Leslyn Lewis
Haldimand—Norfolk, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, that is all rhetoric and no results. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. The Prime Minister has outspent every previous government in the history of Canada combined. While he is breaking spending records, Canadians are breaking their bank accounts just to survive.”
“Mr. Speaker, we ask again: Where are the results? More families are facing financial hardship, business investments are declining and job opportunities are harder and harder to find in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today signed by 15,000 Canadians concerning the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty and the related amended international health regulations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition to present. It is signed by 5,000 concerned Canadians regarding the proposal for a national digital identification system in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to note that in the Senate, the Senate committee studied Bill C-9 extensively, and I noted that there were witnesses from every background, whether they were from the LGBT community or from a faith community. I saw a Black pastor also.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first?”
The complete record
Every one of 180 lines we hold for Leslyn Lewis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“The government could no longer directly obtain consumer information. That is something I am proud of. Canadians stood up and fought for that because it is important. The government now could only ask a narrow question to telecommunications providers, "Does this consumer have an account with your company?" If they wanted more information, then they would have to go to court to obtain a production order. Here is what Canadians also need to understand about Bill C-22 . This bill is not just about whether the data can be accessed. It is about who designed the system that made the access possible. How has the system been designed? Right now too much of that system has been designed and built behind closed doors, through regulations and without parliamentary oversight. However, there is also a deeper issue here.”
“Instead of access being something that happens only after a judge carefully considers it, we would now be building a system where that capability is always ready to access. The system of access would be largely created not by Parliament, but by ministers behind closed doors. I want to bring members back to Bill C-2 . Colleagues should remember the uproar over the concern Canadians had, which was raised over the real issues about how governments could access their personal, private, confidential, most intimate and personal communications. Now what the government has done instead is to take a particular section out of Bill C-2 and put it in Bill C-22 . It deals with the same issue of access to information. To be fair, there have been some changes made to Bill C-22 from Bill C-2 .”
“Before this bill, if a government wanted to access people's private communications, listen to their telephone calls or read their messages, they had to go to court. They had to make their case to a judge. They had to show why it was necessary. Judges and our judicial system were and are a critical safeguard to our privacy. This is a foundation of our democracy. This bill would change the system around that process. It would require telecommunications companies to build this network that is ready for access, a lawful access network. It would allow governments and government ministers to set the rules of that lawful access network. Also, it would set how this system operates. It would do that not through a parliamentary process, but backdoor channels in regulation.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I will speak on Bill C-22 , the lawful access act, which asks Canadians to accept something very significant. It asks telecommunications providers across this country to build and maintain systems that would allow government-authorized access to their networks. It would expand expectations around the collection and retention of so-called metadata: the time, the location, the connection, details attached to the messages and the Internet activity. It would give ministers the authority to shape how those systems are designed and enforced. This is not a small technical change. It is structural in nature. It is a structural shift in how digital infrastructure is designed and who ultimately controls it. Let me speak plainly.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in distress and struggling with high food costs. The Prime Minister promised change but instead, the affordability crisis has just gotten worse over the past year. The Prime Minister broke his promise. He said grocery prices would go down. Now Canada has the worst food inflation in the entire G7. His plan to increase the clean fuel standard tax by 7% would only make things worse. Will the Liberal Prime Minister cancel this tax on food so Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, a grocery store worker in Haldimand—Norfolk contacted my office to say $120 used to buy five bags of groceries, and now it barely fills one. Even though she works at a grocery store, she is still forced to use the food bank. The Prime Minister has delivered the worst food inflation in the G7, and he even plans to raise the clean fuel standard tax by 7%. Will the Prime Minister get rid of the food tax so Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition from concerned Canadians across the country on government Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, which passed third reading yesterday in the House. The petitioners worry that amendments made by the government would limit religious expression, and they are concerned that the state would be interfering in the ability of faith communities to practise their faith. The petitioners fear that the changes could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. In this petition, Canadians are asking the government to provide assurance that individuals of faith will not face criminal charges simply for reading, sharing and practising their faith, which are fundamental freedoms enshrined in the charter.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Haldimand—Norfolk, beef farming is a way of life and a significant contributor to our local economy. Beef farming in my riding has produced world-class Canadian beef, and beef farmers deserve access to global markets. Can the government explain to the farmers in Haldimand—Norfolk and throughout Canada why their world-class beef still cannot access the U.K. markets like it could before?”
“This bill is not just about natural health products; it is about freedom of choice. In the previous Parliament, we saw cross-party support for this legislation. I urge all members to once again support this common-sense bill, not only in the interest of millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products and Canadian businesses that work every single day to supply products in a safe and responsible manner to Canadians who desire those products, but also in the interest of Canadians across this country and future generations who want to live in a Canada where freedom of choice abounds, where businesses thrive and where life is affordable. The full promise of Canada deserves nothing less.”
“At a minimum, prices will rise at a time when families are already struggling. Make no mistake: Without Bill C-224 , businesses will shut down or leave the Canadian market, and Canadians will lose access to products they rely on. My office has been overwhelmed with calls, letters and petitions about this issue over the past three years. This matters deeply to Canadians. The people of Haldimand—Norfolk elected me to represent their voice, to speak the truth and to push back when government overreach threatens their autonomy. Canadians want to return to a country where choice, affordability and personal responsibility are respected by government. That is why this is not a partisan issue. The bill speaks to the fundamental values that matter to every single Canadian: freedom, autonomy and the dignity of an affordable life.”
“Government red tape has already cost Canadian businesses over $50 billion every single year. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, bear the heaviest burden. Ultimately, Canadians pay the price. We must also consider this. Six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Millions more are on wait-lists for treatments and procedures. At the same time when Canadians are navigating a strained health care system, we should not be making it harder for them to responsibly manage their own well-being, yet, under this regulatory regime, that is exactly what is happening. Industry associations, small businesses, health practitioners and consumers are all raising the alarm, and 70% of brands say that they may pull their products from Canadian shelves. One in five may exit the Canadian market entirely.”
“Regulations are meant to protect Canadians, to reduce the risk of harm and to provide the necessary guardrails against misuse and abuse, but regulations must be proportionate. With little regulation, people obviously could get harmed, but with too much regulation, government moves from protection to control. It begins to dictate free choices, saddle businesses with red tape and distort the marketplace. As a result, innovation becomes stifled. Canadian businesses ultimately suffer, and Canadians lose choice while paying higher costs. (1855) When products disappear, choice shrinks. When compliance costs rise, prices increase. When domestic producers exit, foreign competitors fill that gap. Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing this pattern across multiple sectors: housing, agriculture, natural resources and energy.”
“Since the Liberals changed the requirements in 2023, natural health products must now comply with an onerous labelling regimen, additional inspections, compliance measures and mandatory recall orders, as well as additional government fees and the threat of a monetary penalty of up to $5 million per day for non-compliance. These same rules are used to regulate pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs. The question that many Canadians have written to my office to ask is, why is the government treating small Canadian vitamin-brand businesses like high-risk pharmaceutical manufacturers? Conservatives are not against regulation. There is a place for wise and precise government regulation.”
“colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury , Bill C-224 , an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health care products. Bill C-224 moves to reverse the sweeping changes that the government made in 2023 to the Food and Drugs Act, which changed how natural health products are regulated in Canada. Prior to 2023, natural health products were already regulated under the natural health products regulations, which is a robust and clear framework introduced by the previous Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper. That framework provided sufficient oversight and safety, and recognized that vitamins are not pharmaceuticals.”
“I know they have experienced waking up with a potential cold, sore throat or cough and possibly considered using vitamins to fight that cold, purchasing some sort of alternative care such as vitamin C or echinacea, or even drinking medicinal tea. Those common remedies are not uncommon products. They are part of ordinary Canadian life. In fact, a strong majority of Canadians, 70%, rely on vitamins or other natural health products. They do so regularly to stay healthy during the long winter seasons. They also use them to supplement their diets. These are not luxury items. For many of my constituents, these products are not optional. They are essential for their health and their well-being, and for the well-being of their families. That is why I am proud to speak in support today of the common-sense bill from my hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been a few issues over the last few years that I have heard consistently so much about, and this is not just in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk but across the entire country. Among those, the cost of living, the erosion of freedom and individual choice ranked very high at the top. The bill that we are debating today goes to the very heart of the fundamental concerns that Canadians are raising. This bill is not just about natural health care products. It is about freedom of choice. It is also about affordability and whether Canadians can still afford the basic essentials that they have always counted on every single day. I am not sure that most members of the House have experienced a time when they have been without a doctor.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal insiders connected to former Liberal MPs received a $206-million loan below market rate from the Canada Infrastructure Bank and nearly $150 million in subsidies for a Nova Scotia wind farm project. Canadians are tired of Liberal insiders getting rich off taxpayer dollars while millions of Canadians are lined up at food banks every single month. When will the Liberals finally make life more affordable for Canadians instead of lining the pockets of Liberal-connected insiders?”
“Madam Speaker, given that tens of billions of dollars are going to be allocated for high-speed rail, does the member think that it is necessary for the government to have some sort of independent cost-benefit analysis that would include when there is not enough ridership in order to fund the rail system and the cost to taxpayers?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite why it was necessary for the government to include a provision to exempt individuals and companies from acts of Parliament, rather than using the usual legislative amendment provisions.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition that raises important concerns of Canadians about amendments made by the Liberal government and supported by the Bloc to Bill C-9 . Petitioners fear that the change could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. They believe that the state should not interfere in religious teachings or scriptures and that doing so risks government overreach into matters of faith. At the core of this petition is a call to protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression as fundamental rights in Canada. They urge the government to ensure that Canadians can continue to read, to share and to practice their faith without fear of being criminally charged.”
“Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. friend for his passionate speech. My heart goes out to the members in his community who faced violent criminals while going through a catastrophe. It is endemic. It is an example of how our criminal justice system has failed us. When we look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , we see a culture of releasing violent offenders. It is no wonder 60% of Canadians feel that crime is rising in their community and that they are not safe. How does my friend think this bill is going to solve that problem, if at all, and restore the confidence of the public?”
“Mr. Speaker, firstly, I agree that public safety is not a partisan issue, and it was noticeable that this point was highlighted in my hon. friend's speech. I want to point my friend to the issue of mandatory minimums for the most heinous crimes. We know that when those are eroded, the public feels that judges are taking the law into their own hands and are not punishing strictly for the most heinous crimes. What message does that send to society? Also, the fact that so many of these mandatory minimums have been upheld means the public may see this as eroding things that are necessary, which the court has already ruled on. I would like my friend to elaborate on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet GDP growth is currently at zero. Manufacturing, auto and forestry sectors are all declining, and families in Haldimand—Norfolk fear for their livelihoods as the economy weakens. Despite this economic decline, the government has not repealed a single anti-development law. When will the Liberals finally admit that their economic plan is failing and remove the barriers and tax burdens holding back Canadian workers and the economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing jobs, plants are shutting down and investments are fleeing. Canada lost 52,000 private sector jobs last month alone. Workers and families are paying the price, from GM employees in Oshawa to forestry families in Quebec who are struggling to put food on the table. This is the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised. When will the Liberals admit that their rhetoric is far from the reality that Canadians face and finally listen to common-sense Conservative solutions?”
“Madam Speaker, it would absolutely not. It would not compel. In fact, it would create another layer of bureaucracy the government could deflect its responsibilities onto. The Auditor General has an auditing mechanism already in place. The bill would infuse another layer of bureaucracy and make it even more complicated for indigenous communities to hold the government to account, because the government would then have a commissioner as a buffer whom it could blame for all its failings.”
“Madam Speaker, there are a number of recommendations in the report that deal with the status of indigenous women. What is important for reconciliation, and for indigenous women to feel empowered, is making sure that whatever system is in place is not filled with bureaucracy but rather responds to their needs and does not deflect responsibility away from ministers.”
“Madam Speaker, the important issue is one of reconciliation. If we implement a system that blocks accountability and allows the ministers to deflect responsibility, it would not lead to reconciliation. It is very important that, with Bill C-10 , people recognize that this system would ensure that the minister would appoint a commissioner, and that the commissioner would then be accountable to the same minister who appointed them. This would deflect the responsibility of the cabinet, which is supposed to be accountable for reconciliation in this country.”
“The proposed arrangement raises some fundamental questions. If a minister's duty is to ensure compliance, why is an independent office needed to check that they are doing their job? In short, and in closing, while the spirit of the bill aims to improve accountability and transparency, it actually risks the opposite by allowing ministers to abdicate their duty to Parliament and hide behind the commissioners. This is why any discussion of oversight must focus on holding ministers directly accountable. We must ensure the commissioner's work supports, rather than substitutes, democracy and responsibility.”
“Bill C-10 would create a new, cabinet-appointed office to audit and monitor federal departments, effectively outsourcing a core ministerial responsibility. I am not kidding. The government is creating an office to monitor whether it does the very job taxpayers elected it to do. Taxpayers pay ministers close to $350,000 every year, yet the ministers have the audacity to outsource their responsibility to commissioners they appoint. The Liberal government is taking outsourcing, obviously, to another level. This is simply circular accountability, where ministers evade ownership of the consequences of their decisions. This so-called independent commissioner would likely become a shield for government, allowing ministers to deflect responsibility and accountability from treaty implementation and land rights.”
“We cannot allow the new commissioner to become a parallel system of governance funded by taxpayers, shielded from oversight and empowered to make decisions that could change the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, property rights in Canada and the economic stability of the country without direct accountability. There is a basic irony here in the government creating a treaty commissioner who could not be overlooked. At its core, the implementation of treaties is the responsibility of cabinet ministers. These are elected officials who are accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and whose role is to ensure that government programs and policies uphold the law and meet Canada's obligations.”
“If we fail to prepare the public and if these developments arise suddenly or unevenly, we risk confusion, frustration and unnecessary division. For years, the government has talked about reconciliation, but without accountability and without clarity, reconciliation will never be achieved. The path ahead must therefore include national education that explains how treaty rights and private ownership rights coexist under Canadian law and how governments intend to manage those intersectionalities. Canadians must not be left to learn through conflict or court cases. They must be included through dialogue, communication and truth. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples must be built on trust, integrity and transparency. Trust is not created by removing ministerial responsibility or by insulating bureaucracies from scrutiny.”
“This is why the roles, powers and accountability mechanisms of the commissioner must be clearly defined, which is something that is not present in the bill and that the bill fails to do. We do not need a new layer of bureaucracy with undefined reach into matters that affect both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. It is crucial that the government communicate all policies and legal shifts openly and honestly with Canadians. Canadians deserve to understand not only the rights being affirmed for indigenous communities but also their own rights. Canadians also need to understand how their rights, including property rights and resource rights, may be affected. This is about transparency and fairness. People cannot respect or adapt to what has been hidden from them.”
“These landowners believed their property rights were secure, but they are discovering that they may need to consult indigenous groups before doing things like building a dock, harvesting timber or even walking through nearby forested areas. The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has shown that even the long-held title ownership Canadians have in their homes and lands does not always confer absolute control. This has created a great deal of uncertainty for landowners, lenders and the real estate market. As treaty rights continue to expand across the country, this decision would continue to touch more communities, municipalities and resource-rich regions across Canada. (1335) As these modern treaties are implemented, we must also prepare Canadians for the changes that will follow.”
“I also note that no external oversight mechanisms are built into Bill C-10 , which is a very big omission. There would be no independent review body overseeing the commissioner. There would be no performance audit or sunset clause. There would be no clear consequences for failing to act on findings. There would be no mandatory parliamentary committee review at fixed intervals. These omissions of accountability are not abstract. They would have real-world consequences, particularly when it comes to land and resource rights. In provinces such as Alberta and British Colombia, people are, right now, experiencing the practical impacts of uncertainty due to overlapping land rights. Landowners with fee simple title, which is the form of title most Canadians own their home under, are worried.”
“This means the commissioner would sit within the executive branch, the Prime Minister's cabinet, and not the legislative branch. While the commissioner would table reports in Parliament, they would answer to the very government they are meant to monitor. Parliament could not direct them, remove them or review their work in any substantive way. This is a very serious oversight gap. We have seen this problem before. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was designed with similar intentions: to be at arm's length, efficient and transparent. Instead, it became a costly entity with limited parliamentary scrutiny, spending billions while accountability remained murky. This new proposed office, with $10.6 million over four years, risks following the same path.”
“First, many of the functions the commissioner would perform are already done within the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. By codifying them in law and creating a new office, we risk duplicating roles, blurring the lines of authority and diffusing ministerial responsibility. Despite appearances, the commissioner for modern treaties implementation would not be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Ethics Commissioner, who are appointed by and report directly to Parliament itself. They are independent of government and do not exist to hold the executive, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to account. However, under Bill C-10 , the commissioner would be appointed by cabinet, via the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. At its core, the bill responds to long-standing concerns raised by indigenous communities about the need for greater federal accountability in implementing modern treaties and agreements. These treaties are essentially comprehensive land claims agreements that are negotiated between first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and the Crown to resolve long-standing disputes in defined territories. I want to recognize that indigenous communities have long asked for a mechanism to ensure that Canada fulfills its promises under these treaties. However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that goal raises important concerns about accountability, clarity and the impact on existing property rights.”
“Madam Speaker, Canada has shaped the world far and beyond our borders. One such contribution lives on in a phrase we still use every day: “the real McCoy”. As we mark Black History Month in Canada, we recognize the achievements of Elijah McCoy. Born in Canada to formerly enslaved parents, he achieved greatness while facing barriers and discrimination. Elijah McCoy transformed modern engineering by inventing automatic lubrication systems that revolutionized railways, ships, factories and industrial machinery. Black History Month matters because it tells a full story of Canada, honouring excellence and acknowledging struggle and our shared Canadian history. As we reflect on this legacy today, let us strive for excellence by always asking for and being the real McCoy. Happy Black History Month.”
“Mr. Speaker, my constituents find that when we have an authentic, genuine question that we are debating and members refer to it as obstructing, they are offended by the fact that we are not taking their concerns seriously. I have had people, and grown men, on the phone in tears because they cannot feed their families. This is not an obstructionist issue. We have to get it right. We have to be there for Canadians. They are depending on us. It is a basic human right, a basic human dignity, to be able to feed our families and feed ourselves. We have to make sure that we spend the time to get this issue right.”
“Mr. Speaker, these are very good questions, and that is why we are here discussing this issue. The hon. member asked why these payments were not made monthly. People call my office daily, telling us that at the end of the month they do not have enough for food. A rebate is not going to do it. A rebate is not going to be the solution. This should have been something that was contemplated in the budget, because affordability measures are so important. For example, the industrial carbon tax is something that could easily fix the food affordability crisis if it was just removed, as we have asked for as Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, we spend time on things that are important to Canadians. We spend time on explaining how things that impact their daily lives and their survival will play out so they can understand, because they pay our salaries. It is very important that we have a debate on real substantive issues, not just band-aid solutions. When people are going to food banks in the hundreds of thousands, when people's dignity is lost, it is important that we spend the time to get it right.”
“Families are cutting protein out of their diets, and Canadians are quietly putting food back on the shelves at the grocery stores. Canadians need relief that lasts. They want their dignity back, and they do not want their survival to be based on government subsidies. They want to live with dignity in a country they love. Canadians need better than rebates. They need lower prices, honest policy and solutions that address causes, not a band-aid solution or a temporary cheque that robs them of their dignity.”
“One of the quiet injustices of an approach that gives Canadians a food rebate, almost like giving them a food stamp, is that many struggling families get left out. Working families who are struggling often get nothing. Families who are not well off but earn just above the eligibility requirement receive no benefit. There are hard-working families and individuals who are doing everything right, yet they are still falling between the cracks. Canadians do not want handouts. For those Canadians seeking real affordability, a government rebate will not help them do better and be able to afford food, but permanently lowering food prices will have an immediate impact. In closing, I will end the same way I began. We have a food affordability crisis. Parents are skipping meals.”
“This is not just an economic issue. It is also a public health issue, a mental health issue, a social cohesion issue. No rebate can undo the damage that is caused to someone's dignity when they cannot afford to feed themselves and their family. If we are serious about the food affordability crisis, we must be honest about the causes. Food prices are driven by energy and fuel costs that have excess taxation, such as the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax. They are driven by transportation costs and taxes on the industry and also by regulatory burdens. They are driven by carbon charges embedded throughout the supply chain and also by weak domestic food-processing capacity. Every one of these costs shows up on the shelf and makes food more expensive, yet Bill C-19 removes none of these causes.”
“The solution to food insecurity is to bring down the cost of food, plain and simple: Make food that we need for our daily survival more affordable. (1640) Being able to afford food is human dignity. Let us speak honestly for a moment about what food insecurity does to the average person. It creates stress. It creates anxiety. It creates shame. Knowing they are struggling to feed themselves and their family members is something that can bring a person to tears, like that gentleman who called my office. Parents do not talk openly about skipping meals; they hide it. Children feel the stress of survival when there is not enough food to go around. Even when parents are hiding it from them, the children know there is something happening in the household. Meals get smaller. Choices get narrower. Nutrition suffers.”
“The government falsely concludes that by spending a few dollars on Canadians through a rebate, the cost of living problem that was caused by inflationary spending and unnecessary fuel tax and industrial carbon tax will be resolved by these rebate cheques. Canadians are smart, so they know that this is not going to solve the problem. They know that a rebate does not make chicken cheaper, a benefit does not lower the cost of bread, and a top-up does not reduce the fuel cost embedded in every item on the grocery store's shelf. People tell me plainly when they call my office that the money is gone before the month is even over. Families are left asking, “Why is food still expensive if the government promised to make food more affordable?” That question matters, because if it goes unanswered, it erodes public trust.”
“Canadians were promised a dream that if they worked hard, they could earn a good living and at least be able to afford the basic necessities, such as food. They worked, planned, sacrificed and budgeted carefully, but still they are falling behind. When groceries become a breaking point, we are no longer talking about affordability; we are talking about survival. The government has presented Bill C-19 as a solution to the affordability measure. However, Bill C-19 would send money after the prices of groceries have already risen. It would do nothing to lower grocery prices: It would not reduce the price of producing or transporting food, and it would not increase competition, which would lead to lower grocery prices. This bill merely treats affordability as a household income problem, not a cost of living problem.”
“A single dad told me something that no parent should have to share: He eats less so that there's enough food for his kids to eat. When parents are skipping meals so that their children do not go hungry, something in our country is deeply wrong. It is not about families budgeting better or making lifestyle choices; it is about dignity. A father called my office last week to tell a story, and he was in tears. He told us that he had a good job and income, but for the first time, his wife had to go to the food bank. The sense of shame that he felt because he was no longer fully able to provide for his family brought him to tears and to call my office to share his story. Canadians are struggling to understand why life has become so unaffordable so quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin today not with statistics but with the lived experiences of people from my riding, Haldimand—Norfolk, and also from the residents of Canada. A constituent recently told me about standing in the checkout line at the grocery store and slowly watching the price climb and climb. Knowing how much money she had in her bank account, she slowly started to put items back to save herself embarrassment. The items that she was putting back were not treats for the family or luxury items; they were basic food items she needed for sustenance. A family shared that they stopped buying meat regularly. They eat chicken occasionally, and beef has become rare in their household of four. The change in their diet has not come by choice; they have had to adopt it out of necessity.”
“Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Statistics Canada shows that food inflation is up 6.2%, which is the highest in the G7. I remember, as a university student, putting food back on the shelf because I could not afford it. I am so blessed today, but even recently I did not buy a package of meat because it cost four times more than I paid for it last year. Imagine what average Canadians who are working two jobs are going through, sacrificing every single day just to get by. Will the Liberals give Canadians a break and cut the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax?”