Human Resources Committee on May 30th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, committee members.

Welcome, everyone.

We will begin.

The clerk has advised me that the sound of everybody appearing virtually has been tested and is fine.

We have a quorum, so with that I will call to order meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I assume you've familiarized yourself with the new technology in the room. Before we begin, I would ask members appearing in the room to respect the translators by doing that. Please don't touch the microphone boom if you do not have to. As well, when you're not using the earpiece, please keep it in the assigned location to prevent feedback and sound popping that can cause hearing damage to the interpreters.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, with members appearing virtually as well as in the room.

You have the option of choosing to participate in the official language of your choice. For those in the room, translation services are available using the headset provided. For those appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your Surface and choose the official language of your choice.

If there's an interruption in translation services, please get my attention by raising your hand in the room. If you're appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon. We will suspend while it is being corrected.

Again, I would remind those participating to please direct any questions or inquiries through me, the chair. Wait until I recognize you before proceeding.

Pursuant to the order of reference of December 6, 2023, the committee is commencing its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program.

In case members have technical questions, we have with us today two officials from the Department of Employment and Social Development: Erin Gillespie, director, social policy directorate; and Hugues Vaillancourt, director general, social policy directorate. I understand that Mr. Vaillancourt has to leave at 9:30 to attend another committee meeting.

We also have with us this morning Mr. Cormier, the sponsor of the bill. He is replacing Mr. Long for today's meeting.

Now we will begin with the formal part of reviewing the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 and of the preamble are postponed until we get to the end.

We'll now go directly into the clause-by-clause.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 3)

We have an amendment.

Mrs. Gray, do you wish to move the amendment?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the following amendment, that Bill C-322 in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 3 the following:

(i) examine the applicability of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to food and the transportation of food sourced under the school food program and, where applicable, examine ways to exempt them from the application of that Act.

Mr. Chair, this really is about bringing down the price of food. We know that food costs have gone up. There was a very recent Food Banks Canada poverty report card that talked about the price of food and how much more families are paying.

We also heard at a previous study from not-for-profits—it was specifically from food banks, but this would really be for any not-for-profits that are serving food—as to how much their costs have gone up in terms of actually being able to serve the clients they serve.

This is a way of looking to actually bring down the cost of food and to analyze how that could be applied, both for the cost of the food and also for the transportation of the food that is utilized for a program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The amendment is in order to be tabled. We now will have a discussion on the amendment that has been moved.

I have Mr. Fragiskatos, on the amendment.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

With all due respect to our colleague, Mr. Chair, that's not the intent of the Conservative amendment here.

If it were the intent, the amendment would include—and actually it would be prominent in the amendment—a focus on climate change and its impact on the rising cost of food, which in fact is going down but has increased in recent years. We know, because of analysis after analysis, that climate change is the key factor in all of that.

It's no surprise, but I see nothing on climate change in the amendment. For that reason, our side will not support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there further discussion on the amendment of Ms. Gray?

Ms. Ferreri on the amendment.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to my colleague's point about climate change, farming being what it is and as challenging as it is, I think most of us have farmers in our riding, and we know that it determines the cost and availability of food for sure.

This amendment, however, is actually not prohibiting or hurting farmers in any way. In fact, it's probably helping them to do their job better and to make food more affordable, which is the basis of this bill: to allow children to have access to food in our cost of living crisis, as my colleague Ms. Gray has said.

Given the dire circumstances and the Food Banks Canada report card—we've never seen these numbers, ever, in history—I think this would be a very fair amendment. Perhaps our colleagues across the way would be open to something, but this is a very important amendment to help make food more affordable. I'm not sure why we're not getting support from the other side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

Seeing no further discussion, I'm going to ask the clerk to call a recorded vote on the amendment of Ms. Gray.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Seeing no further discussion, shall clause 3 carry? We will have a recorded vote on clause 3.

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We have a new clause 3.1.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, colleagues.

You won't be surprised by our amendment, which enhances the bill while respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In fact, the preamble to the bill reminds us that health and education fall under provincial jurisdiction, even though the debate surrounding this bill focuses on a national framework.

No one wants children to go to school hungry, to use the words being used to promote the bill. It's an important principle, and that's why Quebec has a school nutrition program.

I'm surprised that I'm the one who has to do this, but, to show that this subject falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, I'm going to quote from the Constitution of Canada. It's not my daily bedside book, but it's clear on the responsibilities of each level of government. It states in section 93 that “In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education…”.

Once again, in this bill, we have the wrong sphere of jurisdiction. That's why our amendment aims to add the following new article:

3.1 In recognition of the provincial jurisdiction with regard to health and education, the government of a province may choose to be exempted from any obligation that may arise out of the implementation of the national framework.

In other words, given that this is not an area of federal jurisdiction, it must be made very clear that the provinces will be able to opt out of any obligations that may arise from the implementation of this national framework. For us, it's fundamental to make this amendment to the national framework bill, otherwise the Bloc Québécois won't be able to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

As chair, my responsibility is to ensure that the committee proceeds according to procedures outlined by the House of Commons. Based on that, I must rule on all proposed amendments.

Bill C-322 provides for the development of a national framework to establish a school food program. In developing the framework, the minister consulted various stakeholders, including representatives of provincial governments. The bill does not provide for the possibility of a province being exempted from any obligation that may arise out of the implementation of the national framework. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition—adopted by the House of Commons—states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to the committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Therefore, for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible. No debate is allowed, but my ruling can be challenged.

Mrs. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to challenge the chair. I believe Ms. Chabot's amendment is very reasonable and....

Oh, no debate is allowed. Okay. I challenge the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

The chair's ruling has been challenged. You can vote on my ruling.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Calvert]

Members, the question is, shall the chair's decision be sustained?

If you vote in the affirmative, you're voting in favour of the chair's ruling. If you vote in the negative, you're voting against the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have an amendment on clause 4 from Mrs. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the following amendment, that Bill C-322, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 3 with the following:

ting out the national framework and that includes a projection of transportation and production costs that would be incurred by the school food program under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, and cause the report to

This aligns with the further amendment to look at costs that go into food that could potentially be used by a food program. The rationale is in order to look at how to bring down the cost of food.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The amendment is in order and is now debatable.

Is there any discussion on the amendment of Mrs. Gray?

Go ahead Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

This is something that I definitely see as a no-brainer, given the fact that our country is so big. There are areas of our country that are only actually accessible by air, and sometimes by ice roads in the wintertime.

It's important and sensible that transportation and production costs that would be incurred should be included in the projection cost. If this PMB were to pass, it would also give the opportunity for cost projections. Canadians would know what they're paying specifically for this school food program, even though we know that something like the carbon tax does cost Canadians more to feed their families.

This would provide transparency with the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Next, we have Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's no surprise, Mr. Chair, that my comments from CPC-1 also apply here. In fact, they will apply to the rest of Mrs. Gray's amendments.

They are incomplete, to be polite about it. If one is serious about dealing with the costs of food, one has to focus on climate change. There's no way around it.

To the point raised by Ms. Ferreri before, we've been to farms, even though we represent urban areas. I was at a bean farm a few weeks ago. We talked about climate change there. Climate change is the key factor when it comes to the rising cost of food. Any amendment that is serious will include that point.

I see nothing of the sort here. For that reason, our side will not support what has been proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Go ahead, Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just state that anybody who is in this place, who is serious about the price of food and the fact that food has become unaffordable for Canadians and for families to put on the table.... It's actually very naive and ignorant to not take into account the taxes that have been put on farmers by this Liberal government.

Our farmers sequester carbon in astronomical amounts in Saskatchewan. We know that. We know they are getting taxed at every end, basically from before seed planting all the way to production. That cost is then relayed to the consumer.

To state that this is about climate change.... It is absolutely foolish that these Liberals and the NDP are not recognizing what our farmers are already doing to sequester the carbon in the ground. It is absolutely foolish to not recognize that the carbon tax is costing Canadians in being able to put food on the table. I just think that is very foolish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Ferrari.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We're here today talking about the national school food program that the Liberals and NDP have put forward to provide food for kids. We have the highest usage in food bank history. One in four of those people accessing a food bank, which is two million people per month—we've never seen this, ever, in the history of Canada—are children.

The Liberals and NDP have put forward this bill. It sounds great. It sounds really good: Let's give kids breakfast; let's give kids access to food at school. As my colleague Ms. Chabot has said, nobody can disagree with that.

The problem is that, like every other bill they've put forward, the devil is in the details. That's been proven yet again by my Liberal colleague's comments. He had the audacity to respond today by saying, “I've been to a farm.”

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I've been to many farms.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

You said “a farm”. Good for you. I'm so glad you've been to a farm.

Do you know what? This is unbelievable. We have an amendment, put forward by my colleague Ms. Gray, that is doing the groundwork for accountability and transparency in terms of where money is going.

You have seen this over and over again with the Liberal-NDP government. You've seen it in housing: They don't build houses; they build bureaucracy. You've seen it in child care, and now child care facilities across this country are closing down because they cannot afford to stay open. They are going bankrupt because of the administrative fees in the agreement signed by the federal government. There wasn't transparency. There wasn't accountability. We tried to do that in this committee. We put forward amendments asking for transparency and accountability in terms of where the money is going.

This is taxpayer money. This is actually just asking how much fuel it is going to cost. When we live in the largest geographical country and have rural northern communities where kids are actually starving, this is a very reasonable amendment. If my Liberal colleague is so serious about visiting a farm and wants to know how they're doing, then add that in here. Let's negotiate. If they are serious about people going hungry, then change it.

However, this amendment is so common sense: Where's the money going? How is it being spent? How much money will actually feed children as opposed to paying for gas and the cost of producing the food?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Bynen, do you want to interject?

Then I have Ms. Zarrillo.