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
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Genuis, you do not have the floor.
I would remind Madame Goodridge that the subject matter is Madame Larouche's amendment, which is on the number of meetings.
Are you continuing, Madame Goodridge, with the amendment on the number of meetings?
February 23rd, 2026 / 5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I will cede the floor to one of my colleagues. Thank you.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it amazing that the opposition is so opposed to any program that provides relief to Canadians, including the national school food program. I take offence at the member's statement that we are ignoring the struggles of Canadians, when Canadians know very well which party has been there for them with the dental care plan—it's funny that the members across are laughing—with the child benefit, with pharmacare, with child care and now—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
Not a single member was laughing. She claimed we were laughing.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
There was not a single member laughing.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
—the committee members back to relevance, which is Madame Larouche's amendment.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, on the point of order, we're supposed to be honourable members, and she was making a verifiably false claim about our response to something she was saying.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Madame Desrochers, you have the floor, but I'm going to be very clear—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I'm not finished.
I'm going to be very clear that the amendment being debated is on timing—on the number of days in the motion. Please restrict your comments to the amendment. Then we'll deal with the main motion.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
To the point of how many meetings we need in order to discuss the national school food program, I want to go back to the member who said that we waited too long to present this.
We've been trying to discuss this motion for the past three weeks. All the opposition has been doing is obstructing and preventing a discussion on the national school food program, including the number of meetings. It's preposterous for members to say that climate change and world events have no impact on food price. I don't know if there are farmers in any of my colleagues' ridings, but if you talk to them, I'm pretty sure they'll tell you that, yes, climate change and drought and all of those events do have an impact on food price.
I'll go back to the number of meetings. I do want to get to this. I do want to stay on point.
The member across is under a misconception that there is a big bureaucracy and administrative burden to the food program, even though this committee heard otherwise from witnesses during the study for the budget implementation act. The study we're proposing—this touches on the number of meetings—would allow us to shed light on whether there is actually a burden and whether there is a better way of administering it. However, we're not even allowed, we're not even able, to discuss and move forward with this study, unfortunately. We understand that the opposition is continuing to obstruct every initiative we are putting forward to help Canadians. It's just preposterous and very unfortunate.
On the number of meetings, I think Madame Larouche is proposing four meetings, perhaps. We agree to that. That's a good number of meetings.
I will stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Madame Koutrakis, go ahead on the amendment of Madame Larouche, which is on the number of meetings we would undertake for the study.
Please, all members, keep your comments to the number of meetings.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to remind our colleagues that there are three good reasons that it's time to study the school food program. One, Bill C-15, which is the budget implementation act, contains a section, division 36, that is dedicated to the national school food program. My colleague across the way said that typically before we study a piece of legislation, or it's passed through the budget, all the work has to be done before that, but what that means is that Parliament is already examining how a federal program should be structured and funded. Studying school food now ensures that committee recommendations can directly shape the bill before it becomes law.
School food programs are facing unprecedented demand—we've all agreed to that—due to Canada's cost of living crisis, which has dramatically increased the number of families struggling to afford food. Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, and my colleagues have voted against the budget.
As we discussed in previous meetings—thank you for the reminder, Mr. Chair, to get to the point—we initially requested many more meetings. We agreed to what Madame Larouche is proposing today as an amendment—four meetings—because this is an important study. We want to move forward with this study.
There is nothing preventing our good colleagues from the Conservative Party from inviting witnesses to come here and speak to inflation. It's just that we do not support expanding the national school food program study to get into the subject matter of food inflation, which is so much more broad.
As my colleague Madame Desrochers said, there are so many different factors. My colleague Ms. Goodridge said it's because of food inflation and the policies the Liberals have been putting in place for the last 10 years that food inflation is so high, and this is why we need a national school food program. Well, she herself testified that provinces already have national school food programs. For the years those food programs have been in place, is it because of food inflation, or to make sure that children don't go to school on an empty stomach and are given opportunities to learn without any stigma attached or discrimination such that everybody gets a good meal and children learn and provide us with their best selves going forward?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Bailey, I'm going to remind members that I'm going to get increasingly short when you stray off. Currently before the committee is the amendment by Madame Larouche to move from eight meetings to four meetings.
Mr. Bailey, you have the floor on the amendment, which is on the dates.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
I'm going to take myself off the list, but I'd like to be added back on the list after.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Was it Madame Larouche or Madame Goodridge?
Madame Goodridge, did you have your hand up?
Conservative
Bloc
