Finance Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Kate Higgins, Chief Executive Officer, Cooperation Canada]

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. My name is Kate Higgins, and I am the CEO of Cooperation Canada, a coalition of more than 100 Canadian organizations working in international development and humanitarian action around the world.

I'm here this morning with one simple message: International co-operation is one of the smartest investments Canada can make in its future. At a time when we see that as a country we're having to make really tough decisions and really tough fiscal choices, international co-operation helps Canada build stronger economic partnerships, prevent more costly crises in the future and advance the values that make Canada a trusted partner in the world. Canada does not have to choose between values and interests. International co-operation advances them both.

The world is becoming more unstable and more fragmented. Conflict, climate shocks, displacement, health emergencies, food insecurity and economic disruption do not stay within borders. They affect supply chains, trade relationships, migration pressures, public health and security.

As Canada works to diversify its trade and strengthen partnerships beyond the United States, the countries that Canada partners with, including through international co-operation in Africa, Asia and Latin America, are shaping the global economy of tomorrow. Investing in market development, human capital and stability in low- and middle-income countries around the world is a smart economic strategy for us. It helps build the trust, stability and capacity that make future economic partnerships possible, including future trade and investment opportunities.

It's also a matter of fiscal responsibility, something important to this committee. In an era of fiscal constraint, prevention does matter. The world is spending far more on responding to crises than on actually preventing them. The costs of responding to conflict, displacement, humanitarian emergencies and disease outbreaks are almost always higher than the costs of preventing them.

Investing early saves lives, reduces suffering and lowers future costs. The choice is not between values and pragmatism, and neither is it between solidarity and fiscal responsibility. With international co-operation, it's both. International co-operation reflects who we are as Canadians—a country that believes in human rights, in human dignity, in democracy, in gender equality and in shared responsibility in the face of global challenges.

At a time when global development assistance is declining, Canada's choices in budget 2026 matter. To put these principles into practice, I want to focus on two of Cooperation Canada's budget recommendations.

First, establish a protected core minimum of $5.5 billion annually for poverty-focused overseas development assistance. In a constrained fiscal environment, Canada should use its precious international assistance dollars where they are most needed and where they are most effective. This would protect support for the world's poorest and most fragile communities and ensure that poverty reduction remains a core purpose of Canadian ODA.

Second, protect humanitarian funding at a minimum floor of $962.7 million annually. Humanitarian needs are growing rapidly. Predictable funding flows allow Canadian partners to respond quickly, to save lives and to operate more efficiently. Unpredictable funding flows increase costs and reduce impact.

In this moment of geopolitical turbulence when Canada needs strong and diverse global partnerships, retreating on international co-operation has a cost. If Canada steps back, others will step in, and they may not share our priorities or our values. Canadians understand this. In 2023, Canadians contributed approximately $1.4 billion to international development and humanitarian efforts through their own charitable giving. They did this because they're generous and they want Canada to stand up for its values. They want to contribute to a safer and more stable world.

To conclude, members of the committee, international co-operation reflects Canadian values and advances our interests. It helps build a world that is more peaceful, prosperous and just, while making Canada safer, stronger and more resilient. It should not be viewed as a discretionary expense but as a strategic investment in Canada's future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Higgins.

We will continue now with Mr. Vansintjan from Food Secure Canada.

[Aaron Vansintjan, Policy Researcher, Food Secure Canada]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Vansintjan, and I am the policy lead at Food Secure Canada.

I'm here to tell you that food infrastructure is not boring. In fact, it is a matter of national priority. We need a serious countrywide build-out.

Here is a real-life story. Samuel Richard is a young farmer in Quebec. He loves growing organic vegetables, but access to the market has a steep price. Companies like Sobeys and Metro charge up to $12,000 just to be a vendor. Then there are the costs that go into storage, distribution and transport, so Samuel burned out a few years ago. Now he is back to growing only corn and soybeans for export. That's not just his loss but ours too.

Why is this happening? For decades, we have underinvested in local food infrastructure. It is emaciated. As a result, the middlemen and distributors have become too powerful. They dictate prices. Farmers like Samuel sell at a loss. As for consumers, I'll just say that according to a recent poll, grocery prices are now the number one economic concern to Canadians.

Even our schools can't afford this. We got $200 million per year for the school food program, but that investment is not even keeping up with food inflation. Many schools can't afford more than a single banana per kid. That is dire, and it is also a missed opportunity.

We can actually get affordable, delicious, healthy whole fruits and vegetables in our schools and in our grocery aisles. How? We can turn this crisis into a success story.

First, we need a buy Canadian food procurement strategy. In economics, demand drives supply. Let us say that you set local and regional procurement targets in federally funded schools, hospitals and prisons at 30% per year. By creating a new demand, you'll dramatically transform the supply chain within a few years, providing stable income for farmers and investing directly in rural communities, without the middlemen. A gap is turned into an opportunity.

The second step is to invest in the infrastructure to make sure farmers like Samuel don't have to quit. To do that, you fix what we at Food Secure Canada call the “missing middle”. We've heard so many stories where, for example, a school wants to buy local, but the farmer doesn't have a truck and the school doesn't have cold storage, so they're forced to buy from Sobeys.

The independent middle is missing in this country. To build it back up, we need you to expand the local food infrastructure fund from $20 million per year to—watch out—$500 million per year. I thought I saw someone fall out of their chair. Seriously, though, this is what it will take to rebuild the missing middle.

We have one last problem. We seriously lack competition, as you know, up and down the food chain. If it's profitable, it will get gobbled up. If it's not, it will get throttled. To make this work, we need to put up firewalls. That's why we need to invest in a co-operative and non-profit food system. Yes, we should be looking into public grocery stores. I'm sorry—did I say that?

There is a reason everyone is talking about them. Canadians want you to fight the rising cost of living and corporate concentration. To do that, you need to seriously look into a countrywide, non-profit distributor for small businesses, co-operatives, northern and remote communities, schools, prisons and hospitals. That may be what it will take to give small players like Samuel a chance to thrive.

Picture this. Within a few years, a 30% local food target in all federally funded schools would give farmers like Samuel a steady income. The LFIF would fund a cold storage warehouse where he and several other farmers could store their produce. A new non-profit wholesaler would buy his produce at a reasonable price and would distribute it to independent grocery stores, saving consumers a lot of money, and Samuel could grow food that's good for the land and good for its people.

You can make this happen. Start a buy Canadian food procurement strategy, massively invest in the LFIF and expand non-profit distribution, wholesale and retail.

I hope I have convinced you that food infrastructure is not boring. It is exciting. It is also existential.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vansintjan.

I will turn now to Ms. Barrett from Frontier Duty Free Association.

You have five minutes.

[Barbara Barrett, Executive Director, Frontier Duty Free Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to speak to a specific issue within the excise framework that is having a direct impact on a federally regulated export sector.

I want to start by setting out how our stores operate, because that context matters. Land border duty-free stores are not domestic retailers. We are federally regulated and licensed under the Customs Act and operate under CBSA control.

Our stores are located at border crossings, and we sell exclusively to travellers leaving Canada. We do not have access to the Canadian domestic market. Every transaction is tied to a traveller exiting the country, and every sale is verified as an export through a CBSA-controlled system. That means our only market is outbound travellers and our only competition is the United States.

In many cases, our stores are located just minutes or even metres from U.S. outlets selling the same products to the same travellers. We represent 31 land border duty-free stores. These are long-standing, family-run businesses that have been operated successfully for more than 40 years and are part of the economic and tourism fabric of border communities. The purpose of the stores is to capture spending at the point of exit and keep those dollars in Canada rather than seeing them immediately flow into the United States.

Currently, we are seeing a sharp and sustained decline in cross-border travel by Canadians, with some estimates pointing to declines of more than 40% year over year. The decline in travel is real, but it is not permanent. The issue before you is what is happening alongside it. Our businesses are facing a structural imbalance that makes it harder to compete, particularly in an environment where purchase decisions matter more.

At its core, it's about fair treatment. We compete directly and only with U.S. retailers, but we are not operating under the same conditions. The source of that imbalance is how excise is applied. Excise is intended for domestic consumption. Across Canada's export framework, where goods are destined for export, it is not applied at source. It is applied if and when those goods re-enter Canada. That principle is well established, but land border duty-free is treated differently.

Excise duty is applied at the manufacturer level before export is verified, embedding the cost directly into the retail price. U.S. competitors do not carry that cost. Canadian businesses, operating under full federal oversight, are competing directly with U.S. retailers under a different tax treatment and unlike any other export channel. That is the issue.

Parliament has already established that where products are clearly destined for export, excise should not be applied at source. Our channel meets that test. Every sale is verified through CBSA controls, and last week CBSA confirmed that our program achieves one of the highest compliance rates in the system, at 97%. Despite that, we continue to be treated as though we are part of the domestic market.

The correction required is narrow. We are not asking to remove the tax. We are asking to apply it in the right place—specifically, amending the Excise Act, 2001, to shift the point of excise duty collection from the manufacturer to the border so it applies only where goods re-enter Canada beyond personal exemptions. This aligns duty-free with other export channels, maintains tax integrity, removes the cost currently pushing purchases out of Canada and aligns our export channel with every other export channel in the country.

This is about applying Canada's tax framework consistently, ensuring federally regulated export businesses are not disadvantaged against their only competitors. It is also about sustaining tourism, supporting jobs in very small communities across Canada and maintaining economic activity in border communities.

The path forward is straightforward. What is required is a targeted technical amendment to align treatment as an export channel.

Thank you very much. I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Great. Thank you, Ms. Barrett.

We'll start now with Mr. Lefebvre for six minutes.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here.

First of all, Mr. Kharas, you mentioned that there is no copyright protection in your work, which is widely disseminated. How could we protect people like you when it comes to the examples you're giving us?

[Firdaus Kharas]

It's a difficult question, because the world's media companies are now hypervigilant about intellectual property. My work, because it is on the issues that I've described, is exactly the opposite. I give it away for free. I make sure that people know there's no copyright, and therefore I can reach hundreds of millions of people.

For example, anything the Government of Canada produces in media is always copyrighted to the Government of Canada. That should not always be the case. You will reach many more people if you don't have a copyright and we don't have to ask the viewer anything, or the user does not have to ask for permission. Out of my 5,200 videos, 95% don't have a copyright notice.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Higgins, you talked about the importance of international co-operation, of having strong partners and of diversifying economic partners. You know that the United States is our main partner.

How do you currently view the fact that negotiations with the United States are practically at a standstill? Is that something you're concerned about?

[Kate Higgins]

As a Canadian, yes, it is something that concerns me. Our message is that in this very changing, turbulent geopolitical reality, we as Canada need to be diversifying our partnerships. International co-operation and the long-term partnerships in Africa, Latin America and across Asia are strategically smart for us.

One of the things I didn't get to talk about but would like to emphasize is that we see international development as a very important—but not the only—pillar of Canadian foreign policy. Yes, it is important to invest in our diplomatic corps and foreign policy work. Yes, it is important to invest in trade. Yes, it is important, absolutely, to invest in defence and security in this moment.

Our message is that international co-operation is a very powerful foreign policy tool for us to be thinking about in a context of deep geopolitical change, including with our neighbour to the south.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Vansintjan, your example of Samuel Richard, from Quebec, strikes a chord with me. You're saying that there isn't enough competition in the food supply chain. How can we help?

You talked about a 30% target for schools, hospitals and prisons. I think there's a potential solution there. I know that Quebec has already been doing this for some years. Can you give us a little more detail on that?

[Aaron Vansintjan]

In Canada, as you know, five companies control 80% of the food retail market. The public has focused largely on the retail market, but concentration actually stretches all throughout the supply chain. When you talk to any organization, like a food bank or a school, or to anyone in civil society or even to independent grocery stores, their issue is often the concentration in distribution.

For farmers, a lot of their issue is in the concentration of, for example, anything from seed companies and fertilizer to machinery, but it's also about the distributors they use to try to get their food to the masses—like Samuel. For Samuel, it's been really hard, because he has to pay a premium just to get into the distribution market.

The issue there is that we don't have any small players in distribution. Also, it's highly dominated by a few corporations. We need to provide alternatives, and we need to provide incentives for small businesses to grow in that space.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You mentioned a premium to get into the distribution market. Who did Mr. Richard have to pay that premium to?

[Aaron Vansintjan]

It goes to distributors like Sobeys or Sysco. You have to pay to become a vendor.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I see that I have only a few seconds left.

Ms. Barrett, if you had a few seconds to make one recommendation on what to do next, what would it be?

[Barbara Barrett]

Our recommendation is clear and simple: The excise tax we incur as an export market needs to be moved to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I apologize, Ms. Barrett. We have to end it there. Thank you.

We're now going to continue with Dr. Martin for six minutes.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.

I'd like to start with some questions for Mr. Vansintjan at Food Secure Canada, because we've heard a lot in our pre-budget consultations about food security. Certainly, in my own community, and I know in communities across the country, access to affordable food is a pressing issue for Canadians in this moment.

I was interested to see that a lot of your recommendations functionally focus on the supply side, particularly the recommendations related to community-owned grocery stores and addressing monopolies and interprovincial trade barriers. All of this is important, of course, but what we have been hearing from many groups at consultations is that food security is an issue of low income and that as a government, we need to look at addressing low income if we want to get at the issue of food security for Canadians.

We've heard from groups that talk about making the disability tax credit refundable. We've heard from groups that talk about increases to the Canada child benefit. We've heard from groups that want to see a focus on capping rents and investing in deeply affordable housing so that low-income people have money left over at the end of the month to purchase food.

I'm curious as to why your recommendations are so different. Perhaps you could speak to that. Of course, it would be great to do all those things, but why is that the case? What is your view on supply-side versus demand-side investments to address food insecurity?

[Aaron Vansintjan]

Thank you so much, Madame Martin, for the great question.

In our work on food affordability, we have three main pillars.

The first pillar is income. Absolutely, to be able to afford food, people need sufficient incomes. That's why we're fully behind our partner organizations' demands for increasing income supports for working people, people with disabilities, seniors, children and so on.

However, what we're dealing with nationally is not just a household food insecurity crisis but also a national food security crisis. Food security extends beyond just people's incomes. It's also about how our economy is structured. As you know, we're having big problems with trade. We need to encourage and strengthen our own economy. Canadians are asking for buy Canadian products.

The number one economic concern of Canadians is grocery prices, and we have to do something about that. Our second and third pillars are addressing corporate concentration and supporting alternatives, like shortening supply chains.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

That's helpful. Thank you.

I'm sorry to cut you off, but my time is limited and I want to ask some questions of Ms. Higgins.

You made a compelling case around global development assistance. I'm curious. With respect to sustainable development goals, I think it's fair to say that we are seeing a retrenchment of and a disinvestment in global assistance among high-income countries in general in this moment. Your observation that our values and interests are often aligned is a really important one for us to reflect on.

What do you think the role of Canada is vis-à-vis multilateral organizations—which have often been the focus of our international global development investments—versus what we might call project-based, bilateral or country-to-country investments in terms of the kinds of priorities you spoke about?

[Kate Higgins]

It is really important to take a few seconds to reflect on the extent of the decreases in global resources for international assistance and humanitarian action. Over the last 12 months, the OECD has reported a 25% drop. Over the last three years, there's been a 35% drop. Over the last one year, the humanitarian context has had a 35% drop. This is really significant.

At the same time, we are in a moment when the international multilateral system is under a huge amount of strain and a huge amount of pressure, and frankly needs to change. That's okay. As in any system, modernization is good and change is good.

When you look at what role Canada can play in the reform of the multilateral system, I think the world is looking to Canada to step up, step in and take a leadership role in being very propositional about not only how we streamline and how we make the global multilateral system more efficient and more effective, but also how we still defend it. Multilateralism has been incredibly important in tackling some of the most critical challenges we have faced in the world. When we look at the challenges we're facing, they are global and transborder in nature, and we require global co-operation to be able to tackle them. I really hope that is an area where Canada can show leadership. It is certainly an area where the world is looking to us to be leaders.

To be very quick on your second question about modalities, our position is that Canada should be using the most effective modality for the right context. Sometimes that might be multilateral action, sometimes that might be investing in long-term government-to-government partnerships and sometimes that might be supporting local civil society organizations at the front lines of this work. It's up to us to look at what is the most effective tool in the place and space that need it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Mr. Garon, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to the witnesses.

I find the conversation very interesting. I'll continue with you, Ms. Higgins.

We know that the American administration has significantly reduced its spending on international aid. We know that it's Donald Trump's vision to reduce the spending on international aid. We thought that other countries should have probably made up for those funding cuts. However, in the 2025 budget from Prime Minister Mark Carney's government, there is a $2.7‑billion reduction in international aid over four years, which represents a decrease of 10% to 12%.

You're talking about Canadian leadership and what is expected of Canada around the world. How is it that there's such a big gap between Prime Minister Carney's rhetoric and his actions? In terms of international aid, I will say that a reduction of this magnitude is similar to what the American administration is doing. How do you explain that discrepancy?

[Kate Higgins]

Thank you very much for your question.

As I mentioned in my previous response and as you alluded to, there has been a significant decrease in global resources for overseas development assistance. As you rightly noted, in the last budget, we saw a $2.7-billion reduction.

There are a few points I'd like to make. First, as I said, the world is looking to Canada to step up, but I sometimes feel and think there is a misalignment between how we see ourselves acting in the world and the reality. For example, in the most recent OECD data on overseas development assistance, Canada is ranked 14th when we look at the resources we are giving to international development assistance. This is based on the amount of ODA we give relative to our gross national income.

There is work we can do to move up that ladder, and the world is looking to us to do that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Ms. Higgins, I understand that, sometimes, we aren't as big a player as we think we are. Canadians still think that they're a bigger country than they actually are. That may be due to the geographic reality, but there are still direct repercussions on Canadians' living conditions, public health and the protection of sexual minorities. Canadian policy has consequences.

I would like us to take a broader look at public opinion on international aid.

Let us remember that there were major controversies during the Harper government, including when the government interfered in the decisions of the Canadian International Development Agency and there were impacts on funding. The Harper government did essentially what the Carney government is doing now. At the time, that was talked about a great deal. Public opinion was sensitive to it. People reacted strongly to it.

How is it that, today, we're having trouble getting the message through to the public that not only is international aid important and a vector for equality and equity, but also that public health everywhere on the planet affects us directly as Quebeckers and Canadians? We have gotten rid of many infectious diseases, but some may come back. We have an interest in this issue as well.

How do we go about convincing the public of the importance of international aid? Why has the public changed its level of awareness regarding matters of international co-operation?