Human Resources Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Just briefly, Mr. Chair....

To enlighten Ms. Ferrari, I grew up on a farm—I didn't just visit it; I grew up on a farm—so I think I understand that situation. If there's a concern about housing and it not going forward, I would invite her to come to my constituency. There are 400 apartment units that have gone up on Davis Drive, and we broke ground for an additional 600 apartment units that are now going forward because the GST has been waived and the business case makes it feasible for that apartment unit to go forward.

However, my question is this: If we have this information, what are we going to do? If we find out that there's a higher transportation cost for rural and northern areas, does that mean we're not going to supply food to schools in those areas? What are we going to do with this information? Why do you want to differentiate and exclude some remote communities, simply because the cost is so high?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thanks, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I could just get some clarity, please, I'm under the impression that we're looking at a PMB right now, that we're not looking at the government bill on the national school food program. I understand that with private members' bills, there's no spending attached to or allowed in those bills.

I would ask maybe our witnesses or even the clerk if they could just clarify what we're looking at today, because I think the Conservatives are confused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Does anybody want to take that question?

[Hugues Vaillancourt, Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Yes.

My understanding of the private member's bill is to develop a national framework—working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners—and to report back and table that report. I have a similar understanding. The bill, in and of itself, doesn't have program funding associated with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Zarrillo, is that the answer you were looking for?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's fine, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Falk.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's unfortunate that some members around this table don't know what we are actually doing today. We are going through a private member's bill to develop a framework. I would suggest that frameworks are the bones of something.

I wouldn't make the assumption, because I feel this government likes to consult in hindsight....

We've heard, especially on the disability benefit, that disability advocates and those with disabilities were not properly consulted, and nor were the provinces and the territories, which would follow up on the previous amendment by our colleague Ms. Chabot at this table.

With any common-sense piece of legislation we're looking at, we want to make sure that all of the areas are looked at. There have been a lot of points made.

Some of us sitting around this table represent large, rural ridings, where it takes four hours by vehicle just to get from one area to another. Some of our colleagues who are not around this table but are in this House have to fly to places. I think it's absolutely in order and it makes sense for us to be discussing transportation or to have the projection of transportation put in the bill, as well as the production costs of food, especially if this is the framework of the bill that the government wants to flag and advocate for as its national school food program.

I'll go back to the farming comments that have been made around this table. If that many members from every party in this place have been to a farm.... I have yet to meet a single farmer who supports the carbon tax. I have hundreds or thousands of farmers in my riding and whom I have met across this country, and I have yet to meet one who says, “Yes, government. Tax me more.”

I've received phone calls from farmers in a mixed operation. They have cattle and grain. They're running on no sleep, because cows don't come when you tell them to come. They're born when they want to be born, so the farmers are running on no sleep.

Bankers are calling and bills are due. I talked to one farmer who has to settle a $1-million bill. Do you know how much he's paying on the carbon tax, for which this government has shown no decrease in emissions? I don't know what's being done with that money. I know there's a lot of money that goes to consultants and to other scandals coming up with this government.

I just don't understand how this is a framework bill that is—again, as it was said by a few colleagues around this table—to feed children, which we are all on board with. We discussed this at the last meeting we had. Absolutely, children need to be well nourished, but if you are taxing the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food—Mr. Van Bynen, you can do this, but it's true—consumers and Canadians are the ones who are going to pay for it.

If we're looking at a bill that's going to supply food for schools and the taxpayer is paying for it, and the federal government is attempting to champion this, why would we not look at the transportation costs? It's just common sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

I have Mrs. Gray on her amendment.

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

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to point out that, again, this amendment is looking at transportation and production costs. We know this private member's bill is, basically, setting up a framework to put together a plan for a plan, which will then report on that plan.

What are you going to be reporting on?

It's been reported that this year, the average family is going to spend another $700 on food for their family. We know costs are going up. It includes the farm, but it also includes transportation and production costs, which are in the amendment. I think what we quite often forget is that not everything we consume is farm to table.

Quite often, farming products are turned into value-added products. I just had a group of business owners in my office the other day who are food producers. They take food from the farm and turn it into other products, and there are costs all along the way.

On April 1, the carbon tax went up 23%, and it affects the entire value chain. For us, a private member's bill that is, in fact, putting together a plan to not be looking at these kinds of things.... It really should. This opens up transparency and allows for a better analysis on the actual cost of food all the way along the value chain, and that's the intention of this particular amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further discussion, Madam Clerk, we'll call a recorded vote on the amendment of Mrs. Gray to clause 4.

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

We'll now go to a recorded vote on clause 4.

(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 5)

We'll now move to clause 5.

We have an amendment from Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move that Bill C-322, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following:

(1.1) The report must include a comprehensive breakdown of costs incurred under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act for each item of food provided under the school food program.

This goes back to looking at the cost of food and what is attributed to the cost of food. We know that inflation has been high. In fact, food inflation is higher than the actual inflation rate. This is important so we can better understand the costs that are going into the cost of food.

As I said earlier, the Canada's food price report, recently released, said that the average family will be spending $700 more this year on food. Since this private member's bill is to put together a plan, we should be looking at all aspects of the plan and the costs that are going into the plan. That can lead to how we might be able to mitigate some of those costs, so we think this is important to put into the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Ms. Ferreri, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we've put forward another amendment here. We're looking at the national school program put forward by the Liberals and the NDP. What we've seen in this committee today....

The Conservatives put forward amendments saying that we would like to add in reasonable, common-sense pieces of this legislation that ask, “How much does it cost? How much does it cost to transport the food? How much does it cost to produce the food?” That makes sense when you're budgeting for something. It's honestly the most common-sense thing. If I'm going to buy something, I want to know how much it is. We have a member on the opposite side saying, “Why would you want to know that? Does that mean you're not going to do it? Why would you want to know the costs?”

I'm sorry. Excuse me? There's something missing here, Mr. Chair. Through you, that makes zero sense. For this carbon tax, they told the people.... I've had this conversation multiple times. Canadians are pretty amazing people. They'll say, “You know what? I don't have a problem helping out. Tell me where the money is going.” You go to a grocery checkout and somebody says, “Hey, can you donate a buck or two for this cause?” Most Canadians will say, “Yes, where's my money going?” The Prime Minister told Canadians that the carbon tax was revenue-neutral. We now know that was not true. In fact, it's $1 billion that they've generated in revenue. Where is that money? Nobody seems to know, yet we've put forward amendments.

This is another one of their wonderful marketing schemes. “We're going to feed children. We're going to make sure the kids are fed, even though we put kids in the most food-insecure position they've ever been in, in history.” This is not dramatic. This is not rage farming. This is the worst it has ever been in Canadian history. Food Banks Canada says this has never happened, ever.

We put forward an amendment saying, “Hey, we are asking if we can make sure that, when this rolls out, we know how much it costs.” Guess what's going to happen? It's the exact same thing that has happened with housing and the exact same thing that has happened with child care. You are not going to have enough money because you are not budgeting. You are not accounting for where the money is going. Guess what? The kids are going to get zero food. Why? Because you do not know the cost before you. This is so simple, yet they are proud to sit on the other side and say, “We're not voting in support of any of these amendments.” Okay. Then what do you want here? You just want people to blindly follow you and say, “Yeah, for sure. I mean, that's great. Just take my money. Tax me harder.” Is that right?

I think this is exactly what they've done. It is Groundhog Day every day. They wade into provincial jurisdiction. They say, “We're going to come and save you. We're going to come and help you.” Then they pull it back. They turn the tap off and leave people high and dry. They've done it with child care. They've done it with housing. Now they're going to do it with this national food program, which will not feed any children.

Mark my words. Write this date down today. We will come back to this clip in a year, two years or three years, when every province is saying, “We don't have enough money. It's not feeding the children. It's not being disbursed properly. The gas charges are too high. Food production prices are too high. We didn't budget for this properly.” That is exactly what will happen if they don't approve these amendments and take this seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

We have Mrs. Falk, Mr. Aitchison and, I believe, Mrs. Gray.

Mrs. Falk.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

This amendment is saying that this report “must include a comprehensive breakdown of costs incurred under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, for each item of food provided under the school food program.” I think that's important also.

Just to break this down, there are families out there now at this time of year that are budgeting to see if they can go on a summer vacation, if they can take their kids to the lake, if they can go camping and if they can do these things. They're sitting down and having these conversations before they spend the money. They're literally making the plan to see if it can work.

This type of behaviour is expected of businesses. In order for a business to actually stay afloat, they have to know what their incurred costs are and what their projected expenses will be to know if they can stay in business or not.

This is the same with families. There are so many families that are having these very difficult, stressed conversations, which are then actually affecting the children, because they're carrying around this weight that their parents can't pay the bills. They hear them arguing about this. They hear the stress of, “Oh, we can't have that. We can't do this. We can't afford it.”

I would, at minimum, expect government to have the same thoughtful planning in this. At the end of the day, we already know that this NDP-Liberal government has riddled the next generations with debt. We know that. We know that my children and their children's children are going to be paying the debt that the NDP-Liberal government has incurred.

I would just think that, at minimum—especially for these kids—in the framework we would have a projection. The ironic part of this is who is going to be paying for it. It's the kids who are getting the food.

At a minimum, I just don't see why we wouldn't have this reporting in there, unless this NDP-Liberal government wants to continue covering up scandals and covering up where money goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Mr. Aitchison, go ahead on the amendment.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit, the arguments being made by my capable colleagues here about understanding how much money it's going to cost and the tracking are quite compelling.

I keep seeing a theme here, actually. I think back to some of the other things we've discussed in this committee, whether it's the homelessness strategy, where they weren't really measuring that.... These are the kinds of things that, unless you're able to measure them, you don't know if you're succeeding or not.

I had an epiphany. I realized that maybe, despite the fact that feeding children is obviously crucially important—we want to make sure that kids are nourished and they can learn—you always want to do it with the best value for dollar possible. I keep thinking back to this moment when the Prime Minister said that budgets balance themselves. Maybe the problem is that the whole team is infected with this notion that it doesn't matter how much money it costs, because it just doesn't matter, yet it does. I think this is why we're struggling a bit with why they are so opposed to this amendment.

If it's about carbon tax, and they're worried about what we might find out about what the carbon tax actually costs for the amount of food.... I can't imagine that they would be, because we keep hearing that people are better off because of the rebate. They take the money; they give them some back, and people are better off. If that's the case and if it is better, then I just don't understand why there's a problem with tracking the costs and knowing what we're spending.

I don't know. I'm just really perplexed at why they don't like tracking the costs of anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

Mrs. Gray, go ahead on your amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to be clear, this amendment talks about a comprehensive breakdown of costs incurred under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act for each item of food. This refers to the costs of the items.

We know the Liberals don't like looking at numbers. We know, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, that they don't like looking at the causes of their policies and how they have affected people. You can see why they don't want to support this, because they don't want to step back and do, as it says, a comprehensive breakdown of costs. They are not interested in looking at the causes and being transparent. They don't want to look at the numbers.

We know the carbon tax went up 23% on April 1. We know it's on track to go up 61¢ a litre, and we know that across the entire value chain for food—from the farmer, to transportation, to processing and operations, to transportation again, to warehousing, to retailing—there are costs incurred, and they don't want to analyze this. It's really obvious. They do not want to look into this.

Again, this amendment is to look at a comprehensive breakdown of costs. They don't want to do this. They don't want to look at the numbers. Forget the numbers. They'd rather just have a tag line and have a title. They don't want to break down and look at the causes of how things are affecting people, why the average family's food costs are going up $700 or why food banks and other not-for-profits are struggling because their costs are going up on what they have to buy. They don't want to analyze this. It's really evident that they don't want transparency and that they want to stay away from the numbers. It's more about photo ops.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I see no further discussion.

Madam Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote on the amendment of Mrs. Gray to clause 5.

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

(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That concludes the clauses, so we'll now move to the administrative part of the bill.

Shall the short title carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Shall the preamble carry?

Let's have a recorded vote on the preamble.

(Preamble agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Shall the title carry?

Let's have a recorded vote.

(Title agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. Cormier, did you have a question?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I think the clerk forgot me for the vote, but it's a yes for me.