Jagsharan Singh Mahal

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“The government copies our ideas, but it cuts them in half and does not run them properly. If the government is going to use our programs, it should run them fully so Canadians and young people can get well-paying jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the member’s analysis of the situation right now. The government tries to use our ideas, but then all of a sudden it cuts half of them or applies them half-heartedly. If the government has to apply our programs, let us be honest about it and apply them, so Canadians can have good paying jobs and earn good cheques, and so youth can also be a productive part of society and have well-paying jobs.”

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“Summer jobs are temporary, but young people need long-term work. The committee recommended cutting red tape to help them, but the government has only made announcements so far. We are ready to work with them on real changes that help youth get jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the temporary numbers. The member talks about summer jobs. Summer jobs are temporary, but the jobs that youth are facing issues with are not just the summer jobs. It is more than that, and as the committee has recommended, we need to cut red tape. The member just confirmed that they have announced a program that would cut the red tape. It is nothing but announcements yet, so we have to see. We are willing to work, along with the party opposite, to make sure of that. Any positive changes to the current program that can help young people get jobs are welcome.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the House to approve this committee report and use its 16 recommendations. Young Canadians are losing jobs and struggling to find work. High taxes, too much paperwork, and blocked resource projects are hurting our economy. We also need to recognize foreign work credentials faster so newcomers do not have to compete with young people for entry-level jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise to discuss the issue of youth unemployment, an issue that I know affects many Edmontonians and far more Canadians. I would first like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their hard work over seven meetings to draft this 10th report. Canada has historically been a country where people build, discover and invest. However, for the last decade, Canada has experienced the opposite. More often, corporations are taking capital investment south of our border and students from our top universities are leaving to work on projects outside the country. Canada needs to do better. As parliamentarians, we must take an active role in shaping the environment for youth to succeed economically. That does not mean planning an economy for them. Rather, it means developing smart, pointed policy aimed at fixing a broken system of brain drain and a major lack of economic opportunities. As they say, the first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that there is one. The 16 recommendations set forward by this report are an important start and, therefore, should be concurred in by the government. In Edmonton Southeast, I am hearing more often from parents about their children having difficulty being able to find work, and the data supports these parental concerns. In August of this year, Canada lost 42,000 jobs, including 19,000 jobs for young Canadians aged 15 to 24. Similarly, in September 2026, Canada lost another 68,000 jobs, with youth accounting for 48,000 of those lost positions. In just two months, youth employment declined by 67,000 jobs. That is around 61% of the total decline in employment. These numbers are concerning and call for action. Conservatives and my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park, Alberta, have offered real solutions. Our four-point plan includes unleashing the economy, fixing training, fixing the system where high-skilled newcomers compete for entry-level jobs and building homes where the work is necessary to create employment opportunities for youth. Conservatives have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to reduce red tape and taxes so that Canada can return to a simple but effective regulatory environment that supports the creation and growth of youth employment. Multiple witnesses cited in this report conclude that heavy taxation limits the capacity to invest in new technology and expansion. In fact, one witness was even cited as saying that Canada is no longer an attractive place to start a career or business due to our sluggish economic environment. We cannot accept this assertion as fact. We must deliver better for our youth. Employers must be encouraged to hire, build and keep workers in Canada. Youth are most affected by changing market forces, so entrepreneurs must see Canada as a reliable and predictable market to grow their business. Now, more than ever before, companies can move between countries. It is time for the Liberal government to address these issues by creating a landscape that attracts and retains those companies rather than letting them go somewhere more business-friendly. Furthermore, this report explicitly calls upon the government to acknowledge the importance that resource development and manufacturing play in our economy. The Liberal government has actively worked to block major resource projects in this country. Announcements are nothing but announcements, and more paperwork does not get Canada back on track. We need faster approvals, shorter timelines and a greater acknowledgement of the people who build our country. Tradespeople are the backbone of Canada. We cannot build our roads and our homes without them. We need a Canada where skilled trades work is celebrated and honoured. In our economy, these jobs can be some of the highest-paying and most rewarding for youth. There needs to be a shift so the trades are neither looked down upon nor compared to a university education. Each is a unique track that offers positive outcomes. The pipefitter or electrician needs a clear pathway from training to apprenticeship and certification, and they must feel that their work is worthwhile as a career. The final point I want to mention is the certification of immigrants in Canada. Like many members of the House, I was not born in Canada. However, I always saw Canada as a country of hope, opportunity and prosperity. When I arrived as a young man, I was lucky to be a trained lawyer, and the pathways to credential transfer were clear. This is not the case for most jobs, which is an unfortunate reality that has held Canada back for decades. The HUMA report finds that this holdup is forcing new Canadians to compete with youth for entry-level jobs. The 2021 census data showed that 25.8% of immigrants with foreign degrees were working in jobs requiring, at most, a high school diploma. This stat reflects Canada’s broader productivity problem. Our economy loses out on increased tax revenues from high-wage jobs, and entry-level jobs become unnecessarily competitive for young Canadians. This scenario is all too common and, frankly, benefits no one. Conservatives have been asking for greater pathways for skilled immigrants to gain accreditation and equivalency training. A new framework would benefit the economy as a whole. It is not a secret that our youth are struggling. Youth without jobs means more lineups at food banks. In March 2026, Food Banks Canada reported that 33% of visitors were under the age of 18. This is more than a 6% increase from the same time a year before. Young Canadians should not have to leave Canada to find opportunity because our economy fails to deliver. The recommendations set out by this 10th report provides a starting point for addressing these challenges, from reducing barriers to employment to strengthening apprenticeship pathways and improving credential recognition. Concurrence in this report is an opportunity for Parliament to acknowledge the seriousness of youth unemployment and demand meaningful action. The government must now turn these recommendations into results. Young Canadians are waiting.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that there is one.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since June 4.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“I do not support this bill. It just adds more government offices instead of getting things built. To build big projects, we need to get rid of existing Liberal laws like the tanker ban and the project assessment rules.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government's bill from last year has not started a single project. We are right to question this new bill to make sure it actually works.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Burton Bailey

“I do not trust this bill to get major projects built faster. The government made the same promise in an earlier bill, but it achieved nothing. Making new offices and more paperwork does not cut red tape or end bans on shipping oil. Delays in approving projects cost jobs and push young Canadians to leave the country. We want six-month approvals, fewer rules, and an end to the oil tanker ban.”

“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.”

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“The government's plan to lower fuel taxes temporarily will not help Canadians for very long. The government should get rid of these taxes completely because they make life unaffordable.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill helps, but it does not go far enough. I want the government to extend the fuel tax break until Canada Day 2027. I also want them to get rid of the clean fuel rules and the industrial carbon tax, because they make everyday life too expensive.”

“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.”

“I support this bill, but it does not go far enough. Pausing the fuel tax helps, but the government should remove all federal fuel taxes until July 2027 to give families real relief.”

“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.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Any relief for working Canadians is good news.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“The government needs to do more to hold big companies accountable. High oil prices are partly due to the government's bad policies and its failure to cut taxes to give Canadians relief.”

“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.”