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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating an issue that directly affects the daily lives of millions of Canadians, specifically, the ability to feed one's family, pay for groceries and meet basic needs with dignity. Behind the numbers, the budget tables and the partisan debates, there is a very real human reality. There are parents who count every dollar at the checkout, seniors who worry about seeing their savings dwindle and workers who, despite their efforts, feel as though the cost of living is rising faster than their wages.

My speech today will be divided into two parts.

I would first like to take a few minutes to talk about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, because the decisions we make here must be based on the practical realities of the communities we represent. Beauport—Limoilou is a rich and diverse riding. It is home to families, workers, seniors, young people and a large proportion of people living alone. This riding brings together two distinct living environments that exemplify urban diversity.

There is Beauport, a predominantly residential area that is home to many families. In several neighbourhoods in Beauport, nearly one in three households is made up of families with children, which explains the importance placed on schools, local services and quality of life.

Then there is Limoilou, a vibrant, dense urban area with deep roots in community life. One fact worth noting is that Limoilou is the part of Quebec City with the largest number of seniors living alone. In some neighbourhoods, more than half of all households are single-person households. This has real-world impacts. Living alone often means living on one income and spending a greater share of the budget on housing and everyday expenses. Most Limoilou residents are renters, so housing is a particularly important issue.

Despite their differences, Beauport and Limoilou share common concerns. Overall, the riding has a significant share of households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Beauport—Limoilou is also a riding with a strong community spirit. Local organizations play a vital role in supporting citizens and maintaining social bonds, particularly in dense urban areas.

This snapshot of Beauport—Limoilou reflects the reality of millions of Canadians. Last Friday, I visited the organization Entraide Agapè, which is located 400 metres or so from my constituency office. It is a food bank that needs our help. This organization provides support to more than 100 people a week, with the assistance of over 100 volunteers.

Over the holidays, I visited almost every private seniors' residence in my riding. What did they tell me? They told me to think of them. They told me not to forget them. Today, I want them to know that we are thinking of them. We are thinking of everyone.

We cannot forget the fact that, even within a single riding, needs vary and must be taken into account in our collective thought process. The government has already found ways to support citizens, particularly in terms of housing, income support and services. Other supports can and must continue to be discussed here in the House, in light of the reality on the ground. With that in mind, I will continue to reflect on the measures we have put in place and those we can still improve for Beauport—Limoilou and the country as a whole.

The global economy is volatile. Supply chains have been weakened by the pandemic, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and widespread, and geopolitical tensions continue to affect food prices. On top of that, hard-working people who contribute to our society are feeling less able to afford the necessities of life. Bill C-19 was designed with them and millions of others across the country in mind. While overall inflation is moderating, food inflation remains high. Low- and moderate-income households are still the hardest hit. In light of this reality, our government has made a clear choice to take targeted, responsible and effective action.

Bill C-19 amends the Income Tax Act to create the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This new benefit builds on an existing and well-known mechanism, the GST credit, to quickly provide financial support to those who need it most. This is a meaningful solution that will really help people. It is the best vehicle to reach Canadians quickly.

In practical terms, this measure will provide a one-time top-up payment equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit in the spring of 2026. It will provide immediate, tangible support to millions of families. Starting in July 2026, the value of the benefit will be increased by 25% for five years.

In total, $11.7 billion will be invested over six years to support more than 12 million Canadians. This will provide up to an additional $402 to a single individual without children, $527 to a couple and $805 to a couple with two children. These amounts are not theoretical. In Beauport—Limoilou, they mean more balanced meals, less financial stress and more flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

A key aspect of this bill is that it is simple and efficient. Recipients will not have to fill out complex forms or take additional steps. All Canadians need to do is file their taxes. This support will be issued automatically, on a quarterly basis, which helps ensure predictability and stability for households.

This benefit does not replace our other support measures. It is the newest addition to a coherent suite of public policies aimed at improving affordability. These policies include the Canada child benefit, the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, the Canada disability benefit and Canada's national school food program. I should also mention the Canadian dental care plan, since 27,055 Canadians in my riding are already enrolled.

In the riding of Beauport—Limoilou, where the median household income is about $60,000 a year, that number is very telling. It shows two things: first, that these programs meet a real need on the ground, and second, that we must step up our efforts to reach out to the many other Canadians who are eligible for these programs.

Some will say that these measures do not go far enough, but we cannot forget that food banks, community organizations and frontline experts have clearly called for direct support for food and essentials. Bill C-19 answers that call. These measures, combined with the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, form a strong safety net for households. These are conscious policy choices made in response to what we have heard and practical needs on the ground.

Bill C-19 is not just a short-term response. It is part of a broader vision of economic resilience. In addition to providing direct support to households, our government is investing in Canadian food processing, strengthening our supply chains and supporting our agricultural producers. These investments are a critical part of stabilizing prices in the long term and making us less vulnerable to global shocks. Bill C-19 is one more tool to give them the support they deserve.

This bill asks the House a simple question. Are we prepared to provide meaningful support to Canadians in need? Are we prepared to take tangible action to improve accessibility?

Personally, I think the answer is clear. Yes, we must act. Yes, we must support families, seniors, workers and vulnerable people. I urge all MPs to support Bill C-19, not for partisan reasons, but out of a sense of responsibility, solidarity and social justice, because, ultimately, making life more affordable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of groceries continues to rise quite rapidly. When we go to the grocery store, it is quite alarming how expensive just one bag of groceries is. Conservatives certainly support the concept of helping people be able to buy those groceries, but the bill would not actually lower the cost of groceries.

The Liberals would be borrowing money to give to Canadians to help them buy groceries. With the way the benefit works, it would basically work out to an additional $10 a week for Canadians. We know that $10 does not buy much of anything at the grocery stores these days. Would the member not agree that trying to lower the cost and the price of groceries would be a better idea than borrowing money to give to Canadians?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in life, we only control what we can control. What we can control is putting money back in the pockets of our constituents. That is what we are doing now in the easiest and fastest way. We trust Canadians to use that money where it is needed.

The other night, at a committee, I was listening to economists discussing and questioning certain things. There were calls for the payments to be monthly instead of quarterly. My reply was that Canadians do not care about whether they are going to get the money every month or every quarter. What they want to know is if they are going to get it at all, because they need it. That is what people are telling me on social media. They need that money.

This money is on top of the programs we have already established, like the food programs, the dental care programs and the programs to help seniors. We are making sure Canadians have more power.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois strongly supports this measure. It will help those who need it. I have two questions for my colleague.

First, this measure will cost nearly $12 billion over six years, and the first payment will cost $3.1 billion. Why did the government not think to include this in the budget it tabled just three months ago? We want to have a clear picture of public finances so we know where we are headed. We already have a $78-billion deficit. Why was this not taken into consideration?

My second question relates to the answer my colleague just gave. Yes, people welcome the fact that they are receiving more money, but if they received this money every month, it would be even more helpful. Why? Those who need it use it to pay for groceries. When the benefit is paid out every three months, people max out their credit cards and accumulate interest. If it were paid out every month, they would have to pay far less interest. Why not make it a monthly payment?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that there is no partisanship here. This measure will be adopted for the people, for Canadians. As for the second question concerning quarterly or monthly payments, that is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Unfortunately, some people or members are out of touch with reality at times. I had children, and government benefits were paid quarterly. No one ever heard me or my spouse ask why they were paid quarterly and not monthly. What we got out of it was predictability. We could budget for those benefits. We could include them in our budget. It made no difference whether they arrived every three months or every month.

The important thing here, in this debate, is to make sure that Bill C-19 passes so that the money gets into people's pockets. That is what they asked me to do. That is what is important, not whether the money is paid out monthly rather than quarterly.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed by the way my colleague is defending the interests of his riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

I was wondering if he could elaborate on the main recommendation of Food Banks Canada.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the recommendation was to help Canadians. I see this in my riding. I checked recently and I found that 27,000 people in my riding are enrolled in the dental care plan. We know that just as many still need to register. That is a real need.

As for food banks, I visited Entraide Agapé, which is just a few steps from my office. The people who were there need assistance. The centre itself needs staff and volunteers; it needs funding and help from us.

We will be helping them with Bill C-19. We will be able to provide direct assistance to food banks so that they can help people put food on the table.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for sharing his time with me.

It is my pleasure to take part in this debate today on Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefits act. As we all know, advanced economies around the world are facing complex economic challenges, and Canada is no different. Rising protectionism in the form of tariffs, supply chain disruptions and climate change are all posing significant challenges to the Canadian economy, and Canadians are feeling the impact in their daily lives.

In response, our new government is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience, but we understand that some of the biggest long-term payoffs in this transformation will take time to be felt. To ensure Canadians have the support they need right now, we have introduced a series of new measures to limit pressures on costs, including making groceries and other essentials more affordable.

The bill I am here to talk about today will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. The support will be indexed to inflation and builds on the goods and services tax credit to provide $11.7 billion in additional financial assistance over six years. To help address affordability challenges, the benefit will provide a one-time top-up payment equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This support will be paid out as early as possible this spring. It will deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to individuals and families who are already getting the GST credit.

There is more. In addition, the value of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will increase by 25% for five years starting in July 2026. This expansion will deliver another $8.6 billion in support over the 2026-27 to 2030-31 period and will ensure the benefit goes to 500,000 new individuals and families. Taken together, these measures will provide up to an additional $402 to a single individual without children, $527 to a couple and $805 to a couple with two children. At these levels, our government will be offsetting grocery cost increases beyond the overall inflation rate since the pandemic.

Let me provide a couple of examples of what this assistance would look like. A single senior with $25,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $267 plus a longer-term increase of $136 for the 2026-27 benefit year, for a total increase of $402. In total, this senior would receive $950 for the 2026-27 benefit year, including the top-up. A couple with two children with $40,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $533 plus an increase of $272 for the 2026-27 benefit year, for a total increase of $805. In total, they would receive $1,890 for the 2026-27 benefit year, including the top-up.

After the one-time payment is made in the spring of 2026, eligible families and individuals will receive the enriched regular payments under the Canada groceries and essentials benefit as of July 2026. The benefit payments will arrive quarterly to ensure families can use the funds to help with their day-to-day expenses. To simplify this benefit for Canadians, recipients will not need to apply for the additional payments, but will be required to file their 2024 tax return to be able to receive the top-up. Recipients will need to file their 2025 tax return to receive the increased Canada groceries and essentials benefit payments as of July 2026.

As we know, this benefit is one example of the many ways we are supporting Canadians during these unprecedented times. It will be in addition to existing benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement, which are already providing relief to millions of Canadians.

The government is committed to limiting pressure on everyday costs for Canadians. Budget 2025 outlined how we will spend less on government operations and cut waste so we can invest more in growing our economy and protecting essential programs and initiatives that make life more affordable. There are programs and initiatives like the national school food program, which we are making permanent so that it can continue providing meals for up to 400,000 children every year. We are renewing the Canada Strong pass to help families and young people travel and explore Canada for less, and we are launching automated federal benefits that will reach up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians for the 2028 tax year.

Bill C-19 also builds on measures we have introduced to lower costs for Canadians and protect essential programs like cutting taxes for 22 million middle-class Canadians, eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes under $1 million, lowering the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, and cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax.

Affordability measures, especially those related to food, require immediate support for Canadians. As previously mentioned, it is estimated that 12.6 million individuals and families would benefit from the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, representing a material support to Canadians who need it the most while the government's plan to build the strongest economy in the G7 takes effect.

The government is focused on building a stronger economy to create more career opportunities and higher wages. In parallel, we are limiting cost pressures to make life more affordable. That is how we will empower more Canadians with greater certainty, security and prosperity, now and into the future.

I urge all hon. members to pass Bill C-19 without delay, so that we can ensure Canadians get this much-needed relief as soon as possible.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they are trying to help Canadians who need assistance because of the crisis that they have created in this country with affordability. We know that the cost of food and groceries has increased exponentially and that it is creating a real hardship for many Canadian families.

Does the member not realize that there is a much simpler way to address the problem than just another social program, and that the problem really could be resolved quite easily if the Liberals would be committed to eliminating the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standard tax and the front-of-package labelling tax, which are costing manufacturers a lot of money and being passed on to the consumer?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the causes of the high price for food that the hon. member mentioned. It is more realistic to understand that the high prices for food at this time are due more to tariffs, climate change and things like that. This program is not intended to be a magic bullet that will solve all the problems. This is a program that will help people to weather the storm while our other major undertakings take root and prosper.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, we support this measure, which targets the people who need it most. However, I have two questions.

First, why not make the payment monthly? Receiving the payment every three months could cause some people to accumulate credit card debt for three months, and they would have to pay interest on that. If they received a cheque every month, that could reduce the interest they pay on their credit cards. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Second, the government presented its budget just a few months ago. Why did it not include this measure, which will cost several billion dollars, in its budget plan so that we could get a comprehensive picture of the public finances? We are talking about a deficit of $78 billion, plus a few billion extra this year. Why did the government not include this measure in the budget?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to my predecessor, who answered the question about whether payments are monthly or quarterly. It is a practical matter of getting things out in an efficient and effective manner.

In terms of the overall budget that we presented before Christmas, it still has to be passed. It still has to go through all the steps it needs to go through. This is faster. This will allow us to deal with some of the intermediate problems that we are going to face over the coming months in a much quicker way.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how my colleague for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam outlined all the measures the government has encouraged to make life more affordable for Canadians. I am very interested in knowing how the citizens in his riding are responding to these measures.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my constituents are very happy with the results that we are producing. I have heard very solid and promising comments from people. They are very excited to see the outcome of the budget when it happens, and certainly, in the interim, to see measures like this take effect.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite did a very good job of giving scenarios of who would get this credit. What was not mentioned, though, is that less than 30% of the population will actually be supported by this.

That being said, the government has looked to the opposition for support to pass this, which we will. Why was the same collaboration not extended to us, as the opposition, when we wanted to address the root cause of grocery prices, which would support 100% of Canadians by actually reducing grocery prices?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we are always open to collaboration with the opposition benches. We are looking for solutions for Canadians and moving things forward in a coherent and efficient manner.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Edmonton Southeast.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin today not with statistics but with the lived experiences of people from my riding, Haldimand—Norfolk, and also from the residents of Canada.

A constituent recently told me about standing in the checkout line at the grocery store and slowly watching the price climb and climb. Knowing how much money she had in her bank account, she slowly started to put items back to save herself embarrassment. The items that she was putting back were not treats for the family or luxury items; they were basic food items she needed for sustenance.

A family shared that they stopped buying meat regularly. They eat chicken occasionally, and beef has become rare in their household of four. The change in their diet has not come by choice; they have had to adopt it out of necessity.

A single dad told me something that no parent should have to share: He eats less so that there's enough food for his kids to eat. When parents are skipping meals so that their children do not go hungry, something in our country is deeply wrong. It is not about families budgeting better or making lifestyle choices; it is about dignity.

A father called my office last week to tell a story, and he was in tears. He told us that he had a good job and income, but for the first time, his wife had to go to the food bank. The sense of shame that he felt because he was no longer fully able to provide for his family brought him to tears and to call my office to share his story.

Canadians are struggling to understand why life has become so unaffordable so quickly. Canadians were promised a dream that if they worked hard, they could earn a good living and at least be able to afford the basic necessities, such as food. They worked, planned, sacrificed and budgeted carefully, but still they are falling behind. When groceries become a breaking point, we are no longer talking about affordability; we are talking about survival.

The government has presented Bill C-19 as a solution to the affordability measure. However, Bill C-19 would send money after the prices of groceries have already risen. It would do nothing to lower grocery prices: It would not reduce the price of producing or transporting food, and it would not increase competition, which would lead to lower grocery prices. This bill merely treats affordability as a household income problem, not a cost of living problem.

The government falsely concludes that by spending a few dollars on Canadians through a rebate, the cost of living problem that was caused by inflationary spending and unnecessary fuel tax and industrial carbon tax will be resolved by these rebate cheques. Canadians are smart, so they know that this is not going to solve the problem. They know that a rebate does not make chicken cheaper, a benefit does not lower the cost of bread, and a top-up does not reduce the fuel cost embedded in every item on the grocery store's shelf.

People tell me plainly when they call my office that the money is gone before the month is even over. Families are left asking, “Why is food still expensive if the government promised to make food more affordable?” That question matters, because if it goes unanswered, it erodes public trust. The solution to food insecurity is to bring down the cost of food, plain and simple: Make food that we need for our daily survival more affordable.

Being able to afford food is human dignity. Let us speak honestly for a moment about what food insecurity does to the average person. It creates stress. It creates anxiety. It creates shame. Knowing they are struggling to feed themselves and their family members is something that can bring a person to tears, like that gentleman who called my office.

Parents do not talk openly about skipping meals; they hide it. Children feel the stress of survival when there is not enough food to go around. Even when parents are hiding it from them, the children know there is something happening in the household. Meals get smaller. Choices get narrower. Nutrition suffers. This is not just an economic issue. It is also a public health issue, a mental health issue, a social cohesion issue. No rebate can undo the damage that is caused to someone's dignity when they cannot afford to feed themselves and their family.

If we are serious about the food affordability crisis, we must be honest about the causes. Food prices are driven by energy and fuel costs that have excess taxation, such as the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax. They are driven by transportation costs and taxes on the industry and also by regulatory burdens. They are driven by carbon charges embedded throughout the supply chain and also by weak domestic food-processing capacity. Every one of these costs shows up on the shelf and makes food more expensive, yet Bill C-19 removes none of these causes.

One of the quiet injustices of an approach that gives Canadians a food rebate, almost like giving them a food stamp, is that many struggling families get left out. Working families who are struggling often get nothing. Families who are not well off but earn just above the eligibility requirement receive no benefit. There are hard-working families and individuals who are doing everything right, yet they are still falling between the cracks. Canadians do not want handouts. For those Canadians seeking real affordability, a government rebate will not help them do better and be able to afford food, but permanently lowering food prices will have an immediate impact.

In closing, I will end the same way I began. We have a food affordability crisis. Parents are skipping meals. Families are cutting protein out of their diets, and Canadians are quietly putting food back on the shelves at the grocery stores. Canadians need relief that lasts. They want their dignity back, and they do not want their survival to be based on government subsidies. They want to live with dignity in a country they love. Canadians need better than rebates. They need lower prices, honest policy and solutions that address causes, not a band-aid solution or a temporary cheque that robs them of their dignity.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does sound like my hon. colleague supports this measure and she is going to support it, because this is what Canadians want in this moment. Why would we spend more time discussing a bill we know we are going to support? Canadians need it right now. She just talked about the many people in her riding, even families, who do not even qualify for this measure. She understands the environment people are in right now.

Why wait instead of just voting for this bill so that it can move fast? Why are Conservatives so stuck on obstructing?

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

Mr. Speaker, we spend time on things that are important to Canadians. We spend time on explaining how things that impact their daily lives and their survival will play out so they can understand, because they pay our salaries. It is very important that we have a debate on real substantive issues, not just band-aid solutions. When people are going to food banks in the hundreds of thousands, when people's dignity is lost, it is important that we spend the time to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

The government is proposing a measure that we welcome and support because it will really help people, but it is going to cost a lot of money. Why did the government not include that measure in the budget that was tabled just a few months ago so that we could see the overall fiscal plan? We were already talking about a $78-billion deficit. This measure will add an extra $3.1 billion for this year and nearly $12 billion more over five years. Why does my colleague think that the government did not include this measure in the budget?

Also, my colleague touched on this at the beginning of her speech: Should these payments not be monthly so people have more cash flow, rather than going into debt over a longer period and incurring interest charges?

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

Mr. Speaker, these are very good questions, and that is why we are here discussing this issue. The hon. member asked why these payments were not made monthly. People call my office daily, telling us that at the end of the month they do not have enough for food. A rebate is not going to do it. A rebate is not going to be the solution.

This should have been something that was contemplated in the budget, because affordability measures are so important. For example, the industrial carbon tax is something that could easily fix the food affordability crisis if it was just removed, as we have asked for as Conservatives.

[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.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night at the finance committee, the member put some very good questions to the finance minister, and his responses were shameful. The minister did not answer, really, any opposition MPs' questions during his entire hour-long appearance. It was a shameful display from a minister unwilling to answer questions and explain his bill to Canadians.

I want the member to have a chance again to talk about the commitment the minister made that he would bring stability to the prices of groceries. He said that in 2023. Nothing has happened. He was asked pointed questions about competition, which he failed to answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that no one can be asked to do the impossible. We cannot ask the minister to move mountains, although the minister has an unfortunate tendency to create expectations that are impossible to fulfill.

It is true that the Conservatives questioned him about this in committee yesterday. I say this in a non-partisan way. It is a fact that tensions sometimes rise in committees. It is a fact that the questions are sometimes difficult, although at times the ministers ask for it.

When a minister avoids answering a question, wastes time or tries to prevent a member from the other side from asking questions, the result is frustration and a disservice to democracy. We sometimes get the impression that we are being denied our privilege as parliamentarians to ask questions, and situations like that can sometimes create unnecessary tension.

Regardless of my opinion that some of the Conservatives' questions yesterday were not very good, I think that the Minister of Finance did not always act in the service of democracy. I hold him in very high regard, and I think he can do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his eloquent speech. He addressed a number of topics related to the bill. I would like to hear his thoughts on a few things.

First, he pointed out that we are in a kind of oligopoly when it comes to food retailers. He noted that their numbers have declined over the past few decades. How is that putting pressure on people's grocery bills?

Second, the Bloc Québécois has often suggested increasing the GST credit. Can my colleague expand on that a little more? Finally, why was this measure not included in the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, at the height of the inflation crisis in 2022, when inflation was at 6%, 7%, 8%, the Bloc Québécois had called for that. We also called for the frequency of the cheques to be increased.

At the time, the minister said that was inappropriate. All of a sudden, for the same reasons, it became appropriate. As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. The minister needed several hundred nights to sleep on it. We congratulate him for seeing common sense.

The Minister of Finance has reformed the Competition Act, but I think it should have been done a long time ago. Indeed, Canada has a serious competition problem in the retail sector, but also throughout the entire supply chain.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak following my colleague from Mirabel. I plan to take a slightly different approach in my speech, in that my speech will focus more on my riding.

My colleague talked about how this measure could look like an election gimmick. He even asked the Minister of Finance if he had his election signs ready. I want to echo what my colleague was saying, because there are many ways the government could help the entire population, and the unilateral policies look a lot like a marketing ploy on the part of the government, which is boasting about the fact that it is going to help some 12 million Canadians and Quebeckers.

For years, everyone has been hammering home the point that people are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. Whether in Canada or Quebec, the situation is different depending on the community. Not all communities have the same level of wealth. Not all families have the same income or the same salary. Not all of them live in big cities. My colleague mentioned Costco and Walmart. In a riding like mine, sometimes people do not even have a grocery store within a three-hour drive. I will let my colleagues figure out how expensive that can be and what it means for folks in Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan.

That being said, a number of things in my riding could have had a considerable impact. When we talk about the cost of living, of course, the whole issue of groceries comes to mind. Now, we are being told that GST credit increase, as shown, will not be available to everyone. Furthermore, it will not be available quickly. People will have to wait three months. However, when people need money, when they want to eat, there is no time to waste. If people want to make a budget, they need to know how much money they are going to receive so they can stretch it out for the time it takes. I am really talking about stretching it out. I know that the election campaign was about 10 months ago, but I want to show how capable we are of acting fairly quickly to resolve certain situations, in ways other than some marketing stunt like this, even though we agree and we want to put more money in the pockets of Canadians and Quebeckers. That is certain.

The fact remains that there are other ways to help. My colleague mentioned the issue of seniors, for example. Some of them are in vulnerable situations. They are still being discriminated against by the government, yet the government refuses to correct that mistake, its discrimination. That would be a good start. Any change in the tax system that would allow seniors to work would be welcome. Many want to work, but feel that they cannot because any money they make—which could help them make ends meet and put food on the table—would get clawed back. That is one example for seniors. I am in a constituency where there are many seniors in vulnerable situations, living with the challenges that come with rural constituencies like mine. People have to travel 300, 200 or 100 kilometres to get services that will never match what is available in large centres.

When it comes to employment insurance, I say the same thing every time: We need a reform. Once again, the government has been bragging about how it will undertake a reform. It has been 10 years, now going on 11. The Liberals have said in every one of their election platforms that they were going to reform the employment insurance system. It is getting ridiculous. Again, EI is a little bit different everywhere, but in a riding like mine, where many people rely on seasonal industries and there are many seasonal workers, a reform is necessary. These people cannot make it through the whole year.

What the government is doing is preventing people from living in and occupying certain areas. At a time when we are talking about sovereignty and matters of national security, the government is displacing people from their land and driving them out of rural regions like mine. That is one way of doing things, and it kills industries. It can kill industries like the fishery, for example. It harms tourism, of course. The forestry industry is also affected. We should not be looking down on these industries because they are what help communities like mine thrive. Summer is really difficult these days, and I will talk more about the forestry industry later. There is really a need.

Obviously, we would like this to be developed, including secondary and tertiary processing, so that everything does not need to be sent out and people can work all year round. When you live in a region like the Lower North Shore, for example, where there are not necessarily roads connecting every village, where there are fishers with a few processing plants, it is hard to develop while in a constant state of survival. Food prices are not the same as in Montreal or even in certain parts of my riding. We are already facing huge challenges. People do not have the money to invest and grow. They need a big helping hand, more than just a GST rebate.

I said I would come back to forestry. The same goes for the forestry sector. In my riding, some communities are emptying out. It may be an exaggeration to say that entire towns are emptying out, but in places like Port-Cartier, where Arbec is located, and Baie-Comeau, where Domtar is located, hundreds of jobs have been lost, including indirect jobs related to these activities.

There are jobs where the government is telling workers that it will not help them at all. These people have no money left in their pockets. They may have to leave the region. Some have already quit and left. The economy is being destabilized right now, particularly in the forestry sector in my region. It is happening in other places also and some of my colleagues are seeing it as well. This is not helping people put food on the table. People are leaving the regions because of a lack of measures. The government is unable to stimulate the economy. It is not even able to maintain the precarious situations that existed before. Once again, a GST credit will not do any good.

Instead, why not implement a program to temporarily keep workers on the job until disputes are resolved, like the tariffs imposed by the U.S. or the CUSMA renegotiations that will be taking place later on? We remain very vulnerable, and this is yet another blow.

I mentioned EI, seniors and forestry. I would also add temporary foreign workers to the list. It may seem strange to bring this up now, but while it was not a question of cheques being taken away or reducing GST credits, the measures announced by the government in 2024 are having a real impact on our region. The people who came here to work helped companies develop. Some of these businesses, in certain sectors, are not even sure whether they will be able to stay open. They may have to close down or slow down production, simply because they can no longer manage.

The Bloc Québécois is asking for something very simple. Earlier, someone said that all the Bloc does is criticize. That is not true. We have made proposals. Why not put a moratorium on the temporary foreign worker cap? That would give them time to make other arrangements. Can we have discussions about what could be done to allow these people, who are already well established in our regions, to remain there? Our population is declining. I want people to be able to stay in my region, but the message we are sending them is that fishing and forestry are bad.

Nothing is being done for seniors. Like I said earlier, my riding has a lot of seniors. As for young people, the same thing goes for them. Income tax credits could be provided to help young people. Nothing was said about housing. All of these things are interconnected. There is more to it than groceries alone. What people spend on groceries is money not spent on housing. There are a lot of factors involved.

I could also mention Nutrition North Canada. People forget that in some places, especially in indigenous communities, in northern regions like mine or in remote areas, food prices are already extremely high, and nothing has been resolved. Nothing was resolved before we started talking about it more in connection with certain urban or non-indigenous communities. Things are still the same in my riding: In the north, in indigenous communities, everything is already extremely expensive. No help is on the way, and prices keep going up for them too. Some programs should be reviewed. Once again, the GST cannot fix these situations. It is a band-aid solution, a marketing ploy.

I also talked about indigenous issues. I am now the indigenous affairs critic. Perhaps some people forget about these communities too often, because food insecurity affects them, too. I would like everyone to really pay attention to this. I said that it affects those communities, and it has for a long time. This is nothing new. The housing we are talking about is really not a new issue for them either.

The Bloc Québécois supports a measure like this one, but we believe that the government can do better. In any case, we can see that it is increasing its deficit by $3 billion, an amount that will climb to $12 billion, simply to get some good press. Meanwhile, people have basic needs, such as housing and food, and they need help with that now. The Bloc Québécois is proposing solutions to achieve that.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I know she works hard for her constituents.

I am a bit surprised to hear her say that we are not doing anything about affordability when her party keeps blocking measures that the government is putting in place to try and make life more affordable for people.

It is a shame that she calls the Canada groceries and essentials benefit a marketing ploy. I think she is forgetting about all the other measures it includes, like investments in the agri-food sector to increase production. I was pleased to hear her say that the Bloc Québécois was going to support this measure.

Now, the big question is this: Will the Bloc Québécois support the budget implementation act, which will really make a difference in people's lives?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as an elected official, I believe that we can make a difference every day in our work for our constituents, for Quebeckers, for Canadians. Of course, we will see what happens when it comes time to vote. I think that sometimes voting against certain measures also sends a signal to do better. It is one way of sending that message.

Obviously, we are willing to admit when a measure is good. At the same time, measures should be designed to reach as many people as possible. There are other targeted measures that could also be worth looking at. I do not think it is going to solve anything. That is basically the message I was sending. I understand that there is good faith, but I do not think this is going to solve the issue.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, the price of groceries is very high because of Liberal policies. It is higher than in other countries. In our opinion, the industrial carbon tax has contributed significantly to the increase in grocery prices. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this tax. Does the Bloc Québécois support our position that this tax should be eliminated?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I might actually turn that question back over to my colleague. I agree that prices are high. For me, the important thing is to find a solution. If building pipelines and increasing oil and gas consumption means that we pay a carbon tax, I imagine that the more appropriate thing would be to reduce that consumption and production so that we do not have to pay the tax.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her excellent work. She raised a number of important points, and I want to pick up on a few of them. Of course we agree that this GST credit was necessary. However, I think we need more meaningful measures, which are being discussed in our ridings.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to talk more about the issues the Liberals are dragging their feet on, such as real EI reform. I know she can attest to the fact that, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Liberals do not really want this reform, which was proposed some time ago. It could really help some people and would be much more transformative than the GST holiday.

I would also like to come back to the issue of foreign workers. I know that a group of chambers of commerce was here earlier this week to talk about how essential these workers are to supporting businesses in the regions. I will give my colleague the opportunity to talk about these two measures, among others.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to commend the organization Action‑Chômage Côte‑Nord, which is working tirelessly to make elected officials aware of the need to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. My colleague Louise Chabot, who is no longer a member of Parliament, introduced a bill in November 2024 to completely overhaul EI. We do not need to have the Bloc Québécois's name on it, though. If the government wants to take it on and amend the act, the bill is ready. The consultations have been done. We are ready.

However, I must say that this is an excellent example of how the measure fails to meet the needs of people back home who work in seasonal industries. The government is talking about issuing a cheque for a small amount every three months. However, people cannot make it through the year because they cannot work, there is no investment and they do not have access to EI. I must say, if I could choose, I would rather have support that would help me feed my family year-round.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-19, an important measure that aims to provide Canadians with a tangible way to cope with the cost of living, particularly the cost of groceries and essentials. This bill will amend the Income Tax Act to increase the maximum annual amounts of the GST credit by 50% for the 2025-26 benefit year. It also provides for an additional 25% increase in these amounts starting in the 2025-26 benefit year, for a period of five years.

The need for the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit is simple and clear. It will help more than 12 million Canadians afford everyday essentials, starting in the spring of 2026. We know that lower-income Canadians are struggling to absorb the rising cost of food and other basic expenses. Prices remain too high, and this reality is evident in all our communities.

The cost of living is a major concern for Canadians, and no less for our government. For us, affordability is a key priority of action, and we are constantly on the lookout for concrete solutions to address the challenges confronting households. The GST credit increase and this new benefit are other examples of our determination, in an uncertain world, to focus on things within our control by taking direct action to put more money back in the pockets of Canadians and make life more affordable.

This benefit builds on the existing GST credit to provide additional support amounting to $11.7 billion over six years. Our goal is to provide a one-time top-up as soon as possible in the spring of 2026. This one-time payment alone will deliver $3.1 billion in additional support to individuals and families already receiving the GST credit. Starting in July 2026, the 5-year 25% increase in the Canada grocery and essentials benefit will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support between 2026 and 2031. In all, these measures amount to $402 additional dollars for a single person with no children, $527 for a couple with no children and $805 for a couple with two children. These amounts are intended to directly offset the increased cost of groceries, which has outpaced the overall rate of inflation ever since the pandemic.

To illustrate the impact this measure will have in concrete terms, a single senior with $25,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $267 plus a longer-term increase of $136 for the 2026-27 benefit year, for a total increase of $402. In total, this person would receive $950 for the 2026-27 benefit year. Similarly, a couple with two children with $40,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $533 plus an increase of $272 for a total increase of $805. In total, this family would receive $1,890 for the 2026-27 benefit year.

After the one-time top-up payment is made in the spring of 2026, eligible families and individuals will receive the enriched regular payments as of July 2026. These payments will be made at the start of each quarter to permit timely access to the funds to help families with day-to-day expenses.

These amounts will be in addition to existing benefits like the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement.

It is important to note that recipients will not have to apply to receive these additional payments. However, they will need to have filed their 2024 tax return to receive the one-time payment and their 2025 tax return to receive the increased payments starting in July 2026.

In my riding of Alfred‑Pellan, this measure will have a very real impact. Alfred‑Pellan is home to many families, workers, newcomers and seniors who live alone. These are hard-working people who contribute to the vitality of our community and who are telling us very clearly that the cost of groceries is putting increasing pressure on their budgets. For these households, a few hundred extra dollars can have a real and immediate impact.

I also want to mention the other important measures announced by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the announcement for the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. These measures are part of a comprehensive approach to address food insecurity, support farmers and strengthen supply chains.

They include setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the costs of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line.

These measures also include creating a $150-million food security fund for small and medium enterprises and the organizations that support them, as well as providing $20 million to the local food infrastructure fund to ease immediate pressures with food banks.

In addition, we are taking measures to lower the cost of food production, such as accelerated depreciation for greenhouse buildings and the development of a national food security strategy to tackle the root causes of food insecurity by strengthening domestic food production and improving access to affordable, nutritious food.

The cost of groceries and essentials is still too high. Too many Canadians are still struggling to put food on the table. Affordability pressures, particularly those associated with food, demand an immediate response. That is why our government is taking action through concrete, responsible solutions to make life more affordable.

The new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will deliver real help to thousands upon thousands of Canadians. We estimate that 12.6 million individuals and families will receive this benefit, which provides material support where it is most needed. I therefore urge all members to support Bill C-19 in order to offer tangible relief to Canadians.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I think he knows full well that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-19. We heard from a lot of members of my party who have indicated that we will be supporting this bill.

There is one issue that keeps coming up that I am really concerned about. We get a lot of calls in our riding offices from people who say that they need more income to be able to meet their obligations and pay their monthly bills. I am wondering whether my colleague thinks that the measure would have been even more effective if the payments were made monthly instead of quarterly. Many people are borrowing money or living off their credit cards so that they can pay the bills.

If the GST credit was paid every month, it might better support people who live at home and who really struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month. Does my colleague not agree that it would be better to issue the payments monthly rather than quarterly?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is in addition to the Canadian dental care plan, $10-a-day child care, Canada's national school food program and the middle-class tax cuts. This is not an isolated measure. It is part of a coherent plan to improve affordability. That is the important thing. The important thing is not when the amount will be paid, but that an amount will be paid, whether quarterly or monthly.

The important thing is that the Government of Canada is taking action to meet a vital need.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, a lot of comments have been made about the essentials benefit as though it is the government's only measure. I want to hear some more insight into what the long-term measures in the bill consist of.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this support, this help, will make a big difference for people in need. It is not just for food banks. It can also help pay rent or other expenses. It really meets a need for all vulnerable families. It is clear that this is going to help 12 million Canadians.

The important thing is that there is support that will help 12 million Canadians. The important thing is that Canadians will get to decide how they will spend the money to meet their needs.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how today's announcement regarding Bill C-19 fits into a broader strategy to address the cost of living in Canada. In other words, how will it help Canadians deal with the rising cost of living and how will it strengthen food security? This is not a stand-alone measure. It is part of a plethora of other measures that really help Canadians.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑19 is not ideological. It is pragmatic. It puts money in the pockets of Canadians who need it quickly and efficiently.

This is not about scoring points. It is about who is prepared to deliver results for Canadian families. We are taking action, not leaving Canadians to suffer economic consequences.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about food costs, we have to look at the corporate profits. I know big grocery stores are making big profits.

Where I live, in coastal British Columbia, when it comes to fish and independent fish harvesters, a lot of the quota licences are held by a handful of fishers. We call them slipper skippers or armchair fishers because they hold the licences and then lease them out to fishers, who do not actually make very much money. As well, the consumer ends up paying more money.

Does my colleague agree that this model needs to be changed, that anybody out fishing should be making the profit and that this would lower prices for consumers at the end of the day?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers, including many seniors, will benefit directly from this measure. In Laval, in Alfred-Pellan, single seniors will receive up to $950 for the 2026-27 fiscal year.

A refusal to approve this assistance on ideological grounds would be difficult to explain to Quebeckers and Canadians who are struggling to pay for groceries.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing an important bill that will roll out the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This benefit is based on the existing GST credit. It will put more money in the pockets of Canadians who need it most. People with low or modest incomes will see an increase in the amount of money they receive. We are doing this because we recognize that there is a real need to help people.

When I travel around my constituency, people talk to me about the cost of living. It is a top issue for Canadians. As a government, we have a duty to listen and take action to meet people's needs. That is why the objective of this measure is to provide immediate assistance to those who need it most. It is part of another package of measures we have put in place, in the 2025 budget and over the past few years, to help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living.

If we really want to have a long-term impact, we need to address the root causes that are making groceries more expensive today. I am very pleased that our government has announced it intends to develop a food security strategy. The goal is to increase domestic food production and ensure that more of the food on our plates comes from Canada. I would love to see more chicken from Upper Madawaska, more potatoes from Grand Falls and more vegetables from growers like Légumier du Madawaska or Jardins de Georges in Saint‑Quentin on my plate. To do that, we need to create incentives to help our food businesses.

Why is it important to reduce our dependence on international imports? When we look at the causes of food inflation, we see that there are a number of factors that go beyond Canada's borders. I am thinking in particular of disruptions to supply chains around the world that may be caused by the post-pandemic context, but also by global conflicts happening around the world. I am also thinking of the tariff disputes that are affecting supply chains and the cost of food. Also, when we import a lot of our food, like most of our produce, which comes from abroad in the winter because of our climate, fluctuations in exchange rates will have a significant impact on the price of groceries. In short, if we really want to address the root causes of rising grocery prices, we need to improve food security and help Canadian businesses increase their production.

Given the tariff war, we have earmarked $500 million in the strategic response fund to help food sector businesses cope with tariff shocks. The aim is to help these businesses avoid passing on the financial impact of tariffs to consumers at grocery store checkouts. Similarly, we have earmarked $150 million in the regional tariff response initiative to support the food sector.

As we develop our strategy, we will also review the rules surrounding unit product labelling in grocery stores. Our goal is to help Canadians make informed grocery choices and give them a good idea of the price they will pay at the checkout. We will also review competition rules. In particular, we will ensure that the Competition Bureau has more oversight over the activities of food sector businesses. Why are we doing this? It is because fair competition ultimately benefits consumers by creating downward pressure on prices.

We will also introduce tax incentives to encourage the construction of more greenhouses in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, we face a challenge here in Canada in that, with the winter, we cannot produce as many fruits and vegetables as we would like throughout the year. We want more greenhouses so that we can produce food all 12 months of the year here at home. More specifically, we will be rolling out immediate expensing for greenhouses acquired on or after November 4, 2025, and that become available for use before 2030.

This is a whole suite of measures. More measures are coming that will ensure that Canada has a proper food security strategy to address rising food costs. This is a top priority for Canadians, and it is also a priority for our government to respond to the challenges caused by soaring prices.

If we want to strengthen Canadians' purchasing power in the long term, it is important to strengthen the Canadian economy. Last spring, we were elected with a mandate to make the Canadian economy stronger, more resilient and unified.

From day one, we got down to work. We eliminated the federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Our Prime Minister travelled around the world to forge new trade partnerships with different countries and to attract foreign investment to Canada. We also included tax incentives in budget 2025 to encourage investment. For example, entrepreneurs who want to buy equipment to boost their productivity will be able to deduct more pieces of equipment on their tax returns. We also included various measures in budget 2025 to encourage innovation, such as the enhancement of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. These are practical measures that increase our Canadian businesses' productivity and thus strengthen our economy.

We also announced our buy Canadian policy because we believe that the federal government must be its own best customer. We have a lot of purchasing power, and we want to use that power to benefit Canadian businesses. In practical terms, that means government investments in infrastructure. We announced a whole series of historic investments in infrastructure and housing in budget 2025, and we want to prioritize Canadian materials, such as our softwood lumber and steel. Softwood lumber is an important industry in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche because it is at the heart of our local economy. As a government, we feel it is important to be there for the industry when it is struggling. That is why we implemented a strategic response fund to help softwood lumber companies deal with the current tariff crisis.

Why am I talking today about the need to strengthen the Canadian economy and build a stronger economy? The idea is that a stronger economy benefits everyone. With a stronger economy, all Canadians will have a shot at better career and employment opportunities, higher wages and therefore increased purchasing power. All the work we are doing to transform and strengthen the Canadian economy is for the benefit of all Canadians so that, in the medium and long term, everyone can increase their purchasing power.

Today, we are discussing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which is a measure based on income. I would like to mention an initiative that we put in place in budget 2025 that will help ensure that the money we are offering truly makes it into the pockets of Canadians who need it most.

We have a problem right now, which is that millions of low-income Canadians do not file an income tax return, often because of a lack of resources or support or out of the mistaken belief that they do not need to file if they have a low income. As a result, millions of Canadians are missing out on essential federal benefits that they are entitled to. I am thinking here of the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit in particular, but also of the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers' benefit and all of the other income-related federal benefits.

The solution we came up with was to introduce automatic federal benefits starting in the 2026 tax year. This program will be phased in and fully implemented by 2028. This will help an estimated 5.5 million Canadians. We are talking about people who often have very low incomes; these benefits will significantly improve their lives. The people affected will first have the opportunity to review a pre-filled income tax return and confirm whether the information is correct. Then, the Canada Revenue Agency will be able to automatically submit a tax return on their behalf. Of course, if they want to file their own tax return, they can do so. This measure is really targeted to help people who are not currently filing a tax return and therefore losing access to essential benefits that can help meet their needs.

Lastly, I want to mention that the benefit that will be implemented by Bill C‑19 is part of a whole suite of measures to help Canadians deal with the cost of living. I am thinking in particular of the middle-class tax cut that we announced at the beginning of our mandate last spring. I am also thinking of the national school food program, which we are making permanent in budget 2025, the Canada child benefit, the affordable child care program, the Canadian dental care plan and all the other social measures we have put in place over the past few years.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, as always, I greatly appreciated the speech by my colleague across the floor. It is a pleasure to hear him speak. He is a new MP, and I honestly think that he has learned a lot, very quickly.

I know that my colleague is a thorough and hard-working member of Parliament who knows his files. In his speech, he said that budget measures had been announced to help people. I wonder why, three months after the budget was tabled, a budget measure is being introduced in a separate bill. My colleague is well aware that the Standing Committee on Finance is currently studying Bill C-15, which implements the budget that was presented.

Why did his government not include this measure in its budget three months ago?

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

Madam Speaker, the cost of living and affordability are top concerns for Canadians. We want to listen to Canadians and meet their needs on an ongoing basis.

In budget 2025, we implemented a number of measures that directly address the issue of the cost of living. I am thinking of the middle-class tax cut, the school food program becoming permanent, and the investments we will be making in infrastructure, including affordable housing. Budget 2025 already includes a whole suite of measures to directly address the cost of living. I hope we will see it back in the House very soon so we can pass it at third reading.

With respect to the measure we are currently studying, we brought it forward because we realized that people needed help right now. Budget 2025 includes several measures to transform and strengthen the Canadian economy and enhance purchasing power in the long term. In the meantime, we wanted to make sure that Canadians got help right now. This is yet another measure that will put money back in the pockets of Canadians right away.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have seen this before. The Liberal government is trying to address a structural problem by providing short-term relief measures. As we have seen in the past, when these kinds of measures are temporary and short-lived, they do not help the cost of living. While these programs are being offered, the cost of living is still rising.

I want to challenge the government to provide one example of these kinds of measures creating long-term, sustainable and measurable reductions in grocery prices. If this has not worked before, why would the government believe that this time it would work?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that his party supports Bill C-19, from what I understand, and I think it is a welcome measure that will receive unanimous support in the House.

My colleague talks about structural problems. In fact, I would say that a bigger structural problem is our Conservative colleagues' unwillingness to help Canadians in need. Every time we propose measures to help Canadians cope with the cost of living, our official opposition colleagues vote them down. We want to make the school food program permanent, but they oppose it. That in itself is not surprising, because their leader has been opposing it for years and has been saying that the school food program will serve to feed the bureaucracy rather than the children. I would invite my opposition colleagues to visit schools and see how this program is really making a difference. More than 400,000 children now have access to healthy meals in the morning.

The Conservatives opposed the Canadian dental care plan and the affordable child care program. Speaking of the affordable child care program, one of the first speeches given by the Leader of the Opposition in 2005 was to oppose public funding for child care. When it comes to structural problems, I would say that the bigger problem is our Conservative colleagues' unwillingness to help Canadians in need.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, day after day, the opposition parties tell us that we are not doing enough on affordability. It seems a bit ironic to me that both Conservative Party and Bloc Québécois members are constantly voting against the measures we are putting in place to make life more affordable for Canadians.

The tax cut for 22 million Canadians, the national school food program for children, our investments in affordable housing, the automatic payments that my colleague talked about, and removal of the GST for first-time homebuyers all come to mind. All of these measures are part of the budget implementation act that we are trying to put forward and that members of the opposition are trying to block in a parliamentary committee by playing procedural games.

I would like my colleague to tell me what impact these shenanigans are having on the people in his riding due to the fact that we are unable to pass the budget and they are unable to access these affordability measures.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that everyone who cares deeply about Canadians should work to pass this budget, which will tackle infrastructure needs, help with the cost of living and address the housing shortage.

We are at a critical moment in Canadian history. We want to transform the Canadian economy to make it stronger and more resilient in order to increase our purchasing power. We are facing a tariff dispute we did not ask for, but we answered it with budget 2025.

This budget includes essential measures for the well-being of Canadians. I believe that, as parliamentarians, instead of filibustering, we should focus on passing the budget implementation bill as quickly as possible for the benefit of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, February 2, Bill C-19, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, is deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:08 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.