Debates of Sept. 20th, 2024

Public Accounts

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is facing a chronic homelessness situation. I had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities committee when we were debating the introduction of the housing accelerator fund.

I asked the minister and those testifying how much of this money would be going to rural Canada and smaller communities. I was reassured that this money would be spread equally across our great nation. As the member said during his speech, it is important that this is an equitable fund and that the programs extend to all regions.

How many projects in Conservative-held ridings in rural Ontario were delivered a single penny from the housing accelerator fund? If the member cannot answer that question, can he name one single Conservative rural riding in the whole country that received a single penny from the housing accelerator fund?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is very important that we work with all levels of government. I will give a specific example relative to the question being posed. The minister's office gave a written response to the report; it is about 20 pages.

Due to the nature of action research, the report reads, “preliminary findings will be shared broadly to support ongoing efforts in communities [and governments]”.

It mentions, in regard to Brandon, Manitoba, “exploring service navigation and connection hubs in rural areas and investigating the root causes of rural to urban migration in order to better support surrounding communities”.

There is a series of discussions taking place about both urban, high-density and rural, low-density communities, and there are many people living in rural Manitoba who want to retire in Manitoba. We are working with the different levels of government to make housing possible for all.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return the report under study. We have been going all over the map.

The report mentions two of the Auditor General's key findings about how the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had virtually no idea who would benefit from these initiatives. The initiatives were there, yet it was unclear who would benefit from them. There was practically zero federal accountability for the national housing strategy.

I see the federal government constantly withholding money that Quebec could use for housing construction, arguing that it is the one to tell Quebec what to do and that it is better than Quebec.

Is it not a little embarrassing for the federal government to be telling others what to do when the Auditor General has found that it is incapable of doing own its job properly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, housing is an issue in virtually in every region of the country. I should not even say “virtually”; every region of the country has housing-related issues. Therefore I believe that the federal government does have a very important role to play on the housing file, and it has to be consistent as much as possible in regard to how the funds are being circulated and administered.

Yes, there are some requirements, but I do not think that should be a reason for any province, municipality or community-based group to reject federal funding and criteria that might be put into place. We should all be striving to deliver the optimum results, and the best way to do that is to have different levels of government working together, recognizing that we all have a responsibility to the people we represent.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the accelerator fund, and we heard also from my colleagues on the other side about communities not getting access to that money. The government rolled out $4 billion, and it was oversubscribed. Communities like Courtenay and Cumberland, which applied, were denied. Communities like Port Alberni, Parksville and Qualicum did not even have a chance to get their applications in on time, because they were hoping it was going to be extended.

What did the government do when the program got oversubscribed? It put $400 million into the pot, 10% more. There is a housing emergency. Communities are lining up for the funding, when they could actually use that funding to accelerate building housing to help people have a safe place to live.

Another thing the government is failing so badly at is building indigenous housing on reserve. British Columbia is the only province in this country to actually put $1 billion toward building housing on reserve because of the current government's failure to ensure that indigenous people have a safe place to live in this country.

Why does my colleague not address those important concerns from the people of my riding?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that when the federal government came out with a program to try to increase the number of purpose-built rentals through forgiving the GST on new construction, some provinces actually took up the same initiative. I say that because at times during economic situations, there is no doubt that some governments are in a better position to take actions.

The accelerator fund was a huge success. It is being drawn upon. I have seen some of the tangible results of that. I participated with Mayor Scott Gillingham, the Premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister in a press conference talking about the accelerator. It is a huge, wonderful program, and the take-up was great on it. We will have to wait and see what takes place in the coming federal budget.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to debating Bill C-33, which in part would amend the Railway Safety Act. I wanted to bring forward the tragic accident that happened in my riding of Nepean a few years ago, where six people were killed when a city transport bus collided with a Via Rail train. That was the kind of thing I wanted to discuss, however now we are discussing this.

The federal government has a program called “Reaching Home: Canada's Homelessness Strategy”, where we have committed $4 billion with the aggressive target of reducing homelessness by 50% by 2027-28.

I would like to ask my hon. friend to emphasize the importance of the other levels of government, the provinces and municipalities, that can work together with the federal government to reduce this huge problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member was not able to speak to what he came in to speak to earlier this morning. I know he was very much following the debate and looking forward to being able to contribute to it. It is because the Conservatives want to continue to filibuster legislation, which is somewhat sad to see.

When we think of the sense of co-operation in dealing with homelessness, let us remember that there are a lot of factors that impact the issue. A good example would be issues surrounding addictions and mental illness. That is why we need a more holistic approach to dealing with the issue of homelessness, and that means working with other jurisdictions.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is up markedly under the Liberal-NDP coalition.

I would also include the Bloc Québécois in that.

However, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

I was talking to a realtor friend who has been in the business for many years and he said he has never seen the number of people, whether new immigrants, temporary foreign workers, students or young people, who are cramming into one- and two-bedroom homes to try to cover their costs. They are finding it very challenging.

Will the Liberal member not recognize that the Liberals have absolutely failed on the housing file and that the tired, incompetent government should call an election right away?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the point. The member says, “call an election”. This is what the Liberals are talking about when we talk about slogans and bumper stickers. The Conservatives' interest is not in homelessness. All they want is that thirst for power to be answered and they will do whatever it takes.

I can say to the member in the Conservative right Reform Party opposite that at the end of the day, they can be focused on that. We are going to continue to focus our attention on delivering for Canadians and understanding the issues Canadians are facing day in and day out. That is where our focus is going to be. When the election happens, it happens. Let us remain focused on real people.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I did not have the opportunity to do so earlier during questions and comments, I want to begin by commenting on the speech that the member for Winnipeg North just gave. I was extremely surprised. Right now, we are talking about the homelessness crisis, which is closely related to the housing crisis, but to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk, it sounds like he does not think that he has done anything wrong. What is more, he was angry. I was wondering how he could be so angry, but then I figured that he must be angry at himself, since, after all, it is his party that has been in office for nine years. It turns out that he was actually angry about the questions he was being asked.

That is pretty bad. It is quite disappointing. I wanted to mention that because we are experiencing a crisis and it seems as though the Liberals are unable to to face the mess they have made, that they are unable to see that part of the problem may have been caused by the government in Ottawa. They are unable to see that, if this problem has not been solved, it could be their fault, not that of the opposition parties. Our only responsibility is to propose solutions. We are doing that all the time. The problem is that the government does not listen to us.

I would like to begin my speech with an anecdote. We just had a by-election this week in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun that the Bloc Québécois won. Louis‑Philippe Sauvé was elected. He has not been sworn in yet, so I can say his name. This is an historic win for the Bloc Québécois in a riding in Montreal's West Island where there is a strong anglophone presence, a riding that was considered unwinnable for the Bloc Québécois. This time, we won.

I think I know why we won. It is simple. I helped out my good friend by going door to door. We had the chance to talk to all sorts of people. One of the things that kept coming up was the housing crisis, of course, but also homelessness. Generally, when the Bloc Québécois talks about immigration, this automatically seems suspicious, especially to the Liberals. We are not allowed to talk about it. It is taboo.

When I knocked on one of the doors, an immigrant answered. Surely his thoughts on immigration cannot be considered suspect. This immigrant told me that it does not make sense, that perhaps there are too many immigrants. Some might say he is racist, that he is anti-immigrant. He also told me he does not feel safe anymore because there is a lot of homelessness and there are a lot of people around banging on doors. He told me that he feels ill at ease, that he had left his country because he did not feel safe there but then ended up finding it was the same here. He told me he was even thinking of moving, of leaving his area. I find that particularly interesting.

By way of background, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a riding in Montreal's West Island, not in downtown Montreal. The area of the riding where I spoke with this person is LaSalle. It is in the most westerly area, about 10 kilometres from downtown Montreal, maybe even 15 kilometres. It would take about two and a half hours to walk there. This means that there is a homelessness problem two and a half hours from downtown Montreal, because it is rare for a homeless person to drive a car. This is serious. The government says it is not to blame. I think we have every right to wonder, especially since CMHC and National Bank economists have indicated that Canada has fallen into a demographic trap. Why am I talking about a demographic trap? I know I will be accused of blaming immigrants, but no, it is not the immigrants' fault. It is the government's fault for not properly managing the arrival of these people, for letting too many people enter the country and not building enough housing, which is all having an impact on our public services.

Obviously, it is this government that is responsible for our borders, that is authorizing people's entry and that is not providing enough funding for housing. That, too, is a problem. The government, which is waging jurisdictional battles to prevent the Government of Quebec and the municipalities from deciding for themselves how to manage their own affairs, is imposing all sorts of conditions and is always coming up with new programs so that it can have ever more control over what is happening at other levels. Even though the federal government is the one creating the problems, it thinks that it is going to be the one to implement solutions in areas that do not fall under its jurisdiction.

I am putting myself in the shoes of a mayor who sees the federal government impose new municipal rules that the mayor will have to adopt if they want to get money. That is what the Conservatives and the Liberals are proposing. I do not know what the NDP is proposing. If I were a mayor, I would tell the government, which is making a mess of things, to start by fixing its own problems with tools from its own tool box. It seems to me that, before telling others what to do, we need to set an example and do a good job ourselves. If that were the case, we would be able to tell the federal government that it is inspiring and is doing a good job. We might be more inclined to listen to its arguments.

However, from the perspective of mayors and municipalities, having a chaotic federal government tell them how to manage their affairs while failing to manage its own hardly inspires confidence. This government is telling them how to run their cities.

When we talk about homelessness, obviously there is a link to be made to immigration, the housing crisis and the lack of construction and funding for social housing. The reason I make all these links is that generally the first victims of a housing crisis are people who do not have a home. In general, who are the people who do not have housing? Those who leave their country to come live in Canada do not have housing. Then there are the young families hoping to get established and move out of their parents' home. Those families may have housing, but not the kind they want. If they are still living in their parents' basement, they are going to think twice before starting a family of their own. This is certainly not a life goal or an aspiration. These are the people affected by the housing crisis.

How do people end up homeless? Often the people who are hardest hit by a housing crisis are those with fewer financial resources, those who are less fortunate. When house prices, rents and interest rates spike, these people are the first to find it impossible to pay for housing. They are the first to end up on the street.

I will give a few examples of situations we are seeing these days. I travel from Quebec every day, because that is where I sleep. I prefer to support the Quebec economy. When I come to work in Canada's Parliament, I take the highway, and I cross roads and bridges and see new things all the time. I have been fortunate to be an elected member and to represent my constituents for almost nine years now. Nine years ago, we did not see tents set up on the side of the highway. Nine years ago, we did not see homeless people everywhere, even just a few metres from Parliament. It is truly a scourge. It is a serious symptom of the lack of housing and affordability, and it is creating problems that will persist over time.

Once a person ends up on the street, it is hard to get out. Once people are on the street without a fixed address, they wash less often than they would like, eat less well, and pay less attention to what they wear. Finding a job is hard. Who wants to hire someone with no roof over their head? It slowly begins to affect them mentally and physically. Their health deteriorates. It is a persistent problem. Even if the housing crisis suddenly ended, even if there was suddenly plenty of housing for people experiencing homelessness, it would unfortunately be very difficult to get them off the street. Like it or not, the impact on their lives will linger on.

It also creates a less appealing set of economic and social circumstances for people trying to buy goods or walk on the street. It damages the social climate. It is bad on all fronts. That is why urgent action is needed.

I talked about what would happen if these housing units magically got built. I will quote a few figures. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published a report a year ago. We do not know where things stand in 2024, but in 2023, the report concluded that Quebec alone is short 1.2 million housing units. The same 2023 figures report that Quebec built nearly 40,000 housing units in 2023.

On the one hand, there is a shortage of 1.2 million homes. On the other hand, 40,000 homes were built. If we divide 1.2 million by 40,000, that means it would take 30 years to build all the housing we need, and that is just to put an end to the current housing crisis. That does not take into consideration the fact that, over those 30 years, new people will be arriving who will also need housing. At this point, it is almost hopeless. We cannot expect the federal government to wave a magic wand and stick its nose in the business of municipalities, and that in two or three years' time, 1.2 million units will be built.

It takes people to build these homes. It takes people who go to school, who are trained, who are certified, who have experience. It takes companies, equipment and people to finance these homes. It takes capital. We cannot just step outside and start building houses. It takes a lot of investment, time and skill. It is going to take time to increase the pace and build all these homes. It is not going to happen by trying to tell cities how to manage the situation. It will happen by working in collaboration with the Quebec government, for example. It is a matter of having discussions to find out what is going to happen.

That is a good thing, because we are seeing greater awareness, an awakening at all levels. We do not need to rely exclusively on the federal government to solve this problem, although we know that a great many of the reasons behind the problem can be traced back to the federal government. Every year, more than one million people come to Canada. One million is a lot of people. It amounts to almost twice the population of Quebec City entering Canada every year. It is mind-boggling. That is a lot of people. We need to house all these people. That puts a lot of pressure on the housing stock. These people naturally want a place to live, and they should have one.

When we have record numbers of temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers and international students pouring in, it becomes a problem. It is important to listen to what people on the ground are saying. The Quebec government keeps repeating that it has reached its capacity to deliver services. It is maxed out. Quebec cannot take it anymore. It cannot do any more. When Quebec says that, the federal government accuses Quebeckers of being a bunch of unwelcoming racists. The fact is, we want to welcome people, but in order to do so, we have to be able to offer them a place to live. How can the government say we are not welcoming when we simply have nowhere for these people to live? Does anyone really think that welcoming people and forcing them to live on the street is our nation's dream? The current system is not working. We need to welcome people properly. We have to give them good opportunities in life. The current situation does not reflect well on Canada on the international stage. Obviously, Canada's mismanagement is also affecting Quebec's image because we are stuck in this country, which is keeping us on a leash.

I find it disheartening to see a government that, despite all this, continues to blame others. It says it is not its fault, that it is the opposition's fault. We agree with the government to a certain extent on that point. There is a growing awareness that Quebec welcomes 50% of asylum seekers, even though the province represents only 20% of the population. It is only makes sense for the other provinces to offer to take in their fair share. Everyone says Quebec is unwelcoming, yet it welcomes 50% of Canada's asylum seekers. Consequently, it asked the federal government for help. After months of pressure, the federal government said it might talk to the other provinces. Four provinces said absolutely not. So much for the great Canadian federation. Everyone is supposed to get along, co-operate and work together. The federal government is certainly not doing that, and lately, neither are the other Canadian provinces. They seem to be saying that it is not their problem and that Quebec should deal with its own issues.

What is Ottawa going to do about it? That is the question on everyone's mind. Will Ottawa force the other provinces to take in more people? Will Ottawa decide to stem the flow and reduce the influx?

That might be a wiser solution. I think that is what I am getting at. This is where the government has to listen to reason. At some point, it has to be accepted that too much is too much. Once the numbers subside a little, we are left to face the whole issue of people who are still on the street. What do we do with them?

It is going to take a record investment and a lot of leadership to take charge of the situation. The more time these people spend on the street, the harder it becomes for them to leave it. It becomes increasingly hopeless, and the cost to society only keeps growing. We must therefore act fast to take charge of people living in the street, so we can help them.

I would like to discuss another aspect. Earlier on, I talked about the federal government meddling in municipal management. Let me explain how that happens. Certain infrastructure agreements provide partial funding for municipal infrastructure. This specifically includes the TECQ program, or the gas tax and Quebec’s contribution. Other programs, known as bilateral agreements between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, ensure that funds flowing through Quebec can be transferred to the municipalities.

The 2014-18 Canada-Quebec agreement allocated several billion dollars. I do not remember the exact number. What I do remember is that part of the agreement was different from the agreements with the other provinces. Ottawa really does not like it when Quebec does not do exactly the same thing and it negotiates for itself a bit. In the Quebec agreement, a special clause stipulated that the money that was not spent under the 2014-18 agreement could be carried over and used in subsequent phases, under future agreements, in other words, the following agreement that covered the period from 2018 to 2024.

In that agreement, $350 million that was supposed to go to municipal infrastructure had not yet been spent at the end of 2018. I asked the minister, who comes from Atlantic Canada, about it in committee. He said that the government would not respect the agreement nor keep its word, that it would keep the money, put it in the consolidated fund and the provinces would not get it.

The amounts set out in this agreement were negotiated and distributed equally based on the number of inhabitants, the percentage of the population. In short, the minister said that he did not feel like giving Quebec that money. He asked why Quebec's agreement was a little different from those of the other provinces. He said that he did not agree with that and, even though he signed the agreement, he would not honour it. That is how things work at the federal level. We have a trusted partner that does not keep its word. Because of that, $350 million were never paid out to cities in Quebec, even though they were entitled to it. Quebeckers pay taxes to Ottawa the same as every other taxpayer, but their share has been stolen from them. That is one of the government's ways of doing things.

There is also the gas tax, which I mentioned earlier. Part of the money collected from that tax is redirected to what is known as the Canada community-building fund. Let us compare the last agreement, the one for 2018 to 2024, to the new one for 2024 to 2028. When we compare the total amount that cities are entitled to and the federal contribution to the fund in both agreements, we see that the federal government is contributing 30% less. That means that cities will be entitled to 30% less under the new agreement compared to the previous one.

The mayors are starting to call to find out what is happening. They say that they are having problems because of the housing crisis and because of extreme weather events such as torrential rains. While they are having all these problems, including homelessness of course, the federal government is telling them that they will be receiving less money for their programs.

That is what the federal government is saying. During the pandemic, it recognized that there was a deficit, and it paid more money. Earlier, it recognized that there was a municipal infrastructure deficit, and it paid more money. However, that funding was not renewed, and now the municipalities have ended up with a shortfall.

Here is what the federal government decided to do instead. In the last budget, it came up with something new, the $6‑billion housing infrastructure program. That much-vaunted $6 billion will be conditional on letting Ottawa dictate the zoning rules for the cities.

Rather than allocate the money to existing programs and improve funding for programs like TECQ, which works well and is appreciated by the cities, Ottawa keeps coming up with new programs to create new opportunities for interference. That is how Ottawa works. That is why we do not want—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time.

Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting. The hon. member will have 10 minutes to speak to the motion the next time it is before the House.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion.

National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste and Combat Food Insecurity

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

Madam Speaker, for me, September 20 is a day to celebrate. On September 20, 2021, the voters of Laurentides—Labelle renewed my mandate. They reaffirmed their trust in me for a second time. Today, I must thank them once again. I want them to know that I will always strive to respect and honour the trust they have placed in me. This is my 11th time coming back to the House after a break. Since this is the first time I have addressed the House since our return, I would like to take this opportunity to say how proud I am to represent the people of Laurentides—Labelle. I strive to approach this exceptional role with the modesty, respect and resolve it deserves.

This summer, I travelled all over my riding. I went from Mont-Laurier to Sainte-Adèle, passing through La Minerve, Nominingue, Rivière-Rouge and Montcalm. I cannot name all of the municipalities because there are 43, but I met with people who showed me how much hope they have and especially what a vibrant part of the country this is. There is no lack of initiatives, ideas and solutions on the ground. People in my riding are proactive. We just have to take the time to listen to them. That is what I did all summer. We cannot get bogged down in our assumptions and dogma. That is how I think about it, because my work as an MP did not come with an instruction manual.

Whether we are talking about Maison de l'entrepreneur, which offers one-stop solutions for SMEs, La Mèreveille, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last week and provides services to mothers and children, or organizations like Bouffe Dépannage, L'Ombre-Elle and Prévoyance envers les aînés, there is no shortage of generosity and courage in Laurentides—Labelle.

I say that because there is talent in our regions and we need to recognize it. The needs are known. I have to say again that the federal government is too fond of interfering in areas that do not fall under its jurisdiction. That is the case with Motion No. 110. I am not surprised that a Liberal MP from Ontario moved this motion. It is in Ontario's DNA to ask the federal government to help the province and its people.

The political culture is very different in Quebec. We do not turn to Ottawa for a shoulder to cry on; we do not turn to Ottawa when we are unhappy with the National Assembly; nor do we turn to Ottawa to oppose national, unilateral, rigid standards that are not rooted in Quebec's realities. In Quebec, we roll up our sleeves, get to work and move forward, to paraphrase Jacques Parizeau. In Quebec, we make do, just as our ancestors made do with almost nothing yet cleared the land, fed their children and built a modern, open, welcoming, dynamic, social, secular and distinct society. Quebeckers do not want to be told what to do and what to think by a foreign government. Quebeckers do not want policies imposed on us, especially when Quebec is already ahead of the federal government. Everyone has heard the examples: day care, pharmacare and even dental insurance. Then there is our pension plan. It is the legacy of the Quiet Revolution. It is who we are. It is intrinsic, it is our identity.

The current government is basing its policies on Quebec's policies, inherited from the Quiet Revolution and from the concept on which Quebeckers have built of their society and modelled the role of their government.

It is happening again with this motion on food waste. I want be clear: This is a noble cause, but the Quebec government has already implemented initiatives in this area. As for food waste itself, waste management and many food donation and sharing projects fall under municipal jurisdiction. That makes this a matter for Quebec and the provinces. While Quebec is responsible for environmental and food safety legislation, the federal government has a more general role to play in food labelling and, of course, food safety in relation to imports and exports. It has no role to play in the context of the more global issue of waste.

Quebec's department of agriculture, fisheries and food, or MAPAQ, oversees all waste-related initiatives in conjunction with the department of municipal affairs and housing. There are also several groups involved in managing this issue, including Quebec's public health agency, Recyc-Québec, community groups and municipalities.

Quebec also has a 2018-25 bio-food policy that includes two suggested courses of action, one aimed at reducing food waste and food loss, and one aimed at encouraging donations and encouraging the circular economy. We are very avant-garde in Quebec, especially when it comes to recovering co-products.

Food waste was one of the themes identified as requiring further reflection and work at a 2019 meeting of bio-food policy partners and in the 2018-25 bio-food policy action plan, which was released not too long ago in January 2020.

Starting in 2015, the government introduced tax measures to encourage donations to food banks in an effort to combat food waste and food insecurity, including a tax credit for food donations. Agri-food businesses that donate food could be eligible for a tax credit. There are roughly 100 initiatives of this kind.

Since I have barely two minutes left, I would also like to say that Quebec is very active when it comes to prevention and awareness.

I invite the legislative assemblies of all the other provinces to follow Quebec's lead like they did last year. I also invite the federal government to mind its own business. The federal government is acting like a neighbour who tells other people what to do with their property when their own is falling apart. It also likes to judge others. When someone else has nice things, it wants that too and takes it for itself. The federal government is acting like that neighbour.

It is not by trading four quarters for a dollar that things are going to change. It is not because a government is red, blue or orange that things are going to change. The only way to change things is for Quebec to become an independent state and for the Quebec republic to be born.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Willowdale for making this debate possible today. I hope that his government will finally wake up and catch up to admitting that wasted food is an issue and an opportunity in Canada. This is a fact the NDP has shared in the House many times, putting forward multiple bills over many Parliaments. Personally, I have tabled two binding bills in this 44th Parliament addressing this issue, Bill C-304 and Bill C-360.

Reducing food waste is, first, an important step to address the methane emissions it produces. In Canada, 17% of national methane emissions come from food in landfills alone. Combatting food insecurity and reducing the cost of food are also a top priority in a bill like this. NDP members focus on protecting Canadians from climate change and corporate greed, as these two factors converge on grocery store shelves, making fresh fruit and vegetables more expensive.

Before I go on, I want to talk about the incredible work being done in Port Moody—Coquitlam to reduce wasted food.

The Immigrant Link Centre Society has been a champion for food waste reduction for years and is now the largest food recovery charity in British Columbia. It is both reducing emissions by diverting food and addressing food insecurity by recovering good-quality, healthy food and redirecting it to people in the community. Its hard work feeds thousands of people at more than 23 locations across the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Annually, it redistributes more than a million kilograms of food. This saved food is valued at more than $7 million a year.

The vice-president, Reihaneh Mirjani, was recently awarded the 2024 Medal of Good Citizenship of B.C. This medal celebrates individuals who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or selfless manner for the betterment of their communities without expectation of a reward. Reihaneh's selfless work has provided food to low-income families, immigrants and refugees, while also preventing thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases. I cannot think of work that would better embody the values of this award. Coquitlam and all of British Columbia are a better place because of Reihaneh.

In November 2022, I moved to introduce Bill C-304, an act to establish national food waste awareness day, inspired by organizations like Immigrant Link Centre Society and other food recovery organizations in Port Moody—Coquitlam that stepped up during the pandemic, including The People's Pantry and the Tri-Cities Moms Group. They have showed my community that everyone can play a part in reducing wasted food, reducing emissions and reversing food insecurity.

I want to again thank the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for seconding my bills. Bill C-304 specifically would designate October 20 as national food waste awareness day. Having a day to recognize the impacts of wasted food on food insecurity will raise awareness, inspire change and contribute to meaningful solutions to make Canada's food system more secure.

Sixty per cent of the food produced in Canada each year is thrown out, and half of it is fresh, edible and nutritious food that could help feed four million Canadians, one million of whom are children who struggle daily with access to healthy food.

Let us take a moment to talk about the children who are struggling to access healthy food. According to research done at the University of Toronto, approximately 2.1 million children live in households that are food insecure. According to Food Banks Canada, one-third of all food bank clients are children, which means that over 600,000 kids are relying on food banks this year, while landfills continue to fill up with perfectly good food. This is unacceptable and unconscionable. No one should go hungry in a country that produces enough food to feed everyone. That is why the NDP pushed the government to finally implement a national school food program. We are proud of that work for children and families.

I want to talk about my other bill, Bill C-360, an act to establish a national strategy to reduce the amount of wasted food in Canada. If the government were truly serious, like the NDP is, about ending food waste, it would pull that bill. It is binding, unlike today's motion, which only tackles the issue through lip service.

My legislation was informed by consultations with groups such as Second Harvest, Fresh Roots, FoodMesh and the National Zero Waste Council of Canada, which have the solutions we need. All that is left is for the government to act on the bill. I ask the Liberal government now to make Bill C-360 a government bill.

I am happy to see the acknowledgement of this problem, but I want to be clear that this motion will not be able to do anything to solve the problem. Eight years ago, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against an act to establish a national food waste awareness day and to provide for the development of a national strategy.

I am not surprised to see the Conservatives voting against fighting climate change, nor am I surprised to see the Liberals protecting corporate grocery stores and their profits, but I am surprised to see a non-binding motion instead of a comprehensive piece of legislation. All the work has been done to have a comprehensive binding bill, and the member still has time to work with his government to get that done. I cannot understand why he would not do that, although it does fit a Liberal pattern of claiming to care, but when it comes to action, the Liberals are nowhere to be found.

The long-standing need for a national strategy to reduce wasted food is becoming clearer and clearer, and there are so many partners ready to do that work. Just as in the work of the Immigrant Link Centre Society in Port Moody—Coquitlam, there are endless programs across the country doing what they can to fight this growing problem, but they need government support.

I implore the Liberal government to get serious and take this opportunity now to engage partners on a strategy. Canadians who are food insecure and all of us who are deeply concerned about the ramifications of climate change need more than just a motion that expresses an opinion of the House. It is important to acknowledge this problem, but the solution has been on the table for at least eight years, so the Liberal government should act now.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for meaningful action on this critical issue. The government does not have to wait any longer to adopt legislation that puts forward concrete steps to reduce wasted food. Let us work together to build a Canada where no edible food rots in a landfill. Again, I ask the government to make Bill C-360 a government bill. It should not make Canadians wait any longer.

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

Madam Speaker, in a number of ways I agree with the principles the member highlighted regarding the abundance of food that is wasted. Communities can make a difference and so can governments.

Where I tend to disagree is on the importance of the motion that the member for Willowdale has introduced. I believe the member has understood a very important issue that Canadians can really relate to and has put it in the form of a motion that I would like to think will pass. I applaud him and whoever assisted him in making this motion possible today for their efforts. I would like to think that all members would vote in favour of it. I understand the Bloc has concerns with it. I tend to disagree. I am a nationalist; I believe in Quebec, Canada and all of the provinces. The need is in every region where there is waste and hunger. We need to bridge that together.

I want to emphasize the importance of non-profit organizations, along with the generosity we often see from producers, and I thank those individuals specifically. They have understood the issue for a number of years now and that is why we have food banks, groups like the Winnipeg Bear Clan Patrol and many other organizations, both small and large, that have contributed to closing this huge gap.

I look at the motion as a very strong positive because there are some powerful words in it that would commit the House of Commons to, hopefully, following through. I look to certain organizations and policies. For example, in reading the motion, one of the first things that came to my mind was the national school food program the government just put in place and how, in implementing that program and by working with other jurisdictions, we can incorporate something with regard to food waste. Because it is a nationally led program, there might be some opportunities. As has been pointed out, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of children who will directly benefit from that program, and there might be other, more indirect benefits.

I think of the changes made to the Competition Act to try to drive down prices on food. I am looking at what we can do to stabilize the cost of food. Along with those policies, we need to recognize the massive amount of waste taking place. If I were to contribute to the debate what I think would make a stronger difference, I have found that the most effective way to minimize that waste would be empowering local organizations to participate in a larger way. They have connections to local businesses and can tap into that.

On the Prairies in particular, there is the huge, lovable farming community, our agricultural sector. The other day I had the chance to talk about taking my most recent flight into Winnipeg. We looked down and saw the ground because there were no clouds, and we saw vast acreages of product, of commodities, including wheat and canola. There is something to say about the beauty of the Prairies when we see the abundance of food there.

When I think in terms of the production of food, I also think of companies like Maple Leaf Foods, processing millions of pigs in the province of Manitoba, or HyLife from Neepawa. I think of the chicken producers. There is so much more in terms of vegetables, such as Peak of the Market and the fine work the growers do.

One of the things they all have in common, whether the farmer, the processor or the distributor, is the interest to address the issue of food waste. They will often, by the crateload, contribute to some of the non-profit organizations that are circulating food. I think of Purolator and the CFL and the amount of food they donate. There are so many examples out there. Where there is a lot of room for us to make improvement is likely with restaurants and other businesses within the hospitality industry, yet there are so many connections that can be made.

That is why I am suggesting as a contribution to the debate that governments at the national, provincial and municipal levels look at ways in which we can provide, as is being suggested within the motion, incentives for food contributions of different forms. It is something that would go a long way in dealing with the amount of waste we see today in our landfills, as a direct result. If we were to be aggressive on that particular file, it would make a world of difference.

Getting the motion that the member for Willowdale has introduced today as an opportunity to highlight and to build a consensus around, sends a very strong and powerful message to the wide spectrum of stakeholders out there that the leaders of our country recognize just how important an issue this is. It is not just one level of government; it is all of us who actually can contribute in a positive way.

That means looking at the food we have in our home, and if we are not going to be consuming it, often instead of throwing it out, even stuff that has not expired, contributing it to an organization, maybe taking it to a game and giving it as a donation. We all witness, first-hand, people with exceptional generosity, something Canadians are known for around the world. That is a good approach.

I thank the member for identifying the issue and bringing it to the floor of the House of Commons.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is often said that the road to hell is paved with the best intentions, and I think the motion brought forward by the Liberals on a national food strategy is very similar to that. What is interesting is that on multiple occasions, the Liberals have tried to address a problem that they, in their policies, have created.

Let us go over the timeline. In 2018, the Liberals brought forward the National Zero Waste Council report on a national food waste strategy. In 2019, they brought forward another report, from Environment and Climate Change, on reducing food waste in Canada. In 2020, they spent more than $20 million on the food waste reduction challenge. I guess there were no results from the millions of dollars spent on these different programs. Now, in 2024, we have another motion with another national strategy for food waste reduction.

That seems to be the traditional Liberal logic. The Liberals cause massive problems with a record number of Canadians being forced to go to food banks to feed their families and a record number of Canadians facing food insecurity. However, rather than getting to the root cause of those problems, which the Liberal-NDP government caused itself, they establish yet another level of bureaucracy and red tape, and hire a bunch more public sector workers to try to cover up the problem.

As part of this motion, the Liberals want to establish a national food waste hierarchy. I do not know exactly what that intends to solve. In fact, every policy the Liberals have brought forward has, in fact, made matters worse. I talked about that earlier. Feed Ontario said the number of Ontarians going to food banks is up one million people. That is an increase of 25%, setting a new record.

In a new report, the government's own data shows the number of Canadians facing food insecurity is up 111%. Let us think about that for a second. That means almost a quarter of our population does not know where their next meal is going to come from. These are not just numbers. These are millions of Canadian parents who cannot feed their kids.

The Liberals put all these great-sounding programs up in the window, but they have tried this multiple times in the nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. In fact, none of them have done anything. There have been zero results, other than spending millions of dollars and forcing more and more Canadians into food banks, when they have the solution to the problem. We have been talking about it all week since we got back into Parliament on Monday. They can solve the food insecurity issue by axing the carbon tax.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have his phone on his desk? There is some feedback.

I just want to remind members, if they are going to speak, not to put their phones on their desks because it is problematic.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the interpreters for that.

The Liberals would have the solution if they would just listen to common-sense Conservatives and axe the carbon tax, which is driving up costs for farmers, truckers, manufacturers, food processors and retailers. This drives up the cost of food on the grocery store shelf, which Canadians are struggling every single day to pay for.

I appreciate the comments from my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North saying how important it is for Canadians to donate and volunteer at food banks. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the member for Kingston and the Islands had to donate $1,000 to a local food bank. If only more Liberals were following his lead and donating to food banks. Food banks would not be facing record numbers, and in many cases, we have food banks saying that they cannot meet the demand, if Canadians were not facing an affordability crisis as a result of the Liberal government.

Let us take a look at some of the other programs that the Liberals have brought forward that are actually making the situation worse. The Liberals have also talked about a P2 plastics ban on front-of-pack labelling. Again, this sounds like something that would be positive but, yet again, surprise, surprise, the Liberals have not done any consultation to understand the consequences of these types of policies. An in-depth report by Deloitte on the Liberals' P2 plastic ban policy said that the impact on food prices would be profound. I will go over the list that came from the Deloitte study.

This would increase the cost of fresh produce by 35%, reduce the actual availability of fresh produce in Canada by 50%, cost the industry $5.6 billion, increase fresh produce waste by 50% and increase health care costs by more than a billion dollars as a result of lower fresh produce consumption.

The front-of-pack labelling issue, which the Liberals are moving ahead with, will cost the industry $8 billion, as companies are having to switch over and change all of their label manufacturing processes. The Americans have also said that this is a trade issue and they will not be importing products into Canada, which would again reduce access to these fresh products. What will happen? We will drive up food prices yet again.

As Conservatives, we have offered solutions to these problems. For example, Bill C-234 would remove the carbon tax from the natural gas and propane farmers use for drying grain and for the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses. This would save farmers more than a billion dollars this year. That is not including when the carbon tax is increased on April 1. What happens when we reduce costs and input costs for farmers and truckers? It reduces the food costs on the grocery store shelves. Once again, the Liberals have opposed that legislation and, in fact, they instructed their senators in the Senate to gut that private member's bill. We know that, unanimously, every single farm stakeholder group in this country supports Bill C-234 to make farming and food more affordable.

We have brought forward a number of alternatives to try to address the affordable food issue. Two years ago, the Liberals imposed a self-imposed potato export ban on Prince Edward Island. In fact, not only did they block farmers in P.E.I. from exporting fresh and seed potatoes, the Liberals paid $24 million to destroy 300 million pounds of fresh potatoes.

We had farmers from Prince Edward Island drive to Ottawa, and they were handing out five-pound bags of free potatoes to everybody they could find on Wellington Street. This was before the Liberals were very scared of truck drivers coming up to Ottawa. In fact, they were helping feed Ottawa residents. This continues to be the story of the Liberals professing to want to solve problems that they themselves have actually caused.

While I appreciate the sentiment of my Liberal colleague in bringing something forward that the Liberal government has done multiple times as part of its mandate but with no results whatsoever, the facts are clear: When the Liberals get involved, they make matters worse. That is what we are hearing from Canadians, who are struggling with food insecurity in record numbers. When one-quarter of the Canadian population does not know where their next meal is coming from, we need to let that sink in.

Liberal policy has made Canada into a developing country where Canadians are struggling to feed themselves. We need to come up with real solutions, and a Conservative government, under the guidance of the member for Carleton, will ensure that Canadians can afford to put food on the table and feed their families.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, once is not a habit. Again, this government is trying to interfere in the affairs of Quebec and the provinces through the municipalities. Most of the rules governing food product and food donation management fall outside federal jurisdiction. I consider it my duty to remind my colleague of that. Either he has not done his homework and does not know where federal jurisdiction begins and ends, or this is a direct and repeated attack on Quebec's jurisdiction.

In either case, the Bloc Québécois will not let this initiative pass and will oppose the motion. Let no one put words in my mouth. I understand the noble intention involved. However, most of the solutions put forward in the motion have already been implemented, either by the Government of Quebec, or the federal government itself through the food policy for Canada. Is the Liberals' memory failing them?

Keep in mind that they were the ones who launched the preliminary public consultations on this food policy back in 2017. They were also the ones who developed it in 2018 and then announced it in the 2019 budget. Is this an admission of incompetence, an admission that their work is not producing tangible results, so they now feel compelled to outdo their own commitments?

A closer look at this so-called food policy quickly reveals that it is empty and effectively pointless. Unsurprisingly, it is inadequate. At one level, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the assessment. What we take issue with is the form this government's solution is taking.

A UN report published in 2021 reveals that Canada is the undisputed champion of food waste. According to the study, every Canadian throws away 79 kilograms of food a year, 20 kilograms more than the average American. In 2019, three million tonnes of food were thrown away in Canada. The report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme estimates that nearly one billion tonnes of food were wasted around the world in 2019.

All of this comes at a cost. According to Quebec's department of agriculture, fisheries and food, food waste costs Canada an estimated $31 billion every year. While households are responsible for 47% of this waste, industry accounts for 53%. In Quebec, 3.1 million tonnes of food waste are discarded throughout the food supply chain, from the land or sea to the table.

In addition to being an inappropriate use of our resources, food waste generates greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. As we know, a certain party in the House that wants to take office denies the existence of climate change. Both the party and its supporters deny climate change. We need to remind those who are watching us right now of that.

To address this issue, the Liberal government is proposing several measures in its motion. The first is to establish a national food waste hierarchy, which ranks the actions that need to be taken to reduce or avoid waste in order of priority. This is an important step, but one that has already been taken through the work and the research funded by the Quebec government and Recyc-Québec. Next, the motion proposes to align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations, lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources and establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts. However, most of the laws and regulations governing food waste fall under the jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. What the Liberal government is trying to tell us here is that the relationship between the federal and provincial governments is hierarchical, not complementary.

This interpretation of federalism is a reason in itself to oppose this motion, even though it is well intentioned. Let us set the record straight. Quebec and the provinces handle this specific matter in collaboration with municipalities and with the businesses and organizations involved in the production, processing, sale and donation of food products. The federal government is not involved.

Some might say that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, so the food issue could be Ottawa's responsibility. However, the management of resources, land, processing and marketing in Quebec and the provinces is outside the federal government's purview.

The federal government helps with the development and funding of certain risk management, research and interprovincial and international trade programs, but it stops there. That has to be explained to my colleagues. Waste in general, waste management and certain food donation and sharing projects are governed by municipal by-laws and so, once again, Quebec and the provinces are responsible. It is my pleasure and duty to remind my Liberal colleagues of that.

Quebec's department of municipal affairs and housing, commonly referred to as MAMH, does not fall under federal jurisdiction either. Municipalities are not managed by the federal government, much as it wishes they were. Likewise, Quebec manages environmental and food safety legislation. The federal government has a role to play in food labelling more generally and in food safety when it comes to imports and exports. However, it has no concrete role to play in the context of the more general problem of waste.

Now that we have those clarifications, let us complete our list. Through this motion, the government wants to identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste and raise public awareness regarding food waste, food insecurity and associated government initiatives. The federal government could do those two things. However, it will have to take into account the special characteristics and initiatives of communities that already have established programs. This is called working collaboratively.

We have seen examples in several other sectors where the federal government believes it is helping, but it is actually making things more complicated by creating overlapping programs and unilaterally adding criteria that are not adapted to every situation. It will have to take into account the established environmental rules, the community structure and the connections already made by the groups. In Quebec, it is MAPAQ and MAMH that regulate food waste initiatives.

Many groups and organizations are also involved in tackling this problem, including the Association pour la santé publique du Québec, Recyc-Québec, community groups and municipalities. We also have a 2018-25 clean bio-food policy that includes two suggested courses of action, one aimed at reducing food waste and loss and promoting food donation, and one aimed at supporting the circular economy and recovering co-products.

Food waste was one of the themes identified as requiring further reflection and work at the May 2019 meeting of bio-food policy partners and in the 2018-23 bio-food policy action plan, which was released in January 2020. In addition, the 2021 edition of this action plan calls for the implementation of a food waste reduction project in co-operation with bio-food partners.

Let us also note that, in 2015, Quebec brought in tax measures to encourage food bank donations in an effort to reduce food waste and address food insecurity, including a tax credit for donations.

Quebec is doing something about this and we want this request to be respected. At the Bloc Québécois, we also want the meaningful positions adopted by Quebec to be respected. We are getting a sense that there is overlap in the work and no real respect for the roles and responsibilities set out in the Constitution. Let us not forget that Quebec has never signed that Constitution.

I get the impression that we are getting mired in motions that are slowing down our efforts. The ball is in the government's court.

Will the government take the ball and do something constructive?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Willowdale has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking all the MPs who have contributed to the debate on Motion No. 110 regarding the need to adopt a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity.

Over 20% of the food produced in Canada is avoidably wasted, resulting in a direct economic impact of tens of billions of dollars on our families and communities. Avoidable waste drives up costs right across our domestic food supply chains. It has therefore been highly informative to hear the perspectives of all colleagues on Motion No. 110.

All these discussions have made one thing clear. Everyone agrees that far too much time, energy and resources are being invested in producing food that ultimately becomes avoidable waste. It is imperative that we recognize the economic, social and environmental costs of food waste. Avoidable food waste causes significant greenhouse gas emissions, while exposing an unacceptable number of Canadians to food insecurity.

All of the parties in this House have acknowledged these multi-faceted concerns in the comprehensive eighth and 10th agriculture committee reports published last year in 2023, and several provincial governments have begun implementing incentives to cut down on food waste.

While I recognize that disagreements may exist among us, it is clear that all members of this House understand that tackling food waste and food insecurity are important challenges that can and should be addressed. None of us should be against devising solutions to address this critical issue on a national scale or remain indifferent to food wasted at every step from the farm to the table.

Should this motion pass, the federal government will have an opportunity to learn from a multitude of stakeholders located across our country to develop a plan grounded in hard-earned experience. We need to hear from family farmers that remain the backbone of our agricultural sector and of countless communities right across our country, and we also need to hear from processors, brilliant researchers, retailers and community food organizations.

Ample evidence exists that developing a national strategy will assist in establishing a national food waste hierarchy, contribute to aligning federal, provincial and municipal regulations, and assist in identifying fiscal incentives to reduce food waste.

Our peer countries have already taken effective steps. After all, in 2015 the United Nations set sustainable development goals that included a commitment to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. The United States, European Union, Australia, Japan and South Korea have implemented coordinated government-led strategies to successfully quantify and address the challenge of food waste. To cite one example, government initiatives in South Korea have increased their national food waste recycling from 2.6% in 1996 to 95% in 2022.

While food waste reduction efforts in Canada remain a priority, NGOs such as Food Banks Canada have emphasized the potential of redirecting wholesome but wasted food to community food organizations to help our most vulnerable.

Financial incentives can also make a world of difference for local producers and processors. Pathways exist to recycle food waste into economically valuable assets. These pathways involve converting waste into animal feed, compost for fertilization and biofuels.

However, despite the benefits of such initiatives, a lack of access, scale or information has frustrated our ability to seize these opportunities. Researchers and activists have persistently warned us that the scale of Canada's food waste crisis has persisted and indeed worsened due to misleading information, confusing guidelines, outdated regulations, a lack of meaningful financial incentives and an absence of coordination between the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government.

Left to their own devices, individual actors across the continuum of our food supply chains will continue practices that generate food waste, and shift the associated costs onto our businesses, Canadian households and the environment. A variety of private practices regarding best-before dates, food labelling and vendor supply agreements also frequently lead to the destruction of unsold but wholesome food.

Let me close by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to give him some signals.

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.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:25, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:25 p.m.)