Bill C-19

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act in order to increase the maximum annual Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit (GSTC) amounts by 50% for the 2025-2026 benefit year. It also amends that Act to increase the maximum annual GSTC amounts by 25% as of the 2026-2027 benefit year for a period of five years.

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Liberals always stand up and say that Conservatives are obstructing. I will remind our colleagues, as they heckle me, that the House does not belong to them. It belongs to the constituents of the 343 members of Parliament, those who voted us in to be their voices in the House. Regardless of what they want to say, we will ask the questions that we need to. We will do the due diligence.

I am hearing on the ground in Cariboo—Prince George that this benefit would essentially be just a coupon. The cost of groceries has gone through the roof. The Liberals are blind to this fact as they live in whatever fairy tale land they live in, but it is impacting our constituents immeasurably.

What are some of the things that my hon. colleague's constituents are saying on the doorsteps when she is back in her riding of Haldimand—Norfolk?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

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.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not measure government success by press conferences, talking points or rebranded programs. They measure success by what they see when they stand at the checkout line in their local grocery store.

In Edmonton Southeast, families tell me the same thing again and again: They used to worry about what they wanted to buy, but now they worry about what they can afford. Parents are putting fewer fresh items in their carts. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching meals. Young people are skipping groceries to pay rent. Students are skipping meals altogether. These are not isolated stories. They are the realities of life under the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister himself said that he should be judged by the cost of groceries. By that standard, the government has failed.

Today we are debating Bill C-19, the so-called Canadian groceries and essentials benefit act. The Liberals are presenting this bill as a solution to the cost of living crisis. In reality, it is a temporary rebate meant to cover up a permanent problem created by the government.

Let us be clear about what Bill C-19 would do. It would expand the GST credit by 25% over the next five years and would add a one-time 50% top-up this June. Conservatives support relief for families that are struggling, but the House should not be pretending that mailing another cheque would solve the root cause of why groceries have been so expensive in the first place.

Justin Trudeau introduced a nearly identical policy in 2022, doubling the same tax credit. At the time, the Liberals promised it would help affordability; it did not. We know it did not because since 2022, this inflationary crisis has not stopped. Grocery prices kept climbing, and families kept falling behind. Here we are again with the same failed Liberal idea, rebranded under a new Liberal Prime Minister.

The problem is not that Canadians do not have enough rebates. The problem is that the Liberal government has driven food inflation out of control. Canada is now the food inflation capital of the G7. Food prices are rising faster here than in any other major advanced economy. Food inflation is now roughly twice as high as it is in the United States. Under the government, food costs are up 6.2% year over year. Grocery prices are up 5%, and restaurant prices are up 8.5%.

These are not abstract numbers. Canadians see it aisle by aisle, item by item, every time they shop. A GST rebate would not cancel out a 21% increase in ground beef or, worse, a 40% increase in coffee. It would not make infant formula more affordable for parents who are already stretched to the limit.

The government's approach is simple. It raises the costs with one hand, and then offers rebates with the other and pretends that it is helping. Every dollar the Prime Minister and the Liberal government spend comes from Canadian pockets, and Canadians are feeling it.

The Prime Minister admitted, when he announced this legislation, that he does not have a solution to stop food inflation. That should alarm everyone. Food inflation is not an accident. It is a direct result of Liberal policies, massive deficits, reckless spending and hidden taxes that drive up the cost of producing, transporting and selling food. The government is running a $78-billion deficit. Government spending has increased by roughly $90 billion. These inflationary deficits drive up the cost of everything, including groceries.

On top of that, the Liberals have layered tax after tax onto farmers, truckers and food processors. The industrial carbon tax raises costs for food producers. The fuel standard tax adds about 17¢ per litre to the price of gas, which drives up transportation costs. The Liberal food packaging tax increases costs at every step of the supply chain. Farmers pay more to grow food. Truckers pay more to ship it. Grocery stores pay more to keep their shelves stocked, and in the end, Canadian families pay more at the checkout.

The government claims to be helping Canadians, but its own policies are making food more expensive. The consequences are severe: A quarter of Canadian households are now considered food-insecure. Nearly 2.2 million people visited food banks every month last year. A recent food survey found that almost 30% of students are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. According to MNP, an accounting firm, 71% of Canadians expect their cost of living to rise in 2026, and 41% of Canadians say that they are $200 or less away from bankruptcy.

This is not a functioning economy; this is a cost of living crisis. This crisis is not just hurting families; it is also hurting small businesses and local restaurants. Last year alone, 7,000 restaurants closed across Canada. This year another 4,000 are expected to shut their doors. These are family-run businesses. These are jobs in our communities. These are places where neighbours gather. They are disappearing because no one can afford to eat out and because operating costs have become unbearable under Liberal policies.

In Edmonton Southeast, local business owners tell me they want to keep prices affordable but cannot keep up with rising rent, rising fuel costs, rising taxes and rising food prices. The Liberals' answer is yet another rebate.

Conservatives believe Canadians deserve real solutions. We support measures that bring immediate relief, including the GST rebate announced in Bill C-19, but relief alone is not enough. We must fix the policies that caused this crisis. Conservatives have put forward clear, concrete proposals, and the Liberals have voted them down.

We would scrap the Liberal food packaging tax, eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax that adds 17¢ per litre at the pump, and reverse inflationary deficits that drive up prices across the country. We would cut red tape for farmers so they could grow more food at lower cost, and boost competition in the grocery sector so Canadians can get better prices. We would lower the cost of growing, transporting and selling food, not subsidize the damage after the fact.

In short, Conservatives would lower prices permanently, not temporarily send cheques while inflation keeps rising. Instead, all that Canadians are getting from Liberals are temporary band-aid solutions. While Conservatives will support the bill, the bill itself is not enough, and we will continue to fight against inflationary Liberal policies and work for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, Guelph is the home of the Ontario Agricultural College and the Ontario Veterinary College. The University of Guelph is Canada's food university. Guelph is the home of Farm & Food Care Ontario, the OFA, Ontario Pork, Ontario Beef and the Grain Farmers of Ontario. We are the home of Cargill and Maple Leaf, with whose representatives I met earlier this week. We know food in Guelph.

My comment is that I am perplexed that the members opposite have voted against the productivity superdeduction in budget 2025 that will allow food processors to immediately deduct new equipment or new buildings. They voted against investments in infrastructure in our ports and rails, all things that improve our supply chain, so I would invite them to support trade expansion and all the measures that would really help improve our supply chain and drive down food prices.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's comments. Again, my answer to the comments is that we as Conservatives believe in real solutions. We do not believe in the bandages that Liberals are the masters of putting on when they are out of touch with the real challenges that people face.

When they face those challenges at the door, the Liberals come up with rebates and other bandages to cover up the situation. This is not going to work. They have to listen to Canadians and their problems. I wish the member would go to her local grocery store, check out the prices and draw a comparison from the last five years. She would get the answer.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: When the government implements measures like this one to reduce the tax burden, does my colleague prefer measures that target people with lower incomes, meaning those who need it most, or does he prefer measures that help everyone, such as the tax cut that was announced in Bill C-5 and included in the budget?

Speaking of which, what does my colleague think about the fact that this bill was not incorporated into last fall's budget?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a valid question. The bill, as far as I understand, would cover fewer than 30% of Canadians who have been really struggling. Some families would not even be covered under its conditions. On top of that, it would increase the deficit by an additional $12 billion. Nobody knows where that money would come from. Would the money be reprinted as in Justin Trudeau's time, or is there any plan B for the government?

With regard to the second part of my friend's question about why this was not added to the budget, the Liberals are in a better position to say why they did not disclose their intentions at that time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night I was out with the member for Winnipeg North at Carleton University. We were debating in front of some students at a great event. I know that many members probably watched it on livestream while it was happening. During that debate, my colleague across the way was so eager to tell the students about how many programs the government has put in place, yet what the students reported to us in conversations before, after and during the debate is that they are struggling with the affordability of food, as well as with rent and with concerns about job opportunities.

It is striking that what Liberals are offering is, “We've got all these new programs,” but the reality on the ground is that in the midst of that, food prices, the real pain students are experiencing, continue to go up.

What does the member think about the failure of the Liberals to actually solve the problem?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the core issue. The Liberals are out of touch with reality. They are out of touch with the real issues Canadians are facing. Rather, they come up with rebates and other bandage solutions that their predecessors already tried and that failed. They still have not learned that lesson, and they want to keep on repeating those mistakes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate and I can see that people here are getting worked up. The Liberals and the Conservatives are shouting at each other. I am surprised by that, because this motion was adopted unanimously. We adopted it at first and second readings of the bill, which was sent to committee. We are now at third reading. I think that we can offer legitimate criticisms of the government, supply chain management, taxation and all sorts of things, and I agree with some of those criticisms, but, in the context of this bill, I think that we all already agreed that we should help people in the very near future.

This measure has two components. The first is a 25% increase for several years in the GST rebate cheque that goes out every three months. The second component is a one-off cheque. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue is proposing to send a cheque to people before June because of the high cost of living and the high cost of groceries. There has been a dramatic increase in the cost of living. However, this may not be the ideal way to design such a policy. I think it would have been better if the government had permanently increased the GST rebate, but this is what the minister chose to do.

Yesterday, I put the minister on notice. As members know, I am an idealist. I am not cynical. I believe in human goodness. I told the minister that we were familiar with his one-off cheques. We all remember the $500 cheque for seniors before the 2021 election. We remember the fake carbon rebate cheques in 2025. I asked him if his election signs would be ready when the cheques go out in June. He assures me that this is not the case. I hope we can believe him. I was pleased that he confirmed that. I think it is in the public interest. I am taking a chance and trusting a Liberal. Time will tell whether I was right. It is the beginning of a new year. We in the Bloc Québécois are full of good faith.

A number of things happened yesterday in committee when we were studying this bill. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan noted several times, we asked the minister why he was not considering making the cheques monthly. As I pointed out in committee, economic theory suggests that this would be a good thing. The government is increasing the GST rebate cheques by quite a bit. It is getting to be quite a lot of money, because people buy groceries every week.

Earlier, I saw the member for Beauport—Limoilou get very emotional. He practically poured his heart out to us, saying that people need the money, that it is important they get the money and that the timing of the cheque is not that important. Why are OAS and GIS benefits paid out once a month? Why is it that the benefits that go to those who have the least cash in their pockets and who need it most urgently are paid out monthly? Why is this benefit, which is getting a name change to reflect its enhanced role, not being paid out on a monthly basis? The minister told me that it was too expensive to administer but, in the same breath, he said that his government is very happy because the money is automatically transferred into people's bank accounts. The Liberals need to think about that. I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, because he has mentioned that two or three times.

People are going to get their money because we are unanimous. What we are saying is that the form of the transfer is important and we think it deserves some thought. These people spend their time telling us that we never make any suggestions, that all we do is complain. We are saying that they have done well but that the money needs to be paid out faster, more frequently, and then they turn around and tell us that the only thing that matters is getting money to the people and it does not matter how often they get their cheques.

When I was growing up, my father would sometimes tell me that I needed an attitude adjustment. He did not say that very often, because I did not often deserve it, but he would sometimes tell me that I had a bad attitude. In this case, the government has managed to get unanimous support, and yet it is still attacking us and yelling at us. I think this is a good time to suggest an attitude adjustment. That is my dad talking, and he is a really great guy.

We have to consider the cost of the measure, of course. This raises the question about seniors. For several years now, we have been calling for an end to the two classes of seniors. The retirement age in Canada is 65. However, seniors aged 65 to 74 do not receive the same OAS amount as those aged 75 and over. For a long time now, the minister has been saying that it is too expensive, that he cannot afford it and that helping people would bankrupt the government. What he is not saying is that he has made a political choice not to help seniors and not to put an end to this discrimination. He says he cannot afford it.

However, today, he is announcing $4.1 billion for next year for the one-time cheque and the payments. The measure would cost about $3.9 billion or $4 billion. The minister is confirming that not helping seniors, particularly by not ending this discrimination, is a deliberate political choice. The Liberals will have to take responsibility for this as of today because they have given us the proof.

Yesterday, in committee, the minister criticized the opposition and did not answer questions. I thought he was quite harsh on my Conservative colleague who asked him a question. I do not recall the province in question, and the minimum wage differs from one province to the next. However, my Conservative colleague asked the minister whether, in his view, two parents earning minimum wage who have three children and who receive family benefits would be eligible for the cheque. The minister looked through his notes, he looked through his things, he had sticky notes everywhere. She replied for him that the answer is no. Although we agree with the measure, it is appropriate to criticize how it is being carried out so we can improve it for next time.

The minister started attacking the opposition and refusing to answer questions. University colleagues of mine who were watching the committee meeting asked me why we allowed a minister to behave like that instead of answering questions, considering our parliamentary privilege. The minister went on the attack, saying that we never propose anything. He told us something worth remembering though, especially coming from that minister. He told us that we never showed interest in the long term, that the only thing we cared about was the thing right in front of our noses, and that we did not give a second thought to the long term.

I asked him a question. Last night, in committee, I reminded him that when he was the industry minister, he promised us that the government would attract foreign grocery chains to Canada, because there were only five here. I asked him where we could find the new chain that the government had convinced to set up shop. He replied that the problem in Canada is that shopping centre leases contain exclusivity clauses, that he had abolished them in his legislation and that that was why there were no new grocery stores.

Canada's Minister of Finance believes that there is an oligopoly in the grocery sector—everyone make a note of this—because there is a shortage of shopping centres in Canada. According to the minister, grocery stores do not want to have a storefront, they do not want to buy buildings, they do not do business with real estate trusts. No, they swear by our malls. When the minister goes to the United States, he tells these companies to come to Canada, and they tell him they do not like our malls. That is what the Minister of Finance of Canada, a G7 country, said.

I asked the minister to name a single measure the government could implement to improve competition in Canada's food retail sector. Not only did he not answer, but he came back and told us that we are not interested in the long term, when in fact, if there is one thing that really develops over the long term, it is competition. That is long-term work. We are not being short-sighted.

I pressed the minister again on this point, and how did he respond? He had a hard time and it took him several seconds. He rambled for a while and ended by saying that he would ask the Competition Bureau to be vigilant. Canada's Minister of Finance was saying that we, the opposition members, are just whining and that we are not interested in the long term.

In 1984, the year I turned two and the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak was first elected, there were 13 major grocery store chains in Canada. Today, there are five, and I am being generous by including Walmart and Costco. In the regions, in our villages, there are few options nearby, especially for people who do not have a car and who cannot get around easily. Today, there are five. That is what the minister told us while he was saying that we were not interested in the long term.

Yes, we want to help people. Yes, we know it is urgent. However, this government suffers from a serious lack of vision, as I demonstrated today.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague talk about how important the long term is. I am also pleased to hear that the Bloc will support us in the short term to help people who need it right now.

As for the long term, we know that climate change has an impact on food prices. However, on December 3, when we voted on whether to implement a national strategy for flood and drought forecasting, the member voted against it, as did his Bloc Québécois colleagues. I asked his colleagues questions about it yesterday, and they raised the issue of a supposed infringement on provincial jurisdiction. However, on June 5, 2024, the same member, who was present in the House, voted in favour of the same bill, as did all Bloc members. I looked it up.

I have one question. What happened between 2024 and 2025 to make improving flood and drought prevention in this country problematic somehow? We know that it can have an impact, particularly on the cost of food.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite the question. My colleague is referring to the bill introduced by the member for Terrebonne, which did not amend any section of any act. The purpose of the bill was to have Ottawa do what it is already doing.

In my riding, the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac have experienced flooding. The Liberals wanted the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac to have a nice app to let them know that it was raining when there was already 10 feet of water in their homes.

What is step number one when talking about climate change? Do not buy pipelines. Tax carbon. Make sure people pay the right price for pollution. Take action. We call that scientific consensus.

My colleague will soon be defending his doctoral thesis. He must know about this. It is called scientific consensus. That is what we should do instead of engaging in petty partisanship like this: not buy pipelines.