Canada's food economy stands at a pivotal juncture. The Liberal and Conservative parties both propose reshaping the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program -- but their sharply divergent approaches could lead to very different outcomes for what Canadians pay at grocery stores and restaurants.

Recent figures underscore the urgency of this debate: As of July, youth unemployment (ages 15-24) sat at 14.6%, the highest level since 2010 outside of the pandemic, while the youth employment rate fell to 53.6%, the lowest since 1998 in non-pandemic years. Earlier in the summer, students returning to the job market faced even steeper challenges, with unemployment hovering near 17-18%, setting records for that time of year.

Against this backdrop, Pierre Poilievre's plan to abolish the TFW Program entirely, replacing it with a narrow agricultural-only stream and a five-year phase-out in other categories, seeks to free up low-wage, labour-intensive roles -- such as harvesting or kitchen prep -- for Canadian youth. In theory, this could improve access to jobs and raise wages for younger workers.

But the food sector operates on razor-thin margins, and sudden reliance on domestic labour would almost certainly drive up operating costs. Those costs won't simply be absorbed -- they'll be passed on to consumers in the form of higher menu prices and more expensive groceries.

The Liberal plan -- led by Mark Carney -- opts for reform rather than elimination. It introduces a cap to reduce temporary residents (including workers and students) to under 5% of the population by 2027 and tightens eligibility, permit lengths, and program oversight. Crucially, agriculture and food processing are explicitly exempted, ensuring that farms and processors maintain access to the labour they need. This more measured approach reins in misuse of the program while protecting supply, helping to moderate food price pressures.

The implications for prices are stark. If Poilievre's model is adopted, Canadians can expect sharper and faster increases in both food-service and retail. Restaurants will need to hike wages to compete for domestic workers, leading to menu prices that rise faster than inflation. Grocers will see wholesale costs climb as farm and processing labour tightens. By contrast, the Liberal plan allows for a gradual adjustment while safeguarding agricultural labour, which should help contain inflationary shocks.

So which policy best serves a country grappling with high youth unemployment and a food system dependent on reliable labour? Poilievre's proposal appeals to those eager to prioritize Canadian youth, but it risks jolting the food sector and undermining affordability. The Liberal reform plan, though far from perfect, offers a more pragmatic balance: Reducing excesses, protecting supply chains, and keeping food as affordable as possible in an already volatile global environment.

In the end, the question is not whether Canadians will pay more for food -- it's how much more. One plan wagers on sweeping labour substitution to revive youth job prospects. The other emphasizes stability and gradual reform to steady the system.

For households already under financial strain, the choice policymakers make could be the difference between manageable increases and another round of sticker shock at the till.