Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Food Affordability

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

Can I call everyone to order while we are making speeches? Thank you.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party said that he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What a dud of an idea that turned out to be, when in fact the governor has done a phenomenal job protecting the Canadian economy, looking at where our overall inflation rate has been and making sure the interest rate matches. The economy in Canada, compared to that of other G20 nations over the last number of years, has done exceptionally well.

Let us go on to the idea we have talked about quite a bit today: the carbon tax. A year and a half ago, every member of the Conservative Party who spoke in the chamber would so often say that getting rid of the carbon tax would make inflation virtually disappear. Then we had a new Prime Minister and 70 new members of Parliament on the Liberal benches, and there was a change in policy, which got rid of the carbon tax. We did that as an affordability measure, and it was very important to the Prime Minister and to the caucus to get rid of the carbon tax.

What happened as a result? If we listen to the Conservative economists within that caucus, there should have been zero food inflation, but then the Conservatives came up with all these different excuses, such as when the member for Foothills was saying that the reason we now have food inflation is that Canada has X tax and Y tax. The member was comparing Canada to the United States, because the United States' food inflation is actually a little lower than what it is in Canada today, and he said Canada's food inflation was because we had these taxes.

I asked the member for Foothills why the United States had a higher food inflation rate than Canada when Canada actually had a carbon tax. I asked him how that would occur. Why did Canada have a lower food inflation rate than the United States when we had the carbon tax?

The Conservatives tend to give bumper sticker-type slogans in an attempt to deceive Canadians, when in fact they know full well that their imaginary taxes are not going to have any sort of impact such as they state to Canadians in the House or through social media.

I would suggest that the principle of the motion we are debating today is yet another example of the Conservatives' saying things but knowing full well they are not going to work.

[An hon. member]

Name one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is the industrial tax. Do members know it was the Province of Alberta, with a Progressive Conservative government, that first introduced an industrial tax in Canada?

[An hon. member]

First jurisdiction in North America.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was possibly the first jurisdiction in North America, I agree, and that was a Progressive Conservative government. Why did the Conservatives not get rid of it? In fact—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I remind hon. members that this is not a conversation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that does not matter to the far-right Conservatives today, because all they want to do is fly up the flagpole some form of information, usually misleading, all in an attempt to try to agitate Canadians.

Every member of the Liberal caucus is concerned about food inflation. We all are. That is why we have introduced Bill C-19, a bill that would provide grocery and essentials benefits: real, tangible benefits to help Canadians. That is a reality that would in fact make a difference.

The Conservatives are kind of being brought into it because they do not want to be seen to be voting against it. They did not want a recorded vote, but they were okay to just have it pass on division. Now they are trying to backtrack a little; they are trying to say they support it. Of course they should support it, because it would help more than 11 million Canadians. That is a positive thing.

The Prime Minister and the government have recognized, whether through legislative policies or budgetary policies, ways we can support Canadians and build Canada strong. I say that because I believe they are being well received in all regions of the country.

Canadians in Conservative ridings are supporting many of the initiatives the government is bringing forward, including Bill C-19, dealing with supports for groceries and essentials; and including things like the tax break the Prime Minister implemented for the middle class, one of the first initiatives, in June, which some 22 million Canadians benefit from. I have already talked about the cutting of the carbon tax. In terms of youth, first-time homebuyers are able to have a new home built but not pay the GST. These are all initiatives that are there to help Canadians.

When we hear the type of ideas that are being demonstrated today by the Conservatives, my best guess is that even though we have a minority government, I do not think those ideas are going to pass. Do the Conservatives have any support coming from members of the Bloc, the NDP or the Greens? I hope not, but we will have to wait and see.

When the Conservatives bring forward legislation or motions, they tend to try to frame them in such a way that they have more to do with raising money for the Conservative Party and getting people upset and angry. I have witnessed it because somehow one of my email addresses ended up receiving the fundraising request letter. I get a number of emails asking for money, and I have not given a dime, nor would I.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in the gallery earlier today. I am sure he is truly amazed at the degree to which the current crop of Conservatives has moved to the right. They are so far to the right. Their line is, “Let us get out of the way. Government plays no role in society.”

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

Madam Speaker, it is always entertaining to see my colleague, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North on his feet. The louder he gets, the more I wonder if he is telling the truth or not.

I would just add this: If it were such an important policy, if the new old food rebate were so important, why was it not in the budget a couple of months ago? Why did the Liberals not budget it? It has a $3-billion price tag. If it were so important and such a central plank to the new old government, why was it not in the budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the budget. Let us talk about the national school food program, which feeds 400,000 children in Canada. It is a program that is needed, and the Prime Minister made it a permanent program in this budget. Where is that budget today? The Conservatives are filibustering the legislation. They talk about it. When it comes down to the reality, there are a lot of things in that budget.

I would encourage members to rethink their position. If there is anyone within the Conservative Party today who believes the government does have a role to play, they might want to consider a leadership change, even though it might be somewhat late given the 87%—

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

That is not the business of the House.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, I asked a Liberal colleague who was looking for the best way to help the most vulnerable members of our society deal with food inflation whether he thought that increasing OAS benefits was a good idea. He said that he did not think the effects were significant enough. We will just leave his statements at that, but I will repeat my question for the parliamentary secretary.

In the context of increasing food inflation, will the government support the proposal from the Bloc Québécois to increase OAS benefits and, at the very least, eliminate this injustice that exists for seniors aged 65 to 74, while also perhaps resolving the issue with Cúram, which is causing unacceptable delays?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the good news is that with the groceries and essentials benefit, the biggest benefactors would be individuals on fixed incomes, and we are talking about a lot of seniors. They would benefit in a very big way from it.

In regard to the OAS issue, the previous government had increased it by 10% for those 75 and over. The rationale was that there is a difference between 65 and 75 in terms of medical requirements, the ability to work and so forth, so I think it was a justified move. Plus, back in the 2019 election, the then prime minister made a commitment to give that 10% to seniors on the OAS who are 75 and above. All in all, this is a government, and in particular this is a Prime Minister, that is supporting our seniors, and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is a good example of that.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we should all in this chamber sympathize because our Conservative colleagues are having a bad week. The polling clearly shows Canadians are rallying behind the leadership of the Prime Minister. The polling clearly shows most Canadians do not have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. To add insult to injury, just today the last Conservative to serve as prime minister was in the House, reminding our colleagues opposite of that vanishing sensation of winning an election.

My sympathies are with them, but I think it is intolerable to hear our Conservative colleagues working so hard to divide Canadians. As we heard just a few minutes ago, they are dividing rural Canada from urban Canada as though many of our ridings do not straddle both, as though the members in this chamber do not have an obligation to represent all of our constituents and as though urban MPs do not know and love rural Canada.

My question for my hon. colleague from Winnipeg is whether he would agree that the reason Canadians are supporting the Prime Minister at this time is that he is deeply committed to bringing Canadians together, as he did when he announced last year that the consumer price on carbon would be removed because it was divisive. It was divisive because Conservatives had been attacking it relentlessly for years.

The Prime Minister wants to bring Canadians together. Does my colleague agree?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, over the last number of months, has demonstrated very clearly to all Canadians that he wants to build a team Canada approach, bringing provinces together with indigenous communities, looking at ways we can build a stronger and healthier country and at the same time supporting Canadians where they are on the issue of affordability, like with the groceries and essentials—

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

We have to resume debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to this opposition motion. It is a motion that reflects what we have been hearing, frankly, from the opposition for several months now. Food affordability and bringing down the cost of living generally are worthy priorities. In fact, food affordability is a key priority for this side of the House, which I will come to in a moment.

What continues to disturb me about this motion, and indeed about the approach taken by the Conservatives, is how when we scratch even a little bit below the surface, we discover that the opposition does not stand for affordability at all, that they block it at every turn. Rather than raise the level of debate to how we can work together to tackle the complex and very real challenges facing Canadians, we are instead treated to repetitive claims of hidden and imaginary taxes, and the demonization of regulation aimed at a healthier environment and competitive industries.

Once upon a time, a healthier environment and competitive industries were objectives shared by Conservatives. Blaming food prices on the actions we are taking to reduce plastic waste might be easier than explaining global inflation or climate change or Canada's long, beautiful and glistening winters, but it is not accurate. Our actions to reduce plastic waste and pollution are not the reason that food affordability is under pressure.

We should be talking about fertilizer prices. We should be talking about transportation, about labour costs, about global supply chain shocks, about the war in Ukraine and even about price volatility in the energy sector. We should be talking about tariffs from our southern neighbour, and even about climate change. Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather, droughts, heat waves, floods and other extreme events that damage crops and reduce agricultural yields. Climate change is a driver of food price increases, not just in Canada but also around the world.

Extreme events have been directly linked to spikes in prices of potatoes in the United Kingdom, cabbage in South Korea and cocoa in West Africa. Extreme weather such as heat, drought and heavy rain disrupts processing, transportation and storage. It can also spoil perishable foods during handling and transportation. This leads to higher costs throughout supply chains. Sudden shortfalls and production risk can lead to market tightening, export bans and price volatility, but plastics policies protect places. They reduce waste. They clean up communities.

When I talk to people in my riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, they want to reduce plastic waste and pollution. They know plastics are in our Great Lakes and our watersheds, in our landfills, in our own bodies, affecting us and our kids in ways that we are still learning about. Let us be serious and find a path to reduce our plastic pollution and protect the environment and human health. Let us recognize that we are a mature, capable country where we can work to address affordability and also work to protect a pristine environment that defines so many regions of this beautiful land.

In another era, Conservatives knew this. They fought against acid rain. They fought against the depletion of our ozone. They brought in Canada's environmental assessment act and environmental protection act. However, those actions were 40 years ago. Today's opposition approach sells division, and it sells blame. It sells the environment as a villain. It is short-sighted and it is cynical. Whether it is plastics or fuel emissions, there is a reasonable path to making progress on these issues while making life a little easier for Canadians too.

Again, in another era, Conservatives would have supported incentives to encourage industry to adopt cleaner practices, to innovate new ways of doing things that would increase productivity and create a competitive advantage for our country and for our businesses, but not today. That is disappointing because Canadians want serious government and serious leaders who can diagnose real challenges and work with others to implement actual solutions. That is why I stand here, proud to fight for the actions of our government, the actions we are taking to help support Canadians.

We are heading into tax season, and Canadians will see that we have cut taxes for 22 million of our friends and neighbours across this country, reducing the basic tax rate from 15% to 14%. Our Canada child benefit, which is indexed to inflation, helps six million children in Canada and their parents with roughly $8,000 per year per child. Over six million Canadians today are part of our dental care plan, which is saving Canadians on average close to $800 per year on dental fees. The national school food program, which we have recently made permanent, can help a family with two kids save over $800 per year on school lunches. Our early learning and child care plan has brought fees down right across Canada, with families in my riding of Toronto—St. Paul's often saving over $10,000 a year on child care costs. That is the kind of saving that changes lives and opens up new possibilities for families.

What do these programs have in common? The opposition voted against them. The Conservatives call government support for them wasteful and even “garbage”. I am glad the opposition has decided to help us pass legislation to put our new Canada groceries and essentials benefit into action. I welcome that co-operation because that is what a plan on food affordability should look like. Our new benefit would help 12 million Canadians with the cost of food and essentials. It is a five-year boost that we would deliver to the former GST credit and a one-time extra boost for just this year that would increase the benefit by 50%. A family could look forward to $1,900 this year, and single seniors or young adults could have $950 with this new grocery benefit.

That is not the end of the plan. It also includes a national food security strategy, and that plan is going to help us increase food production in Canada. We are going to be offering immediate expensing for greenhouses, improving our supply chains by working with industry, increasing competition in the grocery sector by working with the Competition Bureau, implementing unit price labelling and enforcing action against anti-competitive practices so that over time, not only are we increasing Canadian food production, but we are bringing down the costs for consumers at the grocery store.

The bottom line is that the federal government has a serious plan that it is putting into action. It is not a quick fix; it is part of a plan to grow our economy and create prosperity. It is a plan for reclaiming control over supply chains, protecting our public balance sheets and positioning domestic industry where global demand is headed. It is for building economic opportunities and increasing collaboration and competitiveness globally.

A stronger, more competitive economy does a lot of things. It lowers production and transport costs, reduces exposure to global shocks, keeps markets competitive, builds climate resilience and, most importantly, stabilizes prices over time. This is what the government is doing to build Canada for Canadians. We are building a stronger, more competitive economy, working for Canadians, supporting the most vulnerable and enhancing our social security net when people need it the most. We are helping Canadians put food on the table because economic strength is one of the most effective tools for keeping food and lives affordable. That is what we are delivering and will continue to deliver while helping to create a cleaner, healthier and safer environment for all.

That is the beauty of Canada and of working with and for Canadians. They know that with a serious government, they can count on it to make change and do the hard work and heavy lifting of introducing the programs and supports that are going to help strengthen our economy, make life more affordable, protect our environment and build a Canada that is prosperous for all.

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

Madam Speaker, there was so much wrong in that speech and so much that I found deeply offensive as a farmer and rancher, someone who raises livestock and grows crops in the beautiful coulees that lead into the Qu'Appelle Valley in Saskatchewan. In the summertime on my ranch, it is almost deafening from the sound of insects, the trees and grass moving and the beautiful nature we have that is looked after by the farmers and ranchers.

There are no more environmentalists in Canada than there are agriculture producers we have, yet we have someone lecturing us who lives in downtown Toronto, probably the most man-affected place in Canada. It is cement and asphalt. There is nothing there that has to do with nature, and they are telling us how to run agriculture policy?

How on earth can she square that circle of telling farmers in Canada that they have to pay tax on fertilizer and the fuel that produces food for Canadians when she is living in the middle of a concrete jungle?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I did no such thing. What I did was challenge the Conservative opposition to work with us and to debate this issue with facts and not fiction.

I would have the member opposite know that I may proudly represent a downtown Toronto riding, but I grew up in the heartland of Alberta. I know a thing or two about this country from coast to coast, and I am proud of it. I would also have the member opposite know that the government is building one Canadian economy. This is not about dividing farmers from urban centres or rich from poor. This is about ensuring that our country gets through the tough times of the next few years, survives and prospers. To do that means building an economy that works for everyone.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, what this individual does not understand is the beauty of this country that already exists and was totally ignored by the government when the Liberals came into power. In this country, our agriculture, and any industry that did anything of significance, which was done extensively in agriculture across this country, made us the most innovative and clean country to grow food. In this country entirely, we create less than 2% of the greenhouse gases in the world. I have said this to classrooms: If we took a pie and cut it into 100 pieces, we would be less than two of those little slivers.

Are we still continuing to innovate? We better believe it, but at the same time, we are being accused of not contributing to a situation where, I am sorry, there are no boundaries around Canada when it comes to the environment. What is the government doing about relationships with India, the U.S. and China when it comes to greenhouse gases? We are at the top of the pile, not the bottom, and the member should be ashamed of herself for her behaviour.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, our policy as a government and our plan involves the types of supports and initiatives that farmers and industry would welcome, from building our supply chains to investing in rail and ports and ensuring that our biofuels are supported.

I am someone who knows how much even Albertans care about the environment, and how much concern there is for the pristine nature in the national parks or in the foothills of the Rockies; these places matter too. All I am saying is that Canadians are a serious, mature and capable people who know that we can both achieve food affordability and make progress on that front while at the same time protecting the wonder and the nature that is the beauty of Canada.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is again disappointing to hear that the leading strategy of the opposition party is nothing less than pitting Canadians against each other, trying to convince rural Canadians and Canadians from across the prairie provinces that the government does not care about them. The insistence by opposition members that only they speak for real Canadians is one of the core divisive pieces of our politics. It is shameful. The members should, in fact, apologize to the House. They should apologize to my hon. colleague.

I will ask my colleague from St. Paul's whether she would like to elaborate on the way in which affordability challenges related to food are an issue that many Canadians face, Canadians in cities and Canadians in rural Canada, and how the government is addressing those needs while bringing the country together.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, food affordability touches all Canadians. In my own riding of St. Paul's, whether it is seniors on a fixed income, young people or newcomers, they are going to benefit from this new groceries and essentials benefit that we have. It is one of the reasons the policy is in place. The benefit is a part of it, and the other piece is building the food security strategy to go with it to ensure that we are actually creating a long-term solution.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, a motion that speaks not just to economic theory but to daily life, on farms, in rural communities and at the kitchen tables of Canadian families. I speak today not as a member of the House, but as someone directly involved in agriculture. I am a farmer. I deal with input costs, fuel bills, freight invoices and the realities of producing food in this country. When we talk about food prices, I am not speaking in abstractions. I am speaking from the field, from the farmyard.

In October 2023, the finance minister promised that food prices would stabilize soon. In May 2025, the Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. If that is the measure, Canadians have already rendered their judgment. Food inflation remains among the highest in the G7, twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office, and roughly double the rate of the United States. Every month, there are nearly 2.2 million visits to the local food banks, and the usage has more than doubled since the government came to power.

As a farmer, I see both sides: families struggling to afford groceries and farmers struggling under the rising costs to produce food. I want to share an example from my riding. Not long ago, I met a young farm family who run a mixed operation. They work long hours, help their neighbours and quietly support their community, sponsoring the local rink, donating to fundraisers and stepping up when others are in need. They are proud, stoic people who do not look for handouts, yet their input costs, such as diesel, fertilizer, machinery repairs and freight, have risen far faster than the prices they receive for their grain and livestock. Their margins are being squeezed.

Today, that same farm family now relies on the local food bank to help feed their own children. It is deeply uncomfortable for them to admit that. They are being pushed to food banks not because they are unwilling to work, but because public policy has driven up the cost of production while their income has not kept pace. That is not a failure of farming; that is a failure of public policy.

It is not just about grocery pricing. This is about increasing the cost of production. These policies squeeze farmers from planting to harvest to transportation and erode their bottom lines. When input costs rise faster than revenues, farmers cut back, delay investment and are pushed to the brink. When the government layers on the industrial carbon tax, higher fuel costs under the clean fuel regulations and new taxes on food packaging, it is not just raising grocery prices. It is directly hurting the viability of family farms. Food does not magically appear on store shelves. It is grown, harvested, processed, transported, packaged and distributed. Every step along that journey costs money.

When government policy raises the costs, consumers pay more. The industrial carbon tax applies to farm fuel, fertilizer production, grain drying and food processing. On my farm, that means higher costs to run tractors, to dry grain and to buy fertilizer. The clean fuel regulations have already added about 7¢ per litre to diesel, and that is going to rise to 17¢. In Saskatchewan, where distances are long, that directly increases the cost of producing and delivering food. The proposed food packaging tax will add $1.3 billion in costs that will ultimately show up on grocery shelves.

Members opposite say that these taxes are imaginary. Trust me that they are not. They show up on my fuel invoices, my fertilizer bills, my freight costs, my machinery parts and ultimately in food prices. In fact, in Saskatchewan, there is a line item on our natural gas bill that says “carbon tax”. We have already seen what happens when these taxes are removed. When the consumer carbon tax was lifted from home heating oil, prices responded immediately and families felt relief. This proves that these taxes are real and embedded in the cost of living, and removing them has an immediate effect.

If removing one portion of the carbon tax helps families, then removing the industrial carbon tax and clean fuel regulations from food production and transportation would meaningfully help bring down the cost of grocery prices. Farmers are not asking for special treatment, just common sense: Stop taxing the production and movement of food.

In fact, this morning at the agriculture committee, I asked some witnesses directly if there was an effect. Did they see a direct effect from the industrial carbon tax, from the food packaging tax and from the clean fuel standard? My goodness, they had a lot to say. It is a direct cost and it is crushing their operations. The over-regulation and the tax burden they are feeling are putting them at real risk of losing their businesses. We cannot make food more affordable by making it more expensive to produce.

The second part of the motion, boosting competition in our grocery sector, is also critical. More competition would benefit both farmers and families. This motion is pro-common sense. It recognizes that federal policy sets the framework within which food is grown, moved and sold. Right now, that framework is making food more expensive. Canadians need practical policies that balance environmental goals with affordability, competitiveness and food security. We cannot decarbonize and deindustrialize agriculture. We cannot lower food prices by taxing the tools that farmers use to feed this country.

This motion has a clear path forward: Remove the hidden taxes that drive up food costs and increase competition in the grocery sector. If the Prime Minister wants to be judged by the grocery prices, he should support this motion and act on it.

There are so many ways that we can help reduce grocery costs in Canada. These taxes are killing farmers. We have no choice. We have to buy diesel. We have to use fertilizer.

I will give an example as an agriculture producer. When the Liberals came out with the plan to reduce fertilizer use by 30%, I want them to know that there is not a direct correlation. If we reduce fertilizer use in Canada by 30%, we are not going to have only a 30% reduction in production. It does not work like that. There is a certain amount of fertilizer we need. Plants need a certain amount of nitrogen. They need a certain amount of phosphorus. If we reduce that, we are not going to have a 30% reduction. It is going to be a lot less. There is a lot of science behind this.

Trust me: Farmers do not want to spend a cent more than they have to when it comes to fertilizer and when it comes to herbicide. We have tried to limit our inputs as much as we can. Margins are already very tight in Canada. It is not like we are going out and trying to use more product than we need to. The Liberal government is penalizing us every step of the way when we are trying to reduce its use.

If members want to talk about the environment, as the last speaker said, I can go on for days about it. I had the pleasure of teaching sustainable grazing and carbon sequestration all over the world for 20 years in many countries. I can say that Canada leads the way on this front. There are many studies in Canada where we have producers who have changed their grazing methods, done nothing more than change the way they utilize their land, and we are now sequestering up to 12.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Canada is leading the way when it comes to regenerative and sustainable agriculture. Do we get any credit from the federal government for this? No, we do not.

When it comes to zero till, much of that has been pioneered by a very good friend of mine, Pat Beaujot, who created a company called Seed Hawk. The company uses zero-till methods and makes minimal disturbances in the soil, keeping carbon in the soil where it needs to be instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. This is a Canadian invention, yet when it comes to the Liberals, they say we have to use the baseline of 2005, which is just after when this technology was introduced into Saskatchewan. There is so much hypocrisy on that side, where the Liberals claim they are champions for the environment, yet when it comes down to it, their only solution is taxes. That is the only thing they want to do.

If not, Canadians, including farmers, families and food bank users, will draw our own conclusions. I will be proudly voting in favour of this motion, and I encourage all members to do the same.