Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I'll switch gears. What are the biggest barriers to increasing food production domestically within Canada?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

It's access to private capital. We saw the RBC report yesterday, which is devastating. When you talk to farmers and entrepreneurs, you can see that.

Of course, the CFIB yesterday came out with a report saying that we're losing more companies than we are gaining new companies. That's a four-year trend. It's happening in agriculture as well. There are fewer entrepreneurs getting into food, and that's a really big concern.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

What's the biggest policy recommendation that you could share with this committee, and vicariously with the government, about how we could change that investor environment to improve and increase the amount of investment in domestic food production?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I could share with the committee a report that we wrote with MNP. We're in a five-year collaborative contract with them. We publish a report every year on the exact point you're talking about. It's 120 pages. I can certainly share that report, and you probably would be able to get some answers. It's in French and English.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Yes, it would be wonderful if you could share that with us in both official languages.

This is my final question. Is there an impact of food insecurity on the resiliency of Canadians? Whether it's information resiliency or that type of thing, I just wonder if you could speak to the impacts of food insecurity.

[Sylvain Charlebois]

We're slowly seeing the emergence of a K-shaped economy. You have the poor and the rich, and the middle class is slowly being eroded. In fact, I just wrote an op-ed this week about that, using data from Statistics Canada showing that the middle, the 60% part, which is the middle class, is earning less compared to the top 20%, and the lower 20% is earning much less than 10 years ago. Without a stronger middle class, it's hard to innovate. It's hard to get entrepreneurs to be more interested in investing in agriculture in general.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Louis for six minutes, please.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate your being here today for the study that we're doing on civic resilience.

We had a panel previously, and that was focused quite a bit on the next generation and how we can build civic resiliency.

I know that, Ms. Leonard, you listened to it. Sometimes, when you're hearing a panel, you have ideas and wish you could comment, so I want to give you a chance to comment on anything that you might have heard in the last panel's discussion, something you might want to add to that.

[Niamh Leonard]

Yes, I think that not only do young people have a big stake in the future, but it's also an age where we have habit formation. I think, in terms of civic engagement and education, young people are, of course, a priority population. We know, for example, around “get out the vote” that, if young people vote or not in the first two elections in which they're eligible, that will determine whether or not they vote across their life. I think youth engagement is key. I think targeting young people is important for those two reasons.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

In your opening statement, the quote I wrote down was that you referred to civic resilience as “the distance between people and institutions”. At the end of our studies, we usually have to come up with a title, and I think I'm going to be pushing for that one right there. I do appreciate that.

Also in your opening statement, you strongly suggested public funding. The democracy fund has been brought up a number of times. It sounds like it's an arm's-length ranking and granting process. What governance model would be best to ensure that it remains non-partisan, that it remains transparent and that it remains insulated from any kind of political influence while still being accountable?

[Niamh Leonard]

The government has done this before in other contexts. I think, for example, of arts funding and other areas.

We've made two recommendations. One is the creation of the fund, and the second is a process through which to determine the governance, because I don't think we should have the answer.

I think that there are two pieces. One is defining well what the fund is going to be supporting exactly, if we're talking about civic education and how we define what that means to make sure that it's done in a non-partisan fashion.

The second, to your point, is the question of the governance. You can think in a more straightforward way about, for example, a board, and think about the composition of the board, but you can also think more generally and, for example, have participatory determination of funding, for example, so that the decision-making within the fund embodies the principles that it's trying to reach as well. I leave the details to a further consultation, but I think there's a spectrum of options, and I think that question of non-partisanship is absolutely key.

The reason we are asking for an independent and arm's-length funding mechanism is that I think there's a real risk that the idea of democracy and of civic engagement becomes politicized if it is perceived to be so. The organizations that are doing this kind of work for them are a key part. On the governance, I think we need to make sure to have broad consultation and get feedback on the framing of it to make sure that it reflects...and so that people with different ideologies are comfortable with it.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Yes, it sounds like you do support that it can be done in a non-partisan, transparent way.

Success leaves clues, and you talked about the EU and how they're investing in democratic resilience more than we are right here. Maybe we can learn from that. You referred to it as the democracy shield. Can you give some testimony to some best practices that you see in other countries, whether it be EU or elsewhere, that you think can be applicable here in Canada, something we can use and learn from?

[Niamh Leonard]

Yes. I can say a little more about the democracy shield. The democracy shield is the general pro-democracy strategy that the European Union is currently putting in place. It encompasses a few different things. For example, there are the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act and questions of policy and legislative reform.

It involves the creation of an EU centre for democratic resilience—I believe that is the name—and then there's the AgoraEU funding. Within that funding, there are three streams: media, culture and civic engagement. That is deployed to different countries across the EU. That represents about eight or nine billion euros, I think.

What we're recommending, if you compare it just to the civic engagement portion, is about a quarter—on a per GDP adjusted basis—of what the EU is currently investing in that area.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you. That's helpful.

In last minute I have, on your website you had different pillars of what you wanted to expand on. One was fostering diverse participation.

We've heard a bit about diversity already, but I wanted to focus on under-represented communities. You've said how you want to expand free, informed and meaningful participation in public life. We want to make sure that in Canada everyone has the same chances. In the time we have left, how would you expand on that pillar?

[Niamh Leonard]

Yes, absolutely. I mean, these are big questions, the questions of how we reach equality. Is it a question of form or is it a question of substance? I'm of the view that we have the law, and the law should be impartial, but the law lands in a society in which we have inequities.

For example, we can think of the Luamba case, which just went to the Supreme Court, around an officially neutral law of being able to stop cars without suspicion, and the impact that has disproportionately on certain populations. To me, the key part is making sure that any approach is determined by data and not by partisanship. For example—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'll have to cut you off there. I do apologize.

We'll go to Madame Normandin.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us. We are very grateful to them.

I'll start with you, Ms. Leonard.

Unfortunately, Mr. Louis stole some of my questions, but I do have another one.

During my time at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the then-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Gerald Connolly, was a strong advocate for setting up a centre for democratic resilience within NATO headquarters. You may have heard of that.

Do you think it would be appropriate to have this kind of initiative not only in all countries, but also locally?

Is there a risk of redundancy or would it instead lead to complementary initiatives?

You talked about distance between people and institutions as well as closeness to the ground. If there were also local initiatives, would there be more overlap or would there be better complementarity?

[Niamh Leonard]

I think it's essential that we work with our allies on these issues. Some countries had to deal with situations long before we did. They have been learning over the past few decades.

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here. These bodies can be used to share best practices and lessons learned. That would speed up our development.

Historically, Canada has been able to take our democracy a little more for granted. Not only do we need spaces for dialogue internationally, but we also need them at the national level, between the provinces, to ensure that learning, such as what Quebec learned about citizen participation, can be passed on to the other provinces and vice versa.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would still like to come back to the issue of non-partisanship.

As you mentioned, getting funding becomes counterproductive if the system seems partisan from the outside.

You talked about what is being done outside Canada, but I would like you to tell us more specifically about funding. You've put forward some ideas. For example, boards of directors or governance bodies could be set up that would enable decision-makers to determine which organizations would receive funding.

Do you have any examples of what is being done elsewhere in the world in terms of how to proceed with funding decisions?

[Niamh Leonard]

I don't really have any examples of what's being done elsewhere in the world.

At AgoraEU, for example, I don't know exactly how the funds are distributed and what the criteria are. In fact, it's still being set up, and I'm not sure they have the answer there either.

I think we have to look at the form of the technique. For example, in journalism, there is a code of ethics for what constitutes journalism. That kind of thing could also be applied to civic engagement.

When it comes to specific populations, I think it has to be rooted in data on under-representation and the demographics of certain populations. Elections Canada already does this for young people, newcomers and people with disabilities, for example.

In my opinion, when there are more targeted strategies, we really have to ensure that they are for populations that are under-represented in relation to their demographic weight.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I want to come back to the issue of funding. Money is always the crux of any organization.

I'll draw a parallel. In Quebec right now, the community movement known as “Le communautaire à boutte!” is talking about funding that is often non-recurring and unpredictable, which undermines some initiatives.

Would you prefer a permanent funding model, for example by operating on a mission basis, for organizations that work on democratic resilience? Would you rather adopt a project‑based funding model?

I'm thinking about a way to eliminate the partisan aspect of funding. If you have a budget forecast that covers a five-year plan, it could overlap election periods. There may be less of a perception that it is partisan funding.

Would that be something to consider?

[Niamh Leonard]

I think mission-based funding for organizations is critical. If everybody had mission-based funding, I think there would be a 20% increase in organizational capacity across the country.

That's what we do. We prefer mission‑based funding, but we also have project‑based funding for collaborative issues.

I think those details could be determined through consultation. I think resources also have to be allocated for networks and collaborative initiatives among organizations to ensure that the learning you talked about earlier can be applied.

Thank you.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

This is once again for you, Ms. Leonard. In the next round, I'll move on to other witnesses.

Could you tell me about the degree of collaboration among the various organizations that are working on democratic resilience?

That would be a way of preventing overlap in some cases. For example, one organization might receive funding, but not the other one, even though both do excellent work.

Should making funding well distributed among organizations be more of a priority?

[Niamh Leonard]

Yes, absolutely.

I am a source of funding. Our organization receives applications from people from a wide range of ecosystems. I'm really impressed with the degree of collaboration among organizations.

You heard that in the evidence given. Such conversations happen on a regular basis. I think it really comes from a sense of urgency and the fact that no one organization can deal with this on its own. It also means recognizing that collaboration is the only way to have a broader impact than we can have on our own.