Debates of Feb. 29th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know we were all disappointed to learn that the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock's time expired, as he had much more to contribute. However, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to such an important topic here this morning.

As has been highlighted in the discussion thus far, we know that food insecurity is a challenge right across the country, with inflationary spending by the NDP-Liberal government and its carbon tax adding to the cost of living. People right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, are struggling to get by, to put food on the table and to put healthy food on the table, which is an important distinction. It is one thing to be able to afford some food, but to be able to afford healthy food, and culturally appropriate food in many cases, has become a struggle. It is why there have been, unfortunately, two million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month. In recent statistics it might be even higher.

Eighteen per cent of families across the country are reporting food insecurity. This is really an affordability crisis across the country, much of it the creation of the NDP-Liberal government with its inflationary policies and carbon tax, which is a tax on everything: on the farmers who make the food, the truckers who ship the food and the individuals who buy the food. In fact in 2024, a typical family will have to spend $700 more on groceries as a result of the government's policies.

As the report we are discussing today has highlighted, this is an issue that is even greater in northern communities across the country, including in northern Ontario and communities I represent in the northwest. There are 42 first nations in the district that I represent, many of which have no year-round road access, so it becomes a challenge to deliver goods to those communities, especially food and healthy food that does not have a long shelf life.

What are communities in the north relying on? They are relying on winter roads, which are not always predictable, depending on the weather we are getting. They are relying on a barge to go from the northeast around the corner to northwest Ontario. They are relying on aircraft, which, of course, with the carbon tax, the so-called clean fuel regulations, and the second carbon tax on top, are getting more and more expensive to operate as well. There is also the pilot shortage. I could go on and on with the issues the government has created, but they all add to the cost of living for northern communities.

Then, of course, when we look farther north to the territories, where, I understand, there is not much road access to communities, the rates of food insecurity are even higher. According to a report put together by Statistics Canada with information from the University of Toronto, 46% of people in Nunavut and over 22% in the Northwest Territories live in food-insecure households. This is a major affordability crisis.

What is the government doing about it? Of course it is making it worse with its inflationary policies and high taxes, but it has supposedly been aiming to address this through nutrition north Canada, one of its flagship programs to address food insecurity in the north. Every single year, the government has been increasing funding to nutrition north Canada. In 2021, it announced $163 million over three years to expand it.

Every year, the money goes up, but the rates of food insecurity also go up. The government is spending more but getting worse results year after year, driving up the cost of living for people in the north, which is a major issue. Clearly the program is not working. As my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, nutrition north Canada is not going to solve the affordability crisis when it comes to groceries across northern Canada.

There are a number of reasons for that, which the report highlights. When I was previously working on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, this struck me. The mandate of the program is not even to address food security. We learned that from the officials of nutrition north Canada. This does not make any sense. Why would that program exists? It is a subsidy that goes to the retailers. There are a lot of concerns with the transparency of that. There are concerns that it has not been opened up to agricultural producers, that there has not been enough support for local harvesting or the ability for food to be processed in the north. It has a very narrow scope, yet the government continues to invest more and more money into a program that does not work.

Unfortunately, that is a common trend we have seen with the government. We have seen it with nutrition north and we have seen it in Indigenous Services Canada. The government often boasts about the fact that it has dramatically increased funding to Indigenous Services Canada. However, we have seen from PBO and Auditor General reports that the spending has not actually led to an increased ability of ISC, Indigenous Services Canada, to achieve its departmental results. That is why a number of boiled water advisories continue to exist in northwestern Ontario and across the country. Over and over again, we are seeing the government focused on announcements, photo ops and money that is being sent to the bureaucracy instead of doing the real work to ensure that it is getting to the people who need it.

Something that really concerns to me is that last year, through an answer to an Order Paper question, we found out that 94% of executive staff at Indigenous Services Canada received massive bonuses, totalling over $3.6 million. They are failing to meet their targets. They are failing to deliver adequate services to indigenous people across the country, yet they are being rewarded with bonuses. That is a slap in the face to indigenous peoples across the country, including in the north, who are struggling to get by. I am sure the 42 chiefs in my riding, and many across the north, could certainly have come up with a better use for that $3.6 million that went to the bureaucracy and bloated the pockets of executive staff.

That is completely unacceptable, but that is what we get after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, more spending, leading to higher inflation and a carbon tax that is driving up the cost of living for everyone. It is not just food that it is impacting. Of course, we are speaking about food security with this report, but it is energy as well.

One in five Canadian families are now living in energy poverty. I do not have a statistic for the north off the top of my head, but I am sure common sense would indicate that this would be even higher in the north, where it becomes even more expensive and even more necessary to have home heating and that use of energy.

It does not seem like the government gets it. The government does not understand the pain that its policies are inflicting on people across the country, particularly in the north. Either that or maybe the government just does not care. Either way, it is clear that it is time for a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax and make life and food more affordable for people across the north. We will listen to people living in the north to ensure we provide the services that are needed in an efficient manner. We will work toward building economic opportunities that can lead to self-determination and ensure that everyone can live in a food-secure household.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the important work he has done at the indigenous and northern affairs committees. One thing we heard during this study, as well as at the United Nations permanent forum on indigenous issues, which I was proud to attend along with my colleague last year, was that climate change was impacting northern and coastal communities at a far greater level than everywhere else in Canada.

The member opposite talked about the price on pollution and the problems with the carbon tax. However, we are seeing a very real situation happening in the north. Our communities are not able to sustain themselves the way they have done since time immemorial because of climate change.

Could the member opposite talk a bit about how climate change has impacted the north and what he heard during the study and at the United Nations about the urgent situation that the climate crisis has caused?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite is right. Climate change is impacting people in the north. As I mentioned in my speech, winter road access is becoming less predictable. It is why communities are looking for alternative options to get goods to the north. They hope to be able to harvest more in the north. We certainly need to deal with this issue. It speaks to the fact that nutrition north Canada will be unable to address those issues.

Unfortunately, what we have seen, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, is that it does not have a plan for the environment. It has a carbon tax that is driving up the cost of living, while emissions are continuing to rise, and it is not even tracking the emissions that could be potentially prevented with this carbon tax. It is simply a tax plan, and people in the north recognize that and they see right through it.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also had the opportunity to sit with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I would like him to speak in a little more depth about nutrition north Canada, which was studied in committee. We hear that it cannot resolve the whole situation of food sovereignty or food security in the north.

Does my colleague see other possible solutions or arrangements? How can the nutrition north Canada program be improved to ensure food security in the north?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with my colleague on the committee in the past.

Of course, nutrition north will not be the “silver bullet” to address this issue. We heard a number of concerns about the transparency of nutrition north. A lot of people do not believe it is properly being passed on, and there should be some mechanisms in place for that. The government also needs to look at whether a similar program can bolster harvesting support in the north, support for food processing in the north, or perhaps even rejigging the program entirely so it does not go to the retailers, but rather it goes to the people or to those who transport the goods.

We have heard a number of suggestions at committee. I think it is clear that something needs to change, and it is important that the government listens to the people in the north, the people who are affected by it, to know what change will be best for them so we can ensure we get it right.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am quickly reading through the report that was done by the 43rd Parliament. This is not an issue that is new to me; it is quite familiar. I hear about food insecurity all the time whenever I go to my communities. I was surprised to see there was a recommendation in the report that the nutrition north program be evaluated, but, unfortunately, that has not been done.

Could the member share his thoughts on why it would take so long to evaluate such an important program?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the government would have to answer why it is taking so long to evaluate the program. I have no idea. It is something the government should have acted on before we did that report. I would have hoped that it would have acted on it much quicker.

We have heard time and time again that there are problems and concerns with this program. In committee, the government seems to agree with us, but then afterward it sits on its hands and does nothing about it. In fact, it has been increasing funding to this program. It is all about announcements and photo ops and not results with those guys.

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

Madam Speaker, issues of this nature are of great importance. No matter where one lives in Canada, there is a great deal of sympathy and appreciation for the cost of living in northern Canada.

Back in the days when I was an MLA, I recall bringing forward legislation on milk, because of the cost of milk in northern Manitoba and the fact that cola products were far more cheaper. Although my bill never passed, it at least made a point. As much as possible, we do not want products that we consume on a daily basis and take for granted to become so expensive in northern Canada. Often, it is not even a question of price; it is a question of availability. In our cities, we have come to accept that when we walk into a grocery store many products will be available to us, but that is not the case in northern Canada.

How many speeches have we heard, not only today but in the past, about competition? We often talk about the importance of competition, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, smaller communities in between, Halifax, virtually throughout the country. One reason we talk about competition is because through competition we get better selection, better prices and so forth. Those same principles do not apply to northern Canada.

In northern Canada, one grocery chain covers the Far North. How does that provide for a competitive price regime? A whole lot more with respect to getting the products up north needs to be taken into consideration.

I have weekly discussions in my constituency at a local restaurant. I recall one individual from the University of Manitoba. He has talked about airships for years and has gained quite a bit of support for the role airships could play in providing additional competition and resources to northern Canada. There is now a great deal of talk about how, maybe even in a community like Thompson, airships could get engaged in providing services further north to ensure there is healthier competition and choice of product.

We need to look at ways to ensure there is more food security, more choice and, obviously, a better price point on products that people living in the north need day in and day out. I think the vast majority of Canadians understand the issue and would like more done on that file. The government has moved forward significantly on reconciliation.

Before I get into more details on that, I want to highlight something that took place yesterday and we are witnessing it again today. Members in the House were anticipating that we would be talking about child care, as it is an item on today's agenda.

It is somewhat disappointing, given the very nature of the debates we have been having over the last couple of days, that the Conservative Party has chosen to talk about this issue, without giving any notice whatsoever to members outside of their own caucus. We have a Conservative opposition that wants to highlight a particular issue, yet it does not tell anyone what it wants to debate. That does put some limitations on the debate. I know others who would have liked to contribute to the debate and who maybe have not been afforded the opportunity because of availability, other agenda items and so forth.

If this issue is so important to the Conservative Party, why would it not have brought in an opposition day motion related to the report? It is interesting, the member who spoke previously talked about the nutrition north program. He even indicated in his comments that the government has been constantly increasing the financial resources for the program. We even have members of the Conservative Party making reference to the fact that the government has continued to increase the funding.

A number of issues could have been raised on an opposition day, because then everyone would have had the appropriate notice and time, and specific members who would like to address the issue would be in a better position to do so. We could actually come back with hard numbers, in terms of what has actually been invested in that program.

There are numerous departments that deal with indigenous leaders and communities of the north. I would argue that the Conservatives have done a disservice in two ways. First, they are underestimating the importance of this very issue, by the manner in which they have brought it forward. It is disrespectful to the issue they want to debate. Second, at the same time, they have prevented a debate that members of this House were anticipating from occurring, that being child care.

I made reference to the fact that yesterday we were talking about processes and what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives were complaining that they would actually have to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. in order to debate government agenda items. They did not want to sit late in the evenings. I argued that we needed the time to have those debates, because of the games that were played by the Conservatives, bringing in concurrence reports in order to prevent debate on government legislation.

I highlighted that yesterday. I have raised that issue before. Once again, we see the Conservative Party playing a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Conservatives are saying that they do not want to talk about child care here today, even though that is what we were supposed to be talking about. Then they took an issue that is so serious and, without any notice to other members, brought it forward.

I am going to wind up my remarks, because I do want to get to debate. I will highlight one thing. I think of the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Infrastructure Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, not to mention the many different indigenous groups that want to participate in the discussion. The Conservatives took this opportunity to, in essence, mock the issue and take advantage of an issue in order to prevent the government agenda of dealing with child care, and that is an area that needs to be debated.

The legislation needs to be passed, and that is the reason I would move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[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.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #655

Committees of the House

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of how many members would like to participate.

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to hear that the Liberals want to close debate on a subject matter that is impacting families across this country, in every province and every territory. There is article after article talking about the chaos that has been unleashed due to this pipe dream that the Liberals sold Canadians of $10-a-day child care.

Today, we are forgoing a debate that is an opportunity in this House to bring forth the problem, both from operators and from families who cannot access child care. In particular, I want to mention this stat: 77% of high-income parents are accessing child care under the Liberal child care agreement versus 41% of low-income families. They want to shut down debate at a time when we should be having a very robust discussion on what is wrong in this country, so that we can fix it.

Why? Why would the Liberals want to shut down this debate for families, operators and everyone? This program is already in place, but by keeping this debate open, we would allow people's voices to be elevated so we can hopefully correct those concerns. Why are they doing this?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to that question here today. Obviously, Bill C-35 is a bill that is critically important to families, to children and to our partners, our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners across this country.

The bill has been thoroughly studied, both at the House committee and at the Senate committee. I would add that there have been numerous days of debate here in the House, as well as in the other place, both recently, in the winter, and back in the fall. I would also point out that, at the time, all parties voted unanimously to continue to support this work.

The member opposite has proposed that the system is in chaos. I would rebut that. I would tell the member to ask the families who are benefiting from this program, thousands of families across the country who are accessing care now, at least at 50% of the rate, if not at $10 a day. For those families, it has been incredibly impactful.

Rome was not built in a day. As we do this work together with the provinces and territories, more spaces are coming in line, and there will be 250,000 new spaces as we continue to build this out with our partners.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we were supposed to be talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-35, and the Conservatives have brought forward a concurrence debate with respect to food security in the north, which of course is an extraordinarily important topic. The issue, though, is that the Conservatives are using this as a tactic to delay a very important debate with respect to child care. The way I know this is that the Conservatives have had 10 opposition days when they could have brought forward the issue of nutrition in the north, and they have never chosen to do that.

In fact, when Stephen Harper was our prime minister, I believe that Pam Palmater, one of the indigenous experts, said that the Conservative government had actually set back indigenous relations 100 years in the 10 years that it had been there.

Why is the Conservative Party of Canada so eager to stop women from coast to coast to coast from being able to access child care, something that we know we need for women, for families and, frankly, for our economy?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here in the House is the importance of enshrining in law a national early learning and child care system. We cannot overstate how important this work is that we are doing here today and what this means, not only for today's parents and today's kids but for families for generations to come. As my colleague has pointed out, unfortunately we have not seen the support on the other side of the House, from the Conservatives, in moving forward collaboratively to ensure that this system is successful for moms, dads and children across the country.

I have to say it is very disappointing how it is being positioned and how this is becoming a political hot potato. This is truly about children and families and ensuring we do the right thing by them for generations to come.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an excellent question for the minister.

Just yesterday, the government passed its Motion No. 35, claiming its intent was to improve debate by adding more hours of debate. Then, it stated its intention to introduce a closure motion the very next day in order to limit it.

What is going on with the government? Is it behaving this way because it does not know what to do? It seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. I would like to know why it is invoking closure today.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Truly, this is really about moving forward this important legislation for families and children across the country, as I have already said.

It is worth pointing out that as we have entered into agreements with the provinces and territories and we work with our partners, including our indigenous partners, they are waiting with bated breath, of course, for the certainty of this legislation. As we do that work together and as we focus on creating spaces, it is really important that this certainty is in place.

I would suggest that the work we are doing today is fundamental in moving forward in a speedy way, given the number of days of debate that we have already witnessed for this legislation and that it is incredibly important to move forward, as I said, for our partners and, of course, for families and children across the country.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, focusing on early childhood development is crucial for building a healthy and stable society. I would like to ask the minister to touch upon the economic empowerment of women, who disproportionately bear the brunt of child care responsibilities, and the fact that increasing their participation in the workforce not only enhances the productivity of the current workforce but also allows for the future prosperity of our nation.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is not just good social policy; it is incredible economic policy.

We have seen, to date, the impact of that. We can look back, even to when Quebec first introduced this in 1997. We saw the impact, in that province alone, of women's participation in the workforce. We know now, here, across the country, that we are seeing an increase of participation among core-aged mothers in Canada with young children, with it reaching a record high at 80% last year.

We are seeing the dividends that are being paid by this investment in families and parents here in our economy. It means more parents are able to get out into work, predominantly mothers, as was said by my colleague. I know that these investments today will pay dividends for decades to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this important topic of child care, it is really important to mention that the government actually signed agreements with provinces previous to bringing forth the legislation. The agreements are already in place.

We are seeing the effects of those agreements. One has only to look at the headlines across the country to see the crisis in the child care system across the country and all the closures and issues that are happening. The Liberals are talking about the economic empowerment of women, when in fact many child care locations are run by women entrepreneurs who are licensed through provinces and yet are not a priority of the government. It is right in the legislation. We are seeing headlines across the country of how this is playing out, with the government not including them and not making them a priority.

Could the minister speak to this, about how the government can talk about economic empowerment for women and yet not actually have them as a priority in this legislation?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary to what has been presented by the member opposite, women across this country are rejoining the workforce and are benefiting from this national early learning and child care program.

As was mentioned, we entered into historic agreements, with almost $40 billion of investments made across this country, with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners. There is a commitment to create a national system, with 250,000 new spaces by 2025-26. We are already seeing 82,000 new spaces created. We have seen every province or territory get to at least 50% in fees and eight provinces or territories get to $10 a day.

While the Conservatives may be focused on negative headlines, I am focused on the positive headlines. I am focused on the impact that this has had on families across the country that I get to speak to on a weekly basis. Those stories are so touching. When I get to hear what this translates to, whether that is getting back into the workforce or saving for a child's education, these are real people, and this is having a real impact.