Debates of June 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was particularly sensitive to the reality facing our families.

However, I wonder if she could talk about this government's position. On the one hand, spending is clearly increasing. On the other hand, revenues are being reduced because taxes are being cut. Spending is going up and revenues are going down. Back in December, in a disastrous situation during which the finance minister resigned, a $50-billion deficit had already been announced for the previous fiscal year. Last year, the deficit was $61.9 billion.

Could my colleague estimate how much the deficit would be if the government were to table a budget? I would estimate it at about $75 billion.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great question. Every family in Cloverdale—Langley City knows what it means to budget. Parents sit at the kitchen table every week deciding what they can and cannot afford. Meanwhile, the government racks up half a trillion in spending without even producing a budget. The more the Liberals borrow, the more it drives up interest rates, and that hits mortgages and grocery prices. It hits everyone.

My constituents are not asking for luxury; they are asking for stability, but what they are getting is debt, inflation and empty cupboards. That not leadership; that is failure.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my common-sense Conservative colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City for the part of her speech that focused on agriculture. I was very fortunate as a youngster to grow up in Lacombe County. I grew up on a mixed farm in the early seventies that eventually became a cow-calf operation.

I remember going to town with my grandpa when I was about five years old. We would leave the windows rolled down on the truck. We were not worried about crime. The truck came right from the assembly line with a gun rack in the back. We could leave the .22 in there, pull up to the store in town, get the things we need and go home. We could actually produce high-quality food that people could afford.

As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, families could be single-income in this country, could have a nice home in a safe community and could afford groceries. What happened in the seventies? His name is Pierre Elliott Trudeau. With everything that has happened, we are continuing to pile red tape on farmers and make it so costly to produce food.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on how devastating this is.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the story about growing up on farmland.

The costs being driven up by red tape are absolutely astronomical. In my speech, I specifically talked about inflation rates. That is such an incredible extra cost on every farmer that we cannot afford. If we continue to spend with recklessness, we will continue to see inflation rates rise.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am honoured to rise today for the first time to properly introduce myself as the proud member of Parliament for Spadina—Harbourfront. I thank my constituents for trusting me. In thousands of conversations during the campaign, they shared their stories, hopes and worries. I carry their voices with me every single day and will make sure that when decisions are made in this chamber, their voices are in the room and at the centre of all that I do.

I thank the volunteers and my team, who gave up evenings and weekends and braved the unpredictable April weather. They proved what we can achieve when we come together with purpose and a love for this great country. I thank my husband Ian for being my champion, grounding me in my values and always being my home. To my boys Sam and Ellis, the work I do each day is driven by my desire to create a better future for them, and this does not mean a bill for unlimited screen time.

As I stand in this chamber, I am reminded of the first time I walked through these doors in 2001, over 20 years ago. I had just launched McGill University's “Women in House” program because I believed more women deserved a seat right here in this House.

Today, I am a member of a caucus that is nearly 40% women. We have made real progress on dental care, child care, pharmacare and programs that invest in our communities.

I learned the power of collaboration as a parliamentary intern, learning from Libby Davies and the honourable Sheila Copps, and became a young staffer to former minister Carolyn Bennett, who taught me that good leaders ask good questions. These lessons guide me now, because real solutions start when we listen and build with people at the centre.

I am the daughter of Vietnamese immigrants. My family’s story, like those of so many across this country, began with hope. They left Vietnam dreaming of safety, dignity and opportunity for their children. They worked hard. They sacrificed. They built a life in a country that promised not only refuge, but belonging. Like so many newcomers, they gave back more than they ever took. Here, they found a home, a community that cared and a government compassionate enough to act, a government ready to invest in people, to build public systems and to make sure no one gets left behind.

I grew up running through the parks of Spadina—Harbourfront, shopping on Queen West and finding hidden gems in our local restaurants. I now raise my boys, Sam and Ellis, in the same community. I want them to grow up in a country where equity is not charity; it is strategy. When we widen the circle of opportunity, we grow the economy for everyone. The values that define Canada, such as fairness, opportunity and diversity, demand that when one of us struggles, we all step up.

Despite this, families are struggling to find affordable housing. Grocery prices are skyrocketing, and wages are not keeping pace with inflation. We are suffering from the impact of unfair U.S. tariffs and threats to our economic sovereignty and to Canadian jobs.

This is not the Canada I want to leave to my kids. My mandate from Spadina—Harbourfront is clear: build an economy that works for everyone by putting equity at its heart. That is why I am proud to be serving as part of this new Liberal government.

Affordable child care is economic infrastructure. For every dollar we invest, the return is measured in parents, especially mothers, re-entering the labour force, businesses gaining skilled talent and children gaining lifelong advantages. Our government’s $10-a-day child care program is one of the most transformational policies in decades. Equity builds our economy. When more women can work, GDP rises, tax revenue grows and families thrive. Every parent knows that child care is not a luxury; it is infrastructure. It is what makes everything else possible.

If we want to build a resilient, thriving Canada, we must start with the people who are raising our future generations. That means making sure families have not just support, but stability, starting with a roof over their heads. Housing is more than real estate; it is belonging. In ridings like Spadina—Harbourfront, the crisis is urgent. It affects families, seniors, students and newcomers. It demands bold, coordinated national leadership. That is why our government has committed to doubling the pace of housing construction, a truly transformational and generational ambition.

We believe that housing is a human right, not just a commodity.

Housing alone is not enough. People need to be able to move, connect and thrive in the communities they call home. Accessible, climate-smart transit connects people to work, school, health care and each other. When we talk about nation building, we must mean more than roads and towers. Let us build homes people can afford. Let us build transit systems that reflect the future we want to live in. Equity builds our economy. Every home built generates local jobs. Every transit line unlocks new markets and new opportunities.

I may be new to this chamber, but I am not new to this work. We are at a crossroads, and this is a moment that demands courage, care and clarity.

I know the road ahead will not be easy, but I did not come here for easiness. I came here to build Canada strong. I came here to make an impact. Let us all continue to work together to fight against the unjust tariffs and to make sure that we are taking clear steps to make life more affordable for Spadina—Harbourfront residents and all Canadians.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Spadina—Harbourfront on her first remarks in this House of Commons. We share one thing in common: We are both former parliamentary interns. I welcome her to the House of Commons. I would encourage her to use her voice in this chamber. The Liberal Party has a tradition of allowing the member for Winnipeg North to disproportionately take up all the time. Therefore, I encourage her to stand so that we hear less from the member for Winnipeg North.

So far, the government has tabled Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Today we heard from the government that it is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars more on defence. We are also facing the reality that the Liberal budget misallocated over $20 billion in its fiscal projections on what the government would be collecting on tariffs.

Amidst all the uncertainty and the major defence spending commitments, why has the government not committed to tabling a budget this spring, in this session, to give Canadians clarity?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his past experience as an intern. I am glad to join him in these ranks.

Our government is working hard to make sure that we are doing our homework and that we are prepared for a very thoughtful budget process in the fall, after we have continued the fantastic work of putting out legislation that is going to help Canadians today: a middle-class tax cut for 22 million Canadians, eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued up to $1 million and removing the consumer carbon price from law.

These are measures and actions that we are taking immediately to support Canadians in the moment.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my new Liberal colleague.

Speaking of homework, we could make a list of important things for the government to do.

Does my colleague agree with me that, if we are to agree on measures, then the first thing on the government's homework list should be to table a budget?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I will reiterate that we are doing our work and thoughtfully preparing the estimates and work that is required to make sure that when we bring the budget forward in the fall, it has the right figures. There are many things at play at this particularly challenging time. After we do that work, we will be in the House to defend it and make sure that we table the numbers as appropriate.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my hon. colleague for taking her seat in this House. We are very excited. As a woman who has been a champion for other women, she spoke highly of the child care benefit that we offer to many women across the country, the dental care plan and many other measures that are in our budget, things that we have tabled here in this House to make sure that women across the country are taken care of.

Can the member expand a little on the impact these measures are going to have on people in her riding, as a woman who has been a strong champion for other women?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I care deeply about the issue of making sure that we have the right infrastructure in place for our communities. This is what I heard about at the doors, with many young parents and family members thinking about their path and how they were going to build the child care required in our communities. We have firmed up our child care program. Seeing those commitments in place makes my heart sing, as I am a mom of two boys.

We continue to make other investments in programs, such as in expanding dental care. These are components of how we build the infrastructure that supports and grows our economy, and it is the kind of thing I am very proud of as a Liberal member of Parliament.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said something very interesting, which is that the Liberals are going to table a budget in the fall so they have the right figures. Do they not have the right figures to table a budget now? Does that make any sense?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the fantastic question. They are all fantastic questions. I love being in the House.

We are working to make sure those estimates are accurate. Numbers are changing rapidly with the pressure points, as we are in conversation around responding to the tariffs and as other elements have an impact on our global community. That work is under way. We will be delighted to come forward with that when the time is right, after we have done our homework to make sure that we can share this appropriately in the fall.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to stand here in this place, particularly on opposition days. I know the member for Winnipeg North enjoys it, and so do I. It is a good opportunity for us on this side of the House to critique and also perhaps to find fallacy in some of the arguments that are being put forward by opposition members.

I have had the opportunity to look into the opposition day motion, to read it in great detail and to be able to identify some pieces that I am going to pick up on here today. The first piece that is particularly important is around these words: “the Prime Minister...will be held to account.” That is in the opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. It is important to reflect upon what that actually means.

We have just gone through a federal election, and the Prime Minister won the referendum in this country about who was best to serve during a very uncertain time. The Canadian people are also the ones who ultimately hold to account all of us here in this place: our constituents. The 343 members of this House are tied directly to a constituency. They are responsible to constituents, to this country and its citizens. Ultimately, the Prime Minister and our members of Parliament are going to be tied on that side.

I do think it gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the work of the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Liberal government. We are now in week three of the House returning. It is important to reflect upon what has already been accomplished in two weeks and what is going to be accomplished in the days ahead.

First of all, the opposition day motion really talks about affordability. I did not hear, in any of the speeches from the opposition members, their support or their acknowledgement of the government's middle-income tax cut, notwithstanding the fact that they actually voted for it just a few days ago on the ways and means motion. This represents up to $840 a year for two-income families in this country. Twenty-two million Canadians will benefit from this policy. We have not heard one word about the work the government has done. I went back and reflected on Hansard this morning.

I give full credit to the opposition and, in fact, all of this House, for at least having enough foresight to support this type of measure. However, there is something concrete that this government is doing. It is moving quickly to be able to implement that by July 1.

We also need to talk about young people in this country and the fact that it is a difficult housing market. We should all acknowledge that, as parliamentarians. The government has already moved to remove the GST, which is the federal tax portion of home sales up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers.

I am in my mid-thirties. There are a lot of people in their late twenties, thirties and early forties who are trying to get into the housing market in this country. The government recognizes that. We are removing the GST; again, this is something that was supported by every member in this House on the ways and means motion. It is directly accountable to affordability, and it is a good measure.

I want to differentiate, though, between this side of the House and that side of the House. In our platform, our commitment, we actually proposed to remove the GST and, again, so did the Conservatives. However, the Conservatives proposed to pay for that by actually eliminating the supply side of the program. Not only are we getting rid of the taxation for those first-time homebuyers, but we have programs that are around supply. It is not a great mechanism if the supply side that is about building more homes in this country is actually used to pay for the tax cut that is proposed. That would actually limit the number of Canadians who could benefit, because that would not solve the supply side of the equation.

When I looked at the Conservative platform from just over a month ago, this is something that was actually problematic. They were going to use the supply-side funding, the supports to the municipalities, the supports for infrastructure upgrades in this country and affordable housing, to pay for that tax cut. We think it has to be both at the same time, the affordability measure, while we are also building more houses.

On the ways of means motion, we have also eliminated the consumer carbon tax. Again, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have highlighted that this had become a divisive policy in the country. There are ways to be able to fight climate change and reduce emissions in this country that do not involve a consumer carbon price.

I do need to talk about Bill C-5, which is the economic legislation that was tabled in this House on Friday to create one Canadian economy, not 13. There are federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and, of course, there are provincial and territorial barriers to interprovincial trade. The federal portion represents a small magnitude of what is left and remaining, but the government wants to show leadership and make sure that we are stepping up.

As a country, we are leaving approximately 200 billion dollars' worth of economic growth on the table every single year by not being able to remove these interprovincial trade barriers. They have been talked about for decades. Right now, we are in a political moment where I think there is the political wherewithal to actually advance these forward. I give full credit to the Minister of Internal Trade and Transport for her work to be able to advance them.

Again, we should not let the legislation languish. The Conservatives ran on these same types of policies in their platform. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues opposite about whether they will be stepping up to support the legislation quickly, because time is of the essence. They want to talk about the economy; they want to talk about affordability. They should be stepping up to support the legislation as soon as it gets up for debate here in this place.

We also need to build major national projects. This is part of Bill C-5, which is a commitment to identify projects of major national concern and opportunity, as well as to be able to advance them with the goal of having them permitted within two years. That is extremely important.

There are five criteria, five elements, that outline how these projects can ultimately be designated by the Privy Council. They have to be of major economic benefit to the country. They have to have the support of indigenous people. They have to be likely to be able to be advanced and to be accomplished. They have to set and establish Canada's autonomy, the ability for these projects to help our sovereignty in this country, especially with what we are seeing around the world. The last piece is that they have to be reconciled with the goals that this government has and our country has in terms of being able to reduce emissions. This is very crucial legislation to make sure that we can advance major projects. It is an initiative of the Prime Minister and the government. It is being introduced very quickly, in fact, within the first two weeks of being back.

The last thing I want to talk about in the three and a half minutes that I assume I have left, based on my timing, is defence. We hear members opposite on the importance of investing in defence. I want to remind Canadians at home of a few things. When Mr. Harper left office, defence spending under the Conservatives in 2015 had dipped below 1% of GDP. Every single year that the Liberal government was in power from 2015 to 2024, defence spending increased. Of course, that is never recognized on the side opposite, but I will go as far as to say that was the last government under former prime minister Trudeau, notwithstanding that these guys on that side want to pretend that it is the same government, which it is not. The current government is stepping up to meet our 2% spending target by the end of this fiscal year.

I look forward to help from the member from Manitoba in support of that. I know there are many members, but I hope the shadow critic for defence is actually pleased today that he is seeing public policy advance in this country about the spending that is necessary to make sure that Canada can have a strong, sovereign and reliable Canadian Armed Forces. We have to be standing here shoulder to shoulder with our Canadian Armed Forces to help support them.

The last piece I want to talk about is around the mention of food in the opposition day motion. Food is driven by our farmers in this country. It is driven by our agricultural producers. There are a few things we have to put on the record: The Conservatives voted against the national school food program in the last Parliament, which actually supports children in need in this country. They voted against it. They voted against the Canada child benefit, which helps put nutritious food on the table via extra money for parents. I have heard the stories in my own riding, and other members of Parliament have talked about this. They voted against those measures.

It is important to recognize that, as much as I have heard Conservative members stand up and talk about farmers over the last couple of hours in this debate, there was next to nothing in the Conservative election platform for farmers. I had the opportunity to debate the member for Foothills as part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture debate. The member for Foothills is a great guy and a good parliamentarian. He had nothing to deal with, because Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party had nothing in their platform for farmers.

Mr. Speaker, you are from Wellington County in Ontario, the supply-managed capital of this country in terms of Ontario. There are lots of supply-managed farmers. Not one single mention in the platform of the Conservative Party actually said that members of the Conservative Party, if they formed government, would protect supply management.

If we are going to tie food policy to budgetary policy and policy in this place, I would like to actually see the Conservatives back up some of their words with actual substantive policy in their platform. Maybe for the next election, they will have something a bit more substantive. It is this party, this government, that actually has a plan to support Canadian farmers. I hope I get asked a question on it, because I would love to be able to elaborate.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak about the supply side of housing and the importance of that. He bragged about the government's various different programs.

I wonder if he would acknowledge, though, that one of the key flaws in the government's housing accelerator program is that in the larger centres that were getting huge sums of money, those cities were also increasing the cost to build homes. If we have a housing crisis in this country, we have to acknowledge that it is a cost of housing crisis.

Why would the government give money to cities that are raising the cost to build homes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my humble question back to my hon. colleague, who I know does a lot of good, important work on housing policy in this place, is about why the Conservative Party would propose to get rid of the supply-side funding that was supporting homebuilding, and has been supporting homebuilding in this country, to fund the GST tax cut. Those two things do not add up, and I know the hon. member knows that the programs need to be in place to drive supply.

There was very little in the Conservative platform. Thank goodness Conservatives are not on this side of the House, because it would not have resulted in the types of housing that need to be built in this country.

We are going to work with municipalities, and we are going to work with cities. As part of the conditions, we will make sure that if they are actually driving up development charges, they will not receive federal funding. That is part of the ongoing oversight of that housing accelerator policy.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech, and congratulate him on his appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I would imagine that this position will give him access to some important figures.

I would like to apply the rule of three. At the end of December, we knew that there was a $50‑billion deficit for last year so far. If we apply the rule of three and there were four months left, that gives us a $75‑billion deficit for the previous year.

Do I have my numbers right? I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians have before us the main estimates and the supplementary (A)s that were provided in relation to what this government is planning on spending on defence. We as parliamentarians have an ability to look at the outlay of money here in this place to be able to make those decisions.

The government has committed to a budget in the fall session. It is important. I did not get the chance to raise this directly in my speech, but whether the government is looking at defence partnerships in Europe, the continuation of the dynamic between Canada and U.S. administrations and how that shoe may fall, or the one Canadian economy legislation and whether we have supportive members in this House to be able to move forward, all of that is going to have an impact on what a financial analysis and a budget will actually look like, including measures of saving, where this government will be looking to find efficiency in government spending. All of that is coming in the fall, and my colleague will have the ability to look at it, as will we.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide, or reinforce, his thoughts on the Prime Minister getting rid of the carbon tax when he first became leader of the Liberal Party and then, right after the federal election, making a commitment to Canadians about giving them a tax break, which, as my colleague has pointed out, 22 million Canadians will benefit from directly. Can my colleague address the issue of affordability and how the Prime Minister has already been boots-in on getting it dealt with?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the differences between the way we have handled the public policy issue versus the way the Conservatives have is that this government and this Prime Minister recognized that the policy of carbon pricing at the consumer level had become divisive and that there had to be a change. Instead of just cutting the consumer carbon price, we recognized there were rebates tied to the consumer price that went back to people and that eight out of 10 households were better off. However, it had become politically challenging, and the policy did not have the support of enough Canadians to be able to move forward.

That is why we also introduced the tax cut I referenced in my speech, with up to $840 a year for two-income households in this country, or 22 million Canadians, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has mentioned.

That is the difference: We have removed that policy but also introduced a tax cut to make sure those households that were receiving a benefit from the rebate are better off and are continuing to be supported through tax measures that this government is introducing. The opposition members would have simply cut the program and made no mention of the fact that rebates were coming back. It was good to see them actually support this measure, because it is smart public policy.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

It is an honour to rise again today on behalf of Oshawa and the countless families, seniors and everyday Canadians who, unfortunately, are being punished even though they are doing everything right. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. What do they get in return? They get soaring grocery bills, bare cupboards and empty fridges.

I have spoken to so many families, and the stories are the same. It feels like every time they walk into a grocery store, they are nervous about what the attendant might say. Single parents, as well as those in double-income homes, are watching each item pass by the scanner as the grocery bill rises way quicker than ever before. Hearts are beating with nervous fear that if they spend too much here, they may not be able to get their kids their other needs in life, like clothing, or maybe they will just need to forget programs like sports or the arts. They are not just shopping; they are trying to survive. They are walking aisle to aisle doing the mental math: “Can we afford beef or any meat this week? Do we really need fruit? Can we stretch what is in the pantry for just a few more days?”

Conservatives refuse to accept this as normal. Now even the Prime Minister, finally, after the Liberals have been ignoring this growing crisis for 10 years, has admitted that he will be held to account by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. Today is the day we will hold him to it.

Since the start of 2025, food inflation has worsened even more. Families are eating less nutritious food, cutting back on meals and turning to food banks in record numbers, not because they want to but because they have no other choice. According to the latest data, Canadian families will pay $16,834 for food this year, an increase of $800 since 2024. For most people, that is a couple of car payments, maybe three, or perhaps a chance for their kids to get into that sports or arts program they have always wanted to do. Worse, that might be the difference between getting by and going under.

Why is this happening? Why are Canadians paying more and getting less? It is not sustainable. It is not responsible. After 10 years of Liberal inflationary deficits, it is the direct result of the government's choices. Let me share some of the numbers, because the statistics now match the stories we have been hearing for months.

The statistics are in. Since the start of 2024, the price of beef strip loin has increased by 34.2%. Beef top sirloin is up almost 34%. Oranges have risen by 26% and apples by almost 19%. The cost of white rice has gone up 14.2%, while sweet potatoes are up almost 13%. Coffee has increased 9.3%, and I know other members in this House are struggling with that as well, because we need our coffee. Chicken breasts and pork rib cuts are both up 6%, pork shoulder has increased 5% and eggs have risen almost 4%.

I cannot be the only one here noticing the pattern. These foods are examples of the healthy choices, the ones we need the most to nourish our families. How does a country that grows food for the world make food so unaffordable for its own people? I think the answer is sitting across the aisle. The current Liberal government is not the solution, because, I believe, it is the architect of the problem. The Liberals want us to trust the people who created the problem to fix it. To me, it almost sounds like an abusive relationship, and a bit of gaslighting. They spend too much. They tax too much. Now everything costs too much. Even baby formula is up 9.1%. Let us think about that. Baby formula is now a luxury item under the current Liberal government.

A recent CTV News report confirmed what Canadians were already feeling. For three months in a row now, grocery prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The government cannot blame this on grocers anymore.

The truth is in the numbers, yet the government continues to pour fuel on the fire. It is now introducing a half-trillion dollars in inflationary spending. The Prime Minister said he would cap spending growth at 2%; now he is saying 8%, which is an astounding four times what he promised. That is not just a broken promise; it is an economic betrayal of Canadian families, and all without presenting a budget.

In my own hometown of Oshawa, we are seeing these consequences first-hand. The organizers at Simcoe Hall Settlement House, a local food bank that has honourably served our community for 90 years, are sounding the alarm. Usage of the food bank has surged to 55% more this year. It is not just low-income or single-income families anymore; it is dual-income households, working full time, raising kids and still coming up short. The largest group using the food bank now are single parents. I know what that is like. I have been there, and I can say that when a government makes it harder to feed the kids, that is not a government that is helping the middle class; that is a government that is hurting it.

Feed the Need in Durham was established in 2008 by local food banks as a regional food-distribution hub. Its distribution is annually worth $8.8 million: 2.5 million pounds. From 2021 to 2023, it saw an increase in usage of 60%; from then to 2024, an additional 26%; and in just the third quarter of last year, another 25%.

The Liberals say everything is fine: Inflation is under control. “You can trust us.” Well, come to Oshawa. Tell that to the senior living at Faith Place or on Benson Street who is choosing between food and rent this month. Tell that to the single parent shopping at the No Frills on Bloor Street who is putting groceries back at the till. Tell that to the working families of General Motors who can no longer afford basic staples because beef, fruit, rice and even baby formula are now luxuries. Tell that to the food bank volunteers at Simcoe Hall Settlement House who are watching shelves empty faster than they can be filled.

Canadians are not asking for much. They are not asking for luxuries; they are asking for groceries. They are asking for leadership who understand that budgets do not balance themselves, that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity and that economic discipline is not just a talking point but a lifeline for families barely hanging on.

The Conservative motion before the House is not complicated. It is a call for accountability through a tabled budget. It is a demand for answers. It is a stand on behalf of every Canadian who has opened a grocery bill and felt fear. The government has had a chance to fix this. For 10 years, the Liberals ignored it. They spent, they taxed, they blamed, and now they want credit for admitting there is a problem. That is not leadership; that is damage control and, again, akin to abuse and gaslighting.

“We made the problem; now trust us to fix the problem.” Canadians are not accepting that. On behalf of Oshawa, I am not accepting that.

This House is meant to represent the common people, but do the members across the aisle even understand what the average Canadian is struggling with on a day-to-day basis? Enough is enough. Canadians are making sacrifices every day. The least their government can do is show the same discipline. If the Liberal government cannot live within its means, how can Canadian families be expected to live within their means?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the government living within its means, and of course, this government has committed to an operational balanced budget within three years, recognizing that there have to be major capital expenditures, particularly for our Canadian Armed Forces, which the Prime Minister highlighted today.

Does the member not recognize the irony that her Conservative Party platform actually committed to billions and billions of dollars of deficits in the election period that she just ran under? Does she find it a bit ironic to stand in this place and talk about fiscal discipline when the Conservatives were more than willing to run on a platform of major, major spending and deficit financing?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I would much rather trust the members on this side of the aisle, who have lived regular lives and understand what it is like to go to a grocery store. Our Prime Minister admitted that he has never really even been in a grocery store.

What we are saying here is very top level, but we need to tell that to the parent putting apples back at the till or the senior who is skipping their meals. We cannot spin a grocery receipt. The government's economic optimism may work in a boardroom, but in Oshawa and across the country, people are hurting.

The numbers are clear. Food inflation is rising faster than inflation rates. Something has to be done.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Conservatives that committing that much money without tabling a budget does not make sense.

The Bloc Québécois commissioned a study from the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine. We wanted to see if food inflation is tied to the carbon tax. The answer we got is that it is not tied to the carbon tax, or at least not in any significant way. However, it is tied to climate change.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely heard those across the aisle blaming global inflation, which is a tired deflection. Canadians do not care where it all started. They care that it is worse here and that they are paying for it. The government's refusal to control its spending and the industrial carbon tax directly drives up costs across the supply chain, from farms to trucks to store shelves. It is not a global issue; it is Liberal policy.