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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Genuis, please stick to the subject matter of the motion up for discussion.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm not sure Ms. Fancy disagrees with my point. Disagreeing is not a point of order, but she's welcome to disagree.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Order, members.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor on the subject matter of the motion. Stick to that particular subject matter.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
This is a motion dealing with the school food program. At the heart of the discussion around the school food program is the problem of food inflation and the fact that food is becoming more and more expensive under the Liberal government. Food inflation is creating a situation in which families are more desperate. Having more federal bureaucrats involved in overseeing programs at the provincial and local levels is not going to address the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem is—
Liberal
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Could my colleague stop talking about other topics, Mr. Chair?
I don't want us to waste time talking about other things. He needs to speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Genuis has the floor, and he's on subject.
You have the floor, Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair, for that confirmation.
I want to share some other quick facts regarding how Liberal policies have led to food inflation and why food inflation is a critical aspect that we need to be looking at as part of this discussion.
“Canada's Food Price Report” for 2026 forecasts that “overall food prices will increase by 4% to 6%.” The average family of four is expected “to spend up to $17,571.79” on food in 2026. I guess that's double for the average family of eight, for those in my situation. That's “an increase of up to $994.63 from last year”, so close to a $1,000 increase in food prices year over year that families are facing. Also, food prices are “27% higher than they were five years ago”.
The price of beef soared in 2025, with a 19% increase in the first quarter of 2025 alone. This stabilized in later seasons, but prices are still up 23% from the five-year average. Canadian food prices in January 2026 soared 7.3% over January 2025 according to Statistics Canada.
We have seen massive increases in food prices that are really biting. Parents I talk to don't actually want the ever-expansion of state involvement in their lives and those of their children. They want to go back to an economic situation in which a larger number of families were able to afford to provide for their kids themselves.
We are becoming a country where it is harder and harder for families to provide food for their kids. A Liberal solution is more government intervention in their lives, in particular more federal government intervention, in an area that is, I think, more properly managed at other levels of government and is certainly administered at other levels of government. This is a choice the government is making, which is to make it harder for families to afford food and to therefore say the government will take over that function. We think most Canadians would like to be in a position where they can afford food themselves.
As part of any consideration of this matter, our view is that food inflation is an important component of the study. As I've said, after talking to colleagues off-line—and I'll underline it here on the record—we would be happy to do a fulsome study that looks at issues around food inflation, as well as the school food program. The government can offer more federal government involvement as its solution to the problem of escalating food costs, but we're going to propose reversing the Liberal policies that have driven up food costs in the first place. Conservatives are pushing for policies that will lower the price of food so that families can afford food themselves, and we're happy to have that debate in the context of a study.
I think an important question, as the consideration of this motion unfolds, is whether the Liberals are open to including, as part of their study, consideration of the issue of food inflation. I would be happy to work either officially on the floor of the committee or informally off-line to try to come to a consensus. We think the issue of food inflation, and linked to it some of the programs the government has put forward to try to respond to food inflation, could be a legitimate area of study. However, to not consider food inflation as part of this study would be missing a critical piece of the pie—no pun intended.
Chair, I want to make some comments about the other motions before the committee in terms of prioritization, but I know a few other members have their hands up. If you can add me to the list at the bottom, I'll give other members an opportunity to weigh in.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I do have a speaking order. Before I go to it, I just want to focus members on the discussion.
We are discussing the motion of Madame Koutrakis, as amended by Madame Larouche. The discussion is on the amendment of Madame Larouche to the motion of Madam Koutrakis.
We have a speaking order. I have Ms. Goodridge, and then I have Ms. Desrochers, Ms. Koutrakis and Mr. Bailey.
We have Ms. Goodridge on the amendment of Madame Larouche.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The conversation we're having is so critically important. When you start looking at this, you see that 10 years ago families didn't struggle to feed their kids, by and large. Ten years ago, there weren't millions of kids using food banks. We're in a circumstance, a situation, because we've had out-of-control food inflation. The solution from the Liberals was to nationalize a school food program and create a bureaucracy here in Ottawa to put into play what has been, up to this point, primarily in provincial jurisdiction.
The piece that is fundamental here is that even in these spaces that are in provincial jurisdiction.... For me, as a former provincial member, I believe that respecting jurisdiction is incredibly important if we want to move forward on things that are logical and make sense.
I've said it before at this committee and I will repeat it. In my province of Alberta, the province I come from, we've had a school food program for decades. One of the challenges, and the challenge that I hear—whether it's from families in Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Lac La Biche or particularly Fort Chipewyan in the far north of my riding—is the inflation they are feeling and how that is impacting their groceries.
When I was first elected and became an MP, I would come to Ottawa. I would go to the grocery store. The closest grocery store to the place we found to rent was the.... Of course, now I can't remember the name of it, but it was a very expensive grocery store. In coming from northern Alberta, when I went to that grocery store, I thought it was really cheap. I was ranting and raving about how lovely the produce was and how I found it to be wonderful.
When I was chatting with some of my Ontario colleagues, they were saying that it was the most expensive grocery store and that I should go a few blocks farther, where I'd get to a much cheaper grocery store. My husband and I realized that there was a much cheaper grocery store just a few blocks farther, and we started doing that.
This just goes to show that food inflation actually ripples. What we are—
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
It is absolutely relevant, and I'm just getting to the point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The debate is on the amendment by Madame Larouche, which is on timing—on the number of meetings. I would ask those speaking to stay in order and focus on what's before the committee. At this time, it's the amendment by Madame Larouche, which references timing.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you.
The reason I was talking about this is that it goes to the piece of the amendment by Madame Larouche to lower the meetings from eight to four. This entire process of a school food program is primarily in provincial jurisdiction. Respecting that this program has just been announced and isn't necessarily in application all across Canada, perhaps having an eight-meeting study right now is a bit proactive.
The reason I was talking about inflation and the difference I saw at the grocery store here compared with the grocery stores in my riding is that it's really easy for people to see numbers and see things where.... For example, 80.6% of Canadians say that food is their top expense pressure. We have—
February 23rd, 2026 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Chair, I think that is completely relevant.
One of the reasons we need a school food program is that the government has allowed food inflation to go so ridiculously high that families can't afford to put food on their own table—
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
We are not talking about food inflation right now. We're talking about the study on the national school food program.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madame Desrochers.
I would again remind members that currently we're debating the amendment by Madame Larouche, which moves to reduce the number of meetings on the subject. Please focus on the amendment on the floor, which is on timing.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
They don't like it when we talk about food inflation, and they don't like it because they don't want to admit that that's why they have come up with this plan.
Conservatives fundamentally believe that we should be confronting the food affordability conversation. The fact that we would moving this down to four meetings.... Part of the amendment, I believe, is about the fact that this is within provincial scope and jurisdiction. It's very frustrating that the members opposite do not want to acknowledge that this is done by provinces and should be done by provinces, because the provinces run schools.
I come back to this fundamental piece: If we are not actually looking at the concept of the inflation of food, we are missing the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem isn't that schools need food; it's that kids are hungry. Kids could be less hungry if food were easier to get. It is so ridiculously frustrating that the members opposite refuse to consider that this might be part of the conversation.
I would recommend that members around the room vote for the amendment by my colleague Madame Larouche, because this is a space where Liberal members want to do something so they can talk about how proud they are of all the money they've committed to spending.
The reality, however, is that we have so many kids lined up at food banks. One in three kids is using a food bank in Canada right now. There are 2.2 million food bank uses in a month, and 33% of those uses are by children. This is very concerning. This is not just a statistic. These are kids who are going to school hungry. These are kids who don't have food to eat in general. These are parents who are skipping meals so their kids get food.
This is so much more complex than just creating a temporary solution and looking at the national school food program. My biggest argument is that we need to truly break this into a piece.
I come from a background of health and safety. In health and safety, you can fix a problem at its end, or you can fix the root cause of the problem. If you fix the root cause of the problem, the problem doesn't regenerate.
What the Liberals have proposed so far—and what they want to study—is to look at something down the line. It is potentially a solution, but it does not actually address the root cause of the problem. They're not aiming to. That is terrifying to me, and I think all Canadians should be terrified.
We're in this unique space of having out-of-control food inflation that is twice as high as what we see in peer jurisdictions, like the United States and Europe, in part because our government keeps spending taxpayer money. The more money it spends, the more that inflation goes up. The more that inflation goes up, the harder it is to buy food. The harder it is to buy food, the more the government has to spend to provide programs like this. Then it becomes a cycle.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
On a point of order, can we get back to the motion, Mr. Chair?
