Evidence of meeting #12 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's something for the steering committee, I guess.
Mr. Longfield.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I was just going to say we should get it onto our docket so that the steering committee can deal with it. We do have a call for a witness list by the end of March. We'll see what the next weeks bring us. We will also have supplementary estimates (C) coming up. Bill C-12 will possibly be coming to us. I think we have a traffic jam in front of us, as I put it in previous meetings, and we have to figure our way through that, but we should at least get it tabled so that we know it's a motion that the committee has accepted, and then we can figure out the scheduling from there.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just to clarify, Mr. Albas, there is a time limit on M-34. Do we want to continue to debate the substance of Mr. Saini's motion? Does anyone want to speak to it?
Mr. Saini, you've spoken to it already, I guess.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The purpose of my motion is really to bring together a process that actually affects all of us. It's not a motion that was meant to be partisan or to seclude or divide in any way. The motion was to see what would emerge from the food loss study. According to data that I have in front of me right now, pretty well 13 million tonnes of food is wasted every year in Canada. That's 396 kilos per capita. That's equivalent to almost 66.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. If you want to compare that, it's roughly equal to the annual emissions of about 12 million cars.
The other stuff that's sort of on the more personal side is that the amount of food that we waste could feed almost 24 million Canadians a year. This was an issue that I felt would bring us all together in a way, because we all represent diverse parts of the country and we're all dealing with some similar issues. I thought this would be a way to talk about things in a more succinct manner, because this has been brought to the media and other things. I think our committee could do this in a way that would be non-partisan and that would be really good for the country whether we are talking about the economy, agriculture or poverty. I think food loss is something that we should really focus on, and I look for support for this motion.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm okay with the Liberal Party deciding that it wants to study this particular subject. The question I had was when it was going to happen. No one has been able to say that.
To be fair, Mr. Chair, you've said that maybe the steering committee can look at it. That's fine. I just would ask that the Liberals work with their vice-chair and their chair and figure out which direction we're rowing in. Quite frankly, if they want to say that we're going to do M-34 as our study, and then we restart the cycle and it's a Bloc study, an NDP study and a Conservative study, and then we'll see Mr. Saini's food waste, that's fine with me. I'm completely fine with that.
I just would like to say that it would be really helpful if members would talk to one another and figure these things out.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Mr. Schiefke?
You're on mute, Mr. Schiefke.
We seem to be having technical problems.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would suggest unplugging and re-plugging.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm not in the room, so I don't know if the clerk is speaking with Mr. Schiefke.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Can you hear me now? I just unplugged it and plugged back it in.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we can indeed. Mr. Albas's trick was fruitful.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiefke.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I fully support this. I think this is something that all of us can get behind. It's a bipartisan issue. We're all looking at reducing waste. We're all looking at ways to reduce our environmental impact.
As Mr. Saini pointed out, this touches on farmers and on the economies of families. It's something that I think we should definitely look at. If it's just a question as to where this is going to fall in our timeline, I have full confidence in the steering committee to be able to [Technical difficulty—Editor]
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] Mr. Longfield is right. We definitely have a traffic jam coming. I don't know....
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
My little screen shows Ms. Saks, Ms. Collins and Mr. Albas. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay.
Ms. Saks.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I would just like to add, in terms of agreeing, supporting and doing the study, that a lot of the conversation, especially in the last 10 months, particularly in the urban centre that I'm in, is about food insecurity in relation to food waste. It's really a timely issue for us to be looking at, as my colleague Mr. Saini has mentioned. We're really looking at the whole chain and how it's impacting our communities.
There are certainly many models we can look at, starting from agriculture and moving through to food provision and how we make sure there isn't waste, and also addressing food insecurity and food disparity. It's really something that we should be looking at Canada-wide in our perspective on this, as well as the impacts of waste as we go forward. I really think we should be making this a priority. It's an important conversation to have now.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I can't take somebody's hand down, so if you've spoken....
Mr. Schiefke, could you take down your virtual hand, please.
Ms. Collins.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want clarification on the number of meetings. I didn't hear that when Mr. Saini was reading out his motion. Was it four or eight meetings that were being proposed? Six?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I was just going to ask to see if the timelines had changed. What we said originally was that we should all try to aim for four meetings, but then up to six could be argued as to the reason why. I would ask Mr. Saini if he could explain why we would need six meetings, because, again, we do have a lot of potential legislation that will be coming to the committee.
Again, I have full faith in the process moving forward, but in dealing with these things, I would like to have perhaps a little more dialogue between the vice-chairs as to when these things are happening. I'm fine to see this progress, but I would like to hear an explanation to go to six, because I really think that this is more like four meetings and maybe five at best.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go to Madam Pauzé.
Then, Mr. Saini, do you want to address Mr. Albas' question? I want to maintain some order.