44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 17, 2024 10:00AM
- Sep/17/24 6:41:16 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the summer, I would like to take a brief moment before starting my speech today to recognize the small businesses, in particular the farmers in my community and region, who work hard seven days a week, toiling the soil and pruning the orchards to feed our residents and beyond. They have had a particularly hard last few years due to many factors, and I want to recognize them and encourage everyone to support our farmers and small businesses and to buy local.
This legislation before us is a Liberal private member's bill, Bill C-322. I serve as the vice-chair of the committee that studied this legislation, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Our committee had many witnesses appear with respect to Bill C-322 who are directly involved with providing food to people. During our questioning, Conservatives pointed out that Food Banks Canada came out with a report where it had seen a 50% increase in food bank usage since 2021. Witnesses who manage food programs that support families in need also told us that they had seen similar increases.
Mr. Carl Nabein, the president and founder of Kids Against Hunger Canada, stated, “There's enough food to feed everybody, but our limitation is the funding or the donations that we need to get the food to where it's needed.”
With respect to a question on the price of food, he stated:
Yes, dramatically.... It's a bit of a double whammy. Our food prices have gone up. They've pretty much doubled over the last six or seven years. The cost of transportation.... [and] transportation companies were providing us with the shipping of the food at no cost, which they can no longer afford...due to the increase in the price of fuel. Even the cost of our materials has gone up.
Mr. Nabein is right. In Canada, we are blessed with an enormous amount of agricultural capacity to feed Canadians. The problem this bill seeks to address stems from Canada's ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Farming, transportation and fuel costs on farms, whether to grow or process food, are all increasing, which ultimately increases the cost of food. Bill C-322 does nothing for any of these causes.
Mr. Nabein stated that he has seen the cost of food double over the last six or seven years, and we have seen the federal carbon tax increase, which makes the costs of growing or producing food in Canada increase. During his appearance on C-322, when Mr. Nabein was asked whether getting rid of the carbon tax would help Kids Against Hunger Canada, he stated, “It definitely would help.”
Conservatives at the human resources committee sought to amend the legislation to speak to this proposed solution and help Canadians.
To improve food security and reduce costs, I moved the following amendment to Bill C-322, clause 3, adding, after line 15 on page 3, the following: “examine the applicability of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to food and the transportation of food sourced under the school food program and, where applicable, examine ways to exempt them from the application of that Act.”
In addition, I moved an amendment in clause 4 of this legislation, replacing line 18 on page 3, so that the proposed national framework in this Liberal private member's bill “includes a projection of transportation and production costs that would be incurred by the school food program under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act”.
These amendments would have given the legislation real teeth toward reducing the cost of food being provided to families while exposing the real costs the carbon taxes are having on feeding children. Without these amendments, there is very little in this legislation except creating reports in government departments. Reports, reviews and more photo ops do nothing to help hungry Canadian families because none of these things can feed them. Still the Liberals, with the support of the supposed opposition parties of the NDP and the Bloc, voted against these amendments. This bill now contains no mechanisms for actually tracking costs or reducing the cost of food.
When this legislation was first debated here in the House last November, I noted many frightening food security statistics that proved how many Canadians are driven to food banks because of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary policies. Almost a year later, things have only gotten worse under the NDP-Liberal government.
According to Statistics Canada, nearly a quarter of all Canadians will use a food bank just this fall. In the report, it says that “findings from the current analysis show that certain groups are experiencing greater financial strain due to rising prices, including those with lower incomes, younger adults, households with children, and persons with a disability.”
In a survey of families with young children, the very group this legislation is meant to help, Statistics Canada found that “over half (55%) of households with children reported that rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses”.
Throughout this summer, I heard from many Canadians in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and across British Columbia who told me how the rising costs of groceries have put a strain on them and their families. Just recently, Food Banks BC reported that for the first time ever, it had served 100,000 food bank users in a single month. It warned that the high cost of living and rising prices of groceries are creating a “perfect storm” for record food bank usage.
The Greater Vancouver Food Bank reports a 30% increase in clients and a 24% increase in families since last year. The Central Okanagan Food Bank has seen similar numbers. Because of the increase in demand, food banks in Surrey are having to reduce the amount of food they give per person. Another report, by Feed Ontario, revealed that over a million Ontarians used a food bank this year, an increase of 25% from last year and a record-breaking number.
Feed Ontario said in a news release, “This represents a continued trend in the rise of food bank visits,” marking an eight-year all-time high. That is the same period the Liberals have been in office. These are the effects of the government's inflationary and high-tax policies.
It is no different from the announcement that carbon tax Mark Carney was appointed to do the work of a finance minister. He has been asked to create a report advising the government on the economy. I should mention that no member of Parliament will be able to question carbon tax Mark Carney on this forthcoming report, because he will be writing economic policy for Canadians from the boardroom of the Liberal Party of Canada instead of from a government office and will avoid federal ethics rules that would require him to disclose conflicts of interest or investments.
The Liberals continue increasing carbon taxes, making Canadians poorer, and they have missed emissions reductions targets while the Prime Minister's transport emitted 92,000 air kilometres' worth of carbon emissions in just the last three months. The Prime Minister, carbon tax Mark Carney and Bill C-322 are full of empty promises. Liberal ideology is their priority, rather than looking at the effects of their ideology, their policies and their legislation, including tax increases.
The government taxes the farmer who grows the food, taxes the trucker who transports the food and then taxes the stores that sell the food. Ultimately, the person who buys the food pays for it.
Under the failed policies of the Liberal government, Canadians are hurting from coast to coast to coast, and the shelves of food banks and many family homes are running out of food. There are more government frameworks and reports of reports, like Bill C-322 seeks to do. This can only be done through bringing down food costs by addressing the causes.
Hard-working Canadians want to feed their families. They want powerful paycheques to buy groceries, but the government and its high taxes impose more misery and suffering on them. Conservatives will axe the tax, stop tax increases and stop wasteful inflationary spending to bring down costs for Canadians.
1433 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-322.
The principle of the bill before us is to establish a national school food program, so it clearly infringes on Quebec's jurisdictions. We cannot support a bill that attacks Quebec's jurisdictions like this.
As I said earlier during my question to the member who introduced the bill, a school food program is definitely important. It is so important that Quebec has had one for a long time now. My colleague, the member for Repentigny, and I both worked as union activists in the education sector. I led a major union that is mainly active in the education sector. If there is one thing we know about academic success, it is that school meals play a big role. We are all for supporting school-based organizations like the Club des petits déjeuners and other Quebec organizations in creating a school food program. I am saying all this so that no one can claim, as I heard in committee, that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to a national school food program, the way we have been told in the House for the past two days that the Bloc voted against the dental care program for seniors.
I do not think people understand the distinction we are making. In this case, we are opposing Bill C‑322. It is not because of the principle of a school food program, but on the basis that section 93 of the Constitution of Canada—it bothers me to have to argue this—clearly states that “in and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education”. It could not be clearer. Programs that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction are nothing new. Whenever the government introduces national programs or strategies and does not specify in the relevant bill that this must be done exclusively with respect for Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, it is an intrusion that takes money from Quebeckers to fund programs in other provinces. It is ridiculous. I was listening to my colleague's speech. If New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Manitoba do not have such a program or if the programs are not sufficient, that does not give know‑it‑all Ottawa the right to tell each province and Quebec how to govern their affairs.
The Liberals keep telling us that they admire Quebec's programs, that Quebec is doing well with its school food program, that Quebec is a leader in universal child care. I could go on. We are also a leader when it comes to the parental insurance plan and a leader when it comes to employment equity and pay equity. Creating trail-blazing social programs is in our DNA. We do not need overlapping federal programs that will only hinder our independence and the advancement of our social programs. With all due respect, I would say that each province is entitled to make its own societal choices in the areas that concern them.
The government is going overboard with federalism to make itself look good. While it is doing that, it is not taking care of its own jurisdictions. It is not improving old age security or employment insurance. Those things are the federal government's responsibility. Maybe the government thinks that it will look better if it can say that it brought in a universal child care program, a dental care program and a national school food program. It makes no sense.
A program for healthy food in schools is very important and we could go further, but I just want the federal government to mind its own business. That is federalism. We are part of a federation and the provinces have their own jurisdictions. In education and schools, the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction at all and no expertise, yet the federal government wants to tell our schools that they have to bring in such and such a program, choose this apple from that grower and so on. As I describe it, it should become clear that this makes no sense.
I think that I have clearly explained why overlapping programs create more bureaucracy. They do not solve anything because the federal government does not have any expertise in education or how things are done in this field. We know that the federal government is constantly intruding in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions. We know that it has no qualms about that.
The Prime Minister's thoughts on this are clear. He does not care about jurisdictions, which means he does not care about the Constitution of the country whose government he leads. By way of evidence, the Prime Minister of Canada recently said the following, and I quote: “People do not care which level of government is responsible for what”. That is not true. According to a Leger poll that came out on April 19, 82% of respondents in Quebec believe that governments should respect each other's jurisdictions, while 74% of them believe that Ottawa should get the provinces' approval to intervene in their jurisdictions.
The government is saying that this changes nothing for ordinary people, but the government is wrong. In fact, Quebeckers reminded the government of that of this yesterday when they elected a Bloc Québécois MP in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. That new MP will soon be joining us to defend Quebec, its jurisdictions and its independence.
943 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:59:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin to discuss the important topic of making sure that kids do not go to school hungry in Canada, I would like to acknowledge that today Korean families across Canada are celebrating Chuseok. This is a time of year when Korean communities all over the world come together to celebrate and share a meal together. Today, as these families come together to watch the moon, share gifts and enjoy spending time with their loved ones, I would like to wish everyone celebrating this day with their families Chuseok jal bonaeseyo.
Celebrating and sharing food are fundamental parts of the well-being of any society.
The bill addresses the issue of the deficit among children in this country in terms of having a daily meal at school. Food insecurity among children is rising, and it affects today's generation of kids. Those same kids will also be affected in the future; a lack of food does not allow kids to get the best start possible.
As we navigate the challenges of rising food prices and increasing time and financial pressures on families, kids deserve protection. It is more important than ever to address the reality that no child in Canada should have to spend the day at school with an empty stomach.
Shamefully, Canada ranks 37th out of 41 of the wealthiest countries in the world for providing schoolchildren with nutritious food. What that means is that, of all 41 wealthy countries, Canada is number 37. The government is actually doing a bad job of making sure kids have food at school. This is because the government does not do it with purpose.
Although Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Conservatives and Liberals are incapable of making sure that our children are well fed and able to learn at school with a full tummy. That needs to change.
In committee, we heard how the bill would provide a necessary framework for the government to work in co-operation with the provinces, territories and indigenous governments to ensure that kids are fed at school and that no one spends the day in need of a meal.
I want to take a moment to give a shout-out to School District No. 43 in Coquitlam, which is already providing healthy and nutritious food for its students with a daily lunch delivery program. I thank all the administrators, parents and volunteers who make this happen.
I also want to recognize food programs run through School District No. 43 in Coquitlam by Share Family & Community Services, Access Youth and the Rotary Club, with their after-school backpack program.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the Coquitlam Firefighters' nutritional snack food program, a fully inclusive program that provides thousands of meals per year to children experiencing or at risk of food insecurity. There is also the City of Port Moody, which led the coordinating of a food security round table in my riding and has given to the BC Chapter of the Coalition for Healthy School Food. I thank all of them.
It is obvious there is great work happening on the ground in schools and communities across this country, just as there is in Port Moody—Coquitlam. However, a more stable framework is needed to ensure that no child is left behind.
I want to take a moment here to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is here today, on the important work they did in committee to make sure that this framework was fully inclusive and that it pushed through for the government. We know the government was not interested in feeding kids. It has been slow on its budget delivery of feeding kids in the school program. I just want to raise my hands to the member.
The NDP has always known that a national school food program is needed. That is why we used our power in this Parliament to force the Liberal government to take the steps needed to get a formal school food program into law. It has been budgeted, and it needs to roll out to Canadians immediately.
Conservatives will take away school food programs. They voted against a national school food program in the budget while they literally enjoyed their free lunch. They receive a free lunch right here in the House of Commons every single day. After eating their taxpayer-paid meal, they came in here and voted against feeding kids at school.
To the Liberals I say hurry up. The inaction we have seen from the current government is deeply disappointing. Since 2019, the Liberal government has made a promise to establish a national school food program. However, more than four years have passed and this promise remains unfulfilled for the majority of kids at school.
There are kids in our community today who were promised school food programs when they were in middle school, but they are now graduating with no program in place. The delay in implementing a national school food program is more than a policy lapse. It is a moral failure to act on a commitment to improve the lives of children and prepare them as best we can for their future.
This is a program supported by advocates across the country. They have long called for the development of a national school meal program. Organizations such as Food Banks Canada, the Breakfast Club of Canada, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and numerous local community groups have highlighted the urgent need for such a program. They agree that a national approach is necessary to address the systemic issues of food insecurity and ensure that all children can benefit from a consistent and reliable source of nutritious food when at school.
My NDP colleagues and I have been clear that any national school food program must be universal to avoid the stigmatization of children. Means testing cannot be part of any school food program. The program must focus on promoting healthy eating habits and supporting kids. It should also be culturally appropriate.
I recently had the opportunity to be invited to share some time with a school meal program led by Karen Butler Curtis from Port Coquitlam, an educator and food security expert. While I was there, I asked the children what was important to them with regard to a national school food program. They talked about the food they eat at home and the need for culturally appropriate foods for them. I promised them that I would raise this in the House of Commons, so today, from the kids at Queensborough Middle School, I will say that any national program must be culturally inclusive and must include principles of indigenous food sovereignty.
The NDP is fully committed to making the national school food program a reality. We will support this bill, as we supported the initiative the NDP pushed with the government, and we will hold the Liberal government accountable for fulfilling its promise to have a national school food program for kids. Our commitment goes beyond mere advocacy. We are dedicated to ensuring that the program is well designed, inclusive and effectively implemented. This means ensuring the government is collaborating with communities, health professionals, families, indigenous leaders and kids to create a program that meets the diverse needs of every Canadian child at school.
1227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation, Bill C-322.
Canada has led the world in many regards, and in particular, most recently, I think of the way we have been leading in terms of developing new technology for adopting clean energy, the green revolution, and everything we have done to support that.
One of the things Canada has not, unfortunately, led the world in, or at least within our G7 counterparts, is a national school food program. A national school food program has already been adopted by the other six countries in the G7. Canada remains the only country in the G7 that has not yet adopted such a program. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing forward such an important initiative.
I heard comments from Conservatives moments ago that this was just about reporting and putting together data, and that there was really no substance to it. I am sure that is what they will use as their justification for voting against it. However, in reality what it would do is set up a framework for a national school food program and the manner in which the data would be collected and reported back to the House.
Of course, Conservatives, who are keeping their eyes on forming government, would never want to see that kind of data put before them, because it would be a constant reminder of something that they are just philosophically against. This issue is a perfect example of the philosophical divide between Conservatives and Liberals. Let us be honest: Conservatives do not believe there is a role for government to play when it comes to supporting communities. They believe in an “every person for themself” approach; the strongest will survive, and that is it.
However, that is not how we look at this. Liberals look at our responsibility to ensure that children have the best possible start, because if we do that, we give them the opportunity to be successful and to be contributors back to an economy to the fullest of their potential, and to our society.
When I heard the NDP colleague before me speak, I heard her talk about the importance of the program's being universal, and I would completely agree with her on that. Having a universal school food program gives the ability for the stereotypes to be eliminated. I will give a perfect example of this. I have mentioned this in the House before, but it is important for me, so I will mention it again. In Kingston there is a food sharing project. It is basically a group that was started a number of decades ago through various means of accessing food, bringing food together, putting it into different baskets or boxes and delivering food to schools, where children can take some of the food at their own discretion.
The food sharing project led by Andy Mills in Kingston relies on a lot of volunteers to help to make it work, because there really is not a stable source of funding. I have had the opportunity to volunteer, and I have taken my family with me when I have done this on a couple of occasions. I was really surprised the first time that we did this. My eight-year-old, who was five or six at the time, came. While we were packaging the food, he looked at me and he said, “Oh, so this is where all that food comes from that I see in school.” I found that remarkable because what it said to me is that Frankie, my now eight-year-old, did not realize where the food came from or what the purpose of it was. All he knew was that in his school there was food that every child had the ability to get if they were hungry—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe Conservatives would heckle me on this. I am telling an impassioned story about my eight-year-old and a lesson that he learned, and the member from Peterborough feels that this is an appropriate time to heckle.
Nonetheless, the point is that my eight-year-old learned an incredible lesson about the stereotypes, not needing to rely on them or to stigmatize people, and that this was genuinely about an opportunity for kids, in particular those who need it, to access food without having a stereotype attached to them.
That is what this is really about. I do not want my eight-year-old and six-year-old to be in a classroom with kids who are picked on because they have to go to a special basket to get food. That is why I completely agree with my NDP colleagues that this absolutely must be universal. It is the only way it can work, and it will certainly break down stereotypes.
The Conservatives are against this. They want no part of it. The Conservatives voted against it when it came before the House previously, and when it was in committee, they started to put forward motions that had to do with the carbon tax. They could not even set aside their differences on an issue as simple and easy to justify as putting food in the stomachs of children and, in particular, getting it to the kids who really need it. I find it really discouraging that we continually see the Conservative Party of Canada take this approach.
The Conservatives will be the first to talk about food bank usage, as their one speaker so far has done today, but they have absolutely nothing to offer when it comes to solutions, other than saying that if we get rid of a tax, all of a sudden, poof, poverty is going to be eliminated. That is what the Conservatives would like to sell to the Canadian people: If we just get rid of this tax, nobody will ever need to utilize any kind of social resources to access food ever again because everything will just suddenly and magically be better for everyone. That is not reality. Food banks have been around for decades. I remember volunteering at the food bank in Kingston when I was in high school. That was a long time ago. That was 30 years ago. The reality is that food banks have become a stable source for taking care of people, in particular those in need.
What Bill C-322 would do is establish a national framework for a school food program. It mandates the Minister of Employment and Social Development, in consultation with the Minister of Health, provincial governments, indigenous governing bodies and other relevant stakeholders, to develop a framework to establish a national school food program. The bill requires the government to develop, post online and report on a national framework that would broadly set out the contents of a school food program. It says the minister must, within one year of the act coming into force, prepare a report setting out the national framework and table the report before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed.
The bill also states that within five years of tabling the report:
the Minister must undertake a review of the effectiveness of the national framework and prepare a report setting out his or her conclusions and recommendations regarding the national framework
The bill, of course, does not impose any conditions on provinces or territories because we understand and respect the need to work with the provinces and territories.
Coming toward the conclusion of my speech, I will reflect on some of the comments that I heard from my NDP colleague moments ago when she spoke. She challenged the Liberals to ensure that this program is seen through. She challenged the Liberals to make sure that the government does it. I would remind the NDP and her that we had a supply and confidence agreement that had another year left in it.
The NDP is now in a very similar situation with the national school food program that it was in in 2006 with a national housing program aimed at working with provinces. All of the right components were in place and a motion was set out to deliver a housing plan throughout the country. What did the NDP then do? We have a lot of respect for Jack Layton around here, and he did a lot of great things, but he also triggered an election.
Stephen Harper got elected and a number of things were affected by that, such as Kyoto, and as a result, the NDP did not end up getting the housing plan that it had been a part of putting together in 2006. I say to my NDP colleagues to be very careful. They have the power here to see this national school food program come to fruition. They have the power because it is all in their hands to make sure that we have the ability to deliver on this. It is one thing to call on us to do this. It is another thing to accept the fact that they have the responsibility to Canadians to ensure that it is seen through to the end.
1566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:19:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.
As I begin my intervention here tonight, harvest is happening in Saskatchewan. We are not quite three-quarters of the way done in the province. There is a lot higher percentage done in southwest Saskatchewan. In fact, I was riding on a combine just last week with a farmer and we were literally on the last field that they were going to be harvesting for that particular year. There are many who are already completely done and have moved on. I want us to give a big thanks to them for growing the food that feeds the world and feeds our country, and doing so in the most sustainable way in the world.
When I got up previously, I was talking about food bank usage and how the carbon tax was affecting and impacting that. There was a report from the Canadian Trucking Alliance indicating that, this year alone, the trucking industry is going to pay $2 billion in carbon taxes. In 2030, it is going to be paying $4 billion in carbon taxes per year on an ongoing basis. That is a 15% increase in being able to operate a truck.
When we think about the cumulative impact that 15% has, it is going to be passed from the trucking company onto the people who are buying the goods. That may be the stores, or a farmer getting fertilizer shipped to his farm or getting seed delivered, things like that. Everybody is going to be paying 15% more. Who else is going to be paying 15% more? If we build that out a bit further, it will be a higher number. It will be the consumer when they go to buy food.
When we are talking about food bank usage, the ability for food banks to buy food, or people who are buying food to donate to food banks, they are going to be paying an exponentially higher amount simply because of the carbon tax. That is on top of the impact the carbon tax has had already.
There is another contributing factor in regard to the carbon tax. We all know about the first carbon tax. The Liberals want to increase that, and it is going to cost about $25 billion per year to the Canadian economy in 2030 when it is fully implemented, but that is not good enough for the Liberals. They are trying to appease carbon tax Carney.
One carbon tax is not good enough, so they are going to impose a second carbon tax. That carbon tax, through the fuel regulations to be imposed on Canadians, is going to drive another $9-billion wedge into the Canadian economy. It is going to cost well over $30 billion a year in 2030 in carbon tax to the Canadian economy. What is that going to do to food prices in this country? What is that going to do to food production in this country?
We know a bit from the Canadian Trucking Alliance about what it is going to mean for it, and it has some pretty strong words about the carbon tax and what the impacts of it will be. It said it is trying to do its bit, but the government has not provided any alternative for it to be able to do something else. It is completely crushing the industry, and there is only one place that it can pass that buck onto, and that is onto the consumer.
I wonder what the government has to say about that.
607 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. However, the announcement indicated that the question would be about ways to help families. I will therefore focus on the topic that was announced.
Supporting families and improving their quality of life is one of the government's key priorities. We have made significant investments to make life more affordable, because we believe every Canadian deserves a real and fair chance to succeed.
The Canada child benefit helps low- and middle-income families with the cost of raising their children. This benefit, which is indexed to inflation, supports over 3.5 million families and over six million children, putting close to $25 billion tax-free in the hands of families each year.
In 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, because we knew it would give children the best start in life. Tens of thousands of families are already benefiting from reduced fees. This allows mothers to re-enter the workforce, which in turn increases family incomes.
From 2022 until June 30, 2024, families with children under the age of 12 were eligible for the Canada dental benefit. With the new Canadian dental care plan, the Government of Canada continues to help families access the dental care that parents and children need and deserve.
There is no question that food insecurity affects many Canadians. No child should go to school on an empty stomach, but the rising price of groceries makes it difficult for many families to afford nutritious food. That is why, as part of budget 2024, we announced a $1-billion investment over five years to create the national school food program. This program will increase access to school meals for up to an additional 400,000 schoolchildren a year and help more Canadian children get a better start each day. It will ensure they can focus on learning, not on being hungry, and it will take some of the pressure off family budgets, helping to make life more affordable.
We are also helping to deliver relief at the grocery checkout counter in three ways: first, amending the Competition Act to enhance competition in the grocery sector, to help bring down costs and ensure that Canadians have more choice in where they buy groceries; second, securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains to help stabilize prices; and third, establishing a grocery task force to supervise the big grocers' work and investigate unacceptable grocery sector practices such as shrinkflation. These are great examples of government working for Canadians.
Since 2015, we have also enhanced the Canada workers benefit, increased the old age security pension and improved the guaranteed income supplement. Also, the new Canada disability benefit will help working-age Canadians with disabilities. We have made this significant investment because we are committed to investing in people, and our efforts are working. There are close to 1.3 million fewer people in poverty, including approximately 380,000 fewer children, compared to—
508 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:27:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will quickly read a quote from the Canadian Trucking Alliance:
Due to razor thin margins in the trucking industry, these added costs cannot be absorbed and must be passed on to customers. As virtually every good purchased by Canadian families and businesses involves truck transportation, this means those families and businesses are paying increasingly higher prices for those goods to pay for this ineffective tax.
The member is from Quebec, and we hear from the Bloc as well as from some Liberal MPs that Quebeckers are immune to the carbon tax. Well, this statement would suggest otherwise. When a trucking company hauls goods into Quebec, it is going to pass on the cost of the carbon tax to the constituents in the member's riding. I am wondering what they would say about the fact they are going to have to pay the carbon tax that the government is forcing on them anyway.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague say that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has its own system.
I think that we can help families with programs like the ones I listed, while fighting climate change and protecting the environment. It is the eleventh hour, and I think that, with a Liberal government in Canada, we are much better equipped to give Canadians the best of both worlds by helping them deal with the challenges that we are currently facing while protecting the environment.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:29:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have had many chances to do the right thing for Canadians: remove corruption from their spending. It is shocking that they actually put it in their budgets, and we have called on them to cut the corruption and save Canadians some money.
One in four Canadians is going to be using a food bank this fall. That is a heartbreaking number for me to hear, knowing that in my communities, like Brockville, Gananoque, Prescott and South Grenville, food bank use has doubled. While there are still many generous people in the community who are giving food and funds, it is also just not going as far as it used to. Even the food banks are struggling with life after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.
We heard from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands today, who talked about the devastating effects of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister's carbon tax. The Canadian Trucking Alliance in the last week spoke out about the costs that they are incurring, the billions in increased costs for them that will have to be passed on to consumers because if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, it is of course a tax on the person who sells it, and the person who buys it is paying that tax.
Canadians are having a hard time getting by, and we do not think it will get any better with Mark “carbon tax” Carney now advising the Prime Minister, knowing his affinity for making others pay. He follows a different set of rules, jet-setting around just like the high-carbon hypocrite at 24 Sussex, the Prime Minister.
Canadians are struggling, and we hear often the Liberals' caution about Conservative cuts. Conservatives are going to cut the corruption. We are going to cut the scandals and we are going to cut the waste.
Just look at the billion-dollar green slush fund. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were misappropriated that we knew about just when we started out, and now the chair of the fund has been found to have been in a conflict of interest. Another government-appointed board member as well is being investigated.
The $60-million arrive scam, two guys in a basement, is how we found out that there is grift, a 30% markup on everything the government outsources. It is spending more than $21 billion in a year outsourcing, and we find out that oftentimes 30% of that is just going to Liberal insiders who line their pockets.
Common-sense Conservatives have made a commitment to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, and Canadians deserve that. They deserve a carbon tax election, and we are ready to put that motion before the House at the first available opportunity. In the meantime, the Liberals need to do one thing: The parliamentary secretary can stand and say that they will cut the corruption from their budgets and stop the madness.
Canadians deserve better.
513 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:33:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the government shares the member's concerns and his desire to hold those responsible to account. This is an issue that the government is not taking lightly.
The members of this House and all Canadians are justifiably concerned by what they have been hearing in the media and at committee. We are using many tools and following many avenues of inquiry to understand what went wrong in the case of ArriveCAN. These avenues include the rare and extraordinary measure of a public rebuke in the House, for which the government did vote in favour. This speaks to how seriously we take this issue. It is why we voted for Mr. Firth to present himself here in the House and why we will continue to support the various investigations and inquiries into this matter.
While we await the responses that Canadians need and deserve, I can tell everyone about the swift and decisive actions this government is taking to strengthen and protect the integrity of government procurement so that something like this can never ever happen again. When something goes awry, the government takes decisive action to restore trust in the system. That is exactly what our government is doing.
Budget 2024 clearly outlines the actions we are taking to enforce and uphold the highest standards of procurement to ensure sound stewardship of public funds. They include new steps to strengthen the government's procurement and conflict of interest regimes and updated procurement guidance for managers to reinforce the prudent use of public funds. This means examining human resources and staffing strategies before procuring professional services, strict evaluation criteria when a supplier is selected, clear due diligence protocols to ensure no conflict of interest and ensuring all contractual obligations are upheld by third party vendors. It also includes government-wide audits to ensure governance, decision-making and controls associated with professional service contracts uphold the highest ethical standards.
The results of these audits are expected by the end of this year. Changes are also under way to modernize the new master-level user agreements for a professional services supply arrangement to improve transparency regarding costing and subcontractors. We will launch a new risk and compliance process to ensure government-wide trends, risks and departmental performance meet the highest standards and take corrective actions whenever necessary as soon as possible. We are also bringing forward stronger accountability guidelines for managers when procuring professional services, which include robust validation that a potential contractor is the best fit for the requirements.
In closing, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are used wisely and responsibly. We recognize the seriousness of the ArriveCAN issue, and I want to assure Canadians that we will be acting swiftly and decisively to ensure that it cannot happen again.
471 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary claims that the Liberals are good stewards who ensure the responsible and wise use of tax dollars. He talked about taking this seriously and wanting to get to the bottom of it.
My question is very simple. In this $60-million arrive scam scandal that lies at the feet of the Liberal Prime Minister, himself twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws, the member, the cabinet, the Prime Minister and all members over there voted against having the Auditor General investigate. If they wanted to get to the bottom of it, were not trying to protect their friends and Liberal insiders and wanted to do the right thing for Canadians, even if it made them look bad, why would they not allow Canada's Auditor General to investigate?
The motion passed in the House without the Liberals' and the member's support. Why did the parliamentary secretary and his government vote against the Auditor General investigation?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:38:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear me. Just to repeat what I said, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are used wisely and responsibly. The issues that have emerged around the procurement of professional IT services and the management of the ArriveCAN application are indeed deeply troubling. We know from the reports of various investigations into the matter that Canada's procurement system can be strengthened and improved, and that is exactly what we are doing. Budget 2024 outlines the important steps we are taking to enforce and uphold the highest standards of procurement to ensure sound stewardship of public funds.
We will continue to actively explore all possible ways to further bolster our processes. We are working relentlessly to make sure that what happened in the case of ArriveCAN does not happen again.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for allowing me to speak here tonight. I appreciate my colleagues who are here.
Let me address this escalating problem we have with government debt in Canada.
I asked a question a long time ago in which I really tried to nail down the government on its debt-to-GDP ratio calculation, which is a fabrication. Canadians understand what debt costs them and the mounting cost of debt that has been happening across the economy. They are particularly looking at their own accounts, but they are also looking at the government accounts. The projected amount the government is going to have to spend servicing the debt this year is $47 billion. Within four years, that is going to grow by about 50%, to over $67 billion, because of the mounting and escalating debt the government is adding on to the backs of Canadians at the federal government level alone.
There is one thing I want to make sure people are clear about here. There is more than one debt in Canada. There is more than one government debt. There is $1.4 trillion of federal government debt outstanding. We add in an extra $700 billion of provincial government debt, and that is about $2.1 trillion of debt held by governments across Canada, for a country whose GDP is about $2.25 trillion.
Those numbers are not updated. When we look at the IMF, it states that our debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada is north of 100%; its number is 107%. However, the government, in its pretense, said that it is 40%. How does it arrive at 40% at the federal government level alone? What it does is it takes the money that is in the Canada and Quebec pension plans and it says that is an asset of the Government of Canada. That is the money it takes off people's paycheques that goes into a separately managed account for the retirement of Canadians; the government uses that as collateral to jump into, to piggyback off and to make sure it does not have to pay the debt that is due in the future. This is a problem.
I am going to talk, first of all, about the IMF. I know my colleague across the way tried to say that Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the group of seven countries. That is completely false. He needs to look at the chart, and I can point him to the website if he would like. There is an additional problem here, of course, because debt is not just government debt in Canada but also personal debt and corporate debt. We call it nonfinancial debt. The personal debt alone in Canada is about $3 trillion, on top of the government debt, which is $2.1 trillion. If we add the private debt on top of that, which is about another $3.75 trillion, we have a massively debt-financed economy here in Canada. The amount of interest spent by Canadians is exorbitant, and it is going to continue to rise because of the government's profligate spending.
We have to get this under control. The problem with debt is that, once it is a problem, it is an escalating problem. There is a reason the International Monetary Fund was going to interfere in Canada's public budget processes back in the 1990s. The Chrétien government, at that point in time, had to intervene and cut the actual amount it spent on health care by half and put it on to the backs of the provinces. This was because the country was loaded up on debt, and it had to be dealt with very quickly. The way it dealt with that was by loading it on to the backs of the provinces. We are going to see the same thing again because the government is going to face a problem in the very near future. Will it please address this debt-to-GDP ratio, which we have to get under control?
682 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite is a graduate of the Ivey Business School. He knows numbers very well. Clearly, he is a fan of numbers, and I am too, so I will follow along his line of argument around the number 40, a debt-to-GDP ratio at 40%.
As a woman in her forties, I feel like I know this number well. The member opposite mentioned 40% debt-to-GDP ratio, and I understand why most people feel like that is a large number. After all, 40% is close to half. Forty per cent is usually enough to be elected in a riding in Canada, so 40% can seem impressive to my Conservative colleagues.
However, when it comes to government debt, it is a different story. The last time the U.S. had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 40% was in the early 1980s, before Ronald Reagan blew a hole in the American financial system with his irresponsible tax cuts for the very wealthy. What is the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio today? In the U.S., it is around 120%. Yes, members heard that right. It is actually over 100%. Is the U.S. an isolated case? I do not think so. Let us look at our G7 peers. In France, it is over 90%. In the U.K., it is over 100%. Italy is at over 140%. In Japan, it is over 200%.
What do these numbers tell us? First, Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and our comparative advantage is growing. Why does that matter? It is because when comparative advantage grows, that is when foreign investment flows into the country. That is what creates more jobs, more good-paying jobs.
Second, Conservatives are desperate to gaslight Canadians and scare folks with scary-sounding numbers without context.
Third, Conservatives argue that we should not make the tax system fairer, that we should not help Canadians feel like the playing field is actually level.
My time is short, so I would like to touch on another 40 that my colleague raised in a previous conversation in this House, which is a $40-billion deficit. That also sounds like a big number, but I like another even bigger number, which is $2.2 trillion. That is our gross domestic product in Canada, the size of the entire great, amazing and beautiful Canadian economy. That is $2,200 billion. That is what the deficit is measured against, and that means our deficit is actually below 2% of GDP. That is to be compared with about 6% in the United States and about 5% in France. Yes, numbers do matter. Context matters.
449 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the numbers, but the numbers have to be correct at the end of the day. I was hoping she would listen to my speech, because the 40% she is stating is actually a fabrication. She is using Canadians' assets as collateral, which proposes also to go into their private pension plans in order to get the balance she is looking for here, the 40%.
On the numbers she states, as far as where the U.S. and France are, the comparable number for Canada is 107%. I challenge her to look at that very website she took those numbers from for the other countries. The number 40% is a fabrication. It raids the piggy bank of the pension funds of Canadians, and that is not the federal government's money. We have talked about that several times in the House. She is also not counting the provincial debts, which are also on top of it and are included in the other numbers of the countries she has referenced along the way. Her numbers need to be more forthcoming. She needs to be more forthcoming with Canadians.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:47:30 p.m.
- Watch
No, Madam Speaker, I do not include provincial debt in the federal debt. Since I only have one minute and my colleague raises several points, I thought I would take the opportunity, given the news of today, to remind Canadians that inflation has fallen from its high, at over 8%, to just 2% in Canada. That is a reduction of over three-quarters, beating all forecasts, and is now perfectly in line with our target rate set by the Bank of Canada.
Canada was actually the first among all of our peers to cut interest rates, and then cut them again and then cut them again, bringing relief to homeowners today and tomorrow. That will help not only homeowners right now in our country but prospective homeowners.
I have many more numbers on my sheet, but I see that my time is coming to a close. I would be happy to respond to additional finance questions from my Conservative colleague in the future.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 7:48:24 p.m.
- Watch
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:48 p.m.)
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
