Tamara Jansen
Cloverdale—Langley City, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“We call on the government to accept the committee's recommendation and support Bill C-218 , which is already before the House and which would accomplish the policy objective the committee recommends. Conservatives are prepared to work collaboratively with the government to that end.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our supplementary opinion.”
“Spending is increasing faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. He promised economic renewal. Canada remains the only G20 country in recession. He promised to build faster, yet despite his creating new offices, new agencies and new approval processes, Canadians are still waiting to see any results.”
“When a government finds $25 billion for a brand-new sovereign debt fund, only weeks after presenting a budget, Parliament should begin to wonder if perhaps these programs are not emerging from a coherent economic plan, but are being invented on the fly whenever the government finds itself in need of a new announcement.”
“What makes this particularly troubling is that all of this is happening while Canada stands alone among the G20 countries as the only one in recession. The government continues to insist that more spending is the solution, yet with all that spending, Canada is the only G20 nation that has managed to achieve this disastrous distinction.”
“At some point, governments must be judged not by the announcements they make but by the results they achieve. Now the government has asked Parliament to spend less time examining legislation at the very moment it is asking Canadians to accept more spending, more borrowing and more debt. That is backwards.”
The complete record
Every one of 417 lines we hold for Tamara Jansen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“Some of them asked how it is possible that people who paid into this country their entire lives are struggling to keep up with the basics, while individuals whose refugee claims have already been rejected can still remain in Canada for years and continue receiving benefits, including coverage for dental care, prescriptions and other health services that many seniors still have to pay for themselves. Canadians are patient people, but they expect one thing from their government, which is not to make the essentials of life harder to afford. Canadians like Amy and the seniors I spoke with this week are asking a very simple question: When will the government stop the policies that are driving up the cost of food, so that Canadians can afford to feed themselves again?”
“None of these policies appear on a grocery receipt, but their costs travel through the system, from the farm to the processor to the truck, and finally to the grocery shelf and when they arrive at the checkout counter, which is where Canadians experience them. When I think about where those rising costs eventually lead, I cannot help but think of my own family. I have 22 grandchildren, and like every grandparent, I want them to grow up in a Canada where hard work still allows a family to afford the basics of life. The seniors I spoke to were not only worried about prices but asking something deeper, about fairness. These are Canadians who spent decades paying taxes into this country, yet they now find themselves watching every dollar they spend on groceries while government spending seems to grow in every direction.”
“Roughly 70% of the food Canadians eat is produced right here in Canada. When Canadians see food prices rising faster here than anywhere else in the G7, they begin asking whether the explanation lies closer to home than the government would like to admit. There is a very simple rule in economics: When governments make something more expensive to produce, the price of that thing eventually rises. When we look at the policies affecting food production in Canada today, we see farmers facing higher costs from the industrial carbon tax on fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment; truckers facing the fuel standard tax, which raises the cost of transporting food across this country; and food producers and processors facing a packaging tax projected to cost Canadians more than $1 billion.”
“These are men and women who spent decades working, paying taxes, raising families and contributing to this country, yet many told me that they are now studying grocery flyers and cutting back on foods they never imagined giving up at this stage in their lives. The question they asked is the same as Amy's, and it is very simple: How did it become this hard to buy food in Canada? The Prime Minister once told Canadians to judge him by the price of groceries, and Canadians are doing exactly that. The numbers are troubling. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7, with grocery prices rising more than 7% over the past year, which is far faster than overall inflation. Coffee and beef are up dramatically. Everyday staples are rising faster than the rest of the economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with something that happened in my riding, because sometimes the most honest way to understand an economic problem is simply to listen to the people living with it. A woman named Amy from Cloverdale wrote to me recently. She works hard, pays her bills and tries to live responsibly, but she told me that grocery shopping has become something that she now dreads, not because she is buying luxuries, but because basic food is becoming harder to put in the cart. Meat, once a normal part of meal, has become something she buys only occasionally. When she heard that prices are expected to rise again this year, she wondered whether Canadians will eventually be on their hands and knees, begging the government for relief. I heard a similar concern when I visited seniors in my riding this week.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that this Indonesia trade deal is a major breakthrough, yet his own government says the economic impact will be just 0.012% of the GDP by 2040. That is about the value of one tanker's worth of LNG. At the same time, the United States has negotiated billions in the Indonesian purchases of American goods, including energy, agriculture and aircraft. Why does my colleague think that the Prime Minister keeps signing deals that look good in a press release, but leave Canada trailing behind our competitors?”
“Mr. Speaker, this threat is no longer distant. It is happening right here in Canada. Last week, three synagogues were shot at. Now an Iranian activist has gone missing. Police are investigating it as a homicide while the Iranian community fears Tehran's involvement. Meanwhile, hundreds of people linked to the IRGC are living freely in our country. I stood beside PS752 families in my riding and promised that Canada would stand up to this regime. Instead, the government has allowed its agents to operate on our soil. Why has the minister allowed Canada to become a safe haven for a terrorist regime?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the IRGC shot down flight PS752, 55 Canadians were murdered. In the days that followed, I stood with those grieving families in my riding and promised them that Canada would be a place of safety, not a place where people connected to that regime could live freely. However, yesterday at committee, officials admitted that they cannot deport the Iranian regime officials already here. They can claim asylum. They say there are no flights and that their identities must remain protected. How is it possible that the victims' families live in fear while members of that regime live safely in our communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a wonderful explanation. The thing that really strikes me the most is that the government told Canadians not to worry because it just added in a clarification clause, yet when we read that clause, it simply says that speech is allowed as long as it is not hate speech. That is not really a clarification. It is just circular reasoning. The previous safeguard actually drew a line that Canadians could understand, which is that sincerely held religious teaching expressed in good faith was not criminal. Removing that clarity while claiming nothing has changed is exactly why so many Canadians remain concerned.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we have repeated many times, the tools are there, and they have not been used correctly. What I have been hearing from Canadians is not political theatre, but genuine concern. Over the past weeks, thousands of people, rabbis, pastors, imams and ordinary citizens, have taken the time to write and call their members of Parliament because they fear the good-faith expression of their beliefs could someday be treated as a criminal matter. When so many Canadians raise that concern, Parliament's responsibility is not to dismiss them or rush the bill through, but to ensure that their fundamental freedoms remain clearly protected in law.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue before us, it is not about supporting protections against hatred. We all support protections against hatred. However, on whether the government should remove a safeguard that has protected the good-faith expression of religious beliefs for decades, the question Canadians are asking is very simple: If religious expression is already protected, why remove the protection that made it clear in the Criminal Code in the first place? That is the concern faith communities across the country are having, and they have been raising it. That is the concern Parliament should be addressing.”
“If the government truly believes religious expression remains protected, then leaving the safeguard in place should present no difficulty because its presence harms no one, while its removal creates uncertainty for many Canadians. A confident democracy does not silence debate and certainly does not use closure motions to rush through legislation that touches on the freedoms of conscience and expression. In a free country, we respond to ideas we disagree with through debate, persuasion and democratic engagement, not through criminal law and shutting down Parliament to prevent discussion. Canadians deserve clarity in their law, confidence in their freedoms and a Parliament willing to defend both.”
“Removing religious safeguards from the Criminal Code does not strengthen our democracy; it weakens the legal clarity that allows this pluralism to flourish. Canadian courts have already made it clear that violence, threats and incitement to harm are not protected speech and never have been, which is why these actions are already criminal offences. What the good-faith defence protects is something very different. It is the right of Canadians to express sincerely held beliefs without fear that disagreement itself might one day become a criminal matter. Canada has never required uniformity of belief to maintain peace. Our strength has always rested on freedom under law and the ability of people with very different convictions to live together without coercion.”
“The lesson is not that every moral argument wins, but that a free society must allow those arguments to be made. Canada's success as a pluralistic society rests on that principle. People came here seeking the freedom to live according to conscience, bringing different languages, cultures and faith traditions, which could exist side by side because the law did not demand ideological conformity. Faith communities helped build our country precisely because they were free. Long before government programs existed, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and gurdwaras helped establish hospitals, schools, food banks, shelters and charitable organizations that continue to serve Canadians today.”
“To oppose slavery at that time was widely seen as extreme, yet Wilberforce, guided by his Christian faith, believed moral responsibility required action. He began a decades-long struggle in Parliament, standing year after year to argue for abolition, all while facing defeat, ridicule and warnings that his efforts threatened Britain's economy. For nearly 20 years, his efforts failed, but perseverance eventually prevailed when Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807. What began as an unpopular moral conviction ultimately reshaped law and history. The lesson is clearly that freedom of expression does not exist simply to protect views that are comfortable or widely accepted, but to protect the voices that challenge the thinking of the moment.”
“That lesson echoes throughout history, because societies thrive when people are free to speak openly about their convictions, even when those convictions challenge the thinking of the day. Many ideas we now celebrate as moral progress began as minority voices standing against the consensus of their time. I want to be very clear about why I raise this example. The point is simple, and it is that moral arguments, including those shaped by faith, have always been a part of public life, and history shows that silencing those voices cost society dearly. Few stories show this more clearly than the life of William Wilberforce. At the height of the British Empire, the transatlantic slave trade was deeply embedded in the global economy, with powerful institutions defending it and many believing Britain's prosperity depended upon it.”
“Guru Tegh Bahadur could have chosen silence and avoided a confrontation with imperial power, yet he understood that, once a government claims the authority to dictate the beliefs of one community, the freedom of everyone becomes vulnerable. Knowing that risk, he refused demands that he convert or force others to convert. For taking that stand in defence of the right of a faith community to exist, he was imprisoned and ultimately executed in Delhi in 1675. For this reason, he is remembered in Sikh tradition as the shield of India, because his sacrifice protected the freedom of others. His life reminds us of a truth that reaches across centuries and cultures, which is that religious liberty cannot be divided. When it is taken from one group, it eventually becomes fragile for everyone.”
“(1235) History gives us a lot of examples of what happens when governments try to control belief. A friend of mine recently shared the story of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of the Sikh faith. In the 17th century, during a time of increasing religious pressure in Mughal India, Hindu families from Kashmir were being forced to abandon their faith and convert under the authority of the state. Desperate to preserve their freedom, they travelled long distances seeking someone who would defend their right to follow their beliefs. They turned to Guru Tegh Bahadur, a Sikh spiritual leader, because they believed he understood something essential, which is that freedom of conscience belongs to every person.”
“Instead, the government that insists Bill C-9 is necessary to regulate harmful speech is now censoring debate on its own censorship bill. Religious freedom holds a unique place among our democratic liberties because it speaks not simply to opinion but to belief, to the deeply held convictions through which people understand duty, morality and the meaning of their lives. History shows us again and again that, when governments attempt to control belief, even claiming to preserve harmony or protect the public good, the result is rarely unity and almost never justice. Over centuries, societies have learned that peace in diverse countries is not achieved by forcing everyone to agree but by allowing people with very different beliefs to live together without fear that the state will dictate what they must believe.”
“Over the past weeks and months, thousands of Canadians, pastors, rabbis, imams, community leaders and ordinary citizens, have taken the time to call and write their members of Parliament, expressing deep concern about this bill and asking that it not proceed in its current form. Despite those voices, the government has chosen to press ahead, even shutting down debate in an ironic twist of government censorship of free speech. If the government were confident that Bill C-9 represented sound legislation capable of withstanding careful examination, it would welcome debate and allow amendments to be discussed openly. It would permit members of Parliament to do the work Canadians sent them here to do, to examine legislation thoughtfully before it becomes law.”
“That clarity mattered not only because it guided prosecutors when deciding whether charges were appropriate, but also because it reassured ordinary Canadians that the practice of their faith, expressed peacefully and in good conscience, would not suddenly expose them to criminal charges, yet the government now proposes to replace that certainty with verbal reassurances alone, asking Canadians simply to trust that their freedom remains secure, even as the explicit protection that guaranteed them is removed from the law. However, verbal reassurance is not the same thing as protection, so I rise today with a sober sense of duty because the responsibility now falls to the members of the House to defend the religious freedom of Canadians.”
“If religious expression truly remains protected, if sermons, scripture reading, theological teaching and moral discussions are still lawful, then why remove the explicit protection that guaranteed that certainty in the Criminal Code in the first place? For decades, the Criminal Code contained something very concrete, a good-faith religious defence that recognized that sincerely held religious teachings, expressed honestly and without the intent to promote hatred or violence, fell outside criminal sanction.”
“In acknowledging this reality, the Criminal Code drew an important distinction that disagreement, even profound disagreement, must never be confused with criminal intent. When religious communities across Canada began raising concerns about the removal of this safeguard, and these were concerns voiced by Jewish congregations, Christian churches, Muslim organizations, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Buddhist communities, the government responded by introducing what it described as clarifying language to assure Canadians that nothing essential had changed and that religious expression would remain protected under the bill. However, when we take a closer look at this so-called clarification, a fundamental question arises.”
“During committee, the Liberal government, supported by the Bloc, voted to remove from the Criminal Code a safeguard that has existed for decades, a provision that recognizes that the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs, when offered in good faith, does not constitute criminal hate speech. This safeguard was not accidental wording inserted into the law without deep reflection. It represents Parliament's understanding that Canada is home to citizens whose deepest convictions are shaped by many different faith traditions, stretching back centuries. These are traditions that speak openly about morality, human dignity, family life and social responsibility, in ways that may at times challenge prevailing cultural opinion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek . Bill C-9 did not start out as a debate about religious freedom. It was presented as a modernization measure, a technical reform that we were told would strengthen protections against hatred while ensuring that Canada remained a country defined by tolerance, pluralism and mutual respect. That, at least, was the stated objective when the bill first came to Parliament, yet the legislation has changed in a way that few Canadians anticipated. Even fewer were properly consulted.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I look at my grandchildren, I think about the life they should be able to build: going to university, buying a first home, raising a family of their own and believing that hard work will allow them to get ahead. However, today their parents are struggling just to cover everyday costs, and saving for their own future is slipping out of reach, with household debt now at $2.6 trillion. How can the Liberal government justify spending today in ways that will fundamentally limit the future of our grandchildren?”
“Mr. Speaker, all five of my children are married and raising a family of their own. Like so many young Canadians, they are working hard just trying not fall into debt. Home repairs, music lessons, cadet uniforms, gas to drive kids to activities, and the everyday cost of raising a family all add up. Saving is nearly impossible right now, and 64% of millennials are worried about their future. Parents are doing everything right yet still falling behind. When will the government lower costs so Canadian families can stop worrying about just staying afloat and start planning for their future again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals finally removed the EV sales mandate, which was a common-sense thing we had been begging them to do, but then they imposed a tailpipe emissions standard so strict that only electric vehicles would realistically qualify. As such, the mandate disappeared in the press release, but it reappeared in the regulations. Does my colleague think that Canadians appreciate these kinds of games?”
“Mr. Speaker, we spent $52 billion trying to force an EV transition. Production targets are failing, 5,000 workers have been laid off, and now the government wants another $2.3 billion in subsidies, even though most of its past rebates went to foreign-built vehicles. Is this about helping Canadian workers or saving face after a failed policy experiment?”
“Mr. Speaker, after years of failed EV mandates, to the tune of $52 billion in subsidies from Canadian taxpayers, the government now wants to spend another $2.3 billion to boost the sales of cars that Canada does not build. The fact is that nearly all previous rebates went to vehicles manufactured outside Canada. If the goal is to strengthen our auto sector, why is subsidy money going to support American factories instead of Canadian workers? How will this help the 5,000 families who have lost their jobs in the auto sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, picture a city with gangs demanding protection money from small businesses, where shots are fired at home, where families fear going out at night and people are forced to change their cars and their routines. It sounds like I am describing a slum in a third world country, but it is my hometown of Surrey. What is worse is that when these thugs are caught, they are right back on the street after claiming refugee status. Will the Liberals support our motion that those charged with or convicted of serious crimes cannot exploit the refugee system in order to stay in Canada?”
“He keeps pretending a province holds a veto over a project that is squarely federal. Leadership means making a call. My question is simple: When will the Prime Minister approve a pipeline to the Pacific so that Canadians can finally get to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need another process or another framework. They need a pipeline. We are a resource-rich country watching other nations move ahead while we debate conditions and caveats. A pipeline to the Pacific is not an experiment. It is not a theory. It is basic infrastructure, the kind Canada has built before and the kind for which they should already be moving dirt. Under a Conservative plan, this would be straightforward and less costly. We would approve the project, set a clear route, respect federal jurisdiction and get shovels in the ground, with no ideological add-ons, no extra net-zero preconditions and no endless detours. The reason the pipeline is not built is not because Canada cannot do it. It is because the Prime Minister will not. He keeps adding conditions. He keeps outsourcing responsibility.”
“When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind expensive, inflationary, ideological preconditions and approve a pipeline to get to the Pacific to let Canadians get full value for the resources we have in abundance?”
“The spreadsheet improves and projected returns stabilize, not because the risk disappeared, but because middle-class Canadians are now holding the bag. When things go sideways, who carries the risk? Public dollars will absorb losses. The middle-class family will absorb the loss in the form of taxes and inflation. That loonie quietly shrinks in purchasing power. This is ultimately a question of integrity and fairness. In a free market, risk and reward go hand in hand. Those who take the risk bear the consequences, good or bad. That connection creates discipline and it forces careful decisions, but when the government alters that relationship and stacks the deck, someone loses.”
“Every paycheque, whether for teachers, public servants, even the translators working right now to ensure my words are heard in French, includes a mandatory deduction for their retirement. This is their money, and it was deliberately placed out of politicians' reach years ago, which was supported by the Conservatives, precisely so they could not redirect Canadians' retirement savings towards political priorities. Pension funds were designed to be protected from political interference. Their job is to invest responsibly, not to chase ideological projects dressed up as policy. Here is my key point: We know that, if a project is too risky, it should not qualify for pension investment, but with fancy footwork, the government could de-risk it on the back of the taxpayer and suddenly the project would look safe enough on paper.”
“In plain language, the government tells the investor not to worry because, if this does not work out the way they hoped, the taxpayer will carry part of the risk. Right there, our humble little loonie transmogrifies, as Calvin and Hobbes would say. It changes from a free-market loonie into an insurance loonie. It moves onto the taxpayers tab. Here is where Canadians should really stop and pay attention. There is talk that our retirement savings could now be part of this. The Prime Minister talks as though pension savings could be a tool for the government's nation-building agenda. However, is that what Canadians voted for? Did they elect him to find a clever way into the CPP cookie jar?”
“Let us follow it through the Pathways carbon capture project, which the Prime Minister has attached as a condition to the pipeline Canadians so badly need. First, the carbon capture project itself is risky. It is massive. It is expensive. It is not about affordability; it is about net-zero ideology once again. In a normal market, investors look at that and say there is too much risk and no return. Since the free market is not interested in these mega-expensive net-zero projects the Prime Minister wants so badly, what happens next? The government steps in and sweetens the deal. This is called de-risking. Ottawa offers investment tax credits. It builds guarantees and backstops. It creates funds designed to absorb losses if things go sideways to ensure there is little risk for the project investor.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline. We are a sovereign, resource-rich nation. We produce energy the world wants, yet instead of building the infrastructure that would allow us to sell that energy at full value, the Prime Minister has tied our economic future to a net-zero framework so complex, so conditional, that we are assured it will take forever and cost the max. It goes without saying that approving a nation-building pipeline is not the responsibility of the NDP Premier of B.C; it is a federal responsibility, and it rests squarely on the Prime Minister's desk. Let us be clear about what is happening in the background. I want to demonstrate that by following a Canadian dollar, one loonie, through the system as it now stands under the Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, I just attended an event hosted by SPEATBC in a room full of highly trained engineers and technologists. They were asking whether the next round of manufacturing investment will stay here in Canada or go to the U.S. They want solutions so that their jobs are secure. StatsCan says that we lost 28,000 jobs last month in manufacturing alone. That means fewer shifts, tighter budgets and more families struggling to get by. The government has to recognize that what it is doing is not working. When will the Liberals listen to our constructive solution to this urgent problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have noticed that the Liberal government is always very quick to apologize. It makes me wonder why the government suddenly seems so incredibly reluctant to apologize for something that we know full well should never have happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have noticed over the last 10 years that the Liberal government has always been very quick to apologize. I am just wondering why the government suddenly seems to be so incredibly hesitant to apologize for something that we know really should not have happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. We need to focus on the real problem, which is government inflationary policy, if we want to fix this. The Liberals offer excuses, but Conservatives offer solutions. A potato grown in B.C. faces the same climate change as the one grown in Idaho: same sun, same rain, same drought. However, the Canadian potato costs more because government policy adds costs at every step: fuel taxes, fertilizer taxes, packaging rules and transport costs. If climate change were the reason for our food inflation, then all the G7 countries would feel it the same, but instead, Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. The weather, the climate, is global. The inflation is domestic.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the most important part right now is to focus on our farmers. Giving people a tax rebate, for example, is not a great solution, because it makes our food more expensive. It is not a food affordability plan. We followed a pound of potatoes from a local farmer and saw where the costs were added. Instead of removing these costs, the government borrows billions to send some of that money back, which adds to inflation and makes the next potato even more expensive. Canadians require relief, but what they need is food costs to be less every week. A good solution would be to remove the hidden taxes that are making their lives less affordable, the solution found in today's Conservative motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had hoped my speech would help Canadians better understand how these hidden taxes are driving up prices. Farmers, truckers and grocery clerks do not set prices. Government policy sets prices. We tax fuel, fertilizer, packaging, all these things, the cost of travel for food all the way to the checkout. Our motion says to stop adding costs to the potato and start taking them off by removing hidden taxes and boosting competition so Canadians can afford to eat. That is what our motion proposes, and I hope our colleagues will support it.”
“We saw how its final answer was to borrow billions to send out cheques, which only makes the potato more expensive. Our Conservative motion offers a different path. Instead of adding costs to the potato at every stage, we say that we should remove the hidden taxes that drive up the cost of producing and delivering food. We should stop treating farmers and truckers as problems to be managed and start treating them as partners who feed the country. We should stop trying to buy Canadians off with gimmicks and tricks that will only end up costing us more. Canadians do not want a cheque that disappears in a month; they want food they can afford every week. If we want fewer people lining up at the food banks, we have to stop making food more expensive in the first place. That starts here with this motion. This is common sense.”
“The potato goes through the same process again, only this time the dollar buys a little less because more money has been pumped into the system with nothing done to fix the cause. That is not a food affordability plan. That is borrowing to cover up the consequences of bad policy. Real relief would be stopping the cost increases at the beginning of the potato's journey, not mailing out cheques at the end and pretending the problem is solved. We have followed a simple pound of potatoes all the way from the field to the family table. We saw how costs were added step by step, fuel taxes, fertilizer taxes, packaging rules and transport costs, until that potato cost far more than it should. We saw how the government blamed the climate, even though the same climate exists beyond our borders.”
“After making that potato more expensive to produce, transport and sell, they are borrowing money to give a small portion of that back. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at this plan and told us it will cost billions of dollars over the next few years. That money is not coming from savings or from growth; it is borrowed. Let us think about what that means. We add costs to the potato on the way up, the price rises, and then we borrow money to soften the blow. That borrowed money adds to inflation, and inflation makes the potato even more expensive. It is a loop. A family might get a cheque today that might help for a month, but it does not make fuel cheaper for the farmer. It does not make fertilizer cheaper. It does not remove the packaging rules and transport taxes. All of those costs are still waiting for the next harvest.”
“They judge him every time they put something back on the shelf, every time they choose beans over beef, every time they are forced to line up at a food bank to feed their family. This is not a mystery. It is the result of choices made here, added step by step, potato by potato. Let us follow that same pound of potatoes one last step. By the time it reaches the grocery store, it costs more, not because of the farmer or the climate but because of all the costs added along the way. Canadians see the higher price and they feel it immediately. The government's response is not to remove those costs; instead, it sends out a cheque. The Liberals call it help, they call it relief, but what they are really doing is this.”
“(1340) The Idaho potato does not carry those same policy costs, and when both potatoes finally arrive at the grocery store side by side, the Canadian one is more expensive, not because the farmer is greedy, not because the climate was worse, but because our government added more costs to it along the way. That is why food inflation in Canada is now twice as high as it was when the Prime Minister took office. That is why it is twice as high as in the U.S. That is why we now lead the G7 in food inflation. If climate change were the main cause, our numbers would move together, but they do not. Climate change is global. The inflation is local. The Prime Minister said that he wanted to be judged by the price of groceries. Canadians have done exactly that.”