Debates of Sept. 25th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Food Taxation

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been pointing out that they are the solution to their own problems, that they are the heroes of their own stories. When we point out that grocery prices are unaffordable for the average Canadian family, they say, “Don't worry about it. We have a school food program.”

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of our Liberal colleagues mentioned earlier that he worked in the school system for 10 years. I was a teacher for 25 years. I think it is good that the government is helping food banks, but I do not think that any government should ever boast about having to give money to feed children at school because their parents cannot afford to feed them at home. That really bothers me. The Liberals need to stop bragging and start coming up with real solutions to help people.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his acknowledgement of the 50th anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian flag. I am a proud Franco-Ontarian, and I can tell my colleagues that we are celebrating today in Guelph and across Ontario. I really care about the French language and culture.

As members know, Guelph is also a major agricultural centre. I invite my colleagues to come visit and see the eco-packaging solutions developed by the University of Guelph. Our city firmly believes in climate change and environmental issues.

Since three of the four solutions proposed in this motion to lower the cost of groceries attack the environment and since climate change contributes to the cost of groceries, I certainly cannot support the motion. I thank my colleague for his suggestions.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Guelph, and I wish our neighbours a happy anniversary.

I am interested in university research and development. We have an R&D sector at the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières and throughout Quebec, and it is essential.

This is another area where the federal government is absent. In terms of predictability and long-term vision, there is currently a shortage of veterinarians for large animals. That is an example that springs to mind. It seems innocuous, but there will be consequences. We have to train future veterinarians and welcome them, but we are not able to make the necessary adjustments.

Let us be efficient.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which I think complemented mine well. Today's discussion covers a very broad topic. We see the consequences of inflation, price increases. I thank him for pointing out that creating false taxes or waving a magic wand for solutions does not work. It takes real action.

Right now, farmers are the first to see the effects of climate change in their fields, year after year. Instead of being blamed, they should be made part of the solution and they should be rewarded for their good practices. I would like my colleague to tell us more about that and about the progress that the agricultural sector wants to make in terms of the environment.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I will give a very clear example. In my region, we are currently working with farmers on preserving the Lac Saint-Pierre biosphere to better protect and expand the shoreline. There are even projects that help re-meander certain waterways because that will have a significant impact. We cannot just tell farmers that they are going to lose money every year with the lot of land they cultivate, and then wish them good luck. We cannot do that. We decide what to do together. Farmers are therefore compensated for that and, in the long term, we are able to renew these programs. These are good solutions. The Bloc Québécois also has clear positions on this. I invite my colleagues to consult our platform.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince Albert.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today back in good health. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Lévis—Lotbinière for once again renewing their trust in me for this 45th Parliament. It was truly a very special election for me. Every election is special, but I will remember this one since I had to undergo radiation every day of the campaign.

That said, I need to sincerely thank my entire family, my wife Chantal, my children and grandchildren who kept my spirits up during this ordeal. I also want to thank all the health care professionals at the Lévis cancer centre for providing me with such good care. Finally, I want to thank my entire team, who held down the fort while I was away having treatment.

Without all those people, I might have gotten discouraged, but in life, like in farming, we reap what we sow. I had always gone out of my way to support others, but this time, other people supported me. I will always be grateful to them for that.

I might have been tempted to retire, but my mission here in the House is not yet accomplished. My mission is to do my utmost to help the people in my riding and make their lives better. That has always been my purpose in politics, and I want to keep pursuing that purpose.

I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Foothills regarding the Prime Minister's failures.

The Liberal Prime Minister said he would be judged by the cost of groceries. If he still wants to be judged by that standard, the verdict is clear: He has failed.

This is not surprising given that, during the eleventh-hour Liberal leadership race to replace Justin Trudeau, he was the only one who could not say what the average Canadian family spent on groceries.

I would even suggest that he is one of the few Canadians who has not felt the pinch of rising costs across the board. He is a former head banker who, unlike a growing number of Canadians, does not have to get his meals from a food bank.

The Daily Bread Food Bank expects four million visits in 2025, twice as many as prepandemic levels.

This represents a 142% increase in food bank use compared to 2015, when a Conservative government, of which I was honoured to be a part, left the Liberals with a strong, proud, free and prosperous Canada. It is sad to see what they have done with it.

As I said earlier this week in the House, the Prime Minister's honeymoon is over. I think all indicators show that this is true.

This Liberal government will be no different from those that came before it. Food inflation is 70% higher than the Bank of Canada's projections. Food prices have increased 40% since the Liberals came to power.

Now, let us talk about solutions, which are readily available and on the table. We invite the Liberals to have the courage to copy our ideas, as usual.

Here is what we want.

That...the House call on the Liberal Prime Minister to stop taxing food by eliminating: (a) the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment; (b) the inflation tax (money-printing deficits); (c) carbon tax two (the so-called clean fuel standard); and (d) the food packaging tax (plastic ban and packaging requirements).

As a farmer myself, I know that producers want to feed the world. That said, obstacles and excessive taxes prevent them from offering good quality products at low cost. Consumers are the ones paying the price.

Food should never be a luxury. I was talking to other producers who explained to me that one of the problems they face is red tape, those unnecessary regulations that set arbitrary rules or formal standards that are seen as excessive, rigid and redundant. This is what we have come to expect from the Liberal government over the past 10 years. That is why, at times, producers say that, far from being the solution, the government is sometimes the problem.

A hundred years ago, seven out of 10 people were farmers. Today, only 1% of the population works in agriculture, and that percentage keeps dropping. Farmers contribute to Canada's food security. If we want to encourage the next generation of farmers, it is important to give that 1% all the flexibility they need to produce our food.

The Liberal Prime Minister played a trick on us when he claimed he had axed the carbon tax. There is still a hidden carbon tax. It is the industrial carbon tax, which applies directly to farm machinery and fertilizers used in the fields. Just like the former carbon tax, it directly affects the price of food by punishing work at the source. Few farmers can do without fertilizer to fertilize their land. The government is still taxing this essential item, however, and that is directly reflected in food prices.

On top of this, the Liberals are on a green crusade against plastics of all kinds. Far from actually helping the environment, all it does is make life more difficult for grocers, who have to worry about alternative packaging. All of these laws are directly reflected in food prices.

Here are some striking examples.

Food inflation in Canada is up 3.24% over last year. Food inflation is now 70% above the target. Meat prices are up 7.62%, after a 4.7% increase in July alone. Fresh and frozen beef are up 12.7%, and processed meat is up 5.3%. Coffee is up 27.9%, and infant formula is up 6.6%.

Canadians are struggling. Their paycheques are being eaten up by these price increases. However, the Liberals are still imposing their philosophy of centralizing, regulating and taxing everything instead of leaving all the power in the hands of the people closest to production.

I would now like to take a few moments to speak to a very big concern I have about agriculture in Canada. I worked in agriculture all my life, ever since I was a young man. A very high percentage of the population at that time was passionate about farming and also had the opportunity to work in agriculture. Over the years, that percentage has declined significantly, to the point where only 1% of the Canadian population now owns farms in Canada.

This is a tiny percentage, given the enormous responsibility these individuals bear. These people are passionate about their work, but the entire mental and financial burden of owning Canada's agricultural heritage falls on just 1% of the population. That said, these people are doing an exceptional job. They have innovated and invested in high-potential machinery technologies, but they still have to work countless hours to successfully support their businesses. During peak production times, they work between 75 and 95 hours per week. These individuals often get little rest and have to sacrifice their precious time, including time with their families, to support their businesses and feed Canadians.

We owe them our deepest gratitude, and I hope that Canadians will give farmers the respect they deserve. If there is a farmer in the area who has a farm stand, I want Canadians to support them by buying produce directly from the farm. This gesture is greatly appreciated by the farmers and provides them with extra income to help them get through the more financially difficult months.

In closing, I want to thank the entire agricultural sector and all the hard-working women and men in this industry. It is my hope that they will be allowed to continue their work in peace. The Conservative Party of Canada will always be the party of farmers, and we will ensure, to the extent that our nation's finances allow, that farmers can keep plying their trade with the same passion for generations to come.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I am very pleased to see him looking so well. So much the better, because we need him here.

I have a very simple question. As a farmer who is very familiar with the agri-food sector in Quebec and Canada, does the member think that the Conservative Party policy of ending the temporary foreign worker program immediately, without replacing it with anything, is a good idea?

Does he not think that this could raise production costs and consequently raise the cost of food for consumers?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to hear the comments of a Liberal who has let pretty much the entire planet come to Canada over the past 10 years, who has brought many refugees here. We have really exceeded our capacity to take in all of these people and, of course, we need to take care of them too.

The temporary foreign worker program will undoubtedly be around for a long time. It will no doubt be changed and could be replaced. However, we are going to ensure that our farmers are able to get the workers they need, given that they represent only 1% of the population.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that inflation is driving up the cost of food. We could pass legislation to set a cap on grocery prices. We could increase transfers to the provinces and Quebec. We could do a lot of things to fund food banks.

However, as we speak, oceans are warming, icebergs are melting and forests are burning. There is more and more smog everywhere. The planet is suffocating, yet the Conservatives are proposing that we do away with the gas tax to help lower grocery prices.

I am sorry, but I do not see where they are going with this. They are making the problem worse, not solving it. Does my colleague not agree that it makes no sense to eliminate the gas tax when what we need to do is cap grocery prices?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about my extensive experience in agriculture. I started helping my dad when I was just four years old. In my opinion, transportation plays an enormous part in the farm-to-table journey, whether in terms of ordering inputs or getting the food to consumers. Transportation costs are one of the main factors affecting food prices, and the price of gas has an important impact on transportation costs. The more gas prices go up, the greater the multiplier effect, making costs 25 or 30 times higher, depending on the stage of the process. Lowering transportation costs will definitely lower food costs.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He spoke of the reality that there are fewer farmers. He also spoke of the reality that there are more Canadians who have no understanding whatsoever of the amazing work our farmers do, and that they are so innovative and care about the environment, because that is where they earn their income and how they feed Canadians.

What does the member think of the reality that the federal government, in the middle of last year, cancelled all funding to Agriculture in the Classroom and 4-H programs, which are so crucial for this generation of young people who do not understand where their food comes from? Does the member have any comments on that?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting question.

Unfortunately, today, when we ask city children where milk comes from, they say it comes from the corner store. Although this example might be a little simplistic, it reflects the reality. We really need to educate all Canadians. Unfortunately, just 1% of all Canadians are feeding the entire population of Canada. The next generation interested in pursuing this occupation with dignity will face a huge challenge. Now is the time to give this issue our attention if we hope to avoid hitting a wall in the next 15 years.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be in the House this time of the year talking about harvest, food security, food safety and the cost of living.

I come from Prince Albert. The riding of Prince Albert is an agriculture-producing region. It is a very viable part of the province of Saskatchewan, which produces a lot of the food we eat across Canada and around the world. What we are seeing happen right now in this economy and the bad policies of the government are really putting people in a bad situation. When we look at the cost of food right now, we are seeing food purchases and storage rising 3.5% year over year, versus 1.9% in the U.S. If we look at the costs in Canada, they are double the costs in the U.S. The prices have risen 48% faster in Canada. Food inflation has been 1.5%, which is double the 0.8% increase headlines in the CPI. Canadians are struggling.

I do not want to give the impression that because food prices are going up, farmers are making a pile of money or getting a fat wallet out of this. Nothing is further from the truth. If we look at what was facing farmers when they were making decisions last spring, at that time they had a carbon tax, a cost other producers around the world did not have. Now that the carbon tax is gone, inflation has gone down substantially. It is not because of good policy from the government; it is the government taking the Conservatives' policy and applying it that brought inflation down. Let us, the Conservative party, accept a thank you and take a bow for that, because that is something we, for the last 10 years, have been saying would happen, but the Liberals did not listen until the voters decided they were going to turf them unless they listened.

In Saskatchewan, we are a big canola-producing province. In fact, canola was developed in Saskatchewan, and it has grown in Alberta, Manitoba and parts of Ontario. Canola farmers are going through a really tough season this year. When we put tariffs on EVs roughly a year and a half ago, the 100% tariff, we and the canola and fisheries industries knew at that time that there were going to be consequences.

The government did not prepare for those consequences. It had six months before the tariffs started to hit the canola and seafood industries to proactively develop a game plan for how to mitigate the damage, to go to China and say, “We are going to work something out for our canola and seafood industries.” The Liberals did nothing. They could have put together a mitigation plan with the canola producers, crush plants and facilities and say, “Here is a game plan to help adapt to the new environment we are possibly going to be faced with,” but there was nothing. What they did offer were more loans and debt, but those do not solve the problem.

As producers look at a combine that is going up to $1.5 million and the machinery going over $1 million for an air drill, they are really starting to feel the pressures of the costs. When my dad first started farming, if he had a bad year, he could work in the winter time and catch up. Now, if these guys have a bad year, they are done. There is the amount of capital they have to put out in the spring and the lack of the ability to get that capital back in the fall if they have a bad crop, tariffs, bad market conditions or bad weather. There is so much going on that people who farm really have nerves of steel. There is no question about that.

At least the Premier of Saskatchewan was willing to go to China and talk about canola, and I will give credit to the parliamentary secretary for going with him, but I will say that, when we had these problems under the Harper government, it was not even a day and a half before Minister Ritz would be on a plane and in China to sort out the problem. There would have been a proactive game plan put together, sitting with canola producers and growers and talking to different associates, to figure out how to mitigate this and move things forward, “Can we get more crush? Can we do more? Can we step up to the U.A.E. or Dubai? What are the options to make sure we do not feel the harm Chinese tariffs will place?”

Nothing was done by the government. The cost to the Canadian economy is going to be substantial because of that, as will the hurt felt on the prairies and how that will domino back to Ontario and the rest of Canada.

I was talking to some of the prairie machinery manufacturers, and they are looking at things very closely, too. Their sales are down substantially because their costs are up. The industrial carbon tax on steel, for example, is something they have to pay that their competitors around the world do not. When they export into Kazakhstan, China and around the world, they are already at a disadvantage because of the costs they bear here in Canada because of the bad policies of the Liberal government.

That is the problem I see with the Liberal government. It brought in policies so quickly and blindly without listening to the industry, which has added costs to the system. It made the system so expensive that it has to subsidize people now just to stay alive.

Members have been talking about the food program for schools. I think the aim is $4.50 a plate. Nobody wants a kid to go hungry. The science is there. If children have full stomachs, they will learn better and grow, but I will remind the members opposite that kids only go to school five days a week. They are also not at school on holidays and during the summer break. If their parents cannot afford food when the kids are at school, what are they supposed to do when they are not at school?

Would it not be a better policy to look at things to bring costs down instead of bringing in a new program to help people out? Would that not be a better policy? Would it not be better to analyze what the real problems are and what is driving the cost of food up? The Conservatives put forward some solutions. Those are the things the government has to focus on, not looking at how to spend taxpayers' money to patch things up from A to B.

I will use the example of the plastics program. When that was proposed, those in the industry very quickly asked if we understand the consequences of this. They explained very clearly that a lot of the fruits and vegetables that come in plastic are shipped from around the world in that type of material. They made it very clear that they are not going to change the packaging in which they ship food to Canada to accommodate Canadians without somebody paying the cost for something different. They also said that the amount of food waste will increase substantially because of rotting and not having the proper packaging material and that there are no alternatives at this point in time, but there is research going on for alternatives.

What does the government want to do? It wants to barrel ahead with blinders on and bring in this kind of policy, a policy that is going to increase food waste, which increases cost. It is going to increase the cost of food because the packaging will have a higher cost. It is going to bring zero benefit to the environment.

I understand that we want to take care of the oceans and all that. I am all for it. I think we should be doing everything we can to do those types of things when it makes sense and when we have the science, technology and materials to do it. In the meantime, we can do things to mitigate the problem. There is a gentleman in Prince Albert who does plastic recycling. He has a home for it all. He is looking for ways to recycle.

I want to highlight for the Liberals that, when they bring in bad policy, there are costs. They say they are going to stick with the bad policy, but make it better by subsidizing, with a bit of a tax benefit, a food program, a dental program or something else. There was a time when Canadians did not need those types of programs. There was a time when I could go to the grocery store and fill up the cart, and it would only cost a hundred bucks. When I go to the grocery store now and put two items in the cart, it costs 250 bucks. It was 10 years ago that it was a hundred bucks. Today, it is substantially more.

I was joking with a guy in the grocery store. We were waiting in line, and he said that we do not need these big carts anymore because he cannot afford to fill it. He is right. Bacon has gone from $17 to $23. I used to buy hot dogs for $12 and they are now pushing $18. It used to be $18 for a pound of coffee and it is $32 now. These are the result of bad policy.

Farmers are not getting rich. This is not going into farmers' back pockets. If the farmers are not getting it, and I do not think the supply chain is getting it, who is getting it? It is the taxes being paid, directly and indirectly, to the federal government, which it is then paying back in some sort of subsidization program. It is absolutely stupid.

When the Prime Minister was elected, he made all kinds of promises. I will remind members of his promises, the things he said during the campaign. These are not made up. Conservatives are repeating word for word what he told Canadians. All I want is for him to keep his word.

The Prime Minister said he was going to reduce food costs, and he has not done that. He said he was going to make things better and be elbows up with the U.S. I am not sure if that was the right policy to begin with, to be honest, but he said it was the right policy and sold that to Canadians. Where is he today? He is scared to come into the House. We do not see him in question period or at any time during the day.

The reality is that costs have gone up. Bad policies have made costs go up, and the government is so blind and so much like a cult on the environment and in so many other areas that it refuses to make decisions that would make things—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, during his speech, he said that inflation came down on food because the carbon tax was eliminated. Unfortunately, the reality does not match up with what he is saying. The carbon tax was eliminated in April, yet inflation had been coming down for a year before that and met the Bank of Canada's target rate in August 2024.

How can the member say that just last April, inflation suddenly came down when the data does not support that in any way whatsoever?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member did not hear me right. I did not say food; I said inflation in general.

Second, when the government reduced the carbon tax, what was the price of fuel at the pump? It went from two dollars a litre down to I think $1.29 in Prince Albert. Where do members think inflationary pressures were relieved for Canadian consumers? It was from the savings they had on the price of gas so they were able to afford other things.

That is what is showing up in your inflation numbers. Nothing else you have done has brought costs down. The reality is the reality. Go to the gas station and look at the price of fuel today compared to when you were in charge with your carbon tax.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Just before I recognize the next member, I will note that the Speaker is not responsible for responding to questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are also many farmers in the Drummond area. I realize that this is a complex problem. The issues facing farmers are complex. My colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière spoke about this earlier, and he speaks from experience.

However, it seems to me that the Conservatives are reducing this to a very simplistic, even populist solution and are refusing to see the problem as a complex whole.

This morning, we learned our oceans have reached a level of acidity that is almost irreversible, which will have enormous repercussions on the ecosystem. The entire environmental ecosystem is threatened, and the consequences for future generations will be catastrophic. I do not understand why my colleagues who defend the agricultural sector refuse to see the massive consumption of petroleum products as a major issue for future generations and why they see this tax as a panacea and the solution to all problems.

I would like my colleague to talk about this phenomenon.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what the member he is referring to said. We have to make changes when it makes sense. He used the example of tariffs on fertilizer. If we put a tariff on fertilizer and nobody else does, what impact does it have? If we put regulations in place that nobody else in the world is putting in place, all we have done is added costs to our consumers that nobody else is bearing.

Let us look at that. The member is right. It is a complicated thing, but let us use common sense, which the member before him said, as we go through that process. Let us not disadvantage our farmers and manufacturers in the process just because we think we are right when nobody else is following that in this area.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

A Conservative member is answering my question, and I would like to hear him. However, his own Conservative colleague is making noise. I would have liked to hear my colleague's answer.

I wonder if he could say it again so I can understand his answer.

No? That is too bad.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind hon. members that if they wish to have discussions, I invite them to do so outside the chamber. Sometimes there is a lot of noise from members talking to each other after a member has been recognized. I would ask members not to do so in the chamber.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying. This debate today is on the cost of food and the Prime Minister saying he would bring it down.

What we hear constantly is a pivot to affordability, which of course is an issue that we have a lot to say about, but the reality of this circumstance is that the cost of groceries is not dropping and Canadian families are not able to afford food. Putting forward a food program is not the answer; meeting the needs of Canadians is by dropping the cost of food.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have another person from Saskatchewan who is full of common sense. It is nice to see that show up here in the House.

The member is absolutely right. We have to look at the things that underlie the increase in the cost of food. If it is increased taxes, increased indirect costs, or regulations coming into the sector that nobody else faces around the world and that are not providing food safety or food quality, those types of costs should not be borne by Canadian producers. Then they would not be passed on to the consumer.

Let us use some common sense in this House, take a step back and keep in mind that people have to eat. They have to be able to afford groceries. That is the number one requirement. If the government keeps bringing in bad policies, as it has over the last 10 years, this is going to get worse.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

I want to do a bit of follow-up on how misinformation gets to the floor of the House of Commons. Let me give a good example. The member opposite talked about the food program. Somehow he believes that the food program is an absolute total waste, that the Government of Canada should never have had the school nutrition program. It is not only the member who has implied that; other members have also implied it. In fact, they voted against it. They did not want the government to bring it in.

I was first elected in 1988. Guess when I first started to hear about the need for a school nutrition program. When I was first elected, people were talking about it. I remember Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the provincial Liberal Party back in 1988, saying that children cannot learn on an empty stomach. It was a sound policy back then, and it took decades for a national government to turn it into a reality. Truth be told, a national nutritious food program is good for the kids of Canada. It is a sound policy.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, obviously voted against it, and now they continue to criticize it. Am I to assume that a Conservative government would get rid of the national school food program? That is sure what it sounds like. That is one of the reasons Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives' current leader to be prime minister. Instead, Canadians went with the Prime Minister we have today. Why? It is because Canadians could not be fooled. They looked at what the Prime Minister brought to the table and contrasted it with the leader of the official opposition.

What took place? We have a Prime Minister today who was the governor of the Bank of Canada. He was the governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist. He understands the economy, and that has been the priority.

Let us contrast that with the leader of the Conservative Party. What was his involvement in the private sector? I think the answer is not very much, but I will let one of the Conservatives bring it up.