Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the house, you would find at this time unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved that Bill C-226, An Act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today for the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-226, an act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency. The bill responds directly to what Canadians in every region of the country have been telling us, that grocery prices are too expensive and the pricing is too confusing.

Canadians are doing everything they can to stretch their budgets. Families deserve clearer and more consistent information when making everyday purchasing decisions. Our government should ensure that the prices people see on the shelves are fair and transparent. Bill C-226 would call upon the collective efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments. In response to this crisis, the Minister of Industry would consult with provincial and territorial counterparts responsible for consumers' affairs.

The bill recognizes that improving food price transparency is not the responsibility of a single entity. It requires partnership. This is the exact kind of collaboration that Canadians deserve on issues that affect their daily lives. This is what Canadians voted for.

As set out in subclause 3(2) of the bill, the framework must include measures to establish a national standard for unit pricing, ensuring accuracy, usability and accessibility across the country. It would also mandate greater transparency around price increases, adjustments and fluctuations. This would help consumers to better understand changes to the cost of essential foods over time. Furthermore, it would promote public education, so that Canadians are informed on unit pricing and how they can better compare products to determine value.

The foundation of Bill C-226 is the promotion of fairness. The bill would strengthen transparency and build consumers' confidence during a crisis that unreasonably impacts families, students, newcomers and seniors on fixed incomes.

The practice of unit pricing remains voluntary, and it is applied inconsistently from one province or territory to the next, affecting all Canadians. When meeting with my constituents, I regularly hear from families, seniors, newcomers and young people who face this reality. Rising grocery costs require more deliberate planning and careful budgeting for each trip to the grocery store. When unit pricing is applied inconsistently, consumers face increased pressure to compare products quickly and ineffectively. As Canadians struggle to make ends meet, this uncertainty places increased pressure on limited household budgets.

Quebec is currently the only province where unit pricing is mandated by law, and Quebeckers benefit from clear, universal unit price transparency everywhere in that province.

Meanwhile, in other jurisdictions, Canadians face the inconsistencies of a system reliant on retailers' discretion. This is a system that works for some but leaves many without the benefit of a blanket approach that looks after all Canadians.

The inconvenience of this disparity is fundamentally unfair. Canadians, regardless of where they live, deserve the same level of clarity when purchasing essential goods. The House can make this a reality by taking this crucial first step.

I have spoken with many stakeholders, including my constituents, post-secondary institutions and organizations that support individuals and communities struggling with unaffordable grocery pricing.

Members of the Consumers Council of Canada have emphasized that a national unit pricing framework would provide consumers with accurate, uniform and accessible labelling for every product. Clear, standardized unit pricing would ensure that Canadians are not left to calculate costs based on inconsistent store practices to determine the true value of their groceries.

I have also heard directly from post-secondary students of all backgrounds who are facing significant hardship. The student rights and responsibilities office at Kwantlen Polytechnic University shared that many students are making dramatic sacrifices to their living standards to afford basic groceries. This includes sharing one- or two-bedroom suites with many roommates and cutting necessary expenses, such as heating or medication, to ensure that they can eat. Young Canadians deserve the opportunity to buy affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate meals in the face of food insecurity. Basic needs should never be compromised.

While Bill C-226 is not a complete solution, it is a meaningful and practical step toward ensuring that Canadians have the tools they need to navigate an increasingly unaffordable grocery landscape. By ensuring universal unit price transparency, we empower consumers, promote fairness and ease the burden of the overarching issue of overpriced groceries.

Passing this bill would be a concrete step toward addressing food insecurity and unaffordability. Unit price transparency would provide Canadians with the clarity to shop based on products that provide the best value. It would help families maximize their grocery dollars, support those on fixed income, and ensure newcomers and low-income Canadians are not disadvantaged by inconsistent or complex price displays.

The bill's transparency requirement would address price increases and fluctuation by fostering greater accountability and giving Canadians the opportunity to make informed decisions. Unit price transparency will not solve food insecurity on its own, but it is a practical first step that would ease a key component of affordability for all Canadians. As Canadians struggle to make ends meet, the bill offers fairness and transparency to all Canadians so they can make more informed decisions.

Our country deserves a grocery system that is fair, transparent and works for all its people. Bill C-226 would deliver on this by providing Canadians with the tools they need to make informed choices.

I urge all members of the House to vote for this bill and help Canadians take back control of the grocery stores.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his desire to seek transparency in food prices in Canada, although I would offer up that Canadians are already aware of how bad food prices are. Canadians are aware of what the food price report in Canada is saying, which is that they are going to spend $1,000 more this year on food. The average family of four will spend $17,500.

I wonder if my colleague would, in the interest of transparency, be open to acknowledging exactly how much of the price of food is directly tied to government policies, such as the industrial carbon tax and the plastic and packaging taxes, and whether, beyond transparency, he would support measures to reduce those prices on food.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the taxes the member is talking about do not exist. There is zero effect from carbon taxes, and there are many studies that have justified that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his initiative to promote transparency and bring prices down in the agri-food sector. I have a question for him.

Just today, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Pork Council and Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec demanded more transparency in pork-related transactions, particularly for processors. We know that consumers are paying more and more and producers are getting less and less money. There is a broken link somewhere along the chain.

Can my colleague tell me if there is any openness to being more transparent about what is being done in Canada? The United States has a law that requires all aspects of these transactions to be public. Should Canada pass a similar law?

I think that would help people who pay a lot for pork and would like to be able to buy more of it.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member as a Quebec member because Quebec is currently the only province that has this transparency. I am trying to tell Canadians that, if it can be done in Quebec, it should be done for all Canadians.

I am absolutely open to help fellow Canadians wherever we can so they can live a reasonable life by paying reasonable prices for food products.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always really happy to hear about food and food prices, including talking about farmers. There are many farmers in my riding. We think it is really important to have transparency.

Just briefly, what is the need for food transparency? The member was alluding to the fact that Quebec already has some regulations. Could he also elaborate on the regulations we have in Quebec?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-226 would make it so that every time someone goes to a grocery store, beside the pricing, the label would show what quantity someone is paying for, like grams or kilos. The consumer could then compare different products and stores to make sure they are getting the best price available. Right now, that is not happening anywhere besides Quebec.

During the crisis two or three years ago, one of the worst things that happened was that food prices stayed the same but the packages shrunk. Consumers were paying a lot more money for less product. This bill would force retailers to show what the price is per gram or per kilo, and then Canadians could compare prices online with different retailers and with different manufacturers.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being crushed by the cost of food, and the solution from the Liberal government is more red tape, more bureaucracy and more empty promises.

Just months ago, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the cost of groceries. Well, the verdict is in. According to Statistics Canada, food inflation rose 6.2% year over year, with groceries up 5% and restaurant meals up 8.5%. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7, and it has increased more than double than that of the United States.

It is not a global problem. This is a made-in-Ottawa Liberal failure. Let me be even clearer: Bill C-226 would do nothing to lower food prices. Instead, it would add red tape and federal overreach at the worst possible time.

Bill C-226 would require the Minister of Industry to create a national framework on grocery price transparency and unit pricing. Canadians do not want their tax dollars going to a federal report to tell them that food costs too much. They already know that every time they swipe their credit card.

What Canadians need is relief from the taxes, deficits and regulatory costs that are driving up prices. The bill before us would not increase food supply or lower input costs, but in the same Liberal fashion, it would add another layer of bureaucracy.

In an email, a member of my community said that she finds herself disgusted and angry. Let us be clear: Food prices are out of control.

I want to speak directly about Windsor because this debate is not theoretical. One member of my community emailed my office stating, “I'm deeply concerned about the rising cost of groceries in our community. Even with careful budgeting and deal-hunting, families are struggling to keep essentials on the table.”

Another said, “During a recent shopping trip to pick up a few items for dinner, my wife and I were shocked by the total at the checkout. One example that stood out was a bag of just five potatoes, which cost us $8. With the added expenses of caring for a newborn, we've found ourselves relying more on lower-cost frozen meals just to make ends meet, often at the expense of healthier choices. Eating well should not be a luxury.”

Could members across the aisle please take a moment to think about those words and truly ask themselves if the government is doing enough? Eating should not be a luxury.

My community is a working-class, manufacturing-driven region. It is home to thousands of auto workers, parts suppliers, truck drivers and food processing workers, whose livelihoods depend on affordable energy, transportation and stable supply chains.

According to Stats Canada labour and income data, Windsor-Essex consistently has lower median household incomes than the Ontario average, which means food inflation hits families harder and faster. When Ottawa raises fuel costs, carbon taxes on industry, packaging compliance costs and transportation costs, those increases are magnified in regions such as Windsor, where families already spend a higher share of their incomes on necessities.

Let me be clear: The bill before us would only create a finger-pointing report, which is something the Liberals are good at doing. When grocery chains face higher compliance costs, they do not absorb them; they pass them on to Canadian families, Canadian seniors and Canadian students, all of us. Instead of taking responsibility for the cost of living crisis they created, the Liberals spend their time pointing fingers, blaming grocers, blaming global forces and blaming everyone except themselves. Canadians know better. Government policy drives prices up, and the government keeps driving them up.

Food insecurity is rising, and the bill would do nothing to solve this crisis. This is no longer just about prices. Canadians are struggling under the government. Canadians are having to choose if they should eat or heat their homes. Students are skipping meals and stretching canned food across multiple days, while parents are buying cheaper, unhealthy options because that is all they can afford.

According to Food Banks Canada, nearly 2.2 million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month last year, the highest number ever recorded. The Dalhousie University Agri-Food Analytics Lab estimates that it will now cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, and that is an increase of $1,000 in just one year. Nearly 30% of students report skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. A quarter of Canadian households are now considered food insecure.

This is the result of the Liberal government's lost decade. Its empty promises, failed regulation and being so out of touch with Canadians have resulted in one of the costliest times to live in Canada.

In the face of this crisis, the Liberal government's response is a rebranded rebate, a one-time cheque. It is a blatant attempt at vote buying that the government is now calling the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Let us be honest with Canadians: This is the same GST credit renamed and temporarily inflated ahead of an election. One thing the government will not tell Canadians is that the scheme will cost taxpayers $11.7 billion over six years.

Liberals love to point fingers when groceries get more expensive, but they refuse to look in the mirror. They cannot tax, regulate and spend their way into affordability. The government is forcing Canadians to pay the price for that denial. A family cannot budget around a one-time rebate, a senior cannot plan groceries around a temporary cheque and a student cannot rely on a rebranded, failed rebate instead of real affordability.

Bill C-226 argues that unit pricing frameworks would help consumers compare prices, but even the Competition Bureau, in its grocery sector studies, has made it clear that price transparency does not lower prices when competition is weak and costs are high. In fact mandatory labelling frameworks increase costs, especially for small grocers, independent retailers and rural and regional stores. These costs include shelf relabelling, signage redesign, staff training and compliance monitoring.

As we have already seen in Quebec, where detailed price display rules were introduced, governments were forced to delay implementation after retailers warned of confusion, cost and complexity. The lesson is obvious: Out-of-touch legislation does not cancel out bad economics.

Conservatives are not opposing transparency; we are opposing symbolic politics that raise costs while pretending to help. When confronted with this growing crisis, the Liberal government's answer has been to point to a temporary GST rebate increase and claim that help is on the way. However, as The Canadian SHIELD Institute has made clear, this approach is nothing more than a band-aid on a wound that the government keeps reopening.

A one-time rebate does nothing to stop grocery prices from rising in the first place. It does not lower the cost of food production, transportation or retail; reduce fuel costs; or fix broken supply chains. It certainly does not make food more affordable next week, next month or next year. In fact temporary rebates often have the opposite effect. When governments recklessly put cash into an economy without addressing supply issues, prices continue to rise. Families receive a short-term cheque, but they are left paying the higher grocery bills. The rebate fades, but the inflation does not. It gives the appearance of action without delivering real affordability.

I ask the members across the floor to be honest with Canadians. A rebate that lasts a few months cannot keep pace with the grocery prices that rise every single day. It cannot help a family planning a food budget over an entire year, and it certainly cannot help seniors, students or working parents who are already stretched to their breaking point. Every dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, and they are feeling this more and more every time they enter a grocery store.

Conservatives will provide for permanent affordability so hard work once again means a good life, a home Canadians can afford and healthy food on the table, not a fake process of clarifying grocery store prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill as the new Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture, agri-food and supply management. What is better than talking about food transparency? I applaud the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for his initiative. As he said earlier in response to my question, Quebec is already way ahead of the rest of Canada on this issue.

In fact, just last year, the Government of Quebec changed its rules around pricing. While the unit price was already mandatory in Quebec, the Government of Quebec decided to go even further. This new legislation ensures that the regular retail price is displayed for discounted food. The price for members of a loyalty program versus non-members is also clearly shown. In Quebec, we are done wondering whether a combined discount, such as two jars of yogurt for $6, is worth the cost, or whether a single jar of yogurt costs $3 or $3.50. It is also mandatory to specify whether or not a product is taxable. Quebec is going even further by asking that label information be more visible, including unit prices. On top of that, the Office de la protection du consommateur is updating the compensation provided under its price accuracy policy from $10 to $15.

Once again, Quebec is at the forefront of consumer protection. Once again, Quebec is leading the charge. What did Ottawa do? With this bill, it is once again interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Perhaps the government needs to read the Constitution. Domestic marketing, including retail trade and consumer protection, is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Once again, Ottawa is interfering in an area of exclusive jurisdiction. The federal government justifies its intrusion on the grounds of interprovincial trade, claiming that harmonizing labelling practices would encourage the mobility of goods and healthier competition. That is not true. Unit price labelling does not hinder trade in any way, since it does not restrict the movement of goods or commercial activity. It is merely a tool to provide information to consumers in Quebec and Canada.

There is some risk in this. By imposing a Canada-wide standard from coast to coast to coast, Ottawa would be setting a precedent that could open the door to other interventions in areas of provincial jurisdiction in Quebec and the provinces. It is not the first time that the federal government has tried to expand a measure that was already in place in Quebec to all of Canada. The federal government's stance is the result of a recurring centralizing impulse that often puts Quebec at a disadvantage, since it has often already implemented policies that are more advanced or better adapted to its reality.

In its 2023 report, Canada's Competition Bureau proposed aligning unit price labelling practices through co-operation between Quebec and the provinces. The federal government would simply be a participant in this dialogue. This point is key. It supports the idea that we can improve transparency and competition through interprovincial co-operation, not through top-down interference from the federal government.

Why not do what we did with the grocery code of conduct, which was adopted in 2024 after several years of negotiation between the provinces and major retailers? It is considered a success story. The process was based on collaboration, respect for jurisdictions and voluntary stakeholder participation. It has been in effect since January 1 of this year and still has to prove itself in terms of results, but the intention is certainly honourable. It proves that parties can agree on things. To achieve that, the government has to talk to the stakeholders. However, instead of sitting down with provincial ministers to come to an agreement between the Canadian provinces, the Government of Quebec and Canada, it is choosing to encroach on provincial powers.

I also sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Recently, we analyzed spending on the child care services program. Ottawa transfers funds to Quebec without conditions, but it does so with conditions in other provinces. In the end, Canada will spend $15 million to study reports, send funds and organize meetings between the various provincial ministers. We are talking about a significant amount of money coming out of taxpayers' pockets. That is $15 million to manage a program that is not under federal jurisdiction, when all Ottawa has to do is send the money and let the provinces handle their own affairs. Quebec has chosen to protect consumers. So, if the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells wants a unit price for food, I invite him to contact his provincial representative in British Columbia.

At the Bloc Québécois, we believe that the Quebec government and the Canadian provinces have their own specific powers. In the United States, price display in grocery stores varies from state to state. Alabama has no price display policy. California, on the other hand, is at the other end of the spectrum.

Even the Competition Bureau stated very clearly in its report who was responsible for this. It was written in black and white. The agency states, “To achieve these goals, provincial and territorial governments should consider working together to develop and implement accessible and harmonized unit pricing requirements.”

Once again, the federal government is proposing to add public servants to implement a framework that will require monitoring and investigations. That constitutes spending to develop a new program for everyone. Meanwhile, Quebec is picking up part of the bill for something it is already doing. How much will this new policy cost in terms of travel expenses, staff and various meetings? Every time a program is duplicated, the number of public servants and reports doubles; everything is duplicated. The Parliamentary Budget Officer might say that it is a question of efficiency.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. It is time for the government to recognize that Quebec and the Canadian provinces are capable of making their own decisions in their own areas of jurisdiction.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to this bill put forward by my colleague the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. I can definitely understand the inspiration behind this bill. In his speech, he referred to the COVID-era activities that were happening in his community and in communities coast to coast, whereby people were experiencing the different impacts of food shortages in certain areas, and some of the responses that grocers were devising.

I think this bill is really about two of the strongest emotional connections we have, the connections with our food and with our wallet. It is where those two things intersect that this bill speaks to. There is a special emotional reaction that we have at the cash register at the grocery store when we see the price of what we have actually put in the trolley.

My colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells referred to the COVID-era effects that were experienced in groceries. At that time, I was a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University. I see my friend here from Victoria, who was also teaching at the time. I remember understanding the student perspective on these issues, as students were often cooped up, and they would eventually be able to go out of their classrooms, out into the community to get the food they needed for the week. A lot of students these days are doing part-time work. In my particular case at Toronto Metropolitan University, a lot of my students were actually the ones working in these grocery chains, and they started to notice something. They started to notice they were being asked to move things on different shelves. They started to notice that different products were even different shapes or different sizes.

I remember very well a student who worked in the butcher department of one major grocer. He told me very directly that he was being effectively asked to implement shrinkflation policies within that grocer's retail operation. The students actually brought that forward to me as a professor, and it was significant enough, with enough of a voice. We happened to be doing a pre-budget consultation with the former minister of finance. Actually, it was such a demonstration of what young people were experiencing; not only were they being affected by some of the food security issues, but they were actually being forced to implement some of the policies within grocery stores that were having a deleterious effect. I was able to bring those issues to the deputy prime minister and minister of finance at the time.

We also know that since the COVID era, and during the COVID era, the former government did make a number of responses that really helped reduce food inflation and deal with some of the more problematic policies that were being implemented by grocers. There was, for instance, an injunction on covenants that prevented other grocers from opening near grocers. There is a grocery code of conduct that has had an important impact on controlling and patrolling some of the behaviour of some of the large grocers that would otherwise, maybe, have more space to be increasing prices. In the specific case of a labelling standard, we know that federal, provincial and territorial ministers did not quite get there. That is, I think, one of the inspirations of this bill.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. The minister and her department, which administers the code of conduct, have also put up a number of information resources that are very important, to help Canadians understand a bit more of their experience at the grocery store: in particular, the grocery affordability web page and the food price data hub.

I listen to my colleagues across the aisle, and I am still hearing a few of the old hits around grocery affordability. I want to remind them of some of the reality of what is happening in groceries today and what is not happening. I have brought my receipt from Maple Produce on Roncesvalles Avenue, a very—

[An hon. member]

That is a prop.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. If the member is going to be quoting from the document, it is not considered a prop. I do not think he was using it necessarily as a prop. I will allow the member to carry on, to quote from it, as long as it is not being used as a prop.

The hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just read out the prices. At Maple Produce on Roncesvalles Avenue, people can get two tins of blackberries for the very affordable price of $5, and that is quoted here. Then there are raspberries, two tins for $6. I have some other things here. I do not know exactly what I bought here in each case. I see the member for Peterborough, whose riding may well have produced some of the products, although I understand that she is more in the area of carnivorous offerings at her facilities. However, I will note that at Maple Produce, people can get a lot of good, fresh food, fruit and vegetables, and I do not see tax. There is no mention of any tax on any of these items.

Each of us in our communities is trying to promote the local food retailers and the people who are producing within their community, so I had cause recently to visit Marvelous by Fred in High Park, introduced to me by Angela Robertson of the Bloor West Village Business Improvement Area, the oldest business improvement area in the world. At that bakery, I got six plain croissants and a bag of meringues. The croissants, of course, are not taxed, and the meringues, as a certain kind of processed food, are.

We know that the policies that we have and the policies that governments of different stripes have passed for years have made sure that almost all groceries, and the vast majority of groceries that are of interest to people in the House when we talk about food affordability, are not taxed. That continues to be the case. In fact, this government, with, we understand, some co-operation from the other side, is now endorsing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. I know constituents in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park will be very pleased to hear that the benefit will bring, for a family of four, up to $1,890, and for a single person, up to $950, with the first increase in that benefit taking place in July. It is a really important measure to address food affordability issues.

We are also directing $500 million from the strategic response fund to support food processors. I know in my riding there are a number of food processors. In urban ridings and in urban communities, there is sometimes a bit more distance from our food and more of a sense that maybe we are not connected, and we all go to farmers markets in different places where we can feel a bit more connected. In urban communities across Canada, there are food processors, including a couple of major ones in my community. I know that they are going to be looking forward to hearing about the food processing fund that is going to be available to food manufacturers across Canada. These measures are really doing a number of things to raise the importance of fresh, local food. Some provinces have a real focus on that. I know our buy Canadian policies will help promote that as well.

This bill is very important, because some of those issues that I spoke about at the beginning of this address around shrinkflation, those experiences that my students addressed, have not completely gone away. Each of us has had an experience, especially in certain large grocery stores, of going to pull down a package of granola bars if we are sending kids off to school with some granola bars or some yogourt, and the print is just a bit too fine and the unit price is even finer. There might be a litre of yogourt, but maybe that litre of yogourt is now 800 millilitres, or maybe that 650 millilitres is now 600 millilitres. It is very hard to tell the difference between the costs of certain things, especially in this dynamic, changing environment where consumer tastes are often changing and where packaging is changing.

Therefore, this is an important intervention in this space. We know there is an ISO standard around food labelling and groceries, but we know these kinds of things can be improved. I heard from my friend from the Bloc that this is the thin end of the wedge of creeping federalism. I am not so sure. This is a very useful intervention to help bring some further discipline into the marketplace, and I look forward to hearing more in the debate.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to the bill before us.

Canadians are not confused at the grocery store; they are frustrated and angry, yes, as they are being crushed by prices that keep rising while the Liberals here in Ottawa just keep talking.

The Conservative approach is straightforward and is grounded in reality: If the government wants lower grocery prices, it must stop doing the things that make groceries more expensive. That means ending inflationary deficits that devalue paycheques. It means removing the hidden taxes on farmers, truckers, processors and retailers that get passed directly on to consumers. It means cutting red tape that raises operating costs and limits supply. It means strengthening competition so Canadians have real choice and real downward pressure on prices.

Canadians are reaching out for the first time in their life, many of them, because some are being forced to choose between food, heat, rent and medication. Food banks across Canada are reporting record demand, with nearly two million visits in a single month last year, and food bank usage has almost doubled in just four years. Many of the people turning to food banks are working Canadians who have never before needed help.

At the same time, families are paying hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries, while rent, mortgage payments and interest costs have surged. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, federal taxes and inflationary policies are driving up costs throughout the food supply chain, meaning that Canadians are paying more not because they are confused but because government policy has made essentials more expensive.

None of my constituents have asked for federal framework or an explanation of price labels. They do not ask Ottawa to explain inflation to them; they ask when the government will stop driving up costs and start delivering the relief they can see at the checkout counter.

Here is what Bill C-226 is actually proposing to do, in simple terms. It would instruct the Minister of Industry to consult with provinces and create a national framework about how grocery prices are displayed. That framework would set out standards for unit pricing, outline price increases and promote consumer education about how to read unit prices.

The bill would not change prices. It would not regulate supply costs or competition. It would not cap prices or reduce taxes. It would create a process. First there would be consultations, then a written framework and then a report to Parliament within 18 months. Then, five years later, there would be another review and another report on how that framework worked. In other words, Bill C-226 is about explaining the problem, not fixing it.

Families need relief now. Bill C-226 would offer a report in 18 months and a review in five years. The timeline may suit a bureaucracy, but it would do nothing for Canadians facing higher food prices this week.

Bill C-226 would require more new federal spending to design, manage and oversee a national framework, followed by ongoing reporting and reviews. None of that is free; it is funded by the taxpayer and financed in an environment where deficits are already massive. Every dollar spent by the government adds to inflationary pressure, and inflation is the tax that Canadians pay every time they buy food.

When the government creates new rules, standards and compliance requirements, businesses absorb those costs only on paper. In reality, they are passed on to consumers through higher prices. Canadians are already paying too much for food. They do not want policies that make groceries more expensive in exchange for better explanations for why groceries are expensive; they want cheaper food.

There is also a credibility problem that Canadians recognize almost immediately. The government has already failed to control inflation, failed to keep deficits in check and failed to make life more affordable. Now it is asking Canadians to trust that the same government can fix grocery prices by supervising how they are going to be displayed in the grocery store.

The bill treats public frustration as a communication failure rather than as a policy failure. It assumes that if prices are explained better, families will feel relief, but families do not feel explanations. They feel higher bills. They feel paycheques that buy less. They feel interest rates and grocery prices that are rising. If the government were serious about affordability, it would start by fixing what it can control: inflationary spending, punitive taxes, and policies that raise costs across the economy.

Some members will say this is harmless. They will say that we can have transparency and affordability at the same time, but government capacity is not infinite, and neither is the patience of Canadians facing record food prices. Every dollar spent, every regulation imposed and every hour of legislation time devoted to this framework is a dollar, a regulation and an hour not used to reduce costs, cut taxes or bring inflation under control.

In an affordability crisis, priorities matter. When the government chooses a process over price relief, it hurts Canadians. I do not doubt that some members supporting the bill believe it is helpful, but belief does not lower grocery prices. Intent does not reduce inflation. Only policy that cuts costs delivers relief to Canadians.

When Canadians look at this bill in context, a pattern becomes clear. Instead of tackling the hard issues of grocery prices, the government reaches for measures that look like action without producing results. Frameworks, consultation, education campaigns and reports create the appearance of concern, but they do not tackle the real issue and change what families actually have to pay.

This is why Conservatives call this bill a distraction. It treats frustration with prices as a communication problem rather than an affordability problem. It assumes Canadians need an explanation, when what they actually need is action from their government and results that are measured at the checkout counter, not in federal reports. A government that caused the affordability crisis cannot fix it with better messaging; only policy change produces results.

This bill fits a familiar Liberal pattern: When prices rise, they spend more, regulate more and explain more, while Canadians pay more. Conservatives would end inflationary deficits. When the government spends beyond its means, year after year, the cost is paid through higher prices and weaker purchasing power. Affordability begins with fiscal discipline. The government cannot restore buying power while continuing to flood the economy with borrowed money.

Conservatives would also remove the hidden Liberal taxes that drive up the cost of food, like taxes on fuel, fertilizer, energy and packaging costs, which raise costs for farmers, processors, truckers and retailers. These costs do not stay in Ottawa. They are built into grocery prices. Cutting these taxes would deliver immediate and permanent relief at the checkout counter.

More, Conservatives would cut red tape, which raises operating costs and restricts supply. Excessive regulation slows production, raises compliance costs and limits competition. Reducing these burdens would allow businesses to operate more efficiently and pass savings on to consumers.

A Conservative government would encourage real competition in the grocery. Competition, not bureaucracy, is what lowers prices and protects consumers over the long term.

This approach does not require new frameworks, new reports or new explanations; it requires a political will. Conservatives have put these solutions on the table, and the government has voted them down. That is the difference: While Liberals focus on managing frustration with prices, Conservatives focus on lowering prices.

Bill C-226 would not lower prices, reduce inflation or cut costs in the food supply chain. It would add federal process, spending, compliance costs and duplication, while families continue to struggle. Canadians do not need Ottawa to explain their grocery bill to them. They need Ottawa to stop making it bigger.

Conservatives will always support transparency, but transparency without affordability is not relief. Canadians cannot eat a framework. They cannot feed their families with an 18-month report or a five-year review. What they need is a responsible government that will lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote competition. That is what will deliver lower prices.

That is why Conservatives oppose Bill C-226. Canadians deserve results at the checkout counter, not more Liberal political theatre.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat unexpected turn of events, but since some members did not use all of their speaking time, I will take the liberty of adding a few remarks.

Let me begin with a story. I grew up just north of the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in a village called Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The population of the village was about 4,000 at the time. An older gentleman named Mr. Tremblay lived there. He was a legend. Everyone knew Mr. Tremblay. Everyone who lived in Lebel-sur-Quévillon had met Mr. Tremblay at one point or another. What was special about this man was that he lived to be 116 years old. Obviously, that is impressive. I was still a kid when he died, and I asked my father to explain why Mr. Tremblay lived to be 116 years old. My father told me that it was simple: Mr. Tremblay minded his own business. That way, no one would ever want to give him a slap. Mr. Tremblay understood that.

After nearly two centuries of history, the federal government still does not understand that if it wants to avoid getting slapped in the face, it needs to mind its own business.

Price regulation is consumer law. According to the Claude Masse Foundation and the book Le droit de la consommation, “Consumer law is entirely based on the legal institution of the contract, whether verbal or written. This does not mean that the only legal protections for consumers are contractual in nature, but rather that there would be no consumer law without contracts.” It is civil law.

For some time now, the federal government has been blaming the provinces for all of society's problems. Everything is always the provinces' fault. If food prices have risen, it is certainly not because of a lack of competition. It is certainly not because in 1984 there were 13 major grocery chains and today there are only four or five, including Costco and Walmart. No, that is not why. It is because the provinces are still getting it wrong.

The federal government tells us the same thing about health care. If hospitals are underperforming, it is not because of inadequate funding from Ottawa; it is because 10 provinces and three territories are useless. If the government interferes in university affairs, the provinces are told it is because they cannot manage their universities or because the universities cannot manage themselves. They can never do enough equity, diversity and inclusion to suit the federal government, so it has to stick its nose into their business.

The same goes for dental care, which Quebec does better than Ottawa. We use an automatic system to issue payments, but nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government. The same goes for infrastructure and housing. When Ottawa comes up with its national housing strategy, it takes three or four years to get it off the ground. Finally, the thing gets done, and the program that the Bloc Québécois called for, the rapid housing initiative, is a reality. It comes with no conditions, and it is the only program that gets social housing built quickly, because Quebec is the only province that has permanent social and community housing construction programs.

It is the same thing for the child care centres. The federal government goes and tells the provinces what to do, even Quebec, which developed the system in the first place. Nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government.

On the issue of food labelling, what did we do wrong? My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said it earlier: Quebec launched a reform to improve transparency. It is not perfect, but it ensures that prices are clearly displayed and that consumers know what they are buying in terms of quantity. When we know how much we are paying per 100 grams, we can pay less. It reduces opportunities for what is known as shrinkflation, the practice of putting fewer grams in every box while raising the price. Quebec has done that.

Can someone explain to me how a national framework, which is simply an encroachment on the powers of Quebec and the provinces, is going to improve anything? The government is talking about price transparency, yet there is no budgetary transparency. We had to fight with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to find out when he would table a budget, but price transparency, that is important.

At the Prime Minister's Office, there is a whole floor dedicated to managing the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest, yet price transparency is of the utmost importance to the federal government. At some point, a recalibration will need to be done and the federal government will have to start looking after its own affairs.

The Conservatives were talking earlier. They like to say that, if we want to ensure that people can buy groceries, the important thing is to put money back in their pockets. The Conservatives, of course, like to talk about inflationary deficits and all sorts of things that, from a purely macroeconomic perspective, are more or less true most of the time.

However, at the end of the day, we must face reality. When a Quebec taxpayer receive their paycheque, after taxes and after their contributions, ultimately, even though there is a federal government, a provincial government and a municipal government, there is only one taxpayer.

In Quebec, we are currently experiencing multiple crises at the same time, in the education sector, the health sector and the infrastructure sector. We know that our population is aging. We know that, given the pressures of this aging population, the years 2025 to 2035 may be the most challenging that we have seen in decades in terms of Quebec's public finances. If the government wants to give Quebeckers a break, it needs to help the Quebec government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities under the Constitution by increasing unconditional health transfers, social transfers and so on.

When the Bloc Québécois asks for these things, what is the response? First, the federal government tells the Bloc Québécois that it has no money. Then, a week later, the federal government comes out with a plan to spend that same amount of money, but with conditions that encroach on provincial jurisdiction. That is all relevant. If the government wants people to be able to afford groceries, if it wants to boost spending power, there are two ways to do that: either increase income or reduce the cost of the goods people spend their income on, as well as the tax burden. Everyone knows the provinces need some breathing room.

In short, I am not saying that this is not a good bill or that its goal is not worthy. I do not think its purpose is bad. I just think the priorities are wrong, this is the wrong time for it, it encroaches on provincial jurisdiction and there is nothing in it that Quebec is not already doing very well.

I will conclude by saying that interprovincial trade is the most far-fetched argument for this bill. Someone will have to explain to me how adding a layer of federal bureaucracy to price labelling, whether at convenience stores, grocery stores or gas stations, will help interprovincial trade. I have never gotten the impression that goods are labelled at the factory before they cross the border.

For all these reasons, I will be voting against this bill. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill. Of course, we will always be open-minded when it comes to considering bills that do not encroach on provincial jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to my colleague's legislation.

This type of legislation is very difficult at times, as we all know. It is done through a draw, and my colleague has been provided the opportunity to bring forward an important piece of legislation, which he has identified as something that not only is important to his constituents but also deals with the national perspective.

I respect that the issue of affordability in groceries, the cost of groceries and what is inside our large grocery stores has been an issue that is top of mind for many Canadians. In fact, yesterday, as members will know, the Prime Minister had a wonderful announcement in regard to the groceries and essentials benefit, which is going to take effect on July 1. It is the Government of Canada's approach at making life more affordable for Canadians and will make a positive difference for over 10 million Canadians. Every region of the country will be affected by this one policy.

When we take a look at the bigger picture of food security and how important it is to all Canadians, at the very least, we should be open-minded in terms of what the member is hoping to get across. I appreciate the Bloc's positioning to support the legislation, because in a minority situation we obviously have to have that support. I take it that the Conservatives are not going to be supporting it, even private members. They will decide, and I will be able to conclude my remarks when it comes back up for debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Economy

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, although I am not rising at this moment with any pleasure. We know that people across the country, and certainly people in my community, are struggling with the price of food right now. I spoke to a woman last week. She shared something that I know is not unique to her and that was not easy to hear, which is that she has to periodically skip meals.

She said this in a whisper, because her husband was nearby and she did not want him to know that she was making this sacrifice for their family, that this was the only way they could balance the many costs that their family was shouldering.

Inflation affects everything across the board, but there are few things as essential as food and few things where we can see so demonstrably the rise in costs. “Canada's Food Price Report” has been abundantly clear on this. We know that this year alone, in 2026, the average Canadian family will expect to spend $1,000 more on food than it did last year. The average family is not guaranteed a $1,000 increase in its income. The average family is also shouldering increases in other costs, such as interest rates on mortgages and credit card bills, which are increasingly necessary for people to even maintain necessities in their homes.

We are also seeing fuel costs go up. The fuel standard responsible for about 17¢ a litre is, again, a hidden tax on productivity and on a necessity, especially in a riding as rural as mine. All of these are, though, I think, subordinate to the real crisis people feel at the grocery store when they see the increases.

This is not a global problem. This is a uniquely Canadian problem in the sense that Canada has the highest food inflation of anywhere in the G7, outpacing other countries. We know that 30% of students in the country are skipping meals.

I will share that this is very much a local problem in my communities, which I have the great privilege and honour of representing. One thing I can share about the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank, which just released its numbers for 2025, is that the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank had to feed 26,278 mouths in 2025. That is triple the number that it had to feed six years ago. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank had to feed three times as many people as it did just six short years ago.

I have some data today from the Corner Cupboard Food Bank in Aylmer. They have also seen record increases. Aylmer is a small community. In 2025, the Corner Cupboard had 1,919 household visits. That was an 8% increase over the prior year. More importantly, 40% of their clients were under the age of 18. There were 110 new families, people who have never before had to rely on a food bank and who, in 2025, could not take it anymore and needed that extra help.

We have seen a massive problem. A quarter of Canadian households are considered food insecure, and the government has not used every lever it has available to it. That is my question today. This is a complex problem. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but there are levers the government can deploy.

Why is the government not eliminating the hidden carbon taxes and taxes on food, the industrial carbon tax and the food and plastic packaging taxes, and reining in its reckless inflation to stop further increases?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians. Broadly speaking, we are doing this in two ways. Through budget 2025 we laid the groundwork to unlock generational investments in Canadian businesses, workers and resources to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy. While we implement those long-term and strategic initiatives, we are also putting more money in the pockets of Canadians through targeted and common-sense initiatives.

By ensuring that Canadian workers and families keep more of their hard-earned money, we are empowering Canadians to better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Just yesterday, for example, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance announced new measures to make groceries and other essentials more affordable.

In order to bring down these costs for Canadians, Canada's new government is introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Formerly known as the GST credit, we are increasing its amount by 25% over the next five years, beginning in July 2026. On top of that we are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase this year. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year in the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. I am proud to say that the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional significant support for more than 12 million Canadians.

What is more, the government is also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. For the same reason, we will create a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them.

Thanks to budget 2025, we are doing so much more to make life more affordable for Canadians. Budget 2025 builds on the many actions we have already taken to support Canadian families at a time of significant economic uncertainty and affordability challenges. Here are some key examples of how we have been delivering for Canadians.

Let me begin with the high cost of housing, which has been a focal point of our government's work to restore affordability. Canada is facing a steep housing supply gap, one that threatens affordability, opportunity and the ability for Canadians to build a life and a future here. Put simply, our country needs to build many more homes. We are eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on homes at or under $1 million and reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation. Federal dollars invested in Build Canada Homes will be leveraged to attract private capital, investors and builders to expand the housing supply. These measures will make housing attainable, cities more vibrant and communities stronger.

We are doing so much more. Let us also look at other major cuts. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. The rate reduction, which is currently before Parliament as part of Bill C-4, would apply to taxable income up to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will give the member an opportunity to respond in a moment.

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. colleague had more to say. I hope that in what is remaining is a plan to reduce the prices.

We will support the government in giving Canadians a bit of relief, but this relief does not deal with the underlying problem that is causing the crisis, which is that food costs have gone up and continue to rise. A family that is skipping meals because it cannot afford food is not a family that is buying a $1.5-million house right now.

This is the crucial step that I have to ask the government to take: Every lever imaginable must be pulled. Why is the government not committing to remove the hidden taxes on the cost of food, such as on farm equipment, fertilizer, shipping and fuel standards, which are all things we have laid out and have given to the government in a neat package with a bow as a course of action?

Canadians are struggling. Where is the solution?