Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a simple question.

When the Liberals were in opposition they criticized the Harper targets and said that they were not high enough, that it was irresponsible, and that they would not accomplish anything. However, they are using the exact same targets and the plan has not changed.

How can a plan that was irresponsible and not ambitious enough all of a sudden be acceptable to the Liberals?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, targets are a starting point.

What we saw with the previous government was targets with no plan. In this case, we are putting in a plan and we are looking at the floor level being the targets that were previously put in place. We are going to break through that and achieve who knows what, as long as all provinces and territories are on board. We do know that it will be a minimum of the targets that we set.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-231, An Act to establish National Food Waste Awareness Day and to provide for the development of a national strategy to reduce food waste in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fight Against Food Waste Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on this question, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth had four minutes remaining in her time for her remarks. We will go to that now.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for raising two important issues in this place: food waste and food insecurity.

Food waste is an important issue when we consider its environmental impact, and food insecurity is something that must be dealt with because everyone needs access to healthy food to survive. I agree these are important issues to address, but the problem with the bill, and the reason I cannot support it, is that it draws a link between food waste and food insecurity. That is not the proper way to seek solutions.

There are two issues. First, there is the wrong date. I will start with the wrong date and then I would like to speak about the link.

As far as the date goes, the date that was chosen to create a national food waste day was October 16. October 16 is World Food Day. That is the day when people across the world have a chance to talk about food policy and to reach out to each other to try to find solutions. For example, Food Secure Canada will be having a conference in Toronto, spanning the weekend that includes World Food Day, where people can talk about the larger issues around food policy. Personally, I will be present at the Leslieville Farmers' Market, where I can talk with people in my community about food policy, sustainable agriculture, food insecurity, and the issues that are important to them on a broader basis. That is what we really need to talk about on World Food Day. Therefore, it would be a mistake to put national food waste day on this date.

There is also a larger problem with the bill. That is the fact that a link has been drawn between food waste and food insecurity. Food insecurity is due to poverty. It is not about the availability of food. I would like to read a quote from The Huffington Post, by Nick Saul, who addressed this issue. He is from from Community Food Centres Canada. He said:

...let's not conflate a food waste strategy with a poverty reduction strategy. It's destructive to do so. Are we saying that the poor among us are only worthy of the castoffs of the industrial food system—the majority of which is unhealthy food, laden with fat, sugar, and salt, which increases the risk of diet-related illnesses? There's no question we can and must do better than this as a society.

I agree with that point fully. We can and must do better to address food security and poverty, which is the underlying problem we must deal with.

Some of the ways we can deal with the issue in a much more tangible way is, for example, with the Canada child benefit, which we passed and people started receiving in July. The Canada child benefit focuses on providing funds to families in greater need. That is one tangible way to address poverty in families with young children. Increases to the GIS, which also formed part of budget 2016, deal with seniors in poverty. That is another tangible way we can address the underlying issue of food insecurity. Finally, the investments that we are putting forward in affordable housing is another step in the right direction in dealing with poverty. That is because when we are talking about food security, too often people need to make a choice between having a roof over their heads or having healthy food on the table.

I am very happy we are starting this discussion about food waste and about food insecurity in this place, but I would propose that this is not the right solution and that we should be dealing with the underlying issues of poverty and talking about food policy as a whole.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into Bill C-231, I will say I am surprised to hear my colleague opposite talk about food insecurity after the stunt the Liberals pulled yesterday in the way they introduced their carbon tax. If they wanted to create instability and insecurity across the country, they could not have done it any more effectively than they have.

When it comes to food production, the way Liberals have done this causes instability in rural and farming communities. It is going to cause food insecurity. They are talking about a carbon tax. We know a carbon tax will hike the cost of everything. It will hike the cost of fuel for farmers as they are trying to do their food production. It hikes the cost of fertilizer. In the production of fertilizer we use products they are planning on taxing. It hikes the cost of things like transportation, so it increases the cost of getting food to market. As the member opposite talks about instability and insecurity, they should be acknowledging that they are creating that. We are going to see greater instability in rural communities, in food production, and certainly it is not a positive advantage for farmers to have to put up with the kind of carbon tax they are suggesting in the future.

Farmers have made a huge contribution, and l am going to talk about that later, but they are the ones who are making the adjustments. They have been making adjustments for years. As was mentioned earlier in question period, farmers are paying up to $30,000 more for machinery now because of the changes to engines and emissions requirements, and they pay that cost directly. The government comes back and says it is going to slap some more taxes on them because they are not taxed enough yet. Between that and the deceptive way they dealt with the provinces yesterday, it means that their carbon tax proposal is not a recipe for any type of security or food stability in the future.

That brings us to food waste awareness day, which has been proposed by my NDP colleague on the agriculture committee. We would have preferred to have a food awareness day because certainly waste could have been part of that. Rather than an act to establish a negative campaign, we could have celebrated the great production and processing of food in this country.

Certainly the area I come from has been a food producer for this part of the world and the rest of the world for over 100 years. People came from Europe, Eastern Europe, China, and the Middle East and settled in western Canada. Most of the reason they settled there is that they wanted to be farmers. They settled on the land and they wanted to produce food. They wanted to grow beef and sell it around the world. They certainly have done that with great success.

Farming has changed over the years. I mentioned earlier about the technology that has changed, but certainly the crops have changed in our area as well. It used to be that we grew nothing but grains and durum wheat. People did not think they could grow anything else. There have been new crops that have come in, and now lentils are grown probably more than any other crop in our area. Mustard is very popular, all three kinds of mustard; the oriental, yellow, and brown are grown in our area, and it is a big area for mustard growing in the world.

Chickpeas are an item we started growing about 20 years ago, and it actually transformed agriculture in our area because for a few years chickpeas were a very profitable crop and allowed farmers to do very well for a number of years. Peas are another success in our area. Farther north, canola has probably been the biggest success story in western Canada, where it is the highest value crop that is grown in Canada. It has been a tremendous success story as well.

We know the beef in western Canada, in my area, has been a very strong contributor to our economy. We see now a couple of feedlots closing in western Canada; again, back to food insecurity. One of the reasons that the latest closure took place is that the operators were not prepared to deal with the carbon tax. They mentioned that in their discussion about why they were shutting down production.

We know that farmers and ranchers are stewards. They raise food, and they protect the environment. They have changed their practices over the years, and the food that is raised in Canada is the safest food in the world. We believe that is what we should be celebrating with the bill. Rather than talking specifically about food waste, we should be talking about food production, about the incredible ways and opportunities that farmers across this country have to be successful, and also about the food processing here. We know we have one of the best systems in Canada for food safety. We regulate for safe and healthy food, and we do that very well. Around the world, Canada is recognized as one of those producers of top-quality food.

It is a good thing we are because we export all over the world. We go to Japan, for example, which is a market that demands top-quality products, and Canadian pork there is seen as one of those products. We also see that around the rest of the world, where they recognize that Canadian products fill those niches at the top of the food chain.

The first part of the bill calls for a waste awareness day. We would have preferred to see something a bit different. Certainly, we would have been more likely to support it had we had seen a bill that celebrated our successes.

I want to talk a bit about the second part of the bill because it becomes very problematic. The bill is short and sweet, but when we get to the second page and start to see what is being called for here under a national strategy, we begin to realize that there will be a really big cost to this and that a lot of work would have to go into putting this bill into effect, without a lot of direction from the author of the bill.

First, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would need to have a series of meetings, not only with the provincial and territorial governments—we are talking about first ministers' meetings or meetings with officials across this country—but also then a series of meetings with agriculture and agrifood people, as well.

This is not a minor set of just two or three meetings. My colleague is calling for the minister to have major meetings across the country. We know that will cost a lot of money. The reason she would like to see that is to develop a national strategy; but, again, there are no real specifics on what that national strategy would be, other than we know that it will cost a fair amount of money.

She would also like a national public awareness campaign to be developed. Again, that comes with a cost. However, there is no indication from the member opposite of what that cost might be. I do not know if she is talking about an ad campaign or an educational program across the country, but she just talks about having a public awareness campaign of some sort that needs to be developed and implemented by the government.

Then there is a very vague paragraph here that the government should “put in place the tools needed to allow consumers to reduce food waste”. I have thought about that but I am not sure what it means to “put in place the tools needed to allow consumers to reduce food waste”. That is so vague. I do not know how much enthusiasm the government would have for this, but it could mean anything, I guess. It is so open-ended that I do not think we can support it.

Then it becomes interesting. She wants the government to begin to redo some of the great work being done already by private and charitable organizations.

Across this country we have things like food banks and charities like the Salvation Army that handle food across this country to ensure that it is still edible and is getting delivered to people so they have the opportunity to enjoy it. My colleague who spoke earlier talked about some of the food apps that are in place now. People can go online and find an app that will explain where food is available. We do not think there is any necessity for the government to begin redoing the excellent work that has already been done by these organizations. Moreover, when bill talks about facilitating the donation of edible food products to community organizations and food banks, we think people are already doing that very well.

There is a call for an environmental study on used food. I do not know how we would do that or how big that study would be, but it seems like another challenge to the government, without much direction.

Then the last one I think that really concerns me is that she wants food waste reduction targets, but it is not clear what that means. Is this mandatory? Is this voluntary? What do those targets mean? We do not know if there are going to be costs from that. How would we enforce it? Would we have little food police running around enforcing food waste regulations? I do not know. I guess with targets, we would have to examine the relationship between production, transportation, and retail, as well. I think that is a huge overreach.

In conclusion, I appreciate my colleague's good intent in this bill, but I do not think we will be able to support it. It is just too broad and complex. It is a very costly strategy to address this issue and will lead to increased costs. We believe it will increase red tape substantially. Certainly, if I am reading this accurately, there would have to be a massive administration to reach this national strategy. We believe there are better ways to address this issue.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of food security is an important issue facing many Canadians. Today I am pleased to speak in support of a bill related to food security, Bill C-231, the fight against food waste.

This legislation aims to provide for the development of a national strategy to reduce food waste in Canada and establish a national food waste awareness day on October 16 of each year, which is also World Food Day.

Members in the House will recall in the spring when I introduced a private member's bill to celebrate local food day on the last Friday before Thanksgiving. I would encourage all members to think about that this Friday and celebrate their local food producers. If they cannot do that, it is my 38th wedding anniversary and they can all celebrate that as well.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, Hear!

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Clap for my wife Audrey, not for me.

We, as members of Parliament, have an opportunity to be leaders in this area and implement tools so that all stakeholders in the supply chain, from farmers to consumers, can reduce their food waste.

Food waste is everyone's business because it has both social and environmental impacts. At the same time that we know food waste is a problem in Canada, more than 850,000 people struggle to feed themselves each month, and 36% of them are children. Since 2008, food bank use in Canada has climbed to more than 26% of the population actually having to use food banks at least occasionally. That is simply unacceptable in a country like ours. Reducing food waste is an important part of the solution.

It is important to note that food waste is not the same as food loss. Food that has become unsuitable for consumption due to natural hazards would be considered loss. However, safe food that is thrown away voluntarily, or because it is not commercially viable, or because there is a lack of awareness of what it could have been used for to feed people or even animals, is considered waste.

To truly understand the magnitude of food waste, it is important to consider the numbers. It is estimated that $31 billion worth of food ended up in landfills or composting sites in 2014. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg when we factor in wasted energy, labour costs, transportation, and capital investments in infrastructure and inventory. Added all together, the true cost of food waste is $107 billion.

According to Statistics Canada, every Canadian wastes 183 kilograms, or just over 403 pounds of food a year. This represents the equivalent of throwing $771 per year per consumer right into the garbage. In other words, over 15% of a person's grocery cart ends up in the trash without being consumed, which costs about $50 per week per family.

With regard to the environmental impact, landfills and avoidable food waste are disastrous. The decomposition of organic matter creates methane, a seriously harmful greenhouse gas, and overwhelms composting facilities and landfills. The carbon footprint of food waste is estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes, making food waste the third top emitter of greenhouse gases after the U.S. and China. One tonne of food waste emits 5.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

It is easy to see this problem as very daunting, but taking concrete steps to reduce food waste across the supply chain is doable. Other countries, provinces, and communities are doing just that, and I would like to highlight a few examples of each to show how positive change is possible.

Food waste is an issue worldwide. To date, France has led the charge and was the first country to legislate against food waste. The law, which was passed by its parliament this past February, bans supermarkets from throwing away or destroying unsold food, and establishes a hierarchy of actions to fight food waste. The law fines retailers who voluntarily destroy edible food, and amends the legal framework to remove liability in order to facilitate the donation of name-brand products directly by factories. Lastly, it includes an education program about food waste in schools and businesses. There is now a movement to expand the law across the European Union.

In the U.S., the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was passed in 1996. It encourages citizens to donate food and reduce waste. In Italy, Last Minute Market was created in 1998 to help shops and retailers recover and redistribute their unsold food to various organizations.

In Canada there are important examples of communities, provinces and organizations taking action on food waste reduction. In Quebec, waste reduction week is held every October, and two petition with more than 29,000 signatures have been presented to the national assembly requesting that the government facilitates donations of unsold food by food retailers.

In Ontario, the Ontario Association of Food Banks and Second Harvest work in partnership to reduce waste and combat food insecurity.

In the prairies, groups such as Alberta Care, Saskatchewan Waste Reduction Council and Dig In Manitoba work to raise awareness among elected officials, consumers and retailers about food waste.

In B.C., the legislative assembly passed the Food Donor Encouragement Act which provides that people or businesses donating food are not liable for damage caused to consumers under certain conditions. B.C.'s Ministry of Environment is also working with the US Environmental Protection Agency to develop a toolkit to help consumers reduce food waste.

From my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, I am proud to share outstanding examples of community action to reduce food waste, which will hopefully inspire my colleagues in the House with what is possible and what can be achieved.

My first example comes from the city of Nelson, the Nelson Food Cupboard, with its long-standing commitment to providing its clients with healthy fresh foods. It runs a number of great food security programs including: the harvest rescue program, which allows local gardeners and fruit growers to share excess produce with volunteers and with the Food Cupboard; the Grow a Row and fresh produce donations, which encourages gardeners to drop off surplus garden produce to the Food Cupboard; and the food recovery partnership, a partnership with Nelson's historic Hume Hotel, where it receives excess food from the hotel kitchen, repackages it and hands it out to the Food Cupboard's clients, which include families with hungry children.

On a personal note, when I was mayor of Cranbrook and we had food left over at a city function, I would personally package it up and take it to Street Angels, a truly innovative organization under the leadership of the Ktunaxa First Nation. It serves a very important role in helping out homeless people of all cultural backgrounds, and I encourage all members to Google Cranbrook Street Angels to learn more about this amazing model of community support.

In the community of Revelstoke, a population of over 7,100 people, food security has been identified as a community priority. In 2014, the city of Revelstoke commissioned the development of a food security strategy. This strategy included in its goals to increase access to local and regional food that was sustainably and ethically produced through personal, business and municipal government actions, and further set as an objective to reduce food waste whereby organic waste products were used as valuable agricultural inputs and/or products that were still edible were recovered and redistributed.

Community Connections in Revelstoke collected surplus food and redistributed it by engaging local food producers and distributors, including a major grocery store. It developed and provided an affordable, reliable system for the donations of surplus food and helped donors feel more comfortable about liability concerns by educating them. It ensured the food recovery program met all food safety regulations.

It picked up donations at the weekly farmer's market. The food recovery program in August had its biggest day with over 800 pounds of food donated in one day. Over the three month period, 16,718 pounds of food were recovered, worth almost $42,000, and it was redistributed to families in need.

Comment boards were posted in the local food distribution area to capture the feedback of those receiving the food. This is what one client said, “Thank you so much. My husband and I were having a hard time making ends meet and this helped us so much. We were able to feed our son AND pay rent this month. This community has been a helping hand when we had no one else. Please keep up the program and great work. Every bit helps.” That really captures it: every bit helps.

It is time for the federal government to show leadership on this important file by building on to the momentum that is happening in communities, in provinces across the country and around the world.

The government says that it is concerned about food security, the environment and social inequity. This bill provides a clear way to take concrete action on food waste, which touches on each of these important areas.

I encourage every member of Parliament to support Bill C-231 and to support the reduction of food waste in their communities. Working together we can build a better Canada.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is our job as parliamentarians to discuss ideas that can help make Canada a better country. That is why I want to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on her bill. I have no doubt it is well-intentioned, but for various reasons that I will get into in my speech, the government will not support it.

To start with, food waste is a very complex issue. There is some debate around the nature and scale of the problem. For example, one question that comes up often has to do with figuring out where we can have the most impact in terms of curbing waste. Is it on farms, at processing plants, at grocery stores, or in Canadian households? We need answers to those questions before we can proceed.

We think that the best way to get those answers is to have inclusive conversations about a national food policy. In fact, the government committed to introducing just such a policy by consulting stakeholders and Canadian families.

We are aware that food loss and waste are serious issues of concern to people across Canada, to our government, and certainly to your humble servant, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so.

In 2014, Value Chain Management International estimated the value of food waste and losses in Canada to be $31 billion. The organization also indicated that the equivalent of 30% to 40% of food products are wasted in Canada. Approximately 50% of the food waste in Canada occurs in households, whereas about 20% occurs in processing.

There are several causes of food waste, including purchasing too many perishable products, the inability to properly prepare food, which is generally the case for me, poor storage, inadequate portions, and quite simply purchasing food that we do not like.

The remaining waste occurs on the farm, at retailers, in restaurants, and during transportation. When we see the statistics, we cannot simply remain indifferent about this issue, and the government certainly is not. Reducing food waste benefits consumers, farmers, processors, retailers, and restaurateurs. It benefits society as a whole. Furthermore, reducing food waste can help farmers and businesses reduce operating costs.

It is also possible to take full advantage of the by-products. Food waste residuals can be used or converted to make animal feed. Granular biomass can be used for heating or in dyes. Other examples of derived products include ethanol or fertilizers and detergents.

Reducing food waste can also improve food security and help the environment through better use of water and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the decomposition of organic materials at landfills. Those are a few examples.

The entire world, including Canada, is addressing food waste. Recently, a number of UN agencies and other international groups launched a global standard for measuring food waste and loss. The purpose of this new accounting and reporting standard for food waste and loss is to have governments, businesses, and other organizations measure food waste and loss internationally in a more consistent way.

In the United Kingdom, leading supermarkets have pledged to drive down food and drink waste by a fifth within the next decade. Retailers there are backing a voluntary agreement that also targets a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created by the food and drink industry.

By way of example, the United Kingdom's biggest grocery chain also committed to sending no surplus food to waste from its stores by the end of next year by redistributing it to charities.

In Canada, I am proud that retailers are also taking a leadership role in reducing food waste. For example, recently, we saw a large supermarket chain expand its offering of imperfect fruits and vegetables. Canadian consumers can now buy this produce for approximately 30% less than the cost of the other fruits and vegetables that are usually sold in supermarkets. That prevents food waste. Based on the success of the trial period, consumers in Quebec and Ontario can also now buy imperfect peppers, onions, and mushrooms.

The provincial and municipal governments also have an important role to play in managing food waste. For example, in 2014, Ontario implemented a tax credit for food donations made by farmers to food banks or other similar organizations in order to help reduce food waste.

In its latest budget, Nova Scotia announced a similar tax credit for its farmers. Our own government is working hard to fight food waste in a number of ways. For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada supports research into reducing food waste at the primary production stage and research into analyzing how much food is wasted or lost.

Our science and innovation investments are also helping to reduce food waste. We have researchers looking for ways to transform vegetables that would normally be thrown out into marketable food products. That is just one example of how our government is working on fighting food waste.

That being said, we clearly need to do more. We definitely have to tackle food waste. However, we believe in giving the matter careful consideration and gathering input from a broad range of stakeholders before crafting a comprehensive, coordinated approach. That is exactly what we are proposing because this issue affects the entire supply chain from farms to families.

One crucial part of the equation is raising awareness of how food is produced. That is why the Government of Canada is planning to include discussions about food waste in our national food policy consultations.

Our government is committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders and Canadians to develop a national food policy. To achieve that, we plan to consult with provincial and territorial governments, stakeholders, and Canadians in order to better shape our food policy and better guide potential initiatives to tackle food waste.

As part of a national food policy, we will first put forward a vision, principles, and objectives and then propose a more collaborative and more integrated approach with regard to the food policy issues. This notion is supported by the Canadian agriculture industry and various stakeholders, particularly the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Food Secure Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and the Conference Board of Canada. Each of those organizations has published reports and made an invaluable contribution to the discussions on food policy.

We will begin extensive public consultations with the food industry and Canadians next year in order to come up with a Canadian food policy worthy of the name. We believe it is important to study this issue as a whole, that is, from farm to table.

Despite the good intentions behind Bill C-231, the government will not be supporting it. We believe that developing a national food policy is the right way forward, which will enable us to hold consultations and focus on future initiatives to tackle food waste in Canada.

In closing, I want to emphasize that this is a very important issue. Let there be no doubt that the importance of reducing food waste warrants an in-depth discussion. With that in mind, I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for raising this crucial matter.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé because food waste is an issue that is very important to me.

Every summer for the past four years I have been touring the farmers' markets in my riding. I take the opportunity to have people sample the regional products and I talk to them about various themes related to agriculture and food.

This year, my theme was in fact food waste. Having spent the better part of my summer talking about food waste and raising awareness about it, I think this is quite relevant. My colleague's bill is truly important to me and my constituents. I know from the discussions we had at these farmers' markets how important this is to people.

We talked about a phenomenon that makes no ecological or economic sense to me, specifically the fact that far too often at our grocery stores we find products that travelled thousands of kilometres, when we produce those very same products in our own backyards.

When I go to the grocery store, I do not understand why they are selling ground beef from New Zealand. Just a few houses down from where I live, I have neighbours who produce beef. Nevertheless, the beef being sold at my local grocery store is from New Zealand. The reason I mention this is that transport is one of the reasons why food goes to waste.

The more food is transported from one area to another, the greater the chances that some of it will no longer be fit for consumption when it arrives at its destination. As a result, one of the battles we need to fight is to reduce the transportation of food. Obviously, ensuring that food is consumed as close as possible to the location where it was produced is the simplest way to reduce food transportation. This seems like a completely logical solution to me. What is more, this also prevents significant quantities of greenhouse gases from being emitted during transport. However, these simple solutions are not necessarily included in the policies.

Having a strategy to reduce food waste and establishing a day to raise awareness are excellent initiatives proposed by my colleague. Any general discussion on food and agriculture should include a set of policies, but we must also act on the individual issues. We cannot wait an eternity to do so. If we want tangible measures, we must act now. The bill before us would let us do that. It seems that members do not want to pass the bill, which I find absolutely unfortunate for producers and, generally speaking, for the environment.

Today, food waste amounts to $771 a year in groceries per consumer. My Liberal colleagues probably do not realize that $771 is the monthly income of some people. Every year, the amount of food wasted is equivalent to their income for an entire month. That is a lot, and it is not acceptable in a society like ours.

Our grandmothers came up with strategies to waste virtually nothing; they reused everything. Today, we live in a society with huge technological capabilities that let us better manage everything. We have gone from one extreme, where almost nothing was wasted, to the other, where waste is rampant.

Agriculture is very important in my region. Abitibi-Témiscamingue's bio-food sector is worth $280 million per year and accounts for 8,100 direct jobs, or 11% of all the jobs in my riding. That is why I will not stand for the government dragging its feet on food waste. I think our farmers deserve to be compensated for the work they do every day. We deserve to be able to eat our products.

Every year, when I visit farmers' markets, I talk about the Guyenne tomato incident, which was ridiculous. All of the tomatoes produced locally in Guyenne were being sent to Montreal and then brought back to Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Those tomatoes travelled 1,300 kilometres before ending up on our plates. That was absurd. That kind of thing should not happen. Shipping tomatoes 1,300 kilometres only to have them end up back on our plates is nonsense. Of course some of the tomatoes were damaged and wasted during that 1,300-kilometre trek. If the tomatoes had travelled a mere 15 kilometres before ending up on our plates, they would not have been damaged. They would not have been wasted.

We can reduce food waste considerably through simple measures. One simple measure we should introduce is ensuring that products are consumed as quickly and efficiently as possible after they are produced. That is why we need to reflect on how we can manage our food more effectively, and how we can ensure that this food makes it to our plates instead of being wasted.

Farmers' markets have become more popular than ever. When I was travelling around Palmarolle, I saw a long lineup of people waiting to purchase fresh vegetables from a local producer. People care more and more about buying fresh, local products. They want to help reduce food waste. We need to give them the tools, since they rely on what is provided to them. If they are offered only products that have come from far away, of course, people are forced to buy whatever they can access. Many people do not have access to several different grocery stores, and therefore have limited choices.

If, unfortunately, the local grocery store only carries carrots from Mexico or the United States, when it could perhaps carry carrots grown in Canada, we do not really have a choice. These products either spoil in transit, or we have to use chemical preservatives to help preserve them, which is also not a good environmental choice.

I am asking members to support my colleague's motion so that we can eat better and make smarter food choices. Not only will this ensure that people eat better, but it will also improve their health. These choices will also have an impact on the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, as well as reducing the use of various chemicals used to grow the vegetables and to prolong their shelf life. In the end, if we could make it easier to get products from farm to fork, we would not need all these measures.

I also want to point out that the Conseil régional en environnement en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, or CREAT, has been working hard to reduce food waste by using existing networks. Businesses and groups in my riding are putting a lot of effort into reducing food waste. These groups are already very familiar with the issue. Many of our food stores have also gone to great lengths to ensure that local products are accessible. In Ville-Marie, for example, sales of regional products increased from about $200,000 per year to over $1 million annually over the past four years. This shows that we can have accessible products when people make an effort.

We must support the efforts of these people and stakeholders and continue to support the consumption of our local products if we want to reduce food waste.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As no other member is rising to speak, I invite the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé to use her right of reply. She has five minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have more time to talk about my Bill C-231. It is an important bill. I also want to thank all the members who spoke today and during the first hour of debate. This bill means a lot to me because fighting food waste is a very important issue.

I thank all those who supported my bill. We received support from a number of organizations, such as Moisson Montréal, Moisson Mauricie, and Moisson Lanaudière. These organizations across Quebec support the initiative and the objective of Bill C-231.

There is also the Quebec chapter of the Friends of the Earth, Rescue Food in Calgary, and l'Escouade anti-gaspillage alimentaire de l'Outaouais. I thank them for the work they do to fight food waste. I also want to mention the Recycling Council of Ontario, and Second Harvest, in Toronto, the largest food distributor in the country. Eight million pounds of food were distributed in the past 12 months.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization commended us on our initiative, Bill C-231, and noted the importance of setting targets for reducing food waste in Canada.

I also recently received the support of Arash Derambarsh, from France. He said:

I am proud to join with my friend...in the fight against food waste in Canada. In France and elsewhere in the world, food waste is a problem that has economic, social, and environmental consequences.... I believe it is urgent that the Canadian government legislate to ensure that unsold food is redistributed rather than thrown out.

I would also like to thank researchers, such as Iris Simard Tremblay, author of the essay Comment réduire le gaspillage alimentaire dans l'industrie agroalimentaire au Québec?; Éric Ménard, a lecturer, blogger, and food waste expert; and Paul Van der Werf, who did extraordinary work. I want to thank Paul for his help and encouragement. We will not give up.

Food waste in Canada is everyone's business A lot of people are concerned about food waste. It is in the news quite often. When we look at what is happening in other countries, we see they have taken some measures that are very important. Canada could be a real leader when it comes to reducing food waste. Food waste has very important social and environmental impacts, and that was mentioned in some of the speeches today.

Earlier today, we had a great debate on the Paris agreement. Is the government serious about tackling climate change?

The fight against food waste is an important part of that. In Canada, we waste 31 million tonnes of food per year, which represents a loss of $31 billion dollars a year. That is shameful. In a country as rich as Canada, approximately 900,000 people rely on food banks. The food distribution system is broken. There are many improvements that need to be made and this bill is a step in the right direction.

There are quite a few questions that were raised about the bill. My colleague from Toronto—Danforth talked a lot about poverty. I think that, yes, the government has a role to play in reducing poverty. Maybe a $15-per-hour minimum wage would be very good. I would also like to say that Second Harvest supports the bill.

My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who also sits on the agriculture committee, talked about costs. I think the inaction of the government costs more. Under the Conservatives, since 2008, there was a 26% augmentation of food bank use in Canada. Also, in 2014 there were $27 million in losses from food waste and now we are up to $31 million. Inaction costs more than the action asked for in the bill.

Other people have talked about the importance of holding consultations. In the bill, I ask the Canadian government to do just that; we know how much the Liberal government enjoys holding consultations. If the bill is passed at this stage, it will go to committee, where improvements can be made.

In my opinion, as parliamentarians, we also have the duty to reduce inequality and fight against climate change. This bill is a good step in that direction. If it is not passed, I will continue to fight to reduce food waste and food insecurity in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with the saying that hope springs eternal, which is why I have an announcement to make. Despite the quality of the answers I have been getting for the past five years, I have not lost hope, so I am sure to live a long time.

The issue I want to talk about today is, once again, a human and financial catastrophe unlike any this country has ever seen. There is ample evidence that this was the worst construction fiasco ever seen in Canada, and people would like to be able to turn the page on it.

Last year, the Liberal government said it would give pyrrhotite victims $30 million, $10 million per year. I want to make it clear that $10 million per year will help about 70 lucky homeowners. There are hundreds of victims, though, so it is something of a lottery. The government is loosening the purse strings just enough to let $10 million trickle out per year, all the while being very careful not to acknowledge any responsibility for what happened, which is a tragedy in itself.

We are stuck with this construction flaw problem which, I remind hon. members, could happen anywhere in Canada. This could happen anywhere in the world, but that is not what we are talking about. I can say that just last week, the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite of Trois-Rivières was in Connecticut, where the situation is exactly the same, with families who are overwhelmed by the problem and the lack of solutions.

Last year, two or three months of the construction season went by before the government opened its wallet. We know that in country with a winter like ours the time for construction work is somewhat limited. The construction season had started, but the funding was not there. Thank goodness the situation has changed since then.

I would like to ask my first question. Bear in mind that this $30 million from the Liberals' program was a one-off. They said that this sum would fix the pyrrhotite problem, but we are a long way from that. Do we have any assurances today that for the second and third years of the program the money will be there at the start of the construction season?

I would like to raise another issue. I am in favour of helping pyrrhotite victims. As I was saying earlier, it is almost like a lottery. Some people will get lucky, while hundreds of others will not get any support. How is the government determining who is a pyrrhotite victim? Under the program managed by the provincial government, homes must have a pyrrhotite content of at least 0.3% for families or owners to be eligible for assistance. In the decision handed down, the judge said that a pyrrhotite content of 0.23% would certainly cause problems in the short or medium term. There is therefore a grey area between 0% pyrrhotite and the two benchmarks that I just mentioned, which are not really scientifically proven standards.

The federal government's primary responsibility is to ensure that the federal quality standard for aggregates used in concrete clearly indicates that concrete must not contain a certain percentage of pyrrhotite that has yet to be determined. Right now, the standard is unclear and does not come with any obligations. The Conservatives and the Liberals keep telling us that this was a prerogative of the provincial government. However, I would like to remind members that the standard is a federal standard included in the provincial building code, which is quite different.

I would therefore like to ask two quick questions. First, will the government finally take action to improve the standard? Second, will the funding be available at the beginning of the construction season?