Sukh Dhaliwal

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. Across Canada, families, workers, farmers and businesses continue to face pressures from rising costs. Whether it is filling up a vehicle, transporting goods or managing the operating costs of a small business, affordability remains an important concern for Canadians. During the summer, I attended hundreds of events and met thousands of my constituents. One thing I learned from them is that the Prime Minister and the government are doing their best, and they are very happy with the leadership of the Prime Minister. Most importantly, our government understands the challenges these Canadians are facing. That is why we are taking steps to help Canadians manage their expenses while continuing to build a stronger and more independent Canadian economy. Bill C-38 is about providing immediate relief at the gas pump. Earlier this year, in April, we temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax on gas, diesel and aviation fuels. This measure provided savings of 10¢ per litre on gas and four cents per litre on diesel and aviation fuel. Bill C-38 would extend this relief. This legislation would maintain the federal fuel excise tax at zero until January 31, 2027. From February 1 to March 31, 2027, the tax would be set to 50% of the regular rate, which would help Canadians manage the transition back to the regular excise tax rates. For gasoline, the extension is expected to provide savings of up to 10¢ per litre until February 2027, followed by a savings of five cents per litre through March 2027. For diesel, the savings are expected to be up to four cents per litre until February and up to two cents per litre through March. These savings matter. When families are already managing the cost of groceries, housing, utilities and transportation, every dollar can make a difference. For a family that depends on a vehicle to get to work, take children to school or attend a doctor's appointment, fuel is not an optional expense. It is a necessary part of everyday life. In Surrey, Newton, I hear from families and small business owners who are working hard to manage their expenses. Our community includes commuters, delivery workers, tradespeople and entrepreneurs who depend on transportation to earn a living. Reducing fuel costs can help these Canadians manage their daily expenses. The benefits would also extend beyond the gas station. Truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors depend on fuel to operate. Lower fuel costs can help reduce operating expenses and support the movement of goods across Canada. When a truck transports food to the grocery store, a construction company moves equipment to a workplace or a small business delivers products to its customers, fuel costs play an important part. This measure would provide temporary support to businesses facing economic uncertainty. Canada is operating in a changing global environment. International conflicts and disruptions in global energy markets have placed pressures on fuel prices. At the same time, Canadian businesses and families are dealing with uncertainty related to international trade and tariffs. We cannot control every global event that affects the price of oil or gasoline. However, we can make decisions within our control to support Canadians. Our government is also taking broader action to make life more affordable. We are lowering the personal income tax from 15% to 14%, providing tax relief of up to $420 per year per person or up to $840 for a two-income family. We have also cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, provided GST relief for eligible first-time homebuyers and taken steps to strengthen competition in essential services. These measures address different areas of household expenses. Affordability is not only about the price Canadians pay today. It is also about building an economy that creates good-paying jobs, attracts investment and supports long-term economic security. As we provide temporary relief from fuel costs, we must also continue working toward a competitive and sustainable Canadian economy. Our industrial carbon pricing system is distinct from the consumer carbon pricing. It is designed to support Canada's position as a responsible energy supplier, encourage investment in emission-reducing technologies and strengthen access to international markets. Canada has the opportunity to grow its energy exports, create jobs and attract investment while continuing to address environmental challenges. We must approach these objectives together. I recognize that members of the House may have different views about the duration and design of fuel tax relief. There can be legitimate discussions about the fiscal costs, the duration of temporary measures and how best to support Canadians facing financial challenges and pressures. However, Bill C-38 provides a specific and time-limited measure to reduce the federal fuel excise tax. It offers continued relief until the end of January, followed by a temporary reduction in the regular rate through March 2027. Families and businesses need support today, and they also need an economy that is prepared for the future. As the MP for Surrey Newton, I will continue to support measures that address affordability concerns in our community and across Canada. Our government is focused on helping Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money while strengthening our economy. I encourage all members to support Bill C-38 so that Canadians get the relief they deserve.

Madam Speaker, in fact, here is the question that I should be asking the hon. member: Why did he and his leader vote time and time again against all those measures we brought to the House, whether it was cutting the gas tax, cutting the cost for 22 million Canadians with tax relief or providing food support to schools. I can go through the list, but I know I have only five minutes. The member and his leader voted against all those measures, but Canadians were helped and they feel helped. I can tell the member about the positive response that I get on the ground on those issues.

Madam Speaker, one thing that I personally know and in fact all my constituents know is that the Prime Minister knows investments. When it comes to creating this sovereign fund, he knows exactly where he is going and he is going to invest for Canadians. Canadians are the ones who will make money, and that money will be invested into the programs that the NDP cares for and always asks for. We will continue to invest in those benefits.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has been a great friend and a great ally, and is always passionate when it comes to helping Canadians, including with 10¢ a litre on gasoline. I am a small business person. My business has vehicles because it is a land surveying company, and they use gasoline. I know hundreds and hundreds of paid people in my riding who use vehicles. Because my community is a bedroom community, they commute to work. They drop off their kids at day care. They need this help. This help is badly needed. It is going to help people, whether a small business person, a plumber, an electrician, a roofer or generally a Canadian who is looking for an affordable price for gas. On the other hand, there is the cutting of taxes for 22 million people. If we cut the tax by 1%, that is going to help them. They do appreciate and believe in the Prime Minister, and they believe in—

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to welcome to Ottawa today the president of the Islamic Association of Western Canada, Mr. Muhammad Arjamand Tahir, and the vice-president, Mr. Syed Asif Iqbal. In 2018, they began their journey to establish a beautiful mosque in the heart of Surrey, B.C. Today, that vision has become a reality with the establishment of Jamia Masjid Aulia Allah. I look forward to joining them later today to celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, an event organized by Imam Syed Badiuddin Soharwardy, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Please join me in commending them for their dedication to faith, community service and unity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Rajpaul Singh Dhillon, known as Paul Dhillon, an award-winning journalist, screenwriter, producer and film director whose contributions enriched Canada's cultural landscape and amplified the voices of diverse communities. Through his work, he shared stories that fostered understanding, celebrated heritage and connected people across generations. His dedication to journalism, storytelling and the arts reflected a commitment to truth, creativity and community. I extend my sincere condolences to his spouse, Harsimrat, and his two children, Muskaan and Ishaan, as well as to all those whose lives he touched. May his memory and enduring legacy continue to inspire future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Arun Garg for his lifetime of leadership, service and dedication to improving public health in British Columbia. For more than 50 years, including several decades with Fraser Health, Dr. Garg has advanced culturally informed health care. He has championed prevention, healthy living and community-based care, while bridging traditional knowledge with modern medicine. As the founder of Canada India Network Society and a leader of the South Asian Health Institute, Dr. Garg has brought together physicians, researchers and community leaders to improve culturally informed care and healthier living. Dr. Garg's vision, humility and commitment to teamwork have created a legacy for generations to come. Please join me in thanking Dr. Arun Garg for his amazing service to our communities and to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have spent the last week talking down Canada's economy, industries and workers. Meanwhile, our government is making historic investments to grow the economy and strengthen Canada's future, from tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure to reaching NATO's 2% target, and $6 billion for the skilled trades. Can the minister tell Canadians how these investments are helping us respond to economic headwinds and build a more resilient and prosperous economy?

Mr. Speaker, demand for LNG is growing, and Canada is the cleanest supplier to help meet the demand. During the last election, we committed to making Canada an energy superpower, and we are delivering on that promise. Less than a year ago, LNG Canada delivered its first exports to Asia, and we are already expanding further. Can the minister update the House on the efforts to expand Canadian LNG exports?

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrated Africa Day yesterday, I would like to recognize the impactful work of Beyond Hoops Africa under the leadership of James Kamau. Rooted in Surrey's African diaspora, this organization represents the power of community-driven development across borders. Through initiatives in Kenya, it is expanding access to clean water, building sports facilities and promoting environmental stewardship. Equally important, it is creating meaningful opportunities for Canadians to engage in global citizenship and support sustainable change. Its work reflects the very best of collaboration, compassion and leadership, strengthening ties between Canada and Africa while empowering youth and communities toward a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh. This month marks the seventh anniversary of Sikh Heritage Month, which allows us to celebrate and educate future generations about the contributions Sikh Canadians continue to make across our country. Vaisakhi, the founding of Khalsa, is being honoured today on Parliament Hill. On April 18, Khalsa Day and Vaisakhi will be celebrated in Surrey Newton, where the annual Nagar Kirtan will attract over half a million people. This celebration reflects the Sikh commitment to equality, selfless service and unity. I thank the organizers of the Surrey Nagar Kirtan and Sikh Canadians across our nation, who, over the past century, have helped build Canada into the country it is today. Jo Bole So Nihal. Sat Sri Akal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of the Tradesman Association of British Columbia, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the skilled trades and strengthening our construction industry. Through education, safety training and professional development, the association helps tradespeople build successful careers while promoting high standards of workmanship and safety. On March 28 and 29, the association will host its 10th annual construction expo in Surrey, welcoming thousands of visitors with free public admission. Led by president and founder Mr. Raman Sharma, this expo connects industry professionals with families and homeowners, showcases innovation and green building and supports local businesses. I commend Mr. Sharma and the Tradesman Association of BC for its leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, I rise to recognize the important contributions of Black Canadians and the work of the Black Business Association of BC. Surrey is home to the largest black population in our province. Black entrepreneurs are creating jobs, driving innovation and strengthening our economy, even as many face systemic barriers. Led by co-founders Nerissa Allen and Clavia Alleyne, the Black Business Association of BC is addressing these challenges. Through programs that support market access, regulatory compliance and international trade, they help businesses grow and compete globally. By investing in equity and inclusion, we invest in Canada's future and build a stronger, more inclusive Canada. Today is Pink Shirt Day. Let us stand against bullying and stand together in kindness.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with not only a good friend of mine, but in fact a great friend of the Sikh community, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The interim federal health program, or IFHP, is a temporary program. It supports people who do not yet have provincial or territorial health coverage. It is also an important tool to protect the health and safety of Canadians while supporting vulnerable people who are seeking Canada's protection. Let me address the claims behind the motion before us. The first is on the growth in costs. Yes, costs under the IFHP have increased, but we must be honest about why. The cost of this program depends mainly on two things: how many asylum claims are made, and how long it takes to make final decisions. When claim volumes are high and processing times are long, costs rise. The good news is that under our government, asylum claims were down by about one-third last year. This will reduce pressure on the IFHP. Through Bill C-12 and other measures, we are closing loopholes at the border, tightening visa rules and discouraging misuse of the asylum system. These actions reduce future surges and shorten delays. That is how we control costs responsibly. Second, the opposition relies heavily on the projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We respect the work of the PBO, but this report presents an incomplete picture. It does not account for the recent changes to the IFHP announced in budget 2025, the expected impact of Bill C-12 on claim volumes and processing time, and the possibility of further future adjustments. It also assumes that the government will do nothing more, which is simply not true. When opposition members claim that the program will cost far more in the future, they are relying on projections that ignore reforms already under way. Third is the claim that asylum claimants receive better care than Canadians. The IFHP provides basic and temporary coverage while claims are processed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Essential care, such as visits to a doctor or a hospital, will continue to be fully covered. This protects public health and avoids higher costs later. For supplementary benefits, such as some vision care and medications, we are making measured changes. Starting in May, there will be a $4 copayment for filling or refilling a prescription and a 30% copayment for other supplementary services. These changes were announced in budget 2025. They are expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. They also align the IFHP with other publicly funded programs, including those for people on social assistance. At this time, essential care remains fully covered. We will monitor the impact closely to protect public health and meet our legal and humanitarian obligations. Fourth, the motion claims that asylum claims are preventing Canadians from getting health care. There is no evidence for this. It is difficult to measure exactly how much pressure asylum claimants place on the health care system, and rejected claimants are only one portion of the IFHP users. My two daughters are physicians who are proudly serving Canadians, and I can say that Canada's health care challenges mainly come from a shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population and long-standing system pressures. Blaming asylum seekers will not fix wait times. It will not train nurses, and it will not build hospitals. That is why our government is investing in health care for Canadians. More than six million Canadians are now eligible for the Canadian dental care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars a year. With budget 2025, we are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure. We are all well aware that this is the first time leadership has been shown by a federal government to intervene in this particular program. Through pharmacare, mental health investments and co-operation with provinces and territories, we are strengthening health care based on medical need, not the ability to pay. Let me turn to the proposals in the motion. Part A calls for reviewing benefits to find savings. We already agree with this principle. That is why we introduced copayments for supplementary benefits. These changes will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We can remain open to further examination, but the motion ignores what has already been done. Part B calls for limiting rejected claimants to emergency life-saving care only. This sounds simple, but it is not. Some people cannot be removed for humanitarian reasons. Limiting them to emergency-only care would create a contradiction. We would be saying we cannot send them back but also denying them basic primary care. This also risks pushing people into hospital emergency rooms instead of to family doctors. That increases costs and pressure on the health care system. We can show limited openness to reviewing how long coverage lasts, but the Conservative proposal would likely create higher costs and worse outcomes. Part C calls for more transparency. Our government is already transparent. We have provided information to Parliament. We asked the PBO to examine the program. We answered Order Paper questions. The number of people covered and cost are already public. A new formal reporting law is therefore unnecessary. Part D calls for immediate removal of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. In Canada, criminal law comes first. People must face justice and serve their sentences before removal. If we change this rule, we would remove a real punishment for serious crime. People could commit crimes and simply be sent home. Recently I had a discussion with one of the top young criminal defence lawyers, Gagan Nahal, who is also running for a city council position. I wish him the best. In fact, he agreed with me that they should be punished and serve sentences before they are sent back to their home country. The motion would weaken deterrence and threaten public safety as well. I also want to speak about politics and accountability. The Conservatives say this motion is about accountability in health care spending, but if they truly care about accountability in the health care system, they would support my private member's bill, Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. The Conservatives cannot say they want accountability on one hand and then block an accountability bill on the other. This shows the motion is not really about fixing health care; it is about playing politics with vulnerable people. The IFHP is not only about compassion. It is about public health and smart spending. Many asylum claimants will eventually become protected persons, permanent residents and possibly citizens. If we deny basic health care now, we will likely pay much higher costs later through the emergency care system. The government is acting responsibly by reducing asylum claim volumes, speeding up decisions, introducing copayments and investing in health care for Canadians. While the Conservatives debate what services to cut, we are focused on health care based on medical needs and fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the hon. member. He is very compassionate and a very good friend of the Sikh community. As I mentioned earlier, there are accountability issues with health care. That is why I brought in Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. I would request that the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George and his leader support that bill, so we can provide the accountability that Canadians, particularly British Columbians, need.

Mr. Speaker, on this particular question, I agree with the member. When there was a non-controlled border location where people were moving into Quebec and piling up those claims, we, as a federal government, were fully committed to making sure that we were able to provide the resources that the Government of Quebec and Quebeckers needed to deal with those situations. I personally support him on this idea.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for being the seconder to Bill C-239, and for his support and inspiration to me as I brought this forward. I am hearing a lot of resentment from the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party. Conservatives think they believe in accountability, but they do not. In fact, if they really believed in accountability in health care and wanted to improve health care for Canadians, they would support Bill C-239. It is a very basic bill that would open up the Canada Health Act and introduce a sixth pillar, for provincial governments to be responsible so that Canadians' dollars are well spent on Canadians for their health care and for their well-being.

Madam Speaker, extortion has been a key issue in British Columbia. I have been on this file almost every day, talking to the secretary of state, the Minister of Public Safety or even the Prime Minister. The Conservatives are playing games when it comes to dealing with extortion. I would ask the hon. secretary of state what the Conservatives can do immediately to deal with this situation instead of making it a political football?

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned foreign interference. In fact I am very familiar with the issue because I brought in a motion in the previous Parliament to deal with foreign interference. In fact our government brought in Bill C-70 to deal with those situations as well. I would like the hon. member to tell the House what kind of foreign interference he is hearing about on the ground, and what his leader is doing to curb that situation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre. Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre. The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system. In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks. We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law. Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays. Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal. Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation. Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending. In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system. The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage. Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act. Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about. Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada. Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law. The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions. For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.