Debates of Sept. 25th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Food Taxation

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I want to pay tribute to the late Ken Dryden and the member for University—Rosedale for their work, transformative social policy work that was decades in the making and is having an impact right now. It is helping with families' changing their lives for the better.

The Canada dental care plan is another example of an affordability initiative that in fact continues to grow under this government, now reaching Canadians who are neither seniors nor youth. In my riding, on Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West, there are sandwich boards in front of dentists' offices saying, “Canada dental care plan welcome”. It is a sign of an initiative that is attracting health care workers into work and is attracting constituents into getting the health care needs attended to that they used to have to pay for.

The pharmacare program is another example. I see the Minister of Health has been in the chamber here, and I know there is a commitment to continue to work with provinces to make sure we have deals to extend those benefits to Canadians who need help with their cost of living expenses around pharmaceuticals.

The Canada disability benefit has just come in. I know there has been mention of the Daily Bread Food Bank and Neil Hetherington. I want to thank Neil for his work advocating for the Canada disability benefit with a large coalition of social policy actors and activists across the country. That is now in place and starting to assist Canadians who need that extra cost of living support.

Finally, the national school food program. This is a very interesting one that is changing lives on the ground, again in my community and in communities across the country, including those represented by the members on the other side. Again, I just want to go back to my canvassing experience last weekend with our volunteers in Bloor West Village. Actually, the last door we knocked on before we took a break was on Grassmere Road. I knocked on the door of Don Walker.

Don came out and said, “I just want to send you a message about the national school food program.” Don is a volunteer with an organization called the Angel Foundation for Learning. He is so committed to this program that he wanted to share this with the constituents of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and the Minister of Jobs and Families, and I am going to give him the extra benefit of sharing his story with the rest of this House. This is his comment on the national school food program: “It has been a game changer. By the time we get to next year, by the end of 2026, all our schools, elementary and secondary, we believe, will have the program up and running.”

Don and the Angel Foundation for Learning are especially involved in Toronto Catholic District School Board school food program delivery, but there is also a Toronto District School Board program delivery that he mentioned that he is involved in a little bit as well. Here is Don again: “Every child will have a nutrition break during the day. It may be a very simple thing of fruit and cheese, but in some homes that constitutes as breakfast, so it's been an amazing thing; it's been a game changer. I'm so appreciative of the government for supporting this initiative.”

The national school food program, Canada dental care plan, pharmacare and child care are real initiatives that are really affecting and changing lives for the better in Canada. I am new to this place. I have been here for almost five months. I would like to think there is a way to reach across the aisle to talk about how these initiatives are helping Canadians for the better. I have not seen that from the other side. In fact, what we seem to have seen is a set of propositions. We always like to know what solutions are being put forward for the challenges of the day.

In this opposition day motion, there are four measures the party opposite wants us to take. It seems to me that they want us to abandon our climate change initiatives, our climate change ambitions. While I have been here for almost five months, I have not heard an effort to tackle climate change that the party opposite does like. Am I mistaken? I do not know. I have not seen anything. I have not heard anything yet, a measure that will help to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that the party opposite supports.

The party opposite wants to further degrade the measures we do have, in exchange for affordability measures. I know the residents of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and the constituents of many on not only this side but the other side of the aisle believe we can do both, that we can have affordability and we can have climate change action. We can have affordability and we can, for instance, take on Russian aggression.

We recently brought in some prohibitions on the import of Russian fertilizer. I think that is something Canadians support. To suggest we would welcome back Russian fertilizer to achieve the purposes of the motion is misguided.

My friend the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, reminds us he was a former Quebec minister of finance and also a former chief economist. He just reminded me that some of the figures that have been used today need to be updated. For instance, food CPI between July and August is zero. We know these things bounce around from time to time, but it is important to put the fact on the table that food CPI, food inflation, between July and August increased by 0.0%.

I will be opposing this motion. We can do, and have done, a lot on affordability. There is a lot of attention to this issue. There is no one on this side of the House who is not living this in their communities through their own personal experiences and the experiences of working with their constituents. We have a number of programs directly aimed at supporting the affordability challenges in our communities, especially targeting lower-income Canadians. These are good initiatives that I wish the party opposite would take a second look at and maybe support this time.

For those reasons, I will be voting against this motion.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal promise was to reduce or control grocery prices. That was the promise.

The government printing money or producing deficits and, as a consequence, borrowing money to cover those deficits increases inflation. Does the member agree that increasing the government deficit and debt will increase affordability pressures, including grocery costs, which the Liberals promised to control?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is chomping at the bit. His economics background is bursting through, and I cannot wait to hear from him in this debate.

I will say in the meantime that the national school food program is providing money for kids in the Toronto Catholic District School Board that Don Walker is attending to every day. Don is a volunteer. It is not a big government bureaucracy program. This is a volunteer working with the Toronto Catholic District School Board to get food into the mouths of hungry kids every day.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often have the habit of presenting serious problems for discussion and then putting forward rather simplistic solutions, intellectual shortcuts or sometimes even populist shortcuts. The issue we are discussing today is serious. The cost of food and groceries is a serious problem. Even high-income families now have to make choices and be careful about what they buy at the grocery store, so imagine how much the less fortunate families must be struggling.

In the previous Parliament, the current Minister of Finance, who was the industry minister at the time, met with the owners of the big grocery chains, and he claimed that that was going to fix everything. He was going to succeed in lowering grocery prices. Today, the carbon tax has been eliminated in the rest of Canada, but grocery prices have remained the same.

What exactly has happened since those meetings? Other than the programs that are in place, what is the government doing to try to bring rising grocery prices under control?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, work has been done, and it was accomplished with the collaboration of several parties in the House. We now have the necessary structures and processes in place to ensure that this debate is resolved. The large grocery chains now have a relationship with the department and the Competition Bureau.

I hope that the situation will improve thanks to the work that has been done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I wonder if he wants to confirm that rising food prices are a global phenomenon driven by a number of factors like tariffs, the supply chain and especially climate change.

Does it make any sense to remove environmental regulation that seeks to temper that climate change as a driver of higher food prices?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the member for Guelph we have a great champion for both climate action and affordability, as well as strong manufacturing and agricultural sectors.

It is a “yes, and” answer, in that we can tackle both issues at once in a context of unprecedented global change where our trading markets, our trading routes, are being disrupted in a fashion we have not seen in decades. I agree with her that we need to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite confirmed what we are saying. His solution to the food crisis is a school food program. Why do we need this program in place? It is because people cannot afford to buy groceries.

Would the member not agree with me that he has just, basically, granted us the entire premise of our argument?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite is not calling for, in this motion, the abolition of the school food program, although its members did not vote for the program. Instead, they are compounding the issue by saying that they not only do not like the school food program, but they also want to abandon our climate targets. If the money is going to kids for food, then I think it is a good program.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the connections between increased prices on food and the climate crisis, yet the Liberal government will not meet its climate targets by 2030. We know now, in terms of public criticism, that the government has no climate plan.

If Liberals are serious about tackling the food crisis, why is my colleague's government not serious about putting in place a climate plan that actually meets targets?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of new MPs, climate action is one of the reasons I decided to stand with this party and this Prime Minister in the last election. I am confident we are going to have a plan and updates to the plans that have already been tabled, including action on methane, all while ensuring we can meet our affordability challenges.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a decade in the school system as a teacher and a principal. I have heard the Conservatives talk a lot about how the national school food program is bureaucracy and say that not a single meal has been served. I would certainly invite any member to come to my riding and actually see the kids who are benefiting from that program eating the food.

Of course we want people to be able to provide to the best of their ability for their families, but has there even been, in the history of our country, even in, let us say, the 10 years that Stephen Harper was prime minister, a 100% ability for all families in the country to provide the amount of food that was necessary? The answer to that is, of course, no.

The point I think the parliamentary secretary is raising, and my question for him, is as follows. Notwithstanding our best efforts to have families be self-supportive, is there not a role for a school food program to play in this country?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is also the chair of the industry committee. He is absolutely right: We strive to that future where we do not need these kinds of programs. Right now, this is a vital program, and it is a direct benefit to the kids. I am so appreciative of knowing that the hon. member worked in that system. He has stories in his riding, and I invite members opposite to consider the words of Don Walker. This is having an impact right now and benefiting kids right now.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the words that were presented this morning. We know this is an issue right across Canada, but specifically, I would like to mention a couple of statistics coming out of Barrie. Right now, there are over 500 households using the Barrie Food Bank each day, and 38% of those clients are now children. Those are heartbreaking statistics.

Will the member opposite support our common-sense Conservative motion today to help lower pricing on groceries?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my last speech, I am on the record saying that I will be opposing this motion because we have these affordability measures that we have already brought in. Unfortunately, the party opposite has rejected a number of the most recent ones. I do not believe any Canadians, including the residents of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, want to sacrifice climate objectives. I believe they think we can achieve both affordability and climate progress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry for his speech.

I think he has a lot of work to do in his portfolio. I know he is a new member. His government can count on our co-operation if it wants to take action.

Earlier, my colleague from Drummond mentioned the work that has been done with grocery CEOs and major grocery chains. We know that Canada has a concentrated grocery sector, and that is certainly not helping to improve costs. Small suppliers, among others, have repeatedly suggested implementing some sort of price-fixing oversight, because there is not a lot of transparency in this sector.

I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of this and whether he is prepared to work on it with his minister.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

We are working with the Bloc Québécois critic in committee to address this challenge. The Competition Bureau now has more resources to do that work, and I look forward to working with the Competition Bureau and the department.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing my time with our chief whip, who is first and foremost the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I think that he himself would say that his role as a member of Parliament is the more important one. We Bloc Québécois members are, above all, here to represent our constituents.

It is in the rather unusual context of the return of Parliament, where we are hearing one thing and the complete opposite at the same time, that I rise today to speak on this Conservative opposition day. I will not read out their motion in full, but will instead focus on certain facts that we can share with the Conservatives. These are things that we observed while travelling around our respective ridings this past summer.

The first part of the motion talks about “food inflation”. It says that food prices have risen, food banks are expecting high volumes of visits, and food bank use is up. These are things that we, too, are seeing.

I will not speak to the second part because, as usual, the Conservatives are offering bogus solutions to real problems.

I have seen what the situation is in my own riding of Shefford. My principal role is to represent the people of Shefford, but I am also the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women and seniors. In my speech, I am therefore going to highlight what I am seeing with regard to growing poverty among women and seniors.

Costs are exploding in the agriculture sector, as we know, and this is having a definite impact. Producers are telling us that their input costs are up. Many Quebec farms are already drowning in debt. According to the Union des producteurs agricoles, farm debt in Quebec exceeded $20 billion in 2022.

I wanted to start by taking stock of the situation because the motion talks a lot about the increase in food prices and food bank use. For the agricultural community, there is no question that the rise in input costs and debt levels are having an impact on food prices down the line.

Then there is inflation. The middle class is getting poorer. Cumulative inflation in housing, food and transportation is driving some members of the middle class to the brink of poverty. Low-income households now spend nearly two-thirds of their income on non-discretionary expenses, including housing, food and transportation. They have very little left to make ends meet.

Yes, people are going hungry. I have heard about it first-hand. We have a hunger relief organization in my riding called SOS Dépannage. This outstanding organization told me that there has been a major uptick in demand for food banks, which are now receiving over two million visits a month. Food banks say they are overwhelmed. This is not right.

I have also seen numbers showing that unemployed people are not the only ones affected by this problem. Many workers, people with jobs, are being forced to visit food banks. That is shocking. This is a new reality for food banks. Again, SOS Dépannage told me that more and more people, including people with jobs, are using food banks. More seniors and single mothers are also visiting food banks. This is the new reality.

Poverty among seniors is not getting any better. Seniors are losing their homes. With both rent and food prices rising, more and more seniors are being forced to choose between putting food on the table, heating their homes and paying rent. I think it is worth noting that people 65 and over will account for nearly a quarter of Quebec's population by 2031. We know that many seniors rely solely on the public system and therefore live on an average of $24,500 a year. As the Observatoire québécois des inégalités, with which I jointly organized a conference on seniors' financial health, has noted, this amount is not nearly enough to cover housing, food and health care.

Seniors are being forced to re-enter the workforce after retiring. They have no choice, if they want to eat. Many have been reduced to picking up shifts at the age of 70 just to pay for groceries. This should not be happening. Staying in the workforce should be a choice seniors make because they want to work and continue to participate in the workforce.

Let us talk about women and poverty. Women stay in violent situations because they are afraid of ending up on the street. This summer, funding for shelters was blocked. As a result, women and children were forced to move back in with their abusers. Bloc Québécois members told me about this situation that was happening in their region this summer. It is unacceptable. According to a recent study, violence against women is the most common cause of homelessness among women. The number of senior clients is rising, and more and more women are ending up on the street. Those seeking shelter are struggling: 84% of the women staying in shelters were fleeing intimate partner violence, and 70% had been living with their abuser before leaving. For some of them, not being sure if they can find a shelter bed or housing forces them to remain in violent situations. This cycle is hard to break.

Affordable housing is at a standstill. Projects that had already received their promised funding have been put on hold by Ottawa, including the shelters I mentioned. Meanwhile, families are sleeping in their cars. In Granby, which is in the riding of Shefford, 1,275 households, or 4% of all households, are living in core housing need, which means their living situation is less than satisfactory. The town is doing incredible work. It is doing what it can, but it will need other levels of government to step in and lend a hand. Among seniors, 11% of Granby's households over age 65 are facing a dire housing situation. In terms of rental housing, nearly half of Granby's households are renters, and many are dependent on an already strained rental market. Among homeowners, 8.2% spend 30% or more of their income on housing. Even owning a home is no guarantee of long-term accessibility or security.

Then there is youth and poverty. This summer, people talked to us about how the poverty rate among youth aged 18 to 24 is 14.3% , one of the highest among all age groups. Many young people are employed in precarious jobs or working part-time or on short-term contracts, so they are not eligible for employment insurance, which has a big impact on their mental health. We might also talk about marginalized communities, indigenous people, immigrants, who are overrepresented in statistics on poverty and homelessness. Since Granby is such a welcoming community, that is another reality I heard about this summer.

I will now tie all this back to the Bloc Québécois's demands. The Bloc Québécois is calling for a complete overhaul of employment insurance, because the social safety net is so full of holes that entire families are being left to fend for themselves. This fall, I will also be returning to an issue that we discussed during the election campaign. I hear about it in the community from seniors' groups. In fact, I have meetings scheduled soon. People want us to bring back the bill to increase old age security starting at age 65, because it is not acceptable to divide seniors into two categories: those 75 and over who can afford to eat and those 74 and under who should go hungry. The age of retirement is 65. The government boasts that it lowered the age of retirement to 65 from 67, but what does that age of retirement actually mean to the Liberal government?

We are also calling for the funds for affordable and social housing to be released. Meaningless announcements and withheld cheques will not shelter anyone from the cold weather that is on its way. We are a few weeks from seeing people on the streets run the risk of getting frostbite and freezing to death. That is not acceptable. We are also calling for immediate support for shelters. Women should not have to choose between violence and homelessness. People are not asking for much. They just want to be able to eat three times a day and be able to live and age with dignity. We can see that this government has failed to guarantee even that. The Liberals brag about being great with the economy. During the election campaign, they said they would be there to solve the crux of the crisis, the cost of living issue.

In July, I took advantage of my summer tour on employment to meet with representatives of organizations using this program constructively. People like this program. That being said, the representatives wanted me to be aware of the increase in violence against women and the increase in homelessness among seniors. In August, people focused more on the economy. Representatives of businesses and agricultural producers told us climate change was affecting them and that this was affecting grocery prices. They also talked about temporary foreign workers. They need labour. That also has an impact on grocery prices and the economy in general. In short, we need to take action, not propose bogus solutions to real problems.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed being on the status of women committee with the hon. member.

As the critic for seniors, I have a question we need to address.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 6.8 million seniors representing 18.5% of the population in 2021, and this will grow to 25% in 2036. In my riding, seniors have to look for work because they cannot afford their expenses and have to choose between heating and eating. I am concerned that, because of the high unemployment rate, they cannot find work to continue to survive.

How can we address this if the current government continues to waste money and cause inflation to go up?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with my colleague on sensitive issues such as women experiencing violence and the need to empower women economically so they can break the cycle of poverty.

Like me, she is her party's critic for seniors. I remember going to her office to discuss the importance of increasing seniors' income in order to improve their financial situation. That is crucial. The government did increase the income of seniors aged 75 and over by 10%, but it is not like all seniors aged 65 to 74 are able to work. Furthermore, poverty and illness do not necessarily wait for people to reach 75. People can get sick and be poor before the age of 75. These seniors need the same 10% increase.

We are not asking for the moon. We are asking for just the bare minimum so that seniors can age with dignity. I hope my colleague will continue to support us when we reintroduce a bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the affordability issue for our seniors and always have been. In the 2011 election, there were numerous examples of sad stories about seniors because of Harper. When the Trudeau government first came to be, we made dramatic increases in the guaranteed income for seniors. Every year, there are annual increases that go to the OAS and the GIS. There have been special programs and additional investments in the new horizons program.

How can we ensure there is disposable income going to our seniors? Let us look at what the current Prime Minister has done. Whether it is the tax break for 22 million Canadians or getting rid of the carbon tax, there are initiatives that deal with affordability.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts and ideas on how the government can continue to advance.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the tax cut was just a scheme to get more votes, and it was temporary. Cutting the carbon tax was the same thing. What seniors want is a long-term increase in their income. If my colleague opposite were listening to seniors' groups, he would know that they need long-term assistance. The government needs to increase pensions by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, who were left out last time.

I am also told that the guaranteed income supplement needs to be reviewed. The method used to calculate indexation will be important and crucial. In short, it is important to take a long-term view rather than simply taking action to get re-elected. That is what seniors are asking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I would like her to expand on how we can support the agricultural sector. We hear a lot about the climate crisis and climate change. We need to adapt to it, but we also need to support the agricultural sector. I always advocate the following solution: Any income collected should be returned to the agricultural sector to encourage innovation and adaptation to climate change.

Could my colleague talk about that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I call the super whip and who is also the agriculture, agri-food and supply management critic.

That is, of course, what the agricultural community is asking us for right now. I must applaud my colleagues for passing the Bloc Québécois's bill because, this summer, people were thanking me for getting that bill passed. We need to continue to defend that legislation and review the “Agri” programs so that they are better adapted to the current situation. That is something that was mentioned.

Yes, farmers are asking to be supported in their transition. They are asking us to take into account the fact that they have to adapt to climate change. They need to be supported in that. We also need to do more research and development. These are all things that the agricultural community asked me about this summer.

I look forward to showing my colleague the little questionnaire that I was able to fill in thanks to my meeting with farmers in Shefford, whom I sincerely thank for their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I would like to begin by acknowledging that today is the anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian flag. We salute our neighbours who share our language.

I turn now to the item on our agenda. As I mentioned in my questions, I am deeply disappointed. Many of my Conservative colleagues are extremely intelligent, and I really enjoy working with them in committee. We are all passionate about farming, and in committee we are able to work together on sustainable solutions. However, when they introduce yet another motion on carbon pricing , I feel compelled to remind them that they already won that debate. The carbon tax has been withdrawn.

Of course, the Conservatives are talking about industrial carbon pricing today, but the fact is we have to continue taking action on climate change, which is having long-term impacts on the cost of food. Anyone who has spoken with our agricultural producers, especially vegetable producers, has come to understand the harsh reality they face. This situation calls for ingenuity on our part and a willingness to work together to improve commercial risk management systems, because the current systems are no longer working.

Some producers are have no choice but to insure against cloudy weather. If they are unlucky enough to have to make a claim, then their group insurance premiums will sometimes double or triple the following year, which makes the system untenable. More and more producers are opting not to get insurance, not because they do not want to, but because it is simply no longer cost-effective. They look at whether their insurance will be worth it if they were to suffer some misfortune. If they have to make a claim and, the following year, their premiums quadruple, they are no further ahead. Sooner or later we are going to have to clue in to this as a group, and by that I mean all members of the House of Commons. There has to be adequate support for our farmers.

Returning to the motion before us today, the Conservatives won the debate over the carbon tax. However, grocery prices have not gone down. The carbon tax was removed in English Canada, not in Quebec, but prices in Quebec are no higher than in the rest of the country. Prices have not come down everywhere else in Canada. It might be a good idea to stop taking lazy, populist shortcuts like this.

This is what is called an inflationary tax, but the deficit is not a tax. On this point, I agree with my colleagues that the deficit is ludicrous. It is atrocious, and it is bound to have a negative impact over the medium and long term. The more debt we carry, the more we have to spend a significant portion of our income on interest to pay down that debt. That is true for taxpayers, and it is also true for the government.

What worries me most about all this, despite the Liberal rhetoric we are going to hear all day that they are here to support people, is that the government has increased spending. As my colleague pointed out when talking about old age pensions, transfers to taxpayers and the provinces are insufficient. Take employment insurance, for example. It is a completely obsolete system that is not working. Nearly one in two workers are not eligible for benefits, despite their contributions. That is unacceptable and it does not work. Spending in this area has increased by only 2.6%.

Meanwhile, contracts awarded to private firms to conduct studies or make decisions on behalf of the government have increased by 26%, even though the resources exist within government. Government procurement is up 300%, and that does not even include military spending. We can do the math; it is not looking good. The Conservatives are right: The deficit is not good. It is not a tax, though. Shortcuts do not move us forward.

They are talking about the second carbon tax, the clean fuel tax, which has such a minimal impact on food prices that it is virtually impossible to measure. The government will eventually have to stop giving handouts to oil companies that keep polluting our air and water while making a profit. I find it exhausting and, with all due regard for my Conservative friends, I have to say that enough is enough. Can we work on concrete proposals instead? I have listed a few.

They are talking about a “packaging tax”. What good is a packaging tax when we want to reduce plastics? If the Conservatives want a better understanding of the issue, I would be happy to recommend some news stories or documentaries about the state of our oceans. There is only one planet, and we are all connected. If we can start using less plastic, that will be a step in the right direction, but we have to be smart about it. That is where we can really shine.

Indeed, some plastics still have a place in the agricultural sector to preserve the quality of some foodstuff, such as vegetables. Vegetable shelf life would decline by a factor of four or five if plastics were banned overnight. As a government, we should not be dumb enough to ban everything overnight. More research and development and more academic research is needed. Solutions must be found and validated before we get rid of things. That being said, generally, the intent to restrict plastics is not bad, quite the opposite.

I do not know whether this fixation that drives the Conservatives to keep using the terms “tax” and “carbon tax” shows perseverance or a lack of imagination; in any case, it is time to move on. I will move on to something else and talk about what is really going on with food prices.

First, this is a global phenomenon that is very difficult for a government to control. I do not want to excuse the Liberal government but would simply like to say that there is no magic solution. However, there are things we could do.

I will give a simple example that nobody is talking about. I would remind members about the ongoing wars. We have the war in Ukraine. Russia attacked Ukraine without justification. Ukraine is the bread basket for a large part of the world. The war has therefore had an inflationary impact. This is one factor that is beyond our control. However, we can control some things.

For instance, the government decided to impose a surtax on Russian fertilizer. I welcomed this measure initially. I thought it was a good idea. We must impose consequences on aggressors. However, when we consider that Canada is the only G7 country that has taken this step and that ultimately, it has not had any impact, we can do away with this measure and use other means of coercion to bring Russia around.

However, the Canadian government lacked judgment. It simply decided to reimburse the farmers, but when the time came, it could not even manage to do it. We do not know who paid what, and then there are grain co-ops. Eventually, the government put this money into a program, but now, it is the very farmers who need help who are funding it. It is still going on, and they have to pay for it. It is not working. This is just one example of what I mean when I say we need to be serious.

Then there is also the labour shortage. We need to play it smart when it comes to temporary foreign workers. The government is currently in the process of changing the thresholds. That is fine, and I am not saying the government should not review them, but this needs to happen gradually, particularly in terms of making the change from 20% to 10% across the other sectors. Even if we are only talking about the food sector, all of the sectors are interconnected in an economy. We have asked for a moratorium and a transition period to allow businesses to adapt to this.

Some will say that the agricultural sector is exempt. They are right, but I want to talk about agri-food. What we produce has to be processed, and processing involves costs. There was a pilot project in the agri-food sector, where the threshold of 30% foreign labour was lowered to 20%. There was talk of lowering it to 10%, but fortunately, the government had the presence of mind to leave it at 20%. That is a minimum, and it could be raised to 30% again. I invite my colleagues to visit food processing plants. That will help them understand. These factors all indirectly affect grocery costs.

Reciprocal standards are another consideration. We cannot keep demanding that our producers meet extremely strict standards while we allow low-quality foreign products to enter the country. At some point, we need to get serious. Although we do try to ask questions about reciprocal standards, there are three different agencies involved. For instance, when we try to speak to one minister, we are always told that we have to contact another one. Is anyone responsible and accountable? Can we start by getting things on track?

These are quick and easy measures that the government can take to provide some support to the public. Can we finally get down to business and approve the OAS increase starting at age 65? Every member of the House, whether in private or in public, thinks that this move makes sense, especially in the current context, so, let us do it. If only political posturing and point-scoring would stop getting in the way. Could we not work together for the common good?

There is a great deal of inefficiency within our government food regulation organizations like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA. We will be meeting with representatives from those organizations this afternoon at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I look forward to talking to them, but what I am hearing from people in the agricultural community does not make any sense. In some cases, Quebec government scientists and independent scientists had a position to share, but the people at the PMRA did not want to hear it because it came from the provinces. This week we talked about federal supremacy. This is true in all areas of this federation.

Let us be serious and work for everybody. Enough with the populist slogans. Let us work on solutions to lower the cost of groceries.