Evidence of meeting #26 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
All right. On that basis, I move that the committee proceed to committee business, which would be a rubric under which I could move the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
That's a dilatory motion, so I must call the vote on the motion to move to committee business.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
We haven't dealt with the other motion, Mr. Chair.
Let us deal with the other one, and then we—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
It's a dilatory motion. Mr. Genuis moved a motion that the committee move to committee business. It's dilatory, and I must call a vote on it. If the vote carries, then the committee will move to committee business.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The motion to move to committee business has been defeated, so I'm going to return to the motion Ms. Koutrakis had on the floor so we can deal with it.
Madame Larouche has her hand up.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order.
I believe I still have the floor, and I have more things I want to say on the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
No, Mr. Genuis, you do not have the floor. You had the floor when you called the motion to move to committee business.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Could you add me to the list at the bottom?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
That's fine.
We are now back to the amendment of Madame Larouche.
Madame Larouche.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
We previously talked about four meetings on the issue of food assistance. I'm still going to let the debate take place. However, I am concerned because we are still debating. I have a small concern that I want to mention to the clerk. I will do so now and let my colleagues debate afterwards.
Last week, we got a letter from Minister Lightbound. It's important to mention that, especially today. The committee passed a motion calling for Minister Lightbound to appear along with officials as part of the study on the Cúram software. The committee agreed unanimously.
Today, I want to follow up with you, Mr. Clerk, so that you can reply to the department that the minister must come and testify. The department's letter didn't rule it out, but we were wondering whether the minister would be able to come and testify.
The minister is still responsible for the department's decisions and actions, whether or not he was in office when the decisions were made. In any case, all indications are that the cost overruns were authorized since he took office in May 2025.
The motion, which was passed here on February 5, was as follows:
That the committee invite the following individuals to testify for two hours each: 1. Ms. Patty Hajdu, Minister of Employment and Families, accompanied by officials; 2. Mr. Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement; To answer the committee’s questions about the Cúram software with the goal of developing a rapid and effective action plan to resolve problems in the processing of the Old Age Security, or OAS, benefit claims and to provide an update on past and future cost overruns; and that the ministers testify no later than February 26, 2026.
I'm just instructing the clerk to issue a reminder.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, but, Madame Larouche, we are on your amendment about the number of meetings for the food program study, which is currently being debated.
Mr. Genuis, please speak to the amendment.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my previous intervention, I made some observations about the context that has brought us here today—a really unfortunate context in light of what I had hoped would be some collaboration and goodwill in the first half of the meeting. This brings us to the consideration of the motion before us.
I've made the observation privately, and I'll make it publicly as well, that typically, there are two logical times to study a particular program or proposal. One would be before a decision is taken with respect to whether a program is going to proceed. If the government were considering whether or not to undertake a particular program, it might make sense for the committee to choose to study that program or to study, broadly speaking, a policy area and, in the process of that study, come to some conclusions and recommendations for the government about whether and how to proceed in that regard. Another logical time would be after the program has been in operation for a period of time—let's say a number of years. This would then allow the committee to evaluate the implementation of an existing program.
I would say that both kinds of studies would, in their own ways, be fruitful. One would study a hypothetical policy that hasn't yet been implemented, and another would study the implementation of a policy and how that implementation is or is not in alignment with objectives.
It is curious timing for the government to propose this particular study, because the government has—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Ms. Desrochers, you're welcome to get on the speaking list—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you. Things aren't as courteous as they usually are on a few fronts here at HUMA today. I'm sorry to see that, but I hope we'll be able to get things back on track shortly.
Where was I? The concept or implementation could be studied. The government has put forward this study at a time when the BIA includes legislation on the issue, proposing to make the program permanent. It's a program that's still, obviously, at quite a nascent stage. There isn't anything like a long-running implementation to study, but the government has also committed itself to a policy path. I'm curious about what, exactly, the objectives of the study are. It may just be that the government wants to congratulate itself for having announced something that, for all intents and purposes, it is in the process of bringing out.
Part of the context for this issue, I think, is the broader problem of food inflation. This is an issue we should be studying as part of the work of this committee—that is, the dramatic inflation in food prices we have seen. This is part of the context for why parents are struggling to afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. The Liberal response has been, “Well, we're going to ignore the context”, which is that more and more families are struggling to provide food for themselves and their kids. Instead, they're just going to focus on the announcement the government has made.
As Conservatives, we want to look at the root cause here: Why is food so much more expensive than it used to be in Canada? Canada's food price report for 2026 forecasts that overall food prices will increase by 4% to 6%. Food inflation here is double what it is in the United States.
Members will recall that Minister Patty Hajdu was before this committee recently. I asked her why food inflation in Canada is double that of the United States. Initially, she said it was tariffs, but she couldn't identify which tariffs. I think members know there are no tariffs targeting food. Then she went on to say that it was climate change. It's hard to explain how, because of climate change, food inflation is dramatically higher in Canada than it is in peer countries.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Ms. Desrochers is covering herself in glory with more heckles, it seems. I welcome her, as I said previously, to add her name to the list.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The food inflation this country is experiencing is very significant. It is causing a great deal of hardship for families across this country. It's not surprising to me that Liberals want to heckle a discussion on food inflation. Their excuses—their desire to blame exogenous factors—obviously don't hold water. They don't reckon with the fact that if there were exogenous factors, other countries would be affected by them as well.
What is clear is that Liberal policy decisions have led to a significant increase in food inflation. This is at the core of the challenges that families are experiencing with respect to affordability.
Liberal
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm feeling that my colleague across the way, right now, is misinterpreting the members of this committee. He's taking what we're doing within our purview.... They talked about administrative burden before, and—
Liberal
