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.