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, 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.