Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

International Trade

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us just be frank about what is going on here. Today, the Speaker of the House of Commons basically told the House, including Conservatives, that we have to behave ourselves. Conservatives are upset about that. They tried to prevent him, on a number of occasions, from giving that statement today.

Now, they are using this tactic in order to slow down the House, because they are frustrated and upset. It is actually behaviour for which I would scold my five-year-old and my seven-year-old, but that is actually what is going on in the House of Commons right now, demonstrated by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next eight or nine minutes, I will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. For starters, the Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion to bring forward. I have had the opportunity, since we started debating this, to have a look at the motion. There are six recommendations in it. The government agrees with five recommendations, and accepts and acknowledges the sixth one.

The Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion. At least they could have picked something that is slightly more controversial. This is a concurrence motion on a report about which the government has already put in writing that it agrees with over 80% of it. This is about trade relations. It is important for the public who might be tuned in right now and watching this to fully understand what is going on here.

The government had put on the Order Paper that we would be talking about Bill C-50, sustainable jobs, today. That is what we were supposed to talk about. There is a whole other issue that I do not have time to dive into, about why Conservatives are not interested in sustainable jobs, but let us just park that for a moment and focus on their objective today. The government said that this is what we were going to talk about. The House commenced at 2:00 p.m. today. The Speaker, a brand new Speaker, tried to rise to give a statement about how he plans to conduct the House, in terms of decorum. He cited numerous references of other Speakers, including, at great length, what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said when he was the Speaker, and he just established a benchmark for what the Speaker expects from the House.

Conservatives heckled, made points of order and did everything they could to prevent the Speaker from even giving that statement, which I think was incredibly petty. Then we got to the point where we were supposed to go to Government Orders and start the listed item for today. There is an opportunity in Routine Proceedings to put forward a concurrence motion. This basically sucks up anywhere up to three hours of House time. Conservatives looked at the clock, and they knew that if we started this concurrence motion, the three hours would expire before the House needed to adjourn, and the government would not get to dealing with its business today. That is the Conservatives' objective. That is what they did.

However, the motion they did it on I find to be so perplexing. It is a set of recommendations in a committee report about our borders, particularly postpandemic. I did not really read it or even know it existed before the concurrence motion was put on the floor. There are many committees submitting many reports, and I was not aware of this one. However, I did take the opportunity to have a good look at it since then, in the last 40 minutes or so since we started debating this. Here is recommendation 1: “That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders.” It goes on to list how to do that. The important thing is that the government agrees with the recommendation and accepts the recommendation from the committee.

Recommendation 2 reads as follows: “That the Government of Canada enhance its efforts designed to increase domestic and international awareness that Canada has removed COVID-19–related public health measures.” There is nothing the Conservatives would want more than to do that. Again, the government agrees and says it is a good recommendation, that we need to make sure that the world knows Canada is open and ready for business and tourism, that this is a great recommendation and that we should move forward with this one. The government agrees with that recommendation.

Recommendation 3 is “[t]hat the Government of Canada ensure that international bridge authorities and commissions, as well as duty-free stores in Canada, are eligible for federal financial support if the Government decides to close—for any length of time— the borders that Canada shares with the United States.” This is the one thing the government responded to and said it acknowledges but that it might not be as simple as how it is being portrayed.

For example, the government did assist with the tourism sector quite a bit. The government also assisted with businesses, as we know. The government assisted in many different ways, including trying to reopen borders that Conservative supporters were trying to close. The government did a lot to ensure that we supported businesses throughout the pandemic. Although the government acknowledges the recommendation, it said that it is a bit more complex, as there are various sectors involved, and that this needs to be looked at more closely. It certainly did not outright reject the recommendation.

Then there is recommendation 4, which says, “That the Government of Canada enhance safety and security, reduce delays and backlogs, and improve processing times at Canadian ports of entry”. Once again, the Government of Canada agreed with that recommendation.

Also, I am sorry. There were not six recommendations; there were five.

We have the fifth recommendation, which the government agrees with. My point is that there were five recommendations, and the government agreed with all but one but did acknowledge that it was important and tried to explain what the government was doing about it.

What the public needs to know is that 99.9% of the time that somebody in this House moves concurrence on a report from a committee, they agree with it. They are basically saying that this report is so important that it is not enough to table it for the government, even though the government already responded to it: They need to force Parliament to vote on it so they can solidify the support of this House and not just the committee. That is what they are saying.

Why do I point that out? I point that out because the Conservatives put this forward as if they support it, because one only puts forward a motion of concurrence if one supports it, and then turned around moments later and put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean as if it did not exist, sending it back to committee. I could not put together a scenario in which the Conservatives would look more petty than we have right here, right now on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am sorry the Speaker told the Conservatives today that they have to behave themselves, that it is time to play nice, that they cannot be heckling and making up fake names for ministers, shooting them out like this is some kind of wild frat party. The reality of the situation is that maybe a little decorum is required in this House from the Conservatives, as day after day we hear personal attacks and name-calling.

The Speaker did the right thing by pointing that out. Then what do they do? They act worse than I expect of my children with the games they play and with what they are doing right now to delay talking about a very important piece of legislation on how we create, manage and ensure that sustainable jobs are here for the future of Canadians. How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about jobs and needing to make sure that we put the right groundwork in place for jobs? Just two days ago, a minister of the Crown went to my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to make the announcement of 600 sustainable jobs. These are sustainable jobs.

This is the bill we are talking about. This bill is about how we ensure there are more of those jobs throughout our entire country. How do we continue to attract clean-tech jobs from Germany or Belgium, as we see with Umicore, and bring them right here to Canada?

I think this is very petty. It is very unfortunate, but for eight years I have been watching it occur time after time.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the debate is on the amendment, which the member did not comment on too much. However, I want to focus on the amendment, which deals with the fact that the RCMP had to be called in to deal with this scandalous ArriveCAN app and the fact that the Auditor General herself was not notified by CBSA officials, despite the fact that she is actively auditing that department.

I am wondering if the member for Kingston and the Islands would join me in condemning the acts of the government officials who failed to notify the Auditor General of Canada about a criminal investigation occurring within that department.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the report does not even speak to that. That should show us how incredibly petty this is. The report does not even speak to it, yet the Conservatives are basically saying that we should delete this report and send it back to committee to study this new issue. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the committee can decide of its own inclination if it should study the issue. It is completely unrelated to the report. The member knows it. He knows the procedure of this House better than the vast majority of the people here given his experience, and he knows exactly what they are doing. The fact that he just got up and asked me that question is kind of ridiculous.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is almost Halloween. Our colleague is trying to scare us, putting on a shocked schoolgirl act. The Liberals cannot believe the Conservatives' approach. In fact, they are one and the same. When one side is not obstructing, they are moving closure. I cannot remember how many gag orders there have been in the last two years.

We should be talking about important things, including Bill C-50, which deals with sustainable jobs. We could talk about housing. We could talk about the cost of living. We could talk about seniors. We talked about that earlier; we voted on an important bill. There is so much we could be talking about.

With the Conservatives filibustering and the Liberals imposing gag orders, one wonders where Canadian democracy is headed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is only one member who I think I compete with for the most animation in this House and it is that member.

He was just critical of the government having to move closure, but certainly he can understand, based on what the Conservatives are doing today, why we end up having to move closure. Before I got to this House and heard the stories about closure, I used to think it was anti-democratic. I did not understand the nuances of how the House worked and why it was necessary to do it. It is absolutely necessary because Conservatives play games like this.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for demonstrating, however accidentally, how great a tool concurrence motions can be to bring to the attention of members of the government issues that heretofore they had no idea about and recommendations from committees they had not heard anything about. I think that is an important tool for members of this House to use to bring to the attention of members of Parliament, and indeed the government, things they have been working on at committee. Therefore, I am loath to disparage concurrence motions. I think they have an important role to play here.

However we got here, and whatever is going to happen at the end of the debate, the fact is that we are spending the next bit of time talking about this, including an amendment that raises the question of a department having hid from the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, a criminal investigation into the very thing she was investigating. I wonder, given that we are spending the time anyway, if the member might take this brief opportunity to say something meaningful about the substance of that allegation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly flattered that the member sees this as an opportunity to make me aware of what he perceives to be a very important report. However, I do not know if it is worth tying up three hours of the House's time to do that. If the member really wanted to inform me about it, he could have just brought it over to me and told me that I should look at the report, as it is really important. He did not do that, nor did any other member. They tabled a report, just like everybody else.

We all have our own issues that we are passionate about. I am very passionate about the environment. I follow just about every report that comes out on it. The member knows that. The reality of the situation is that we do not get to see or read every report. If anybody in this House claims that is not the case, then I certainly would like to know about their skills in being able to do that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Terrebonne.

Here we are again to talk abut the ArriveCAN app. There would not have been so many questions—logically—if there had not been any problems, including with the contract.

I will not argue the reasons why the Conservatives decided to bring the report to the House now and ask for three hours of debate. I will not go there. I am not in their shoes and do not intend to be, ever. Rather, my goal is to raise the problems that cropped up with ArriveCAN and help make concrete improvements to procurement practices and the customs and practices of the machinery of government.

It is a question of efficiency. It is also a question of saving money, the money that helps create programs and applications—ArriveCAN in this case. It is not money that grows on trees. It is money that comes from taxpayers. It is our money from our taxes. Let us not forget that we are nothing more and nothing less than trustees of the tax money that taxpayers pay the federal government every year.

As trustees, we have a duty to manage this money responsibly. Was the ArriveCAN app developed in a responsible way? We have a duty to ask the question, because what we see and what we know so far is that it was not done either responsibly or well. An application initially expected to cost $80,000 with updates ended up costing $54 million. That is some increase.

An app designed to make it easier for people to get through certain border controls on arriving in Canada is not a bad idea. This is the 21st century after all, and if we can cut through the red tape to help things run more easily at the border, so much the better. “More easily”, however, does not mean less securely. We need to ensure both.

The problem with ArriveCAN is much the same as with other contracts. In the case of ArriveCAN, two guys won the contract. They said they knew people, so they assigned some of the work to others. The committee realized that no one really knew whether everyone had gone through security screening or whether due diligence had been done. There are a lot of questions that have not been answered. We were told yes, it was done, but it was more of a yes to get us off their backs. We do not want that kind of a yes. We want a definite “yes, that was done”. However, we are still not not sure about that yet. We are talking about an app that stores personal information, and the government is not sure that the people who developed it had the necessary security clearance.

This is not the first time this has happened. My colleagues spoke a bit about it earlier. Think about the WE Charity, for example, or the contract awarded to a non-existent company. That company did not exist 10 days before it was awarded a contract. It was founded by two guys. As soon as they got the contract, what did they do? They gave the $237 million to Baylis Medical, which belongs to a former Liberal MP who lost his seat in 2019, if memory serves. A $237-million contract was awarded to a company that existed for only 10 days. I already said it, but the Canadian dream is not bad. Not just anyone would be able to pull that off. I am not sure whether Rockefeller himself managed anything like that.

Once again, we have two guys who got awarded a contract and gave it to others to develop an application, supposedly because the federal government could not find one person among its 340,000 public servants who specializes in application development. It is 2023. This happened in 2020. That is a problem, and that is what I want members to think about. How is it that 1% of the population works for the federal government and that not one person in that 1% of the population specializes in application development?

Our public servants are trained. They have security clearance. They are capable of doing the work we ask them to do at a lower cost and in a much safer way.

We are currently faced with a situation involving allegations of identity theft, fake resumés, contract theft and fraudulent billing. That is not trivial. Where are the controls that should have been applied when this contract was being awarded or monitored? Given the allegations filed with the RCMP, there is no trace of that. How is it that officials who knew that the RCMP was conducting an investigation failed to inform the Auditor General?

Nothing is clear or transparent about the situation with ArriveCAN and other contracts. This needs to be said loud and clear. People do not want secrecy, they want transparency. We are not asking for the app's source code. We want to know where, how and on whom our money is being spent and who is spending it.

With ArriveCAN and in the consultations we did in committee—the powerful Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as the committee chair would say—we heard from unions, university researchers and civil servants. We were astounded to learn that the unions had not been consulted, even though their members were the ones who were supposed to be making sure that things were working and following up with people at the airport. They were supposed to ensure that everything moved quickly so that things did not drag on and there were no delays. However, they were not consulted at any stage, either in the development of the app, the request for the exact need at the borders, or even the updates. At no point were they consulted, yet they were the ones who had to help passengers, use the ArriveCAN app and live with it on a daily basis. It seems to me that it would make sense to include the end users when developing an app.

As I have already mentioned, this was a private contract. There was no due diligence. Who are these guys? Who are the other parties involved in the contract? Are these people solvent? Are they reliable? We do not know. It seems to me that this expression has come up a lot in my speeches over the past four years. We do not know because we never get an answer. The people we are asking do not have any answers either.

No due diligence was done to determine whether the app could be created and managed internally. The government did not even ask whether anyone could create an app. A contract was awarded immediately. It does not take 15 years to ask whether we have in-house developers. Normally, when someone is hired, their skills are well known. With the millions of dollars we spend on IT in Canada, no one ever tried to find out whether there was anyone capable of developing apps. ArriveCAN has simply brought to light a whole host of problems inherent in the federal machinery, and those problems need to be dealt with at the source.

People might wonder why we are taking three hours to discuss a committee report. However, this committee report is just one small tree in a forest, and we cannot forget to see the forest for the trees. Here, the forest is the current federal government's inability to assume its responsibilities towards its own public servants, towards its citizens, and towards—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General indicated that, in the context of her work, two departments had not informed her that criminal investigations by the police were under way. I would like the member to tell us what she thinks about this fact that has come to light. What does she think about the importance of this report and the vote to refer it committee for this study to continue?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a worrisome situation. People who are called to answer questions from the Auditor General need to be transparent and honest and report any fraud that may have occurred. These people who are required to do so failed to do so and that means that there is an internal culture that needs to be changed, and fast, for the good of the entire population.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about, given the amendment, is a very serious allegation, which is that a government department was not forthcoming to an officer of Parliament, the Auditor General, whose job it was to investigate a specific program.

It reminds me of when the Harper Conservatives were in power and they denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was looking at that time to satisfy a request to look into the effect of cuts to government services that were being planned at the time. The PBO had to take that government to court, which found that in fact that information should be handed over. At that time, the Liberals were very interested in that issue and the accountability of government to parliamentary officers.

Why the sudden change of heart?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, is it a partisan problem or a problem of culture? We have already talked about Bill C‑290. We have already talked about whistle-blower protection in the public service. We have already talked about the internal culture that compels silence when people want to see improvements.

Does the problem stem from a level of government, blue or red, or does it come from a culture of silence? The discussion we are having today raises that question. This is not just about ArriveCAN, it is this culture that we need to dismantle for the greater good of the population.

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

Madam Speaker, I will leave it to others to comment on the propriety of the procedure put forward by the Conservative Party, but, in essence, it is a very interesting question.

When it comes to public money, we must be as transparent as possible. Above all, we must ensure that the officers of Parliament, who are independent, have all the tools and information they need to shed light on what happened. When we learn, for one, that software developers report they were able to reproduce the application at a fraction of the cost that was charged to taxpayers, this shows, in my opinion, the clear need to shed light on this issue.

Does the member believe that sending this report back to committee with the proposed amendment will get to the bottom of what happened?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope this sheds some light on what happened, either in whole or in part. We also cannot forget that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is studying the matter from another angle. Together, the two committees will certainly be able to shed light on the matter. More than anything though, we must find concrete long-term solutions and implement them.

As I was saying earlier and as my colleague was saying, we are talking about public money, of which we are merely the trustees. We have to be responsible when it comes to these funds.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are only 30 seconds left in the debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne may begin her speech, but I will have to interrupt her rather quickly.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I have only 30 seconds, I will simply say that there is a real a problem with the current government's emphasis on belt-tightening and with its plan to ask companies to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. Meanwhile, way too much money has been wasted on apps. Accenture received $208 million to manage a program that is not even being managed properly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have nine minutes and 30 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed.

Child Health Protection Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-252. I believe it is a continuation of what the government talks a great deal about, which is a healthy eating strategy overall. We need to recognize that excessive amounts of sodium, sugar and saturated fats lead to things such as obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.

What I like about the legislation before us is that the member focused the attention on advertising to children 13 and under, which I believe would have a profoundly positive outcome. I want to applaud the member for taking this initiative. I believe it will make a difference in terms of healthier eating habits for young people. As they grow older, we have a healthier society.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to try a little experiment with you, although I am not sure whether you prefer sweet or salty snacks. Let us assume the latter.

Imagine you are sitting in your living room, curled up beside your partner, and watching a movie. He hands you the chip bowl. He left the bag of chips on the table in the living room in case you finish the bowl he just prepared. He hands you the bowl, all smiles, and you take a chip, all smiles. He takes one too, and you look at each other tenderly as you snack on the delicious chips. Is your mouth watering? Do you want to go to the corner store and buy a bag of your favourite potato chips? You probably do.

That is an example of the effect of advertising, to make people want to buy something they do not really need, usually not at all, something they may not even really want. That being said, the image of the story I just told could very well still be in your mind, and you may suddenly feel a craving for potato chips and need them immediately.

We are adults and we are able to see reason. We know what advertising is and the purposes of advertising, but we still sometimes fall for it. The difference between us and children is that we are aware of the effects of advertising and we can think logically. Children have not yet acquired the ability to question themselves and to think logically about the subject of the ad. They only see the good things. They do no ask themselves whether what they are seeing is good for their health and they do not ask questions when they see an advertisement on the street, along the highway or in a big box store.

There is also advertising on television, video games, social media and the videos that children sometimes watch. There are a lot of advertisements directed at children and, despite the laws, advertisers find new ways to ensure that children see their ads every day. Advertisements are also often sources of misinformation by omission. Think about the advertisement for that famous cereal with its delicious spoonfuls of honey. It is a delight to eat and provides nine essential nutrients. It is incredible just how nutritious and delicious that cereal is. What the ad does not tell people, however, is that the amount of sugar in one bowl exceeds the daily recommended intake and that the bowl in the ad represents three servings for a child. The ad also fails to mention that the essential nutrients a person would get from eating a real complete breakfast are far greater than the nine essential nutrients the cereal provides. The ad capitalizes on the pleasure of eating sweet things.

Why is it important to legislate on advertising targeting children?

Let us start with what I mentioned. Children do not have the maturity or the necessary knowledge to have perspective when they see an ad and to question the truth of that ad. Then there is the fact that sugar can be addictive. Our brain releases dopamine when we eat sugar. It is pleasing. We become hooked on that dopamine over time to the point where we always want more. The ad does not tell us that.

It does not tell us that children who do not adopt healthy eating habits from a young age will live with many health problems as they grow up. The ad leads our children to make bad food choices that will have repercussions on their health their entire lives and, by extension, on the health care systems because of weight-related comorbidity, obesity and inactivity that are the result of bad food choices. These bad food choices cause children to have less energy because they are not well fed.

Of course the parents are partly to blame, but they may be tempted to indulge, offer a treat, make an exception. Far too often the exception becomes the rule and that is how sugar becomes associated with the idea of a treat or a pleasure, as though there is nothing else that could be a treat or a pleasure.

The consequences of consuming foods that are high in sugar, saturated fat and sodium are not felt immediately, rather, they manifest over the long term. That is why we use them as treats, because they do no harm at the time. However, when consumed repeatedly, then they become problematic.

In the short term, the various effects of consuming sugar are no less unpleasant and damaging than the long-term consequences. These short-term effects impact both children's bodies and their social lives. Sometimes, children's behaviours change. They may become less agreeable and consequently be ignored by others.

Other consequences include fatigue, irritability, impatience, trouble concentrating, dizziness, headache, feeling hungry. Even after having just eaten, children may still feel hungry because they did not get any nutrients. They can also experience arrhythmia in some cases, or temper tantrums. Children may have a tantrum because they are not getting what they want and they are going through sugar withdrawal. Some even get aggressive.

Where is this sugar? It is everywhere, from croquettes to popsicles. As soon as I say the words I see advertising images in my head. Sugar is everywhere, and some ads target young people so directly they become almost impossible to avoid. That is the problem.

I would also mention that these foods can cause obesity. The industry is deliberately targeting young people because they are less equipped to detect its strategies. At their age, they cannot make informed choices.

In 2019, the Government of Quebec created an action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and encourage people to drink water instead. Things have reached a point where we have to promote water, when water is fundamental. Water is all we need and all we should have. However, we have ended up in a different place. The Government of Quebec makes the connection between sugary drinks and how they are marketed, and the resulting health problems.

The report states the following:

Given the findings of epidemiological studies on the health risks associated with the consumption of sugar or sugary drinks, as well as data on the consumption of sugary drinks in Quebec and their marketing, more efforts are needed to prevent the daily consumption of sugary drinks within the population, especially among certain groups (e.g. young people).

In the same report, the Government of Quebec says it wants to:

De-normalize the consumption of sugary drinks and marketing practices that promote their consumption....

Today I am talking about sugar, but it is one example of food advertising and marketing that should not be directed at young people. To direct advertising at children is nothing but crass profiteering; it is perverse. It targets people whose minds have not matured. It experiments on young human beings who have their whole lives ahead of them as if they were Pavlov's dogs.

Advertising directed at children under the age of 13 has been practically outlawed in Quebec for 40 years. Section 248 of the Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children. On the surface, therefore, the bill seems to offer no advantage for Quebec, which has already legislated on the matter. Quebec's legislation is among the toughest in North America. However, federal legislation is still important because some Canadian provinces lack the kind of protective legislation provided by Quebec.

In Quebec, certain players are using nostalgia for the past to try to convince people to put advertising to youth back on the agenda. They are saying that it is difficult to fund the great programs for youth as we did in the past. They claim they need youth-oriented advertising in order to invest in youth programming. We used to talk about greenwashing. In this case, it is “ad-washing”. I am not sure how to put it.

The Bloc Québécois will determine whether the proposed strategy is compatible with the strategies adopted in Quebec and with the Consumer Protection Act. We will propose amendments to ensure that the two acts are similar. I would remind the House that Quebec and the provinces have legislative jurisdiction over this area.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.

For many years, the NDP has been calling for a law to stop junk food advertising aimed at children, and 11 years ago we called for such a ban, but no action was taken by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am hopeful that with the support from all parties, we can pass this bill and stop the barrage of junk food ads directed toward kids.

I am also hoping that we go further than that, by putting in place a national school food program that gives every child the nutritious food they need to thrive.

The evidence is clear that banning junk food directed at young children leads to better health outcomes. Quebec has had such a ban in place for over 40 years and the results speak for themselves. Fast food consumption in Quebec has gone down by 13% since the law was put in place. In addition, Quebec has the lowest obesity rates among five- to 17-year-olds and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables in Canada.

It is a true nutrition success story that should be applied across the country. Not only will a law to stop junk food advertising benefit our kids' health, it also makes financial sense.

This is a preventative step that in the long term will mean fewer visits to the ER for preventable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. At a time when our health care system is strained and faced with an aging population, it is a no-brainer for us to reduce the pressure on the system by passing this bill into law.

It is immoral for the CEOs of big food companies to be profiting off pushing junk food to young children. As much of 90%, in fact, of the food ads children see are for unhealthy food products and these ads are increasingly sophisticated. Companies are making money off selling products to young people that are harmful for their health.

This is wrong and it has to stop. Just as we have done with big tobacco companies in severely restricting advertising of their products, we must do the same with big food companies that are irresponsibly marketing junk food to young children.

While the ban on junk food aimed at children is an important first step, it is not enough. We cannot have a conversation about ensuring that our kids are getting proper nutrition without talking about poverty. Poverty makes it so much more difficult for families to make the healthy food choices they would like to make but are unable to because of the lack of money.

I recall a story. As a young early childhood educator, when we instituted a no-junk-food lunch policy, a mother shared with me that it was cheaper for her to buy a bag of cookies that lasts two weeks than a bag of apples that lasts a week.

We cannot talk about healthy food choices without addressing issues of poverty, especially in this affordability crisis we are living in, with persistently high grocery prices. Far too many people simply cannot afford healthy food to sustain a balanced diet. Eating healthy is expensive and preparing healthy meals can also be very time-consuming.

When one is working two or three jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in this country, particular with the affordability crisis, time becomes a luxury one cannot afford, leading one to choose convenience foods that are quick and cheap but unhealthy.

I see it in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, which has the highest child poverty rate of any riding in the country.

Too many kids are going to school on an empty stomach. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. Food banks are reporting record usage, and the temporary pandemic benefits that kept families afloat have expired and have not been maintained. Poverty is a form of economic violence. I have likened choosing to keep people poor to one of the worst human rights violations, and poverty is something that is faced by many of my constituents, including children, which robs them of the best possible start in life.

That is wrong, and it is a direct result of deliberate policy choices.

I believe we need to make different choices to eliminate poverty and ensure that every child gets the nutritious food they need. It is a choice, and the lack of political will to eradicate poverty, especially for children, is unacceptable. One of these choices is implementing a national school food program. Providing every child with healthy school meals would be a game-changer that would go a long way towards improving nutrition in this country.

It is long past time for us to put such a program in place. Canada remains the only G7 country without a national school food program or national standards. In 2019, the Liberals promised in their federal budget to work towards implementing a program, but after four years, they have still not delivered.

I call upon the government to keep its promise and finally allocate funding for a national school food program in the upcoming federal budget. It would make a profound difference in the lives of children, including many children in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, whose learning is harmed because they are not getting the healthy food they need. I am a former educator, and in my classroom I had a toaster, bread and other food, which I bought with my teaching salary as a classroom management program because I knew the kids in my classroom could not learn or stay focused on an empty stomach.

Another choice is introducing a guaranteed livable basic income for all people in Canada. Yesterday, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I joined Senator Kim Pate in support of her bill, Bill S-233, and my own bill, Bill C-223, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act, at a press conference. In its study of Bill S-233, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance heard overwhelming support from experts and advocates for the social, economic and health benefits that a guaranteed livable basic income would provide.

Providing a guaranteed livable basic income is an idea whose time has come because we know the pandemic revealed the deep cracks in our social safety net, and those cracks remain. In every corner of this country, the human rights of people living below the poverty line are violated on a daily basis. I have called poverty one of the most violent human rights violations, one that robs people of their dignity and their humanity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no one should be forced to sleep in tents, on the streets or in bus shelters. By providing everyone over the age of 17 who needs it with an unconditional cash transfer, a guaranteed livable basic income would lift millions of people out of poverty.

Poverty is expensive. In fact, poverty costs our country at least $80 billion a year. It costs our health care system, and one of the benefits of GLBI would be improving just that.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing the bill. I call on all members to support it, and I call on all members to support measures, including a national school food program and a guaranteed livable basic income, which would ensure no child in this country is ever hungry again.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am changing or the member for Winnipeg Centre is, but this is second time this week I completely agree with everything she has said.

I genuinely appreciate her comments today, in particular about a basic income, but also about, more generally speaking, the food sharing program we absolutely need to bring into our schools throughout the country.

I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing this very important bill. Once again, we see Quebec, which has had this legislation in place for decades now, has led the way, like it quite often does on other issues socially, or the environment, for example.

This is critically important. It is important that our children, who are in the age of developing and whose minds are still developing, are not subject to a bombardment of detrimental and unhealthy choices at such a young age. I have two children under the age of 13, and I think of how easily they are influenced by what they are seeing. The forms of media have changed so much since I was a child. Nowadays children are watching much more YouTube and more custom and tailored shows. We are seeing these advertisements come across in a way I certainly was not exposed to. When I was younger, we would sit in front of a TV on Saturday morning to watch cartoons. These ads would pop up, and our parents could be kind of looking our shoulder to see what we were watching. It is much more difficult now.

I also completely agree with the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre about this being a preventative step. This is about helping to prepare children so they can have the best shot at life in terms of health.

I am going to keep my comments very short. It is very refreshing to see the entire chamber support this initiative. The only thing I wish I could ask is that this be extended to grandparents too, because my mother, my children's grandmother, quite often purchases unhealthy stuff. Maybe that will be tackled at a later time.

Congratulations to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for bringing this forward. This is a very important initiative, and I look forward to it making its way over to the Senate next and becoming law so we can move forward on this very important initiative.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is great to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that matter to Canadians.

If the House could indulge me for just a moment before I get into the substance of Bill C-252, I want to pass along a big thanks. This Saturday marks four years since I was first elected as the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot. It is a great honour for me, along with the class of 2019, to be able to take my place in this hallowed chamber to stand up for the good people of, in my case, east central Alberta.

First, I pass along my deep thanks and appreciation to my wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three boys at the time and now I do: Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I could not do this without them. I thank the rest of my family as well for their support over the last four years.

Of course, one does not start one's political career on election day. There is work that goes into politics prior to that. I give a massive thanks to those who have helped in various campaigns and to those on my EDA and political association. I thank those who, since I first got involved at the age of 15, have been on this political journey with me. I have the honour of being a part of it.

I, like so many in this place, am so deeply appreciative of the work that office staff do to help make sure that we can accomplish the good work we do in standing up for our constituents in this place and back in our constituencies.

Of course, I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. For the last two elections, I have been honoured to receive a mandate and serve the 110,000 people. They are on about 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful, east central Alberta real estate. It is cowboy country. It truly is an honour.

I will continue to stand for those rural values and for democracy each and every day. I look forward to, after the next election, standing behind who I hope will be the new prime minister who brings home common sense to our country. I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for a great four years. I look forward to continuing to fight for many more years to bring common sense home to Canada.

We are debating a bill and its subject matter is something that I would be very surprised if anyone disagreed with. We want to ensure that there are healthy diets for kids across our country. As a father of three young boys, my wife Danielle and I take great pains to work and budget to ensure they have healthy meals. Especially in light of the cost of living crisis we see in this country, that is becoming an increasingly challenging circumstance.

It has been talked about substantially in this place over the last number of years, and especially with Thanksgiving just over a week ago. We saw how the dramatic increase in prices has put significant pressure on so many families. When it comes to ensuring that there is fairness, we need to empower people to understand exactly what they are eating.

We need to have regulations in place that support food safety and transparency, and that the ingredient list actually includes that. For example, something could claim to be organic. We want to have truth behind the whole process of our food supply chain. I know we dealt with it in this place, the fact that the Liberals wanted to label ground beef as being unhealthy, but not potato chips or candy bars.

I hope we would all agree in this place, though I sometimes wonder with some of the activist actions that have been taken by other parties, that we want to ensure healthy diets for everyone, especially for our young people in those formative, developmental years. We need to ensure their tummies are full when kids go to school in the morning. There are examples of this.

I have heard from many across my constituency and across the country. I would specifically give a big shout-out to Altario school. It is located about 45 minutes from my hometown of Consort. Principal Van Lagen has done an incredible job. The school has a greenhouse where it sells vegetables to the community. There is a farm at the school. The school sell animals and produces high-quality food for the local community. This little town of only several dozen people in the community of Altario is able to feed more than the number of people in the community.

We talk about the need to ensure that there is a healthy diet for all—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to move his earpiece or shut it off, because it is affecting the interpreter's ability to translate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.