Jagsharan Singh Mahal
Edmonton Southeast, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 124 lines we hold for Jagsharan Singh Mahal, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with another member of the House. It is an honour to be here and speak to Bill C-13 , an act implementing U.K. accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, commonly known as CPTPP. Common-sense Conservatives support free trade. Canada is a trading nation, and we know that through free trade, we get better economic results. Free trade lowers prices for consumers and provides a greater variety of goods. Having more producers in the market drives down costs and leaves the consumer better off. It increases efficiency. With international competition, businesses are encouraged to improve their resource allocation and utilization. Finally, it allows us to specialize to our advantages. Canada has many resources and a lot of human capital.”
“Mr. Speaker, Edmonton residents are paying the price of inaction in the Liberal extortion crisis. Every day I hear about extortionists and gangsters who are threatening families and businesses in Edmonton and across the country. Meanwhile, the government has done nothing but weakened sentencing and pushed catch-and-release bail. Liberal Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail time, and Liberal Bill C-75 forces judges to release repeat violent offenders back into our communities. Criminals should fear the law; law-abiding Canadians should not. Under the Liberal government, extortion is up 330%. A Conservative government will bring back mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. These criminals deserve to be in jail, not on bail. It is time to stop crime, end the chaos and bring home safe streets to Edmonton.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is the core issue. The Liberals are out of touch with reality. They are out of touch with the real issues Canadians are facing. Rather, they come up with rebates and other bandage solutions that their predecessors already tried and that failed. They still have not learned that lesson, and they want to keep on repeating those mistakes.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a valid question. The bill, as far as I understand, would cover fewer than 30% of Canadians who have been really struggling. Some families would not even be covered under its conditions. On top of that, it would increase the deficit by an additional $12 billion. Nobody knows where that money would come from. Would the money be reprinted as in Justin Trudeau's time, or is there any plan B for the government? With regard to the second part of my friend's question about why this was not added to the budget, the Liberals are in a better position to say why they did not disclose their intentions at that time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's comments. Again, my answer to the comments is that we as Conservatives believe in real solutions. We do not believe in the bandages that Liberals are the masters of putting on when they are out of touch with the real challenges that people face. When they face those challenges at the door, the Liberals come up with rebates and other bandages to cover up the situation. This is not going to work. They have to listen to Canadians and their problems. I wish the member would go to her local grocery store, check out the prices and draw a comparison from the last five years. She would get the answer.”
“While Conservatives will support the bill, the bill itself is not enough, and we will continue to fight against inflationary Liberal policies and work for Canadians.”
“We would scrap the Liberal food packaging tax, eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax that adds 17¢ per litre at the pump, and reverse inflationary deficits that drive up prices across the country. We would cut red tape for farmers so they could grow more food at lower cost, and boost competition in the grocery sector so Canadians can get better prices. We would lower the cost of growing, transporting and selling food, not subsidize the damage after the fact. In short, Conservatives would lower prices permanently, not temporarily send cheques while inflation keeps rising. Instead, all that Canadians are getting from Liberals are temporary band-aid solutions.”
“They are disappearing because no one can afford to eat out and because operating costs have become unbearable under Liberal policies. In Edmonton Southeast, local business owners tell me they want to keep prices affordable but cannot keep up with rising rent, rising fuel costs, rising taxes and rising food prices. The Liberals' answer is yet another rebate. Conservatives believe Canadians deserve real solutions. We support measures that bring immediate relief, including the GST rebate announced in Bill C-19 , but relief alone is not enough. We must fix the policies that caused this crisis. Conservatives have put forward clear, concrete proposals, and the Liberals have voted them down.”
“The consequences are severe: A quarter of Canadian households are now considered food-insecure. Nearly 2.2 million people visited food banks every month last year. A recent food survey found that almost 30% of students are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. According to MNP, an accounting firm, 71% of Canadians expect their cost of living to rise in 2026, and 41% of Canadians say that they are $200 or less away from bankruptcy. This is not a functioning economy; this is a cost of living crisis. This crisis is not just hurting families; it is also hurting small businesses and local restaurants. Last year alone, 7,000 restaurants closed across Canada. This year another 4,000 are expected to shut their doors. These are family-run businesses. These are jobs in our communities. These are places where neighbours gather.”
“The government is running a $78-billion deficit. Government spending has increased by roughly $90 billion. These inflationary deficits drive up the cost of everything, including groceries. On top of that, the Liberals have layered tax after tax onto farmers, truckers and food processors. The industrial carbon tax raises costs for food producers. The fuel standard tax adds about 17¢ per litre to the price of gas, which drives up transportation costs. The Liberal food packaging tax increases costs at every step of the supply chain. Farmers pay more to grow food. Truckers pay more to ship it. Grocery stores pay more to keep their shelves stocked, and in the end, Canadian families pay more at the checkout. (1655) The government claims to be helping Canadians, but its own policies are making food more expensive.”
“A GST rebate would not cancel out a 21% increase in ground beef or, worse, a 40% increase in coffee. It would not make infant formula more affordable for parents who are already stretched to the limit. The government's approach is simple. It raises the costs with one hand, and then offers rebates with the other and pretends that it is helping. Every dollar the Prime Minister and the Liberal government spend comes from Canadian pockets, and Canadians are feeling it. The Prime Minister admitted, when he announced this legislation, that he does not have a solution to stop food inflation. That should alarm everyone. Food inflation is not an accident. It is a direct result of Liberal policies, massive deficits, reckless spending and hidden taxes that drive up the cost of producing, transporting and selling food.”
“We know it did not because since 2022, this inflationary crisis has not stopped. Grocery prices kept climbing, and families kept falling behind. Here we are again with the same failed Liberal idea, rebranded under a new Liberal Prime Minister . The problem is not that Canadians do not have enough rebates. The problem is that the Liberal government has driven food inflation out of control. Canada is now the food inflation capital of the G7. Food prices are rising faster here than in any other major advanced economy. Food inflation is now roughly twice as high as it is in the United States. Under the government, food costs are up 6.2% year over year. Grocery prices are up 5%, and restaurant prices are up 8.5%. These are not abstract numbers. Canadians see it aisle by aisle, item by item, every time they shop.”
“Today we are debating Bill C-19 , the so-called Canadian groceries and essentials benefit act. The Liberals are presenting this bill as a solution to the cost of living crisis. In reality, it is a temporary rebate meant to cover up a permanent problem created by the government. Let us be clear about what Bill C-19 would do. It would expand the GST credit by 25% over the next five years and would add a one-time 50% top-up this June. Conservatives support relief for families that are struggling, but the House should not be pretending that mailing another cheque would solve the root cause of why groceries have been so expensive in the first place. Justin Trudeau introduced a nearly identical policy in 2022, doubling the same tax credit. At the time, the Liberals promised it would help affordability; it did not.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not measure government success by press conferences, talking points or rebranded programs. They measure success by what they see when they stand at the checkout line in their local grocery store. In Edmonton Southeast, families tell me the same thing again and again: They used to worry about what they wanted to buy, but now they worry about what they can afford. Parents are putting fewer fresh items in their carts. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching meals. Young people are skipping groceries to pay rent. Students are skipping meals altogether. These are not isolated stories. They are the realities of life under the Liberal government. The Prime Minister himself said that he should be judged by the cost of groceries. By that standard, the government has failed.”
“Therefore, the petitioners are seeking for the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9 , protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government institutions from interfering.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to table a petition on behalf of the constituents of my riding who want to force the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9 and block the Liberal amendment that was passed in committee to remove the religious freedom defence clause from the Criminal Code. The petitioners believe that the government is going to criminalize passages from the Bible, Quran, Torah and other religious texts. If allowed, it would prosecute those who deeply express their religious beliefs. Punishment for such a crime is up to two years. The state has no business in people's religious faiths, teachings and the beliefs that they hold deeply within their conscience.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sit on the science and research committee. Last Wednesday, the chair arbitrarily cancelled the meeting half an hour prior. Today they cancelled our Monday meeting without any advance notice. They cancelled the meeting on justice and other committees. What are the Liberals trying to hide? What do they have to hide? Why are they running away from questions? Why are they not doing the job that people want them to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his genuine, common-sense question on affordability. The Prime Minister has failed badly on affordability. Canadians have already given him an F grade on his promise that he can be judged by how much groceries cost at the grocery store. That said, there are over 5,000 homeless people in Edmonton Southeast. I do not see anything in the budget on affordability for people who do not have jobs or who meet low-income criteria. I am not satisfied with the budget nor with the steps the government has taken. It has failed to take into consideration the people who are struggling with the lack of jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed I do. There has been the same situation in my riding of Edmonton Southeast, where a hospital was projected to be built, with earlier costs set at $1.5 billion. The province had to push that because the cost is now over $5 billion. The cuts that the government is making to essential services and to critical things like hospitals do not make sense. The amount allocated in the budget, $5 billion nationwide, is just peanuts, nothing but a joke to the health care system, which is already broken.”
“Mr. Speaker, I honestly like that the senior member of the Liberals can speak for hours without saying anything or making any sense. To answer his question, I want to say that the Prime Minister has been to the U.S., and there has been no progress. He has been to India, and India has increased tariffs on peas. He has been to China, and there are increased tariffs. He has been to England, and our beef exports are not at the level of what it is exporting to Canada. The Prime Minister is touring country to country, a new country every time, but he comes back with literally nothing.”
“I am very proud of my vote against it. I am proud because my constituents voted for affordability. They are struggling. Let me remind the House of the cost of living crisis due to 10 years of Liberal spending. Over the past year, the price of coffee has gone up 34%. Carrots are up 11%; beef, 17%; oranges, 7%; baby formula, 6%, telephone services, 8%; rent, over 5% and new vehicles, 4.5%. Do members know what is not going up this year? Paycheques, home ownership and the standard of living are not. The people of Edmonton Southeast are fed up with Liberal spending. Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians and affordability. There must be no more cooked Liberal books.”
“It is no wonder they want to get rid of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The PBO also found that the budget will not even balance the government's operating budget over the next five years, abandoning what has been a key fiscal anchor. Very quickly, Canadians have learned that “spend less...invest more” really means otherwise; it means spending more and investing less. Let me recap the broken promises. The Prime Minister broke his promise on the deficit. He broke his promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio. He broke his promise on investing more. In less than a year, the Prime Minister is showing us very quickly that the government is the same old Liberal government we have had for 10 years, maybe even worse. It is not what Canadians voted for. It is not what they want. Conservatives could not support the budget.”
“It is only with taxpayer dollars that the Prime Minister is interested in investing in Canada. Even then, with our money, he is misleading about the investment in Canada. It has become clear that he has cooked the books. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed this, saying that the Prime Minister 's definition of capital spending in the budget was “overly expansive”. It defies international accounting standards. In the budget, the Liberals lumped corporate tax breaks and subsidies in with capital spending. Within international public accounting norms, we cannot consider this to be real capital formation. According to the PBO, the government's real capital spending is 30% lower than it claimed. That is a $94-billion difference. The Liberals cooked the books and are getting caught.”
“They will be paying off the ridiculous spending of the lost Liberal decade for much longer than we will be alive. The Liberal Prime Minister also promised he would invest more. “Spend less...invest more” has been the tag line of the budget, but in the budget itself, at page 38, there is a graph showing that in every quarter of this year, private sector business investment will fall. Who would have thought that the Prime Minister, an investor, banker and economist by trade, would see private sector investment fall under his watch? Even before he was the current Prime Minister , he was Trudeau's economic adviser. He is responsible for the problem, which is proven by the fact that he would not invest in Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister was moving his Brookfield operations to the United States.”
“The amount being paid on borrowing costs is already higher than the revenue brought in from the GST. Yes, the 5% levy on almost everything we buy in Canada is essentially only covering our debt servicing cost. Think about where all the money could go if we were fiscally responsible and started reducing the amount of debt and debt servicing we have to pay. Our health care system is in shambles. Millions of Canadians cannot get a doctor or specialist and often go to emergency rooms. Imagine if more of our dollars could go to doctors, nurses and hospitals instead of just paying off old debt. By creating more debt, we are making this problem worse. The future generation will pay more. (1630) Look at the system now. It is already overloaded. What do people think the system will be like for our children?”
“The Prime Minister also promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but the analysis provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer says otherwise. The PBO found that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be even higher than it was in the last economic update, and Canada is no longer projected to be on a declining path over the medium term. In last fall's economic statement, it was noted that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was “key not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.” By allowing the debt-to-GDP ratio to get higher, the Prime Minister is not only adding debt; he is also making our debt expensive. If it continues down this road, Canada will be unable to handle a lower credit rating and increased borrowing costs.”
“Here are some of the promises the new Liberal Prime Minister broke. The Prime Minister promised a deficit no bigger than $62 billion, but what we got is a deficit of nearly $80 billion. This is $16 billion more than he promised and twice the size of the deficit left by Justin Trudeau. Who would have believed it was possible to spend more than Justin Trudeau? I am sure someone told the Prime Minister when he took office that he had big shoes to fill, but I do not believe this is what was meant. He is spending the most in Canadian history outside of the pandemic and is doing so with a smile. Every hour, $10 million is being added to the national debt. This is proof that he is no different than the Liberals have been in the past 10 years.”
“I am proud to be one of the new MPs in this House. I was elected by the common-sense people of Edmonton Southeast, who wanted to fix this budget. I recently met with one of my constituents who is from the U.K. She made it clear why our Prime Minister , the former governor of the Bank of England, should not be the Prime Minister of Canada after what he did to that country. She was not misled, but many Canadians were misled. They believed the Prime Minister would be different from his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. With this first budget, which is the first real test of the Prime Minister , he proved that he is no different from Justin Trudeau. Like Liberals often do, they say one thing to Canadians and do the other. They misled voters. This is the same budget, if not worse, that we saw during the 10 years of Justin Trudeau.”
“Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, Canadians went to the polls, and we all know what was top of mind for voters: It was affordability. For 10 years, under these same Liberals, affordability was thrown to the side. Our country's spending was mismanaged. They spent all the money they could and took no responsibility for the public purse. Then came the current Prime Minister . During the election, he told Canadians he would be different and would not be like his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He said that he would be responsible. The Prime Minister persuaded Canadians that they could judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Many Canadians were not fooled. They knew, after 10 years, who the Liberals were. They voted for common-sense Conservatives, and now we have the largest opposition in years, with 25 new seats.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians and is driving up the cost of everything. The Liberals could have lowered food costs by scrapping the plastic packaging tax, which drives up the cost of produce by 34% and costs the average household $400; instead, they chose to keep it. Why is the Prime Minister keeping the packaging tax and making food more expensive?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving such a touching speech on Bill C-14 and the loopholes within it. There is still the principle of restraint and house arrest for traffickers and people involved in firearms crimes and serious crimes. How does that resonate with him? How does that resonate given the ongoing threats, killings and shootings throughout Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative, I have genuine concerns, and I want to make sure all Canadians know about them. Is the bill not going to add more red tape? When red tape is added, delays are added. Provincial health care is already burdened with delays, as we all know. Has the member consulted provinces on Bill C-239 , and which provinces have they consulted?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are going through times where youth unemployment is at a record-high number. Does she agree with me that making youth employment a priority on the Liberal side would have an impact on crime when it comes to youth?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 still allows serious offenders, such as those who commit robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to use the option of house arrest. I know, and the member opposite knows, that communities are struggling with ongoing extortion demands and killings in the community. How would he justify the continuing loopholes in Bill C-14 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, would the member agree with me that there is no minimum mandatory jail time for drug traffickers, for fentanyl traffickers and for gangsters in this bill? Also, the bill does not mention anything about stopping safe consumption sites from being close to schools and day cares. Young families are being impacted on a daily basis. How is the government going to stay true to its intent of making sure the legislation protects those who are affected by it?”
“Mr. Speaker, would the member opposite agree with me that there is a clear duality in the intent of the Liberal government and that it is failing to walk the talk by leaving out minimum mandatory jail time for fentanyl traffickers and for gangsters?”
“Mr. Speaker, how does my colleague feel about this disconnect when, on one hand, the Liberals say they want to work hard on fentanyl and its consumption, but at the same time, they are not willing to stop safe consumption sites close to schools and day cares?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech pointing out the frailties and shortcomings in this bill that still need to be talked about. My question is quite simple. The Liberals still seem to be pushing for safe consumption sites, including by schools, day cares and play zones, as you said in your remarks. How do you feel about this disconnect—”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Liberal member advocating for Bill C-12 . If Bill C-12 intends to clean up the already burdened asylum system, how come it does not mention repealing pre-removal risk assessments once a refugee claim is already refused? It is parallel legislation within the legislation that would put an additional burden on Canadian taxpayers to force them to redo the same test once that test has already failed. I would like to hear an answer from the member opposite on that.”
“My fellow Conservatives and I will fight hard to stop the crime so that criminals like the ones who attacked them will face real consequences, not just a slap on the wrist.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, crime and chaos is out of control. Extortion has exploded into one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada, with threats against small business owners and innocent citizens. Just this weekend, in my riding of Edmonton Southeast, an innocent family had their house shot up after it was misidentified by gangsters. This is unacceptable. It is a direct result of the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes. That is why Conservatives want to restore mandatory jail time and repeal the dangerous Liberal catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . To the innocent family whose home was shot at, that should not have happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, among other things, there are frailties in the proposed Liberal Bill C-12 , and I want to ask a question of the member who is taking part in this debate about the bill. There is no answer to the safe supply of fentanyl. It is still going to continue, which poses a threat of AMR, something being studied at a committee I am currently working on. There is no minimum mandatory sentence for traffickers in regard to fentanyl. There is no minimum sentence for gangsters. How would you respond to those questions on what is lacking in the Liberals' proposed Bill C-12 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to recognize an organization that has greatly benefited the Mill Woods community in my riding of Edmonton Southeast. The Mill Woods Cultural and Recreational Facility Association has raised money for and operates community leagues; the Mill Woods Golf Course; Jackie Parker Park, a sensory playground for autistic children; and much more. Over the past 50 years of operation, the organization has contributed over $10 million to the community. The work done by the staff, board and volunteers of the organization greatly benefits the city of Edmonton by bringing people together and providing them with fun recreational activities. I thank the board and all members of the Mill Woods Cultural and Recreational Facility Association for all their hard work.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him by the cost at the grocery store, but after 10 years of the same Liberal government, Canadians cannot afford to eat because of taxes on food. Edmonton's food bank use has doubled in the last five years. The price of sugar is up by 20%, coffee is up by 22%, and grapes are up by 24%. This is because of Liberal taxes on food packaging and carbon taxes on fertilizers. Will the Liberals adopt the Conservatives' motion and stop taxing our food?”
“Madam Speaker, as I said, Conservatives will propose for the bill to go to committee for proper review, for proper safeguards to be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not misused, so that it is not abused and so that it is equally valued by the hard-working non-Canadian-born Canadians like me and like millions of others, so they also feel appreciated. There should be no two-tier tests for immigration.”
“Madam Speaker, as I said in my initial speech, Conservatives need the bill to be amended. Strong changes need to be made. A mere three years, or 1,095 non-consecutive days, is not enough to claim citizenship down the road after a third or fourth generation. It is not enough. There needs to be a more genuine connection with the country. Citizenship is not easy; it is not up for grabs. People should have to prove their intent and their genuine ties to the country in order to have citizenship, and Conservatives are in agreement with that.”
“It is clear that Conservatives are the ones standing up for strong and fair Canadian citizenship. My hope is that the eyes of my colleagues across the aisle will be opened to the need to protect Canadian citizenship and to amend the bill.”
“They have children who have ties with Canada, and it would not be just because of a technicality for convenience that they would pass their citizenship on. The hon. Minister of Immigration said on the record that the Liberals are open to amendments. I hope she keeps her word. The bill could be properly studied in the immigration committee, and real safeguards could be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not weakened and abused. Then those who were born here, or those millions of other Canadians who worked as hard as I did to become Canadian citizens, can feel that their citizenship is worth something. In closing, I want to see the bill fixed. I want to see this go to the immigration committee. Conservatives want proper safeguards in place. We want stronger requirements for passing down citizenship.”
“Jordan Peterson, once wrote that if a person wants to change the world, they should start by making their bed. If the immigration minister wants to change immigration in this country so badly, perhaps she should start making her bed by fixing the absolute embarrassment of the immigration department, IRCC, and its backlog. There are good things in the bill, and Conservatives will support those things. However, Conservatives want the bill to be amended. There is room for compromise, but what is clear is that the requirement of three years, or 1,095 nonconsecutive days, spent in Canada in order to pass on citizenship to the next generation is unacceptable. There must be stronger ties, such as at least five years of time; then we would know that the people have invested in Canada.”
“In the few months since I was elected, over 400 constituents have come to me with their concerns over delays with IRCC applications. Papers are misfiled. Officials do not respond. On average, it takes 18 months to two years for people who are living in Canada, who are investing in Canada and who are building in Canada to get their citizenship complete. The status quo is not okay. People's life plans, their futures and their families are being messed up because IRCC cannot process their applications in a timely manner. If over 100,000 citizenship requests were added to the system tomorrow, what would happen to the system? I wonder if the minister would consider the practical organizational effects of the legislation. It would be a nightmare for the department. A great Canadian, Dr.”