Jagsharan Singh Mahal

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building. Conservatives will judge this bill by whether it saves Canadians money, protects their jobs and delivers the projects our country needs. In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes. Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result. My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files. They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them. Canadians should expect the same accountability from the government. The government works for its people and they are entitled to judge it by the results. More than a year ago, the Liberals introduced Bill C-5, promising to accelerate major projects, yet, more than a year later, the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects. Now, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to place their confidence in a nearly 250-page omnibus bill. Canadians deserve an explanation of why the previous legislation has not delivered the promised designations and why this legislation would produce a different outcome. In my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client. It should not be the measure of success in government either. That is why we must look beyond the title of this bill and examine how it would actually change the approval system. Bill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest. Coordination can be useful, but creating new offices and frameworks would not necessarily eliminate regulatory issues. A faster approval system should clearly identify who is responsible for a decision, coordinate overlapping federal reviews and provide stakeholders with a predictable path through the process. The real test would be whether these changes actually reduce red tape and shorten the time it takes to reach a final decision. These delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber. A project awaiting a decision represents potential contracts for suppliers, apprenticeship for young workers and income for families. When those opportunities remain uncertain, people must make decisions about their futures. This is especially important for younger Canadians. Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year. In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States. People leave for many reasons, and we should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere, but as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained. An engineering graduate needs a company willing to hire. An apprentice needs a project that will provide steady work. When investment is delayed, the opportunities attached to it are delayed too. For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal. Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need. Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow. That requires a government that understands the connection between investment, employment and the ability to build a free life here. Conservatives have proposed a clear approach: approve projects within six months, repeal antidevelopment laws brought in through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, adopt “one project, one review”, set clear requirements, coordinate the process and deliver a predictable decision. Bill C-39 promotes a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments, but that would depend upon the preassessments and determinations, both of which have no clear timelines. For the stakeholders involved in those projects, the preparation and review needed before that point still take time and money, something that this bill would not entirely address. We must examine whether these provisions produce greater certainty across the entire process. Businesses cannot plan their investments around a deadline that tells only part of the story. The same need for certainty applies to getting Canadian energy to market. This is where the government must address the tanker ban created through Bill C-48. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia's northern coast. For an oil export project that would rely on those ports, faster approval of pipelines would not itself resolve the separate restriction put by the tanker ban on the loading of its product onto ships. The government must explain how it promises faster development when it continues to leave export barriers in place. Investors need confidence that a complete project can operate from production to delivery to the customer. Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban. Bill C-264, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill, directly addresses this issue. If the government wants to demonstrate it is serious about opening opportunities for Canadian energy, that is a concrete measure already before Parliament. For Alberta, access to markets means opportunities for people who build and maintain energy infrastructure and for the businesses that support them. Those opportunities matter in Edmonton Southeast. In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work. I bring that same responsibility to the House. Canadians deserve opportunities they can build their lives around and a government that can demonstrate what it has accomplished on their behalf. Conservatives will review this legislation carefully and press for changes that deliver those results. The government has made its promises. Canadians are waiting for it to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction in the member opposite's question lies with there being no results from Bill C-5, which the government passed last year. No project has even been started under Bill C-5. It is right for Conservatives to question parts of the bill so it delivers what it promises to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, this bill definitely leaves us with a number of questions. There is increasing bureaucracy, as I said in my speech. This bill would create three new offices that I have read about so far, and there may be more, but increasing offices itself is not going to deliver results. To deliver results, we need to get rid of Liberal laws that are standing in front of the intention of this bill, like the tanker ban and Bill C-69, so that we can build and deliver results.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my Bloc colleague's comments, the environment is important for sure, but the need at this time is to invest in the energy sector, get jobs for Canadians and get money back into the economy so that people can afford to live again.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my community of Edmonton Southeast. As Parliament returns for the fall sitting, I am proud to stand in the House with my Conservative colleagues as we fight for a more affordable life for all Canadians. This evening, I have the privilege of debating legislation that not only is Conservative in principle, but reflects a policy that Conservatives have been pushing for months. The tabling of Bill C-38 by the government represents a successful policy push by Conservatives that would help ease the strain on the wallets of millions of Canadians, but while this legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. Earlier this year, the federal government temporarily suspended the fuel excise tax, reducing the tax on gasoline by 10¢ per litre and on diesel by four cents per litre. That relief was supposed to expire after Labour Day. Conservatives fought that tax increase and called on the government to extend the relief. Now the government has changed course. Under Bill C-38, the excise tax would remain suspended until the end of January, and half of the tax would return in February and March, before the full tax would return in April. Any relief for working Canadians is good news, but Canadians should understand what this legislation would actually do. It would not eliminate the tax. It would delay its return, and it would leave in place other federal taxes and regulatory costs that continue to affect the price Canadians pay for fuel. That matters because fuel is not simply another household expense. Fuel moves our economy. It gets workers to their jobs. It powers farm equipment. It moves building materials to construction sites. It delivers food to grocery stores and products to businesses across this vast country. When the cost of fuel increases, those costs do not remain at the gas station. Those costs move through our supply chains and eventually land on the bills paid by Canadian families. We are already seeing the pressures. In July, gasoline prices were up over 25% compared with the year before. Energy costs were up over 16%. Transportation costs increased by over 7%, while grocery prices rose another 3%. Canadian households now carry about $1.76 in debt for every dollar of disposable income. At the same time, consumer insolvencies are up over 5% from the year before. These are not simply numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent real Canadians trying to make their paycheques stretch further. Just this Sunday on my way to the Edmonton airport, my ride-share driver shared some of the struggles he faces every day. This hard-working man from south Edmonton is named Peter. Peter came to Canada 25 years ago and built a life for himself and his family. He owned and operated a small business in our community, employed local residents and contributed to Canada's economic engine. After almost three decades of working hard and providing for his family on a single income, it was finally time for him to retire, but there was a problem. The rapidly increasing cost of living meant that his retirement savings could no longer keep up with the price of everyday essentials. After decades of contributing to Canada's economic base and providing for his family, Peter's wife is now forced to work a retail job. At the same time, Peter cannot enjoy his well-deserved retirement years. Instead, he drives for a ride-share service five days a week just to keep his head above water. Unfortunately, Peter's story is all too common among Canadians. We used to have a simple bargain in this country: work hard, earn a decent paycheque, provide for one's family, buy a home in a safe neighbourhood and, after decades of work, enjoy a secure retirement. After 11 years of Liberal government, that bargain has been torn apart. Canadians like Peter can no longer enjoy the fruits of their labour because the cost of basics continues to eat away at their paycheques and savings. That is why Bill C-38 cannot be where this conversation ends. The government itself recognizes that fuel tax relief benefits truckers, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery businesses. If lower fuel taxes help those sectors today, then Canadians should not be satisfied watching those taxes being returned in only a few months. Conservatives are proposing something more substantial. We have called on the government to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. That means going beyond the excise tax suspension and addressing costs attributed to the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax. The common-sense Conservative proposal would save drivers up to 25¢ per litre and put as much as $1,000 back into the pockets of Canadian families. That is the difference between temporary relief and meaningful relief. Conservatives fought the return of the fuel excise tax after Labour Day. The government changed course, and Canadians will save money because of it. That is a positive development, but we should not confuse a temporary extension with a solution to Canada's affordability crisis. Canadians still face high fuel prices, rising grocery bills and household budgets stretched too thin. Conservatives will always fight for measures that leave more money in Canadians' pockets while continuing to push for greater and longer-lasting relief, because Canadians like Peter did everything we asked of them. They worked hard, built businesses, raised their families, paid their taxes and contributed to their communities. They deserve more than another temporary relief. They deserve a Canada where hard work once again provides the opportunity to get ahead, build a good life and retire with security. That can only be done by extending government tax relief until at least July 1, 2027, and permanently removing the clean fuel standard and industrial carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, Conservatives welcome anything that saves Canadians money. However, when the measure is a half-measure, not a full-fledged plan, then we must ask the government to do what is needed so that Canadians can keep more in their pockets and have an affordable life. The government is proposing to cut these taxes only until April. We are asking for relief to be given until Canada Day 2027, and to also get rid of the fuel standard tax as well as the industrial carbon tax, which are driving up the cost of fuel and which drive up the cost of everyday living.

Mr. Speaker, my learned friend was a CPA by profession in his past life, and I believe no one knows numbers better than he does. I totally agree with him that the policies that the government has at least agreed to adopt are not going to help as it intends them to, or they are only going to help for a bit. We are saying the government should get rid of these taxes, those that do not make sense and those that make life unaffordable for Canadians. I agree with what my friend has said, word for word, in his analogy.

Mr. Speaker, going back to the root cause, it is good that the government is providing those reliefs, but who is going to look after the real cost of those reliefs? Why do we not get rid of the anti-energy laws that are making life unaffordable? It is like the government is creating a problem and then providing a solution for it. We do not believe in putting bandages on wounds. We believe in providing real medicine, and in this context, the real medicine is to get rid of the taxes on fuel that are driving up costs, be it the standard fuel tax or the anti-energy laws.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In Edmonton, families are feeling the effects of Liberal mismanagement. A recent United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians now feel anxiety about their personal finances. Global factors are not to blame. It is Liberal inflationary spending and antidevelopment laws that have staled our economy. Canadians deserve better. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies causing this crisis so Canadians can afford to live again?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons. I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want? The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight on this new Build Canada Homes bill. We have two Crown corporations: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Canada Lands Company. However, over the past 11 years, the Liberals have failed to make use of those two corporations, and now they are pushing for another bureaucracy under the name of Build Canada Homes. Why are the Liberals so adamant on adding more bureaucracy instead of focusing on results and focusing on the real needs of Canadians, which are affordable homes?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Edmonton Police Service and other law enforcement agencies involved in a two-year-long national drug trafficking investigation. Police seized approximately 80 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of more than $8 million, along with dangerous narcotics, ammunition and cash. This is a serious reminder of the organized crime networks bringing drugs, violence and fear into our communities. I want to thank the officers who put themselves at risk to keep our streets safe. Police cannot do this alone. They need a justice system that backs them up. After 11 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies and Liberal bills like Bill C-5, our streets are more dangerous. To the police officers in Edmonton and across Canada, know that Conservatives support them. We will keep fighting for safer communities.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. There is nothing technical about someone coming home from work and telling their kids that they no longer have a job. Canada's economy has shrunk for two quarters in a row. Business investment is falling. Food bank use is at an all-time high. This is not a technical recession. This is a full-blown Liberal recession. If global factors are to blame, then why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George. One year ago, the community of Edmonton Southeast placed its trust in me to deliver change. After more than a decade of Liberal government, my community feels the effects. Grocery prices are sky-high, streets are unsafe and the fuel that powers their lives is more expensive than ever. Conservatives understand the importance of delivering common-sense solutions. That is why this opposition day motion offers the government an opportunity to deliver relief to Canadians already struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives call upon the Liberal government to act by immediately ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. Fuel is not a luxury. It is an essential input into almost every part of our economy. The cars that bring our kids to school, hockey practice, soccer games and medical appointments rely on gas. The trucks that bring food to grocery store shelves rely on diesel. The farmers who grow that food rely on fuel. The planes that bring parliamentarians from coast to coast to coast into this chamber are powered by fuel. The Liberals know this. The Liberals know Canada is a big country. They know millions of Canadians cannot simply stop driving to work, stop transporting goods or stop heating their homes. However, what the Liberals do not seem to understand is the impact their policies are having on working Canadians, on seniors and on families across the country. In my riding of Edmonton Southeast, I recently visited local seniors' residences. Many residents at these seniors homes tell me the same thing: It is getting more expensive for them to visit their grandchildren and families. Seniors are having to decide between buying a tank of gas or buying fresh produce. Our seniors should not have to make the choice between a drive across town to see their grandson's hockey game and a good meal. That is unacceptable. Seniors in my community worked hard, paid taxes, built this country and played by the rules. They should not be punished by a government that keeps adding costs and then acts surprised when Canadians cannot keep up. That is why the Conservatives brought forward this motion calling on the government to adopt our plan, which would suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of the year. Our plan is not complicated. Our plan would save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre on gas. That would mean about $20 every time a family fills up a minivan, and up to $1,200 in savings for a family of four over the year. The Liberals have offered only partial relief for part of the year. They suspended one tax for a limited time and then told Canadians they had already acted, but Canadians know the truth. They are still paying too much at the pump, too much at the grocery store and too much for the basic necessities of life. Lowering fuel costs is not only about the price at the pump. It is about the cost of everything that moves this country. Lower diesel prices reduce the cost of trucking. Lower trucking costs reduce the cost of groceries. Lower grocery prices help people in all our communities across the country. When fuel becomes more expensive, everything becomes more expensive. The food on our shelves, the material used to build homes and the goods shipped across this country all cost more because fuel costs more. Canadian families have been experiencing this pain every day. Food prices continue to rise faster than household budgets can handle. Families are paying more for meat, vegetables and everyday groceries. The Liberals say they understand affordability. If that is the case, then the government should have no problem supporting this motion. However, after more than 10 years, the same Liberal government continues to support policies that make life more expensive for Canadians. I will give an example of how disconnected the government is from everyday Canadians. When the finance minister was asked whether the government would extend fuel tax relief, his answer to Canadians was that the Liberals had already acted. I can assure the minister that the residents of my community who are lining up at the pumps do not agree that the government has done enough. The facts are clear. Canadians are paying much more at the pump than Americans, even while global oil prices affect both countries. The difference is not just about world markets. It is about higher Liberal taxes and a government that continues to take more from Canadians when they can least afford it. Other countries have understood the pressures families are facing and have moved to reduce fuel taxes. Meanwhile, the Liberal government offered Canadians a half-baked solution and then congratulated itself. Canadians do not need more self-praise from Liberal ministers. They need relief, lower costs and a government that understands that when fuel costs more, everything costs more. This motion is about fairness. At a time when Canadians are already stretched thin, the federal government cannot continue taking more from every litre of gas and diesel. It must scrap all federal taxes for a meaningful amount of time, giving working families immediate relief. In my community of Edmonton Southeast, people are not asking for complicated government programs or more Liberal talking points. They are asking for a government that understands their lives and works for them. They are asking for lower costs and no longer want to feel strapped for cash. I will conclude with this. Just over a year ago, I came to Ottawa with the intention of delivering common-sense solutions for the hard-working people of my community. This is why the motion is so important. Conservatives are offering a clear and practical solution to an issue facing all Canadians. By ending federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard, members of the House can make life easier for those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can say that we are hypocrites when we oppose the subsidies, but those do not go to the base of the issues. It is not the government's job, in a G7 country, to provide people with these kinds of perks. The job of the government should be to make sure that the people of the country have good-paying jobs so they can afford their own food and make choices about which food their children take to school. They should not be dependent upon the school principal's choosing whether they want to feed some chocolate or other non-nutritious food to the kids. That being said, the need of the time is to scrap all the taxes on fuel, gas and diesel so Canadians can feel relaxed for the rest of the year.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the responsibility of the government to make sure that corporations are held accountable, it has to do more. The increase in oil prices is not just because of global impacts or the war in the Middle East. It is partially because of our own government's wrong policies and its failure to scrap the taxes in a timely manner to provide immediate relief to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with what my colleague has said. The government needs to get out of the way when it comes to affordability, when it comes to providing good-paying jobs and when it comes to cutting bureaucracy in this country. We need to make sure that all the steps the government takes make Canadians' lives more affordable, and that is exactly what the proposal is about. The opposition day motion is asking the government to cut fuel taxes by 25¢ per litre on gas and diesel for the rest of the year so Canadians can feel relaxed and there can be immediate relief felt.

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear that Parliament is debating a bill about weights and measurements, gas pumps, grocery scales and utility meters, they might assume this is a technical issue, but the bill touches something Canadians experience every day, the moment they pull up to the gas pump, the moment they scan their groceries and the moment their utility bill arrives at the end of the month. The bill touches on trust, because at the most basic level, Canadians expect one simple thing: that if they pay for something, they should get what they paid for. Bill S-3 promises to modernize Canada's trade measurement laws, legislation that has not been touched meaningfully nor updated since the 1980s. The bill would update how we regulate gas pumps, grocery scales, electricity and gas meters. It would introduce tools like sample-based inspections. The bill presents reasonable objectives. Modernization is necessary. Technology has changed. The economy has changed. Our laws should reflect this reality. Conservatives believe in a fair marketplace. We believe in protecting consumers. We believe that when Canadians pay for a litre of gas, a kilogram of food or a unit of electricity, they should receive exactly that. We support the bill, but there are some concerns. We are right to ask whether more government power means better outcomes for Canadians or just more bureaucracy. We support fairness. We support modernization, but we need to look closely to ensure that the bill does not come at the expense of accountability, transparency and affordability. This is exactly why the bill needs to be studied in committee. Committee is where Parliament does its real work, but committees in this place are changing. Over the past number of days, serious concerns have been raised about how committees would be structured and controlled. Conservatives have been clear that if the government uses its forced, unelected majority to limit scrutiny, it could weaken transparency and accountability. If committees stop functioning as places of independent scrutiny, then where does accountability happen? I sit on the science and research committee. We have worked well together and addressed important issues because there has been a balance. We can have critical views of current policy, as this is how we test these policies. Like many committees, that balance is at risk. There may be two new Liberal members. While I have no ill will toward the individuals, changes to committee composition would give government the power to shut down debate and critical thinking in the committee room. The bill would expands powers. We need to examine how these new powers would be used and whether Canadians would be properly protected. That only works if committee is allowed to be critical. The government cannot ask for more government powers while controlling the very committees meant to hold the powers accountable. The bill is very important, because it is about ensuring Canadians get what they pay for, but Canadians across this country are asking a much bigger question: Can they afford what they are paying for at all? Right now, Canadians feel like they are paying more and getting less. Grocery prices have risen dramatically. Food inflation has reached levels not seen in decades. Gas prices have gone up. Utilities have gone up. At the same time, wages are not keeping pace, savings are shrinking and families are relying on credit just to get by. Families in my riding are having to choose between paying their bills and putting groceries on the table. Grocery prices are up 25% over just a few years. Prices are still rising year after year. Beef, vegetables and dairy continue to climb. The average family is expected to spend over $1,000 more for food this year alone. Families are cutting back. Parents are making difficult choices. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching every dollar. What is the government doing about this? Canadians got the answer yesterday. The Prime Minister's spring economic update unveiled what can only be described as a costly credit budget that would double the deficit left by the previous Liberal government. That means more cost, more taxes, more debt and more inflation for Canadians. Canadians are now paying $59 billion a year just in interest on the debt. That is up by 10% in a single year. It is now more than we spend on health care transfers and more than the government collects in GST. Members can think about that. Every Canadian family is effectively paying about $3,400 a year just to service the federal debt. That is money not going into groceries, not going into housing and not going into savings. Yesterday alone, the government added another $37 billion in new spending. At a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, the government is pouring more fuel on the fire, so when Canadians feel like everything costs more, they are right. This bill would modernize the inspection framework at the gas pumps. The government regulates these pumps to make sure that people are getting the exact amount they are paying for. This would make sure that Canadians are not being ripped off, but Canadians are not thinking about inspection frameworks when they are standing there watching the numbers climb. They are thinking, “How much is this going to cost me?” Gas prices do not affect just commuters. They affect everything. They drive up the cost of food, goods and transportation. Those costs are built into the price of everything Canadians buy. That is why the Conservatives are calling for real relief. We are saying to scrap the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, remove the fuel excise tax, remove the GST on gas and diesel, remove the industrial carbon tax and remove the fuel standard tax. That would mean real relief of up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 of savings for a family this year. The bigger issue is not just whether the pump is accurate; it is whether Canadians can afford to use it. Instead of following our plan, the Prime Minister cut only a third of the taxes for a third of the time. Again, the Liberals care more about regulations and control than they do about Canadian wallets. This bill is about trust, but trust is not built through regulations alone. Trust is built through outcomes. At its core, Bill S-3 is about trust in the marketplace. It is about making sure that, when Canadians pay for something, they receive what they pay for. Canadians deserve a marketplace that is fair. They also deserve a government that is transparent, restrained and focused on making life more affordable. We will support this bill moving forward. We will ask hard questions, push for accountability and work to ensure that the legislation serves Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we, in essence, support the legislation. We support the rationale behind the legislation. Conservatives support the idea that consumer fairness should be at the core of every step the government takes. The hon. member raised two questions: one about the rebates that they are offering to Canadians and one about the bill being studied in the committee. Our position is to scrap all of the carbon taxes. The Liberals are just half listening to us. They only decided to get rid of 15¢ per litre. We are asking for 20¢ per litre. That would save a family over $1200 per year. Why do we not leave more money in Canadians' pockets so they do not have to look to the government for rebates and they do not have to look to the government for handouts?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to provincial jurisdiction, we must respect it. For any bill that comes to the House and goes to committee, the committee should decide, based on its rationale and based on logic, why the bill should or should not be passed and what changes should or should not be made. Answering the question, yes, any subject that comes under section 92 of the Constitution of Canada shall be left to the provinces, and anything that has a larger impact on the entire nation shall be dealt with accordingly.