Debates of Nov. 29th, 2023

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-322, An Act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Framework for a School Food Program Act

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to rise to speak in support of Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program.

It is quite similar to a bill I put forward in 2021, an act to develop a national strategy on school food security. I chose this as my PMB because, as a former teacher, I have seen first-hand how desperately a national school food program is truly needed in this country. Unfortunately, it never made it to second reading, because Parliament was dissolved. Therefore, it died on the Order Paper; however, I am really glad to see it brought back today and to be able to speak to it.

This bill would mandate the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, in consultation with the Minister of Health, provincial governments, indigenous governing bodies and other relevant stakeholders, to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. Within a year of the act coming into force, the minister must prepare a report setting out the national framework. The minister must table a report before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed. Within five years of tabling the report, the minister must undertake a review of the effectiveness of the national framework and prepare a report setting out his or her conclusions and recommendations regarding it.

I would like to explain why a bill of this nature is absolutely necessary in Canada. First, our children are sent to school to learn. Nutrition plays a key role in allowing that to happen; of course, good nutrition contributes to academic achievement. Child cognitive development depends on adequate nutrition. According to Roberts et al., “Inadequate protein and energy intake in childhood is directly associated with reduced growth, and is indicative of several psychosocial problems later in life”. They continue, “Undernourished children also exhibit impaired development and decreased functional capacity”, while “Children who do not receive adequate nutrition and psychosocial stimulation are likely to underperform in school and to have poor levels of cognition and education, which are linked to low-income earnings later in life”.

It is imperative for children to have access to healthy food, and we know that things are tough right now. Groceries are expensive, and the cost of living because of inflation has made it so that more and more families are having a difficult time putting food on the table. This bill would bring us closer to ensuring that our kids have access to at least one healthy meal every school day. It would ensure that our kids are not spending their school day thinking about how hungry they are or wondering when they are going to eat their next meal. Instead, they are able to focus on learning.

The effect of malnutrition on learning is not the only reason Bill C-322 is a necessity in Canada. When I think back to my teaching days, I remember seeing kids eat alone or walk in the hallways alone, just kind of disappearing during the lunch hour; that was one of the toughest parts. Something we often do not think about is the shame that a child or adolescent feels when they do not have a lunch. They are afraid of attracting attention to themselves during those moments, because they do not want to answer any uncomfortable questions about why they do not have a lunch with them. They do not want their peers to know that their families cannot afford to feed them. It impacts their self-esteem and their ability to fit in. Food insecurity limits a child's ability to fully participate in social activities and in their school community, which amplifies existing feelings of social isolation related to material deprivation.

No child should have to feel that way. No child should be subjected to unequal opportunities for friendships or positive social interactions. Edward Frongillo and colleagues investigated adolescents' experiences of shame related to food insecurity using an ethnically diverse sample of 40 adolescents aged nine to 15 years old. Participants described feelings of sadness, anger and internalized shame, and among the situations that brought out these feelings, the most common were social encounters at school among peers. This feeling of shame often leads to increased mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation. That is why this bill is so important: It would give the government the opportunity to work with provincial governments, indigenous governing bodies and other stakeholders to develop the best possible framework to put in place.

If done properly, this framework would not single out food-insecure children. It would offer all kids one healthy meal per day in order to make schools more inclusive. According to Chloe Pineau and colleagues, “Numerous studies have documented the shame, stigma, embarrassment, and social isolation associated with the use of charitable food programs...”. Therefore, it would be best if we could find a way for all children to benefit from receiving a healthy meal at school, to level the playing field.

I would like to share one particular memory that I have from my teaching days that has stayed with me ever since. I was teaching secondary 1, 2 and 3 students at an English high school in Montreal. One day early in December, I was on hall duty. I had to spend the lunch hour supervising a certain hallway in the school. One of my sweetest secondary 1 students, a seventh-grade student, who always sat in the front of the class, always smiled and behaved in the most polite way, was walking toward me. She looked like she was not in a rush to go anywhere in particular. The rest of her classmates were in the cafeteria at the other end of the school. I saw that she was empty-handed and I asked her where her lunch was. To the question, she responded that she did not have a lunch because her parents were saving the food for the Christmas holidays. The Christmas holidays were still a couple of weeks away. I told her to go to the office because the office had food to give to students who were in this kind of situation. I told her that they give snacks to students who forgot their lunch or who did not have any lunch. She was reluctant to go and ask for food and actually said, “No, Miss, I'm okay.” Of course, I brought her with me and assured her that it was okay and that this happens to many kids. I also explained the situation to the office staff so that they would set something up for the next couple of weeks.

However, most kids do not get caught. Most kids are really good at hiding when they do not have a lunch to bring with them to school. On the way back to my classroom, I thought back to whether there were any signs that I could have picked up on. I thought about her grades and realized that she did receive a few failing grades. I had not understood why because she was not coded and she always seemed like she was paying attention. This was a student I taught back in 2016. I can only imagine how many kids are in that same situation today, if not worse.

The current economic context has increased the need for school food programs in Canada. Nearly two million people, including more employed people than ever, used food banks in March 2023 alone, which is a 32% increase from that same month one year prior. One in four Canadian children live in households that experience food insecurity.

Not only is a school food program the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. According to research conducted in countries similar to Canada, every dollar invested in school food yields an estimated social return of $2 to $6. This is the reason I will be supporting Bill C-322.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of constituents from Kelowna—Lake Country.

Today I rise to speak to the Liberal private member's bill before us. Canadians are struggling to heat their homes, to find affordable places to live and to feed themselves and their families. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, residents in my community and other Canadians cannot even provide basic necessities for their families. Many families are finding themselves in this situation.

More children are not able to access nutritious food, and more of their parents are relying on food banks. Food bank usage hit another record high in 2023, with two million people using a food bank in one month. Canada's largest city, Toronto, just reported that one in 10 people relies on a food bank. Usage is up over 30% in my community. This is a crisis and a result of government policy failures. The idea that children are missing meals because families can no longer afford to buy food is heartbreaking. However, the legislation would not address the causes. The only thing it calls for is for ministers to do reports and reviews, all of which we would not see for years down the line. We need to focus on stopping the crushing inflation and cost increases to families.

The NDP-Liberal government continues to create legislation and policies that are driving up the cost of everything. Its inflationary spending has driven up inflation, which has driven up interest rates. The facts are that after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, higher taxes and increased red tape and bureaucracy have driven investment away. This has Canada sliding further down each year, with a continued low Canadian dollar, making anything bought from our largest trading partner, the U.S., more expensive and putting Canada on track to be one of the most unproductive and least prosperous OECD countries. The International Monetary Fund listed Canada as having the sixth-worst misery index score out of 35 industrialized countries. Simply put, the higher the score, the worse the economic situation and quality of life. Canada's score is the sixth-highest.

However, the Liberals do not want to be talking about any of this. They want to make it appear like they are helping, even though they are the cause of high prices and people's misery. It is like walking along and being tripped by someone, and while looking up at them, they hold out their hand and say, “I am here for you; let me help you up.” Meanwhile, the person on the ground is lying there thinking, “I would not be lying here if you had not tripped me in the first place.” The truth is that the proposed legislation would do nothing to address the rising cost of groceries through inflationary spending and increasing carbon taxes that increase the cost of fuel. The bill would bring more government and more bureaucracy. It would be more government studies and more government reports.

If we look back, we can remember that the Liberals campaigned on this bill in 2021. Now, two years later, the Liberals want to make it seem like they have not broken yet another one of their promises. The legislation is not even from the government; it is a private member's bill to think about enacting legislation. In reality, the bill is a placeholder. Even if the bill had any substance to it, the effects would not be felt anytime soon, and, again, it would do nothing to mitigate the causes. The bill is about creating reports. Not-for-profits are the ones doing the work serving communities now. We must do more to fight food price inflation by the federal government's stopping the spending.

Children need and deserve proper access to nutritious food at every meal. According to Dalhousie University's Agri-Food Analytics Lab, a new survey showed that almost half of Canadians are purchasing less protein for their meals and that over 45% of people are prioritizing saving on costs by skipping out on nutritious meals for themselves and their families. The Prime Minister said that Conservatives are exaggerating how bad people's personal financial situations are, but in B.C. alone, over 66% of people are worried that their health may be compromised in the long run. A resident in my community even told me that because food prices are so high, she was praying that her garden would be able to provide enough food for her household with four teenagers.

People have been left to pray. I spoke with a resident from my community who said she works with seniors and some of them are so undernourished, they actually look forward to being admitted to the hospital so they can be provided with some nourishment. This is the Canada of the NDP-Liberal government and its decisions after eight years. It is nothing short of shocking, how they are affecting people.

There are things we can do now: First, we can axe carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 outright across Canada. Second, we can stop the inflationary spending, which is also increasing interest rates. Third, we can stop the red tape and bureaucracy that is holding back investment, making Canada uncompetitive and unproductive, which is increasing Canada's misery index.

There are record-breaking lineups outside food banks and people who cannot afford to house themselves are living on the street. For the first time, there are working middle-class people living in their cars. In my home province of British Columbia and in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, one of our local food banks just said a 91-year-old came in as a client for the first time in her life. There is a food bank now for students at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan. Our two community food banks and the many not-for-profit agencies are helping to feed families with young children, seniors and our most vulnerable.

In Victoria, some food banks are seeing monthly increases by the hundreds. In Vancouver, one food bank has registered nearly 2,000 clients since July. This is what happens when they tax the farmer who makes the food, then the trucker who transports it and then the parent who buys it. A resident in my community of Kelowna reached out to me because the taxes on his gas bill were actually higher than his total gas usage cost for the month. That puts pressure on other home expenses like food.

Inflationary deficit spending is driving up inflation, which is driving up interest rates. Housing prices have doubled over the last eight years. Rents have doubled over the last eight years. What the Liberals are doing is not working. This private member's bill today from a Liberal is, in fact, an acknowledgement that Liberal policies simply are not working.

Across the country, Canadians are realizing that the NDP-Liberal government is simply not worth the cost. Feeding our children is important and I know all of us in this house want to make sure every child is fed. We need to scrap the NDP-Liberal carbon tax, stop policies that mean increasing costs for farmers, and stop policies that will make food packaging more expensive. We need to bring down the spending, which will also bring down inflation so that parents can afford to buy food.

Only Conservatives would stop the inflationary spending to bring inflation down so that Canadians can bring home lower interest rates and afford to live. We would reduce taxes to bring down inflation and make paycheques go farther. This placeholder bill would do nothing to stop the causes of why families are struggling to feed themselves. It is actually an acknowledgement that the policies of the government are not working.

We must fight for our families and children, and their well-being. This means fighting government bureaucracy and red tape, and fighting to stop the root causes of the misery of residents in Kelowna—Lake Country and across the country. It means fighting the costly carbon tax and inflationary spending that the NDP-Liberal government continues to pile onto Canadians, increasing prices and their misery.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. Obviously, no one can oppose virtue. Of course, I am moved by this issue, which is crucial for all young people.

I work alongside a specialist in educational success, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. It goes without saying that educational success goes hand in hand with having a full belly. That is key. There are many local initiatives. We are blessed in Quebec, that much is true. Everywhere, in every region, people fight tooth and nail to provide meals for students in schools.

I am the daughter of a school principal and a teacher. As an aside, I would like to say hello to my mother, Françoise Lajeunesse, who is likely watching. I have seen and heard stories of children who arrive at school every morning with empty tummies. I myself have helped many children, foundations and organizations in my region that offer meals to young people. Some of these kids have not eaten since last night. Some did not even eat last night. Some get cranky in the afternoon, not because they are stressed, but because they are hungry and have a headache. How can they succeed? This situation has to end sooner rather than later. It is a disgrace.

Is that acceptable in a G7 country? That is totally incomprehensible to me. Then again, there are places where people have chosen to make a change. In Wales, thanks to the Universal Primary Free School Meals program, by 2024, all children in elementary school will be entitled to a meal at school. The Welsh government implemented this new public policy to address child poverty and ensure that no Welsh children have to go to school on an empty stomach. The program guidelines can be found on the Welsh government's website, and we could draw inspiration from them. The aim is to promote healthy eating, increase the variety of food that children eat, improve social skills at meal times, and improve behaviour and academic achievements. These are the basics of life.

In France, school canteens have been feeding all French children for decades.

For school-aged children, food is essential to their growth, psychomotor development and ability to learn. It must be balanced, varied and spread throughout the day: for example, 20% of total energy in the morning, 40% at the midday meal [what we call lunch], 10% at 4 p.m. and 30% in the evening. Meal time is an opportunity for students to relax and connect with one another. It should also be a special time for discovery and enjoyment.

The quote I just read is from the website of France's ministry of national education and youth. It expresses my thoughts on this issue very well.

Although Quebec does not yet have a universal school food program, it has had a food policy in place in early childhood centres for 25 years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member for a moment. It is rather noisy right now. I am going to ask someone to go and see what is going on. Perhaps we should close the lobby doors, if that is where the noise is coming from.

The situation is now resolved. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree, it was getting a little hard to concentrate, especially because we are discussing something that is tough on our young people. I was talking about early childhood centres having a program to ensure that children have full tummies and are able to learn so that they can succeed in school and have prosperous futures. We are well aware that early childhood development requires that we teach children about healthy habits and things like that, but also that we encourage their physical and cognitive development.

That said, there is still an elephant in the room. Creating this kind of plan merely extends Ottawa's reach into areas outside its jurisdiction. Education is a provincial responsibility. It is up to Quebec to decide what course it chooses to follow in this area. It is not for Ottawa to dictate yet another national framework on a topic that I am sure is quite meaningful to the member for Acadie—Bathurst. This framework must not go ahead, at least, not in its current form. Otherwise, it would be a case of interference.

In August, on Radio‑Canada, Quebec's education minister said that the department of education had already injected $50 million into its programs to help the neediest children. I admit that there is room for improvement, and I think I have made it clear today how much of a priority this is for our young people. However, the method being used is not the right one. Ottawa has to stop presenting itself as a champion of progressive policies at the expense of constitutional laws. Why not champion both at once?

I know that the federal government is aware of the social crisis, the housing crisis, the inflation crisis, the food bank crisis, and the fact that families are being forced to make truly heart-wrenching decisions. When a parent, a mother, wonders whether they should pay the rent or mortgage, which they may be late on, or pay for groceries, how do they feel? Thousands of people are in that situation. Honestly, it really makes me upset. It breaks my heart.

If the Liberal members want to develop social policies, education policies or health care policies, then they should get elected to the provincial legislatures. That is where that stuff happens. The House of Commons is not the right place. It is at the National Assembly of Quebec that Quebec's MNAs debate education policy. It is section 93 of the Constitution of Canada that says so, not me.

If the federal government wants to do more, how about this for an idea? If federal MPs want to make a real difference when it comes to what Quebec schoolchildren get to eat, they should pick up the phone, call Quebec City, talk to Bernard Drainville and Eric Girard and transfer that money to Quebec. Quebec is in charge of school boards, Quebec knows its own schools, and Quebec has always been in charge of its education policy. For pity's sake, let Quebec set up its policies as it sees fit.

In closing, all this centralizing has to stop. I urge the federal government to be a good partner and make this crucially important issue a success at every level.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, they say that public education is the great social leveller, yet we know that kids cannot access the promise of education if they are hungry. Today, millions of kids across our country are going to school without food in their bellies. This is something we can change. The bill before us, Bill C-322, can be a part of a change toward the creation of a nationwide school food program that will provide healthy meals to kids going to school right across Canada.

There are many reasons why we should pursue a national school food program. I was looking at a study from The Rockefeller Foundation showing that in the United States, the $18.7-billion investment in school meal programs provides a return on investment of $40 billion. Perhaps for some people those kinds of numbers are motivating, but I think there is a much more profound reason we need to do this: Access to healthy food for kids is a human right. Kids deserve to access the promise of education with food in their bellies. Far too many, millions of kids across our country, are not able to do so.

That is why we in the NDP have long called for a national school food program. I want to particularly highlight the work of the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who tabled Bill C-212 in 2021 on a national school food program, and also our excellent critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has been working tirelessly on this issue in her role as the critic for children, families and social development.

Canada is not doing well when it comes to the provision of school food. Right now, Canada is the only G7 country that lacks a national school food program. Among the OECD countries, we are one of only a few countries that lack such a program. A 2017 study by UNICEF ranked us 37th out of 41 countries. These are 41 of the richest countries in the world, and we are ranked 37th when it comes to the provision of school meals. This is something we need to do much better on.

Right now, the situation in Canada is a patchwork of programs that are held together by NGOs, volunteers, schools and private donors. They are working so hard to ensure that kids can have healthy meals at school, yet we know it is not meeting the need that exists in our country, despite their tireless efforts. That is why the federal government has a responsibility to come forward with a fully national school food program that meets the needs of kids.

I mentioned the situation in Canada. Every province and territory has some semblance of funding for school meal programs. Unfortunately, that funding is falling far short, between three cents and 94¢ per person, per meal. I think anyone in this House who has bought food recently can say this is not nearly enough to ensure that kids are getting nutritious food at school.

Right now, this is a particularly pertinent issue because we have seen the cost of food skyrocket. With the profits of the grocery giants going through the roof, more and more Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. School food programs, given the existing patchwork, are even having a hard time affording the food they need to provide the level of school meals they are currently providing, not to mention meeting the needs that exist across the country.

In my home province of British Columbia, we are very fortunate that the NDP provincial government just recently announced a historic program, Feeding Futures. This is a $214-million school food program over three years. It is the largest investment in a school meal program in Canadian history. It is making a difference right across our province, with school districts now able to increase existing programs and create new programs where none existed.

We need the federal government to come to the table as a partner. This bill in front of us, Bill C-322, can be a contribution in that direction.

I will mention that it has taken a long time to get to this point. Of course, the Liberal Party, in 2019, committed to investing in a school food program. It did not put a dollar value to it.

In 2021, we saw in the Liberal platform that the government would commit $1 billion over five years. That was two years ago. Just imagine all the kids across our country who could have been fed over the past two years if those dollars had flowed and that commitment had been made real with a budget commitment. We are hopeful that budget 2024 will include these necessary dollars so that the patchwork of programs across the country can get the funding needed to deliver more meals.

This vision for a national school food program needs to be universal. It should not be just for kids who are not getting adequate food at home. It should be for all kids so that we are not stigmatizing those who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds. We know that it needs to be cost-shared with the provinces, and it should be free or low-cost for the kids participating in the programs. It also needs to support indigenous food sovereignty and local food production. Those are the characteristics I hope would be reflected in a national school food program created under the terms of the bill before us. This could make our country stronger. When we do it, we will be better for it in so many different ways.

I had my eyes opened to the potential of school food programs two years ago when I visited Suwilaawks Community School in Terrace, in northwest B.C. I visited Suwilaawks with a number of people, including Sam from the Coalition for Healthy School Food, Margo from Farm to School and the principal of Suwilaawks. They showed me the school food program there, and it was tremendously impressive.

I got to go into the kitchen and watch little kids lined up to get homemade soup and fry bread, which had been made by a volunteer named Janis Sharyk Fowler, who has been volunteering at the school for 12 years, and one of the indigenous support workers at the school, Colleen Morgan. She is fondly known as Grammie Colleen to the kids. She got up at seven o'clock that morning to make over 200 pieces of fry bread. Seeing the joy on the children's faces when they came into the school to get this food really brought home the potential of these programs to give kids the nutritious food they deserve so they can learn in our schools.

I would be remiss if I did not also highlight the work of another tireless volunteer in the Terrace area, and that is Gurjeet Parhar. Gurjeet has been working on local food programs and food security for so long through the Kalum Community School Society. The Kalum Community School Society has been delivering a good food box and a food-share program in communities from Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek in northern B.C., all the way down to Bella Coola and over to Haida Gwaii. She has been a tireless proponent of school food programs. I want to thank her for her incredible work across the northwest.

This is an idea whose time has come. It is time for us to move quickly now. There have been far too many delays in getting a national school food program up and running. We need this billion-dollar commitment over five years to hit the ground and to match the funds that are being brought forward by provinces such as my home province of British Columbia. We can improve Canada's standing among peer nations. We can get nutritious, healthy school food to kids right across our country and make our country stronger as a result. We can uphold the human rights of these kids who are going to school hungry.

In a country as rich as ours, we should do no less. We should make every effort to ensure that our children and children in communities all across this nation have the school food they deserve and need to learn.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and support Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, for introducing the bill.

I enjoyed a career as a teacher, a principal, a divisional principal and a coach. During that time, I had the opportunity to work with thousands of students, their families and educators from across Manitoba. I grew to understand the importance of being well fed and having nutritious options available during the school day, before it begins and when it ends.

Nutritious food and its availability is important for a number of reasons for a student: energy, concentration and attention span, sense of self, and a general positive outlook each and every day. As mentioned by my colleague across the way a moment ago, Canada is the only country in the G7 without a national standard or framework on nutrition programs in schools. I want to be very clear, before moving on to some other elements of my remarks this evening, that we understand provincial jurisdiction over the vast majority of education in Canada. This bill serves as a catalyst for all levels of government to work together for the well-being of young people across the country.

I understand that, as my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague said a few minutes ago, education is under provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, I think there are many examples of how collaboration among several levels of government can lead to positive policies in Canada. I think this bill is no different. This is an opportunity to work together.

I want to read some words that were shared with me by Alan Campbell, a fellow Manitoban, who serves as the current president of the Canadian School Boards Association. In my brief time in Parliament thus far, I have tried my best to include the remarks of folks who live where I come from, because I believe that it is my responsibility, and our responsibility here, to reflect their voices back to Canadians through this chamber and the roles we occupy.

Mr. Campbell had the following to say with respect to this bill, “Local school boards across the country are ready and willing to work with our provincial and federal governments on the creation of a national framework for a school food program. Recognizing that in many rural and urban communities across the country, existing school nutrition programs already function with direct support from local charitable organizations and school boards, there are already many highly successful models on which to build in order to rapidly create a framework for a universally accessible school food program in all schools across Canada.”

He went on to say, “In Manitoba, school boards point to the long-standing success of the Child Nutrition Council of Manitoba...a charitable organization which for decades, has partnered with the Manitoba School Boards Association as well as the public and private sectors in delivery of strong and sustainable nutrition programs in many Manitoba schools. The newly elected [Premier of Manitoba] Wab Kinew [and his] government...[have] committed to working with school boards and the CNCM to expedite more food programs to more schools, and this partnership in Manitoba may well serve to [positively] inform the development of the national framework as sought out in...[this bill].”

I spoke just yesterday to Premier Kinew and informed him that I would be talking about this matter in the chamber today. He simply wanted me to reiterate that the values of the Government of Manitoba are aligned with the intentions of this bill. We will be proud to work with him and his government in an effort to see it pass and to deliver for children across the country.

I want to turn for a moment to the disproportionate impacts facing indigenous communities in Manitoba as they pertain to poverty. I note that a few of my colleagues here and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre would know the tragic nature of these statistics very well.

The graduation rate for first nations students in Manitoba has been as low as 50% in recent years. This can be compared to the rate of roughly 95% for non-indigenous students in the public system in Manitoba. Out of the 11,000 kids in Manitoba who live in the child welfare system, 90% of them are indigenous. Therefore, key to reconciliation, key to doing our part to deal with the tragic consequences that poverty brings to communities, and as I just mentioned, disproportionately to indigenous communities in Winnipeg and in Manitoba, is that we must look towards how we can deal with nutrition.

There are also many opportunities here, again key to reconciliation, to include indigenous values and perspectives as they relate to food, diet and health, and how those things are reflected in curriculum. There are ways for us to embed indigenous teachings and world views in the Healthy Food in Schools website, curricula and conversations.

I have grown to admire the work of a grassroots organization called Teach For Canada, which is doing wonderful work to develop and support education on reserve in Canada's northern communities. Here is what their executive director, Ken Sanderson, offered as commentary with respect to this bill. He said, “In championing Bill C-322 and the creation of a national school food program, it's crucial to recognize the ongoing inequities faced by First Nations. ‘Teach For Canada-Gakinaamaage,’ with its mission to address educational disparities in First Nations, underscores the interconnected nature of these challenges, emphasizing the need for a localized, community-driven approach to achieving student success in the classroom. To truly commit to ending child hunger, we must prioritize community consultation and tailor our efforts to create a well-rounded learning environment that addresses the linked needs of education and nourishment. This requires a nuanced approach that considers factors like food costs, insecurity, and the need for culturally sensitive, Indigenous-informed nutrition.”

My former employer, the Winnipeg School Division, where I got my start as a teacher some years ago, is the largest school division in the city of Winnipeg and, indeed, in the province of Manitoba. Many of its schools are located in my riding, and many of the staff who work in them reside there. The Winnipeg School Division continues to provide nutrition programs throughout its 79 schools, and in my riding, Gladstone School offers a robust breakfast program that ensures all learners are prepared to learn. The challenge is that most nutrition programs are supported by limited grants and the goodwill of charities. If we want to create a robust society, it is important to provide all learners, not only in the Winnipeg School Division but also all over Canada, with a targeted and sustainable source of nutritional food.

In my home province of Manitoba, the government funds the Child Nutrition Council of Manitoba, which I referred to earlier, and it provides grants to schools. In 2021-22, these grants supported close to 34,000 children through 302 programs. As a principal, I used to apply for these grants on behalf of students, and they are wonderful. They provide an incredible amount of support that is desperately needed for young people; however, it is not enough. I watched the impact that these programs had on students in schools where I worked, schools where colleagues of mine worked and schools that my friends' kids went to, and it reinforced the importance of having at our disposal this type of support to make sure that kids have a positive experience in school.

In closing, I will reiterate the urgency of implementing a national school food program. I hope that we will be able to find bipartisan support in this chamber for this piece of legislation. I know that there are areas in which my colleagues and I may disagree, such as about the source of inflation and what is driving the cost of living and affordability in this country, but I do think that we can agree on the importance of ensuring that these programs exist.

When federal and provincial governments work together, great things can happen for Canada. We have seen this on deals ranging from child care to health transfers and efforts to combat climate change. I hope that Bill C-322 will afford us another opportunity to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to debate the issues that are so important to Canadians.

Since we are talking about an issue that deals with education, and I will get to the substance of the bill in a moment, I want to give a shout-out to a young lady from B.C. whose name is Abigail. I had a chance to have a visit with her in the hallway prior to coming into this debate, and she informed me that she plans to be Canada's second female prime minister. I send a big shout-out to Abigail, a very bright young lady in elementary school. It just speaks to the incredible potential that exists across this country in our young people.

We are talking about one of the fundamental issues our country is facing, which is the affordability of food. There are three things I hope to be able to address in the short time I have here before us. The first is that, when it comes to the idea of a school lunch program, the idea of this sort of thing sounds great. However, as with many things that get talked about in the nation's capital, studies, reports and frameworks in this case do not feed kids.

I will start by emphasizing something because our country needs real action to ensure we can address the affordability crisis so many are facing. It is leading to kids going to school hungry and families making difficult decisions about whether to pay for rent, home heating or groceries. The first point I would like to make in this debate tonight is that food has become unaffordable for so many in our country, and it should not be that way.

Let me emphasize how fundamentally advantaged Canada is when it comes to being a producer of high-quality food products. We have the space, the capacity, the expertise and the experience to produce the world-class, quality food people need not only here in our own country but also around the world. Certainly it is a travesty that we are seeing approximately two million visits to food banks per month in our country when we have been blessed with such incredible capacity here at home. It is truly a tragedy.

We see the underlying causes of that. The fact that we have to talk about some of the issues surrounding kids going to school hungry is absolutely tragic. However, we have before us a very simple step in the right direction. It is a bill, currently sitting in the Senate, that would address some of the challenges, and it is the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax on all types of farm fuels and home heating. It would allow for the price of food to be brought down in our country. It would ultimately help families, our people from coast to coast to coast, because of course our north is deeply affected by the price of food, yet the bill is unfortunately being stalled.

We have to ensure that folks are able to have prosperous jobs, so we can address some of the challenges we are talking about. It has been raised several times in the debate tonight, and it is fundamentally important. In the short time I have, I will get into some of the jurisdictional challenges momentarily, but we have to acknowledge how important it is to ensure our society functions well, for civil society begins to deteriorate when people cannot afford food. The actions of left-leaning ideologies are directly forcing prices in this country to rise, and that is truly a travesty.

As a fifth-generation farmer of on my family's farm in Alberta's special areas, I was discouraged today by the fact that the Prime Minister did not offer support for farmers but said he will meet with them to tell them how they should or should not do their business. Truly, it is that attitude that farmers do not need. Left-leaning ideologies need to get out of the way to let farmers grow crops and raise livestock to ensure we have that high-quality food.

The second point I will make in the short time I have is that this bill is actually an admission of Liberal failure. In two of their election platforms, I believe in 2015 and 2021, the Liberals promised to have a national lunch program, yet they were unable to fulfill that. This is an admission of that failure. I would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member. We need to allow for the reply.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is definitely going to be difficult to summarize the two hours of debate that we have had on my bill in five minutes.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues from the various parties who spoke to this very important bill, which could change the lives of the children in our society. As I said in my speech, I think that this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will debate this session.

It is 2023. I would like us to just take a moment to think about these striking examples. Many children go to school hungry. They do not have any breakfast or lunch, and they do not even have a snack at school. One in five children say that they do not have enough to eat at home. Within first nations communities, 50% of households say that they struggle to feed their family. We are one of the only countries in the G7 that does not have a school food program. In some provinces and territories, there are some schools that get funding for school food programs while others do not, which means that some children are falling through the cracks.

These few striking examples demonstrate why we need to have a framework, a national program in our schools, to ensure that our young people do not go to school hungry, do not have to think about being unable to learn and can stop worrying about not having anything in their lunch box.

I know that some of my colleagues and some parties have concerns about their respective provincial jurisdictions. We know that education is a provincial jurisdiction, but my bill makes it very clear that we will need to work with the provinces and territories to create a national program. We are going to respect those areas of jurisdiction, and that is why we are going to engage in discussions with the provinces and territories.

This morning, I was fortunate to be invited to make a presentation to the Coalition for Healthy School Food. I want to thank all these groups for their extraordinary work over the past several years to ensure that we have school food programs in our schools across Canada.

This bill is also too important to politicize. I find it disappointing to hear some of my Conservative colleagues say that if there were no price on pollution, no price on carbon, we would not need school food programs.

In 1982, 42 years ago, I was in grade one. There was no price on pollution, but interest rates were high. Some of my friends beside me did not have anything to eat. This is not a new problem, and that is why we need to address it.

I humbly ask all my colleagues in the House to support this bill. They should not do it for me, but they should do it for our children, for our young people in our schools who need a school food program, who need to stop worrying about going to school with an empty stomach. What we are doing here is trying to make life better for these children and their families. I hope my colleagues from the various parties will support my bill.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to introduce this bill in the House. Once again, I would like to thank everyone who spoke to it.

I hope the bill can move on to the next stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, J.F.K. purportedly said once that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. From this, we can gather that the decision to hire GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app was a failure because nobody will admit to being the one responsible. Nobody wants to claim the parentage of this terrible decision.

Conservatives have been persistently prosecuting this case of the arrive scam scandal. The government spent $54 million. It contracted GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app. The RCMP is now investigating some of the contractors involved. We have repeatedly asked a simple question: Who is the person responsible for the decision to hire GC Strategies? This is a two-person company. Nobody in the company does any IT work. All they do is receive the contract and then subcontract it. They go on LinkedIn and send messages to people asking them to do the work. They do not do any of the work themselves. They just receive the contract and subcontract it.

It is like if you, Madam Speaker, hired me for $100 to paint your fence, and then I went and hired another member to paint the fence for $50. They did the work. You paid me and I collected a whole bunch of money in the middle. That is essentially how GC Strategies operated in this case and in other cases. It does not have the people or capacity to do the actual work.

By all indications, it was a terrible decision to spend enormous amounts of public money through GC Strategies for this overpriced, glitchy, ineffective app. We have all kinds of things that have come out during the discussion of this issue. We have doctored resumés that have, in another case, been presented to the Government of Canada. We have systemic questions about how the procurement process works. We also have senior public servants accusing each other of lying about who made the decision. This is quite incredible. We have senior public servants Cameron MacDonald and Minh Doan accusing each other of lying about who made the decision to go with GC Strategies.

Again, we have repeatedly, in this House and in committee, asked who was responsible for this decision. I put the question to the Minister of Procurement yesterday, but he did not answer. Under the Liberal-NDP government, over the last eight years, we have seen how everything is broken, but nobody is responsible. Apparently anything that goes wrong is nobody's responsibility. Again, as J.F.K. said, victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

There are a lot of orphans according to the Liberals. They said they did not make the decision and it was external factors. This was a decision of someone in government. Somebody decided this two-man company working out of a basement doing no IT work were the right people to build this app. They were the right people to spend $54 million on.

We will continue to ask the government this simple question: Who made the decision? Was it a minister? Was it the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Procurement? Was it a particular senior official? We have senior officials actually accusing each other of lying. They are saying, “It was not me. It was that guy.” The government is ultimately responsible for the decisions made while it is in power. It has been in power for eight years.

It is a simple question. I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer. Who made the decision to choose GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app?

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite will take an issue, whatever that issue might be, will associate it with the Prime Minister or the government and then will add onto the end of it “scandal”. The member is very consistent in doing that. It does not matter to what degree it is factual. He insists on always putting in the word “scandal” and then trying to associate it with the government.

I am not saying there are no wrongdoings. In fact, when the member asked the question and the minister responded, here is what the minister indicated:

...what I am happy to explain to the House is how seriously our government takes allegations of inappropriate behaviour with taxpayers' money and contracting or subcontracting. We are obviously very pleased that the committee is looking into this matter. We are pleased that the Auditor General is also seized with this question.

We are also pleased that the Canada Border Services Agency, when these issues came to light, took the appropriate action with internal reviews and, as was appropriate, referred any and all of these circumstances to the appropriate authorities.

As the minister clearly indicated, we take the allegations very seriously, and the government is determined to support the work on the matter, whether by the Auditor General or the standing committee. At some point in time, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, we will see allegations substantiated or will get to the bottom of the issue. The government is committed to addressing it.

I do not know by whom, but I was provided a letter that I thought was kind of interesting. It was dated in October. I do not know whether it was the member himself, but somebody asked for the RCMP to come before one of the standing committees. I think it was addressed to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The member looks a little puzzled, so I am not too sure if he is aware of it. Maybe the document is in another committee. I am not 100% sure, but the bottom line is that the letter, signed off by the RCMP, indicates what the RCMP understood:

...the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) has adopted a motion calling for the appearance of, among others, Sergeant Kim Chamberland in respect of “reports that the RCMP is investigating allegations of misconduct by three companies involved in the development of the ArriveCAN app.”

Contrary to public reporting, the RCMP is not investigating the ArriveCAN matter.

The letter goes on and states, in essence, that the RCMP does not think that person would be able to contribute positively or in any way to the committee. I do not know how that was ultimately resolved. I just came by this particular letter and am curious to know whether the member is aware of the facts with respect to it. Suffice it to say, just as I started my comments, I note that the government is being very diligent in going through the process and ensuring that tax dollars are protected.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, in typical fashion, the member has delivered a word salad to the House of Commons that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Somebody in the government made a decision to hire GC Strategies to produce ArriveCAN. The decision was made, so someone had to make it. I did not ever at any point say who made that decision, but I asked the government to tell us who was responsible for that decision. Frankly, the more the government members refuse to answer this basic question, the more guilty they look.

My question is very simple. With senior public servants accusing each other of lying about this matter and with aspersions being cast back and forth in the House, the public has a right to know. Fifty-four million dollars was spent on this app. Who made the decision to hire GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the Government of Canada and the minister in question have made it very clear that we take the allegations very seriously. We are very much concerned whenever tax dollars are being inappropriately expended. At the end of the day, these are tax dollars, which are very important dollars, and the government is determined to get to the bottom of this. We will, and there will be a consequence.

Billions and billions of dollars are spent every year by government, whether directly by government or indirectly through agencies. The government does the best it can to ensure there is a high sense of accountability for civil servants. A number of allegations have been made. We will get to the bottom of them and there will be consequences.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, a question that he conveniently refused to answer concerning corruption at the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund known as SDTC.

An independent, fact-finding report reveals a cloud of mismanagement, conflicts of interest and self-dealing at SDTC. The report found, among other things, that the board improperly paid out nearly $40 million in so-called COVID relief payments, including funnelling millions of dollars to companies that board members had an interest in.

The chair of SDTC, during questioning before the ethics committee, was forced to admit that she funnelled $220,000 to her own company, and then funnelled $120,000 of that into her own personal bank account. She even moved the motion at the board. Incredibly, she claimed it was all okay because she and the board had received legal advice.

It turns out that the lawyer who provided that legal advice is none other than a member of the SDTC council. In other words, the lawyer was providing legal advice about conflicts of interest when he, himself, had a conflict of interest. In providing that advice and being paid for that advice by SDTC, as he was, the law was broken, because section 16 of the SDTC act prohibits any member of the SDTC council from profiting from SDTC.

Yesterday, we learned that another board member at SDTC had funnelled a staggering $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into four companies that she had an interest in. She enriched herself to the tune of $42.5 million. It is unbelievable.

It appears that this only scratches the surface of corruption and mismanagement at SDTC, because according to whistle-blowers, the level of corruption and self-dealing exceeds $150 million of taxpayers' money squandered.

Despite the well-documented corruption and mismanagement involving tens upon tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned but not at the request of the minister, and the minister continues to stand behind the corrupt SDTC board. Why?

Why is the minister more interested in protecting Liberal insiders who got rich improperly at the expense of taxpayers rather than rooting out the rot and corruption at the Liberals' green slush fund?

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made earlier by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

I feel that it is important to reiterate and stick to the facts of this case. First, the minister took immediate action to initiate a fact-finding exercise through an impartial third party. That exercise found no clear evidence of deliberate unethical behaviour. There were, however, several incidences in which the organization was not in full compliance with its contribution agreement.

Second, to address the inconsistency, including the conflict of interest, the organization has been asked to comply with several corrective measures by December 31. Out of an abundance of caution, financing for all new projects has been temporarily frozen until these measures are in place. SDTC has committed to implementing the corrective measures requested by us on an expedited timeline. Everyone involved is eager to get back to supporting Canadian business.

Third, we now have in place an independent legal review by the firm McCarthy Tétrault to examine human resource allegations brought forward by current and former employees of the organization. SDTC has agreed to allow these employees to speak freely without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements.

Fourth, although I know the party opposite likes to take credit for the AG's decision to conduct an audit since the allegations came to light, we have been in dialogue with the office of the Auditor General on this matter. We welcome the Auditor General's decision to conduct the audit. We will await her report on this matter, which will inform whether further action is necessary.

Finally, the decisions of the chair of SDTC's board and of its president to resign were personal ones. It is for us to follow due process and await the results of the AG's audit before making any pronouncements.

Taking a step back, in consideration of the facts of the matter, as I have laid them out, I am confident that we are on the right path. With the implementation of the corrective measures, the pending OAG audit, the HR review and the reinvigorated leadership at the organization, we can refocus efforts on supporting our Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector.

I take it very seriously when we talk about the Auditor General of Canada. The actions that the government has taken to date, I think, should provide a very high level of comfort to people who would be following this debate. The government is very much aware of it and is taking direct actions to resolve it.

I am a little bit disappointed in the member across the way. As with the member and his colleague just prior, who asked a totally different question in another area, again, there is the fascination that the Conservative Party has with words such as “corruption” and “scandal”. It continually wants to raise them. I understand why it likes those two words. I understand it a lot.

The bottom line is that the government of the day is very much aware of it and is indeed continuing to monitor. As I indicated in response to the previous question, it is in a position to look at the recommendations and to ultimately follow through when those recommendations are brought forward.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the resignation of the chair of SDTC was a personal decision that she did not make at the direction of the minister. This was the same chair who funnelled $220,000 into her own company and then transferred $120,000 of that into her personal bank account.

That is corruption, yet it did not meet the level for the minister to call on her to resign. If that level of corruption does not suffice calling for a resignation, what does?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree. The member opposite in the Conservative Party will look at this whole issue as being one of a slush fund.

It is not the first time that they have used the words “slush fund”. We will remember that they also used the words “slush fund” for Canada's child care plan, which saw a massive reduction in child care costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as all provinces and territories signed on with the government.

We have a substantial fund here to support business. The Conservatives say that they support businesses. Often, I find that they will say one thing but their actions demonstrate something entirely different. I wish the Conservatives would get on board and support businesses and our business community.

Small Business

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the big disappointments from last week's fall economic statement was the lack of action on extending the loan repayment deadline for the Canada emergency business account program.

CEBA loans saved hundreds of thousands of businesses across Canada and millions of jobs during the pandemic, but recovery has been slow, particularly in sectors such as tourism. The deadline to repay CEBA loans was extended from the end of 2022 to the end of 2023, but there continue to be calls to extend it once more, to the end of 2024.

Last month, the provincial premiers from across the country called on the government to make that extension. Chambers of commerce, including those in my riding, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked for an extension. The NDP and Bloc Québécois have both asked for an extension. Sadly, both the Liberals and Conservatives in this place have ignored those calls and remained silent. Eventually, the government extended the repayment deadline by 18 days. That time will only allow businesses to secure additional loans and take on more debt.

I recently met with Anette and Jörg in my riding. They own one of the oldest craft distilleries in the country. They have been in business for years. As many of the small businesses in my riding do, they depend on the tourism industry to be successful, so the CEBA loan program literally kept their business alive during the pandemic. They were on schedule to pay back their CEBA loan until this summer, when wildfires in the interior of B.C. drove the provincial government to close the region to tourism. It was not just that visitors did not want to come to a region that was on fire; they were literally told they could not come. August, one of the two big months for tourism-related business, was a complete writeoff.

I also heard from Conrad, who has a family-owned and operated fashion store in Osoyoos. The CEBA loan made the difference in getting his business through COVID. Conrad's business is almost entirely dependent on tourism, and it was also impacted by the wildfires this summer. He did not even get to the break-even point this year, and he cannot pay back the CEBA loan or even buy new stock for next year.

The wine industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in the Okanagan Valley. It was hard hit last winter, with an unusually hard and early frost that damaged many vines and even killed vines in some vineyards. Therefore, harvest was cut in half this year, and that impact will be felt next year and years after that when the wine matures. On top of that, most of the 300 or so wineries in the region were also hit by the lack of tourism in August because of wildfires. I had dinner last week with wine industry leaders and learned that many wineries are considering closing or selling right now, because they cannot make ends meet. Some have already closed.

The B.C. Craft Brewers Guild reported yesterday that 15% of their members face bankruptcy if the CEBA loan repayment period is not extended. They are impacted not only by the downturn in tourism but also by the inflation that has driven up the cost of everything that goes into their craft beers.

Small businesses across Canada are in crisis. We need to support them by extending the CEBA loan repayment deadline. It is not too late.

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

Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is reinforce exactly what the minister said to the member not that long ago with respect to the CEBA loan deadline:

That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both balanced and fiscally responsible....

We know times are tough, which is why our government is also cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter. We will continue to listen to small businesses, and we will be there for all Canadians.

If I may, I would like to pick up on the issue of continuing to be there for small businesses, because I think it is important to recognize that the government, over the last number of years, even prepandemic, was there to support small businesses in different ways. One that stands out to me offhand is the small business tax reduction that was given, a substantial tax reduction in order to support small businesses. When we went into the pandemic, what we saw in a very real and tangible way was direct financial support put into the tills of small businesses and into the pockets of small business owners. We saw that in different forms, whether indirectly through wage subsidies for workers, or through rent support or the small business loans. We are talking about billions of dollars. We made it very clear at the beginning of the pandemic that the government would be there to support small businesses, because we recognize the valuable role they play in modern society here in Canada. They are the backbone of our economy, and the potential is absolutely overwhelming. That is why, from giving the tax break and the supports during the pandemic to being able to extend where we can in a fiscally responsible fashion, we are doing that.

I have had the opportunity to visit many small businesses, and one thing I am happy to see is the many programs we put into place to assist them. I constantly get reminded how the government supports have been there and have allowed a business, or even a community non-profit group, to be able to survive; it is because the government was there to have its back.

Nothing has really changed. We will continue to be there to support small businesses today and into the future. One needs to look at the fall economic statement, and there are a number of things we can do, whether directly or indirectly. I often say that one of the best things we can do indirectly is to ensure that there is disposable income for Canadians. We do that through different forms of rebates, such as the GST rebate, or through the enhancement of social programs to ensure that seniors or people with a disability have more disposable income. All of that indirectly allows people to support small businesses. In fact, on a personal note, I am sending out my next householder, encouraging people to get out there and use the small businesses in our community. I think we all have an important role.