Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Food Affordability

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I always thank my hon. colleague for his many hours here in the House. He works tirelessly. I must say, though, he is profoundly wrong in this regard. Canadians are not saying to me, at least in my constituency office, that they have never had it so good, that it is so wonderful how well they are doing, that they have never had more money in their pocket. No, it is the exact opposite. They are frustrated because of the policies of the government.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is like saying to the arsonist, go put out the fire you started; we will trust you. It was not this side of the House that said no to pipelines. It was not this side of the House that put carbon taxes on our farmers. It was not this side of the House that erected interprovincial trade barriers. It was that side of the House. It is time they get their side of the House in order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I want to assure the member that I have not started any fires.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the cynicism behind the Conservative Party's motions. They are using a real problem, namely food inflation, but ascribing it to a completely far-fetched cause. They say that food inflation exists today because there is a carbon tax.

Only the Conservative Party would try to further the oil companies' agenda by raising an issue that is affecting the entire population. I find that outrageous. Which type of business made the most money in recent years since the end of the COVID‑19 pandemic? It is the oil and gas sector. It has been raking in record profits year after year, and yet that is not enough for my Conservative colleagues. They also argue that the standards that have been implemented should be lowered on the grounds that it would reduce the cost of food. That is preposterous.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit beyond rich when recipients of transfer payments that come from the oil and gas sector, to the tune of $13 billion to $14 billion a year, then turn around and say to that very sector that it is the cause of food inflation. I say no. If they are so principled against those who produce our oil and gas, they should say no to the transfer payments, and we will redistribute it to the provinces that appreciate it.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been such a passionate advocate for nation-building projects that would tie Alberta to New Brunswick and everybody in between, economically, materially and through national unity. I know he knows the inextricable links between food security, energy security, economic security and therefore national security, which is imperative for Canada. I wonder if the member might want to make some comments about that.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we in New Brunswick, and in my part of the country that I represent, appreciate the hard work of our friends in Alberta and those, in particular, in the oil and gas sector, who help produce the fuel to fill up the trucks, fill up the ships and fuel the trains that transport the food from that part of the country to our part of the country and the energy from one part of the country to the others and also produce the revenues through which our regions of the country that sometimes struggle fiscally have the means to feed, work, build schools, build hospitals and maintain things. If we want to build a country that has food security, economic security and energy security, we had better work together and appreciate all regions of this country, and that includes our oil and gas producers.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. I cannot help but think as I listen to the debate, including the last speech as well as those I listened to earlier this morning and prior to question period, how maybe, just maybe, the Conservatives would have a leg to stand on with this argument had it not been for the fact that the last time they made this argument, it came to no fruition whatsoever.

I think back to question period when the Leader of the Opposition was telling a world-renowned economist, the Prime Minister, about his theory, why he believes we have high costs of food in Canada. I listened to him, and he said, “This is my theory. This is my theory,” and it is this and that, all these reasons why. Well, I remember the Leader of the Opposition's theory that went on for years about the carbon tax. He said if we got rid of the carbon tax, food prices were going to come down instantly. They were going to drop. All of the world's problems, all of Canadians' problems, would be cured if we just got rid of the carbon tax. What ultimately ended up happening? I would argue that the Leader of the Opposition was to some degree successful in that. He always pictured that he would be the one to finally get rid of the carbon tax, although he was not, but in reality, that carbon tax was eliminated. It was eliminated last spring, in 2025.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Bourassa.

What happened when we eliminated that carbon tax was that there was effectively no impact at all with respect to food prices. There was no deflation. As a matter of fact, if we listen to their argument today, Conservatives are telling us food prices have gone up exponentially higher since that carbon tax was eliminated. That is effectively what they are saying. However, they promised us. The Leader of the Opposition put forward his theory on how to reduce the cost of food, for years, and then as soon as the carbon tax was gone, it did not change anything.

Who repeatedly got up on this side of the House to say economists were telling us there is virtually no impact from the carbon tax on food? Who said that all along? The Governor of the Bank of Canada made a comment that it was 0.25%, or something like that. What did the Conservatives do? They just attacked the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said he had no idea what he was talking about and that he should be fired. That is what the Leader of the Opposition was saying.

Then he comes in here, along with all of his members, saying, "This is my theory.” His theory is that it has to do with more taxes, hidden taxes, made-up taxes, taxes that do not even exist when one actually tries to break them down. He comes in here with such pomp and circumstance, such conviction, and he stands there and tries to lecture the Prime Minister on how to solve the problems because, again, it can only be due to the federal government and its supposed imaginary taxes. However, the reality of the situation is that it has to do with so much more than that.

The three main causes that drive prices up have to do with global impacts. That does not fit the Conservative narrative. They will certainly never talk about any of them, because it does not fit their objective. It did not fit their objective years ago either, and it did not stop them then, so I do not expect it to stop them now. For the purposes of having a debate, after years of doing the same thing over and over, I will once again attempt to put forward my position, which, by the way, is supported by economists throughout the world. “Heaven forbid we would have to listen to those elites, those experts,” I am sure the Conservatives are saying right now.

The first main cause is climate and weather impacts. Extreme weather, heat waves, droughts and climate-driven crop failures remain one of the biggest contributors to rising food costs. That is just a fact. That is being reported by economists of all political stripes from throughout the world.

The second leading cause is global supply chain distribution. Shipping delays, rail bottlenecks, port inefficiencies and higher international freight costs are adding to the expenses because it is even harder for product to reach Canada.

The third cause, which I have talked about many times in the House when we have talked about the rising cost of food, is geopolitical events. The war in Ukraine disrupted global grain and fertilizer markets, raising the input costs for Canadian farmers and food processors.

All of these things matter, and they matter if members come here from a genuine place of trying to make the situation better for Canadians. This matters because, if we want to have an informed, intelligent debate on this issue, we need to be able to accept some of the reality of what is actually going on.

If a member's objective is to come here and not talk about what is really happening in the world, and their objective here is to, at any opportunity, try to seize power through, whether deliberate or not, misinformation, then they would be taking the approach the Conservatives have been taking. They try to paint this, as they have for years, as the Liberals creating the problem. They say that the Liberals are the only ones who can possibly be responsible, and therefore, it is all their fault, but it just does not jive with what is going on in the rest of the world. It does not jive with what economists are saying or what anybody who has any kind of expertise is saying.

I hear the food professor quoted in here by Conservatives, and it is because that is their only source of information to try to back their claims. It is becoming an ongoing joke on this side of the House every time they say, “According to the food professor...”. The reality is that, if we want to have an informed debate about this, they are going to have to start to take a different approach and be honest about what is really going on.

The approach the Conservatives took for years, and I will argue that it was effective, was with the carbon tax. They effectively created enough distraction by pushing the issue, but it did not serve them one bit. They ended up right back on that side of the House, after litigating that argument for years, because they were not actually being honest with Canadians or putting forward a sincere argument as to what is going on in this country.

The vast majority of Canadians, as demonstrated in April of last year, were able to see through that. At one point, they may have said that the Conservative Party looked like an option they might choose, but as soon as a more credible option came along, Canadians changed their mind, saying, “Actually, we want people who know what they are talking about and who are being honest with Canadians.” That is my argument here today.

We can have this discussion, and if members want to talk about the economic impacts of the market-driven effects of what the government does, I am happy to have an open and honest conversation about that. However, if they try to do it in the void of talking about every other tangible variable that goes into what is going on, they are being disingenuous at best and intentionally trying to mislead people at worst.

I appreciate my colleagues who have been standing up on this side of the House today to try their best to put forward what is really going on and offer genuine solutions. On this side of the House, we recognize the problem. We look for long-term solutions, and then we also look for short-term solutions. Those short-term solutions to help people get through difficult times are some of the things we did recently, such as reducing the GST to put more money back in the pockets of the people who need it the most, which is really important to highlight.

We have spent a lot of time today highlighting Prime Minister Harper's contributions and him being in Ottawa, but let us not forget that it was Prime Minister Harper who brought in the universal child care benefit, which gave cheques to millionaires. It basically said to everybody that, no matter what their income was, they would all get the exact same amount of money.

Our approach is different. Our approach is that we support the people who need it the most because these are the people who will genuinely benefit from those measures.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking about honesty and how important it is.

I recall sitting in the House over the past 10 years or so. At some point, the Liberals were telling Canadians and members about opposing the carbon tax while the world is burning. I remember the former health minister asking how Conservatives would dare go on a summer vacation with their kids in the car while the planet is burning. However, the second it was politically advantageous, the Liberals got rid of the carbon tax.

Who is really being dishonest with Canadians? Is it the Conservatives, who talked about the impact the carbon tax was having on Canadians financially, or is it the Liberals? The second it was politically viable, they threw their principles out the window and eliminated the carbon tax, only to put in an industrial carbon tax and a fuel standard tax that picks up right where the other left off.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a key difference between that member and me.

I am standing here right now, and I will say, as somebody who studied economics and believes in market-driven solutions, I believe, as others have also said on this side of the House, that we can drive market behaviour through government intervention. I still believe that, and I stand by everything that I previously said.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the member's question about who is being disingenuous, if he is unwilling to talk about the global climate and weather, global supply chains and geopolitical events in this context, then he is being disingenuous to the argument. The member is just trying to paint it as Liberals creating this problem writ large and wants to just forget about what is going on in the rest of the world because none of it matters. That is being disingenuous.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take my colleague at his word. He said in his speech that we need to be honest with Canadians.

The government's strategy to get us through the tariff crisis is to invest in more oil and gas infrastructure. That is what the Liberals said. They are ready. They invested $34 billion in a pipeline, and they are ready to help the industry develop new infrastructure. I do not know if my colleague is aware, but 60% of the entire oil sector is owned by Americans.

Is my colleague prepared to be frank and honest with Canadians and tell them that this strategy will do the opposite of weaning us off the American market?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if all the member has been doing is paying attention to infrastructure projects, he has missed everything that the Prime Minister has been doing, or at least 99% of it. The Prime Minister is going out into other parts of the world, creating new opportunities and new trade relationships for Canada in the world. That is what we need to do right now. Conservatives want to live in that nostalgia, in the days of great opportunity with the United States, as though it would somehow magically come back if the Leader of the Opposition were to become prime minister.

The reality is that the world has changed. Right now, our responsibility, if we are being honest about this, is to do the hard work. The hard work is not to capitulate to everything that the U.S. demands of us. The hard work is going out into other parts of the world to find new trade relationships so we can become a more diversified economy that trades globally and never again put ourselves in a position where all of our eggs in one basket with one trading partner.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit like living through an episode of The Twilight Zone to hear the opposition talk about carbon pricing in this country.

Being from British Columbia, I know that the first consumer price on carbon in North America was introduced in British Columbia in 2007 by a right-of-centre government that some members of the opposition benches supported at the time. There is no historical memory opposite of the reality of climate change and climate policy in this country. There is nary an honest word that the opposition has to share on this topic. For a new member of the House such as myself, it is deeply disillusioning.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands would elaborate on the government's approach to combatting climate change.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is refreshing to hear that a new member of the House of Commons is aware of what was going on in here before.

I remember listening to speeches from Conservatives who had sat in the B.C. legislature that brought in that carbon tax. They then stood right on the other side of the aisle here and talked it down. The member for Winnipeg North and I would get up time after time to challenge them on it. We would say that they had been in the B.C. legislature, had brought this in, and they would completely ignore the question as if we were making stuff up.

The reality is that, if members want to be honest about it, they need to be fair. I will defend everything I have previously said in the House relating to pricing pollution, and any market mechanisms for that matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member for Foothills posed a question. Then the government whip responded to it. While the government whip was responding, the member for Foothills heckled inappropriate language that not only I heard but also a number of my colleagues heard. We would ask that he withdraw the comments.

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

I think it will be necessary to look to the records and come back to the hon. member, should that be necessary.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one, but no one, in the House today can ignore the cost of living situation, certainly not our government, not our side of the House. The cost of living is now one of the leading concerns of Canadians and of our government especially.

This concern centres on the price of groceries. Groceries are getting more and more expensive. I see this reality in the riding of Bourassa. My colleagues here see it too in every riding. We see it. We see it in grocery stores. We see it at food banks. We hear it from the Canadians who appeal to us for help.

The question is not whether a problem exists. Unlike the opposition, unlike the other side of the House, we, as the government, choose not to politicize a human problem, but to take action. The real question is who is taking serious, responsible and effective action to respond to this situation.

Let us now talk about the context surrounding food inflation. Before I talk about the solution, let us first try to understand the problem itself. The food inflation that Canadians are experiencing did not come out of nowhere. It is the result of a combination of factors. It stems from a range of problems, a very systemic and complex set of problems. These include major disruptions to global supply chains, geopolitical conflicts affecting the production and transportation of food, tariffs and protectionist measures imposed by certain trading partners, increasingly frequent extreme weather events that are affecting crops, and excessive concentration in certain segments of the grocery sector.

These phenomena are not limited to our country, Canada. They are driving up food prices around the world. We cannot control the decisions made by others, but we can control the decisions we make, the decisions made here in Canada by the Canadian government. That is precisely why our government took action and made a decision. Today, I am talking about immediate, targeted assistance, specifically the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

Faced with this reality, our first responsibility is to help households cope with the current cost of living. That is why the Minister of Finance and National Revenue introduced Bill C-19, which creates the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This benefit will replace the GST credit, but it will be much more generous, more predictable and better adapted to the current reality. In concrete terms, the government is proposing a 25% increase in this benefit for five years starting in July, automatic indexation to inflation to protect households' purchasing power, and a top-up payment equal to a 50% increase in the GST credit, to be paid this spring.

For a family of four, this means up to $1,890 in support per year. For a single person, it is up to $950. This is a tax-free benefit. It will be paid four times a year. It will target low- and modest-income households. In total, more than 12 million Canadians will benefit from this increased support.

These are concrete, immediate and, above all, responsible measures, but they must be passed quickly so we can implement them. If the members opposite want to make life easier for Canadians, they need to help us pass this bill as quickly as possible. The bill I am talking about here is Bill C‑19, of course. I therefore invite all members to set aside partisan strategizing and act in the best interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tackling the source of the problem means helping households. That is essential. However, it is not enough.

If we hope to achieve lasting results, we also need to tackle food inflation at its source. That means supporting Canadian food production and strengthening our supply chains. That is why our government is going to turn to the strategic response fund. We are setting aside $500 million specifically for food sector businesses. This investment will help increase production capacity, modernize facilities and absorb some of the cost increases without passing them on to consumers, of course.

We are also going to invest $150 million to support small and medium-sized regional businesses in the food sector. SMEs are essential to local economic vitality and, of course, they are essential to food security. Another $20 million will also be allocated to the local food infrastructure fund to support food banks. This essential, one-time support is intended to meet the immediate needs of families experiencing an emergency.

We are also aiming to reduce production costs and enhance competition. That is why our government is also taking action to lower the cost of food production in Canada. The Prime Minister announced immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings. In practical terms, this will allow producers to fully write off the cost of their new greenhouses immediately. This measure will free up capital that they can use to invest in modern equipment, increase local production and reduce dependence on imports.

We will also work on developing a national food security strategy. This strategy will focus on strengthening the resilience of our food system, encouraging much healthier competition and reducing vulnerabilities in our supply chains. The government will also work with the provinces and territories to standardize product labelling, including unit pricing. This will make it easier for consumers to compare prices and make informed choices. We are taking a more comprehensive, systemic approach to making life more affordable for Canadians. These measures are part of a broader approach to making life more affordable.

I want to review a few facts. We have reduced taxes for 22 million Canadians, saving two-income families up to $840 per year. We have eliminated or reduced the GST for first-time buyers of new homes, which can result in savings of up to $50,000. We made the national school food program permanent, providing 400,000 children with healthy meals at school. We introduced automatic payment of federal benefits so that citizens receive the benefits they are entitled to. These measures demonstrate one thing: Our government acts consistently, but above all, as I have said and will say again, responsibly.

In conclusion, yes, the cost of groceries remains very high. Yes, Canadians are waiting for results. That is precisely what our government is delivering through direct support to households, investments in food production, concrete action on supply chains and an economic vision focused on resilience and equity.

Our goal is clear: an economy that works for everyone, where help arrives on time and where no one, and I mean no one, is left behind or left out. That is our country's economy, that is Canada's economy, that is the economy of a strong Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague had a lot to say about affordability. If we want to help the most vulnerable people, one pretty easy way to do that is to increase the old age security benefit. We have been calling for this for a long time. Many of the people with the lowest incomes are seniors.

The government is dragging its feet on this issue. In fact, it never agreed to do it. Not only that, but now Cúram is causing more problems for seniors who should have access to OAS.

I do not know what my colleague thinks of that, but it is a pretty simple solution. I am disappointed that he did not bring it up.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that when it comes to the information system problem, the technology problem or the solution, my heart goes out to those who may be experiencing difficult situations. However, I do not really like the idea of revisiting that point to provide explanations. I do not really like teaching. I am not in a position to teach anything. I do not relish the idea of addressing that aspect because I think my colleague is smart enough to realize that it is a much more systemic issue, and we are taking action on the elements that can be most effective and where we can have a much greater impact.

Our government is taking action on issues that will have an immediate impact now, as well as a recurring and permanent impact.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, over and over again, when we bring up the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard or the packaging tax, the Liberals say that these are imaginary taxes and they do not exist.

Today, in agriculture committee, we asked directly those affected in the food processing industry, and they said that these place immense costs on their bottom line.

I am wondering how the member opposite can square that circle.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want people to remember that food inflation is a global phenomenon. People also have to remember that we are choosing targeted measures, as I said earlier. We chose actions with action indicators for a much greater impact. The problem that we are talking about today is something we are seeing. It is here and now, as members on the other side of the House say every question period. We are taking action in this area to achieve a much greater impact.

However, my colleague forgot to say a few things. Earlier, I was talking about measures. He forgot that we have also taken serious action on supply chains. We took action with farmers. We took action on developing greenhouses. That plays a really important role in lowering the cost of living and the cost of groceries.

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

Madam Speaker, when the previous Liberal government brought together the top executives of the big grocery chains that have been price gouging Canadians since the pandemic, they showed up with no plan. The grocery executives offered nothing but pictures of their weekly sale flyers and were held to no accountable commitments. The meeting was all for show, and while the government pat itself on the back, it walked away with nothing to show for it and no relief for Canadians.

Regarding Bill C-19, helping people matters, but without an excess profit tax, families pay twice: once at the store and again through taxes.

Does my colleague not agree that it is time for an excess profit tax to make those who are profiteering off people pay their fair share?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat something I said before, to make it clearer. Our government is going to work with the provinces and territories on standardizing product labelling. That is a very important factor. The unit price is very important because it makes it easier for consumers to compare prices and pick the most affordable option.

That is something that I mentioned in my speech and wanted to repeat for clarity.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's answers are interesting because, when we asked him whether he was in favour of increasing OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74, who are facing discrimination, he told us that the government is focusing on what would have an impact. He thinks that helping seniors has no impact. Those are his words.

I would like him to explain why, in his opinion, helping seniors aged 65 to 74 who are facing discrimination would not have enough of an impact.