Laila Goodridge
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate.”
“They measure success by whether they can afford a home. They measure success by whether their children have opportunities. They measure success by whether their communities can grow and prosper. For too many Canadians, the answer today is no. The consequences of inaction are profound. Canadians are tired of excuses.”
“The answer, I think, was nine, which is not speeds that had never before been seen. The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes annually, yet according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation projections, housing starts could actually fall to approximately 212,000 units by 2028. That is not just a small shortfall.”
“That is not a space where Canadians want to be, but this is where we are careening down, because of the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy for the last decade. The decisions the Liberals make, and the decisions we make here in Parliament, have real-life impact on the lives of Canadians.”
“However, never was this more true than in the last decade when we had the Liberal government in place, which told people in my community that it would transition their jobs away, and that they should not actually be in that kind of industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as well as on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The facts are crystal clear.”
The complete record
Every one of 195 lines we hold for Laila Goodridge, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, Albertans know that the member lives in an illusion. There are no projects that have been approved by the government and no shovels in the ground. For years, the Liberal government did everything in its power to block pipelines, stall major energy projects and scare off investment, weakening one of Canada's most critical economic drivers, the oil sands. Canadians are now paying the price. With a shrinking economy and over 100,000 jobs already lost this year, the consequences are clear. Will the Prime Minister finally reverse course, unleash Canada's energy sector and help rebuild our economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the strongest economy in the G7. Instead, Canada is at the bottom. We have the only shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the worst food inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister cannot hide behind global challenges when every other G7 country faces the exact same pressures. These problems did not appear overnight. They are a direct result of bad Liberal policies. Will the Prime Minister reverse course on the policies that have left Canada with a shrinking economy, soaring food prices and rising unemployment?”
“This is the simple creation of a condition on how the decisions of a minister are exercised without changing the types of decisions that could be made and, like the 2014 precedent, simply adjusting to the responsibilities of the decision-makers who each already have assigned roles within the proposed statutory scheme. To sum up, the parliamentary secretary's point of order should simply be dismissed for its failure to advance any procedural grounds for why the public safety committee's third report might be procedurally flawed. In the alternative, the impugned amendments are all, I submit, within the scope of the bill and have a nature consistent with committee amendments, which your predecessors have found to be within the scope of the bills concerned.”
“Speaker, your predecessor found the committee's amendments to have been in order, commenting on May 2, 2014, at page 4880 of the Debates, that: I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. In the present case before you, Mr. Speaker, the government itself contemplates a rule for the federal court elsewhere in clause 2 of Bill C-8 , namely, in its proposed section 15.9 of the Telecommunications Act, making provisions for the judicial review of the cabinet and ministers' orders. The amendments to Bill C-8 , challenged by the parliamentary secretary, are like the 2006 precedent.”
“As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. Another precedent concerns a former bill, Bill C-483 , which proposed to transfer decision-making authority over the temporary escorted absences of convicted murderers from penitentiary wardens, who are officials of the executive branch, to the quasi-judicial national Parole Board. The public safety committee reported that bill back to the House with amendments that would instead have had the decision-making responsibilities shared between institution heads and the Parole Board. Mr.”
“What amendments CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 do collectively is require prior judicial authorization for certain of those orders, including for decisions of the cabinet or the minister to impose a gag order on Canadians. (1820) I would submit that nothing about this changes or expands the scope of Bill C-8 . Instead, they oppose conditions on executive decision-making, without changing the nature or scope of the decisions that might be made under the authorities proposed in the bill. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, Mr. Speaker Milliken held at page 4308 of the Debates, that: I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill.”
“The same authority continues, explaining the United Kingdom's practice: Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill. Bill C-8 is a broad bill, touching on a number of facets of the digital world. For our purposes, let us focus on part 1, containing amendments to the Telecommunications Act and making provisions for a variety of measures, including empowering the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, respectively, to make orders and give direction regarding the security of Canada's telecommunications system.”
“First, footnote 164 on page 63 of Janse and LeBlanc refers to the scope of a bill as “meaning the schemes by which the principles of the bill are achieved.” Paragraph 28.81 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , 25th edition, expands upon the concept. It states: The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope.”
“Indeed, the same former Speaker explained on November 27, 2002, at page 1950 of the Debates, “it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.” However, should you disagree with me on the ending of your inquiry here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer submissions about how these Conservative amendments are actually within the scope of this bill. Let us get our bearings.”
“As Janse and LeBlanc wrote at paragraph 16.96, “The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.” Indeed, as Speaker Milliken mentioned on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of the Debates, “successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in the proceedings of committees except in highly exceptional circumstances.” That is, in fact, a commonly understood principle in this House, but the parliamentary secretary failed to offer any justification meeting that threshold of exceptional circumstances.”
“The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority. The parliamentary secretary referred the Chair to paragraph 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, which provides that an amendment to a bill is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The parliamentary secretary, however, did not offer any argument or reasoning for the amendments being allegedly beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you should reject the government's argument on that basis alone, since it is asking you to overturn a committee decision without any true procedural justification.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is a very important point of order, and I would recommend that everyone stop to listen. Standing Order 117 says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee”. Secondly, a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3,327 of the Debates, you yourself reached a different conclusion than the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had concerning the need for royal recommendation for an amendment that the committee made to Bill C-4 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to Bill C-8 , concerning cybersecurity and telecommunications. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary referred to three amendments that the committee had agreed to consider despite the committee chair ruling the amendments inadmissible, which it subsequently adopted. Firstly, I would like to remind the House that appeals of committee chairs' rulings are simply part of the routine practice of this place. Standing Order 117 says so. It says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee—”
“Does the member opposite believe that we need to do everything in our power to bring affordability back and bring things back to Canada, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, for most Canadians, my hon. colleague's speech fell flat because it does not actually respond to the problems that we are hearing about. The Liberals are so intent that their answer is the only right answer that they refuse to listen to any other options. Their answer keeps coming back to the fact that our answer is an answer from the past, but the reality is that we have had the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa say that this is a common-sense solution. The reality is that what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade has absolutely destroyed our auto industry and has hurt people because they cannot afford things. They cannot afford to buy groceries. They cannot afford to put gas in their vehicles, and they sure cannot afford to buy new vehicles.”
“Why is this the bill that the Liberals have decided they are going to ram through and not allow us to have a fulsome debate on when this is something that is so important to so many Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really troubling when the government brings forward a bill that is about potentially censoring people. The minister has pointed out that the bill has been in the process of being debated for a while. Part of that is because, as time has gone on, we have been able to discover more and more troubling items within this particular bill. Had it been just an easy bill that everyone could get behind, that would have been be fine. However, I have had so many people from my riding reach out to me with their deeply held faith positions. Whether they are from the Muslim community, the Christian community or the Hindu community, they are very concerned about what the bill would actually do and how it would impact their ability to counsel their children and live their lives the way they are choosing to do so, in peace and harmony.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are on board. Rising oil prices should be a major opportunity. Canada is home to the fourth-largest oil reserves, yet Canada's leading energy companies have been clear that it is the Liberal anti-energy laws that are killing economic growth in our country. Instead of building, we are seeing projects stall. Last week, CNRL paused an $8-billion project because of Liberal anti-development policies and laws. This would have been thousands of jobs in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and right across Canada. Why will the government not just get out of the way so that we can get pipelines built?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite the government's claim, the Prime Minister has not approved a single new pipeline to tidewater. Even with sweeping new powers, the Major Project Office has yet to approve a single major project, let alone one in Canada's oil sands. Canada's energy sector could help supply our allies, strengthen our economy at home, diversify our trade and provide greater economic certainty in an uncertain world. Why will the Prime Minister not support responsible energy development so Canada can help our economy and our allies?”
“Mr. Speaker, one in five children under six in Canada is living under poverty due to the government, 2.5 million children are growing up in food-insecure households, and most alarming of all, the number of children in severely food-insecure households doubled between 2019 and 2023. For too many parents, the gap between working hard and making ends meet has become impossible. For too many children, opportunity is being replaced with uncertainty. At what point will the Liberal government confront the reality families are facing, take meaningful actions to lower costs and rebuild an economy where no child is left behind?”
“Mr. Speaker, child poverty in Canada has risen for the third consecutive year. In 2025, nearly 30,000 more children fell below the poverty line, according to the latest child and family poverty report card. The progress our country once made is not just slowing; we are going backwards. Behind every statistic is a child going without, a family stretched beyond its limits and parents forced to make impossible choices. When will the Liberal government reverse the rise in child poverty, reduce the cost of living and strengthen our economy so Canadians can afford basic necessities?”
“This abuse has afflicted women, gender-diverse people, and men throughout our entire country. It has harmed individuals from coast to coast to coast. This is something that truly just has to end today. Let me reiterate: Forced sterilization is not just something in the past. It is happening now, today, to somebody's daughter or son, perhaps to someone we might very well know. Passing the bill would not undo the suffering already inflicted, but it would tell the survivors that we hear them, we see them and we will make sure that never again will this happen in this great country of ours. I would urge every member to support the bill.”
“When the law lacks clarity, investigations falter, prosecutions stall and the people harmed are reluctant to come forward. This is just one more example of our medical system that mistreats and misunderstands women, especially women in these vulnerable times. The legislative gap leaves grave violations insufficiently addressed, and the resolution is Bill S-228 . I am so proud to be able to second the bill. The legislation, at its core, is about justice for every person who has endured the profound violation of forced or coerced sterilization. Indigenous women have been disproportionately targeted, reflecting a painful and well-documented history of discrimination and systemic racism, but we also have to recognize that this abuse has not been confined to one community.”
“It happened to real people, Indigenous women, racialized women, and vulnerable women. Survivors were harmed without consent. A law is required because human rights should never rely on goodwill.” In my view, forced and coerced sterilization constitutes aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. While existing provisions of the Criminal Code may, in certain circumstances, allow for this to be prosecuted, it really leaves a gap and a hole. It is clear: The Senate committee, expert witnesses repeatedly testified that these provisions rarely actually resulted in meaningful accountability. The absence of explicit language creates uncertainty for law enforcement, prosecutors, health care administrators and survivors alike.”
“She was not informed of her options, nor was she in a condition to provide meaningful consent. Despite this, during her C-section, Chastity remembers the smell of burning flesh. To this day, she does not know exactly which procedure was performed on her. The trauma of this experience has had lasting impacts and effects, yet tragically, Chastity's story is just one of thousands. She was 22 years old at the time. She is now in her early forties. She is only a couple of years older than me. This clearly is not a problem of the past, and we must do something today to stop it once and for all. Forced or coerced sterilization is a profound violation of human rights. It strips individuals of bodily autonomy, personal freedom and fundamental dignity. As Chastity stated, “This isn't theoretical.”
“She recounted her experience to me, saying that during the birth of her daughter, she had been scheduled for a Caesarean section. Upon her arrival at the hospital, doctors began discussing complications from her previous pregnancy and then shifted to the topic of tubal ligation. She made it clear that the doctors were speaking among themselves but not including her in the conversation, as though the decision had already been made. (1700) She explicitly told the doctors that she did not want to have a tubal ligation, and instead she asked about having a five-year contraceptive implant. She was handed documents to sign, and she believed she was consenting to the implant. Throughout this time, she was drifting in and out of consciousness and experiencing disorientation.”
“To date, it is estimated that somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 indigenous women and men have experienced forced or coerced sterilization in Canada. Evidence also shows that other marginalized groups, including women living in poverty, women with disabilities, African Canadian women, racialized and ethnic minority women and women living with HIV, have been particularly vulnerable to coercive sterilization practices within Canadian health care settings, where their autonomy and informed consent were compromised or, worse yet, completely disregarded. This week, I had the opportunity to attend an information session, where survivors of forced and coerced sterilization bravely shared their stories. One survivor, Chastity, really touched my heart.”
“The Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972 by Premier Peter Lougheed's Progressive Conservative government, and in 1999, former Premier Ralph Klein made an historic formal apology for the forced sterilization of more than 2,800 people. British Columbia enacted a similar law that was in place between 1933 and 1973, yet it was narrower in scope than Alberta's legislation and therefore impacted a lot fewer people. Both Saskatchewan and Ontario debated bringing forward this type of legislation, but ultimately the legislation did not pass. As a result, many assume that forced sterilization belongs to some troublesome but distant past. This assumption, however, is completely inaccurate. Reports of forced or coerced sterilization have surfaced as recently as last year, 2025. For those affected, this is not history. It is lived experience.”
“Muir was admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Red Deer. She was told she was undergoing a routine appendectomy when doctors decided to sterilize her without her knowledge, much less her consent. It was only years later that she found out, while trying to conceive, that her sterilization had occurred. In 1996, Ms. Muir became the first person to successfully sue the Alberta government for wrongful sterilization. Ms. Muir's case opened the door for similar class action lawsuits, and by 1999 the Province of Alberta had paid $142 million in settlement costs to over 700 victims.”
“In 1928, Alberta enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act, which established a eugenics board empowered to authorize the sterilization of patients in mental hospitals who were being considered for discharge. If the board determined that an individual might pass on a perceived disability to their children, it could approve the procedure. At first, the act required consent, either from the patient or from the parent, guardian or spouse. However, in 1937, the legislation was amended to remove the requirement for informed consent for those labelled “mentally defective”. During the 44 years in which this legislation was in effect, the eugenics board approved 4,725 cases for sterilization, of which 2,834 were carried out. One of the survivors was Leilani Muir. In 1955, Ms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228 , an act to amend the Criminal Code on sterilization procedures. Bill S-228, formerly Bill S-250 , would criminalize the act of forcing or coercing a person to become sterilized without proper consent. It would amend the Criminal Code of Canada by adding section 268.1, which would clarify what a sterilization procedure is and add clarity that a sterilization procedure is an act that would fall under subsection 268(1). I want to thank Senator Yvonne Boyer for her leadership in bringing forward this bill. This is not an easy topic to talk about, but it would bring an important solution, so that forced or coerced sterilization would never happen again. Forced or coerced sterilization is a form of eugenics, and Canada has a troubling and well-documented history when it comes to its practice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his tireless effort on this incredibly important topic. He and I have shared a number of conversations about not just the importance of the legislation but the importance of talking about it here in the House of Commons and bringing attention to this issue, because this is something that a lot of people think lives in a far distant past. I do not believe he had an opportunity to finish all of his speech. I wondered if he could perhaps share with the chamber some of the hard work he performed that he did not get to share with us earlier.”
“Every trip to the grocery store is a reminder that something just is not working. How expensive does food have to get before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, 57% of millennials say they have little to no money left over after paying monthly bills, according to the 2026 RBC financial independence poll. That is more than a statistic; it is a giant blaring warning signal. Young Canadians are not just postponing vacations or cutting back on luxuries. Many are struggling to put food on the table, let alone save for their futures. The Liberals blame global events for rising food prices, yet 70% of the food we eat is produced right here in Canada. Therefore, it is excessive regulation, inflationary spending and the industrial carbon tax that are driving up costs here at home across the entire supply chain, costs that are passed on to Canadians. This is a made-in-Canada problem, and food prices have risen more than twice as fast as our overall goods.”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberals' solutions, their programs, are just not working. They are making it so that one in three kids is in the line at the food bank; there are 700,000 children accessing a food bank every single month. Food inflation is twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office a year ago and twice as high as what it is in the United States. The question is simple: Will the Liberals just listen to Conservatives, steal our idea and support our motion to introduce a food affordability plan, eliminating the industrial carbon tax, eliminating the fuel standard tax and increasing competition amongst grocery stores?”
“Mr. Speaker, three years ago the Minister of Finance promised Canadians that he would stabilize food prices, yet Canada now leads the G7 in food inflation. The price of lettuce is up nearly 40%, coffee is up 33%, beef is up 27% and baby formula is up 13%. The Liberals' solution is a temporary rebate that would neither address the root cause of why food inflation is so much higher here nor bring down the cost of any food. Why should Canadians trust that the minister 's new program would help them, when the last led to the highest food inflation in the G7?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a real problem in Canada because food prices are on the rise and continue to rise month after month. We are seeing price increases at the grocery store, and Canadians are complaining about it. My question is this: Does my colleague not think that we should find the root of the problem and address the issue that is causing grocery prices to rise so quickly in Canada, when they are not rising as quickly in other G7 countries and around the world? The reality is that grocery prices are rising faster in Canada than elsewhere.”
“United, we will stand tall. We are the true north, strong and free. We will fight for our country. We will defend the country. We will unite the country. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We must never lose sight of that sentiment. This is what it means to be Canadian. Conservatives will always support unity, freedom and opportunity in Canada because we believe that these are the very foundations of a strong, multicultural Canada. We are proud to be Canadian, and we will fight to restore the promise of Canada. We will fight to make sure that our youth can have the Canadian dream and for a life where our youth can work hard, afford a home on a safe street and start a family. We will bring unity. We will celebrate our Canadian heritage together. We are Canadian.”
“They work hard and they do everything right. They do everything we have asked them to do, but they cannot buy a home. They cannot start a family, all because they cannot afford to live, all while they are told that they do not have an identity and that they cannot be proud of who they are. For my colleagues and me, and for every Canadian watching at home, I am here today to tell us that we do have a national identity and that we are Canadian. No matter where they were born, no matter where they grew up, from coast to coast to coast, every Canadian deserves the right to unite under a common flag. Regardless of one's race, religion, gender or background, we will unite under shared values, hard work and the belief in freedom. It is then, and only then, that the Canadian promise can be restored. Divided, we will fall.”
“That is what the fathers of Confederation wanted for the country, a place where hard work and dedication meant we could achieve anything, yet Liberals have removed these proud and important moments from our passports, the most important document for any Canadian. The actions and decisions of the Liberal government shaped our future. We could once again be a great nation. We need to reject these divisive Liberal politics of multiculturalism, which have become so deeply political that Canadians no longer feel united. Liberal immigration policy has been used to deepen regional and cultural divides across our country. Liberals made Canadians feel that they could not be proud of who they were and who they are. I can tell us today that I am proud to be here. I am proud to be Canadian. The Canadian promise is fading from our youth.”
“We were told by Liberals that we must focus on what makes us different rather than celebrating what we have in common. The truth is that we are stronger as communities and as a nation when we are united. Every Canadian child remembers honouring Terry Fox and participating in a Terry Fox run throughout elementary school and high school, learning about the Canadian soldiers who valiantly fought at Vimy Ridge, a moment when Canadians did what the Allies believed to be impossible, and of course learning about the Famous Five, who fought to have women legally considered persons, not just here in Canada but right across the Commonwealth.”
“In doing so, he recognized Quebec's unique history, language and culture, promoted Quebec and its importance for Canada, and acknowledged that Quebeckers are part of Canada's history and that they can be proud to be both Quebeckers and Canadians. [ English ] After a decade of divisive Liberal policies, the Canadian dream is fading. The government has done everything it can to divide us into boxes, into categories and into subcategories, by using identity politics. It has made life so unaffordable that our youth are worried they will never be able to afford a home or start a family. Liberals told our youth, through their postnational state philosophy, that we should not be proud to be Canadian, slowly letting the Canadian promise fade away.”
“He was proud to be a Quebecker, proud of his Irish heritage and also proud to be Canadian. As Conservatives, we have long believed that multiculturalism works best when we are united, not divided. [ English ] Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, Canadian multiculturalism continued to thrive. It was a period in which the government continued to lead with a belief of pride in our country and a time when we could find strength in our unity. Canada was a place where we could celebrate our differences and unite under a shared national identity, another example of how Conservatives have long understood that we are stronger united. [ Translation ] It is in that spirit that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized Quebec as a distinct society within a Canadian federal system.”
“(1105) [ English ] When I was growing up, Canada was a place where anybody from anywhere could become anything if they were willing to work hard, a country where we could seek opportunity to grow, learn and unite with our neighbours under one common identity, a country where we embraced our differences while uniting around a common belief in freedom, hard work and, of course, family. If we worked hard, we could afford a nice home on a safe street and start a family. That was the Canadian dream. [ Translation ] Former prime minister Brian Mulroney introduced the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988 to reflect the idea that we are stronger as a country when we are united, not divided. Prime Minister Mulroney himself grew up in an Irish Catholic family in a working-class community in Baie‑Comeau, Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. I grew up in Fort McMurray, a community I am proud to call home and a community that has drawn people from everywhere in Canada and right across the globe. [ Translation ] My parents, who are anglophone, made the wise decision to enrol me in French immersion in Fort McMurray, a decision that opened many doors for me. I consider myself to be a francophone by choice, not by chance. I am part of the growing francophone community outside Quebec. French was the first European language spoken in Alberta and today continues to be the language that is most spoken in the province after English.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for highlighting the history the Conservative Party when it comes to trade deals. Could he expand a bit more on why the Conservative Party has traditionally supported free trade and why it is something that is so important to so many members on this side of the House?”
“Conservatives are ready to fast-track real solutions and lower food prices by eliminating the industrial carbon tax, scrapping the fuel standards tax, boosting competition in grocery chains and cutting red tape for farmers. Will the Liberal government act now, or will it keep asking Canadian families to absorb these costs?”
“Mr. Speaker, every Canadian knows the feeling of standing in the grocery aisle, looking at the total and wondering how it got this expensive. Canada is number one in the G7 for food inflation and our food inflation is double what it is in the U.S. This is in large part due to the industrial carbon tax and the Liberal fuel standards tax, which both drive up taxes for farmers, truckers and everyone who brings food to the table. Families see the impact at the grocery store. Beef is up nearly 17%, apples up 10%, coffee up 41% and baby formula up 6%. Groceries are projected to cost families an extra $1,000 compared to last year, and Canadian families just cannot keep up.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an impassioned speech on the history of Sir John A. Macdonald. I was wondering if he had any other pieces he would like to share with us on why respecting our history is so incredibly important in today's context.”
“Mr. Speaker, Thanks to these Liberals, this Christmas is looking bleak, Because so many Canadian families' paycheques are too weak. With Grinchy Liberal ways, Canadians face a bleary plight, High taxes and spending stealing Christmas magic and light. And just like the Grinch swiped every morsel, decoration and treat, Liberal inflation robs their joys, leaving families in defeat. While 2.2 million visit food banks, month on month they plead, Hoping for a food hamper, a simple happy deed. These Grinchy Liberals' hearts are oh so small. Disconnected from realities, Liberals let these families fall. But like little Cindy Lou, who made the Grinch's mind see, Christmas doesn't come from a store; it's so much more, you see. So our ask is simple, a change we hope they make: Listen to Conservatives for Canadian families' sakes.”