Finance Committee on May 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, divisions 1 to 9, 32 to 34 and 37. I remind members that the other divisions of part 4 will be studied at a subsequent meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room with us, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, the witnesses we have with us today on this first panel include the Canada's Building Trades Unions. We're trying to get them set up here, because they are virtual. They are Rita Rahmati, government relations specialist, as well as Kate Walsh, the director of communications. Also coming to us virtually, and we're trying to get them hooked up, is the Canadian Health Coalition and Steven Staples, the national director of policy and advocacy.

We have Dr. Alika Lafontaine with us here in person. He is the president of the Canadian Medical Association. We also have the Comité Chômage de Montréal and Mr. Pierre Céré, who is with us. He is the spokesperson for the organization. From the Daily Bread Food Bank, with us here in the room, we have Neil Hetherington, the chief executive officer. Welcome.

I'll show a little bit of my bias here. From Mississauga and the Mississauga Food Bank—thank you for all of your hard work—we have Ms. Meghan Nicholls, who is the chief executive officer.

Meghan, I just want to congratulate you. I know you have a new facility that you have moved into or are moving into as we speak in Mississauga. I look forward to visiting as soon as you are set up and have the doors open.

I see a hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clarify something. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Céré is here as a representative of the Comité national des chômeurs et chômeuses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

I apologize for mangling up the French.

On that, because we're getting some set up, we are going to start with the Canadian Medical Association.

Dr. Lafontaine, if you could start for us with your opening statement, I'd appreciate that.

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Tanshi, boozhoo and good evening, Chair and committee members.

I am pleased to join you here in Ottawa on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I'm Dr. Alika Lafontaine, a Métis anaesthesiologist working in Grande Prairie, Alberta, in northern rural Alberta. I appear before you as president of the Canadian Medical Association, representing the convictions of more than 92,000 physicians practising across the country, those learning and those wanting to fill the posts to make sure that our health system continues operating effectively.

I can also speak to the heroic efforts of other members of the health care team, specifically nurses, dentists, pharmacists, as well as other allied health care providers.

Health providers remain on the front lines of the pandemic. Their passionate tenacity has been on constant display, and this discussion comes at a historic time, a critical moment that can redefine Canada's health care system.

Ultimately our actions must increase Canadians' access to the care they need. That comes with a price tag and greater accountability, but we all appreciate that the health security of Canadians underscores the nation's financial security. The time is right for increased outcome-based federal funding in health care, and accountability for spending by provinces and territories that administer our health care systems.

The proposed budget carries significant Canada health transfer and bilateral funding commitments. It contains crucial steps to continue cleaning up past pandemic waves and fixing the structures that were barely staying together before their arrival.

Allow me to focus on three critical areas where investments and attention are urgently needed.

The first is pan-Canadian licensure. We were pleased to see front-end commitments to the recognition of credentials of health providers in this year's health transfers. As provinces and territories respond to this commitment, the CMA looks forward to a continued focus on the implementation of pan-Canadian licensure for physicians and other providers. Ninety-five per cent of physicians and medical learners are in favour of pan-Canadian licensure.

Pan-Canadian licensure will improve access in rural, remote and northern communities. It will improve access to specialist care, especially those specialists who are in extremely limited numbers; provide much needed relief in rural settings where solo practitioners have little options for support; and will make Canada more attractive to internationally trained medical graduates.

Earlier this month the Atlantic physician register went into effect in our Atlantic provinces, enabling the mobility of physicians among the four Atlantic provinces. This is historic, and the first time in the history of Canada that this has occurred.

Second, we need these investments to trickle down to frontline providers and improve their working conditions. Ten per cent of the Canadian workforce are health care providers. We know that burn-out rates among physicians and residents increased by 22% in the last four years. Last year, 49% of physicians polled indicated to the CMA that they would be reducing their clinical hours in the next 24 months. We are seeing this play out now.

Further contributing to the exodus of doctors is the administrative burden they face every day. If you add up that burden, you find that 18.5 million hours are spent each year on unnecessary administrative tasks, time that could equate to more meaningful time with patients and greater bandwidth to respond to urgent calls for help. To keep and attract the best health care professionals and to increase Canadians' access to care, we need to listen and respond to what the workforce needs.

Lastly, we need to double down on the relationship between better data and health care. No business the size and scope of health care in our country would question the need for comprehensive data to drive decision-making. Without changes to our medical data collection, Canada cannot plan for our workforce supply or distribution needs. Mechanisms to build a national infrastructure to improve integration, interoperability and ensuring of data are key to rebuilding the country's health workforce.

We also need to get serious about federal-provincial-territorial regulations around emerging technologies like virtual care and artificial intelligence.

Mr. Chair, health care workers and their patients have felt the impact of a broken health care system. This budget gives us an opportunity to stabilize and rebuild. The Canada health transfer and bilateral funding commitments announced in budgets 2023 and 2024 are a great impetus for change.

Marsi. Thank you. I look forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Dr. Lafontaine.

Now we will go to the Comité Chômage de Montréal and Monsieur Pierre Céré.

[Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you very much for this invitation, which arrived somewhat at the last minute. I was invited earlier today at around 2 p.m.

I have prepared some notes to make a presentation on the relationship between the employment insurance program, the required changes we're hoping for, and the gaping void in the budget and in this budget implementation act.

I'd like to point out one thing: The employment insurance program is the only social program that falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Back in the day, to create the unemployment insurance program, they even had to amend the Canadian Constitution, because social programs fall under provincial jurisdiction. So an unemployment insurance program was created in 1940, but the federal government has been doing a poor job administering it for quite some time. It's the only social program for which it is exclusively responsible.

Why is it doing a poor job? Significant cuts were made in the 1990s. We know the story. That made it possible to downgrade the unemployment insurance program, which became the employment insurance program in 1990, and subject it to a kind of straitjacket of cuts so that the program no longer met needs or expectations.

I don't feel I need to remind you of the state the employment insurance program was in at the beginning of the health crisis in March 2020, when it literally collapsed the week of March 16.

That's the reality: Our social safety net, the employment insurance system, is broken. That's why the federal government made a clear, specific commitment during the health crisis to improve, to make changes, to impose changes to the employment insurance program or to proceed with reform. The idea was to modernize it and make it a 21st‑century program. That's how the government, ministers and Prime Minister put it.

For example, I would like to remind members of the Liberal Party of Canada's commitment during the 2021 election:

Move forward with a stronger and more inclusive EI system that addresses gaps made obvious during COVID‑19...[W]e will bring forward a vision for a new and modern EI system that covers all workers...

I have the minister's mandate letter from December 2021. We see a mandate letter as a contract. The contract stated:

...by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system...including workers in seasonal employment and...ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers and employers.

The government undertook very lengthy consultations in 2021 and 2022. We took part in each of those consultations because we believed in them. We met with the most senior representatives of the Canadian government, who all told us changes would be made as planned by summer 2022.

No changes were made. It was postponed until fall 2022, from September to December, and then from December to February 2023. What did we see in the budget? Nothing. There's a void. There's absolutely nothing in the budget.

A few weeks before the budget, government representatives met with us. They told us that the changes announced would be included in this budget plan. Were we lied to? I ask the members, were we lied to? I believe we were. Were government representatives also lied to? I can't answer that.

Something didn't get done. In the meantime, the employment insurance program remains dysfunctional, doesn't do the job and does not adequately cover workers when they need to use the program.

We do not wish unemployment on anyone. Right now, the employment situation is going very well, but some people still end up in a precarious employment situation and sometimes have to rely on EI between jobs. This program, which is mainly aimed at the part of the labour force that works in precarious conditions, no longer does the job.

Who came out the winner here? What were those promises made again and again for years to us, our representatives and the people? There's nothing in the budget, except an announcement that the pilot project for seasonal workers will be extended. Why the void? However, in 2019, we were told that this pilot project would be improved and included in the legislation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Céré.

I'll just ask you to wrap up, please.

Thank you.

[Pierre Céré]

I will answer questions later. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Céré.

On behalf, of course, of the committee and the hard-working clerk and the staff, let me thank all our witnesses for, in short order, taking up our invitation to be with us today and for being prepared to answer questions from members. I know that you did not have much time, so thank you for that.

We're now going to hear from Mr. Neil Hetherington from the Daily Bread Food Bank, please. He is the chief executive officer.

[Neil Hetherington, Chief Executive Officer, Daily Bread Food Bank]

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Neil Hetherington, and I have the awesome privilege of representing the Daily Bread Food Bank—Canada's largest food bank. We are based in Toronto and have a mission to ensure that everyone's right to food is realized.

I'm here today to speak about the grocery rebate included in the 2023-24 budget. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to share what we are seeing on the ground at our food banks across the city and why you, our elected representatives, should be gravely concerned about the state of food insecurity in Canada right now.

Before the pandemic, we used to see about 60,000 client visits every single month. During the pandemic, that doubled to 120,000 client visits per month. This past March, we were horrified that there were 270,000 client visits recorded. We can do better.

Where we used to see some 2,000 individuals make use of the food bank for the very first time, we are now seeing some 12,000, every single month, come to the Daily Bread Food Bank. The underlying reasons for this are complex, but I can summarize them in one sentence: People do not have enough income to afford the rapidly rising cost of living.

With unemployment being at record lows, it begs the question. Why are we seeing such historic increases in food bank usage? Food bank usage has always had a correlation between its use and unemployment. As a result, I have sleepless nights—and a few newly found grey hairs—thinking about what will happen if unemployment begins to rise.

Many of the people who are coming to our food banks in Toronto are relying on fixed incomes, particularly social assistance. I worry very much about those receiving income from disability. Those funds in Ontario total about $1,200 per month for an individual to survive on. It is a full $900 below the poverty line. In the past year, we have seen the proportion of people with income derived from employment as the primary source double from 15% to 33%. No longer is there a promise that, if you get an education and you work hard, you will not need food charity.

Seventy per cent of our clients at food banks are paying more than half of their incomes on housing, which is putting them at a high risk of homelessness. Almost one in five food bank clients is putting 100% of their income toward housing, leaving nothing for food and for other expenses. They are totally relying on charity, friends and family.

Every household in Canada feels the impact of food inflation, which remains at 9.6%. However, for those accessing food banks, this is simply the tip of the iceberg. These households were already living with precarity before skyrocketing inflation.

Let's turn to the question at hand: Will the grocery rebate make a difference?

Any money in the pockets of low-income Canadians is generally a good thing. Using the GST credit as a vehicle makes sense since this is an income-tested benefit that will target low-income Canadians. It does not require somebody to be working to receive it, which means that people living with disabilities, who are unable to work, will still receive the benefit. We also appreciate this approach, which is grounded in dignity and in low-barrier access. Rather than having to apply for the benefit, Canadians who have filed their income tax will automatically receive the benefit.

However, none of this answers the question of whether it will make a difference. Ultimately, while the benefit is helpful, our analysis is that the temporary grocery rebate will not shorten the lineups outside of food banks across Canada. The good news is that we know exactly what will.

Our colleagues at PROOF, a research institute housed at the University of Toronto, have published extensively on this matter. They found that the Canada child benefit and the guaranteed income supplement have both had significant impacts on reducing the severity of food insecurity, and these programs should be celebrated and replicated.

I've had the opportunity to testify at the Senate about Bill C-22, and I expressed my strong support for the Canada disability benefit. Depending on its design, this benefit has the potential to reduce and even to eliminate poverty and food insecurity among Canadians with disabilities. We hope this bill will continue to receive all-party support.

Despite these important steps forward, significant gaps in our social safety net remain. In particular, single working-age individuals represent close to half of the food bank clients across the country and also make up half of those living in deep poverty in Canada. Another gap is around those who have recently become unemployed. The government announced a process to reform EI, but we have not yet seen the outcomes. As a result, thousands of Canadians continue not to qualify because the program does not reflect modern realities such as gig work and self-employment.

Poverty reduction requires long-term sustained investment. We are grateful that the government has signalled a strong commitment to supporting low-income Canadians through the grocery rebate and through the Canada disability benefit, EI reform and ongoing investments in the Canada child benefit and guaranteed income supplement.

We have the tools to tackle food insecurity. We at the Daily Bread are here to push you and to support you as we work collectively to reduce poverty nationally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Hetherington.

Now we're going to hear from the Mississauga Food Bank and its CEO, Meghan Nicholls.

Go ahead, Meghan, please.

[Meghan Nicholls, Chief Executive Officer, Mississauga Food Bank]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm here today as CEO of the Mississauga Food Bank, the leader of a network of 55 food banks and food programs in the city of Mississauga.

Our vision is a Mississauga where no one goes hungry, and we work to achieve that by providing and promoting access to healthy and appropriate food.

For over 40 years now, food banks have been around to provide emergency food support to those facing financial poverty. You have relied on us to provide for the food needs of those who are living in financial poverty in our communities, but we, like all food banks, are charitable organizations fuelled by community donations. We receive just 2% of our funding from the regional government, with the special COVID funding ending this year and the COVID relief funding from the federal government being spent long ago.

It now costs far more to operate the food bank than it did a few years ago. Because of the price of food, the price of real estate, living wages to ensure that our staff aren’t living in poverty and the increased number of people using the food bank, what used to cost about $3 million a year to operate to provide for our neighbours now costs $8 million a year.

I’m here today to speak about the grocery rebate that was a part of the budget and intended to give targeted relief for low- and modest-income Canadians. I want to share a little bit with you about the families this targets, those we’re seeing at the Mississauga Food Bank agency network. We're serving an increasing number of households. Almost 5% of the entire city of Mississauga now uses the food bank. That's 73% more than before the pandemic. What’s worse, with the rates of increase we're seeing, it will be one in 13 people by 2027.

Mississauga being the location of Pearson airport, many asylum seekers and other newcomers land here, including many Ukrainian temporary residents, and we are now setting up programs to meet their specific needs, including setting up temporary food banks in the hotels where they are housed by IRCC to ensure that they have food in their first weeks in Canada. For many of those folks and their families, the food bank is their only access to food.

Whether newcomers in a hotel or low-wage workers living in basement apartments, it’s not structured government support that's ensuring their basic needs are met right now. It’s charitable organizations and community donations.

People often ask me what it will take to reduce food bank use, and the answer is twofold and very straightforward. People need more income to afford their basic needs. The other major one is housing that's treated as a human right and not as something that builds investments.

This brings me to the grocery rebate. Any money that goes into the wallets and pockets of those living in poverty is a good thing, especially when it comes to them in this format, automatically and in cash, so that they can spend on what they need most, but this rebate will not make a significant difference beyond the week or month when it's received. An extra $234 or $467 provides relief but not a solution.

The average monthly income of food bank users in Mississauga is $1,531. Rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Mississauga is now $2,300, 20% more than this time last year, so an individual is already $800 short before even paying any bills, let alone purchasing food. That's why they come to us probably, on average, eight times throughout the year.

What they need is significant, sustained support as they struggle to afford all of those necessities. Without this, they'll continue to make those impossible choices and sacrifices, even with the charitable support they receive. For those suffering from poverty, there is so much more to manage than just finances and balancing expenses, food, rent and medication. We can’t underestimate the toll it takes on someone’s mental, emotional and physical health when they live with constant worry, fear and stress.

Most recently, we've noticed an alarming topic come up with some of our clients who have shared suicidal ideation with our team, including that they are considering medical assistance in death because they feel they cannot continue to grind away living in abject poverty. No one should feel that death is the only way out.

We strongly support investment in programs that create an income floor for all Canadians. Whether they are disability benefits, reforms to EI, investments in the Canada child benefit or the expansion of the Canada workers benefit, programs like these ensure that no one can fall through the cracks to the point where life doesn't seem possible.

I join with my colleague today in asking you to prioritize these types of assistance so that they can be expanded towards real poverty reduction and elimination.

I offer the partnership and support of community-facing organizations, like the Mississauga Food Bank, to join with you in making that happen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Nicholls.

Members, now we're going to go to the Canadian Health Coalition. It's Mr. Steven Staples, and he is online with us here.

Mr. Staples, you can give your opening remarks to the members.

[Steven Staples, National Director of Policy and Advocacy, Canadian Health Coalition]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairperson and members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I also want to extend a thank you to everybody who met with our volunteers in March. I know that many of you spent very valuable minutes of your day with our volunteers. It's very much appreciated.

My name's Steve Staples. I'm the national director of policy and advocacy for the Canadian Health Coalition. We were founded in 1979 to defend and expand public medicare in Canada. We're comprised of frontline health care workers, community groups and experts.

I'm delighted to speak to you on the topic of Bill C-47. I last met you in October during pre-budget consultations.

We would like to address “Chapter 2: Investing in Public Health Care and Affordable Dental Care”.

Today, I'd like to focus on three aspects. Number one is the enforcement of the Canada Health Act and conditions for federal funding to provinces and territories. This includes reining in private, for-profit delivery of publicly insured services. Number two is the importance of universality, given the means-tested approach to the dental care program that leaves untold numbers of families behind because of their incomes. Number three is the need to extend the goal of providing public coverage of medically necessary services to include prescription medicine through public, universal pharmacare.

In October, the Canadian Health Coalition recommended that the government work with provinces and territories to increase federal funding through a Canada health transfer that's accountable, while improving outcomes for people in Canada through new public health care programs, such as dental care and also pharmacare. There's more work to do. We applaud the additional funding provided by the federal government to the tune of $198 billion over 10 years, including $46 billion in new CHT funding and $25 billion over 10 years through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories.

Concern remains that this money could yield limited results in improved health care without conditions and accountability. It's a dirty little secret that the Canada health transfer, the money that goes from the federal government to the provinces, doesn't actually have to be spent on health care. The money flows from Ottawa into the general revenues of the provinces and territories, and they can spend the money as they like. It's a sad day when the federal budget that just came out promises to—and I'm quoting here—“Ensure that new federal investments are used in addition to provincial spending, and that provinces and territories do not divert away health care funding of their own”. How can the federal government ensure transparency that the money is actually going to be used for health care and not be diverted away, as the budget says?

The Canadian Health Coalition is very concerned that billions will be spent on publicly insured services in private, for-profit clinics—putting Canadians at risk of user fees and extra billing—and be wasted on profit-taking by inefficient private providers. Health Minister Duclos' own annual report on the Canada Health Act cited eight provinces violating the act. They withheld $82 million with respect to patient charges levied during 2020 and 2021 for medically necessary services that should be accessible to patients at no cost. We know that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Furthermore, data uncovered by the public interest group in Quebec called IRIS revealed that the cost of a carpal tunnel surgery averaged $908 in the private sector compared to $495 in the public sector. The list goes on. A short colonoscopy costs $739 in the private sector compared to $290 in a public institution. This is our health care money, yet the federal government has been silent on this matter. In fact, remarks by the Prime Minister about Ontario's privatization plans reported widely in the media were very worrisome.

One of the principles of the Canada Health Act is universality. The budget says, “Canadians are proud of our universal publicly funded health care system. No matter how much money you make, or where you were born, or what your parents do, you will receive the care you need.” Well, we can all agree on that.

Why does this principle of universality not apply to dental care?

The Canadian Health Coalition applauds the $13 billion committed to this program, a result of unprecedented collaboration among political parties. However, there's unfinished business. What about the self-employed or the gig workers who have no benefits but might have a family income of just over $90,000? We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer how many families would be left behind. They know the number, but they won't share it with us.

Finally, we look forward to Canada's pharmacare act being passed this year, but we were disappointed to not have it acknowledged in the budget. In October, we requested $3.5 billion for essential medicines, as recommended by the 2019 government-appointed advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare and the Hoskins report, led by Dr. Eric Hoskins.

When the pharmacare act is brought forward this year, we expect it to reflect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Staples, could you wrap up in the next 15 seconds? We'll then get to questions. You'll have a lot more time to elaborate.

Thank you.

[Steven Staples]

Thank you, sir.

We expect it to reflect a commitment to public universal coverage.

I'll leave it there. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Staples. Again, you'll have an opportunity during questions from members.

We're going to get into questions, but I want members to know that we have Canada's Building Trades Unions on our list here. We are trying to get them on, but we're having some technical challenges. Hopefully, we can get them on shortly. If they do come on, we may have to interrupt so they can make an opening statement, and then we'll get right back to where we were with questions.

Going to the first round of question, to witnesses and members, each party will have up to six minutes for questions.

We're starting with the Conservatives. I have MP Lawrence up for the first six minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the clerk for arranging these witnesses at the last minute.

We appreciate you guys coming here at the last minute.

I'll be honest. I have a sheet full of statistics about food bank usage that I was going to ask you about, but I have to say that your statistics are much more critical, important and damning than any statistics I have here.

I'll focus my comments on Ms. Nicholls and Mr. Hetherington. Either one of you is welcome to comment.

How would you characterize the usage of food banks—your food banks and those in your catchment areas—now, as opposed to three years ago or five years ago, whichever number you wish to use?

[Meghan Nicholls]

We certainly see a lot more working folks than we did a number of years ago—folks working one, two or three jobs who still can't make ends meet. We have anecdotal evidence of folks saying, “I used to donate. I used to send cans of food with my kids to their school food drive and I can't believe I'm here.” Those are the kinds of stories, I think, that are coming in more and more often and that characterize the difference, perhaps, from the kinds of folks we would have seen before the pandemic.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Okay.

[Neil Hetherington]

I mentioned earlier that it's 60,000 to 120,000 to 270,000.

Here's the point I want to impress upon you: This is while unemployment is so low. I am gravely concerned about food bank usage as soon as things turn difficult and unemployment starts to rise.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I want to jump on that.

The Minister of Finance's budget forecasted an increase in unemployment of 1.5%, or 300,000 Canadians losing their jobs.

What type of impact do you believe that will have on food banks?

[Neil Hetherington]

If possible, we would like to be able to submit that, because we have a correlation between the percentage of unemployment rise and food bank usage. I just don't have it with me.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's more than acceptable. Thank you very much for that.

I want to get to a couple of the causes, because both of you addressed this. Then, I want to talk a bit about people in mental health crisis as well.

Both of you cited—I just want to make sure it's on the record—how inflation in the cost of food and the cost of housing is a critical factor in driving people to the food banks.

[Meghan Nicholls]

Yes, that's correct.