Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2026

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all programs cost money, and this program, at this time, is timely and needed. We need to do what we can for all Canadians, and that is what the government is doing.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was in her home riding of Pickering—Brooklin over the weekend. I wonder if she can describe a bit what this means for her own constituents in Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Pickering—Brooklin, a large number of constituents are seniors. I got a lot of calls from members of my riding, thanking the government for such a program, because even getting $100 extra means a lot to seniors at this time. The government is doing an excellent job. Seniors whose yearly incomes are lower than $25,000 would definitely benefit from this program.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just asked the member a question, and she did not have an answer. Food price inflation has been an issue for years and years. If this was so important, why was this not championed at the cabinet table? Why was this not in the budget that was presented last fall? They would have had that $3 billion in the already massive deficit that they delivered to Canadians.

I would like the member to answer why this initiative was not in the budget, if it was so important to the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget last fall had many things in it that lowered costs for our constituents. The Conservatives always and every day talk about food costs. We have come up with this plan to help all Canadians, and we would really like the Conservatives to help us pass this bill so we can help all Canadians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is an honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the people of the Long Range Mountains on Bill C-19, and to explain why Conservatives will support this legislation while also being honest and transparent with Canadians about the serious affordability challenges it does not solve.

The government is saying that this measure is intended to help Canadians manage the rising cost of groceries and essential goods. We Conservatives will not obstruct or delay help reaching people, because any relief is better than none for Canadians who are struggling right now, but supporting the bill does not mean we are pretending that it solves the problem Canadians are facing. Canadians deserve honesty and transparency about what the bill does and, just as importantly, what it does not do.

With respect to transparency, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed this morning that the entire cost of this measure will be borrowed, adding approximately $1.397 billion in new interest charges over the next five years, which is money Canadians would pay just to service the debt. When affordability measures are funded through borrowing, Canadians pay higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. Conservatives believe that short-term relief should not come at the expense of long-term affordability. Accordingly, supporting the bill before us does not mean ignoring its shortcomings or pretending that this half measure is a response to a serious problem that is facing Canadians.

In addition, this measure is a drop in the bucket compared to what Canadians are paying at the grocery store. For most households, it will be gone after only a few trips, while prices continue to rise week after week. It will offer short-term relief but do nothing to change the reality Canadians face every single time they buy food. Canadians understand that a temporary credit may help cover a bill but does not change the prices on the shelves.

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is not only to pass measures that provide short-term help but to be honest with Canadians about whether these measures will actually improve their lives in a lasting way. This is an even more concerning issue where I come from. According to Food First NL, Newfoundland and Labrador is facing a profound food security crisis. In 2024, 30.1% of people in our province lived in a food insecure household, well above the national average, placing us among the highest rates in Canada. That is roughly 158,000 of our neighbours struggling to afford the food they need and want, and things have only gotten worse.

Food costs have continued to rise faster than incomes, and while families everywhere feel the pinch, the crisis is even more acute outside of our urban centres. Rural and smaller communities face higher food costs and greater barriers to accessing affordable, nutritious food than those in urban centres, underscoring that people in my riding are bearing a disproportionate share of the hardship.

Compounding these pressures is our rapidly aging population. Nearly one in four residents in Newfoundland and Labrador is now 65 years or older, which is the highest share of seniors in any province in Canada. This demographic reality means a larger portion of low-income, fixed-income households, who are particularly vulnerable to rising food prices and who spend a bigger share of their limited income on essentials.

This combination of high food inflation, rural cost pressures, and an older, lower-income population shows why measures like Bill C-19, while they may be well intentioned, do not go far enough to address the depth of the crisis people are facing in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, people are certainly anxious, paying attention and immediately responding to my office. What I am hearing from constituents is consistent and clear. This measure may help briefly, but it does not keep up with grocery prices that continue to rise month after month. To them, real affordability means prices coming down and staying down.

Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. Food inflation is double what it is in the United States. This tells us that it is a made-in-Canada problem. Statistics Canada shows that an average family of four is expected to spend approximately $17,500 on food in 2026, which is an increase of almost $1,000 from 2025.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, these pressures are felt even more acutely. Our province relies far more heavily on imported food than many other parts of the country do. A significantly higher share of what ends up on grocery store shelves must be shipped in, often over long distances and through multiple transportation points.

That means when fuel costs rise, when regulations increase transportation expenses, or when supply chains are disrupted and produce sits on a transport truck in the ferry lineup for multiple days and is spoiled, those increases show up faster and more sharply in Newfoundland and Labrador. Policies that add costs anywhere along that chain have an outsized impact on families in our province.

Canadians are making decisions today that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. They are buying cheaper food, not because they want to, but because it is all that they can afford. They are skipping fresh produce, stretching meals and cutting portion sizes so groceries last a little longer. Seniors are choosing between filling prescriptions and buying enough food for the week. Young Canadians are telling me they cannot save for a home or pay off student loans to truly start their lives because their budgets are stretched so thin with the grocery prices.

This is what persistent inflation looks like in real life. It is not one bad week or one unexpected bill. It is the stress of watching prices rise while income stays the same. It is the exhaustion that comes from constantly adjusting, cutting back and falling further behind despite doing everything right. Canadians are asking for seriousness, and they are asking for policies that recognize how hard life has become and that respond with some more permanent solutions.

I have heard from retirees whose incomes sit just above the GST credit eligibility threshold. They receive no benefit under this bill, yet they face the same grocery prices as everyone else. They are struggling daily to afford good, healthy food. They are asking a fair and reasonable question: Why is help with food insecurity limited to some Canadians, while others facing the same costs are excluded entirely?

I have also heard from people who returned to work temporarily to fill gaps or support essential services. Because of that short-term income, they have been pushed out of eligibility altogether. Their long-term financial situation did not improve, and their grocery bills certainly did not go down. They are now left uncertain about whether they will receive this benefit at all, despite facing the same rising prices as everyone else. One message to my office summed it up clearly: If a policy does nothing to change prices, it does nothing to fix affordability. A payment that arrives once is quickly swallowed by rising costs, and families are left facing the same grocery bill the very next week. Without addressing inflation and the policies driving it, the benefit disappears while the problem remains. That observation captures the core weakness of Bill C-19.

In addition, this measure is not new. In 2022, the Liberal government doubled the same GST credit. Canadians were promised relief. Food prices continued to rise. Food bank use increased. Affordability worsened. When governments choose income supports instead of tackling cost drivers, inflation continues to go unchecked. Prices rise. Benefits follow. Families are left chasing higher costs with temporary relief. The cycle is not sustainable for households or for public finances.

To understand why grocery prices continue to rise, we need to be honest about the role of government policy. Governments cannot control global weather patterns or international markets, but they do control taxes, regulations and spending decisions. When fuel costs rise, food becomes more expensive to grow, process and transport. When the government taxes industry, those costs are passed on to consumers. When deficits grow unchecked, inflation erodes purchasing power for everyone. The government insists there is no tax on food. Canadians know that is not true in practice.

Clean fuel regulations increase the cost of gasoline and diesel. The industrial carbon tax increases the cost of operating farms, processing facilities and transportation networks. These costs do not disappear. They are built into the prices at every stage of the supply chain.

Conservatives support helping Canadians through a difficult period. That is why we will allow this measure to move forward so that any relief is not delayed. However, we also believe Canadians should not be left with the impression that the legislation represents a permanent or comprehensive solution, because real affordability comes from lowering the costs built into prices in the first place.

For those reasons, we will support Bill C-19, but we will continue to press for lasting affordability for Canadians in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Long Range Mountains for her speech and for supporting Bill C-19.

The member opposite mentioned being honest about the impact of government policies. We have seen in the last year that gas prices have actually been reduced in Canada by about 17% to 20%. At the same time, we have seen grocery prices increase by about 5%.

Does she really believe that by reducing the industrial carbon tax, it is going to have a significant impact on reducing the price of groceries in Canada? We have already seen that the price of gas going down in Canada has not had that effect.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, before I became a member of Parliament, I was an entrepreneur for many years. I understand how, when entrepreneurs incur costs, those costs eventually get passed on to consumers. Canadians understand that as well. I do believe that removing the industrial carbon tax would contribute to helping with the rising food crisis that Canadians find themselves in.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about, among other things, reducing the carbon tax. However, the more the government supports the oil industry and subsidizes oil companies, the more greenhouse gases that are emitted, which increases the effects of climate change like flooding, wildfires and so on. This is a cost that trickles down to the people. Climate change has a price.

In addition, it is true that part of the increase in the cost of living comes from the government's policies. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer determined that poorly thought-out immigration policies and the immigration thresholds caused a 25% increase in the cost of housing.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that Conservatives believe that tackling the climate crisis can be done while also spurring on the economy. We believe in technology, not taxes.

While we have heard, in many cases, that increasing taxes on consumers will somehow contribute to solving the climate crisis, we have a different approach. We take climate change seriously, but we believe in a different approach: supporting technology and not taxes in this regard.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very inspiring.

One thing I have noticed consistently during my years in the House is that when it comes to managing the economy, the Liberals always attack the symptoms and not the underlying problems. It is like taking an aspirin when surgery is required.

The Bank of Canada has said repeatedly that our lagging productivity metrics, when compared to those of our trading nations, are the problem. It is a crisis, and it is undermining Canadians' purchasing power.

Could my colleague comment on the importance of the government's doing the hard work of attacking the underlying root problems so Canadians can get their purchasing power back again and not have to rely on handouts from the government?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we always want to recognize that people are struggling right now. We understand that sometimes these measures are important, but we do not believe in a system where people are chasing higher payments and adding to inflation, not providing real, long-term solutions.

We believe that the government has a responsibility to really dig into the increased costs along the supply chain and also to spur on investment in the economy, which is why removing the increased costs would give relief to consumers and would also make us more competitive and spur on investment, which grows the economy, grows people's paycheques and also provides real, long-term solutions.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to address the bill that is before the House, Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. It used to be called the goods and services tax credit, but in a nice marketing move, we are going to change the name, because before this bill, Canadians have been having trouble paying for their essentials. It is one of the things that we have to get to the heart of.

What the government is proposing is a one-time payment. It would be an added bonus of 50% this year for what used to be the GST rebate and would now be the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It would go up for a family of four from $1,100 to $1,890, which would be a significant increase this year, but then it would be carved back to $1,400 next year and the years following, so that would be a reduction. That is a little strange. I will address that later in my speech.

This is in response to grocery inflation rising by 6.2% year over year, and notably the highest in the G7 group of countries. It is more than double what it is in the United States, which is our nearest neighbour and a country that has the same sort of transportation network that we do as far as getting our food.

I am going to deviate here a bit to talk about something that is the root cause of this, which is government debt. Right now, the government is about $1.3 trillion in debt. In February 2025, one year ago, StatsCan estimated that $527 billion of that $1.3 trillion was international finance. We have to borrow from offshore to fund the debt. The problem is that the money has to come from foreigners and future taxpayers that are going to pay for today's consumption.

Projected interest costs for this year in the budget were an astounding $55.6 billion, which is about $2,500 per Canadian family. I ask members to remember that 40% of that is held by foreigners, so 40% of $56 billion is about $22 billion in interest payments alone that leaves Canada and pays international money managers, but it will get worse because there is no slowdown for these interest payments.

The projected interest payments over the next five years are $330 billion, so it is growing. If we maintain the 40% held by foreigners, 40% will go to offshore money managers, so Canadian taxpayers will be giving them a projected $132 billion over five years, if the government sticks to its spending limits, which it has not been able to do thus far. Members can think about how much money is going out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets into those of foreign money managers.

In 2015, before the Liberals were elected, the amount of Canadian government debt held by foreigners was 27%. About one and a half times that amount is held in foreign accounts now. Let us acknowledge that there is not enough capital in Canada to fund the government's overspending, so it has to go offshore. The government has to pay international finance managers to fund Canadians' consumption. Our economy is getting worse, and our government is spending like it has the money, which I assure members, it does not. It is borrowing from foreign bankers and paying a high price, which will get higher the more the government increases debt and misses more fiscal targets.

This brings us around to another input factor. Barely two months after delivering a much-delayed budget with a prospective deficit of over $78 billion, we are now suddenly adding over $3 billion more to this year's deficit, and over $10 billion more over the five-year horizon so that people can afford to eat. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Something the government overlooked when it planned its deficits and borrowing plan was the ability of people to eat. This legislation was not in the budget two months ago, and the Conservatives have been pointing out the food inflation hurting Canadians across the country. It is mystifying that the economists in charge on the other side did not foresee this because inflation is not a symptom of government deficits; in fact, it is a feature.

The most common way to pay back, in the future, for overspending today is currency debasement. That means Canadians' dollars buy less in the future. More food does not appear out of nowhere; it just gets more expensive.

Mysteriously, the government is planning to give Canadians more this year in the rebate than next year or in the following years. Here is the problem with that. I guarantee more inflation next year and yet fewer government rebates. It almost seems like a Liberal formula: to throw out a whole bunch of cheques and see how Canadians respond and if Liberals should call an election in the process. If the Liberals had a majority here, would they be proceeding with this, or would they be continuing to debase Canadians' currency in this way? Forget about those pesky Conservatives, who keep telling Canadians how their cost of living is out of control.

In 2026, families are expected to spend about $1,000 more on groceries than last year. This rebate will make up about $790 of that increase and about $300 more going forward, when groceries are going to be even more expensive. Canadians are still falling far behind in feeding their families. Food, life's essential, is the very bottom layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If someone is not feeding their family, they are resorting to anything to get them fed. No wonder Canadians are increasingly turning toward food banks, with 2.2 million Canadians accessing food banks every month. That is astonishing. That number has doubled since 2019, yet the Liberal government refuses to address the direct cause, which is its own fiscal policies.

On the one hand, the Canadian dollar buys less; on the other hand, the government's policies ramp up the cost of Canadian food production and delivery increases with the industrial carbon tax, a hidden tax that makes Canada less competitive and adds a cost burden on consumers. In addition, the clean fuel tax and taxes on food packaging add more to Canadians' food bills. It is hard to believe this food inflation is unique to Canada, but it is. It is hard to believe it is not a design of the government's actual policy direction.

The government is debasing our currency. That means our dollars buy less. The agenda of managing decline is not the answer. We need to turn this around and make Canada a more prosperous nation again. Canada is borrowing money excessively. We are borrowing money from foreign money managers, Canadian taxpayers are leaking billions per year to these international moneylenders, and now it is obvious we are borrowing more from foreigners so Canadians can afford to eat. If the path we are on is not clear yet, it should be. I will tell the government to get its fiscal house in order. The path it has put this country on is not sustainable.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have said many times now that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit would help 12 million Canadians, but what about the other 28 million Canadians who are struggling with rising grocery prices? Why not adopt policies that will bring down the cost of groceries for all Canadians, such as cancelling the industrial carbon tax, the federal fuel standard or unnecessary food packaging regulations, all of which drive up the price of groceries for all 40 million Canadians?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The government is targeting 12 million Canadians here with more rebates going out the door. The issue, of course, is that the government's role is to take taxes in through a whole bunch of forms, including hidden taxes, and then redistribute them to people they think deserve that money. The question is, can we not just have a better economy if we do not pull those taxes out in the first place? That would benefit all Canadians, and they could afford food much better.

The Liberals need to stop taking with one hand and giving out a little more with the other hand. That would be a huge solution for all Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the member entered this place, I have found him oftentimes to be reasonable. The words he shared today really demonstrate that, at least to constituents in the riding of Waterloo, who often ask if this House can be functional. Today, seeing the deputy leader of the Conservatives move a motion for this legislation to advance so Canadians can receive the supports they need is a demonstration that the House can function. We would like to see the House function on legislation such as the crime bills, and constituents in Waterloo would like to see that as well.

I would like to hear from the member whether he agrees that we can have constructive feedback and conversation. We can always do better and do more, but it is important that we take the wins for our constituents to ensure that the government and all members of Parliament are able to deliver for constituents. I know that is what constituents in the riding of Waterloo want.

What are the constituents in the riding of Calgary Centre expecting from members in the House?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Working in the House, getting things done for Canadians, is important. The bill would ease food costs for a portion of Canadians. Of course we are going to get behind that, because we see the policies that have driven up those costs. We need to make sure we address that. People's ability to eat is a very important part of what we have to address.

We agreed to one day of debate. We will be moving this forward, as my House leader indicated earlier. This is about a constructive Parliament and getting good things done for Canadians.

However, what I noted in my speech is that we need to address the underlying cause of why this is happening, and to get ahead of it, because otherwise we are going to be in a constant cycle of just putting more cheques out, putting more fuel on the inflationary fire and causing more problems down the road.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting remarks on the country's debts. It is well known and accepted by everyone: more debts equals less freedom.

Now, my question is as follows. When the government has to address certain issues, is it better for the state to go into debt or for households to do so? What we are seeing is that household debt has increased fairly significantly in the last quarter.

Does my colleague not think that, for measures like the one we are discussing today, it is better for the state to go into debt than for households to go even further into debt?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize, as I did not fully understand the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think he asked what we intend to do about the increase in household debt, which is significant.

For the moment, I think it is important to give more money to people who need it to feed themselves. However, we also need to fix the federal government's funding system, which is causing inflation, and food inflation in particular. That is impacting Canadians. These two issues go hand in hand, and it is important to address them together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

We are debating Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. Listening to the speeches all day today, the debates, I cannot help but ask, why this bill? It is mainly for two reasons: first, Canadians cannot afford to pay their bills and they cannot afford to buy groceries; and second, this was a promise made by the Liberal government to reduce grocery prices.

The name of this bill is a bit misleading because it does not affect grocery prices; this is actually a tax rebate. In fact, if we look at what is happening in Canada, the opposite is happening in terms of what the Liberal government promised around getting control of grocery inflation. In fact, the opposite is happening. Grocery costs have gone up and are still going up. Inflation did rise to 2.4% from 2.2%, but groceries rose to 5%. In that respect, Canada, in terms of inflation, especially groceries, is the best performing country because Canadians cannot afford groceries. This is crazy.

I understand what it means not to be able to afford groceries. I was a councillor and a chief councillor for a small first nations band on the west coast of B.C, and it was one of my goals to make sure that people could afford groceries and pay their bills and build their own lives without government help. For members who do not know anything about the Indian Act, the Indian Act is basically built on government funding, and a lot of first nations leaders try to get away from that dependence.

However, in this case here, Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-19 mainly to try to stop some of the pain Canadians are going through. An example of some of the pain Canadians are going through is that one in five Canadians have skipped paying bills to buy food in Canada. Some Canadians are skipping meals because they cannot afford them. They are making decisions on whether or not to keep the lights on or to feed their children or themselves. This is in Canada.

When they are not celebrating food banks, the Liberals are actually celebrating this tax rebate. I am trying to get the logic of this down. They are celebrating the fact that they are imposing hidden taxes on Canadians, and they want Canadians to be grateful that they are going to give some of that money back. In my riding, $1,800 will not cover rent for one month. What these Liberals are celebrating today is $10 a month. They want Canadians to be grateful, yet they are not even fulfilling their election promise.

The Prime Minister himself said he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. This is not going to affect prices at the grocery store. It is a stopgap measure for one year. Those middle-income families, if they qualify, will maybe get a cheque, maybe. However, like everything else, there are qualifications.

I have heard some of my colleagues here saying that we do not mind when Liberals steal Conservative ideas. In fact, the Liberals got elected on a Conservative platform: axe the tax, build pipelines and negotiate with Trump down in the United States. However, on all accounts, four or five of those promises could not be fulfilled by the Liberal government. I do not know why it could not fulfill those promises. Maybe it could not fulfill them, or maybe, by choice, it would not fulfill them.

Here is another broken promise: They were saying they were going to address affordability at the grocery store. The question arises in the same context: Do the Liberals want to address grocery prices? Will they or, by choice, will they not?

I have heard it said many times that two million people a month visit food banks in Canada and 700,000 of the people served are children. That is heartbreaking, especially when we consider that a portion of that population is middle-class income earners, people with jobs and mortgages, who 10 years ago did not have to worry about a tax rebate or skipping a bill. In today's day and age, when people skip a bill, there are consequences for them: a mortgage going into default or a car being taken away. It is happening because people have to make a decision on whether or not they should eat.

What the Liberal government has not said is that out of the 40 million people living in Canada, there are 10 million people living with food insecurity, meaning that they are not sure where their next meal is going to come from. I cannot help but be surprised by that as a first nations leader, coming from an area where we actually resolved unemployment and resolved the economy by supporting LNG, mining and forestry.

I came to the House of Commons and found out that all of Canada is in the same boat that we, as first nations, were in 20 years ago: just trying to pay the bills, find a job or be independent so we could chart our own future.

In fact, Canada is going in the opposite direction. Now people are starting to get a good understanding of what it feels like to be a first nations person living in Canada, where there are no economic opportunities, where people cannot afford their bills and are dependent on government money. Canada is losing auto manufacturing and lumber jobs to the United States. Now we do not even have a plan to defend Canada's borders. If there were a plan, there would be no money for it because there is no economy.

The idea that the Liberals took as their own from the Conservatives was to build our national defences, build pipelines, axe the carbon tax and negotiate with the U.S.A. It is all going to hurt Canadians today and tomorrow, especially when we consider the massive deficit that the Liberal government has incurred is going to be paid for by our children and our children's children.

I, like many other members, get asked what Conservatives would do. The Liberals got elected, but they could not implement the promises that they took from the Conservatives.

What more could we do? We could get rid of the hidden taxes. The clean fuel regulations are going to add 7¢ a litre to fuel this year, which will rise to 17¢ per litre in 2030, and not just at the pumps but also for shipping goods and services. We should get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which adds cost to shipping, farming and groceries. The food packaging tax is adding costs at the grocer's level that are going to get passed on to consumers.

By the way, Canada in its wisdom has said it is going to lift the plastics ban for plastic straws and other goods to be shipped to the United States, which will make life affordable for people in the United States but not do the same for Canadians. Everything is going to the United States. Our government gave Stellantis auto manufacturing $220 million, and what did Stellantis do? It went to the United States and invested in its auto manufacturing sector.

This is all talk and stopgap measures, while real people are suffering and trying to make decisions that affect not only their daily life but also their future. We cannot afford to keep going like this. The government should take a page from first nations leaders who say we should look ahead seven generations when making decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is a piece of legislation that will at least be a sincere and genuine attempt by the government to provide assistance to individuals through a program that will see significant amounts of money helping with the issue of affordability of groceries.

The Conservatives like to give this impression that Canada is broken. Today we have heard a lot about Canada having the worst inflation in the G7. If we go back for the last five years and take a look at the cumulative inflation rate, there might be one or two countries in the G7 that actually have done better than Canada on that front. When the member talks about thinking about future generations, that is exactly what the government is doing. That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was not a question. That was a bit of a ramble, but the member is always getting up and asking about what we are doing here, talking about things. It is because we were elected to come here to debate these issues. I made a commitment long ago to make sure that, if I was in opposition, I would hold the government to account. The member just got through saying that the bill will address grocery prices, but no, it will not. It is a tax rebate. The people who actually take advantage of that tax rebate, if they qualify, are going to have to decide how they use it: to pay the rent, the phone bill, the mortgage or the grocery bill. That is a tough decision.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I think we are more or less on the same page when it comes to supporting Bill C‑19. We consider it necessary because of the imperative need to support Quebeckers and Canadians through the extremely harsh financial circumstances facing families.

Once again, however, I get a sense that we are good at extending support programs to help people in need, but not so good at creating measures that will help people gain wealth with dignity, improve their work skills or find new sources of employment. We know that artificial intelligence is going to replace many jobs in the coming years.

Apart from tax breaks and cheque- or program-based support measures, like the ones this government often advances, would my colleague not agree that we should equip people to deal with the challenges awaiting them in the future, which will be numerous in the employment field, and which will certainly be all the more costly unless we start addressing them now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree. We should be looking at the capacity of vulnerable Canadians. In fact, that is what we have been doing in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for a number of years, and it does pay dividends in terms of independence. Those people are making good paycheques that actually contribute to the economy in Canada, which has been shrinking in the last 10 years in terms of oil, gas, forestry and mining. I do not think we have actually begun to see the real level of hurt that Canadians are going to see in the future.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes about what is actually causing some of the food price inflation. The outlook for net farm cash receipts went down 15% in 2025. What do farmers do if they have less cash? They produce less food. The economy just shrunk by 0.5% in the last quarter, meaning that we have less production in our country.

If farmers are producing less and the economy is shrinking, what does my colleague think is going to happen with a cash influx to people, when there is going to be more cash chasing fewer goods?