canadians; that deliberates our national interest; and, most important, is not just another junket with irresponsible rhetoric about building ties, but a serious undertaking by the House to a more collaborative hung Parliament for the benefit of our country and its broader interests. If we work together on those terms, we can succeed together. That is why I will be voting in favour of the motion.

I would like to congratulate all members on their successful election and sincerely appeal to them to support the motion. There is so much that we can do in this country and there is so much this Parliament can do to help discern these things to make a case for a different approach.