Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Is Carney’s GST credit boost just political theatre?

 

The expanded GST credit offers short-term relief but not lasting food affordability

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is trying to fix food affordability with cheques instead of structural reform. This week’s announcement of a rebranded Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit may put cash in consumers’ pockets but it sidesteps the policies that actually drive grocery prices, including taxes, supply chain costs and regulatory creep.

Carney boosted the GST credit, an income-tested, quarterly cash benefit that is not tied to specific purchases, by 25 per cent for five years, with a one-time 50 per cent top-up. For a family of four, that could amount to as much as $1,890 this year. Nearly 12 million Canadians will be affected.

On the surface, it is hard to argue against any measure that puts money directly into the hands of families struggling to keep up with food prices. According to projections in Canada’s Food Price Report 2026, this benefit actually exceeds the expected increase in food expenses for a typical family of four this year. In that narrow sense, Ottawa can credibly say the benefit offsets food price increases.

Public funds transferred directly to consumers, no matter how well-targeted, tend to increase inflationary pressures on the very goods they are meant to make more affordable. Food is no exception. When more money chases the same groceries, prices often respond upward, especially in a food system already strained by logistics, labour shortages and climate-related shocks. The saving grace here is targeting. Lower-income households are far more likely to spend the benefit on necessities rather than discretionary goods. That limits, but does not eliminate, the inflationary risk.

Still, at a structural level, Ottawa is doing what it has done many times before. The GST credit can be used for anything. Officially, it is framed as help for groceries and essentials. Practically, it is unrestricted cash. We are back in a political comfort zone perfected in the Justin Trudeau era, heavy on slogans and light on structural reform.

Canadians are not naïve. They understand perfectly well that this money can pay for rent, fuel or debt just as easily as it can for food.

Which raises an obvious question. If the goal is food affordability, why not tackle food taxes directly?

Canadians pay billions in taxes at the grocery store every year. While most basic groceries are zero-rated under the GST/HST, many prepared and ready-to-eat foods, including items from grocery store deli counters, are fully taxable, with tax status often determined by packaging size and preparation rules.

The problem has quietly worsened with shrinkflation and product reformulation. As package sizes change and products cross regulatory thresholds, more items once considered basic groceries are now taxable. At the same time, the ready-to-eat counter has become a lifeline for households avoiding increasingly expensive restaurants. Those healthy sandwiches, salads and prepared meals are fully taxed. By any economic logic, that makes little sense.

Zero-rating all food, retail and food service alike, would be simpler, more transparent and less inflationary than cash transfers. Based on our estimates, each Canadian could save up to $200 a year on food. No applications. No rebranding. No political theatre. Just lower prices at the checkout.

Beyond consumer relief, the government also announced $500 million to ease supply chain costs. It is a welcome acknowledgment that affordability problems do not begin at the cash register. But in a country as vast and trade-dependent as Canada, that amount barely scratches the surface. Farmers, manufacturers and distributors are still absorbing elevated transportation, energy and compliance costs.

If Ottawa is serious about food affordability, supply chains deserve sustained attention, not episodic funding.

The same applies to the $150 million Food Security Fund for small and medium-sized enterprises and immediate expensing for greenhouses. Both are good decisions. Both are insufficient given the scale of the challenge.

One measure, however, stands out unequivocally. The $20 million allocated to support food banks is money well spent. No institution in Canada delivers food-affordability relief more efficiently, more quickly or with greater dignity than food banks. They are not just safety nets.

They are logistical marvels, run by communities, for communities. In an era of rising need, they remain a quiet miracle of the human spirit, often outperforming government programs in reaching those who need help most.

The new Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit will provide short-term relief, and for many families that relief will be meaningful. But affordability cannot be solved with cheques alone. Without tax reform on food and deeper investment in supply chains, Ottawa risks treating symptoms while leaving the underlying disease untouched.

Helping Canadians afford food should be boring, structural and durable, not rebranded, temporary and politically convenient.

 

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain. 


The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more