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
You can add me to the list, though, again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
That's fine.
I have Mr. Bailey, Ms. Fancy, Ms. Goodridge and then Mr. Genuis on the amendment of Madame Larouche.
Mr. Bailey, you have the floor.
February 23rd, 2026 / 5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm new to the committee, but if you're going to do a study, you can't cut it short; you must go to the root cause. Being in the health committee, I'm questioning whether some of the topics that some of our colleagues were discussing wouldn't be better handled by another committee, but that's my own opinion.
When we start talking about proper food handling, salmonella and things like that—
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
I'm speaking to the number of meetings. If you want to discuss this, you cannot cut them down to four when you're bringing up things like nutrition and talking about kitchens and how food is going to be prepared. I don't know if you're familiar with the outbreak of salmonella that happened in Alberta. I think these things need to be discussed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Bailey, we are on the amendment, which is about going from eight meetings to four.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
That's the debate. Does the committee want a study of four meetings or eight?
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
As I said, I'm new to this committee, but I believe you need to be looking at over eight meetings.
When I start to consider all the health aspects of the food lunch program, I am considering nutrition, the proper handling of food and the actual kitchens. After what we learned in Alberta about the salmonella outbreak, you really need to consider having extra meetings.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Next we have Ms. Fancy, on the amendment of Madame Larouche.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The educator in the room finally gets to speak on the program we have.
I think the Conservative Party politicizing—
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
—the number of days within this meeting and politicizing feeding students is absolutely shameful. I will discuss what my colleague across the way, Mr. Genuis, said on the need to do a further study about food inflation and the need to do another study about—
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I was going to give you a positive there, Mr. Genuis, by letting you know that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Order to both.
Again, committee members, the amendment is clear in this debate. Does the committee want eight meetings or four for the motion of Madame Koutrakis? The debate will stay solely on eight meetings versus four or I will move to the next speaker.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I would like to add something in regard to going from eight meetings to four, which we are very positive about and supportive of. To speak to what my colleague across the way said about having too many other studies and about the food inflation study, we have to remember that the Prime Minister just announced new measures to make groceries and other essentials more affordable for Canadians. He did that a couple of weeks ago.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Fancy.
I'm now moving to you, Ms. Goodridge. You're next on the list and you're not at the table.
I'm moving to Mr. Genuis, totally on eight meetings versus four.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I think we could look precisely at the measures the Prime Minister announced as part of a study of food inflation. My understanding is that you guys are not interested in having that happen.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
We're on the amendment, Mr. Genuis. I already cut off other speakers. If you don't...we'll go to Madame Larouche and we'll vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The amendment proposes that the committee devote a minimum of four meetings to this study instead of eight meetings. As the study as currently proposed is to be only on this one particular program and the government seems to be allergic to a discussion of the root causes, I think the reduction is warranted. I don't know that eight was ever really a serious proposal anyway.
Having said that, a study with more meetings, if the discussion were about food inflation, might be warranted on this broader topic. I think the question of whether food inflation is considered part of this study does play out in terms of the number of meetings we set.
What I would like to know procedurally is whether I can move a subamendment that deals with a different section of the motion if it relates to the same subject matter or subject matter that I see as being related to the point under consideration.
I wonder, Chair, if you can clarify that, because I would be interested in moving a subamendment that brings in the concept of food inflation, but I don't know if I can. Does the subamendment have to change the word “four” in some way or can it be related?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Any subamendment has to relate to the amendment by Madame Larouche.
