Human Resources Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that?

I could also ask Ms. Webb this question as well. We can come back to that.

In your case, Ms. Barry, what mechanisms could be put in place to help you? You touched on this a bit in your opening remarks.

[Judith Barry]

Yes, absolutely.

When we talk about coordination mechanisms, we have to make sure we have things like round tables where all sectors of society are represented, so as to align efforts. We must also ensure that the resources and investments provided by each do not duplicate those of the others, but rather enhance and complement them.

There are also local procurement and local agriculture strategies to be put in place. That can't happen without coordinated efforts and without partners coming up with a common vision.

So, in the long term, we really hope that there will be those kinds of mechanisms, like national advisory committees and, at the provincial and regional levels, working committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

We have Mr. Genuis for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I want to probe this issue of the federal government's involvement in these programs. I understand why people involved in delivering these programs would love to see more money from the federal government, but I'm talking specifically about administrative involvement in the programs.

The federal government is not involved in the delivery of education. It is not involved in decisions about running schools, laying out schools or the curricula. I could see why people might want to make a case for saying that there should be an increase in transfers to provincial governments and then to school boards for programs they deliver. I could see why people involved in this kind of work would want to make that argument, but I don't really understand why it would be desirable to have the federal government involved in, specifically, the administration of these kinds of programs, things like monitoring, evaluation and decision-making. Aren't these the sorts of things that are best left to decision-making at the local level?

[Carolyn Webb]

I can start on that. Since we were established, over the past 10 years, we've been speaking to this as a health intervention for kids that takes place in a school setting, because we know health benefits are so rich for the physical and mental health of our children and youth.

In terms of making sure that programs are monitored, it is very valuable to understand what the impacts of these programs are to be able to grow them.

Then in terms of how—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry. I'll give you the floor back but, I mean, it happens in an education setting. You've described it as a health intervention, but even health interventions are typically administered at the provincial level. It's not obvious to me why, as an education, a health intervention or both, the federal government directing aspects of implementation makes any sense when you have school boards present that are engaged in activities that are designed to benefit the health as well as the education of students. These programs could be supported through an increase to provincial transfers in general. Why specifically does having public servants in Ottawa involved in reviewing and directing on top of what's happening at other levels make the system any better?

[Carolyn Webb]

My understanding is that the federal money is given to provinces and territories to implement and supplement their own programs and that it can be used in the way they deem best. On the big question about civil servants in Ottawa, my understanding is that the monitoring and evaluation is really to see the impact from the federal perspective. It was designed so that the provinces and territories could do whatever seemed most relevant to their context and situation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Is the program just an increase in transfer to the provinces, or does it involve hiring additional people here in Ottawa to make decisions about what interventions should and should not be supported?

[Judith Barry]

That question shouldn't be for us. I'm sorry, but I think it should be—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm asking how the program works from your perspective, though.

[Carolyn Webb]

To my understanding, the money is mostly transferred to provinces and territories. I don't know about hires within the federal government here.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Do you think it would be better if it were all transferred to the provinces and territories, with zero money spent on hiring new public servants and all the money spent on transfers to the people who are already doing it on the front lines?

[Judith Barry]

I think it's important to remind ourselves that we believe this is a multi-dimensional program by nature. We need all sectors and all stakeholders to be much more involved, because you're right, there is clearly—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Sorry. I am running out of time.

I guess I still don't really understand having an additional group of public servants in Ottawa who are reviewing and sending directions and suggestions to people in my riding who are already delivering these programs. How in the world does that improve the effectiveness?

[Judith Barry]

We think it would improve efficiency if we gathered stakeholders and ensured that some mechanism was in place to monitor and really support efficient, impactful programming. We believe civil society can help that, because we—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Civil society can do it, then. This is a question about the federal government's involvement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Next is Madam Koutrakis for five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today. Thank you for your important testimony on this very important subject matter.

I think everyone around this table, regardless of party stripe, will agree that sending children to school hungry in the morning is not the way in which this G7 country should be looking after its young. If we want young talent and bright talent to continue in this country, I think it's the responsibility of all levels of government to ensure that the funding is there to make sure we have a program like the national school food program.

Beyond the direct benefits for children, what evidence or experience have you seen regarding the broader economic benefits of school food programs, particularly their impact on household purchasing power, such as reducing food costs for families, as well as benefits for communities and public systems more generally?

Either one of you can answer.

[Carolyn Webb]

I can speak to what I have heard about the school food programs, not necessarily for families but in terms of a system. It increases the bulk purchasing power of those schools and those programs to really support more food to be purchased for each dollar. You can say that it's more efficient for purchasing food, which does relieve the costs on families themselves. I'm not sure if that addresses the point you're trying to make, but yes, we've certainly heard about the efficiency.

It's pretty amazing, what some folks are doing. In a Maskwacis, Alberta, community program, they've bought an apple orchard, or half an apple orchard or something. They ship the apples and have cold storage systems. They're really supporting those local farmers and systems in that, because you have the bulk. My back-of-the-napkin calculation says that about 7% of meals—I might be wrong—are eaten in schools. That is a lot of purchasing power.

It is pretty exciting. We'll put this plea out to everybody here: Think about what we can do with that. It's pretty wonderful to support our local economies and local producers and really bring that to kids and help them understand those connections.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you so much for this.

Based on this answer, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the implementation and long-term permanence of the national school food program, as made permanent and funded in budget 2025;

that the study examine the design, governance and delivery of the program, including the division of roles and responsibilities between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the funding model and metrics used to measure outcomes, efficiency and long-term sustainability, and the mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability;

that the study explore the impact of program permanence on achieving equitable access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food in schools across Canada, with particular attention to children in low-income, indigenous, northern, rural and remote communities;

that witnesses include, but not be limited to, representatives from the Coalition for Healthy School Food, Breakfast Club of Canada, La Tablée des chefs, indigenous organizations, and public health and nutrition experts;

that the committee devote a minimum of eight meetings to this study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Mr. Chair, we have also sent a copy to the clerk in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you putting it on notice, or are you moving it for debate?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I'm moving it for debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Genuis.