Tamara Kronis
Nanaimo—Ladysmith, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent.”
“In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumpt…”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee.”
“The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should…”
“I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been…”
“We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Tamara Kronis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“Despite those concerns, we moved the bill to committee because we agreed with its stated objectives. No one in the House supports hatred or violence directed at any community. Canadians expect Parliament to confront both. That brings us to the second act. At committee, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois amended the bill to remove the long-standing religious defence contained in section 319 of the Criminal Code. This defence protects statements made in good faith on a religious subject based on belief in a religious text. That is where everything went off the rails. This defence has never protected the deliberate promotion of hatred or calls for violence. It exists to ensure that Canadians can express sincere religious beliefs without fear that their words could be criminalized simply because someone else finds them offensive.”
“Where provincial governments are unwilling or unable to enforce existing words, adding more words is not going to help. The concerns I expressed were not Conservative. They are shared by a remarkably broad coalition of Canadians. Religious organizations and civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum have raised similar alarms. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the rabbinical council of Toronto all sounded the alarm about the bill's potential impact on freedom of expression and religious liberty. A rabbi, a priest and an imam literally approached the bar of the House of Commons, and the government ignored them.”
“This motion and the sentiments behind it, along with the bill, are a giant sign in a very small window. That is where the real risks to our society begin. If the story of Bill C-9 were a play, we would now be in the third act. In the first act, when the bill was introduced, I raised three serious concerns in the chamber, two of which have not been fixed in committee. The first is the vagueness of the bill's definition of hate. Criminal law must be clear and precise. When definitions are vague, they create uncertainty about what speech will be criminalized, and that creates an opportunity for weaponization outside of the criminal system. The second is the reality that the laws we already have in Canada to combat hate and incitement to violence on the basis of hate are not being enforced.”
“The problem is that there inevitably comes a time when the people in charge change the signs, and by the time they do, it is always too late. There is no more room for dissent, and the people who helped put up the signs find that they have become prisoners in the very system they helped build. The problem is that when the signs first go up, people like them. They are reassuring. They create a sense of moral clarity for the majority whose views are reflected in them, but that comfort comes at an unacceptable cost. When societies begin rewarding the display of approved ideas instead of the honest exchange of them, something essential begins to erode. It surprises me that the government of a Prime Minister who invoked Havel's greengrocer would be allowed to do what it is doing today. Members should make no mistake about it.”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians are now very familiar with Václav Havel's greengrocer, who displays a sign in his window not because he believes it but because it is what one does, what is familiar and what is required. In Davos, the Prime Minister talked about taking the sign out of the window. Today, I want to talk about how the sign got there in the first place, because Havel's parable was a warning, a warning about how democracy and freedom degrade when we create a society where people say what they are supposed to say, regardless of what they believe, and about the problems that arise when the only acceptable speech is narrowed to what is written on signs. As many of those who have immigrated to this great country will tell us, where there are signs in windows, the signs always start out fine.”
“Mr. Chair, an Iranian member of my local community wrote to me to say that Iranians have tried peaceful protest and civil resistance for years, only to face arrest, torture and deadly crackdowns. They have tried diplomacy, and gotten hangings and executions. She wrote to me that a democratic Iran would significantly improve regional stability and reduce the global threats posed by the IRGC. If the member does not believe in war, but still wants to see quick regime change, what realistic path for change does he believe remains open to the Iranian people?”
“Mr. Chair, at the beginning of this operation in Iran, the Prime Minister was in the same place as the hon. member who has just spoken in the House. Since then, the Prime Minister has described the same strikes as a dangerous escalation, has said that Canada supported them “with regret”, has suggested that they reflect a “failure of the international order”, has raised concerns that the strikes appear “inconsistent with international law” and has called for de-escalation and diplomacy. However, despite all that disapproval, he has not ruled out the possibility that Canada might want to get involved at some point. There are 700 members of the IRGC in Canada terrorizing and maybe even murdering the Canadians whom the member says we should be worried about as our primary cause. I want to know if the hon.”
“Let us commit to continuing the conversation about how Canada can strengthen oversight, improve transparency and uphold the highest standards of responsibility in our export policies while preserving the partnerships, jobs and institutions that Canadians depend on.”
“We could improve parliamentary review of export decisions or invest in additional monitoring of supply chains, addressing concerns about accountability while avoiding unnecessary economic or diplomatic disruption through broad changes in law. We must weigh the moral aspirations behind the proposal against its practical consequences. We must ask not only whether a bill reflects our values but whether it would function effectively in the real world. In the case of Bill C-233 , that balance has not been achieved. The mechanisms proposed raise significant concerns about economic stability, industrial co-operation and international partnerships.”
“While acknowledging the motivations behind the bill, he argued that the goal of stronger oversight does not automatically mean that every proposed mechanism for achieving it will work. This is where Bill C-233 falls short. It attempts to address legitimate concerns, but it does so through sweeping legislative changes that could unintentionally disrupt economic stability, industrial co-operation and strategic partnerships. Rather than rewriting the law in ways that could destabilize existing arrangements, we should take the more balanced path of improving transparency, enhancing reporting requirements and strengthening oversight within the current framework. GAC could expand the detail of annual export reports.”
“Canada's export policies operate within a broader framework of alliances, trade relationships and co-operative defence arrangements. Prudence requires that we approach changes to these relationships with care and a clear understanding of the downstream effects. We must consider how the bill could affect Canada's credibility as a reliable participant in joint industrial and security initiatives. Legislation always produces some consequences beyond its stated objectives. Even well-intentioned measures can have unintended side effects in sectors as interconnected and technologically complex as defence manufacturing. During the debate, a member of the Bloc Québécois made an observation that captures the nuance required here.”
“They argued, and I agree from my own experience in international affairs, that the exemptions within the current regime are not loopholes but rather necessary pathways for co-operation grounded in shared security commitments, continental defence and decades of military integration. My colleagues have warned that this legislation could disrupt defence co-operation, strain alliances and ultimately make Canada less secure. They have cautioned that the legislation has the potential to reshape an entire industrial sector and that those changes could place Canadian suppliers at a competitive disadvantage and hinder Canada's ability to support crucial international partners that are under threat at a critical time. These concerns are not mere hypotheticals in the current international landscape.”
“A significant portion of Canadian defence exports consists not of finished systems but of components and specialized technologies that form part of multinational supply chains. This integrated industrial base supports thousands of highly skilled jobs across our country, enabling Canada to collaborate with partners that share our values in areas ranging from aerospace engineering to advanced manufacturing. During the debate, both the parliamentary secretary , for the government, and the shadow minister for foreign affairs, along with numerous other speakers with expertise in defence and international relations, have warned that Bill C-233 could have significant unintended consequences for that co-operation at a critical moment for global security.”
“Current law and practice require Global Affairs Canada to assess whether proposed exports would contribute to peace and security or undermine it and whether they could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. I was encouraged to see that export permits are not rubber-stamped. Applications have been denied, suspended or cancelled on occasion according to the established criteria. (1140) However, our analysis of the bill and its potential should not stop there. Every system can be improved, so we must also consider the broader economic and strategic context in which Canada operates. Our defence sector is deeply integrated with those of our closest allies.”
“Canada also already has and enforces strict controls on Canadians involved in transfers of military goods abroad, even when those goods never actually enter Canada. There is a measure of transparency already in place, in the sense that the government has been tabling annual reports to Parliament on exports governed by the ATT since the 1990s, even before the treaty was ratified. As an issue this important should be, our approach to Canadian military exports has been serious and largely non-partisan. To verify these assertions, I reviewed some of the government's recent reports that are available to the public on the Global Affairs Canada website.”
“In his detailed speech explaining why the Liberal government will not be supporting this bill, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs explained that Canada's export control system already places human rights considerations at its very core and that Canada has gone above and beyond the requirements of the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada already applies exemptions more narrowly than any other ATT signatory. We control a wider range of items than the treaty requires, including dual-use goods and nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technologies. Canada imposes stricter denial criteria than those specified under the ATT, including risks of contributing to transnational violence, terrorism and organized crime.”
“Getting that balance right matters if Canada is going to realize its potential as a leading middle power, especially in the context of our geographic location, our obligations to NATO and our other allies, and our international commitments. When determining whether Canada's export approach should change, as proposed by Bill C-233 , we must first examine and evaluate the strength of Canada's existing export control regime. In my preparation and research for these remarks, I was pleased to learn that Canada already has one of the most stringent systems in the world for regulating the export of military goods and technology and that our standards not only meet those set out in the ATT but in many respects exceed them.”
“I have followed the debate on this bill closely and want to thank colleagues from all parties for their contributions to the legislative record. Their remarks have been well researched, and their arguments have shaped my own position on the bill, which does not actually target any particular country or conflict but seeks to constrain Canadian policy and practice across the board. Because of that breadth, it is crucial for us to think carefully and practically about the impact that passing this bill would have on our sovereignty, our security and our global relationships, and we must be vigilant about avoiding unintended consequences, because the new world order the Prime Minister is fond of speaking of is a complex and dangerous place.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233 , an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. In presenting this bill, my hon. colleague from Vancouver East has argued that Canada must ensure that our domestic laws live up to our commitments under the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. She has raised serious concerns that are worthy of thoughtful consideration. Indeed, I believe all members of the House share the fundamental goals behind Bill C-233: making sure that Canada acts responsibly on the global stage, ensuring that our exports reflect Canadian values and aligning our policies with both international law and humanitarian principles. The question before us today, therefore, is not whether those goals are worthwhile, because they clearly are, but whether Bill C-233, as drafted, is the best way to achieve them.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer, and this is not isolated. When a non-citizen can sexually assault someone's 18-year-old daughter twice and not be deported, the system is out of control. This offender was found guilty of sexual assault. The judge knew he would be deported, but then they gave him a discharge and probation, so another criminal stays in Canada. The Liberals accuse us of all kinds of things, but their judges are pleading down at the expense of our daughters, so I will ask again: When will the Prime Minister fire his immigration minister and get immigration back under control?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister falsely claims he has our immigration system under control, but when a non-Canadian on a student visa can spy on his female housemates for six months and not get deported, Canadians know the system is out of control. He recorded them in various states of undress. He recorded them using the bathroom, but instead of protecting these women, Liberal sentencing discounts allow immigration consequences to benefit the offender. When did the Liberals abandon vulnerable women, and when will the Prime Minister finally take accountability and fire his immigration minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of the expropriation of land in Mirabel in 1969 and for reminding us of the long-term effects this has had on local families. Many people felt that they were not being heard at the time. In the hon. member's opinion, what should the government do today to listen to communities more and to treat them more fairly when major projects are planned?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about the expropriation of land in Mirabel in 1969 and about the impact that decision had on people's lives. That is a painful chapter for many families who lost their homes, their land and their jobs. Looking back, what lessons does the member think we should learn from that? How can these lessons help governments work better with communities in the future?”
“The Crofton workers and others on curtailment in my community are out in the cold and still waiting. I am asking for an urgent meeting with the minister to discuss the reasonable request Crofton workers made. Our communities deserve more than words and “someday” promises. They deserve action.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is February 3, the first day that 254 forestry workers at the Crofton Mill are out of work. Almost all of them are still without jobs, and another 125 workers will be following them to the unemployment line in the coming weeks. Since the Prime Minister took office, Vancouver Island has seen a steady drumbeat of mill curtailments and closures. Shifts are being cut, mills are being idled and families are turning to food banks in record numbers. When a mill shuts down, the whole community is closed. Crofton workers met with Liberal ministers in good faith and put forward practical, targeted proposals. They were promised employment, insurance support and transition funding. Ministers looked my communities in the eye and made those commitments. Well, it is February 3.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians concerned about Bill C-9 . Faith, as we know, is a matter of conscience, and the petitioners are worried that the state is interfering with their religious texts and teachings, will impinge on religious freedom and lead to government overreach in matters of faith. They are calling on the House to prevent government interference in faith, religious belief and practice.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is incredibly rich for the member opposite, who keeps referring to this as a new government, to look into the past to try to assume that Conservatives cannot change and that we cannot put forward new ideas. From a government with which we have offered to co-operate, it is especially distressing that he continues with the insults and the rhetoric and that he is not willing to work with us on this act.”
“Madam Speaker, the whole thesis that the Conservatives are putting forward through this sovereignty act is the idea that we should stop the flight of capital outside of this country. We should remove the barriers to investment here, the things that cause Canadians to want to invest in other countries, and help bring that capital and investment back to Canada by removing the barriers to that. That is exactly what we are trying to do.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been thinking a lot about topics like this over the past weeks, and what I think this really reflects on is the concept of agency. Agency is one of the real things that divide us on this side of the House from our colleagues in government on the other side of the House. We firmly believe in agency, and we can see it in this concept of the sovereignty act. We firmly believe that if we get government out of the way, the good people of this country have the ability to build their own lives, make their own decisions and move our economy and the Canadian dream forward. That is where we see hope. On the other hand, the hon. members across the aisle tend to believe in larger institutions. They tend to believe in bureaucracy and in centralized control of things.”
“If we want them to believe again, if we want them to invest their lives here, then Canada must stop asking them to carry the cost of stability in a disproportionate way. That is what living in truth looks like at home, and that is the path forward that actually lasts. I say again: Canadians should not be forced to choose between major projects and getting government out of the way. They should be able to have both. That is why we have put forward a Canadian sovereignty act, and we call on all parties in the House to support it.”
“With the Canadian sovereignty act, Conservatives have taken the sign out of our domestic window on behalf of those without homes and on behalf of those without investments to protect from the changing world order, because those generations no longer believe the government's story about future prosperity. If Canada is serious about building strength at home, that strength must include our next generation. That strength must include those who are struggling, not as an afterthought, not as a talking point, but as a priority. We do not need nostalgia from the past. On that, I agree with the Prime Minister . However, we do need fairness and opportunity in the present. Young Canadians are not turning away from this country. They are waiting for this country to turn back to them.”
“We should be able to have the Major Projects Office and get government out of the way for the rest of us. Younger Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair deal, for a country that does not require them to sacrifice indefinitely so existing wealth can be preserved untouched, for policies that recognize housing is a place to live before it is an investment, and for a government that recognizes that security starts with food security at the grocery store and that economic strength is measured in whether people can build a life, not just on whether capital can move freely in global markets.”
“Referring a project to the MPO does not mean that it has been approved, and none of the potential projects of national interest have actually emerged from the black box of the MPO to be formally recognized by cabinet as such, which means that they are not yet, in fact, exempt from the federal laws holding them back. This is where our Canadian sovereignty act comes in by getting government out of the way by repealing the federal laws that block development, incentivizing the provinces to fully open their markets to fellow Canadians, rewarding those who reinvest in the Canadian economy to stop the flight of capital from our country and ensuring continued Canadian ownership of Canadian innovations. We do not have to choose and we should not have to choose.”
“The rhetoric in the summer and fall sessions of the House seemed to pit Liberal ideas against Conservative ones: We could have the Major Projects Office to fast-track anointed projects, or we could repeal the long list of legislation that gets in the way of those same projects. Conservatives let the Prime Minister have Bill C-5 , giving him the chance to show Canadians through his Major Projects Office that his big ideas about big government would do the trick for Canadians. However, the Prime Minister's words are moving faster than his work, turning the Major Projects Office into another bottleneck to prosperity. (1605) After announcements in September, October and November referring two tranches of projects to the MPO, we have heard nothing.”
“We cannot speak of resilience while young Canadians are one missed paycheque away from crisis. We cannot claim to be investing in the future while systematically pricing that future out of reach. We are told that Canada must be outward-looking, engaged everywhere and invested in everything: trade deals, partnerships, defence commitments and global leadership. However, a country that is everywhere abroad and absent at home is not strong. It is distracted. Being principled does not only mean standing up on the world stage. It means standing up for the people who live here now, not just those who bought in decades ago. That is why the Conservatives have proposed a Canadian sovereignty act.”
“Across the board, our youth are the first generation who will be worse off than their parents. Their parents are the first generation that believe their children will not be better off than them. The most dangerous divide in Canada today may be between those who are willing to accept that and those of us who are fighting tooth and nail to change it. When a system only works if the next generation accepts less than the last, that system is not stable. It is living on borrowed time. The Prime Minister speaks beautifully about honesty in foreign policy, about taking signs out of windows and about refusing to pretend that old systems still function as advertised. That same honesty is needed at home because we cannot talk about building strength domestically while an entire generation feels weaker every year.”
“It is a place where they are being told their sacrifice is the price of global leadership, the price of a new world order. The question they are asking is, order for whom? For these folks, it feels like Canada is asking them to continually give things up, while asking very little of those who already have the most. They are asked to delay home ownership so asset values of current homeowners can be protected. They are asked to shoulder debt, taxes and rising costs in the name of an abstract national good that never quite shows up in their own lives. They are being told that what they are experiencing is inevitable, the fault of global forces beyond our control. They work, they pay, they comply and the promise of Canada feels increasingly hollow to them.”
“This message has gone over well with Canadians who have the assets to weather the coming storm, those seeking stability and soothing reassurance in turbulent times. However, for those Canadians who do not already own a home and those who do not already have those sustaining investments, those people, and especially our youth, are faced with a future that keeps moving further away. For them, the struggle is not about great power rivalry or global supply chains. It is about rent that eats up more than half their paycheques, groceries that cost more every month and having two or three jobs that still do not provide enough to live on. For them, Canada has become a country where doing everything right no longer guarantees stability, let alone prosperity.”
“Madam Speaker, last week in Davos, the Prime Minister outlined his vision to restore Canada's position as a leading middle power in the world. In the prequel to that speech last October, he reminded a room full of young Canadians that it will take time and sacrifice to realize that vision. In both speeches, the Prime Minister framed the hardship we will face in Canada to realize that vision as unavoidable, temporary and noble. He promised to always be straight about the challenges we have to face and the choices we must make as a country. The promise of the Prime Minister 's Canada appears to be this: Things are going to be hard now, but worth it in the long run. If we just hold on, the future will be better. We will be an energy superpower, diversified abroad and strong at home.”
“Madam Speaker, near the end of his speech, the hon. member spoke about the MOU with Alberta. We know Alberta has identified some of the very pieces of legislation listed as ones we want to affect through a sovereignty act. These are ones that are impediments to moving projects forward. My question for the hon. member is this: Why can we not have both? Why do we have to choose between what he calls a Liberal vision and a Conservative vision? Why can we not have both the major projects and repeal the things that are getting in the way of building Canada for our next generation?”
“Canadians should not be forced to choose between moving major projects forward and getting government out of the way. This is why we are putting forward a sovereignty act. We call on all parties to support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives worked with the government to pass Bill C-5 , giving the Prime Minister extraordinary power to approve major projects quickly. The same spirit of co-operation should bring the House together to support a Canadian sovereignty act, which would cut delays for everyone and put Canadians back in control of our destiny. The Major Projects Office is supposed to be a workaround for government delay and a fast pass for anointed projects, but the Prime Minister 's words are moving faster than the work, turning the MPO into another bottleneck to prosperity. This is where our proposed sovereignty act comes in. Productivity is inseparable from affordability. When we build more and export more, productivity rises. Higher productivity drives higher incomes, making life more affordable.”
“As drafted, however, it raises real concerns about feasibility and balance. I look forward to continuing this debate when time permits.”
“The more significant the commitment, the more rigorous the scrutiny should be, but the way “major treaty” is currently defined in this bill is so broad that it risks capturing nearly every treaty Canada enters into, along with amendments. At the same time, it excludes memorandums of understanding, which can have huge consequences for Canada despite not being classified as treaties under the bill. All of that having been said, the bill should not be dismissed out of hand. There is value in examining whether current practice reflects modern expectations of privacy and accountability. Codifying aspects of existing practice, as the U.K. has done, is not radical. Bill C-228 is well intentioned. It reflects a genuine desire to strengthen democratic oversight and public confidence in Canada's treaty process.”
“It is the foundation of democratic consent, particularly when treaties affect domestic law, public spending or regulatory authority. This really matters at a time when many Canadians feel the government is very far away and makes decisions without consulting them, and where some treaties are seen as limiting our sovereignty. Transparency builds trust, and trust is essential to governance. We seek to ensure that parliamentarians, and by extension Canadians, are not simply presented with a fait accompli . This bill tries to distinguish between routine agreements and those that are truly consequential. This reflects a common-sense idea.”
“This policy is known as the Ponsonby rule, and it was adopted from the U.K., where it has been in place since 1924. It was codified there into a law not dissimilar to this bill by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The information provided here when treaties are tabled varies, and the opportunities for meaningful debate are often limited by time or by competing priorities here in the House. Our current process does not provide Parliament with much of a say, let alone a veto. The executive branch, through the Prime Minister and cabinet, retains authority to make, really, all the decisions. The goal of giving Parliament a chance to have more input and debate is therefore worthy. Transparency is not an abstract principle in the world we currently live in.”
“These are significant proposals, and they raise important questions about balance: balance between efficiency and accountability, balance between executive authority and parliamentary oversight, and balance between Canada's need to act decisively on the world stage and Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize commitments made in Canada's name before they happen. One strength of this bill is its attempt to bring clarity and consistency to a process that often feels opaque. Canada's current treaty policy, enacted in 2008 and updated in 2020, requires that treaties be tabled not before signature but only before ratification. This policy provides some visibility to the House but little formal influence. Ultimate authority remains with the Prime Minister and cabinet.”
“It would require treaties to be formally tabled here in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, before Canada can ratify them. It would establish a mandatory waiting period of at least 21 sitting days between tabling and ratification. It would define major treaties and require them to receive additional review and advice from our committees. It would also impose additional transparency obligations, including publication of treaties and related documents, while allowing for limited exceptions in urgent or exceptional circumstances provided that Parliament is informed afterwards.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to welcome everyone back to this place, including Canadians who are watching at home. I am pleased to rise on our first day back to contribute to this debate on Bill C-228 . [ Translation ] I want to start by thanking my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague who introduced this bill. [ English ] The context for this bill is important, because it concerns how we, as parliamentarians, understand our role in relation to international commitments that can bind Canada for decades, shape domestic law, and affect the lives of Canadians in very real ways. It is particularly timely as Canada seeks to forge new relationships during a precarious time in international affairs, development and trade. Bill C-228 proposes a new statutory framework for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties before ratification.”
“Mr. Speaker, these Liberals must be shopping in the fantasy aisle because Canadians are still getting skewered at the checkout. Conservatives voted against policies that make life more expensive. This Parliament, the Liberals voted against our motions that would have saved jobs, kept communities safe and lowered costs. Inflationary Liberal spending is driving students, seniors and now full-time workers to food banks. When will the Liberals stop raising taxes on the people who grow, transport and sell our food, so Canadians can put food on the table?”