Human Resources Committee on Oct. 29th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Harrison.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today and sharing their expertise and time with this committee for this important study.

We'll suspend for a few moments while we transition to the last hour of the committee's agenda today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Members, welcome back for the second hour of the meeting.

I will briefly review a couple of topics.

Everyone has the privilege of participating in today's meeting in the official language of their choice. To those appearing in the room, please make sure that your earpiece is on and that you're on the channel that will give you the language you need to fully participate in today's meeting.

There's nobody appearing virtually.

If you have any devices, please put them on silent mode so they don't ring, and please refrain from tapping the boom. That's for the benefit of our translators. Please direct all questions through the chair, and wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

In the second hour, we have, as an individual, Dr. Rachel Engler-Stringer, professor, University of Saskatchewan. From the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, we have Ron Lemaire, president, and Sue Lewis, vice-president, marketing and events. From Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada, we have Erin Gowriluk, vice-president, government relations.

Each witness has up to five minutes.

If you're sharing, please advise me.

We'll begin with Dr. Engler-Stringer for five minutes.

[Dre Rachel-Engler Stringer, Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to speak.

I am a professor in the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan. I am one of Canada's leading school food program researchers and have become so over the last decade. I also have expertise in some of the most impactful school food programs globally. As one example, I led research showing just how popular school food programs are, with around nine in ten caregivers in our sample wanting their children to participate when quality universal programs are offered.

Back in the post-Second World War period, when Sweden established its universal school lunch program, that country had the foresight to create a program of longitudinal research alongside it. They can now say that free universal lunches have increased mothers' labour market participation by 5% and resulted in a 2.6% boost in permanent household income. They can also say that students that received nine years of universal free lunches have seen improved economic, educational and health outcomes throughout their lives, including 3% higher lifetime earnings—6% for children from the lowest-income households—compared to those who did not participate.

If we want to know the impacts of our new national school food program, we need an accompanying comprehensive program of research. Without efforts to create academic and practitioner collaboration, there will be missed opportunities to ensure that a comprehensive program develops alongside our national program. We need research on what existed before, along with research on how programs change with new funding and ways research can help support the continuous improvement of programming over time.

Coordinated research is critical to helping us understand what is and what isn't working, understand how to support programs as they grow, and encourage learning from the programs that are most successful. Already, emerging research has found that school food programs are using the new funding to improve the quality of food they are offering, to develop systems that can help reduce costs and to start new programs or offer existing ones to more students. Researchers are needed to study these processes to strengthen programming and to ensure consistency with best practices globally. The problem is that right now, there are no systems in place to ensure that this happens.

I was pleased to see the ESDC and PHAC-funded CIHR catalyst grants and FRESH team grants, which will support the building of strong individual school food research programs. However, stand-alone grants will likely have duplication, may leave significant gaps in knowledge and do not require communication and collaboration across teams.

We need research in areas as diverse as the impacts of local procurement initiatives in school food programs on the Canadian agri-food system, how programs support the food sovereignty of indigenous peoples, the long-term health effects of universal meals of good nutritional quality, as well as improvements in students' classroom behaviour and mental health. Each of these areas has already been studied in international contexts, and the evidence shows that these are positive effects associated with high-quality programs.

For example, even such fundamental elements as measuring participation and its changes over time are not carried out in the same way in every province, territory and indigenous government. You'd be surprised at how many different ways there are to measure something as seemingly simple as that.

This limits our ability to compare reported participation rates across jurisdictions and to determine whether these rates lead to improvements in health, education and economic outcomes, as has been observed in other countries.

We need to encourage communication and collaboration across research teams by organizing meetings for sharing of projects, ideas, research approaches and tools. That could be a funded research network, like others already in existence, such as the National Collaborating Centres, where universities, government and foundations together fund the work of creating a comprehensive, transdisciplinary program of school food research.

The investments don't need to be large, but they need to be sufficient to create a basic structure for carrying out this work. Funding for a research chair and/or other research staff, along with funding for holding regular meetings and collaboration opportunities are needed in order to be well-positioned to examine impacts comprehensively and to support evidence-based policy-making.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Engler-Stringer.

Mr. Lemaire, would you like to begin?

[Ron Lemaire, President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to appear today.

The Canadian Produce Marketing Association represents over 900 companies across Canada in the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, representing and responsible for over 90% of the fresh fruit and vegetable sales across the country, from farm gate to dinner plate. We appreciate the committee's examining of food price inflation alongside the national school food program, because these issues are closely connected.

Canadians need access to affordable, nutritious food. At the same time, the businesses responsible for growing and moving that food are operating in an increasingly challenging cost environment. Fresh produce is unique. It is highly perishable, frequently travels significant distances, requires specialized handling and refrigeration and flows within an integrated North American and global supply chain.

That means the costs associated with labour, transportation, fuel, packaging, energy, regulatory compliance and infrastructure can ultimately influence the cost of putting fruit and vegetables on the tables of Canadians. Our message to the committee is that food affordability policy must therefore look at the entire supply chain.

At the same time that our sector faces geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain disruptions and escalating severe weather events, we know that many Canadians are struggling with the cost of food. CPMA's consumer research on price perception has found that the steeper price spikes reported two to three years ago have given way to a feeling of a steady creep upwards. In the third quarter of this year, 8 in 10 Canadians reported seeing produce prices increase over last year.

Families simply cannot defer purchasing nutritious foods—unlike many consumer goods—when prices increase. They are adapting by visiting more discount stores and purchasing more shelf-stable frozen and canned fresh fruit and vegetables. If government wants to sustainably reduce pressure on food prices and enable the effective school food program, we need to examine the cumulative costs of bringing food from farms and distributing them to the consumer network while maintaining Canada's food safety, environmental and labour standards.

We should also be looking at the food distribution infrastructure. We believe that a resilient food terminal, food hub and efficient transportation corridor model, with modern distribution systems, should be considered as part of Canada's food infrastructure. Strengthening that infrastructure can improve resiliency and help reduce uncertainty in costs and disruption through the system. Food affordability is a whole- of-supply-chain issue and, increasingly, a food security issue.

I'll turn it over to my colleague, Sue Lewis, to talk to children's healthy eating and the school food program.

[Sue Lewis, Vice President, Marketing and Events, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Thank you.

When we talk about a school food program, we also need to consider access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food. Canada's national school food program provides an important opportunity to support children and families and encourage healthy eating from a very young age. Fragmented systems are part of the challenge to bringing fresh fruits and vegetables into our classrooms.

Our experience across the produce supply chain, including supporting the federal surplus food rescue program, tells us that a successful national program needs to consider more than simply purchasing food. We need to think about how food gets to schools; how it is stored; if the school has the necessary infrastructure to support the program; how frequently food needs to be delivered; how waste is minimized; and how schools can access seasonally appropriate and culturally appropriate products while maintaining variety year-round. There's also the consideration of who manages the program within the school, as this cannot be an add-on to a teacher's already crowded day.

Fresh produce presents a specific logistical challenge because it's highly perishable. Procurement systems therefore need sufficient flexibility to account for seasonality, availability, transportation distances and regional differences across the country. To support year-round healthy eating and availability of culturally appropriate food, this will have to include not only food we grow in Canada, but also products such as bananas, oranges and other easy-to-eat commodities that we cannot grow.

We would encourage the federal government to work closely with provinces, territories, school authorities and the food industry to make the program as efficient as possible with a connected national framework, and to ensure that healthy food reaches children without creating unnecessary administrative costs or food waste.

There is also the educational opportunity. Providing children with fruits and vegetables is important, but helping them understand food, food skills and where their food comes from can have benefits that extend well beyond the school day. That matters, because fruits and vegetables help reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and some chronic diseases, yet we know that almost 80% of Canadians are not eating their sufficient servings a day. Low consumption costs Canada a lot of money: close to $8 billion a year in health care costs. Building healthy habits early is an investment in children's health.

[Ron Lemaire]

In closing, we have four recommendations.

Address food affordability through a “whole of supply chain” lens: transportation, fuel, labour, regulatory and infrastructure costs.

Recognize food distribution, transportation and storage infrastructure as critical components of the food security strategy.

Look at the national school food program and recognize fruit and vegetables as core components and provides the flexibility to add infrastructure to the regions and the system.

Finally, encourage Canada's food industry to work directly with government to make this all possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Lemaire and Madam Lewis.

Madam Gowriluk, go ahead for five minutes.

[Erin Gowriluk, Vice President, Government Relations, Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you very much for the invitation to be here.

Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada represents companies that make and distribute the everyday products that Canadians find on grocery store and pharmacy shelves. Our sector employs more than 350,000 Canadians across 10,000 facilities and transforms close to 40% of Canada's agricultural output into value-added products.

Our contribution today will be focused on food affordability and Canada's ability to supply Canadians with everyday essentials year-round.

Earlier this week, your committee heard about households struggling to afford nutritious food, particularly in rural and indigenous communities. Food security is about more than grocery prices. We have learned that housing, heating, transportation and other everyday essentials all affect what families have left to purchase food.

Affordability also depends on Canada's ability to process, manufacture, package and distribute the food Canadians rely on every day. When FHCP appeared before the House's agriculture committee in June, we argued that domestic food manufacturing should be treated as a strategic national infrastructure. That remains our message today. Improving food affordability requires us to look at both sides of the equation: household budgets as well as the cost and capacity of supplying food in Canada.

With that in mind, I would like to offer the following three observations.

First, grocery inflation has cooled, but groceries have not become more affordable. Statistics Canada reports that grocery prices rose 1.7% year over year in September, the smallest increase since May 2024, yet grocery prices remain 33% higher than they were in September 2020. Families are still absorbing those increases, and targeted support for households facing hardships remains important. We also cannot assume that the recent easing will continue. Energy and transportation costs take time to work through the food supply system. Every product on a grocery shelf has travelled by diesel, often several times. Over the past year, the average price of diesel in Canada has risen by almost 100% to more than $2.67 per litre.

That is why FHCP has joined six other national food system organizations, including Ron Lemaire's group, in calling for temporary relief on diesel and marine diesel used in food production, manufacturing, warehousing and transportation. It is a practical way to ease pressure across the supply chain and help limit further food inflation.

Second, Canada eats on a northern calendar, so domestic processing capacity matters. The government's national food security strategy notes that imports supply 88% of the fresh fruit and nuts that Canadians consume and 72% of vegetables. Frozen, canned and otherwise preserved foods extend the harvest, reduce spoilage and keep nutritious options available throughout the year. Domestic manufacturing connects Canadian farms to households, institutions and schools. We therefore welcome the strategy's focus on expanding processing capacity and capturing more value from what Canada grows.

Third and finally, make food affordability an explicit test of federal policy. Tariffs on food inputs and overlapping regulatory requirements can increase the cost of producing food in Canada. We welcome the government's new cabinet directive on regulatory competitiveness and red tape reduction and its emphasis on competitiveness, coordination and reducing unnecessary burdens for businesses. Government should also consider food affordability when developing new regulations or trade measures, including the combined cost of new requirements and opportunities in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.

This is not about lowering Canada's strong food safety standards. It is about supporting affordability, competitiveness and a resilient Canadian food manufacturing sector.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Gowriluk.

We will begin with Madam Kramp-Neuman for six minutes, please.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here this afternoon. I think I'm going to address most of my comments towards our last witness, Madam Gowriluk.

Thank you for your testimony. I think it's fair to assume and agree that most Canadians believe that we should be doing more than just growing food here and shipping it somewhere else to be processed. There's a real opportunity to strengthen Canadian manufacturing, creating good jobs and building a more resilient food supply chain. In real talk for families that are struggling with grocery bills, the question is, how can we translate that into lower prices at the grocery store?

When I was doing some background work on your association, I was super happy to hear the advocacy when it came to Canada-U.S. trade. I read a particular op-ed by Michael Graydon. I'd like to share the part of it that stuck with me and which I think is relevant for this study:

Canada has enormous advantages. We're a global agricultural leader, with abundant natural resources, sophisticated research institutions, talented workers and access to major markets. Yet too often our economic model stops too early in the value chain. We grow it here and ship it somewhere else. Someone else processes it, manufactures it, builds the brand and captures much of the value.

Our ambition should be different: Grow it here. Process it here. Manufacture it here. Brand it here. Then sell it to the world. That isn't protectionism. It is smart economic policy. It creates higher-value jobs, strengthens communities, increases exports and makes Canada more resilient.

What I'm not seeing in that statement is what this shift would do for the affordability of food itself. I'm hoping that you can speak at the macro level as to how greater domestic food processing manufacturing and processing would actually affect food. Ultimately how can we make sure that a stronger Canadian food industry also means lower prices at the grocery stores for Canadians?

[Erin Gowriluk]

When you link the combination of affordability and domestic production I think it really depends on the product in terms of whether or not that makes the product more affordable.

The first stop in this conversation I think is around our objectives with respect to food security. We've observed some of the volatility more recently, certainly in the last two years, with respect to the trade war that's taking place between Canada and the United States. Canadians, I think, are preoccupied with the idea of having more of those products that they rely on every single day consistently available on store shelves in Canada. That goes to the extent that we can increase production here in Canada and ensure consistent availability to those products.

With respect to what's happening between Canada and the U.S. and the vulnerability that we see price becomes a consideration, for example, if a tariff were to be applied to that product when it was crossing the border from the United States into Canada. However, I think primarily the focus on this would be around availability. Will that product continue to be available if we face challenges? This means decreasing the vulnerability of the Canadian market to ensure consistent product availability.

To your second question, I think we've heard that from a number of witnesses on this study specifically throughout the course of the week, and that's the economic impact and jobs. How do we ensure that more of that value that's being added to those products is being added in Canada versus elsewhere? When we increase overall domestic production in Canada, we create jobs and we make a greater contribution to the Canadian economy.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Back in August, the FHCP released a statement signalling apprehension about the suspension of the Canada-U.S. trade talks, citing the effects it would continue to have on food affordability. To follow up from your answer, I'm interested to hear your perspective on the recent good news coming out in the media that Canada and the U.S. appear to be making headway on this issue. Within the context of food affordability, what do you think about this, and what are you hoping to see come out of the negotiations?

[Erin Gowriluk]

What I will say with respect to the decision that was taken in August is we were pleased to see that the majority of the tariffs that were applied to various Canadian sectors for the most part did not have a significant impact on our members and the everyday essentials that Canadians rely on. There were a few tariff codes that were that were impacted and those for the most part have been eligible through the remissions process. We haven't seen as a result of the decision that was taken in the tariffs that were applied subsequently a significant impact on the everyday essentials on which Canadians rely. That was repeated with respect to the government's response in the form of countermeasures as well.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Lastly, what specific issues have your members raised as domestic barriers to increasing our production here in Canada? If you have asks for this committee, what would they be? If the federal government could remove just one barrier, what would it be?

[Erin Gowriluk]

I think what we're hearing consistently is that our members need to make those significant investment decisions to either increase productivity in Canada, where they already have a presence, or attract new investment from companies that operate in multiple countries. We want to attract that foreign investment to Canada. How do we make this a more attractive place to do business?

I would suggest two potential solutions. I think we've heard from the government, and we've seen evidence of that movement in the right direction, with respect to some of the recent announcements that have been made around the cabinet directive that was issued on October 21, around the commitment to reduce the burden of regulatory red tape, as well as Bill S-7, the bill that was introduced in the Senate, around the reduction of red tape. Create a regulatory environment that positions Canada as being more competitive and more affordable. Reduce the burden associated with regulatory red tape.

The second piece would be that in addition to the conversation we're having around making Canada more competitive, let's apply the same lens to tax policy in this country. Let's have a conversation about the application of tax policy and making Canada a more attractive place to do business.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Kramp-Neuman.

Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the witnesses for contributing to the development of public policy.

Ms. Lewis, this past Tuesday, we heard from a witness who recommended group purchasing as a way to reduce costs for food banks and school caterers. What do you think about that recommendation?

[Sue Lewis]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last part of that question?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

On Tuesday, we heard from a witness who recommended group purchasing to lower the costs for food banks and, above all, for school caterers. What do you think of that recommendation?

[Sue Lewis]

[Inaudible—Editor] to recover the costs from the students and the families?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes.

[Sue Lewis]

We support a universal program. That may not look exactly the same in each school. Some students or some families may be in a position to contribute, but we strongly encourage that the mechanism be that the program is universal, that all students can partake of it and that there is no stigma attached to any student who chooses to have food at school.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'll continue along the same lines.

Can you tell us how the federal government is working with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners to ensure the effective implementation of the national school food program and to build on the initiatives already in place?