Grant Jackson · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I don't like that the Bloc is upset. I want them to not be insulted. I think all Canadians care about affordability. I want Canadians to not pay a three-times increase in the cost of streaming services. I want the government to not damage affordability. I want the Liberals to stop damaging affordability today.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was much of a question in there for me. I am sorry that my colleague from the Bloc feels offended or insulted. That is certainly not the premise. I am assuming that streaming service users in Quebec, just like in every other province, are concerned about the rising prices and affordability measures that are affecting every province across the country. Why would they want a three-times increase in the cost of streaming services? That would impact affordability measures in Quebec just like it would everywhere else. The Liberal government has raised the cost of everything else in this country. Canadians, Quebeckers, Manitobans, western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians alike cannot afford another affordability measure being damaged by the Liberal government. It is shameful that the Liberals are doing it. It should be put to a stop today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm calling the Liberal's claims ridiculous. I'm going to defend my party and say we support film industries in all provinces. I'm going to bring up the topic of oil and gas and criticize the Liberals for not approving pipelines. I'm going to say the Liberals are the ones surrendering sovereignty to the U.S. by keeping us reliant on their refineries. I'm here to support free and independent industries, both in arts and culture and in oil and gas.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the entire premise of that member's question is ridiculous. We encourage supporting growth and competitiveness in Canada's film industry, which this tax hike is going to make worse. We support the Manitoba film industry. We support the Ontario film industry. We support competitiveness in the British Columbia film industry. The only party in this place that surrendered sovereignty to the United States on anything is the Liberals. They are keeping us reliant on U.S. oil and gas refineries in the south by refusing to approve pipelines to new markets so that Canadians can have more competition in the oil and gas industry and reassert Canadian sovereignty. That is the Liberal record, and the record of that member, for the last 30 years. It is shameful. We are supporting a free and independent arts and culture industry and a free and independent oil and gas industry in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm against the CRTC's decision to raise taxes on streaming services. It will make streaming services more expensive for Canadians. It's the Liberals' fault.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is, once again and always, a privilege to rise on behalf of my constituents in Brandon—Souris. I rise in support of the Conservative opposition day motion today, which is in direct response to the announcement made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission last week. Quite simply, we need to reverse the CRTC's ridiculous tax hike on streaming services, because Canadians cannot afford one more increase to the cost of living caused by the Liberals. It is really as simple as that. Hiking the streaming tax will also make Canada less competitive for our streaming and film industry, of which there is currently, and has been over the last number of years, growth in my home province of Manitoba. It has already threatened our currently tempestuous relationship with the United States. Only the Prime Minister and his Liberal get along gang can reject the CRTC's tax increase and save Canadians money by eliminating it permanently, which is exactly what we, as Conservatives, are asking for today. For those Brandon—Souris constituents who may not have been following this closely, the context of this issue is just as important as the tax hike itself. Liberal MPs voted, in 2023, to make their Online Streaming Act a law here in Canada. The act has been set up to serve three primary purposes, according to government members. First, the act brought online streaming platforms, such as YouTube, Netflix, Spotify and all the rest, under the authority of the CRTC and therefore made them subject to similar Canadian broadcasting rules to those we use for television and radio. Second, the act allowed the CRTC to force streaming companies to fund and support Canadian content and its creators through additional taxes, such as the one we are debating today. Third, it also gave the CRTC powers that mandated Canadian content be promoted and discoverable in Canada, which I will not have time to speak to today. In any case, that is just a bit of background or context for viewers at home as to how we got here. Just one week ago, with the power granted to it by the Liberal government, the CRTC announced that it is tripling the tax for online streamers and platforms from 5%, which it had already imposed after the law was passed, up to 15%. Now, Canadians would be forgiven for being a bit confused as to why the Liberals would be upping the tax already. They may know that the original 5% tax is currently being challenged in the courts by online streamers, which is a case that has not been decided on, nor has any tax at that 5% actually been paid to date. Before the courts have even ruled on a 5% tax that the Liberals allowed the CRTC to create, the Liberal-backed CRTC has ploughed ahead with tripling the tax, making it even higher. As many of my Conservative colleagues already warned earlier today, and in years past, I might add, this use of power by the CRTC will have harsh consequences for Canada, and we are sincerely skeptical as to whether we will see any real benefit. Despite these warnings, here we are anyway. This online streaming or Netflix tax is a creation of the CRTC, but it also reflects the type of government intervention that attempts to lead a horse to water and force it to drink, whether the horse is thirsty or not, which we have seen time and time again from this tired, costly Liberal government over the last 11 years. As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, nothing prevents streaming companies from tagging Canadians with this 15% tax increase on their monthly bills either, as if we had a need for something else to cost us more in our daily lives. Have members noticed their streaming service bills going up? I bet they have, and after this is imposed, they are going to get worse, not better. Not only will Canadians pay more, but the imposition of a 15% tax increase would also make Canada among the most expensive places to operate a streaming service in the world. With less competition, fewer options and increased costs, it sounds like a Liberal deal to me. Why would streamers and online streaming companies bring their business to Canada, to a market that will be less profitable for them, increasingly taxed and more meddled about with through government intervention? Netflix's recent investment in Vancouver is a great example. It created more than 450 jobs. These are the kinds of benefits that Canadians may lose should the Liberal government fail to use its power to stop this streaming tax hike and allow more costs within this industry. Canadians, due to left-wing government intervention in the marketplace and a lack of competition, already pay some of the highest fees in the digital space, from streaming to cell packages and home Internet. Now the CRTC wants streaming services to cost more to prop up programs that most Canadians do not want to watch. This not only sends a message to streamers and larger streaming companies, but also has a serious potential to weaken Canada's already fragile position in trade negotiations. We have already seen comments that it is going to have just that effect. As we fast approach a review of our CUSMA agreement with the United States, whose streaming companies undoubtedly make up a majority of the target the CRTC is trying to hit with this tax, it feels completely out of touch with the renegotiations and the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves. We do not have to look far to see its impact. In response to the CRTC's decision, the U.S. ambassador to Canada has already said that this initiative “is making a bad situation worse.” At a time when Canada needs strength, why are the Liberals so determined to put Canada in the worst possible negotiating position? It is a deeply troubling stance from the government. I sincerely hope it is not due to its own shameful political ambitions. The fact is that a significant amount of the content that Canadians consume is from other countries, including the United States. That is not likely to change. The CRTC wants to ignore this reality and force Canadians to watch solely Canadian content and have them pay top dollar while doing so, but that is not a free marketplace and it should not be the government's role. To be clear, Conservatives are committed to protecting and championing Canadian culture in every way. We are pro a Canadian national identity, which is why we have disagreed with grounding national symbols like the Snowbirds and removing Terry Fox from the passport. To that end, we know what makes Canadian content special, and we need to ensure that affordability and economic growth are at the centre of how we spur that content, not forcible government regulation and taxation. For 10 years now, the Liberals' approach of over-regulation, coupled with this CRTC announcement, is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. Liberals create a problem and then create a tax that they say will make everything better. Conservatives know this is an inherently flawed way to achieve an objective. We only need to look at the last 11 years to see the result. For the higher cost of living because of the carbon tax, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher housing costs due to outlandish requirements, taxes and red tape, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher fuel prices from an intentional depression of the oil and gas sector by taxation, red tape and oppressive environmental regulation, we can thank a Liberal. Now the Liberals want our streaming services to pay three times the tax, which will undoubtedly be passed down to Canadian consumers, so when our streaming bills go up in the coming months, we will know exactly what to do: We can thank a Liberal.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Taxation

2026-05-27

“The current gas tax break is temporary and expires in three months. I want you to extend it, because I want lower taxes and prices. I don't think your current plan will solve the whole problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, there was nothing about the fuel tax. The Liberals' half measure on fuel tax is just three months away from expiring. Does the member know any Canadians who have felt real relief? I sure do not. In fact, the only people I see waving the “mission accomplished” flag are people like the minister who are Liberals. Everyone knows that it will take years to truly solve the Liberal inflation crisis. The least these tired, costly Liberals could do is give Canadians a real break on all their fuel taxes. Is the Liberal plan really to tell Canadians that their affordability crisis will be solved by the end of summer? Seriously? Why do they not take all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year and give Canadians some real relief today?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Inflation is up and Canadians are struggling. The Liberals aren't doing enough. I want the government to stop taxing fuel to make things cheaper.”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-26

“The government talks a lot but doesn't focus enough on growing more food in Canada. They should help farmers more. More food means lower prices. The government should act faster.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that was a lesson in obfuscation that would give even the Manitoba provincial NDP a run for their money, and that is saying something. My colleague from Winnipeg North will know what I am talking about. The member did eventually get to domestic food production at about minute three in that response, but the vast majority of what he talked about was grocery benefits that will not help farmers and producers grow more food domestically. That needs to be more than just a footnote at the very end of the government's responses. It needs to be the primary focus. More supply means cheaper groceries and produce at the store. If there were a small greenhouse benefit, there may be some merit to that, but there needs to be far more done by the government to increase domestic food production. We see it happening when government acts appropriately. The previous PC government in Manitoba provided the right tax incentives to Vermillion Growers in Dauphin. It has set up a massive tomato greenhouse in rural Manitoba in the Parkland region, which is growing year-round, providing fresh produce to Manitobans and those in eastern Saskatchewan. These things can be done if they are done appropriately. How much longer does the government want to take?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You didn't answer me about food production before. More food means lower prices. What is your department actually doing to make food cost less?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this topic will not be a stranger to you. I think I was asking about it the last time you were in the chair. I had the privilege of asking a question of the minister responsible for food production. We have an affordability crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills, particularly at the grocery store and at the checkout. Here is what the Minister of Women and Gender Equality replied: Mr. Speaker, Canadians need real relief right now, and we are delivering. I have great news. The very first Canada groceries and essentials benefit is going to Canadians right across the country this June.... From grocery support to child care and dental care, we are there. Of course, members already heard today that we are lowering the cost at the pumps by 28¢ per litre. There is nothing in there about food production. I was asking about the need to produce more food in this country to bring down costs. More supply would mean lower costs for Canadian consumers at the grocery store. This is after I had asked a question of the agriculture minister, and one question was enough for him. His response to my question about what his department, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, is doing to increase food production in this country was this: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member disagrees with child care, dental care, the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, an increase in health transfers, the OAS, eliminating the carbon tax, a tax break for 22 million Canadians.... He then went on to say, “there is no more” and sat down as his own cabinet members were heckling him. Again, there was nothing about food production, so I would like to give the agriculture minister one more chance. Given that it is his responsibility as the minister responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, could he please inform my constituents in western Manitoba, and all Canadians, what the government is doing to increase domestic food production so Canadians can have cheaper produce and goods at the grocery store?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Assiniboine College Benefactors

2026-05-25

“I want taxpayers to celebrate these two people spending their own money on a good cause.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize two remarkable Manitobans who are giving back in Brandon—Souris. Earlier this month, it was announced that the late Mrs. Edna Edwards left a $4-million contribution to the Assiniboine College School of Nursing dedicated to funding research opportunities and financial awards for students. The now Edna Edwards School of Nursing will honour her legacy as a registered psychiatric nurse who was trained at the former Brandon Mental Health Centre, a facility that now forms part of Assiniboine College's North Hill campus, a truly full-circle moment. The gift was announced by her husband, Mr. Russ Edwards, who is no stranger to Assiniboine College or to Brandon. Just four years ago, Mr. Edwards donated $4 million to create the Russ Edwards School of Agriculture and Environment aimed at the college's vision to build the Prairie Innovation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a project that is still waiting on federal investment, I might add. The Edwards family's generosity is bringing enhanced educational opportunities closer to home for more Westman students, which is a remarkable legacy for two highly successful leaders in the business and health care sectors. I thank Russ and Edna.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Criminal Code

2026-05-25

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping health care workers. If I talk a lot maybe it will make me look good.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to put a few words on the record about Bill S-233. I know, although I am a new member, that it has been here before in different formats. I am very glad to see that it is back on the floor of the House of Commons again for debate. Of course, it is unfortunate that it did not pass previously and has not been in effect, but at least it has made its way back here now so we can try to get it through one last time to ensure protections are in place for our health care officials. I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I know that this has been a passion project of his for a long time, something he has been championing across the country. It is a big issue. I hear about it all the time, unfortunately, from health care professionals, whether they are paramedics, firefighters responding to 911 calls or health care professionals in our emergency rooms, which are becoming a cross between a traditional emergency room, a detox centre and all kinds of different mental health crisis facilities. Our health care professionals are struggling under the weight of the addiction and mental health crisis going on in this country right now. Unfortunately, many of the individuals coming in are repeat violent offenders who need help, but we have to ensure that protections are in place for our health care workers. I hear too often from young nurses and young health care professionals from many different professions that they were assaulted, attacked in some way, shape or form. They can be coming to work, leaving work, in the emergency room or responding to a call on the street. Individuals get bitten or stabbed with dirty needles. There are all kinds of other physical or violent assaults. This is just simply and completely unacceptable for anyone in the health care profession, whether they are new to the job or have been doing it for 30 years. It is totally unacceptable to Canadians that these people, who are on our front lines, stepping up to protect Canadians and do what they can to save our lives when we get into accidents or have other types of health care issues, are being assaulted in their places of work. We all expect a safe workplace, and our health care professionals should too. Just because their workplace happens to sometimes be on the streets of our communities, that does not mean that they should be any less safe when they step up for Canadians. In Manitoba, and in my constituency of Brandon—Souris, the Brandon firefighter and paramedic service does excellent work, as does the health care staff at the Brandon Regional Health Centre and the many rural hospitals that I represent across the Brandon—Souris constituency. These folks are nervous. They come to my office and say that they have seen the same person come in over and over again. Every time, there is a violent incident, and there are no repercussions for that person. They say there is nothing that they can do to prevent this from happening. They are obligated to provide health care to that individual and everybody else who is in the waiting room, and they are not safe when that individual is around. That is a major problem. This bill would go a long way toward ensuring specifically that violence against a health care professional in their place of work is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There has to be some repercussions for these folks. We know that they are often experiencing some type of breakdown, whether it is an addiction crisis or a mental health crisis of their own, and we have services available for that. The provinces are obligated to make services available in our health care system to get those people the care they need to bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. There is nothing in the bill that tries to diminish that in any way, but for repeat offenders who are committing violence against our health care professionals, there must be consequences for those actions. Perhaps, if it is dealt with through the court system as an aggravating factor, these folks who are experiencing and perpetrating this violence would get connected with the services they need to navigate their way back to a healthier life. I know the Liberals know all about this, because the Health Sciences Centre is Manitoba's hospital. It is located in Winnipeg. It has some of the worst cases of violence against health care professionals in the country. There are a series of Liberal MPs who represent Winnipeg. They need to step up for the health care professionals who work at this facility, as well as those at the Grace and St. Boniface emergency rooms. This is not just for the people in my riding, but for the people in Winnipeg and all of us from rural Manitoba who end up, in large part, having to go to Winnipeg's major hospitals for specialty surgical services and other things. We need to make sure that the health care professionals there are safe. There are a number of workers who have been attacked, not just in the emergency rooms or in hospital rooms, but also in the parkades where they park their car. This is tragic. It is a horrific incidence. I am really hopeful that the Liberals will step up, pass the bill, send it to committee, move it through the system and get it passed so that the member for Cariboo—Prince George and all of the advocates who have been asking for this, as well as health care professionals, get the support they need. Let us get the bill passed. Let us make health care professionals safer in Brandon—Souris, in Manitoba and in Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Food and Drugs Act

2026-05-08

“I like that this bill would make unlicensed drugs easier to get. It has flaws though. It could let the minister approve heroin. It could also let companies sell drugs without good reviews. I want the bill to go to committee so we can make it better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to put a few words on the record about the important bill before Parliament today. Bill C-265 is a piece of legislation that seeks to address an important issue that affects Canadians who are struggling with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The reality is that, in Canada, individuals suffering from serious medical conditions or rare diseases may not be able to access the vital therapeutic products that are designed to help them when conventional treatments cannot. Some therapeutic products might not be approved for use in Canada and others are not marketed in Canada. These products may be well-established and approved by jurisdictions that Canada trusts, but Canadians cannot access them in the way they typically can access other drugs or other health products. Health Canada's current special access program was set up to address this issue, but it has serious flaws. The program exists as a way to get non-marketed drugs that have been proven safe into the hands of the Canadians who, oftentimes, have no other options. The issue is that this process of actually accessing these products can be lengthy and overly bureaucratic. The special access program has strict rules requiring health care practitioners to apply for what is known as a letter of authorization before they can access certain non-marketed therapeutic products for a patient. Health practitioners in Canada are unable to prescribe unlicensed or non-marketed products in the same way they would for medications that are already available in Canada and to Canadians. Instead, approval for use is given on a case-by-case basis by the special access program for each patient seeking access to these unapproved or non-marketed therapeutic products, even if another Canadian was already approved for the same prescription drug. This has created a system where treatment has been proven effective in other countries, and even approved for other Canadians and proven effective, but, because of the administrative burdens of the program, it is still out of reach for new individuals who are diagnosed with a particular condition and who need access. Receiving over a thousand applications monthly, or more than 12,000 applications each year, the special access program has been a critical pathway for Canadians to receive medications that could help them, but it faces significant delays. At desperate moments in the lives and the health care journeys of those suffering with severe conditions or concerns, this delay often results in thousands of Canadians' losing critical hours, days, weeks or months waiting for a letter or a response to their request, in other words, bureaucratic approvals, as they watch their health decline. In some cases, Canadians lose this precious time waiting just to find out that it is not a positive response and that their application has been denied by the program. This can lead applicants to seek out alternative treatments outside the country or even leave them, sadly, in too many cases, with nowhere else to turn. Canadians deserve timely access to care, and Conservatives understand that bureaucratic delays are a problem with the program. To address these flaws with the special access program, Bill C-265, which we are considering today, offers important changes that attempt to reshape how unlicensed or non-marketed products are accessed by Canadians. Bill C-265 seeks to make amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to require the Minister of Health to create a publicized list of pre-approved, non-marketed therapeutic products to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. This would include a 120-day deadline for the minister to make a decision about adding such a product to the list. Further, the bill would set limits and criteria related to the Minister of Health's power to refuse emergency letters of authorization for pharmaceutical products. Bill C-265 would also reinforce the basic principle that health care practitioners should be able to use therapeutic products that are legally available when in the best interest of their patients, which we should all be able to support. Conservatives understand how and why the special access program needs refinements, and we appreciate the member opposite for bringing forward some proposed solutions to that program. However, we do have a few concerns with the bill, which I hope to outline here as well. Without guardrails in place, the bill has the ability to create risk here in Canada, both for the health of Canadians and the influence of corporations. That said, I want to be clear that we do see potential in this bill and how, in principle, it could benefit Canadians who struggle with different stages of accessing these therapeutic products that may have already been approved and are used by other Canadians. To get this bill right, considerations must be given to how it would come into force and what unintended consequences it might have without key amendments. One of our broader concerns with this legislation is the lack of a safeguard against controlled substances like diacetylmorphine, also known as heroin, being included on the list. As written, the new authorization process creates an avenue for the Minister of Health to potentially add harmful and illegal substances to the pre-approved list. These are provisions that were removed by a previous government, after having been on the list in the past. Simply put, this would mean health care practitioners could access substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin, even though they are considered restricted or illegal drugs in Canada. Under the previous Harper Conservative government, intentional restrictions were placed on the special access program to prevent the approval of many such restricted substances. Despite that work being reversed by Trudeau Liberals, we have an opportunity with this bill to get it right and prevent addictive substances from being placed on this pre-approved list where they could pose significant risks to our public health. This bill would also create blind spots within the pharmaceutical approval process and a lack of oversight of which products are added to the pre-approved list. Not only would it give the minister the power to add or remove products, but it would also allow them to set criteria, standards and conditions without limitations. A potential safeguard to put in place to ensure due diligence with the pre-approved list is an advisory committee that would need to be consulted before the list is amended. Unfortunately, we have no idea who would sit on that committee or who would determine its composition. Given the important role this advisory committee would play, Conservatives would need to understand its composition and ensure the selection standards are clear. Finally, our concern is that Bill C-265 would open the door for corporate influence that directly contradicts safeguards already in place for pharmaceutical companies that want their products in the Canadian market. I know the previous member has spoken to that already today. The bill seeks to allow those therapeutic products that are placed on the pre-approved drug list to be exempt from the Food and Drug Act's regulatory power, which means companies could sell their products in Canada without being subject to the stringent reviews that Health Canada requires of the normal process. A similar regulatory bypass created in this bill comes in the presumption of approval for a letter of authorization if just two expert clinicians put forward a joint treatment plan. While the principle makes sense on the surface, the bill offers no way to ensure these individuals are independent from one another or a verification that one of the two experts is not the practitioner responsible for treating the patient who is seeking the approval. There must be checks and balances in place to ensure drugs added to the pre-approved list and that received the letters of authorization meet clearly defined and verified safety standards. In closing, Conservatives stand firm in our belief that Canadians deserve timely access to health care. We appreciate that the member is trying to deal with that very real and challenging issue many Canadians face. We also believe that when they access that care, Canadians should not lose their life savings because of unforeseen health complications or expensive prescription drugs. Conservatives support getting this well-intentioned bill to committee, where we can strengthen it by strengthening safeguards to ensure controlled and addictive substances can not be added to the pre-approved list; improving oversight and accountability around the minister's authority and the advisory committee responsible for review products; closing loopholes that could allow pharmaceutical companies to bypass Canada's existing regulatory approval process; and ensuring the emergency authorization process includes clear independence and verification standards for expert clinicians.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Employment

2026-05-08

“Young people need jobs and homes. Liberal programs won't help. Let people invest and build freely. Government should get out of the way so young people can work.”

“Youth unemployment is very high. The government should spend less and get out of the way so more young people can find work.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“Why are Liberal MPs from BC hiding? They should defend their bad decisions on housing. I think the other speakers are talking about the wrong things.”

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-01

“I want to complain about the government spending too much money. I think it's bad for young people and the future. My friend tried to fix it with an amendment. Can my other friend also say why he thinks the government's budget is bad for everyone?”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-04-30

“You talk a lot, but you aren't saying anything. The question was about food production. You never said 'food production'. The agriculture minister never says it either. Food prices are high. We need to grow more food. Feed Canada. Feed the world. You have no plan for food production.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that is pretty much par for the course with the Liberal government, unfortunately. The question was specifically about food production, and I am not sure the Liberal member across the way used the two-word phrase “food production” at any point in that entire answer, which is par for the course, even more sadly, for the agriculture minister in responding to my questions during question period. He and his parliamentary secretary are clearly too busy tonight to answer these questions. It is an important measure that we need to be addressing because this country needs to grow more food to meet our domestic needs, to bring prices down for Canadians, as well as to continue to feed the world, which so many people from my region and across the Prairies do. It is very disappointing that the Liberals have no plan to increase food production in Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“What is the government doing to increase food production? The other guy didn't answer. Try again.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. Last week, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the sorry state of food affordability in Canada and what exactly the government was doing to increase food production in this country. It makes sense to me that if we grow more and produce more food, the price of food should come down. It is not impacted by tariffs that we have seen, nor by inclement weather in other parts of the world, which often affects prices in this country. Unfortunately, the response I got was anything but an answer. The Minister of Agriculture went on to list a whole bunch of programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with food production or increasing it in this country. Therefore, I would like to give the member across the way another crack at the same question. What exactly is the government doing to increase food production in Canada, and when will the Liberals finally recognize that when regions like mine that grow the food cannot even afford to buy it, the rest of the country is certainly in crisis?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-30

“The Liberals spent a lot of your money and claimed it would help everyone. Has housing and food gotten cheaper? No. They spent your money and made things worse. They've had 11 years to fix this, but nothing has changed.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a long list of costly programs and a failure to get any major project approved for the province of Manitoba. I have not met a person yet who thinks any of those programs have made food or housing cheaper, or that those costly programs are actually well run. Housing and food have skyrocketed, and our debt has doubled. We have the highest youth unemployment in decades, no new major projects begun, record food bank lines and more children living below the poverty line than in years. These results, despite all the rhetoric about Liberal financial prowess, are the definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. After 11 years and no change, do these Liberals not fit the bill?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Trudeau government spends way too much. All that borrowed money could be helping people but instead it's eaten up by interest payments. Last year's slogan about spending less was just empty words to win an election. Liberals can't stop inflating the budget.”