Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Food Affordability

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that Stephen Harper and the member's leader built zero inches of pipeline to the west coast.

The member wants to talk about facts, and he makes reference to the G7. In the last five years, adding total food inflation, Canada is not the worst. In fact, we might be third or maybe fourth. I am not 100% sure of that, but at the end of the day, this illustrates that the Conservative Party of Canada comes up with flash ideas, and it has been demonstrated time and time again that their ideas just do not work. Why should we believe them now?

If the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton West has the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member for Winnipeg North never lets the facts interfere with his opinion, and we hear that once again. He talks about how Canadians have never had it so good. I listen to him say we are third-, fourth- or fifth-worst. Canadians have never had it so good, according to the member, but the reality and the facts are that Canadians are suffering.

The member talked about pipelines, but, again, he never lets facts get in the way of his opinion. Four pipelines to tidewater were built under the previous Conservative government, whereas the Liberal government has approved nothing. It has not approved any pipelines, but it has had policies for 10 years that have led to higher food costs that are punishing Canadians now.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Windsor.

Today, I want to talk about something that matters to every family in Windsor and to a whole lot of families across this country: food affordability. I am going to speak based on what I witnessed on the front lines of policing a little over a year ago, before I retired. Current evidence shows that the reality has gotten worse, not better. It is right there in front of the everyday Canadians who do see it, except for perhaps the Liberal government.

When it comes to grocery prices and food affordability, Canadians do not need spin. They need honesty. Let us start with the basics. Across this country, food is now the number one pressure on household budgets. That is consistent across surveys and media reporting on what Canadians are telling anyone who will listen to them. Groceries today cost roughly 30% more than they did five years ago. Wages did not go up 30%, and neither did pensions, disability supports or fixed incomes. When people say, “I do not know how this happened so fast”, they are not exaggerating. They are describing reality. We heard claims that headline inflation numbers are cooling, but food prices keep rising. That is why Canadians do not feel any relief. They buy groceries every week. They see the prices every week. There is no hiding it. There is sticker shock. It is real.

Now let us talk about food insecurity. About one in four Canadians now live in a household that struggles, at least some of the time, to put enough food on the table. This is the part that matters most: Most food-insecure households are not below the poverty line. These are working people, seniors, people on disability or single-parent households. These are people who did everything right, paid their taxes and assumed that the basics would be there for them. Instead, many are making choices they never, ever imagined between food or medication, food or heat, and food or rent. Health researchers confirm what people already know: When food gets expensive, people skip prescriptions, delay refills or stop paying rent altogether. That is not being irresponsible; that is desperation. We do not need a consultant to tell us this. We just need to listen.

Whether someone is browsing online or attending a community gathering in this country, the same stories come up again and again. Seniors are only shopping on discount days. Parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. Full-time workers are using food banks for the first time. People standing in line at the food bank are ashamed and hope no one they know sees them in that line. Food bank visits are up to 2.2 million every month, nearly double the pre-pandemic level. That tells us something important: Emergency food aid is no longer an exception. It is becoming normal.

That number, by the way, does not include the food supports provided by community centres, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples or gurdwaras across this nation. When we combine traditional food banks with faith-based groups, we are seeing roughly 3 million to 3.5 million food assistance visits every month. That is not a marginal issue; it is a systemic failure. We are just covering it up with charity.

Now I want to talk about something most people do not see first-hand but what police officers and loss-prevention officers deal with at the grocery store every day: retail theft. There is a big difference between organized theft rings and desperation theft. Anyone who has worked on the road as a cop or worked in loss prevention knows the difference immediately.

Loss-prevention staff and cops across the country are reporting more incidents involving basic food items like milk and bread, not electronics or resale items. Increasingly, the people involved are seniors, people on disability or people with no prior contact with the police. Here is what that looks like: an elderly person detained at the door, hands shaking, apologizing over and over again and saying they forgot to scan an item. Meanwhile, everyone knows they did not forget. They are crying not because they were caught but because of the humiliation.

Loss-prevention workers and cops will tell us that these are the hardest incidents to deal with. They can tell us, “This is a normal person, and this is not what they do.” These are not criminals by nature. These are people who ran out of options. The damage goes beyond a police report. Being detained for shoplifting strips these desperate people of their dignity, especially seniors, who often carry deep shame and will not even tell their family what happened. They will often stop going to the store and prefer to go hungry because they are ashamed. Officers themselves feel deeply humiliated, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, because they feel they are being asked to criminalize hunger. That is not right.

Sadly, I have seen that look of shame before. It is the look of someone who feels they have failed. Truthfully, it is the system that has failed them. They did not fail.

Let us talk about why this is happening. Food does not magically appear on the shelves. It moves through a chain, starting with farms, farming equipment, fertilizers, processors, packaging and transportation. Every added cost along that chain ends up at the checkout.

Fertilizer is a good example. It is not optional. Without it, we do not grow enough. Fertilizer production is energy-intensive. Under the current industrial carbon tax system, producers are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs. This will increase over the coming years. When fertilizer costs more, farmers pay more. That is not ideology. That is math. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether our ideology should be costing that senior citizen or single parent their dignity. In my opinion, the answer is no.

Some studies say that carbon pricing alone adds less than 1% to food prices, but Canadians do not live in a world where costs happen only once. These costs stack up. Fuel, energy, fertilizer, packaging and transportation are individually small, but they are crushing collectively. Experts like Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor, have been very clear: Canada's food inflation problem is now a structural problem, not a temporary one. Prices are not snapping back. They are staying high. A one-time rebate will help people breathe easier temporarily, but it will not fix the structural issue of why groceries cost so much in the first place.

How do Canadians see the Liberal government on this? The common perception is this: The government acknowledges the problem. Canadians hear the PM saying that they ought to judge him by the price they pay at the grocery store. They feel the government is not moving with urgency or owning the outcomes of its own policies, which are dismal, by the way. People hear announcements. They hear that ministers are meeting with the CEOs of the grocery stores. They hear about voluntary codes for grocery chains and short-term cheques being issued, but they do not feel any relief. There is frustration, confusion and a sense that the government is not doing nearly enough to help regular Canadians. I happen to agree with that.

From a Conservative perspective, this is where we draw a clear line. We believe in environmental responsibility, but not by making food unaffordable. We believe in helping families, but not just by talking about it or giving them a one-time cheque that many will not be eligible for.

Food security is national security. When families cannot afford basics, it affects health care, public safety and social stability. I have seen it first-hand. When seniors are having to steal food, when working people are lining up at the food banks and when medication is being skipped so that groceries can be bought, it is not a theoretical debate. It is evidence. As in any good investigation, when the evidence piles up, one does not argue with it. One responds to it in a way in which one is clearly accountable, responsible and transparent. That is what the Canadian people expect of us.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the Conservatives finally starting to talk about farmers. The member ran on a platform that had absolutely nothing for farmers, notwithstanding he is in southwestern Ontario in the areas around Leamington and Chatham-Kent. I just listened to his 10-minute speech. There was not one, single measure about business risk management, and nothing about controlled environment agriculture or helping to get young farmers into the industry. The Conservatives talk about industrial carbon pricing, which is going to have a negligible impact on the price of food. They do not have a concrete plan.

Is the hon. member sharing, in his own riding, the government's intention to immediately expense greenhouses? There are 4,000 acres of greenhouses in southwestern Ontario and Leamington, all around Windsor West. Is he sharing that with his constituents in the work he is doing, and does he support that measure by the government?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happened to meet a gentleman who runs a greenhouse operation, and his comment was, “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad.”

That is all I have to say about that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by the response that was just given. Rather than competing to see who is the best cheerleader for the oil industry, we should be considering the wide variety of measures that can be implemented to reduce inflation. My Liberal colleague shared a few of them, and I will share some others.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about the labour shortage in the food sector, and what are his thoughts on climate change adaptation measures, which are having a real impact on food production in Canada?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a whole lot of policies that we are going to be addressing or bringing up.

First, we should stop adding costs to food at every step of the supply chain. Conservatives would review and roll back federal policies that directly increase the cost of producing, processing, packaging and transporting food. When government adds costs to fertilizer, energy and transportation, these costs do not disappear; they land on grocery bills. Food is a necessity, and policy must treat it that way.

Second, we should target help to the people who actually need it and make it permanent. Conservatives support targeted, predictable relief indexed to food costs for seniors, people on disability and low-income Canadians, not temporary cheques that expire while prices stay high. Fixed incomes must keep pace with the real cost of living, especially groceries. Ultimately, with the cost of food—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a glass jar of the same volume weighs 10 to 20 times more than a similar plastic jar.

Can the member tell us how the new food packaging plastic ban will impact the price of groceries?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that prices will go up. The average Canadian is going to suffer because of those policies and regulations. These are hidden in various ways, but we always hear that they are imaginary taxes. There is nothing imaginary about them. We can step outside the House and ask a regular Canadian who has to go grocery shopping how they feel about the grocery prices they are paying right now. They will tell us that they are pissed off. They are not happy. They are absolutely upset about it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

That one goes over the line. I would ask the member to not use that phrase and withdraw it when he has a chance.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cardigan.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned in his speech the Conservatives' favourite professor, the food professor. I take exception to the food professor. He does not have all the answers on food prices in Canada.

In particular, we can look at prices under supply management, which have stayed in the inflationary range instead of escalating.

Could the member speak to that? Does he support supply management? Does he support the food professor's call to dismantle it? All the dairy farmers in Canada are here this week. I would like to hear—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the member an opportunity to answer. The hon. member for Windsor West has about 20 seconds.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no matter which professor we talk to, they will tell us the same thing: Prices have gone up. We can ask any mom or dad going out to a grocery store. I consider them to be professors too, because they have been shopping their entire lives. They know the price of groceries has gone up. We do not need an expert or a consultant to tell us that the prices have gone up.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche this afternoon.

I rise today to speak to the opposition day motion on food affordability. I believe that if we were to ask every member of Parliament in this place, they would agree that there is work to be done to address this particular challenge, there are initiatives that have to be introduced to support some of our most vulnerable Canadian citizens and there is work we can do across the supply chain to be able to tackle this persistent issue. However, I think there are differing viewpoints about how best to get there.

When I take a look at the opposition day motion put forward today by the Conservative Party, what I worry about is that it fails to recognize the nuance of the situation. I worry that the proposed measures from the policy shop of the Conservative Party are not going to get us to the tangible goal we need to meet, which is stabilizing food prices and perhaps even lowering them, where applicable, in our global supply chain.

I want to start with industrial carbon pricing. The Conservatives, in the last Parliament, made the case that the consumer carbon price was the ill and that it was causing all affordability challenges in the country. I agreed with the Conservatives on the applicability of how the carbon rebate was structured in rural Canada, but not that it was the ill of all challenges facing Canadians.

Now we are in the 45th Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Conservatives stood up and said that if we listened to them and got rid of the consumer carbon price, everything would be fixed. Now they say, “Let us get rid of the industrial carbon price.” The industrial carbon price is recognized by economists, Conservative governments and, frankly, a wide political spectrum as being the most effective way to reduce emissions in the country and globally.

Conservative governments in western Canada were some of the first in the country to introduce industrial carbon pricing. Now the Conservatives would have us believe that just getting rid of that policy is going to solve the challenges that exist in the global supply chain and here in this country. That is a fallacy, and I look forward to talking about that.

I want to highlight a few things. In 2007, Alberta was one of the first governments to introduce an industrial carbon price in the country. It is a policy that is still supported by Premier Danielle Smith.

I would make the connection that there is a fallacy in the way in which the Conservatives are tying the industrial carbon price to food price affordability. In fact, the Canadian Climate Institute says there is a negligible impact in tying industrial carbon pricing to the price of food, so the Conservatives want to throw out one of the most effective climate policies we have to reduce emissions to perhaps get a negligible impact on the price of food. That is important to recognize.

I have said repeatedly in the House that the Conservatives had absolutely nothing in their entire platform for farmers. The member who is heckling me from across the way ran on a platform with nothing for farmers. In fact, when they stand up in question period and mention farmers twice, that is two times more than they did in their entire platform. It is embarrassing for a party that represents so many people. Farmers across this country should know that the Conservatives had nothing to say about them in the referendum we had in April on who was the best to govern this country.

What about the clean fuel standards? My colleague earlier mentioned that this is a similar policy to when we took lead out of fuel, yet the Conservatives are suggesting that we should walk it back. This is the continuation of the clean fuel standard and being able to have measures to help reduce the carbon intensity in our fuels. It is a policy that has very good impacts in rural Canada. A biofuel policy is important for farmers in western Canada. The member across the way continues to suggest that this is a bad policy. He should go and talk to farmers in his own constituency.

The Canola Council of Canada and the Canadian Canola Growers Association consistently highlight that this is an important policy for demand-side signalling. It also reduces emissions and is good for investments, which we are seeing across rural Canada.

Again, the fact that this is not going to demonstrably reduce or stabilize food prices makes it a complete and utter failure of a policy suggestion from the Conservatives.

We agree on the continued need to work on competition reform in the country. I would highlight to members and to Canadians that this work has begun. I agree with my opposition colleagues that if we want to move, we need to move quicker. I agree on that dynamic.

The government has announced a national food security strategy. We have not heard a whole lot in the House, particularly from the opposition, about the opportunity this represents for the agri-food supply chain and farmers across the country.

I am going to put a few thoughts on the table in the time I have remaining, which is about five or six minutes.

When we think about this policy, there are three angles, if we are going to be comprehensive about it. We have to think about the farm gate, our supply chain and agri-food processing, and short-term income measures along with procurement and public initiatives that can help drive demand and support regional processing across the country.

First, there is a national youth strategy to get young farmers into the profession. I would submit to the House that on the cost of capital associated with paying out the retiring farmer, the math on the economic margin in many commodity groups has represented a real challenge in finding access to capital. Even if a young farmer has the opportunity to access the capital, debt management has become a real challenge in terms of that debt cost, where the capital has become quite significant over the last number of decades. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada, along with the provincial governments, and maybe the FCC and the private banks, to identify a financial mechanism whereby we can help smooth the transactional costs. That is an important measure that I would like to see.

On agricultural land trusts, there is a lot of good work happening across this country to identify agricultural land, put it into a trust and make sure that it continues to remain available for farming. That is important, not only in Ontario but across the country, so that young farmers can access and buy land at a price that is comparable to the yields and the return going in. There is a lot of speculation happening in this country around the price of land. That is something we could do to reduce the cost of farming, and we should be taking it up more earnestly.

I am a big proponent of an HST input tax credit for farm housing. I represent Kings—Hants. We welcome somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 international farm workers coming to the Annapolis Valley, particularly in the fruit-growing and horticulture sectors. These workers are extremely important to our food security in this country. They do incredible work. There is a requirement for our farmers to have housing in place. I believe it is important, because right now, the CRA does not actually determine that housing is a foundational piece of the farm business. Therefore, although farmers can reduce the capital costs of building or repairing homes for workers over the lifetime of that home, with an HST input tax credit they would be able to reclaim that cost up front early, perhaps in year one or two, which is important for cash flow. We should have that type of measure. It is something I have spoken about with the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association and Horticulture Nova Scotia. It is something I hope the Minister of Finance will consider.

The Conservatives have said nothing about business risk management tools. It was actually the Harper government that cut these tools quite significantly, walking back the compensation amount and walking back the trigger before farmers could benefit under AgriStability. Our government has consistently brought back the BRM tools to a greater extent. I am proud of the work we have done in this last programming year to increase the compensation amount. We have moved the $3-million cap up to $6 million. We have reduced and eliminated the reference margin limits. There is more work that can be done, and I think there is also an opportunity to bring in private sector insurance to complement the BRM programs, which are provincial and federal cost-share programs.

I would like to note that on the cattle industry side, I believe there is an opportunity to create equity in terms of how we finance these risk management tools. Crop insurance has more contribution than the livestock index amount, which is something we could work on.

In my last 90 seconds, I would like to talk about two things. One is controlled environment agriculture. I offered a question to my hon. colleague from Windsor West about the importance of the immediate expensing of greenhouses. We have a competitive advantage in this country around greenhouses in the Leamington area in southwestern Ontario. There is a great opportunity to continue to build upon this with the government's announcement in this domain. I hope Conservative members are at least acknowledging this in their riding, making sure that their stakeholders know about these investments. This is going to be an important measure for competitiveness.

The last thing is regulatory reform. I introduced a bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-359, which was about using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions around farm inputs. We can think about crop protection products, feed additives and vaccines. We have some work to do. The Minister of Health has been dialed in on this question. This is important for reducing costs on farms and the overall cost portfolio in the industry. All of those things will have benefits.

I wish I had more time, but those are some of the ideas I put on the floor today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague across the way for his criticism of the solutions the Conservatives have brought forward.

He often gets up and talks about farmers and the agriculture industry. There are several dairy farmers in my riding and in Newfoundland and Labrador who have run into some severe financial trouble over the last couple of years. As a concerned member, I have often visited them and asked what is contributing to this financial pressure they are undergoing. One of the things I consistently hear about is the increased costs on farm equipment, and one of those cost pressures is the industrial carbon tax.

I wonder if the farmers are giving me incorrect information, because according to what we are hearing from the member across the way, everything seems to be going fantastically for dairy farmers in Atlantic Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed being in the member's riding before Christmas. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of stakeholders, including in Gros Morne and with mayors. I know the member will endeavour to make sure that she is engaging with local stakeholders, because they have not had the chance to actually see her in the time since she was elected as a member of Parliament.

I will say, though, that I hope the member will share the important investment we made in tourism in western Newfoundland. On housing, I will remind her that the Curling investment is extremely important for the city of Corner Brook.

On dairy farms, the number one concern was that the Conservatives are not actually sincere about protecting the integrity of supply management. We do not hear about industrial carbon pricing from farmers in the dairy sector; it is more about whether or not the member for Battle River—Crowfoot will actually stand up and support dairy farmers when it counts.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague across the way on his speech today. I would say that he was true to form in that he usually tries to stick to the facts and address the substance of the speeches or arguments presented by members on the other side of the House. He does not really engage in partisanship and is able to rise above it.

With that in mind, I would like to ask a question of my colleague opposite from whom we have come to expect a certain intellectual prowess. Today's Conservative motion, once again, aims to reduce, if not dismantle, everything related to the environment, which would cause us to lose even more ground.

Perhaps my colleague could enlighten us about something. How have Conservative speeches over the past few years influenced his government's policies, and to what extent has his government's backpedalling harmed the climate?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since the question was substantial, I will respond in English. That way, I can give a complete answer.

It is extremely important. I would agree with my hon. colleague that the Conservative proposition before the House eliminates any elements of environmental policy in this country. I think it would accomplish very little in relation to what they are suggesting the results would be.

This government has shown a pragmatic willingness to tackle the issues of affordability and to build major national projects. The view of our Prime Minister and the government is that the way we are going to be able to tackle the environment is by drawing in major investments. That is what we are focused on: drawing major investments, which will increase national energy security and reduce emissions at the same time.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a joy to rise on behalf of my constituents in South Shore—St. Margarets. I am very excited today to ask my fellow colleague from Nova Scotia some questions regarding agriculture.

Since becoming a new member in the spring, I have talked to a lot of agricultural stakeholders in my riding. They were asking for a lot of things, which I feel budget 2025 would deliver. Budget 2025 would invest in domestic food processing and supply chain resilience.

Could the member tell us a bit about how strengthening the Canadian capacity to reduce exposure to global disruptions helps stabilize food prices overall?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in 30 seconds or less.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds does not give justice to this question.

Let me do a quick pivot. The member is right that there are important investments in the budget around agri-food processing, but I would like to compliment her on the work she did with this government to remove Chinese tariffs on Canadian lobster. She represents one of the largest fishing ridings in the country, frankly, but certainly in Atlantic Canada. Her effort helped to accomplish that.

The member needs to make sure that she is reinforcing that. We are proud of the work our Canadian fishers and our lobster fishers do. She has been a big part of that effort.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of our mandate, we have been taking meaningful action to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy and make it more competitive and resilient. We started by removing federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are in the process of developing new international trade partnerships. We are attracting foreign investment here in Canada. In budget 2025, we proposed various tax incentives for investment and innovation.

Our goal is to build a stronger economy, one that works for everyone. We want to give Canadians good job opportunities, more career opportunities and higher wages. We will achieve that result through the various economic policies we are putting in place.

We will not see results overnight, however. There is a bit of a lag until we can see the impact of the transformative changes we are making to the economy. In the meantime, we recognize that many Canadians across the country continue to feel the pressure of everyday costs and need help today. That is why we announced a series of measures to help Canadians.

Let me give an example. Very early in our mandate, one of the first measures we announced was a tax cut for the middle class, which will help more than 22 million Canadians. I am pointing this out again because tax season is upon us. I am pleased to report that many Canadians will be seeing some savings compared to the 2024 tax return. That could mean as much as $420 a year for a single person and as much as $840 for a two-income household. This is a concrete measure we are implementing to put more money back in the pockets of middle-class families.

When Parliament resumed in January, we started the Monday morning by announcing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will be based on the current GST credit. People who already had access to this credit will receive a 25% increase starting July 1 and a one-time payment representing 50% of the increase. This is yet another measure to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. I want to emphasize that this measure will target those who need it most, namely low- and modest-income Canadians. We want to help them cope with the rising cost of living.

The rising cost of food over the past few years has been a real source of stress and uncertainty for many Canadian families. We fully recognize that reality. This food inflation, which is affecting not only Canada, but also many other countries around the world, stems from many factors, including the disruptions to the supply chain in the wake of the pandemic, extreme climate events such as droughts and floods, the current tariffs and global monetary pressures.

Even though inflation is starting to stabilize, the cost of living, the cost of food in particular, continues to weigh heavily on Canadian households. That is why we took action and will continue to take action. Through various social measures and by lowering taxes for the middle class, we are providing immediate support to Canadians to give them a bit of relief when they need it most.

However, we also need to tackle the root causes. That is why we are currently developing a national food security strategy. This strategy would help strengthen food production in Canada and improve access to affordable, high-quality and nutritious food for all communities across the country. I will certainly be following the development of this strategy with great interest in the coming months. It will also include the implementation of unit price labelling to help consumers make informed choices, as well as increased support from the Competition Bureau to ensure rigorous oversight of the food market and its supply chains. Real and fair competition means fairer prices at the checkout for consumers.

We are also supporting our food businesses so they can deal with the challenges caused by the tariff dispute without passing on the costs to consumers. To that end, we will be setting aside $500 million in the strategic response fund to help businesses handle the pressures on their supply chains.

In addition, we are going to set up a $150‑million food security fund as part of the regional tariff response initiative to help our small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them.

Finally, to reduce food production costs and increase domestic supply, we plan to introduce tax incentives, namely immediate expensing for greenhouses. We know that Canadian summers, when vegetables and other foods are produced, are quite short due to the climate. We want to increase investment in greenhouses so that we can produce more food year-round in this country. The idea is to strengthen our national production capacity and contribute to stabilizing prices for consumers in the medium term.

We also introduced Canada's national school food program. The program was launched in 2024 with a $1 billion funding envelope over five years. In budget 2025, we announced the good news that we would make funding for the program permanent. That means we will continue to fund meals for children in schools after 2029. The program is essential for helping provinces, territories and indigenous partners expand their existing food programs so that more children across the country get the healthy meals they need. The goal is to serve additional meals to more than 400,000 Canadian children.

The program benefits both parents and children. It saves participating families about $800 per year. It contributes to children's well-being, because no child should spend a day at school on an empty stomach. We have agreements with all the provinces and territories. In the province of New Brunswick, which I represent in the House, we are going to invest around $11.2 million over the next three years. This will provide healthy meals to nearly 57,000 children in over 160 additional schools across the province. That is huge.

I like to point out the various direct assistance measures, but also that we are making investments in critical infrastructure that will have an impact on the cost of living. I am thinking in particular of the investments we are making in housing. We are going to fast-track housing construction across the country. The idea is to have an impact on the supply-demand balance so that prices can come down. We are also going to invest in affordable housing.

Furthermore, in terms of infrastructure, I would like to highlight some investments that have been made through the rural transit solutions fund, because this fund has a direct impact on the constituents of my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche. My predecessor, Mr. Arseneault, had the opportunity to announce $1.4 million in funding to launch a public transit service under the FlexGo umbrella in the Edmundston and Upper Madawaska region, and last fall I had the great pleasure of announcing an additional $700,000 investment to expand the service to the communities of Vallée-des-Rivières, Grand Falls, Saint-Quentin, and Kedgwick.

This flexible public transportation service, tailored to the realities of rural areas, will soon be launched in several new communities in my region. It will have a tangible impact on the lives of seniors, post-secondary students, workers and people with reduced mobility. In fact, this will have an impact on everyone in Madawaska—Restigouche. They will be able to benefit from transportation tailored to their needs at a very low cost. Someone who wants to travel from Grand Falls to Saint-Léonard or from Kedgwick to Saint-Quentin for work or a medical appointment will be able to do so for only $5. I would like to acknowledge the exemplary work that the FlexGo team did on developing the project. I am very pleased that the federal government partnered with them and that we have funded nearly 80% of the capital costs. This is a meaningful investment that will benefit the people in my riding.

I would like to talk about the motion we are considering today, which is somewhat surprising to me. On this side of the House, we believe that words must be followed by concrete action. We talk about helping families cope with the cost of living, and then we put social measures in place to help them. We talk about strengthening the Canadian economy to create better jobs, increase wages and help people cope with the cost of living in the long term, and then we implement the various policies in the 2025 budget.

Unfortunately, the opposition is voting against these measures. When it came time to make Canada's national school food program permanent, the Conservatives opposed it even though it benefits hundreds of thousands of children. When it came time to implement an affordable child care program, which helps families make ends meet, the Conservatives opposed it. When we implemented the Canadian dental care plan, which helps people access essential services, the Conservatives opposed it. When we introduced various tax incentives for innovation and investment in the 2025 budget, which have the potential to transform the Canadian economy in the long term, my colleagues in the opposition voted against those as well.

I am kind of disappointed that today's motion just rehashes old ideas. We will vote against it. It would be nice to find ways to work together to strengthen the Canadian economy for the benefit of all Canadians, rather than bringing up the same old ideas every single opposition day.