SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 313 - May/10/24

May/10/24 12:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Liberal government is very sensitive when people draw attention to its numerous failings. The Prime Minister's housing minister, across the street, said that his national housing strategy has exceeded its objectives. Maybe the Liberal member opposite is confused as to how he could have said such a thing, but he did. It was on video. He said it to put a positive spin on policies that are obviously failing the people of Canada. While the housing minister is sitting in Ottawa saying that his national housing strategy has exceeded its objectives, in my home community of Durham, the Clarington Municipal Council voted unanimously, calling for urgent action from the federal government and homelessness. In my home community of Durham, just like in many others across this country, there is a growing crisis of people without homes. Consequently, we have a growing crisis of homeless encampments being established so people have somewhere to sleep at night. We are concerned in Clarington about this problem, but we are also concerned because we have seen in our neighbouring community of Oshawa a similar challenge. While the Prime Minister's housing minister is sitting in Ottawa trying to put a positive spin on the government's failed national housing strategy, there was a homeless encampment in Oshawa on fire. Smoke could be seen all across Durham region. In fact, one could see that smoke from Whitby. Maybe some of the Liberal members should be talking to each other about what is going on. Why do we have a growing homelessness problem in Durham? Why are there a growing number of our brothers, sisters, friends and neighbours having a hard time finding an affordable place to live? It is obviously a complicated problem, but one of the contributing factors is that the cost of housing in Toronto, just to the west of us, is skyrocketing to an outrageous degree. I know my friends in Toronto have had a hard time the last couple of weeks. We had to see the Leafs lose. We had to see Drake get trounced by Kendrick Lamar. Now we can go on to see ad listings for housing in Toronto. At the end April, I saw a bunk bed in Toronto for $600 a month. It is not even a full bed. One has somebody sleeping above them, for $600 a month. The listing said that eight or 10 people maximum could fit in that studio apartment in Toronto, and for $600 a month, one does not get hot water, heating, air conditioning, a smoke alarm or a carbon monoxide detector. These ads show the desperate situation in Toronto that many young people are in. This is the disconnect. It is why I say that, in this economy, there are Liberal elites and everybody else. What the Liberals have produced is an obscene situation, where they can come here to Ottawa, put their high-deficit and high-tax budgets forward and claim to be doing good things for people, and meanwhile, every time we go home, we see the consequences of what they are doing here. The last and probably most egregious example is one my buddy Rex Murphy, may he rest in peace, used to write about quite a bit. He used to write extensively about the carbon tax and how it is an exemplary policy of Liberal elitism and bizarre ideology in action. I sit in this chair every day, and I hear Liberals telling us that the carbon tax is helping people, that people are getting more money back and that it is good for our economy, yet I go home to Durham and I hear and see the complete opposite. I knocked on many doors in the by-election campaign before I came here, and one of the recurring themes was the carbon tax. I would go to a family farm and they would produce a tax bill, just like the one that I have in my hand right now, and I would see that family farms are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon taxes and then being charged a tax on top of what they are paying for the carbon tax. That would then increase the cost of food for us in Oshawa, Curtis and Bowmanville. We could see within our own local community how the carbon tax is making it harder and harder for people to pay their bills. When the Liberal government comes here to say that this carbon tax is good for us and good for our economy, that we should continue to pay more taxes and the cost of everything goes up to fill their coffers, it is just the latest example of Liberal elites and everybody else.

795 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/10/24 12:38:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the carbon tax, I would like to hear what the member's thoughts are specifically as they relate to the over 400 Canadian economists who have signed an open letter stating that more people get back more than they pay, confirming what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. They state that it is good environmental policy and, most importantly, good economic policy, which one would think the party that purports itself to be the champion of running an economy would agree with. Is the member then suggesting that those 400 Canadian economists are just Liberal elites? Maybe he is, and that is fine, but can he confirm that?

113 words

Mr. Jamil Jivani

May/10/24 12:38:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean when I say Liberal elites and everybody else. These guys want me to stand here and listen to them quote their buddies from the universities instead of listening to what people on the ground across this country, everyday hard-working families, are experiencing under their rulership. This is exactly what I am talking about. They disregard the evidence from everyday people, who are struggling today, and they want to say, “Well, my friend with a Ph.D. said everything's all right.” Well, I am not here to represent their buddies with a Ph.D. I am here to represent people who are lined up in grocery stores, people who are concerned about making mortgage payments and rental payments after these guys have doubled them. It is also interesting that, earlier today in the debate, their friend, the Liberal MP from Whitby, was quoting Warren Buffett, as though he is an authority on whether we are having a good experience or not. I might need to go back and ask Warren what he thinks.

183 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/10/24 12:40:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development yesterday. He has a different perspective with respect to homes and mortgages. Here is an excerpt from his presentation: ...a major lender recently announced that it would no longer accept new mortgages for homes in high-risk flood zones. The consequences of such decisions on the value of residential housing, which for many households is the main asset, could prove quite dire. Although the Conservative Party is always focused on the carbon tax or on what is happening with the environment, it never comes up with any solutions for people who are dealing with floods, droughts and deteriorating health.

116 words

Mr. Jamil Jivani

May/10/24 12:41:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think our colleague has conflated a couple of things. The carbon tax is not an environmental plan. The carbon tax is a tax plan. We have advocated for, and I am very proud to say this because the riding I represent, Durham, is home to a fantastic nuclear energy facility, is technology and not taxes to respond to environmental concerns across this country. The idea that the carbon tax is somehow going to address the hon. member's concerns seems completely misguided to me, and the idea that middle-class families have to pay more for groceries at the grocery store to respond to these environmental concerns seems like a completely backwards connection between the decisions made in Ottawa and the consequences at home.

128 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/10/24 12:42:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we see that corporate landlords are increasing renovictions. Rents are being increased, and corporate landlords are swooping in and buying up affordable homes. However, I do not hear from the Conservatives often about the importance of having rent protections in place. Could the member please share the Conservative stance on making sure that people have an affordable place to live?

62 words

Mr. Jamil Jivani

May/10/24 12:42:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns about big corporations buying up a bunch of residential properties, being able to control the cost of rents and whether middle-class families can afford a house in this country. The thing I would draw her attention to is that the NDP's partner in the government, the Liberal Party, just approved a merger of Blackstone to purchase Tricon, which would allow an American company to control an insane amount of residential property in Canada.

83 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/10/24 12:43:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons and speak to this motion, the fall economic statement. I will note it is May 10 and we are debating the fall economic statement here in the House of Commons. Earlier this week, we debated the budget implementation act. Nothing shows the government's lack of control over an agenda more than debating the fall economic statement on May 10, three weeks after the budget address, which is the main financial statement made by the Government of Canada. There is a problem here. There is a pace that has to happen in the House of Commons for legislation to get through and become law so that Canadians understand what their economics are going to be going forward. Today, once again, we are debating the fall economic statement, which is something that was delivered in the fall that we have not implemented into Canadian legislation. However, the government is acting as if that legislation has passed. Everything we see is the government pretending that there is no debate to be had here, that it has already been instituted into law and it expects this to be had going forward. Likewise, it put the budget on the table three weeks ago, and we debated the budget implementation act for the first time in the House in the last few days. I am going to note for the sake of Canadians that the budget implementation act has very little to do with the budget that was delivered in the House of Commons three weeks ago. A number of measures in the budget implementation act, which was debated earlier this week, are from the fall economic statement. Somebody needs to explain to Canadians how these things do not match going forward. There is a litany of all kinds of virtue on paper but no plans to implement what is going forward here. The problem with understanding the budget implementation act is this: If the government is going to put the fall economic statement into the budget implementation act, people are going to have to understand what their budgets will look like. There is no detail or announcement of any of the government's tax increases in the budget implementation act; there are no details at all, so Canadians are still left guessing about the details it is putting forward here in the budget. Budgets matter to Canadians and to businesses across Canada, but it is my job here in the House of Commons to try to bring some financial discussion about what is in these budgets, so let me talk about some of the issues the government talks about. In Canada, real GDP is down. The government talks about an economy that is going well, but real GDP continues to decline. GDP per capita continues to go down. That means the amount of economic output per person in Canada is continuing to decline at a steady rate. The government uses a ratio here called the debt-to-GDP ratio. I know I have gone on about it previously, but I will go into some detail here because I hope that people will understand it a little better. Canada's debt right now is approximately $1.3 trillion. That is the federal government's accumulated debt. Canada's GDP last year was approximately $2.1 trillion. If we take $2.1 trillion divided by $1.3 trillion, it gives us a debt-to-GDP ratio equal to 62%. That is our debt-to-GDP ratio, yet our government pretends it is in the 40% range, at 42%. Although 40% was the number it said it would not cross several budgets ago, it continues to cross that and let it grow. How did the government get to this number of around 42%? It added back the pension fund assets of Canadians. That includes about $600 billion from the Canada pension plan, which is money that is deducted directly off the paycheques of Canadians. Those contributions by Canadians into the Canadian pension plan fund were raised again this year, so there is about $600 billion sitting in Canada's pension savings to distribute to Canadian pensioners when they retire. The Quebec pension plan, similarly, has about $100 billion of savings in it for Quebeckers alone. In total, it is $700 billion, but this is not a $700 billion pool for the government. The thing about pension accounting is that it is about assets and liabilities, as is all accounting. Although there is a balance on their financial statements, there is also the liability of paying that to the people who paid into it for years. Last year, Canada's chief actuary determined that, all things going well, the Canada pension plan system is sustainable to pay the pensions that Canadians expect for 75 years. What that means is that it is okay; it is balanced. However, the assets and the liabilities are in balance; everything collected in there is going to be paid out to the people that put the money into it. Therefore, if I may say, it is not the government's financial asset. It belongs directly to Canadians, from money that was deducted from their paycheques, and it should not be used in their debt-to-GDP ratio. I am also going to talk about where we are going with this, because pensions are a major part of Canada's sustainability going forward. Pensions matter in many respects. The government is moving in a direction to try to change that pension management system; it wants to oversee the system through its regulatory arm, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That has to stop. These are organizations that need to manage one thing, and that is the outcome for the people whose money they are saving. That is what they should be doing. Whenever anyone asks a regulator to go in and change what is happening at an organization, such as a pension, they are effectively saying, “Take your eye off the ball about what is supposed to be done here, and put your eye on something else.” Let me tell the House what that leads to. That leads, as in the United States, to bank failures. There were bank failures at smaller banks, where they were not matching their assets and their liabilities. As a result, when interest rates changed, a whole bunch of smaller banks had a run on their capital and could not meet their liabilities. They went under. That is an example of where people in the financial industry are distracted by other regulations being put on their plate by governments and regulators. This takes away from what they should be doing for their client base, which is managing their money effectively. Every pension manager, every money manager in the world has one mandate, which is to make sure that they are not losing money for their clients and are actually making money, hopefully at greater than the rate of inflation. We are not doing that in Canada right now. This is the reason we have falling GDP per capita. We have more Canadians coming into the country, and they are not keeping up in the economy. Now let us look at and tear down what actual gross domestic product is. It includes the contribution of everybody. It also includes the contributions of governments. Government spending goes into GDP. I am going to suggest that, if the government's spending going into the GDP increase was not there, we would actually be in a very negative scenario. Pardon me, Madam Speaker, I should say overspending; again, the planned overspending is $40 billion this year. The problem is that these things have to balance over time. We are a productive economy. We had a good economy before the current government monkeyed around with it and decided that it could replace private sector investment with direct public sector investment. It is wrong. We continue to run deficits. There is a cliff we are going to hit at some point in time here, where we are no longer able to meet our needs going forward, because everything that we put into our savings is going to be whittled away into interest payments on our debt. This coming year, that interest payment is $54 billion. This is the government's number of what that is going to be. I suggest it might be higher, as the debt is going to be higher than it realizes. That is $54 billion from Canadian taxpayers to pay bondholders, and it is going up. Even the government's documents say that ratio has doubled in the last few years. That is a significant increase, a significant weight on the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, who need to make sure that they are sustainable going forward here. It is madness. I am telling the few people that I see actually taking notes on what I am telling them here that we have to get back to balance. This budget, every budget, should be about getting to balance. I request that they go back to the drawing board and look at what they can do here to get our economy back to balance and actually sustain this country going forward.

1556 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/24 12:53:44 p.m.
Watch

It being 12:54 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, May 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

103 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/10/24 12:54:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/24 12:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred to Tuesday, May 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

38 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/10/24 12:54:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you can find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m., to start Private Members' Business.

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/24 12:54:55 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.)

May/10/24 12:57:13 p.m.
Watch

moved: That: (a) the House recognize that, (i) over 20% of food produced in Canada goes uneaten and wasted, costing the Canadian economy tens of billions of dollars, (ii) individuals, families, and communities across Canada face critical levels of food insecurity, (iii) surplus food unfit for human consumption may serve as animal feed, supporting farmers and reducing national methane emissions, (iv) in 2015, the United Nations set Sustainable Development Goals that included a commitment to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030, (v) national strategies have been developed across the world to reduce food waste by incentivizing food donations and preventing the destruction of unsold yet safe and edible food products; and (b) in the opinion of the House, the government should develop and implement a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity to, (i) establish a National Food Waste Hierarchy, (ii) align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations, (iii) lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources, (iv) establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts, (v) identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste, (vi) raise public awareness regarding food waste, food insecurity, and associated government initiatives. He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak to my motion, which calls on the House to recognize the problem of food waste and food insecurity in our country and which advocates in favour of creating a national strategy to combat this challenge. Fundamentally, what I address today is a question of resource efficiency. Every year, billions of dollars' worth of food goes to waste in Canada. In 2019, it is estimated that up to 58% of our national food production, amounting to a staggering 35.5 million tonnes, was lost or wasted. It is also estimated that over one-third of such food waste is avoidable and can be recovered. Such waste occurs right across the food production supply chain. A variety of factors contribute to food waste. Price fluctuations and incorrect forecasts can leave farmers with surplus food that they are unable to sell and do not harvest. Produce graded by processors can also be deemed of incorrect size or visually subpar to be sold to retailers. Overstocking by grocery stores is also a common practice. Furthermore, a variety of public regulations and private practices regarding best-before dates, food labelling, and vendor supply agreements frequently lead to the destruction of unsold but wholesome food. As such, we should make every effort to ensure that we channel such resources to our communities. The direct economic costs are substantial. A 2019 report from Second Harvest estimated that the annual retail value of recoverable food waste is $49 billion. The downstream effects are also significant if we consider that wasted resources such as energy, land, labour and capital could be poured into producing food. These are costs that directly impact farmers and firms across our food supply chain and are ultimately reflected in higher costs for all Canadian consumers. As with many injustices, this is a cost that those people with the least resources, such as family farmers and lower-income households, bear the brunt and burden of. Compounding all of this, food waste represents a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Food disposed of in landfills is left to rot, where it decomposes into methane gas. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. According to some calculations, methane traps 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Accordingly, methane emissions from food waste represent approximately 56.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, approximately 10% of our national total in 2019. Food waste in landfills also contributes to local soil and groundwater pollution. Due to such considerable environmental impacts, the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals included a global commitment to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. Most significantly, food insecurity is on the rise in our country. After considerable progress over many decades, food insecurity has increased since the global pandemic in 2020. Regrettably, 18% of Canadian families are estimated to have experienced food insecurity at some point throughout 2022. While food recovery efforts alone cannot address this challenge, it can play a key role in expanding access to charitable and community-based food organizations. Furthermore, by implementing national initiatives to reduce and recycle food waste, we can avoid food loss in households and potentially create downward pressure on food prices as inefficiencies are ironed out of the continuum of the supply chain. It bears highlighting that our food supply chain is lengthy and employs well over two million Canadians in the production, transportation, processing, distribution and sale of food. This, I might add, represents well over 10% of our total workforce. Food waste throughout the continuum from farm to fork impacts households throughout our beautiful country and harms our environment. Clearly, a robust and comprehensive national strategy is much required. Food waste and food insecurity are economic and social challenges that affect every province and territory in our country. We must therefore introduce prudent policies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. By crafting a national strategy built in full consultation and close coordination with other levels of government that also incorporate the expertise of industry, stakeholders and the non-profit sector, the federal government can play a crucial role in curbing and mitigating the challenge of food waste and food insecurity. In addition, sustainable food policy is an important hallmark of any healthy society. While we cannot eliminate food waste, we can ensure that beneficial and effective pathways exist for farmers and manufacturers. We should also consider recycling initiatives. Considering innovative policies and programs is very much in line with recommendations adopted by Parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture, in particular in its eighth and 10th reports tabled in 2023. I would also be remiss if I did not recognize efforts adopted by numerous other countries around the world. We can be guided by the efficacy of new initiatives adopted by our peer countries in the G7, as well as more broadly among the OECD countries. For example, initiatives adopted in South Korea have increased that country's national food waste recycling rate from 2.6% in 1996 to 95% in 2022. Another country that has achieved impressive results is Japan. According to the United Nations Environment Programme's “Food Waste Index Report 2024” released earlier this year, Japan has succeeded in reducing its per capita food waste by 28% since 2008 after it commenced quantifying food waste and ushered in a variety of reduction initiatives. Another good example is the concerted efforts made by the French government since 2016 that incentivize surplus food donations and reduce waste in accordance with EU food waste prevention targets. Italy has also been busy introducing reforms over the last several years. More recently, the United Kingdom announced a comprehensive government food strategy in 2022 that includes provisions to tackle food insecurity, food waste and sustainability. Similarly, last December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a draft national strategy for reducing food loss and waste, and recycling organics. It is indeed high time that Canada join these countries in identifying innovative approaches to reduce food waste. My motion outlines several key pillars such a national strategy should adopt. In an ideal world, not a single kilogram of food waste should be dumped into a landfill and left to rot into methane gas. While we cannot ensure that food waste is entirely avoided, we can certainly take steps to ensure that it is reduced considerably. Wholesome foods should be rescued, recovered and redistributed by non-profits, and what waste remains should be disposed of in a renewable manner. Reduction initiatives are the most effective way to combat food waste. Tools are also available to ensure that efforts are made to economically benefit every link in our food supply chain. Frankly, food waste is currently treated as a part of the cost of doing business and is reflected in every individual Canadian's weekly grocery bill. The motion before us could begin the process of departing from the status quo. The food industry should be encouraged to set reduction targets and to improve efficiencies in its operations. On the consumer side, the government can examine guidelines concerning packaging and best-before dates. Initiatives have been adopted in other peer countries that optimize packaging requirements to preserve food longer, while less restrictive best-before dates could ensure that consumers are not compelled to prematurely dispose of groceries that are wholesome and healthy yet past their retail prime. Speaking of rescue, the federal government can play a crucial role in creating protocols and guidelines and in forging partnerships that can significantly incentivize the donation of surplus food. For example, during the pandemic, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food created a surplus food rescue program. The program is estimated to have redirected 8 million kilograms of food that would otherwise have gone to waste. It clearly demonstrates how the federal government has supported and can continue to support food recovery programs. While certain large retailers are currently donating a percentage of their food waste, further action is required to incentivize donations and to connect smaller retailers, producers and processors with community-based food programs. As such, the federal government should examine policy barriers and business practices that obstruct donations, establish clear national guidelines and regulations and adopt best practices for best-before labelling and perishable food donations. An opportunity also exists to create information systems to enable food rescue organizations to effectively track and share the need for specific produce at various community food programs. We should also examine fiscal incentives that encourage food donations that have been adopted by several of our provincial governments as well as by other peer countries. We must encourage private actors to create partnerships and logistical pathways that would allow wholesome food to be channelled towards community food programs. Farmers in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia who donate produce to such programs can claim a non-refundable tax credit worth 25% of the fair market value of the donation. A similar tax incentive exists in Quebec that permits tax credits for up to 50% of the value of food donated. According to Food Banks Canada, during the first year of Quebec's program alone, an additional 460,000 kilograms of nutritious food was donated to Quebec food banks. Such initiatives simultaneously reduce waste, help Canadians in need and support our hard-working farmers. Accordingly, a national tax credit for food donations could reinforce existing provincial incentives. Such a tiered approach has been used effectively in the United States since early 2011, as the U.S. federal government and all but one state government offer such tax credits. Finally, food waste can be recycled into other economically valuable products. In doing so, firms can profit while reducing associated environmental impacts. There are many ways to accomplish this. Surplus agricultural produce that cannot be donated can frequently be processed into animal feed, providing an economic boon to farmers and ranchers alike. Composting on an individual, municipal or industrial scale is also a sustainable way to treat and eliminate food waste. Composting also creates soil conditions and fertilizer that can be returned full circle to help our nation's food producers. Lastly, anaerobic digestion facilities can utilize bacteria to create biofuels or fertilizers out of food waste. To supplement the initiatives referenced above, the government can also increase efforts to raise awareness of the true costs and impact of food waste, and identify steps that can be taken by households and private firms to combat the problem. All parties of the House have explicitly recognized the need to reduce food waste, and I have no doubt that every member of the House can recognize the need for our country to tackle food waste and food insecurity. I therefore hope that each of them will see fit to support my motion to commence a comprehensive national dialogue on the need for our country to step up in tackling this challenge.

2026 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/10/24 1:11:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. Yes, we need to do more to prevent food waste. However, as he said, a lot is already being done, both by the federal government and by the provincial and municipal governments. The problem that we have with this motion is that, once again, Ottawa is being set up not as a government that is equivalent to the others but as one that is above the others. For example, the motion seeks to “establish a National Food Waste Hierarchy” and “align municipal and provincial regulations”. The motion is an order from Ottawa to the provinces and municipalities. Ottawa is going to dictate what to do. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois has a major problem with that approach. As the song by Jacques Brel says, “il y a la manière”, or there is a right way to do things. I also want to paraphrase author Michel Folco by saying that with this government, it often seems as though even good intentions can turn out badly. Why infringe on provincial jurisdictions and why put the federal government above the provinces and municipalities?

202 words

Municipal

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

May/10/24 1:12:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps I was not as clear in identifying the fact that it is imperative for the federal government to work and to collaborate with our provinces. I do not mean to suggest for a second that the federal government should be telling the provinces what to do. Rather, I think it is important that we have a national framework and that this framework is developed in close collaboration with the provinces. As the member will note, I made many references to what some of the provinces have been doing. They are, in certain respects, at the forefront of making sure that we are eliminating food waste, and it behooves our government to actually listen and collaborate with the provinces, as well as incorporate suggestions that would be obviously forthcoming from various stakeholders. Given the reality that other countries are doing this, that provinces have also been active and that, as the member noted, this discussion has been ongoing for some time, I have no doubt that we can all come together and come up with a sensible approach.

180 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/10/24 1:14:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to share that there is a program in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith that may be of interest to the member. It is the Loaves & Fishes Community Food Bank. It provides food security to many who do not have access to food. It also provides this incredible food recovery program: getting fruits, vegetables, meats, breads and milk from grocery stores and sorting through that. Food that is good goes to people so they can eat it, and the rest goes to farmers and those who can compost it. It is a really great program. Can the member share his thoughts as to whether the Liberal government should be prioritizing projects just like this one so that local communities can have the investment they need to be able to truly have food security and food recovery programs?

142 words

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

May/10/24 1:15:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that suggestion. It is great to see that various organizations in B.C. are at the forefront of innovative change. They are certainly filling in gaps that are very important in terms of ensuring that we do have food security in this country. Far be it from me to suggest how the government should prioritize these things. What I would like to underscore is the need to actually have that discussion and dialogue with organizations such as the one in Nanaimo, which have proven that there are many inspired ways to make sure that we tackle this challenge. We see better results, and these are results that are important to Canadian families from coast to coast to coast. We can all benefit from listening to each other and adopting pathways that have proven successful.

142 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

May/10/24 1:16:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion to create a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity. I do believe that this motion put forward by the Liberal member is presented with good intentions, but like most of the things that the Liberals have done for the last nine years, the unintended consequences of good intentions would cause more problems than it would solve. Let us start with the facts. Over 20% of food produced in Canada goes uneaten and is considered wasted. It is also true that many Canadian families are dealing with critical levels of food insecurity. The government thinks that reducing food waste is the solution for the problem of food insecurity. That is where, of course, the narrative falls apart. It is not food waste that is causing spiralling food prices. Canadians, by and large, could afford to put food on the table just nine short years ago. In a single month last year, there were two million visits to food banks in Canada. Today, food banks are expecting to see a million more people use their facilities on top of last year's record high, and a third of food banks say they will have to turn hungry Canadians away. It is incredibly saddening that the Liberal government has put parents in such a precarious position that we now seem to need a national school food program in order to make sure that children have food to eat, when their parents used to be able to afford to buy it for them. Food waste is not necessarily the most pressing issue. The reason that we are even speaking to this motion today is due to the inflationary spending and outrageous agricultural policies that have been implemented by a government that clearly does not understand the industry. The result of these disastrous policies is that the average Canadian family will have to pay up to $700 more in food in 2024 than it did just last year in 2023. That is just one year's worth of inflationary increases. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the price of beef is up 30%; chicken, 34%; rice, 30%; eggs, 38%; apples, 39%; butter, 45%; tomatoes, 63%; fish, 28%; lettuce, 48%; flour, 25%; potatoes, 60%; and baby formula is up 27%. I could continue, but I think Canadians who are watching get the point. It turns out that there are consequences to taxing our farmers, truckers and grocers. What are the examples of some of these disastrous policies? A prime example, of course, is the carbon tax. This tax has done little for the environment, but has driven up the cost of food, as the cost of carbon pricing compounds through the supply chain with every single transaction that the food system endures. Conservatives understand the cost borne by our agricultural sector. That is why my colleague from Huron—Bruce introduced Bill C-234 to expand carbon tax exemptions, of course, for our struggling farmers and the agricultural sector. The bill would have saved $978 million by removing the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for drying grain, as well as heating and cooling barns, greenhouses and other structures. That is $1 billion that has to be added into the price of food for Canadians. Recently, the Liberal Party-aligned senators masquerading as independents gutted most of the exemptions from Bill C-234. With Liberals proposing a 30% fertilizer emissions reduction target on top of this, which they claim is voluntary, even though it is not, it is no wonder that Canadian farmers clearly mistrust the current government. Ironically enough, the Liberal government laments the issue of food waste, when one of their own misguided policies has actually exacerbated the problem. In 2022, they put a self-imposed ban on P.E.I. potatoes being exported to the United States. In doing so, the government is mis-characterizing the entire province of P.E.I. as being infested with potato warts. During this incident, the government spent $28 million to destroy almost 300 million pounds of potatoes, and that sounds like fairly significant food waste to me. Maybe the government should indict itself as part of this new strategy. If the past is any indicator of the future, then it seems that the Liberals have not yet learned from their failures in the realm of agriculture. Not long ago, the government indicated that it was looking at a P2 plastic ban as part of its commitment to move toward zero plastic waste. This policy seeks to ban plastic non-compostable price-lookup stickers and plastic packaging for fresh produce. Although the government has paraded this plastics ban as an environmental initiative, a report commissioned by the Canadian Produce and Marketing Association and produced by Deloitte has found that this simply is not the case. They concluded that the P2 plastics ban could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or 22 million metric tons of CO2. Deloitte has also found that it fails at reducing waste. Alternatives to plastic packaging have consistently failed to meet modified atmosphere requirements. They also fail to meet the standard for food-borne illnesses. It has been estimated the reduction in shelf life engendered by the loss of these plastic products could increase fresh produce waste by more than 50%. This would constitute a loss of more than one million tons of fresh produce every year. Woke packaging laws are creating food waste. Finally, it has been reported that the loss of these products could raise the cost of food by 35% and could reduce the availability of fresh produce by 50%. This would cost our industry $5.6 billion, and the cost would, of course, be borne directly by the consumer. These are the same consumers who are already struggling to put food on the table. Furthermore, the lower consumption of fresh produce would have a trickle-down effect, costing roughly a billion dollars a year to our health care system. This increased cost would be borne disproportionately in rural and remote regions of Canada, which are already struggling with the increased cost of shipping. I would now like to delineate what this new national strategy to reduce food waste and combat insecurity would actually do and why we actually do not need it. It calls for strategy to “establish of a national food waste hierarchy,” which sounds like a lot of bureaucracy to me, as well as to “align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations”. We already have many organizations across the country doing their own thing with their own initiatives. They do not need any further direction, especially from Ottawa. The national strategy would “lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources, establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts, identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste”. It sounds like it would be creating a lot of jobs for bureaucrats, but I am not sure we would actually be putting more affordable food on tables for Canadians. We can see what what a list of good intentions looks like, but it is actually not necessary in any way, shape or form. To us Conservatives, this reads as an excuse to expand the bureaucracy. Little emphasis is being put on doing work to solve the issue, but it would create more administrative positions and more government. The government has already grown by over 50% since 2015. Inflationary pressure is putting pressure on the economy and interest rates, and driving up the cost of food even more. The Liberal government has already spent $20 million toward this initiative under its food waste reduction challenge in 2020, and the industry is making rapid strides in reducing food waste on its own. If the Liberals wanted a ready-made strategy without spending any more money, they could adopt the National Zero Waste Council's report, entitled “A Food Loss and Waste Strategy for Canada,” referencing its work as a national strategy. I would like to conclude by stating that a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity is not needed at the federal level. The issue of food insecurity can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the government and its ideologically motivated policies, and it has learned nothing from the previous mistakes it has made. Imagine being a government that has mismanaged so much of the economy and the cost of living that salvation somehow lies in feeding food that is destined for the waste stream to millions of now hungry Canadians. One cannot be the solution when one is the problem, and the NDP-Liberal government is simply not worth the cost. It is time for a Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

1495 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/10/24 1:25:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this motion calls once again for federal interference into municipal and provincial regulations. Whether we are talking about supply chain losses or waste-related losses, for the most part the rules for managing these products and food donations fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities, the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. What is more, despite the fact that this motion has good intentions, most of the initiatives it proposes are already being implemented by the Government of Quebec, but also by the federal government through its food policy for Canada. I am going to say a few words about waste. It is not limited to unused products and food that is thrown out by consumers. We are also talking about losses identified at every stage of the supply chain. Food waste includes waste as we understand it, plus the losses. A UN report released in 2021 shows that Canada is the undisputed champion of waste. I will quote an article that talks about this report: According to the study, every Canadian throws out...175 pounds of food a year, or...44 pounds more than the average American. In 2019, three million tonnes of food ended up in the garbage in Canada. The UN Environment Programme report estimates that nearly a billion tonnes of food was wasted in the world in 2019.... Let us now look more closely at the points in the motion. First, it proposes to “establish a National Food Waste Hierarchy”. The waste hierarchy 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, particularly through the work and the research funded by the Quebec government and Recyc-Québec. Second, it proposes to “align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations”. Third, it proposes to “lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources”. Fourth, it proposes to “establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts”. These last three points are obviously a logical extension of the first. It makes sense to come up with the most appropriate solutions and then find a way to apply them. However, most of the laws and regulations governing food waste fall under the jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Once again, the intention behind this motion is yet another example of the centralizing, Ottawa-knows-best attitude. It implies 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 all of this by working together with municipalities and with the businesses and organizations involved in the production, processing, sale or donation of food products. While agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, resource and land management, processing and marketing within the province are Quebec's responsibility. The federal government helps with the development and funding of certain risk management, research and interprovincial and international trade programs. As for waste itself, municipal regulations, not federal ones, govern the management of residual materials and certain food donation and sharing projects. Similarly, Quebec is responsible for enforcing environmental and sanitation laws. The federal government has a role to play in labelling in general and in food safety when it comes to importing or exporting. However, in the context of this broader issue of waste, Ottawa has no concrete role to play. I want to come back to the points of the motion itself. Fifth, it proposes to “identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste”. Sixth, it proposes to “raise public awareness regarding food waste, food insecurity, and associated government initiatives”. The federal government could try doing these two things. However, it would have to take into account the specifics and initiatives of communities that already have programs in place, like in Quebec. 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. Let us now look at the food policy for Canada. The implementation of this policy was announced in budget 2019. It was included in the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that same year. I will read from the mandate letter: Lead work across government to move forward with the new Food Policy for Canada introduced in Budget 2019. This policy has four areas of near-term action, including: [h]elp Canadian communities access healthy food; [m]ake Canadian food the top choice at home and abroad; [s]upport food security in northern and indigenous communities; and [r]educe food waste. Obviously, Canada's food policy is very vague. It offers guidelines, and frankly, that is a good thing. For example, the 2019-24 policy aims to achieve six outcomes. The first outcome is vibrant communities. The policy talks about innovative community-led initiatives that “contribute to vibrant and resilient communities that support individuals and households facing immediate and long term food-related challenges by providing culturally diverse solutions in an inclusive manner”. The style smacks of government policy writing. The federal government has been directly involved with organizations since last year through the local food infrastructure fund, or LFIF. This program lacked sufficient funding when it was created, so the government tweaked its terms along the way. The second outcome is increased connections within food systems. The policy states that “[i]ncreased collaboration on food-related issues across sectors of government, society, fields of work, and academic disciplines is a central component of food policy”. The third outcome is improved food-related health outcomes. The policy refers to “[i]mproved health status of Canadians related to food consumption and reduced burden of diet-related disease, particularly among groups at higher risk of food insecurity”. The fourth outcome is strong indigenous food systems. The policy states that “[t]he Food Policy for Canada will help advance the Government of Canada's commitment to Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, build new relationships based on respect and partnership, and support strong and prosperous First Nations, Inuit and Métis food systems – as defined by communities themselves.” How can paternalistic Ottawa claim to have any credibility when it comes to indigenous health when it is still unable to provide clean drinking water to some indigenous communities? That is unacceptable. The fifth outcome is sustainable food practices. The policy mentions “[i]mprovements in the state of the Canadian environment through the use of practices along the food value chain that reduce environmental impact and that improve the climate resilience of the Canadian food system.” If the federal government wants to get involved, then it can fund research on green practices. The sixth outcome is inclusive economic growth. The policy mentions “[i]mproved access to opportunities in the agriculture and food sector for all Canadians within a diversified, economically viable, and sustainable food system. There is tremendous potential for economic growth within Canada's food system given the growing global demand for high-quality food that is nutritious and sustainably-produced”. That is what I had to say about what is already covered at the federal level. Now, let me say a few words about Quebec. In Quebec, it is the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, along with the ministry of municipal affairs and housing, that regulates 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. Quebec also has a 2018‑25 bio-food policy that includes two suggested courses of action that recommend reducing food waste and loss and promoting food donation, and supporting the circular economy and recovering co-products. Food waste was one of the themes identified as requiring further reflection at the May 2019 bio-food policy partners meeting and in the 2018-23 bio-food policy action plan, which was released in 2020. The 2021 edition of the 2018-2023 action plan reminds us that the bio-food action plan provides for the implementation of a food waste project in co-operation with bio-food and government partners. The purpose of the project is to take stock of the situation and to propose and implement a concerted plan to coordinate partner initiatives, both at the sectoral and government levels. As I was saying, this policy is what triggered RECYC‑QUÉBEC's research. I could continue to talk about other measures that the Government of Quebec has implemented, but we think that Quebec already has this issue covered. Finally, since the motion seeks to establish a hierarchy of levels of government, it is difficult to support.

1545 words