HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Good morning, committee members. It is 11 o'clock. The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Our witness for this part is appearing in the room; we have no one appearing virtually.
With that, I open meeting number 15 of the HUMA committee. Pursuant to the motions adopted on September 18, 2025, the committee is meeting on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code for the first hour and on government mandates and key priorities for the second hour.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Those participating have the option to participate in the official language of their choice. If you are attending virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. Those in the room, please choose the interpretation of your choice by using the headset. I would ask all members to please silence their devices, as well as refrain from tapping the boom on the mic. This is for the benefit of our interpreters. I forget to remind about this from time to time, but if you could speak slowly, that will help the interpreters as well.
Please wait until I address you. Direct all questions through the chair, and wait until I recognize you before proceeding.
Before we begin, I have one routine motion. This study requires a budget approval. The estimated budget for this study is $18,950. Do we have approval for the budget? If we don't, we'll conclude, and there will be no study—and I'm not being satirical.
We do this because we get into these discussions. The budgets are dealt with as we start. They're estimates, and they're to cover the routine costs of the study. Do we have the approval of the budget that was prepared by the clerk?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Clerk, we can proceed with the study. That's the only item.
When this motion was adopted, there was some question on witnesses coming before the committee and giving testimony that may involve legal action outside. I requested that the clerk solicit an opinion for me, as chair, on this. For the record, I'm going to read the legal advice that was given to me, as chair, on how we proceed:
Honourable Members,
Before we begin our hearings on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code, I would like to take a moment to discuss the fundamental right of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.
While there are very few limitations to the freedom of speech granted to both members and witnesses, I wish to remind members of the sub judice convention. Sub judice means “under the consideration of a judge or court,” and is explained by Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition, p. 99, as
“a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.”
In addition, as Speaker Fraser noted, it serves “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government.” On the one hand, it protects the individual and on the other it upholds the separation of the two institutions.
Furthermore, page 1079 of Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition states:
“The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government.”
As you know, this convention is an informal rule of practice and not a formal rule of procedure and applies only to Members of Parliament speaking during parliamentary proceeding, whether in the House or in committee. Over the course of this study, we may be hearing witnesses who currently have active cases before the courts or a quasi-judicial body. In fact, we have the Canada Industrial Relations Board in front of us today, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal.
Members are asked to be mindful that some matters raised over the course of this study are under consideration before the courts. This is not to prevent all or any comments or questions by Members on the matter but rather to avoid Members addressing the particular issues that are before the court or commenting on the prospects for success by one of the parties to the legal proceeding.
That being said, subject to a decision otherwise by the committee, the sub judice convention does not give a witness the right to not answer questions. A witness may ask to be excused from answering a question because it relates to a matter in which the witness is involved before the courts, but it is up to the committee to decide whether the witness will answer the question. A witness's position in court is not affected by what is said before a committee as such testimony cannot be used, directly or indirectly, in such proceedings.
I trust that members will exercise caution during their questioning and remind members of these words from our predecessors in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members:
“It is submitted that, while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for.”
I thank the members for their attention [on this matter].
With that, I would like to welcome our witness from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Ms. Maryse Tremblay, chairperson.
Ms. Tremblay, the floor is yours for five minutes for your opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee in respect of your study on the impact of the lack of a definition of the term “work” in part III of the Canada Labour Code and into the government's use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to refer labour disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. I'll refer simply to “the board” from now on.
The motion adopted by the committee also refers to the latest intervention of the board following a ministerial direction under section 107 of the code ordering Air Canada and its flight attendants into binding arbitration.
As we indicated in our letter to the committee clerk on November 10, the board is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal. The board's adjudicative mandate is to interpret and apply the code, as well as the Status of the Artist Act and also the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. The board is commonly referred to as the federal labour tribunal.
In respect of all disputes before the board, mediation assistance is offered through the board's mediators to help parties reach a settlement. When disputes cannot be resolved through mediation or negotiation, the board's decision-makers—or the administrative judges, as they are often called—are responsible to adjudicate the disputes.
The board is composed of me and eight full-time and two part-time vice-chairs, as well as four full-time and two part-time representative members. The panels assigned to hear and decide cases are composed of a vice-chair or the chair and two members—a panel of three—or a vice-chair or the chair sitting alone. Members do not sit alone to decide disputes.
The code itself comprises four distinct statutory regimes: part I, which governs labour relations; part II, which deals with occupational health and safety; part III, which concerns minimum labour standards; and part IV, which deals with administrative monetary penalties.
More specifically, under part III of the code, the board hears and decides three main types of matters: unjust dismissal complaints; reprisal complaints, that is, complaints alleging reprisals taken for having exercised a right under part III of the code; and, as well, wage recovery matters, which are referrals or appeals relating to the payment of wages. Of note, wage recovery matters and unjust dismissal complaints are not filed directly with the board, but rather with the labour program of Employment and Social Development Canada.
Matters filed under part II, part III and part IV of the code can be assigned to external adjudicators. Typically, external adjudicators are private arbitrators with their own private practice who are placed on a roster of adjudicators to handle board matters or board mandates. When they're handling board mandates under the code, external adjudicators act on behalf of the board.
[Translation]
The board interprets and applies the Canada Labour Code provisions in the context of the specific applications and complaints it receives.
As an independent quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, the board must exercise its powers free from outside influence and cannot express opinions on matters or issues that may arise in applications or complaints brought before it. Accordingly, my comments before this committee will be limited and respectful of the board's adjudicative role and its attendant neutrality. I will therefore refrain from expressing my opinion on the substantive issues under consideration by the committee, as these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the board when it is called upon to decide cases.
The board's role is to apply and interpret its enabling legislation, as adopted by Parliament. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on policy issues raised in the committee's discussions, such as the impact of the lack of a definition of “work” in part III of the Canada Labour Code or the minister's decision to use section 107 of the code to give specific instructions to the board under certain circumstances.
For the same reasons, my comments will not address the policy considerations underlying the code.
That said, in order to assist the committee, we have prepared a table listing the decisions rendered by the board in 2024–2025 that relate to ministerial instructions to the board under section 107 of the code. That list was distributed to you prior to this meeting. It contains references to the board's decisions. We hope the list will make it easier for you to consult the board's decisions on ministerial referrals under this provision.
[English]
With that, thank you again for the invitation. I will be pleased to answer questions from the committee members within the boundaries attached to the board's quasi-judicial role.
[Translation]
Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.
[English]
We will now begin the first round of questioning, which is the six-minute round, with Mr. Seeback for six minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair
We're living in a time of historic work disruptions. From what I've been able to see, there were 845 work stoppages in 2024 in Canada, versus 153 in 2014. That's a massive increase in the number of work stoppages. It appears to me that we've been having less industrial peace in Canada over the last few years than we certainly had a decade ago.
If I were to look at a few things, section 107 was invoked four times between 1995 and 2002. It was invoked once between 2011 and 2015. It's been invoked eight times since June 2024. That's a staggering increase in the number of section 107 referrals by the Liberal government.
Do section 107 referrals affect how the CIRB operates, because they are considered urgent matters that must be taken up immediately? Does that disrupt the regular workflow at the CIRB when you get eight referrals in a little over a year?
It certainly increases the volume of matters before the board, in terms of bare numbers. That said, in terms of how expediently these matters are dealt with, there's not much difference between that and different kinds of other expedited proceedings that the board is dealing with. We can have unlawful strike applications, for example, that are filed, and these are dealt with on an urgent basis as well. We have interim relief requests as well that are dealt with on an urgent basis. Those section 107 matters are also treated as priority files under our regulations, as are these other matters that I've discussed.
Would they therefore bump down something else because they're a priority matter? Would they take precedence over other things that are currently before the board?
I want to talk to you very briefly about the WestJet referral by the minister, because I found it very interesting.
The WestJet referral in June 2024 did not include a requirement that people go back to work, as opposed to the section 107 referrals that came subsequently. The board exercised its discretion that it was not necessary to secure industrial peace by having them go back to work.
Can you explain why it was determined that, in order to secure industrial peace, the strike didn't have to end?
First of all, I will agree with you that the ministerial referral in the WestJet matter was different from the other ones we saw afterwards. In terms of explaining the decision issued by the vice-chair, who actually issued the decision in WestJet, I will refrain from going beyond what's found in the decision. In terms of understanding the rationale for finding or not that industrial peace involves a ceasing of the strike, I will refer you to the decision that's in our list that we've just provided.
But your organization decided before that it wasn't necessary to secure industrial peace, because they did not tell them to go back to work. I'm not trying to trick you.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, Mr. Seeback's microphone was off, and his remarks could not be interpreted. The situation has been resolved—for the witness as well, I believe.
Thank you.
[English]
The WestJet decision did not require an end of the strike. The board determined that the strike could continue. It wasn't a requirement to secure industrial peace that the strike end. That's basically the effect of that decision. Am I correct?
[Translation]
Indeed, the decision did not include a call to end the strike.
Beyond that, with regard to the explanation or reasoning followed by my colleagues in their adjudicative functions, I refer you to the board's decision, which includes the reasons. It is the first decision on the list—number 2024 CCRI 1151.
[English]
Yes. I thank you.
The subsequent section 107 referrals always directed the board to have the parties go back to work. Would you agree with me on that?
The board has no discretion to ignore that based on the Dow Chemical case. If the minister says in their referral that the strike ends and workers go back to work, you have no discretion to ignore that. Is that correct?
Your question is addressed in the decision of CN, so I will refer you to the decision in CN where the board speaks and explains how it has interpreted Dow Chemical and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court to deal with the ministerial referral.
Right. The fact is that when you were allowed to have discretion as to whether or not to end the strike, you didn't. Subsequently, the government took away your discretion and ordered you to order the workers back to work in every subsequent section 107 referral.
Again, in terms of the rationale and the explanation of those decisions, I can only refer you to what the decisions talk about. This is how we speak as a tribunal. It's in our decision. I will leave it at that.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madame Tremblay, for being with us today and for shedding shed some light on the process in the issuance of a section 107 referred to CIRB and the relationship between government, employees and employers.
After the minister makes a referral to the CIRB, what actions are taken? What considerations does the board consider before issuing a decision?
[Translation]
Generally speaking, when the board receives a request for ministerial referral, it opens a file and asks for representations from the parties involved. The board may do so through a hearing or in writing.
Often, the board will hold a case management conference to determine the best way to proceed with the case before it; this is done on a case-by-case basis. However, it is essential for the board to ensure that it hears all parties before a decision is rendered.
Thank you.
[English]
As a quasi-judicial independent tribunal that promotes industrial peace, could you describe the role the CIRB plays in the relationship between employers and employees?
[Translation]
When making decisions, the board always keeps in mind the objectives set out in the preamble to the Canada Labour Code. These principles generally underpin the board's decisions, along with any other legal constraints that may exist.
There are, of course, the specific provisions of the code. Some of you may be familiar with the Supreme Court's decision in Canada v. Vavilov. Our decisions must be rendered in accordance with the legal constraints that apply to the board.
Can you give us an example of what the relationship really looks like between the federal government and the board of directors?
Actually, they are completely independent of each other. When a matter is referred to us, we receive it at the same time as the parties. That's when we seek representations from the parties. However, there is no connection, whether in terms of an organizational chart or otherwise.
That said, the federal mediation and conciliation service, for example, has ties with our mediators at the board in cases where there is a crossover between the negotiation of a collective agreement and the disputes that come before the board. They may keep each other up to date of where they are with the parties. Otherwise, they are strictly separate and independent from each other.
When the minister refers a case to you under section 107, is there any reason why employers and employees could not continue to negotiate?
The parties are always encouraged to continue to negotiate and find common ground to renew their collective agreement.
As a government, the message we send all the time is that the best deals happen at the bargaining table.
I think it's very important to explain that, while the government uses this tool from time to time, it doesn't prevent employers and employees from negotiating.
I couldn't agree more.
I would add that, when it comes to disputes that arise during collective bargaining, the board systematically offers its mediation services to the parties.
The parties use the federal mediation and conciliation service to negotiate the collective agreement. However, when a dispute comes before us, we immediately offer the services of our experienced mediators to help them pursue their objective. As the preamble to the Canada Labour Code states, we want the parties to reach an amicable agreement regarding their disputes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witness for being with us.
Ms. Tremblay, I must say at the outset that I understand, to the best of my ability, that your answers need to be limited, given that the council is a quasi-judicial tribunal. Obviously, we respect the principle of the separation of powers.
You mentioned several times, both in your answers and in your opening remarks, that you were willing to give us some information. In fact, you provided us with a list of the council's decisions on ministerial referrals from 2024 and 2025. At the beginning of your presentation, you also spoke objectively about the board's operation and composition.
Can you tell us how many referrals have been made under section 107 in the last 25 years?
This is an arbitrary period. I'm trying to get a sense of how often section 107 is used. I would like to see the objective data on that. You may already have an idea and could give us a glimpse right now. If not, you could provide an answer in writing to the committee after the meeting. If you could even provide the pre-2000 data, it would be appreciated.
I would like you to give us an idea of how often section 107 is used.
Has there been an objective increase in how frequently the provision is used?
I can answer your question directly.
In the decision known as 2024 CIRB 1162, rendered by the board on October 22, 2024, which concerns the Canadian National Railway case, you will find the detailed legislative history of section 107 in paragraphs 22 to 42. The reference is in the box in the second row of the fourth column of the table we provided to the committee.
You will note that the minister has only been able to issue directives to the board since 1984. The provision existed before, but without the possibility of referring files or questions to the commission.
Then, in paragraphs 43 to 53 of the same decision, you will find the history of the use of section 107 over the years. You'll see that 10 referrals were made under section 107 prior to the last two years. If you add the referrals from the past two years, which are already on the list we sent you, you will have all the referrals that have been made to the board.
Given the number of referrals that have been made under section 107 in the last two years and the fact that, prior to the last two years, there had been only 10 referrals since 1984, it seems that the provision is being used with increasing frequency. Maybe you can't tell us that.
Okay. I'm not the expert, so I wanted to confirm that my comment made sense.
Can you explain why section 107 is being used more often?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that it's a government choice. Maybe it's because of the situation itself. I don't want to judge.
I know that's a very difficult question. If you can't answer it, then please don't.
You would have to ask the department that question, because it's not our decision. We just receive and implement referrals.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Tremblay, for your time today.
This is my first question. The very foundation of the relationship between an employer and its unionized workforce is based on the ability to collectively bargain in good faith. Do you think the government's use of section 107 undermines that relationship?
This is a question that goes to the heart of the reasons that section 107 is used or not, and the effect of section 107 referrals.
These are considerations that are, and can be, raised before the board in some adjudicative matters. I will refrain from making comments on this particular question just because it's certainly a value, a consideration, that the board is called to look at when it decides the cases that are in front of it.
With the government's trending use of section 107, forcing unionized employees back to work and their respective unions into binding arbitration, which prevents strike action, do you think that this process shifts the contract negotiations in favour of the employer?
Again, I will refrain from commenting on that in terms of the balance—whether it has an effect on the balance in the negotiating power. That is something that's assessed, presumably by the minister, when there's a section 107 referral to the board. It's also a consideration that may come into play in the board's assessment of and dealing with the section 107 referral.
Do you think this process leads to unions and their members feeling cheated out of their right to collectively bargain in good faith?
Do you think that union members are losing faith in the collective bargaining process? Are they just assuming it's going to go back to an implementation of section 107, forcing them into binding arbitration?
What would you say to unions that might help restore their faith in the collective bargaining system? What could you say to them, from your position?
I will refrain from commenting on your word “restore” and just speak more generally.
I think that parties always have to have faith in collective bargaining, very generally. It's a system that has worked successfully for years, with parties being able to, most of the time, reach settlement and collective agreements. It happens that at times it is a dispute that needs to be solved potentially differently or with different mechanisms. We have mechanisms where parties can choose to go to binding arbitration—section 79 of the Canada Labour Code—but parties should never lose faith in collective bargaining.
In the case of Air Canada and the use of section 107, CUPE defied the order to return to work, and the executives at Air Canada openly said that they didn't actually have a contingency. I think that sheds a light on the fact that employers are assuming or expecting the government's use of section 107 to end a labour dispute, which in my opinion is undermining the collective bargaining process.
Do you think that's what's happening?
I cannot speak to what the employers think or do not think, particularly in the context of the Air Canada matter. I was the person who handled the Air Canada dispute, and our files....
I'm just going to wait.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion, and I'm going to distribute a copy of it.
I move:
That, in light of recent reports of illegal foreign labour being used on federally funded infrastructure projects, the committee hold at least two meetings with government officials, and representatives of the building trades across Canada to examine this issue within the context of federally funded infrastructure projects.
What we know, Mr. Chair, is that illegal labour is gutting entry-level opportunities for young Canadians who are trying to get involved in the trades. There was recently a CBSA crackdown on a project in Edmonton that was receiving federal funds, and this crackdown was based on tips from the construction building trades that illegal labour was operating on that construction site. The construction building trades in Canada will say that this is an ever-growing and increasing problem where we have—
I've been advised, as currently worded, that it's not relevant to what we're studying at the moment. That does not restrain—
It's dilatory. Okay. This is an acceptable procedure within the committee.
Just so committee members are aware, Mr. Seeback moved a motion. You've heard it. You have a copy of it. Now we're going to vote.
The only issue is that, as I have been advised, it is not relevant to what the committee currently is discussing or the meeting that we're currently at. I've ruled at this time that it's not admissible. He could go back and reintroduce it some other time, but that is my decision. At this time, it is not relevant to the study we're currently undertaking. I've ruled it inadmissible at this time.
He has challenged my decision. It's left to the committee to decide if you want to continue with this or uphold my decision as the chair.
We'll do a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 9; yeas 0)
The Chair: Continue, Mr. Seeback.
—in the construction building trades. It's depriving young people of opportunities and apprenticeships. It is stealing taxpayer dollars from the federal government, as the illegal workers are often paid in cash.
We're seeing a two-tier labour market, where some Canadians are following rules while others aren't. It leaves these workers in incredibly vulnerable positions where they could be subject to abuse, with no protections and working in unsafe conditions.
Finally, federally funded infrastructure projects should not be operating with the use of illegal labour. The committee should look into this, and we should be finding ways to eliminate the use of illegal labour on construction sites that are receiving federal dollars.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is on the same point of order. Thank you.
This was very clear. You actually went to extraordinary lengths to explain exactly what we were voting on, which is not something that is often done, and I will commend you, Mr. Chair, on actually having gone through the full explanation as to what we were voting on.
It is unfortunate that the Liberal members did not know what they were voting on and voted the wrong way, but they did vote.
Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.
My instructions were clear as the vote was called. The motion is duly on the floor. Is there debate on the motion?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're doing amendments right now. Is that right? I just want to make sure that we're not confused.
My ruling was overturned. The motion is now debatable before the committee. The motion is on the floor.
Yes, you can move an amendment. It's open for debate.
Super. Thank you.
First of all, thank you very much to the committee members for putting this on the table. I think this is a very serious issue. It's one that I think is completely unacceptable. If this is the practice that committee members are hearing when they go back to their ridings, when they're engaging with companies and when they're engaging with unions, it is absolutely unacceptable and not to be tolerated.
For this reason, we are absolutely in favour of continuing this study in the direction that you're proposing, to get to the bottom of how Canadian workers are being displaced from good-paying jobs in the trades and the construction sector. We are happy to work with you on getting to the bottom of this and finding real solutions to this issue.
I think we are doing a disservice to the workers. If the intention is to get to the bottom of this, I think we are doing a disservice to this by narrowing the scope to federally funded projects. I would propose an amendment.
I will read it out: “That, in light of recent reports of illegal foreign labour being used in Canada, the committee hold at least two meetings with government officials, and representatives of the building trades across Canada to examine this issue.” I would remove “within the context of federally funded”.
We have heard in this committee from witnesses in the previous study who have raised this issue as well. Particularly, when we heard from the trades associations that were here, they told us that they were aware of non-registered, non-certified labour being used in some construction projects. I think we need to broaden the scope. I think we would do a disservice to focus only on the federally funded. That's what I would propose.
Mr. Chair, through you, I'd like to do a subamendment to my colleague's amendment and strike out the words “at least”, in allowing for the two days of study.
You want to hold two meetings.
I now have an amendment to the amendment from Ms. Fancy. Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
Ms. Goodridge, go ahead.
Can we dismiss our witness? It is unlikely we will get back to her, and I'm sure she has lots of things to do rather than just sit here and listen to the rest of this conversation.
Is it the wish of the committee to advise the witness she can leave?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Ms. Tremblay, you are excused. Thank you for appearing this morning and taking the questions from the committee members.
Mr. Chair, given that we have four minutes left in this meeting and we have a minister coming, that I don't agree with these amendments and that I don't want to take up more of the committee's time, I'm going to propose that we adjourn debate on this matter.
That's a dilatory motion.
Does the committee agree to adjourn the debate that is currently before the committee?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The discussion is adjourned on the motion that was before the committee, and the committee agreed to dismiss its witness. We'll suspend for five minutes while we transition to the next hour.
Committee members, the committee is back in session for our second hour.
I would like to welcome the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, the Honourable Anna Gainey. As well, we have Paul Thompson, deputy minister of the Department of Employment and Social Development.
This part of the meeting is on the government mandates and key priorities.
Welcome, Secretary Gainey. You have up to five minutes for an opening statement.
Ms. Gainey, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.
With me today is Paul Thompson, deputy minister of Employment and Social Development Canada.
It's a pleasure to be with you today.
Thank you to each and every one of you for the work you do on this committee.
[English]
I've been in the role of Secretary of State for Children and Youth for six months, and I've heard from Canadians across the country—people working hard to get ahead and people who elected a new government to make life more affordable and to invest more in our shared future. People are rightfully expecting to see workers and businesses prosper as we build Canada's strength at home and build an economy for Canadians, by Canadians.
[Translation]
We are currently going through a period where the rules and systems we need for our success are being called into question.
[English]
We need to spend less, so we can invest more in growing our economy and in protecting essential funding that makes life more affordable. That means protecting and strengthening supports like the Canada child benefit, the national school food program and affordable child care.
As the Prime Minister stated, “This is Canada. No child should go to school hungry or sit in a classroom all day wondering where their next meal will come from”.
[Translation]
In 2024, the Government of Canada invested $1 billion over five years to establish a national school food program. Agreements were quickly signed with all 10 provinces and three territories, as well as indigenous partners, to improve and expand their school food programs.
[English]
It's on the success of this initiative that budget 2025 proposes ongoing funding beginning in—
I'm sorry. I apologize to the interpreters. I will slow down.
It will introduce legislation that will make this permanent. It means that the program will continue to help make school meals accessible for up to 400,000 more children each year, while saving families with two children around $800 a year on groceries.
We are taking the pressure off families and are directly supporting the success of our kids, their health, their education and their well-being.
[Translation]
In addition, together with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners, our investments in early learning and child care are helping to build an affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care system. I will continue to support Minister Hajdu on this important issue.
[English]
It's a game-changer for families across the country. Eight provinces and territories are delivering regulated child care for an average of $10 a day or less. All other jurisdictions have reduced their fees by 50% or more. This means an annual average savings per child of $3,400 in Manitoba, $5,900 in Saskatchewan and $7,600 in Alberta.
In her latest report, the Auditor General also confirmed that costs for child care have gone down since the introduction of our Canada-wide system. In fact, as a proportion of after-tax family income, the average spending on child care by families across Canada is now less than one-third of what it was in 2021.
[Translation]
The families of about 900,000 children currently benefit from a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.
[English]
As highlighted by the C.D. Howe Institute, “A low-cost childcare policy is conducive to general economic growth, while contributing to reduce gender inequality by increasing women's financial autonomy.” Investing in accessible and affordable child care through this program not only boosts family income but also enables parents to participate in the workforce.
We are also investing in families through the Canada child benefit. This is bringing relief to 3.5 million families, with a typical family of two children receiving $11,000 this year.
[Translation]
Budget 2025 protects our commitment to this tax-free benefit, which directly helps parents reduce the cost of raising their children.
[English]
As it is indexed to inflation, the Canada child benefit increased this summer to keep up with the cost of living. The same family with two children is now receiving $500 more than last year, as a result.
As members of Parliament, we must not take such supports for granted. During these uncertain times, regressing is not an option.
[Translation]
This committee has focused on the youth unemployment rate recently. I am pleased to speak to you about the solutions we have brought to the challenges facing young Canadians in the labour market.
[English]
The Canada summer jobs program provides students and recent grads with the opportunity to gain work experience that sets them up for successful careers. Of those who received such placements, 88% were employed in the two years following. The Auditor General confirmed that those who had a Canada summer job earned an average of $6,000 more a year at work nine years following the experience.
[Translation]
Recognizing that more needed to be done this summer, Minister Hajdu and I increased the number of jobs in the Canada summer jobs program from 70,000 to 76,000.
[English]
Now, through investments in budget 2025, we are bringing the number of Canada summer jobs placements to 100,000. The budget is also investing in 55,000 work-integrated learning opportunities for post-secondary students, as well as employment training and wraparound supports to 20,000 youth facing employment barriers. That means empowering students from over 420 post-secondary education institutions to be work-ready for in-demand jobs, with over 34,000 employers participating from in-demand sectors like IT and manufacturing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary, thank you for being here today. It is your first time coming to this committee. We did invite you for two hours. Will you be here for the full two hours?
Well, we did invite you for two hours. It's unfortunate that you're here for only an hour.
You talked quite extensively about the school food program. Are you the lead on the school food program?
Are you happy with the fact that your school food program aims to serve only one in 10 kids in Canada?
I believe the school food program has made tremendous advancements in feeding more children, an additional 400,000, with the investments that have been made. This is in addition to the work and the investments that provinces and territories were doing. I believe it is a big step forward and a meaningful impact for families in need.
It's five million. You're aiming to feed 400,000, which means that only one in 10 kids will even possibly get fed by that program. What happens to the other nine?
It is 400,000 in addition to what the provinces and territories were already contributing through their own investments and programs. For example, in Quebec over 700,000 children were receiving meals. That number has now grown, thanks to the investment.
Is there always room to do more? Absolutely. We're going to make the program permanent. We're going to continue to invest in it and expand it to meet the needs of as many children as we can.
Would you like to know? There are over 700,000 children in food bank lines every single month in this country. Does that number alarm you?
I think it's important to note the programs and supports that this government is investing in with the budget. For example, there's the Canada child benefit. As I mentioned, there's school food, dental care and child care. These are all ways that organizations that provide support and fight food insecurity have said will support and fight food insecurity.
Our government is investing in those things to support families who face food insecurity. As far as I can tell, members opposite have voted against all these supports that those working on the ground in these sectors have said will help address the problem.
It's 33%. A third of the people who use food banks in this country are kids. This is an abject failure of the government of the last 10 years, which has been driving up food prices. Food prices continue rising every single month. Families are struggling to put healthy food on the table, and your guy's solution is to feed one out of 10 kids in school. What happens for the kids who are under the school age?
The Canada child benefit, for example, for a family of two right now is $11,000 tax-free. In addition, if we add dental care, it represents thousands of dollars back into the pockets of families. For the parents who have children who are school-aged and receive the benefit of the national school food program, perhaps in their school, that's another $800 in their pockets.
We also—
—put forward a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. That was the first thing this government did. We are there with supports. We are also cutting spending to invest more in these programs, to protect and defend them.
These are all supports that will help with affordability and will help parents with the cost of raising their kids. These are all things that Conservatives have consistently voted against, including last night in the House of Commons.
Do you understand that it now costs over six dollars to buy four litres of milk in my community? I'm not even that far north. The further north you go, there are families that are paying substantially more just for milk to be able to feed their kids. Baby formula has gone up. In eight short years, the price of baby formula has increased by 84% in this country. There are families that are resorting to buying opened cases of milk just so they can feed their babies.
That is absolutely insane, but this is what's happening, because people can't afford formula.
Secretary, do you know what the most stolen food product is in Canada?
It's baby formula. That is an indictment on the quality of your government's ability to allow people the dignity of buying food. That is absolutely unacceptable.
I guess we're probably not going to agree on whether government or families should be feeding their families. I know clearly. I think that families should be feeding their families and not having to rely on government.
Perhaps we can find some common ground here. Do you believe as legislators that we should be doing what we can to protect the most vulnerable in our society, our children?
I do, and that's why I support the Canada child benefit and why I've supported this budget and previous budgets that support and protect that investment. It is a $28-billion investment into families across this country. It reaches over six million children.
I have a point of order, Chair.
Chair, while my colleague was speaking about people watering down baby formula and about baby formula being opened—
—the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Desrochers, said that she was lying. She's not lying, and it was an interruption. I wonder if you can call Ms. Desrochers to order and, if she has objections to what my colleague—
Chair, for what? She said it was a lie, and it was a heckle.
An hon. member: That's ridiculous.
Garnett Genuis: Can we have some decorum, Chair? It is a matter of order—
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the secretary of state for being here with us today.
Actually, Ms. Gainey, I'd like to take this opportunity to also thank you for the excellent work you've been doing since the beginning of your mandate. We had difficult decisions to make regarding the budget that was tabled on November 4 and passed yesterday.
There was a lot of concern in the communities about maintaining or cancelling programs that help the most vulnerable. I know that you have worked very hard so that we can keep the programs. I want to thank you. The people in my riding also want to thank you.
Clearly, no one wants to be reduced to asking for charity. No one wants to find themselves in a situation where they need government programs to support their family and their children. However, there are times in life when that happens, unfortunately. When it does, I think people are happy knowing that they can count on programs like the ones our government has put in place and is maintaining.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about youth employment and the youth unemployment rate. You talked a bit about the new investments for summer jobs. You also provided us with data.
Could you talk a bit more about the work-integrated learning program?
In fact, we talk a lot in this committee about skilled trades workers and how we can support them. We're going to need them, given all the infrastructure we want to build.
Could you talk a bit more about the successes of that program?
Thank you for the question.
I'm happy to talk about that.
We could talk a bit more about the student internship program framework, which connects students with employers in some sectors, especially high-demand ones.
I wasn't able to finish my opening remarks, and I'm sorry about that. I misunderstood the instructions on speaking time. I wanted to say that we are also making investments so that 55,000 more post-secondary students have the opportunity to take part in internships and co-op programs. These programs are very successful.
For the student work placement program, it was found that more than half of former students, or 56%, who followed a work-integrated learning program obtained permanent full-time employment immediately after graduation. We also know that an additional 14% of students were awarded full-time contracts.
That's an example of a program that Employment and Social Development Canada offers to help young people access employment. I also wanted to add that 34,000 employers and 420 post-secondary institutions are part of the program.
The program reaches a large number of schools and businesses in all regions, and it is appreciated by both young people and employers.
Thank you.
I want to go back to something you mentioned in your opening remarks.
You talked about how the organizations we work with perceive the programs.
How do the organizations, the people who are on the ground on a daily basis, perceive them?
Do you consult these organizations when developing programs?
Could you give us more details on that?
Thank you for the question.
To answer your question, I'm going to talk a little more about the Canada summer jobs program.
All members of Parliament have had the opportunity to hire staff through this program. It's about 200 jobs per riding, across the country. There are a number of businesses and summer camps in our respective ridings. These organizations appreciate the fact that they are given the opportunity to hire students during the summer.
The program is very popular, and that's why there's a demand. Our small and medium-sized businesses appreciate this program. We will increase the number of students eligible for the program by 30%, so there will be more placement opportunities for young people next summer, across the country.
That's perfect. Thank you.
I'd like to go back to the national school food program.
In my riding, in Trois-Rivières, there are more than 20 schools in underprivileged areas. I'm going to take a moment to correct what was said, namely, that the focus was on the fact that the program feeds only one in 10 children. Once again, I think that's a somewhat misleading way of presenting the information. In my region, we focus on schools in disadvantaged areas.
Could you expand on that and on the partners you work with through programs like breakfast program?
We have a lot of really good partners, not just the provinces, but also organizations across the country, such as the Tablée de Chefs and the Breakfast Club. Those organizations were already there on the ground. They were already working with volunteers and schools to deliver meals where they were needed.
The federal government's investment will enable them to meet more needs and go even further, in more schools. In Quebec, for the moment, I think there are 2,200 schools that benefit from the national school food program—
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Hello to the secretary of state. I thank her for being with us today. It's a pleasure to be here at this committee to be able to ask questions.
Ms. Gainey, your team wrote to me on November 7 to discuss my response regarding the budget. At that point, the budget had already been drafted, and all decisions had been made. It was tabled on November 4. Therefore, it was done without consulting any Quebec elected officials responsible for youth.
How can you talk about collaboration when you communicate with elected officials only after everything has been decided, rather than before, when Quebec's voice could have really mattered?
I would like you to answer my question clearly.
Thank you for the question.
Quebec's voice really matters right now in the government. There are over 44 members representing the beautiful province of Quebec, and I'm proud to be one of them. I met with your colleague Marilène Gill. I also had an appointment with Mrs. Vien, but she wasn't able to attend the meeting.
I'm sorry that we weren't able to talk to each other before, but I will be very happy to answer your questions today.
Madam Secretary of State, given that the elected officials responsible for these files weren't consulted—they were consulted right after the fact—I would like to ask you frankly whether young people, youth organizations and their representatives were really consulted before your government made all the decisions about this budget.
As an elected official, I wasn't consulted. I was only consulted after the budget was tabled.
Did you really consult young people and organizations that represent youth in Quebec?
I've had a lot of meetings with the….
I don't know the right expression in French. I'm looking through my notes.
I met with a lot of organizations, which represent others. One that comes to mind is the Réseau des Carrefours jeunesse-emploi du Québec, led by Rudy Humbert. He manages a lot of organizations in the province.
Madam Secretary of State, I'll let you get your answer from your binder, because it seems a bit confusing.
I was looking for the word “stakeholders”, but I found it. Over the past six months, I have had many meetings with organizations and young people in Quebec.
Okay.
So you're unable to tell me today how many youth organizations in Quebec were consulted as part of the last federal budget.
Is that correct?
I can't tell you right now. However, I would be very happy to provide you with the answer later, after this meeting.
I would appreciate that.
I'm going to continue on the same topic, youth.
Madam Secretary of State, the federal government has committed to funding 50% of the health care system. Today, it covers barely 22%. Your budget slows transfers down to 3%, while costs, especially in mental health and youth services, increase by 5% to 6%.
Those are the system costs. How can you say you support young people when you are weakening the essential services that protect them?
Thank you for the question.
I'm here to talk about my mandate, which is not related to health. You should ask the Minister of Health that question.
As I understand it, it's very difficult for you to answer my question.
The youth unemployment rate recently climbed to 14.7%. This is the worst rate in 14 years outside of the pandemic. However, your budget doesn't provide for any immediate measures. According to all your announcements, the implementation of any measures won't start until 2027.
Is that what building a strong Canada means to you? Is there nothing, then, for young people who are looking for jobs right now?
As I just explained, many investments are continuing, and they will continue in the coming years. I'm thinking in particular of the Canada summer jobs program and the co-op programs.
I would also like to note that the poverty rate has declined since 2015, and it did so until 2023.
Madam Secretary of State, with all due respect, I'm talking to you about unemployment, and you're talking to me about poverty.
We're not comparing apples and oranges, after all.
How do you make the connection? I'm talking about the worst unemployment rate in 14 years, which stands at 14.7%. Today, on November 18, 2025, you're telling me that there are no measures in the budget for tomorrow or next week. There will eventually be some for 2026.
How do you respond to a crisis? The government says it will put out the fire, but not for two months.
Can you explain that to me?
It's interesting to note that, according to the October labour market report, nearly 21,000 young people—I believe—entered the labour market last month. Since February, the employment rate has been at its highest level for youth aged 15 to 24.
I know there are barriers. This is a time of uncertainty for everyone around the world.
That said, I believe that things are moving in the right direction and that the investments in budget 2025 will help us continue in that direction.
Okay. Let's keep going in the right direction.
Young Quebeckers are asking for an interest-free loan for a down payment on a mortgage. Home ownership is no longer a dream; it's a pipe dream. You're offering an exemption from the goods and services tax, or GST, that doesn't even lower home prices. This exemption doesn't help the 80% of young people who hope to one day become homeowners.
Why are you refusing to put in place a genuine measure to help young families access home ownership?
The budget invests heavily in Build Canada Homes to make it easier to build affordable homes. This will enable young people to become homeowners. Again, I'm here to talk about my mandate. It doesn't concern building houses.
That said, I agree with you that it's important for young people. We'll continue to work on that.
This affects youth, Madam Secretary of State.
I'm going to continue on the topic of youth. Your budget creates a record $78‑billion deficit, the second-highest deficit in history.
How can you claim that this is an investment in young people, when it's the young people themselves who will be paying this debt for decades to come?
With this budget, I think the government will build a stronger economy. We are working to make our economy the strongest in the G7. We will build, protect and empower Canadians. We're going to reduce spending so that we can invest more for Canadians, including young Canadians, so that they can move forward.
The government will invest in our hospitals, public transit, infrastructure, housing and community centres. All of this is centred on the future of young people.
It also includes major projects. I think that's important.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Secretary, for being here today. You mentioned earlier, in a statement that I hope is accurate, that everyone in this room is committed to protecting the most vulnerable, and obviously, in your portfolio, it's children. Would that be fair?
Your portfolio as the Secretary of State for Children and Youth is about the well-being of children and youth in Canada.
Okay. That wasn't a trick question. I appreciate your candour on that and giving a simple answer.
I'm assuming you're aware that a few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence for someone convicted of possessing and sharing child sexual exploitation and abuse material was cruel and unusual punishment, a mandatory minimum sentence of even just one year.
Now, on the cases that led to this, in one of them, a gentleman from Quebec had “317 images of children constituting” what the court called “child pornography”. I'm quoting the court decision: “Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors.”
The other case involved another man, also from Quebec, who had “531 images and 274 videos...of children from 5 to 10 years of age being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults.”
I do not enjoy reading those words. I know that no one in this room enjoys hearing them. Do you believe that a mandatory minimum sentence of one year is cruel and unusual punishment?
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Is this within the bounds of the committee and certainly within the secretary of state's portfolio? I think the member opposite would be aware that it is actually—
On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, in her very first response, the secretary of state said that her role is—
Thank you, Mr. Lawton.
Mr. Lawton, it is outside of the matter currently before the committee.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The committee is back.
Mr. Lawton, I would just ask you to stay within the relevance of what the committee is studying at the moment.
Thank you, Chair.
As I understand it, this is mandate and priorities, and I appreciated the secretary of state saying in her first response that the well-being of children and youth are within her purview.
Returning to this, do you believe that it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of one year on someone who possesses images or videos of children being sexually abused?
[Translation]
Child predators and sex offenders are some of the most reprehensible criminals in society. These criminals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. All parties in Parliament had the opportunity to support a number of measures to protect children.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Party voted against Bill C‑63, the online harms bill, which would have protected children from online predators, for example. The Conservatives also voted and actively campaigned against legal tools that were included in Bill C‑2. It would have given law enforcement the tools they have been asking for to stop pedophiles.
Protecting our children shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's unfortunate that the Conservatives made it one.
[English]
Thank you. It's odd that your Liberal colleagues think this is outside of your mandate, but you had a prescripted answer there.
I will ask a very simple question. Do you believe it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of one year on someone who preys on and revictimizes children by consuming child sexual exploitation and abuse material, yes or no?
[Translation]
I support all the laws put forward by our government to protect children. I encourage members of all parties to support these laws that will protect children. We will have an opportunity to do that in the House in the coming weeks.
[English]
By the way, in the original cases that I described, a one-year sentence was not even given. One of the offenders was given 90 days of intermittent sentences by the court, and then later on that was beefed up to a one-year sentence. This is what the Supreme Court has said is cruel and unusual punishment.
Do you think these people should be getting house arrest and weekend sentences when they traumatize children?
[Translation]
That's not part of my mandate.
I'm in favour of the legislation that our government is introducing, particularly those designed to protect our children in all contexts, whether online or in the schoolyard.
It's up to Minister Sean Fraser to propose such legislation. All members should support it if we want to protect our children.
[English]
Secretary Gainey, is it your view that what happens to children and youth in this country has no bearing on your role so long as the government gives them a sandwich at school?
[Translation]
In the coming weeks, the government will introduce legislation in the House of Commons, and you will have the opportunity to vote on measures to protect children.
[English]
[Translation]
A number of pieces of legislation will be proposed. Minister Sean Fraser will be able to answer those questions.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Secretary of State, for being here today and for illuminating for this committee the work this government is doing to protect children and make it easier for families across the country to deal with some of the common expenses that families face.
It's significant that in the past few weeks, as is certainly reflected in the budget that the members opposite voted against only yesterday evening, the government announced its intention to make the national school food program permanent, making Canada the final country in the G7 to have a national school food program that aims to fill a gap in families' and children's lives by ensuring that kids have healthy meals at school.
Can you talk, in your role, about the impact this is having, the organizations that have supported this and the collaboration with provinces and territories that has brought this program to fruition? Can you also, perhaps, touch on both the impacts on kids and the affordability it will offer families when it's in full operation?
Thank you. I was going to call you Leslie, but I'm supposed to call you MP Church here, I think.
[Translation]
Thank you for the question.
[English]
This program really builds on one that was put in place in 2024. A number of our colleagues worked very hard to bring it forward in that budget with an investment of $1 billion over five years, which led very rapidly to agreements with all the provinces, territories and indigenous partners.
This program is very popular and is a great investment in families, as we have discussed. It represents a savings of around $800 a year on groceries for families with two children. It ensures that where the need is greatest, as much as possible, children have access to food at school.
This allows them, obviously, to learn on a full stomach, which means they're able to focus and pay attention. In visiting schools and speaking with teachers and stakeholders, it's clear that this has an impact on the children's capacity to learn and participate in school, which is obviously going to have long-term socio-economic outcomes for our families and for our society as a whole.
We are also investing in the research to continue to understand better what this means downstream in terms of the outcomes—the positive impact this has on families and on children's development and health. It's also about learning healthy habits around nutrition and these kinds of things.
I think there are multiple ways that school food has an impact. It is new, so the goal now in making the program permanent is to go back to negotiate with the provinces the next round of funding and to ensure we are getting the action reports back.
I could let the deputy speak to that in terms of being able to follow the investment and the impact it's having.
Is there time for him to add to the reporting and the outcomes on that?
Thank you for the question.
Indeed, on both child care and school food we've put in place robust reporting requirements so that Canadians are well informed of the results of the investments. We have a goal to achieve up to 400,000 additional children fed through the program. There will be reporting made available to all Canadians in terms of the progress being made towards that goal, but we're quite optimistic, based on the experience to date, about meeting those targets.
As I understand it, it's part of a suite of measures that this government has introduced and continues to support that provide very important assistance to children and their families. I know that from my perspective, there are families in my riding of Toronto—St. Paul's who are saving over $10,000 a year on child care. As someone who meets with employers regularly, I hear from employers about the need for child care for families and, actually, additional spaces and expansion of that program.
Can you talk a little bit, in the remaining moments that we have, about the importance of continuing to support child care and its access and availability in Canada?
Certainly, it is a game-changer for families, as I said in my opening remarks. Fees have come down dramatically, by over 50% in many provinces. We are under $10 a day in eight jurisdictions. We're going to continue to invest, defend and protect that program. We do need more spaces. There's a commitment in the Build Canada Homes mission, for example, to include, as MP Desrochers would know, more child care as we build out.
It is not just at ESDC. It is understood across government as an important investment in our future and in supporting parents in their capacity to join the workforce.
Thank you, Ms. Church.
[Translation]
Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Secretary of State, according to Environment Canada, seven out of 10 young people are very or extremely concerned about climate change. In Quebec, the Institut du Nouveau Monde tells us that climate is the top concern for young people, well before the economy.
Meanwhile, your budget creates a youth climate service, while maintaining subsidies of up to $100 billion to oil companies until 2040. In doing so, you're reducing your climate ambition and even abandoning your own promise to plant two billion trees.
Why are you asking young people to manage disasters that your government refuses to even prevent?
Thank you for the question.
Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister was very clear in answering Ms. May's question about our government's concerns and the importance of continuing to work on climate change for the people in our ridings.
So it's at the heart of our work, and it's part of the budget. We have a plan to boost our climate competitiveness.
We've also invested in Climate Action Network Canada. The goal is to give young people the tools to contribute and work—
I'm here to talk about my mandate. If you have any questions about that, I invite you to ask some of my colleagues. They will really be in a better position to answer it.
I love the questions I have the answers to. So the answer is no.
How can you think that young people believe your climate intentions if your government is abandoning its own promises? I'm thinking in particular, as I mentioned before, of the promise to plant two billion trees under the Trudeau government.
The government is even subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $100 billion until 2040.
Don't you see an inconsistency there? You're giving yourselves tools to conduct consultations, while you're pouring fuel on the fire and fuelling climate change.
We're focused on building the strongest economy in the G7. We will do this by launching projects that will provide jobs and career opportunities for young people across Canada.
The Prime Minister is very clear about the government's objectives. There are many of them, and one of them is on climate. It's very important.
Madam Secretary, my colleague repeatedly put this question to you: Does the government regard a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for child sexual abuse materials as cruel and unusual punishment? You didn't provide a response, so, finally, could the committee put the question to you, and could you answer it, please?
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think we've covered this off. This is not within the secretary of state's purview. If the committee wishes to call the Minister of Justice in to speak to mandatory minimums, it has the full capacity to do so.
Thank you, Ms. Church.
It's the minister's prerogative to answer the questions as she sees them coming. You're appearing here under government mandates, Madam Secretary.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
Thank you, Chair.
On the same point of order, the committee is, I understand, putting the question to the minister.
Minister, could you please respond to the question?
[Translation]
[English]
Yes, they can, Chair. The clerk can clarify for you. If a witness does not respond to a question, it is then the responsibility of the committee to put the question, and the minister is obliged to answer it.
She is a secretary of state, but she is a member of the Privy Council. You cannot compel her to answer a question. You can pose the question in your own context, Mr. Genuis.
—to a different matter for the time being.
Madam Secretary, could you clarify whether student grants next year will be at $4,200, or will they drop down to $3,000?
I was just going to note that the Canada student grants are currently at 40% above the prepandemic levels, and the student loans are also above the prepandemic levels. There has been no decision taken on the resource profile for the following year at this point in time.
Essentially, the answer to my question is that the government hasn't decided yet.
The minister or whoever knows may answer. The government hasn't decided yet whether they're going to extend that or change it.
This is, of course, a point of great frustration for students, the lack of certainty around that evident in the budget.
Madam Secretary, the budget proposes to eliminate student grants for students attending private for-profit institutions. Could you give me examples of what kinds of institutions you're targeting with this change? This is for the secretary of state.
This is Minister Hajdu's portfolio.
I understand. It's how the mandate has been broken down at ESDC, which is why I think it's better to get the deputy to give you those details.
Minister Hajdu will be here next week, I think.
Okay, hopefully....
Polytechnics and career colleges in general have been highly critical of the budget because it generally leaves them out. It puts new money into traditional universities, but we're seeing pretty aggressive policy moving against the interests of polytechnics and career colleges.
Minister, are you prepared to speak on the government's rationale for that, or would you like to defer that as well?
Have you received correspondence from Polytechnics Canada with their concerns about how there is new money for traditional universities but no support whatsoever as part of the government's training profile for polytechnics? Have you heard that criticism?
Minister Hajdu may have. I have met with U15 Canada.
Respectfully, you haven't engaged with Polytechnics Canada. You're not aware of the career college changes. You don't want to talk about child sexual abuse material.
Your title is Secretary of State for Children and Youth. I mean, to coin a phrase, what do you do?
I am supporting Minister Hajdu on the child care file and on youth unemployment. I am lead on the—
I support Minister Hajdu on these files as the secretary of state.
Are you involved in training policy at all or not? That seems to be an important part of youth unemployment.
Minister Hajdu is the lead on that.
Madam Secretary, we've heard a lot about how the government's immigration and credential recognition failures have contributed to youth unemployment and have driven intensifying competition for entry-level positions.
I wonder if you're ready to speak to that issue, at least. Do you think the government's immigration policies have contributed to the youth unemployment challenges we're seeing?
I would suggest that immigration questions be directed to the Minister of Immigration.
Thank you, Mr. Genuis. Your time is up.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a treat to see how my opposition colleagues are behaving.
What's damning is that the opposition parties in the House claim to stand up for families, youth, our regions and Quebec, while in committee they oppose it.
Madam Secretary of State, after voting against the budget, which directly helps our families, our young people and our regions, especially Quebec, have the opposition parties contacted you to propose concrete and sustainable solutions?
We are in touch with our colleagues in Parliament. I'm available to meet with them. I apologize to Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, because I think we missed an opportunity to meet. I have planned a number of meetings with members of the House.
Have you ever been offered concrete solutions that don't encroach on the budget?
As for Quebec, for example, we're told not to spend too much. However, the Bloc Québécois has proposed measures that would add $36 billion to the $78‑billion deficit.
Do you think that's a good solution?
The budget that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have put forward is designed to respond to the challenges of the day. There are some good ideas and some good policies in there. This is in line with what Canadians expect of their government.
The proposed investments are aimed at building an ambitious and optimistic country for young people, families and workers across the country.
I am very pleased with the direction our government is taking, particularly in terms of investment, and I'm proud to support the budget.
Indeed, it is very important.
Mrs. Goodridge was a bit hard on you in her line of questioning. However, in the House, she voted against what she seems to be defending in committee.
Do you see any hypocrisy in that? Be frank.
I think it's always better to support the investments we're proposing in the budget. After all, they include affordable child care, dental care and the national school food program—
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
When we're in committee, we're supposed to be judicious and not accuse people of things. When I was asking my first round of questions, I had Liberal members accuse me of lying. Now I have Liberal members accusing me of hypocrisy. This is not how we conduct ourselves in committee.
I believe that this is against the rules of our committee.
Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.
I would ask all members to be judicious in their phrasing, but members are accountable for their public positions. Thank you.
Mr. Joseph—
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, calling somebody a liar in committee is absolutely against the rules of order—period.
Thank you, Ms. Goodridge. I'll review the blues from this particular meeting with interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph, the floor is yours.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to continue along the same lines.
I'm not in politics for the sake of politics. I'm in politics to stand up for causes and ideologies I believe in. The hypocrisy is quite apparent right now.
Now I'll ask the secretary of state my last question.
Ms. Gainey, the Conservative members questioned the effectiveness of the national school food program. They claimed that it didn't help to feed a single child. We know that's not true.
Could you tell us exactly what impact the program is having and what we can expect going forward?
I can provide some details and give you the figures for the national school food program. It's available in every province and territory, and we're also working with indigenous communities. The purpose of the program is to provide nutritious meals to children.
In New Brunswick, thanks to the federal government's additional investment of more than $11 million, over 57,000 children in 160 schools will be provided with meals. That's good news for New Brunswick.
In Prince Edward Island, the federal government's $7‑million investment will help provide meals to more than 1,500 children, as well as breakfasts and snacks to more than 800 children.
I can give you the numbers for every region.
[English]
Relax, Ms. Goodridge. I simply indicated that this concluded those rounds, but there is some time. I will give two minutes, two minutes and two minutes. Who wants to go here?
Mr. Genuis, you have two minutes. Then I'll go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for two, and then we'll come to the government side.
Mr. Genuis.
Madam Secretary, I understand you are involved in the youth unemployment file. Youth unemployment is up over 14%, more than a full percentage point above where it was this time last year. Many witnesses have identified immigration and credential recognition failures as contributing factors.
Recognizing your responsibility for youth unemployment, do you believe, as we've heard from many witnesses, that the immigration policies of the government have been a contributing factor to youth unemployment?
I believe our government is committed to ensuring that more and more youth have employment opportunities. We're doing this with an increase in Canada summer jobs opportunities—
We're growing that program by 30%, which will give an additional 24,000 summer job opportunities this summer—
Minister, I asked a very specific question. Do you believe that immigration is a contributing factor? I can read to you, just for further context, something from a 2025 Bank of Canada staff paper, which said that the policy design quietly shifted labour market risk onto the youngest workers, deepening wage pressures and, by extension, worsening youth unemployment and disenfranchising Canada's working class.
Minister, what do you say about that? Do you think immigration policies of the Liberal government were a contributing factor to youth unemployment?
Could you answer my question? It's a clear, simple question that relates obviously to your mandate.
Do you believe that decisions of the Liberal government in relation to immigration, as the Bank of Canada said, contributed to high youth unemployment, yes or no?
I believe the current government is focused on job creation across the country, and the Minister of Immigration has made adjustments to the immigration system.
Do you believe that policies of the government over the last 10 years contributed to youth unemployment?
Thank you, Mr. Genuis. I must conclude it.
Ms. Fancy, you have two minutes, and then we'll go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.
I'd really like to thank the secretary of state today. I was an educator of youth for almost two decades before starting this new position, in which I really thought we would be the adults in the room and would not act like youth.
I would love to give you the rest of the time today to talk about all of the wonderful programs ESDC has and to highlight all of the good work the government has put in place for youth in this country.
Thank you for the question.
We have touched extensively on school food. The dental transfers are also very important. Affordable child care is a program we'll continue to protect, defend and expand.
I think it's really important, as well, to look at the commitment to major projects and the job opportunities that are represented in that. We could talk about the 5,000 jobs in construction at the Contrecœur expansion in Montreal—1,000 long-term jobs. We have 18,000 jobs coming into the Darlington new nuclear plant—3,700 long-term jobs there. New Brunswick's Sisson mine will bring hundreds of new careers to that area. We have an LNG project in northwest B.C. There are hundreds of jobs there for construction, and long-term jobs and careers as well.
[Translation]
In Quebec, more than a thousand jobs will be created at the Matawinie mine—
[English]
[Translation]
—and the Bécancour battery materials plant, through Nouveau Monde Graphite.
[English]
We're only getting started.
Chair, I want to draw your attention to, starting with paragraph 673 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding responses to questions. Contrary to what you said earlier in the meeting, there is no rule that exempts ministers from the requirement to answer questions if they appear before committees. Ministers cannot be compelled to appear before committees, but they are not exempt from the requirement to answer questions if they do appear.
Paragraph 673, in particular, states, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them.”
I think the minister has demonstrably refused to answer clear questions repeatedly posed on multiple different matters. The decision of the secretary of state to refuse to answer direct questions—
Good. I have one other question.
I'm from Nova Scotia. I was a teacher at the South Shore Regional Centre for Education. In Nova Scotia, we were actually the template for the Nova Scotia food program and one of the first adopters of the national school food program.
When I hear Conservatives call the effectiveness of this national program into question—they've claimed that it's not feeding children—I know directly, face to face, that is not true. Having taught thousands of kids and, in the last five years, having been a template exemplar for the program and a full adopter, and having other communities from all over the country coming to the school board where I worked, I think this is of great benefit in terms of highlighting how much support that program has given our youth in this country.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Secretary of State, according to the Ottawa Science Policy Network, the funding provided through federal grants is still some 40% below the real cost of living. That's even after funding levels were reviewed in 2024, following a 20‑year freeze.
Half of all graduate students consider leaving the country, because the science ecosystem and conditions are poor.
In its recent budget, the government claims that it wants to make Canada a global leader in innovation.
I have just one question about that statement.
How can you say you want to make Canada a leader in innovation when you won't even fund Canadian talent and you are actually spending $2 billion to recruit top international researchers?
The talent attraction strategy mentioned in the budget benefits all post-secondary teaching institutions and schools.
Talent in our colleges and universities attracts more young people and talent. This investment will help to create an even bigger ecosystem, and I think it's very important for the sector.
I'm not sure whether you had anything to add.
With all due respect, the government's recent budget sends a negative message. The government is reducing funding for the three granting councils, the very organizations that fund research and make innovation possible. The government is not indexing student grants, which hadn't gone up a single cent in 20 years.
Name me something that hasn't gone up in price in the past 20 years.
We are talking about grants and fellowships for graduate students.
Can you tell me how it is that you are supporting the next generation of researchers and talent here, without indexing grants or providing more funding?
You hold fine press conferences. You say you're investing nearly $2 billion to attract the world's top researchers, while students here are living in atrocious conditions.
She removed the word “science” from her title as minister, so I don't think research matters to her anymore.
You didn't let me finish. I was going to say that it's actually Mr. Solomon who should be answering questions about those investments.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer