Debates of June 2nd, 2021

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to once again speak to Bill C-206. For those who are just catching the debate tonight, this bill would make an amendment to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and specifically broaden the definition of what a qualifying farm fuel would be. In this case, it is about adding natural gas and propane to the definition. This is important, as I will elaborate later on, because propane and natural gas are two fuels that are quite important to farmers for specific uses.

As I made mention in my second reading speech on the bill, it is also important to underscore the challenges that will be faced by our agricultural sector in the decade ahead from the effects of climate change.

I have heard from farmers both in my own riding and at committee about how they are on the front lines of climate change. I represent a rural riding. The riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is roughly 4,700 square kilometres in size. It is a beautiful piece of real estate on southern Vancouver Island. Also, the Cowichan Valley has a very long and storied history in agriculture. We are very proud of the climate we have, which allows us to grow an abundance of amazing produce and fruit. I know the farmers here are very cognizant of the effects of climate change just as they are right across Canada.

It is important that when we are crafting policy, we keep in mind what is going to be the greatest challenge of the 21st century and we really start to focus our efforts on combatting this great threat. It is not just having environmental concerns, not just causing environmental damage, but it is going to have significant impacts on our future tax dollars. The amount of money that we are going to have to pay out of future tax revenues in dealing with the damage from climate change, in trying to adapt to it and mitigating its effects, is going to grow if we do not significantly reduce our emissions. I understand the purpose of carbon pricing and I, for one, am absolutely in support of it.

I also want to acknowledge that too often in debate farmers are treated as bystanders and that is a gross mistake. Farmers are not only very well aware of what the effects of climate change will be, but are also one of our greatest tools in fighting climate change.

I have heard some of my colleagues make mention in their speeches on how good agricultural practices can be a major source of carbon sequestration. We need to take carbon out of the atmosphere where it causes havoc and put it into the soil. When we put it into the soil, we have healthier soil, we need less input through better agricultural methods and we get better yields. We also have soil that is better able to withstand droughts, flooding and it just builds a resilience into the system. There is nothing but positives with healthy soil management.

We have to look at those agro ecological practices and regenerative farming techniques. I am glad our committee is engaged in this study, but we really need to focus federal government policies, and I acknowledge the budget is starting to do that, on making this a priority and putting farmers front and centre as one of our greatest allies in combatting this threat.

I want to take time to acknowledge the important work that our agricultural sector is already doing and the potential it has not only in renewable energy generation and the significant possibility on farms of harnessing the wind, the sun and biomass, but also what farmers are doing with their careful soil management.

The bill is back before us after spending some time at the agriculture committee. I have been a proud member of that committee for over three years now, and I will echo the previous speaker's comments. It is a wonderful committee of which to be a part. We are probably the most non-partisan committee in the House. A lot of what we do there is reached by consensus, and it is always a very respectful dialogue.

I think every member of the committee realizes that no matter what our partisan political stripe is, we all represent farmers in our ridings. We have New Democrats, Conservatives, Bloc members, Liberals and Green Party members. We all recognize the importance of the sector, not only to our individual ridings but to our country as a whole.

It was one of those rare moments when we as a committee finally got to study a bill, and we did a thorough job in investigating Bill C-206. We had six meetings and heard from 29 witnesses, and eight briefs were submitted. These witnesses included quite a variety of people from across the spectrum. We got to hear from several federal departments, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, Farmers for Climate Solutions and the Grain Growers of Canada, just to name a few.

I have heard a lot of the debate about the intention of the carbon price. It is meant to establish a price signal to encourage people to change their ways to a less expensive and more environmentally friendly method. The focus of today's debate is the subject of grain drying, because that is where propane and natural gas are used quite frequently.

I mentioned this in my second reading speech, but it was confirmed time and time again: If the intention of the carbon price is to change behaviour, we need a viable alternative that we can change our behaviour to. I only recently made a switch to a zero-emission vehicle, and I know that many people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are doing the same. They made the switch because there is a price signal. It is a lot cheaper to operate a zero-emission vehicle, an electric car, than it is to operate a gasoline-powered one. However, they also made the switch because there were viable alternatives. We have so many options to choose from in the zero-emission vehicle market right now that it is quite easy, especially with government rebates, to find something that is practical for day-to-day use.

When it comes to grain drying and alternative technologies, farmers do not have that option. We did hear that there are some emerging technologies with respect to electric heat pumps and possibility the use of biomass from crop residue. However, we also heard that those technologies are still many years away from being commercially viable and efficient enough to actually replace natural gas and propane. If we have no viable alternative to force farmers into and are simply levying a carbon tax on their activities, the price is not going to do what it is intended to do.

I do respect the fact that the government is offering rebates, which I think were placed in the budget on page 174 in response to Bill C-206. Bill C-206 did have an impact, I guess, in helping to rewrite a part of the budget. However, we did hear from farmers that they would prefer not to have the price in there at all until we have viable technologies.

That brings me to the amendment. I would like to thank members of the committee, because the one and only amendment that was passed to the bill was brought forward by me. I was trying to find a reasonable halfway point between the two sides to this argument by establishing a sunset clause of 10 years, after which the definition in this bill will revert to the original. I felt that 10 years was a long enough time to allow for these emerging technologies to become commercially viable so that hopefully by the year 2031 farmers will have a choice to go to. I think that is incredibly important when we put it in the context of carbon pricing.

I would like to thank my colleagues again, reflecting on what a joyful committee it is to be a member of, for agreeing to the amendment and allowing us to get to a stage where hopefully we will see the bill passed in the House and sent to the other place.

In conclusion, I think we need to remember, as has been detailed by the National Farmers Union, that Canadian farm debt has nearly doubled since the year 2000. It is made up of billions of dollars and, increasingly, farmers are paying more and more money in fertilizer costs, machinery fuels, new technologies, credit services and so on. They are really only left with a very small portion of gross farm revenues. I think the measure contained in Bill C-206 is going to help them out, and it gives us an opportunity to give them some price relief on a very important aspect of their business.

I appreciate the time. I look forward to hearing other speeches on Bill C-206.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, with Moraviantown and Caldwell First Nation in my riding, I want to begin by acknowledging the tragedy of 215 unmarked graves discovered at the Indian residential school in Kamloops, now the adopted home of my daughter and her family.

It does, however, give me pleasure today to speak to my enthusiastic colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South's private member's bill that affects many constituents and myself and my own family farm, but before getting into the specifics of this bill, I want to note four general points to frame my remarks.

First of all, as individuals, farmers are environmentalists by nature and by necessity. The drive to leave the land and surrounding areas in better condition than when they found it is innate to the vast majority of farmers I know. It is the condition of the land, flock or herd that supplies the farm family with return on its labour, investments and inputs, so it is in their own self-interest to leave the vehicle of their own prosperity in better condition for the next generation.

Second, collectively, agriculture has a strong track record of reducing its environmental footprint, be it through the adoption of low- or no-till, saving moisture and reducing erosion; through the refinement of and working with nutrients; through the lens of the four “R”s, using the right product at the right time, placing it in the right place and at the right rate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Excuse me, there seems to be a little distortion with the mike for the interpreters, so I just want to ask the hon, member to maybe try to unplug it and plug it back in.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, be it through the use of more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing, recently we had officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada testify at committee. They acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have remained steady since 2005, despite increased production.

By my own personal experience farming in a sandy vegetable production area, it was not uncommon to experience sandstorms in spring as the soils were being plowed to prepare them for potato, tomato and other vegetable seedlings. Having to turn on headlights to drive at midday happened more than once, I am sorry to say, in the mid-1980s. That does not happen anymore. Windbreaks have been planted, cover crops are managed far more intensively, and the use of strip tillage has virtually removed wind erosion as a concern.

Third, ag has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the growing adoption of variable rate application, both in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, automation and climate controls in our greenhouse sector and many other innovations.

Why is this? It is because farmers know they have to compete. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this industry has often been described as one of the few that buys their inputs retail, sells their outputs wholesale and pays the freight both ways. This leads me to my final framing point.

By and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along imposed cost increases to their buyers. Let these four points set the stage for my remarks of Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), adding propane and natural gas to be exempted qualifying farm fuels from the carbon tax.

We have heard much in this House about the harvest from hell in 2019. Particularly, in Western Canada, this very difficult harvest, which saw extensive and prolonged rainfall, as well as early snowfalls and frost right before and during harvest, necessitated the use of natural gas and propane to dry the grain into a storable condition. Farming in Ontario requires the use of grain dryers every year, particularly for grain corn, though it is often also needed for soybeans, wheat, barley, oats and canola.

During a recent conversation with Dr. Alan Mussell, he reminded me that farmers have been extremely focused on their use of energy since the very beginnings of organized agriculture. They have focused on maximizing yield and quality, and maximizing the feed conversion as plant energy is converted to protein. They have been focused on the 99% of the energy used on the farm, the energy received from the sun, solar energy. By maximizing the efficiency of this energy, by maximizing yield, quality and conversion, and by achieving greater plant growth per hectare, as a consequence, they have also increased carbon sequestration.

In fixing CO2 as a consequence of driving yield, it is heavily influenced by the management techniques employed by progressive farmers. It has only been in the last decade or so that there have been whispers about agriculture as being a dirty industry. Since the use of electrical and fossil fuel energy sources comprises only a small component of energy use, farmers have rightfully been historically focused on maximizing efficiencies through increasing the yield and quality of their crops by maximizing the use of the sun, by driving yield and consequently, sequestering carbon.

Incidently, the movement to reducing or eliminating tillage provided improvements in moisture retention and a reduction in erosion and, of course, increased sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax, something also not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. However, then to increase agriculture's focus, even on the relatively small use of energy from fossil fuel sources, does it not make sense that adding a carbon tax would drive a reduction in its use? The answer is no for three reasons.

First, imposing a carbon tax on farm fuels used for grain drying could induce a logical response by the industry that reduces yields and then is at cross-purposes with the goals of the tax. Particularly, with respect to the growing of corn, farmers have chosen varieties that require the most growing degree days that can be grown in their region with acceptable risks to maturity so as to maximize the conversion of solar energy into yield, which then also maximizes carbon sequestration.

They could choose to grow shorter-season varieties, which would be drier at harvest, to avoid carbon tax costs. This would require less energy to dry the crop into a storable state. However, this comes with a corresponding reduction in yield, less fixing of CO2 and requires more land to grow the same amount of grain for their markets.

Second, commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane simply are not available today. Because there are not any viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to be unaffected by price, making additional fuel charges in the form of an additional tax an ineffective policy tool to lower emissions. The additional fuel charge as presently applied is punitive. It taxes our farmers, with little to no benefit for the environment.

It has been mentioned that the recent budget did contain some funding, with $50 million for research to explore and develop viable alternatives. This initiative can be supported. If and when viable alternatives are commercially available, they are usually more expensive than the status quo. Incentivizing their adoption rather than taxing a present practice with no alternatives is a far better policy tool.

If possible, use the carrot rather than the stick. As mentioned earlier, farmers cannot pass this additional cost on to consumers, and this leads me to my final point, which is basic fairness in the market.

Our Canadian grains compete directly with American grains and are priced off the Chicago Board of Trade. Our own farm is primarily a processing-vegetable farming operation, but Lycoland Farms also produces grain and oil seeds. Because our volume of production is too low presently to warrant an investment in drying and storage facilities, we deliver our grains to Tec-Land, a farming operation and elevator in Wheatley, and receive a price based in U.S. dollars off of Chicago plus a local basis.

This basis takes into account the exchange rate, local supply and demand factors and freight considerations to market. Tec-Land has options for marketing to customers such as Hiram Walker or ADM in Windsor, Greenfield Global, an ethanol producer in Chatham here in my riding, Cargill in Sarnia or Ingredion in London, but none of these customers will pay more basis to Tec-Land to cover the carbon tax and drying cost. Why is that? Each of these end-users can also buy American corn or soybeans, and they often do, and these grains do not incur a carbon tax on the drying or on the farm fuels used to produce them.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel, and Bill C-206 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane used for drying.

Many of my neighbours and most farmers in our riding, unlike Lycoland, have grain and oil seeds as the focus of their operations. Many have invested in their own drying and storage facilities. I recently spoke with neighbours, such as Paul Tiessen, Tom Dick, Walt Brown, Doug Mills and many others, who have all had the same experience as Tec-Land: When they were marketing last season's crops, they were unable to pass along any additional carbon tax costs to buyers.

Recent research from the Grain Farmers of Ontario has estimated that by 2030 the carbon tax on fuel used for drying will cost the average farm an additional $46 an acre. On an average 800-acre Ontario grain farm, it is a tax of $36,800 that cannot be passed along.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that would remove the potential of being at cross-purposes with the goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax for which users have no viable options, and please support basic fairness in the market for the ag sector.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the other day I raised a question in Parliament based off an article from The Hamilton Spectator.

I asked, “What is happening in our country?” The Liberals' first-time home buyers plan is not doing enough to address the high cost of housing. I asked what the government was doing to actually address the craziness of the Canadian housing market.

What I am looking for are some basic answers, which the minister was unable to provide in the House last week, to these straightforward questions: How many homes has the national housing strategy actually built? Why has the failed first-time home buyer program not been completely reformed or simply scrapped? What will the government do to stop money laundering in Canadian real estate?

We have a government whose much vaunted commitment to transparency does not actually progress beyond the lip service it gives in its place. Do not get me wrong, aspirational policies are commendable. We need to aspire to much more when it comes to housing in this country, but these programs, policies and commitments must all be accounted for and defended by concrete results.

When policies of the Liberal government are clearly not working, instead of fixing them, efforts are made to change internal metrics, superficially tweak criteria and downplay failure. The Liberals' first-time home buyer incentive program is a prime example. Originally purported to help 200,000 Canadians in three years, that number was quietly cut in half to 100,000, but it has still only helped 10,000 people. Even with the recent but very delayed changes to extend the income threshold to $150,000 and the purchase price to 4.5 times one's annual income, most first-time homebuyers still would not qualify for the program in our large cities.

Have the Liberals given up on the dream of home ownership for young people in urban centres and the suburbs? Continuing to prop up this failed program suggests they have.

Then there are some topics the Liberals claim to be tackling, but their announcements are simply window dressing to distract from their complete inaction on the real problems. For instance, the effects of money laundering in Canadian real estate, which negatively affects our economy, our reputation on the world stage, and most significantly, regular Canadians trying to rent or buy homes.

The last budget did not address this at all. It did not include the comprehensive changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act that are necessary. These necessary changes have been outlined by numerous reputable experts in report after official report, such as Peter German's “Dirty Money” reports on laundering 1 and 2, the report of the expert panel on money laundering in B.C.'s real estate, and the interim report of the ongoing Cullen commission of inquiry into money laundering in British Columbia.

The government has long turned a blind eye to money laundering in Canadian real estate. Why is this continuing? Why is it not taking action on this matter?

I am going to pose just one of my initial basic questions again, and give the minister or parliamentary secretary the opportunity to do the right thing and be transparent with Canadians. Again, how many homes has the national housing strategy actually built, meaning that construction is complete and families are living in them? How many are there?

Finally, where I live in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the cost of housing is just going up and up. In fact, since the pandemic, it has gone straight up. People have lost hope, and they are not getting straight answers from the government. We need straight answers. We need a comprehensive plan to address the high cost of housing right now, because regular families, people who went to university, cannot get by anymore. They make—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. He will have time to respond in a few minutes.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport).

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising the very important issue of affordable housing. I am a co-op kid and a huge advocate for affordable housing, and I am happy to take this question today.

For many Canadians, the most important investment they will ever make is the purchase of a home and, increasingly, that dream is becoming unaffordable and less attainable. High housing costs, especially in urban centres, continue to place middle-class and low-income Canadians under huge financial pressure and, for some, high housing costs have become a barrier to pursuing promising opportunities in a new community. That is why our government is committed to taking action that will help as many Canadians as possible afford a safe and adequate place to call home.

Since 2015, our government has made historic investments to increase supply and make housing more affordable. For example, under Canada's first national housing strategy, we are on track to deliver over $70 billion by 2027-28 to help more Canadians find a place to call home. However, more still needs to be done.

Making more affordable housing available will require significant investments. That is why our government announced in budget 2021 a plan to invest $2.5 billion and reallocate $1.3 billion in existing funding to speed up the construction, repair or support of 35,000 affordable housing units. We will soon support the conversion to affordable housing of the empty office space that has appeared in many of our downtown cores by reallocating $300 million from the rental construction financing initiative. This will help families, young people, low-income Canadians, people experiencing homelessness and women and children fleeing violence to find a safe and affordable place to call home.

Our government understands that maintaining the health and stability of Canada's housing market is essential to protecting middle-class families and to Canada's broader economic recovery. That is why my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, recently announced that the government would align with OSFI by establishing a new minimum qualifying rate for insured mortgages. Subject to review and periodic adjustment, the qualifying rate is now the greater of the borrower's mortgage contract rate plus 2% or 5.25%.

However, our actions do not stop there. Speculative demand from foreign non-resident investors is contributing to unaffordable housing prices for many Canadians in some of our biggest cities. That is why, on January 1, 2022, our government will introduce Canada's first national tax on vacant property owned by non-residents. The tax will require all owners other than Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada to file a declaration as to the current use of the property, with significant penalties for failure to file.

It is vitally important that Canadians be able to have an affordable place to call home, which is why we will continue to make all the necessary investments to increase housing supply and affordability in Canada.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us start from the top.

Last week, the new head of CMHC, Romy Bowers, said that the government's national housing strategy would not be enough to address affordability because the government had done nothing to engage the private sector in the construction of affordable housing and housing for middle-class Canadians, which the government purports to support. Romy Bowers said that the biggest impediment to affordability was addressing the supply issue we faced in Canada, which was not addressed in the last federal budget.

The stress test that the member for Milton has raised actually makes it harder for young families that have saved and are priced out of the market from ever getting in. It just means they have to wait that much longer in this crazy housing market to find an affordable place to live. Also, the 1% tax, as per the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer, will have a minimal impact on addressing affordability concerns. Also, the co-investment fund has failed to deliver the number of units it purported to do at the very beginning under the national housing strategy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I did give the hon. member a bit more time, as I thought he was wrapping up.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the advocacy on affordable housing, but I could not agree less with my colleague about the results.

Our government has made significant investments for affordable housing in budget 2021, and we are on track to deliver over $70 billion by 2027-28 through the national housing strategy, with great investments in ridings close to mine in Hamilton and in Mississauga. Downtown Toronto has seen great results from the rapid housing initiative.

Clearly, our long-term plan for growth includes historic investments, more than any previous government, which will ensure that all Canadians, especially middle-class families and first-time homebuyers, as the member mentioned, will have a place to call home. By taking those actions right now, our government is ensuring that the economic recovery is inclusive and helps as many Canadians as possible join the middle class. Access to affordable homes will give Canadians opportunities to find better jobs and create better futures in all communities across the country.

Once again, I thank my colleague for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his advocacy on affordable housing.

Pharmacare

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question some time ago and today, on Lou Gehrig Day, I want to share my discontent with the answer I received.

I owe my life to our public health care system. I simply would not be here today without it, so, like most Canadians, I cherish our public health care system. It is a system that is based on the principle of “access to health services without financial or other barriers”. However, our system has massive holes in it, holes that belie the principle, holes that force Canadians to choose between their health and their other basic needs.

It is time to fix the holes in our health care system. It is time to live up to the promise of access without financial barriers. It is time for a national pharmacare program so no Canadian should have to face the impossible choice between paying for groceries and filling a prescription, and yet that is exactly what happens for one in five families in Canada.

In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, I listened to a woman describe cutting her pills in half, hoping for relief while hanging on to the few remaining pills she has left until the end of the month. One senior told me how she is sharing her medication with her husband, two trying to get by on the medicine for one. A young man in my riding urged me to get pharmacare passed, not because he needed prescription drug coverage for his own family, but because his daughter's friend was going without her medication due to cost. Too many Canadians know exactly what I am talking about, and when COVID-19 hit, even more became aware. Millions of Canadians who lost their employment also lost their prescription drug coverage, at least temporarily. They suddenly got a glimpse of what their neighbours experience on a daily basis. Our eyes are open. We know now how vulnerable we really are.

Canadians have been waiting nearly 60 years to get prescription medications included in our health care system. Twenty-three years ago, the Liberals first promised Canadians a national pharmacare program, and they have been repeating that promise ever since. We have had five public commissions on pharmacare, study after study, including the Liberals' own Hoskins report in 2019, all saying the same thing: Canadians need pharmacare and pharmacare will save Canadians money. I do not know what is more disappointing, 23 years of broken promises or the stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the reality of so many Canadians.

The Conservatives' position on pharmacare is one of the most cynical things I have ever heard. The Conservatives have said in this House that 98% of Canadians already have access to prescription drug coverage, so we do not need pharmacare, but what they are really saying is that 2% of Canadians live with pre-existing conditions that make them uninsurable, and everyone else who does not have a drug plan should just go out and buy one from a private insurance company. I have news for the Conservatives. The seven million Canadians who cannot afford to pay for their medications cannot afford to pay for private insurance either. Telling these Canadians that they have access to medications is a slap in the face. I mean, we all have access to a Lamborghini, right?

The cynical nonsense has to stop. In February, this House debated Bill C-213, sponsored by the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby, which would have created a national pharmacare act. In a survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly nine in 10 Canadians support a national pharmacare program. Only big pharma and the insurance industry are opposed, and yet the government joined with the Conservatives to vote this bill down.

Canadians are done with excuses. The time is up. Canadians want and deserve a national universal pharmacare plan now.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her advocacy on ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, and certainly on pharmacare. I will tell her that this is the first job I have ever had that has a drug plan. Olympic athletes do not have drug coverage in Canada, and my father, who does not have ALS but has Parkinson's, pays out of pocket for prescription drugs that he requires every single day.

It is a shared commitment among Liberals and members of the New Democratic Party, and many other members of the House, to ensure that when we leave this place, there will be a pharmacare plan. I agree that it has been too long and that promises have been held for too long, but I thank the member for the opportunity to speak tonight on the government's actions to make prescription drugs more affordable for Canadians. No one should have to choose between paying for prescription drugs and putting food on the table. Unfortunately, too many Canadians still have to make this impossible choice.

That is why we have done more than any other government in a generation to lower drug prices, and we are committed to implementing a national universal pharmacare program. The groundwork for this was laid in the achievements of the last Parliament and reaffirmed in the Speech from the Throne, the fall economic statement and, most recently, in budget 2021.

While we recognize the importance of a national pharmacare program, our government also respects the division of jurisdictional powers that exists in this country and the benefits of harnessing the expertise that exists across the provinces and the territories. That is why our government will continue to use the measured and thoughtful approach that we have taken on this issue. We are moving forward with willing provinces and territories in accelerating steps to achieve this system and build on the foundational elements of national pharmacare that are already in place so that Canadians can have the drug coverage they need.

Allow me to describe our government's recent efforts to advance a national pharmacare system.

On rare diseases, we recognize that for many Canadians who require prescription drugs to treat rare diseases, the cost of medications can be astronomically high. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the advocacy work that my friend Simon Ibell did throughout his life, which was too short. When he passed, I made a personal commitment to ensure that people who are advocating for a variety of rare diseases have their voices heard in the House. I want to take a moment to thank Simon Ibell and his family and friends for all of his advocacy.

To help Canadians get better access to effective treatments, we are working with provinces, territories and other partners to move forward on developing a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases. Our government announced in budget 2021 that it would proceed with the plan, as originally proposed in budget 2019, to invest up to $1 billion over two years, starting in 2022-23, and up to $500 million per year thereafter to support this strategy. I am pleased to inform the House that stakeholder consultations are under way and our aim is to launch the strategy by 2022.

The creation of a national formulary, which would list the drugs covered under a national pharmacare program, is another vital area in which our government is taking action. Support for a national formulary was first announced in budget 2019 and was reaffirmed in budget 2021. The development of a comprehensive evidence-based national formulary will allow a consistent approach to formulary listing and patient access across the provinces and territories.

Finally, we have established a national Canadian drug agency transition office. Budget 2019 proposed $35 million in funding to create this office with Health Canada. Its mandate is to advance work on pharmacare-related priorities through co-operation with key partners and stakeholders. The office will strengthen and better align all parts of the system in keeping with the government's commitment to establish a Canadian drug agency.

In closing, I will again say thanks for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. Through the actions described above and through other avenues, the government has worked diligently and productively to implement national pharmacare. I look forward to the day when my friend from Edmonton Strathcona and I can high-five in the House of Commons when we get it done.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, there was an opportunity for the Liberal government to support pharmacare when a bill was brought forward. The member will forgive me if I am cynical about the government's commitment to pharmacare, as the Liberals voted with the Conservative Party not to support a pharmacare program. My colleague will forgive me if I feel that he is likely, as with so many other Liberal promises, putting something forward so that the Liberals can campaign on it in the next election. Is there an actual desire to put pharmacare in place, or do they just want to string out these promises over and over again so they can continue to campaign on them?

There was a bill, the member voted against it and Canadians still do not have pharmacare. Talking about how we are going to build that back is not helpful and is not going to get us the pharmacare that Canadians need and deserve.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will forgive my colleague's cynicism. This is a political place that we live and work in, but the Government of Canada is committed to strengthening Canada's health care system, as we all are, and supporting the health of Canadians and working together with provinces, territories and stakeholders. To improve that access to prescription medications is really important.

That is why in budget 2019, budget 2021 and the 2020 Speech from the Throne and the fall economic statement we reaffirmed that commitment to implement national pharmacare, beginning with the creation of a Canadian drug agency, a national formulary and a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases. There is a process. It will take time and it is important that we get this one right. It is simply not a light-switch that we can flick on and make happen immediately. That process is well under way and I cannot wait, once again, to celebrate when it is all done.

Diversity and Inclusion

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, today I am highlighting the question I asked on March 25 about the federal government's position regarding the Black civil servants lawsuits where claimants have courageously come forward to expose the wrongdoing and systemic discrimination they face throughout their careers.

In the weeks since I asked that question, we have learned that over the years some public servants were offered money to keep quiet and withdraw racial discrimination complaints. It is never easy to confront racism. It should be uncomfortable. We cannot ask people to push aside their injustice, to sweep things under the rug. This is gaslighting. We cannot ask them to be silent and we cannot be complicit with our own silence.

My goal tonight is not to place blame and to wag my finger, rather it is to better understand exactly what the government is doing to fight systemic racism. I wish to be a partner in this work. I wish to highlight the incredible voices from my riding and from the Maritimes that are changing the conversation and driving real actions in my home community.

We are now coming to a sudden realization that Canada has a problem with racism. People of colour, Black and indigenous peoples have been telling us for so long that our society, our institutions, our collective behaviours and biases continue to cause harm, even kill.

So far, the performative gestures from the government are accomplishing nothing. In just the last few weeks, I read the following headline: “RCMP is losing Indigenous officers—and some former Mounties blame racism in the ranks”.

The Nova Scotia government balked at paying for extra RCMP during the fisheries conflict where Mi'kmaq fishers were attacked, their possessions set on fire and their catches destroyed. The army strategies to promote diversity and inclusion were ineffective. Temporary migrant workers working in fields across the country helping to ensure our food sovereignty are working in unsanitary and dangerous conditions, living in overcrowded rooms, some sleeping on the floor.

Symbolism does not target the root cause of the problem. Canada must institute specific reparations and strategic actions with measurable outcomes. I know that my colleague will point to the implementation of the Anti-Racism Secretariat and I am thankful for that division and I am fully in appreciation for the minister and her commitment. However, this would be the time to let Canadians know about the concrete work being undertaken to dismantle systems of oppression. I would argue that there should be a full ministerial department dedicated to the mission of anti-racism.

Many Canadians do not even have a basic understanding of what racism is, how it operates, what gives it power. Some still debate its existence and shy away from comparison with our neighbours to the south. Our children must learn the critical thinking skills to ask tough questions, challenge narratives and deconstruct the lies that support white supremacy.

We are told that change is slow, that these things take time. As a suggestion, if I may, perhaps we could listen to the Black voices showing us the way right here, right now. The class-action lawsuit seeks long-term solutions to permanently address systemic racism and discrimination in the Public Service of Canada, which would undoubtedly create ripple effects across the communities. Damages include the wrongful failure to promote, intentional infliction of mental suffering, constructive dismissal, wrongful termination, negligence and in particular, violations of employment law, human rights law and charter breaches.

In the fulfillment of the goal of workplace equality, Canada has failed to correct the conditions of disadvantage and employment experienced by Black Canadians. Will the Anti-Racism Secretariat commit to addressing specific wrongs?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I just cannot thank my hon. colleague and friend from Fredericton enough for her speech and her advocacy on this very important topic. I admire her willingness to come out here and always confront difficult topics of conversation.

I share her satisfaction with the fact that we are the first government that has a Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, that does the hard work and commits to the hard work. The Anti-Racism Secretariat is a good start.

However, from the start, our government has acknowledged that millions of Canadians continue to face systemic racism in different facets of our society. I acknowledge that it is not a universally held conviction yet in the House or in this country. That is an important thing to focus on also, whether it is going to the store or the bank, applying for a job, or even taking public transit, racialized Canadians have told us in unequivocal terms that racial discrimination is unfortunately still a daily reality here in Canada.

This is particularly true for Black Canadians who face the scourge of systemic racism against Black people. The data we have paints a bleak picture of the impact of racism across the country. For example, we know that the unemployment rate is disproportionately high among Black Canadians, compared to their non-racialized counterparts. However, recent studies from Statistics Canada show that Black Canadians aged 25 to 54 are more likely to have a university degree than non-racialized Canadians.

Rather than sitting idly by, our government has taken concrete actions to address systemic anti-Black racism. In 2018, we officially recognized the International Decade for People of African Descent, which serves to guide the international community in the advancement of human rights and freedoms of Black communities by focusing on recognition, justice and development.

This was then followed by a $44-million investment to advance the objectives of the decade through supporting projects that empower Black youth, address mental health in Black communities and drive capacity building for Black-led organizations.

As the parliamentary secretary on this file, I get to make some of those calls to these organizations to thank them for their good work and congratulate them on the funding. I cannot tell members how grateful we are, as a government and as a nation, for their extraordinary efforts.

We have invested millions of dollars to launch Canada's anti-racism strategy, which advances the federal leadership's fight against systemic racism by supporting communities and focusing on awareness and changing attitudes.

Since then, we have worked closely with the Federation of African Canadian Economics, an entrepreneurship program run by Black people, to launch the Black entrepreneurship loan fund, a public-private investment worth $291.3 million. This fund will provide financing of up to $4 million to help Black business owners and entrepreneurs develop their businesses and achieve success now and in the future.

Lastly, because our government recognizes the need to remove barriers to achieving a diverse and inclusive workplace, including addressing anti-Black racism, we are investing $12 million to support the centre on diversity and inclusion in the public service, lodged directly in the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I did allow for a bit more time. I thought maybe he would be wrapping up.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his efforts in these adjournment proceedings. It has been a busy night for him.

If members can tell, I am extremely passionate about anti-racism, and I come to this as a cis, white ally. I will never know the full extent of the pain inflicted upon indigenous peoples, Black peoples, people of colour or 2SLGBTQIA+, and I live, work and learn with this immense privilege.

During the past weeks we have been hearing the difficult testimony, trying to piece together the death of Joyce Echaquan. I will not repeat the myriad of insults flung at her by staff who were supposed to be caring for her while she was fighting for her life. Then, of course, there are the 215 little souls whose remains have finally been discovered. There are not enough words in the English language to account for such horrors.

These are not dark chapters in Canadian history. These realities are woven throughout the whole story, and the consequences continue to play out today. This is not about guilt. It is about responsibility.

Will the government stand up and recognize the immense responsibility we have in addressing racism in all its forms? Will it stand up for the Black civil servants? Will it stand up for Joyce and all the children who never came home from residential schools?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge my role as an ally in this place. As a white, cisgendered, straight man, I have never experienced racism, homophobia or bigotry in any form, and I do feel like I have a role, as an ally, to stand up.

We are taking steps to review the Employment Equity Act, particularly in light of comments that it does not address the distinct experiences of Black employees. From the very start, our government has shown an unwavering commitment to tackling systemic racism head on, including anti-Black racism.

The data is clear. There are major systemic barriers that continue to limit opportunities for Black communities.

Here in Canada, these discrepancies are simply unacceptable.

This is why, since 2018, we have committed to investing more than $177 million in initiatives that support Black communities. We are investing in initiatives within the federal public service to create a fully diverse and inclusive workplace.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:04 p.m.)