Warren Steinley
Regina—Lewvan, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for my colleague from the NDP. The federal government says it is doing so well and its policies are just great, and its members are always patting themselves on the back. If the government is doing so well, why are so many Canadians struggling across the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by members of my community on Commissionaires, which remains the largest employer of veterans in Canada. Commissionaires had an agreement with the federal government that gives Commissionaires the first right of refusal for security at federal buildings for government departments.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton—Melville has been a great colleague. She really embodies the three things we talk about as Conservatives: faith, family and freedom. She always asks about people's families.”
“Mr. Speaker, this member from northern Saskatchewan is the biggest embarrassment to come out of Saskatchewan since the Riders lost the Grey Cup for having too many men on the field. Let me make a list of what this guy has actually delivered. He cancelled the Snowbirds. He shuttered two agriculture research stations.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said affordability is the best it has been in decades, but in reality, 38% of Canadians face food insecurity. One in five say all food in the home has been eaten and there is no money left to buy more. It is no wonder Food Banks Canada gave the Liberal government an F on food insecurity.”
“Then they decide to cut the Snowbirds and the agriculture research stations, and not fund their commitments to the RCMP heritage museum that they have promised time and again.”
The complete record
Every one of 296 lines we hold for Warren Steinley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this private member's bill debate around the national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility act coming from the member for Richmond East—Steveston . He made some interesting comments in his speech that I would like to address. He talked about there not being so many people leaving our country and going to the United States, which is blatantly untrue. I wondered what the numbers actually were for emigration from Canada to the United States over the last couple of years. I went to StatsCan, and it said that 120,000 people left Canada in 2025, with 2026 data suggesting this trend is persistent and largely driven by economic factors and high-skilled professionals moving south. On the key trends in rising migration, the number of Canadians leaving for the U.S.A.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked by the question coming from the member for Burlington in saying that it is theatrical to care about accountability and oversight in the House of Commons and in committee structures. The government that she is a part of, the Liberal government, has more ethics violations than any government in the history of Canada. There is corruption, there are scandals in the government, and now it is trying to change the committee structure so that the opposition parties cannot hold the government to account. How can someone say that it is not something that should matter to each and every Canadian when the government is trying to run roughshod and do whatever it wants? Is no one supposed to hold it accountable? How can we trust the government to get it right if we cannot hold it accountable?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate about, basically, the Liberals taking a backdoor majority through floor crossing. I have been here for only six years, and I know that my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has been here much longer. Has this happened before? Has the committee structure been altered like this by any governments in the past? Is this really precedent-setting? I believe this is the only case where a government has formed a majority through floor crossings. Once again, are the Liberals not abiding by the will of Canadians? Has this happened before in Parliament?”
“She was a devoted mother to George and Whitney. She was a loving wife to her best friend and husband Gord, and she truly loved her four grandchildren. They were the light of her life. Vaughn will be remembered for her charisma. Every room she walked into brightened with her smile and her charisma. May she rest in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, on April 8, Saskatchewan's 21st lieutenant governor, the Honourable Vaughn Solomon Schofield, passed away, marking an end to a life of service, strong community values and humility. Vaughn will be remembered for her outstanding contributions to Canada's Armed Forces, highlighted by the numerous honours she held including recently becoming the honorary colonel of 15 Wing Moose Jaw. True to her advocacy for our men and women in uniform, Vaughn established the Lieutenant Governor's Military Service Pin and hosted the Support Our Troops gala, which was a national fundraiser for charities that assist military families. She had an unwavering and enduring bond with the people of Canada, Saskatchewan and the Canadian Armed Forces. Vaughn's love of service was second to only one thing, her love of family.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have to take the bill to committee to make sure that people's privacy is protected. We have heard time and time again, as I have mentioned, from law enforcement agencies that they need more tools to ensure they can catch the online criminal element faster and make sure they can protect citizens and their data when they are online. My big fear, and the fear of many people on this side of the House and in other parties, is continual government overreach and making sure that citizens' privacy is protected. We will fight day and night to make sure that it happens.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. The government would be a total disaster if it had a majority more often. NSICOP is a very important committee, and the committee members it has would do a very good job of reviewing and getting material in a more timely fashion. That is a very good suggestion. When it comes to reviewing this bill at committee, I hope every party takes a serious look at it and brings forward good amendments to make it stronger. This could ensure that we have the best bill possible going forward and that there is not scope creep and government overreach, so Canadians and their data can be protected and law enforcement agencies can have the tools they need to make sure they are finding the criminal factor online.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I disagree with. First of all, the government is a tired, old government, an 11-year-old one. It is not one year old. It has the same faces in the same places. Changing one person does not make a different government. I would say that, yes, if members listened to my speech, they would realize there are some things in the bill we do agree on. I have been listening to law enforcement, which has asked for parts of the bill. My only fear, which we have seen time and time again with the tired, 11-year-old government, is government overreach. It wants big government and small citizens, and that is not something I can agree with.”
“But he said ensuring that encryption is not compromised, and data are not made vulnerable are key concerns of the business community.” We do have some concerns out there when it comes to the bill. That is why it will be incumbent on us to have thorough witnesses and have a lot of time dedicated to the bill in committee, so that people come forward who do have concerns regarding the scope creep and the storing of data, making sure that it is not a vulnerability, and so that hackers cannot have access to that. We have been far behind on bills like this because of inaction by the Liberal government. That is why, over the last 11 years, we have seen skyrocketing crime rates. Hopefully, the bill can help give some of the tools to police officers, tools that they have asked for.”
“We are just making sure that there is that proper oversight, so that it does not allow for hackers to access that information more quickly when it comes to people's online information. There are some civil liberties groups that do have concerns. Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, said that “concerns regarding vulnerabilities and scope creep are real.” He said, “Without greater precision, this could be used to target user devices or ultimately make networks less secure”, as we have mentioned before. David Pierce, vice-president of government relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that “his members, which include Canadian telecoms, understand the need for law enforcement to have a lawful access regime.”
“The article reads, “Bill C-22, introduced by Public Safety Minister...last week, would require telecoms, internet companies and other digital service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance and monitoring capabilities to the police....” That would potentially give hackers the opportunity to access that information. That is what we are concerned about when it comes to housing Canadians' data and information and where that is going to be housed. We want to make sure that this is secure. Hackers can get more data if it is located in one spot. What it comes down to is that the Conservative point of view is that we understand that there are some tools that law enforcement need to make Canadians safer online.”
“I will reference a couple of news articles about some of the concerns that are out there when it comes to Bill C-22 : “Canada's lawful access bill risks making Canada's telecoms and internet providers, as well as phones and laptops, more vulnerable to hackers, including foreign intelligence services with malevolent intent, tech and legal specialists are warning.” That is from The Globe and Mail, dated March 16, 2026, by Marie Woolf. I think that this is something we can review when it comes to online protections. When it comes to the bill, when it goes to committee, we can very definitely review what there is for government oversight when it comes to warrants and things like that.”
“The Internet child exploitation, ICE, unit comes into schools across Saskatchewan to explain why it is so very important to be careful with anything online, making sure that our children know that there are some real safety concerns when it comes to online material and people trying to get their information online. On the first day of school, we hear police officers comment to never take a picture of one's kid in front of their school or say what grade they are in or where they go to school. That has changed a lot in our country; it is important to be safe when we are online. Those conversations happen often in my house. Hopefully they happen in many houses, so that children are very careful with what they are doing online and are making sure they know who they are talking to when they are online.”
“That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight; that is not what the bill proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us. (1540) Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in many ways made possible by anonymity and speed online. In the communities we live in, we have conversations about online activity with our children.”
“We are carefully reviewing the legislation we have talked about to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures when it come to government oversight. At committee, Conservatives would be able to hear from many experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. We will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect the individual freedoms, privacy and safety of Canadians. I have listened to some my colleagues talk about some of the concerns they have with respect to Bill C-22 . I think one of my colleagues talked about what modernization and privacy objectives should be in the bill. The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality.”
“Bill C-2 , to give a bit of reference to the people watching in TV land, had to do with limiting the use of cash and opening mail without oversight. It demanded that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial overview. Therefore, I would say the parent bill to Bill C-22 is Bill C-2 . The Liberals have taken some of those very poor policies out of C-22 . We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
“Last fall, the Liberals put forward a bill similar to this, Bill C-2 , which fell short when we looked at protecting Canadians, while it overreached in other areas. I think that is one thing we will come back to time and again when it comes to Bill C-22 . There are three parts to the bill. With respect to the first part, I think there is some agreement it is needed for law enforcement. However, the second and third parts come into question. The fact is the government has shown government overreach time and again. We need look no further than the implementation of the Emergencies Act, when bank accounts were frozen. I gave a speech when the act came into effect; I talked a lot about government overreach. That is one of the concerns we would have when reviewing this bill at committee.”
“Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberals to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. I can say that, in many cases, in my home city of Regina, crime comes up very often when we are on the doorsteps or at events. Crime has continued to skyrocket under the Liberals, whether that be violent crimes, sexual assaults or gun crimes. Despite all of their failed attempts when it comes to the gun grab, gun crime continues to rise in this country, and that is because of failed Liberal policies. They have had chances over the last 11 years to implement different policies, but they continued to implement policies that have failed.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate around Bill C-22 , the lawful access act, 2026. To figure out where we are at, we have to figure out how we got here. I think any conversation around giving law enforcement agencies better tools to be better able to fight crime is a good thing. However, the devil is always in the details, as people say. With respect to this bill, there are some concerns coming from our side that we would like to flesh out at committee. At first blush, there are some important aspects we need to ensure are in the bill. I have had conversations with some of our colleagues on NSICOP and the people looking into cybersecurity. Canada is somewhat behind when it comes to giving our police officers those tools, so the bill is timely.”
“Mr. Speaker, the biggest question I have been asked over the last couple of weeks, and years, when it comes to democracy is with respect to the longest ballot committee. That is something that has weighed on people. It has made it very difficult for them to cast their ballot in a proper way. Some ballots have been a metre long. Therefore, I would ask my colleague if this bill addresses that issue. Also, we cannot discuss democracy right now without discussing members crossing the floor. People have been losing faith in our democracy when they vote for a person from a particular party and then that person crosses the floor. I think it is a disservice to the people who sent them to Ottawa. I ask my colleague to comment on that as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have known that member for a very long time. I have made a career out of cleaning up his messes. He and the NDP destroyed Saskatchewan for 16 years, and now he has come here to be one of the Liberals destroying the economy of Canada. Once again, after he finishes ruining the economy for Canadians, we will clean up his mess for all Canadians so they can get ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the gas tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four up to $1,200 this year. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister shortchanging Canadian families and not cutting all taxes for the whole year?”
“He needed someone who can run on coffee and rink burgers, make a noisemaker out of anything and cheer on every kid like they are their own. He needed someone who would give up seven months of weekends to sit in a cold rink and be there for the thrill of victories but also shed the tears of defeat. God therefore made a hockey parent. On April 6, I would ask everyone to please keep the Humboldt Broncos in their thoughts and prayers and to say a little extra blessing for our hockey parents. Last, leave a stick on the porch in case one of our Broncos needs a spare for their evening game upstairs. God bless Humboldt.”
“Mr. Speaker, over eight years, one's perspective can change, from hockey player to hockey parent. This winter, my wife ran into Mr. Cross at the Strasbourg rink, watching kids play the sport his son loved. His son was Mark Cross, the assistant coach for the Humboldt Broncos, who died in the crash. On April 6, it will be eight years since the crash. Today my words are inspired by Mr. Cross and all hockey parents. God looked down and said we needed hockey parents, people who can cut sticks, sharpen skates and tape ankles. God needed someone who can get up when it is still dark, pack the cooler bag, travel icy roads, fight blizzards and beat the rising sun for early winter ice times, all with a smile on their faces for the love of the game.”
“I give a big thank you to the local Greek community, the sponsors and everyone who works so hard behind the scenes to make this event a success year after year.”
“Mr. Speaker, last Saturday my wife, Larissa, and I, along with my fellow Conservatives, the hon. members for Regina—Wascana and Regina—Qu'Appelle , had the pleasure of attending the 32nd annual Evening in Greece, a signature cultural fundraiser supporting the Hospitals of Regina Foundation and the Autism Resource Centre. It is an amazing event filled with live music, outstanding Greek cuisine and, of course, the traditional breaking of plates. Put on by the St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Community of Regina, over its 30-year history the gala has raised more than $3 million to support health care and community programs in Regina and area. We keep this marked on our calendar every year because it is such an amazing event.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's passionate speech was about laws that are already on the books, and I think that is the comment that we have heard a lot from this side. We just heard the Minister of Justice speak about why he brought in closure. Everything he talked about is already a law on the books, so my question to my learned colleague is this: These laws are already on the books and we are seeing this hate grow in Canada year after year. In 10 years, hate crimes have grown by about 87%. Why can we not ensure that the laws that are already on the books are enforced to tamp down this hatred of different religions?”
“Therefore, the undersigned citizens and permanent residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to reject any amendments to Bill C-9 that would remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, protect Canadians' constitutional rights to freedom of religion, and express and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse or teaching.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the thousands of Canadians who have called in to MPs' offices in regard to Bill C-9 . Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda and hate crimes, but the Liberals are proposing an amendment to remove the religious exemption that protects good-faith expression of beliefs based on religious texts. Removing this exemption would criminalize Canadians for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs, undermining freedoms guaranteed by the charter. This change could lead to legal action against clergy, educators and individuals for quoting or teaching from sacred texts without malice.”
“When will the Liberals accept responsibility for what they can control, and remove their out-of-touch policies to make life more affordable for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot control what happens abroad, but the Liberals do control the policies that are imposing an affordability crisis on Canadians here at home. Right now, we have the worst food inflation and the only shrinking economy in the G7. The Liberal Prime Minister is going ahead with his newly renamed carbon tax, the clean fuel standard. This policy now costs seven cents a litre but will rise to 17¢ a litre. This makes everything more expensive for our farmers, fishermen and those who deliver food to our tables. The industrial carbon tax, which the Liberal Prime Minister will continue to increase, only makes steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment more expensive as well. These costs are imposed at home, not abroad.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know we are having a good day on the opposition side when the Liberal benches are yelling and screaming and bringing out all the tricks in the book in terms of how to discredit what we are trying to say. What we have said, time and time again, is that refugees who have had their claims denied or who have failed should not get the same health care as seniors across our country or people who have paid taxes their whole lives across our country, which is a fair assessment to make. I want to give my colleague a couple of minutes to talk about some of those failed claimants. We talked about a couple of them. In B.C., 15 people were charged with extortion and 14 put forward asylum claims so that they would get health care benefits that our seniors across the country do not get. Does he think that is fair to all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleague for his wonderful in-depth speech on what is wrong with this program and our immigration system as a whole. I asked a question earlier about this. In health care transfers, Saskatchewan receives $1.5 billion a year for the whole province of Saskatchewan. This program will receive, by 2029-30, $1.6 billion. There are several people in this program who received it after they had their asylum or refugee claims rejected. The actual wording of this calls it an “interim” program. Should an interim program ever receive as much money as a province for a health care transfer?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to finish my question after having been rudely interrupted. It is actually in the federal budget that Saskatchewan gets $1.6 billion in Canada health transfers. If the member can read, he can see that. My question is this: How is it fair to the people of Saskatchewan, who pay taxes and work hard each and every day to support this country, to get the same amount in health care transfers as refugees whose claims have been rejected get?”
“Madam Speaker, while the member was speaking, I took a second to look up what the federal health transfers are to the province of Saskatchewan as a whole, and the amount for the program for bogus refugee claimants is actually the same as the amount of the transfer to the whole province. Saskatchewan gets $1.6 billion a year, and the program gets $1.5 billion. How is it even fair to the people of Saskatchewan that they are getting almost the same amount in the health care transfer? They have worked hard and paid taxes—”
“Madam Speaker, we just saw exactly the lack of common sense from the Liberal side when it comes to this discussion. My colleague gave a wonderful speech as a producer. The Liberals were very quiet, because there is not as much farming knowledge on that side. He laid it out perfectly. The price of beef has gone up 33% in this country, the price of coffee is up 30%, and the price of lettuce is up 40%. That is the direct effect of it costing more money to grow and raise that food. I do not know why the Liberals do not understand that point. There is one more thing. Can my colleague please touch on the fact that there are no tariffs on food? The Liberals are trying to scare everyone into saying this is an American problem, when it is a made-in-Canada problem.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always entertaining to see my colleague, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North on his feet. The louder he gets, the more I wonder if he is telling the truth or not. I would just add this: If it were such an important policy, if the new old food rebate were so important, why was it not in the budget a couple of months ago? Why did the Liberals not budget it? It has a $3-billion price tag. If it were so important and such a central plank to the new old government, why was it not in the budget?”
“Madam Speaker, that is a great question. The government is always asking our producers to do more with less, and that fertilizer reduction is an example of that. Our farmers would do better. I hear the member from northern Saskatchewan chatting. I worked with him for many years, and everywhere he goes, I have to clean up his mess.”
“If they took some time to actually visit some of the producers on the ground, they would hear that the industrial carbon tax is affecting their fuel and that the fuel standard is affecting their fuel and their bottom line and is making things more expensive. Some of those practical—”
“That is a tough but very fair question, Madam Speaker. I thank my colleague for being a continuous advocate for her people in Lakeland. The problem is that there is less and less rural representation on the Liberal side. They are getting further away from the people who produce the food, the fuel and the fertilizer that run this country. It would be wonderful if they would take more opportunities to maybe get out of downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver, downtown Halifax or Moncton. I hear some of my colleagues talking. I think I hit a nerve, because some of them could not find rural Canada with a compass. That is something used to find direction with.”
“Madam Speaker, that question would have a little more validity if the Liberals would stop stealing our ideas. Taking the GST off first-time homebuyers was our idea in the campaign plan, and they took it. Removing the consumer carbon tax was our idea, and they took it. Providing a first-time homebuyer account so Canadians can save money when buying their first home was our idea, and they took it. As the Conservative leader has said, we want to work together and get better results for Canadians. The member standing up to say we do not have any good ideas would have a lot more credibility if Liberals stopped stealing our ideas. We are okay with that, but they should go all the way. They should get rid of the consumer and the industrial carbon taxes and scrap the food packaging tax. We have so many more ideas.”
“We have put down some clear guidelines for what we would like to see in a food affordability plan. I would ask some of my Liberal colleagues to look at this motion line by line. Some of it might not feel good. Reading that 2.2 million people are visiting the food banks is not a good-news story, but it is happening in our country. We are the breadbasket of the world. We have the best producers and the best farmers, and we should have the ability to feed our own population. A lot of that inability and a lot of that food inflation is because of the policies that have been put forward by the government in the last 10 years.”
“That means that we need to look at what we are doing and what the Liberals have been doing to not combat food prices. That means the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standard and the packaging price that my friend talked about, which is $1.3 billion to change plastic packaging. Not using plastic packaging is going to really add to the food waste in this country. Processors said this at the agriculture committee. I know the agriculture minister sits at the kids' table and does not get to make a bunch of decisions, but the fact that we are trying to tie the hands of food processors in their ability to transport food safely and make sure that it is preserved and has a longer shelf life is a problem that the Liberals have made internally. That is laid completely at their feet. We have read out the motion.”
“I remember when I asked about this in question period: The finance minister stood up in 2023 and said that they would stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving. That was almost three years ago, and they brought out the same program as the one they brought out a couple of days ago, a rebate program. I want everyone out there to know that they would get $10 a week with this rebate program. Most Canadians are spending $300 a week on their grocery bill, so they would get a $10 coupon for a $300 grocery bill. Sure, it is nice and people would take it, but it would not change the fact that food prices continue to go up. We want to look at the root of this problem of food price inflation, and we need to look at what we are doing domestically. TD brought out a report today that says that two-thirds of the cause of food prices is domestic policy.”
“As my colleague from Foothills said, if anyone thinks that an increase in fuel prices does not affect the price at their grocery store, either they are lying to themselves or they are lying to each other, because all food at grocery stores is trucked from all over this country and all over North America with our interconnected supply chains. One thing that I want to make very clear right now to the six or seven people watching this is that tariffs do not affect food prices. There are very minimal tariffs on any food coming into this country. The Liberals try to conflate that and make it a global problem, but it is actually untrue. There are very few tariffs affecting the prices at the grocery store. The Liberals should take responsibility for what they have caused over the past 10 years.”
“In question period today, our leader informed the Prime Minister , who did not know, that it came from the documents of ECCC, Environment and Climate Change Canada. Our leader had a very good question for the Prime Minister that was not answered. Are we supposed to believe what the Prime Minister said, which is that there is no clean fuel tax, or ECCC's documents, which say that the clean fuel tax is going to add 17¢ a litre to gasoline by 2030? I think I will take the department's advice since it has the experts.”
“I am not sure if some of my colleagues across the way are not having these same conversations with parents or with seniors. My colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan just brought up an excellent point about how little the increase is that seniors have been getting. How do they expect to keep up with the rising cost of groceries? (1620) As has been stated, the cost of groceries is going to go up $1,000 this year for a family of four. I do not know of any benefit that is going to keep up with that rise in the cost of food. Another comment I am wondering about is in respect to the fuel standard tax, which costs seven cents a litre and will be rising to 17¢ a litre. My colleagues across the way are always saying that there are no hidden taxes on groceries.”
“I pack lunches, not as many lunches as my wife packs, obviously, because I am here a bit more. Our kids take muffins and granola bars and sandwich meat and bread and cheese to make sandwiches. They all take that for school lunches. Those are all taxed because they are processed. The Liberals never really complete that end of the story. I know it is hitting people harder and harder. We have a lot of families. As I said off the top, when we were talking about hockey, my three kids all play hockey, and many, many parents now are packing groceries to take on these trips when we are going to different towns. One of the parents was amazed. We were going on a trip for two days, and they went and bought fruit, vegetables, sandwich meat, cheese and buns. It was two bags of groceries. It was $187. That makes it harder and harder to get by.”
“That’s actually not true, because for inflation, there are more and more products being impacted. We have some goofy fiscal rules in Canada. For example, if you buy two muffins and it’s over $4, it’s not taxable. Under $4, it is taxable. If you buy four muffins, then that’s not taxable. If you buy five granola bars, that’s taxable. Six is not taxable. I mean, it’s all over the place and it’s very confusing. And I’ve always believed that when you get to the till, a lot of people don’t even look at their receipts, but you’d be surprised how much taxes you actually pay. That combats some of the conversation we have had from the Liberal side of the aisle, when the food professor has laid out some of the taxes that are paid on groceries when one is at the grocery store.”
“—and rising to 17 cents a litre on farmers, truckers, and those who bring us our food, (iii) the food packaging tax that will cost Canadians $1.3 billion; and (b) boosts competition in our overly-concentrated grocery sector. My questions and comments are going to be around this: What is there to disagree with in this? The Liberals always say that there are no hidden food taxes. I am going to read a quote from Sylvain Charlebois, who was on the Evan Bray Show in Saskatchewan, one of our most popular call-in shows, I might add. This is exactly what Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor, said on the Evan Bray Show : I’ve always believed that taxing food is immoral. It shouldn’t happen, but it is happening, and a lot of people think that we’re only taxing bad food.”