44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2024 10:00AM
- May/10/24 11:51:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, harm reduction is health care. Harm reduction is the door to the system. Safe consumption sites have responded to more than 53,000 overdoses since 2017.
Our government has invested $200 billion to support provinces and territories, delivering services needed in addition to the $1 billion we have directly invested to address this crisis. We will use every tool at our disposal to end the toxic drug and overdose crisis.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Motion No. 110, a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity.
We know that people across Canada, too many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, are struggling to make ends meet and to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. While people are going hungry, a tremendous amount of food is being wasted. Much of this wasted food is nutritious and healthy foods that could be eaten by those who are hungry. Instead, it is shipped to a landfill to rot.
At the same time as food is being wasted, we are seeing the cost of food continuing to rise at insurmountable rates while grocery CEOs earn record profits. Everyday Canadians, including families, seniors, people living with disabilities and workers, and I could go on, are all having to make impossible choices between which basic need to prioritize.
At the same time as Canadians are grappling with these unfair choices, the total value of wasted or lost food in Canada is tagged at $49 billion each year or roughly $1,766 per household. That is $49 billion of wasted food each year that never makes it onto people's tables, and $49 billion that could serve to feed every single person in Canada nutritious food, three meals a day, for five full months.
Knowing all this, I cannot imagine any member of the House not being in favour of legislation that would address wasted food and food security. Motion No. 110, advanced by the hon. member for Willowdale, addresses food waste reduction, food insecurity, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reaching the UN's sustainable development goals and policy to increase food donations to those in need.
While this motion contains goals I agree with, it seeks only to express an opinion of the House and not to enshrine anything concrete into law. Motions in the House are important mechanisms that allow members to express the opinions, wishes and will of their constituents and those they represent. They have their place, but I wonder: Why not a bill?
My hon. colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, has introduced two very strong bills, Bill C-360, the wasted food reduction and recovery act, and Bill C-304, the national food waste awareness day act. These NDP bills would have the power to enshrine many of these same objectives in Canadian law, which I hope to see supported by members in the House.
This follows work by past NDP members of Parliament, like Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who introduced Bill C-231, the fight against food waste act, in the 42nd Parliament, before my time. Unfortunately, the majority of Liberals voted to defeat this bill at second reading in February 2016. An interesting point is that of the Liberals who voted against this motion to fight against wasted food was the sponsor of today's motion. Had the member for Willowdale actually understood and voted accordingly with the urgency of this issue eight years ago, I believe we would be in a different place today. A motion today is good, but solutions and actions eight years ago would have been better.
Those in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have been particularly impacted by food insecurity and wasted food. I am incredibly proud to share the important work of Loaves & Fishes Community Food Bank in addressing both of these issues. Loaves & Fishes provides free food services to more than 40 communities across Vancouver Island, including 15 indigenous communities. Not only is Loaves & Fishes feeding more than 10% of the population on Vancouver Island, it is also actively counteracting food waste and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a successful food recovery program.
The Loaves & Fishes food recovery program collects all surplus food from grocery stores regardless of quality and redirects it to the highest and best use. This surplus food is primarily fruit, vegetables, meats, bread and dairy items that grocery retailers have traditionally thrown out in a dumpster. I participated and saw first-hand this process at Loaves & Fishes Community Food Bank. Because of the work of an incredible team composed of many dedicated people, over 21 million pounds of food have been diverted from landfills since 2012. In 2023, the organization sourced and distributed 8.2 million dollars' worth of food through 33 food recovery partners.
Food collected that is unfit for human consumption has also been diverted from landfills by partnering with farmers to provide animal feed and with other organizations working to convert organic waste. Loaves & Fishes has been so successful in its food recovery that it has been asked by Food Banks BC to develop a food recovery guide that would help other food banks in the province to create programs of their own that could provide a national model for food recovery.
However, doing this important work requires space, and that is something Loaves & Fishes currently does not have enough of. Although it fully utilizes every inch of the space it has, to see the food recovery program do all that it can and needs to do, Loaves & Fishes is seeking necessary federal funding for a new warehouse distribution centre. The Province of British Columbia, the City of Nanaimo and the Regional District of Nanaimo have all committed millions of dollars to support this project, while the federal Liberals have yet to contribute.
Those reaching out in support of this project continue to come in. It is evident that this is a vital project for Vancouver Island. It is for these reasons that I personally handed these letters of support to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, urging the federal government to contribute its part. It is also for these reasons that I and my NDP colleagues, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for North Island—Powell River and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, wrote a joint letter to the minister in February highlighting this important project and requesting a path forward to see this project funded.
I bring this forward as investing in a new Loaves & Fishes warehouse distribution centre is exactly the kind of project the Liberal government needs to be investing in to put words to action and truly give communities the infrastructure and investment required to increase food security and reduce wasted food. This is an opportunity for the government, an opportunity that I hope it will take.
My NDP colleagues and I will be supporting Motion No. 110, as the contents of the motion are important for us all. It is essential that we see more than just words from the government. Instead, we need true investment in real solutions, because food should not be wasted and people should not continue to go hungry.
Because I have spoken faster than I anticipated, I am going to add a few extra pieces. I wanted to take a moment to add a few thoughts around the important work of my NDP colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who is also the NDP agriculture critic. He has been championing the issues of food insecurity and food waste and is meeting with stakeholders on an ongoing basis to address these issues. I know he has met with stakeholders including Food Secure Canada, Second Harvest, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Cowichan Green Community, Deans Council—Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine, and the list goes on.
We need to see all members of Parliament doing the work to speak to those in the community who know first-hand how to get these projects done to reduce food insecurity and to increase the amount of food being put on the tables of those who need it, instead of tragically being wasted. We know that New Democrats have been fighting this fight for a long time, so I am happy to see this motion coming forward today. I would also like to see those real actions and investments being put forward by the government.
I would like to thank the member for putting forward the motion. I look forward to supporting it, and I look forward to seeing the true investments we need.
1389 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
