Debates of Dec. 1st, 2022

Federal Framework on Autism Spectrum Disorder Act

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here today on behalf of the residents of Don Valley East to join my colleague in supporting Bill S-203. I was very proud to be asked to join this coalition of great parliamentarians who are working hard in the Senate and in the House of Commons to really move an issue forward that is long overdue. This bill is a great example of parliamentarians coming together to do the right thing. It is a great example of the House of Commons and the Senate working together to push forward a bill that will help so many Canadians and their families.

The bill calls upon the government to develop a national framework to better support autistic individuals in Canada. It is a very ambitious bill. It asks territories, provinces, communities, stakeholders and people to come together to build this framework to better support autistic individuals.

What I really like about the bill is that there is a strong emphasis on people as they transition into adulthood. It puts forward a strategy, if it does pass this House, to better position them in life and look for ways to leverage all the great supports that are out there, some of which are working better than others in terms of coordinating and sharing best practices.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the colleague who just spoke. He has done great work over the years. I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin on the autism file over the years, while I was a provincial member. I want to thank him for his advocacy and his work.

I also want to thank Senator Housakos, who is the mover in the Senate of the bill, and Senator Boehm, who has helped move the bill along.

It has been interesting for me over the years. I was a school board trustee from 2003 to 2011. The first time I started to work within the autism sector was when a parent came into my office one day to meet with me. She was so taken back that the school system, the Toronto District School Board, did not have the supports in place to help her child. She specifically spoke about the ABA instructors not being available in the classroom for her child.

Back then, I knew nothing of the subject. I have a couple of family members who are autistic, but beyond that I do not know much about the politics of autism. Over the years at the school board, learning about the history of it and going to the province and learning about the history of the autism sector and its interaction with government services, it really surprised me. It was an awakening.

Back then, in 2006-07, we worked hard to put forward the first ABA demonstration classroom in Toronto, if not the entire province. The parent became an incredibly good friend of mine, but she spoke a lot about how I helped and I listened, and the director of education at the time, Dr. Chris Spence, had listened to help develop this classroom. She would thank me all the time.

I did not realize that she was actually educating me and preparing me for many years later, when I became the minister of children and youth services in Ontario and was responsible for autism services in the province.

My journey back in 2006-07 opened up the door to an incredible sector of individuals working so hard, parents and young people in that sector, who have worked so hard to support the community and provide the best possible services for children. There was no question that I could easily sense the frustration with the history of autism services and how they were delivered in Ontario.

When I first became the minister responsible for the file, there was a protest around Queen's Park. There were probably 10,000 people. There was an age cut-off. Anyone over six no longer qualified for the same services as those under six. I was put on the portfolio and I had months to develop a new plan from scratch.

I had the opportunity to work with many individuals in Ontario from the sector, people such as Bruce McIntosh and so many other parents and advocates, to look for a way to build a new program, the Ontario autism program, the OAP.

We were able to not only double the funding back then and remove the age restrictions but also invest in diagnostic tools and expand on the diagnostic locations where one could go to get a young person to meet with someone, do a diagnostic and figure out if they required services such as ABA services. We also got to invest in research.

What I learned back then was that, in the system itself, not only in Ontario but also across the country, there was a lack of coordination. Organizations were not equipped to work with each other and share information. Governments did things differently everywhere.

This national framework, I think, would help everyone to work with provinces, territories, organizations, parents and advocacy groups. It would bring people together to better position young people and any autistic individual in this country for life.

At the end of the day, this is about basic decency. This is about returning decency to decision-making and to building programs that speak to the values we have as Canadians. The fact that we can come together in the House, remove all partisanship from this issue and do what is best for people who are autistic and their families, demonstrates to me our values and our decency as Canadians.

I am hoping this bill will move through the House as quickly as possible and that we can go forward with a national framework that will better position people in this country.

I do want to also take this moment to acknowledge the “Pay Now or Pay Later” report from back in 2007. That was put forward by Jim Munson. I do not know former senator Munson well. I have heard his name many times, and I know that people speak very highly of him. In 2007, when I was back in Don Valley East working with parents, trying to build a demonstration ABA classroom, the former senator was in the Senate, building a call and an awakening across the country to do better for autistic people in our country to ensure that they have decency, the benefit of programming and the ability to live their lives at their full capacity.

Here we are today, many years later, in the House, and I am hoping that we can come forward with a strategy that will make this country a better place for everyone.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning Mathieu Caron, a man from Sherbrooke whose podcast helped me better understand what it is like to be an adult living with autism. Hi Mathieu.

Today I am talking about Bill S-203, which would provide for the development of a federal framework designed to support autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers. It directs the Minister of Health to develop a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder. The national framework must identify measures relating to research, culture and tax benefits, among other things. The minister must consult with other relevant federal ministers, civil society groups, and provincial governments and the Government of Quebec, including their ministers of health. Lastly, the bill provides for the tabling of a report in Parliament, as proposed by Quebec senator Marie‑Françoise Mégie, who is also a doctor.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee and be amended in such a way as to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. In my speech, I will discuss the pros and cons of this bill, share examples from Quebec and conclude with a reminder about the importance of investing in health.

To begin with, in 2019, the Minister of Health's mandate letter directed her to “[w]ork collaboratively with provinces, territories, families and stakeholders toward the creation of a national autism strategy”. On October 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced $1.46 million for the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, or CAHS, to lead consultations on a national autism strategy. The CAHS report was released in May 2022, and the Public Health Agency of Canada hosted a national virtual conference on November 15 and 16, 2022, to inform the development of a national strategy.

As a reminder, autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition. The term refers to a range of disorders characterized by difficulties with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and non-verbal communication. Individuals on the autism spectrum may also have co-occurring health conditions that affect their overall physical health, including their mental health.

According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, approximately one in 50 Canadian children and youth, or 2%, have autism. That number has gone up over time. In Quebec, the annual prevalence of ASD in children aged one to 17 has been growing strongly, rising from one per 1,000 in 2000-01 to more than four per 1,000 in 2014-15. This prevalence differs according to the child's sex and age. It was 7.3 and 1.8 per 1,000 among boys and girls, respectively, in 2014-15.

People on the autism spectrum need support in various areas, such as housing, employment, education and, of course, health services. Within its areas of jurisdiction, the federal government can play a role in supporting these people and their families. Autism intersects with other identities such as race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, gender and sexuality, and that intersectionality creates diversity in experiences and needs that must be taken into account. People with autism do not always feel safe or meaningfully included in their communities. Such experiences can have harmful outcomes to their health, safety and quality of life. We must work harder to include them.

Stigma and discrimination can be addressed by shifting public attitudes towards autism acceptance and awareness through public campaigns, social contact, training, and education programs. The physical and emotional safety of people with autism can be fostered by promoting autism-inclusive, neuro-affirming and accessible spaces, programs and understanding in local communities. Best practices for suicide prevention can also be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals with autism at risk for suicide.

Improving the accessibility and inclusion of public transportation, recreational facilities, leisure programs, and technology can enable community participation of people with autism. Quebec and every province and territory offer autism diagnostic and support services, yet there is wide variability in what is available, which can contribute to delays and disparities. Some people with autism are particularly disadvantaged, such as those living in rural and remote areas, equity-seeking groups, and adults with autism. Research to develop valid and meaningful strengths-based diagnostic tools and improve access to diagnostic assessments for adults with autism is also suggested.

Adopting family-centred services available across the lifespan can promote the health and well-being of the entire family. It also empowers families to be involved in service delivery.

Young autistic children benefit from early access to supports and services because this is a time of significant development. Equitable access to school and community supports across a range of life domains can promote academic success, life and social skills, and improve mental health.

Implementing health and education transition policies and practices may help manage and prevent mental and physical health challenges and promote better adult outcomes.

However, research about autism in adulthood is limited. More than half of Canadians with autism rely on disability benefits.

Academic supports and accommodations available in post-secondary institutions do not always meet the diverse range of autistic students' needs and abilities, which means that they are still not enrolling to the same extent as non-autistic and other disabled students.

Some ways to create more inclusive workplaces, which is also important, and to improve employment outcomes can involve providing autism-inclusive supports and accommodations, giving access to supported work experience and internships, addressing benefit disincentives, and promoting workplace autism acceptance. Mr. Caron spoke at length about this with me.

With the limited availability of affordable housing in many regions, autism-inclusive housing is in even shorter supply across Canada, and the need will only grow.

Second, with its generous social safety net, Quebec already offers a wide range of services for individuals with autism. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the strategy will recognize these efforts, and that Quebec will not be penalized for its generous social benefits.

We also have some excellent examples in Quebec. Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montréal offers a program called “dance for well-being”. This great model contributes to the well-being of people living with autism spectrum disorder, their families and caregivers through the benefits of dance.

Quebec offers a wide range of services for people with a physical or intellectual disability or an autism spectrum disorder to develop, maintain and compensate for their disabilities and promote their autonomy and social participation. These services are also intended for family and loved ones. They are divided into three categories. One category is local services that are often offered in the individual's living environments, such as the home, school or workplace. They aim to compensate for functional disabilities and reduce the risk of harm to ensure the safety of activities related to lifestyle. Examples include home support services, residential services, support for meaningful and rewarding activities, and support services for family and friends.

I would like to highlight the work that has been done for the past 45 years by the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme, a provincial group of organizations and individuals who are concerned about the interests of people with autism, their families and friends. This federation defends their rights, supports community life, informs and instructs Quebeckers on issues related to autism, and participates in research.

There are 16 regional autism associations in Quebec. Associate members include other associations, early childhood centres, rehabilitation centres, school boards, schools, hospitals and private clinics. Everyone works together. The regional autism associations are community organizations primarily made up of parents, and their shared mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of people with autism in order to enable them to lead a dignified life and achieve the greatest degree of social autonomy possible.

Third, I certainly must mention the fact that the Bloc Québécois is adamant that delivery of health services is not a federal jurisdiction. It refuses to allow the federal government to impose its standards and ways of doing things on Quebec and the provinces.

As such, the Bloc Québécois wants to emphasize that one component of the national strategy, timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder, is not under federal jurisdiction. When it comes to delivering health care services, the best thing the federal government can do is increase health transfers. That is why the Bloc Québécois will seek to amend Bill S‑203 to ensure that it respects Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal, provincial and Quebec health ministers' meeting, which took place from November 7 to 9, 2022, and ended inconclusively. The only solution is higher transfers.

The Bloc Québécois supports Quebec and the provinces' unified demand that the federal government raise health transfers from 22% to 35%. This permanent increase is what will help people living with autism spectrum disorder. Again, only a 35% contribution from the feds will enable people to live with autism spectrum disorder.

In closing, I thank the Granby association for intellectual disabilities and autism. I had the opportunity to visit this organization recently, and the people there are doing absolutely terrific work. Quebec has plenty of wonderful organizations like this one. I hope the federal government will provide health transfers so that we in Quebec can continue to help them and help people with autism.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill S-203, respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

Before I speak about this really important bill, I want to recognize that today is my grandson's birthday. I want to wish him a very happy birthday. I wish I could be with him. As so many of us in this place know, we miss a lot of important days. It is hard for me to miss his birthday today, so I just wanted to wish him all the best.

I want to give many thanks to the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I know about his advocacy. I have certainly seen this bill in this place before. I hope that we finally get it through. It is so important.

I think the basis of this is really about how we look at this whole country and make sure that everyone feels like they belong. One thing that is very clearly a challenge in a country as big as ours is that often different provinces and territories have different services that do not always meet the need. It is really important that when we look at this framework, we understand that by bringing everyone together. We want to see the best supports in place for those living with autism spectrum disorder and for those who love them the most.

Whenever one of our fellow members brings their human experience, their lived experience, to this place to say, as a person who lived through these realities, here is a way we can make life better for everyone, we should all pay attention. We should all listen and make sure that when we speak to this issue, we speak in a collective voice. I certainly hope that is what happens.

This really talks about having a national framework and making sure there is a timely and equitable process for people to access screening and diagnosis so that they are able to access the supports that are there. It is also so much about providing good financial supports. Often folks living within this group have challenges. There are extra needs. We want to make sure that people have the supports they need to do this well and that there is support for caregivers. There is nothing worse than seeing people who are working so hard giving all of that care and they burn out because we do not have the proper supports in place for them. We do not want to see that happen. We want there to be success where there should be success.

This also talks about having meaningful research and the resources there to provide that research so that those services are there. In that way, our communities can do better and we can provide an adequate service, community connection, so that people can succeed.

I often think about this. I think about how we can pay attention to what is happening to all of the people in our communities so that no one gets left behind. I think about how we can take the time to notice where those blocks are and remove those blocks so that we can have that wholesome support.

Public education is part of this framework. That is incredibly important. It is only with education that we draw so much more awareness and allow people to hold this information. It creates an environment of curiosity. That is really important. I cannot say enough from my perspective about how much we need to have curiosity so that when somebody is a bit different from us, instead of us being afraid, we really open doors, ask questions and learn how we can work with people in a more meaningful and profound way.

What we know based on so much research is that people in our communities have been left behind. It is shameful that in this country things fall apart. That really worries me.

I often think of Maya Angelou, who is a great hero of mine. She used to say that when we know better, we do better. That is why public education is important because, hopefully, the more we know, the more opportunity we can see, the more doors can be opened and the more inclusive our communities will become.

We also know that, if there is a co-occurring condition, it is even harder for families to be successful. There is a complexity, and added challenges, that we need to address, which is part of the reason this framework is so important. It brings people to the table to talk about the co-occurring conditions and what they mean going into the future. If we are going to provide and build communities that we can be proud of, a country that we can be proud of, we really need to make sure that that is done.

We know that resources around knowledge and research are desperately needed. We also know that rural and remote communities are often challenged to provide the services. This is a big concern for me. For myself, representing a rural and remote community, I see all too often that the services that are desperately needed across the board are just not there, and the people who are trying to provide those services are doing their very best. However, often when we look at service delivery, we forget that broad areas with lots of travel for service providers becomes very challenging, and asking families to travel big distances is another challenge.

We need to be looking at this. This is really important. I have spoken to people in my riding who deliver services, who work with families, and they talk about this repeatedly. They need more time. They need the right services in place. We need to find pathways so we are not sending families far away from home to get help because it just adds another burden. It is harder to get ahead. It is harder to do the everyday things of life. It is harder to maintain employment, sometimes, because of the high needs and care that are required.

I really hope that, when we look at this framework, we are really attentive to making sure that the needs that are out there are supported, regardless if people live in a more urban centre or in a more rural centre.

One of the things that is so important about this bill as well is that it talks about that coordinated effort, bringing all levels of government together to make sure we are not seeing overlap, and where there are gaps, identifying them and finding the resources to fill those gaps. This is so important.

I am grateful to be here to speak to this bill. In closing, I just want to say that the most important part for me, and I think we are almost there in this bill, is the concept of “nothing without us when it is about us”. I need to be very clear that is something the NDP will be making sure of. What we do not want to see happen is a framework put into place where people who are not living this every day, who are not supporting it every day, are having more of a say than those who are experiencing it.

The NDP will be supporting this bill. I look forward to seeing it finally getting through this place and out into the country so we can see better supports, and identify those key challenges, to building a better Canada for everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no further debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a fantastic 45 minutes that was. This is a rare time in the House, because often things are pretty combative in here. I am reminded tonight, as we think about what we are doing here, of words from JFK: Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.

I am so thankful for two senators who did not take for granted that the government is moving toward a national autism strategy. It has signalled as much, and these two senators, and the entire Senate by extension, did not take that for granted. It has been a long time, and a lot of us on all sides have worked on this for a long time. We are not going to wait for it to happen. We are going to work to make it happen together.

Today was a real example of that. It was a coming together of members from across the House. A few folks mentioned things they might change a bit when the bill gets to committee, whatever the case may be, which is the way it should be. However, let us find a common ground. Let us debate how we can make it stronger. Let us move forward.

One other thing I am thinking of relates to this. When I am talking to university students, I often talk about political labels and how helpful they are. We have the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc in here. However, let us remember the fact that political labels are constructs. As helpful as they might be for the functioning of our democracy, we are human beings before we are political labels.

As we were having our conversation tonight, it felt more like we were human beings having a conversation about how we can make our country better. We set aside the political labels for a night because we agree on something. Sometimes that is okay if we largely agree on something.

That also extends, I would say, to the labels that science puts on us, as with autism. Autism is a label, if we think about it. There are a lot of labels we use that might be helpful for organizing, understanding or whatever the case may be, but we have to remember that we are human beings first.

I talked about help, and so often it is easy to think about legislation like this as legislation designed to help people. I just want to remind everybody in this place, as we have the conversation, that a big part of getting this right is understanding that we are going to benefit from it. As a society, we are stronger when we are using all of our strengths, all of our skills and all of our abilities. A huge part of what we are doing here tonight is creating an environment where we are operating on all cylinders and using all of our strengths and abilities. There are too many people who have the strengths and abilities we really need in this country whom we are not using to their full capacity because they are simply not included to the extent they ought to be.

I will close by thanking everybody who took part tonight and those who stuck around to support us. We really look forward to having a fantastic conversation at committee and getting this legislation passed through the House as soon as we can so that we can take the steps we need to take to realize the full potential of our country and include everybody.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Taxation

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House tonight and share the time and discussion on this topic with my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who I know works hard on his file and is committed to agriculture, as many people are in this House. I appreciate that he is here this evening for this discussion.

One of the things I have talked about in the House a number of times is the carbon tax and the challenge it presents for a particular part of the ag industry, which has a lot to do with ag production in Canada, but also specifically in the Bow River riding. My question is to do with the topics of exemption, rebate and inflation.

Canadian farmers, as my colleague would know, are among the most efficient, if not the most efficient, in the world. Ag emissions from Canadian ag producers are 70% lower than the average. At times the public does not understand or realize how efficient the ag sector is, but another important aspect is that Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of ag food in the world. Often ag producers feel like they are vilified. They should be applauded, but they feel vilified in our country.

In the Bow River riding, where the majority of irrigation is in Alberta and 4% of the land produces almost 20% of the Alberta ag GDP, the title of our ag minister is Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation. That is how important irrigation is in Alberta and in the Bow River riding, where the majority of irrigation is.

I am going back to the topic of exemption. To run irrigation, we use electricity. Ag producers use electricity. That powers irrigation. Electricity is not one of the exemptions under this government. The government often refers to the exemptions for fuels like natural gas, but electricity is not an exemption. It is very expensive.

The government will also talk about rebates. The rebate is about 1%, or a penny on the dollar, and these days pennies are not even legal tender. That is not much, so I have seen bills from my ag and irrigation producers of $7,000 per month for the carbon tax. I have seen irrigation carbon tax electric bills of $40,000. Those are huge, and although the government says the rebate is 80%, or eight dollars on $10, it is 1% for our ag producers. That is why they feel vilified.

Inflation has seen a 110% increase. The cost of farm fuel has doubled. Combines can cost $1 million. If we add all the carbon tax on ag producers, they are feeling like they are vilified in their own industry and that the government is leaving them behind. The ag producers will be an industry that cannot produce food security within our own country. Ag producers are price-takers. They have nowhere else to put these costs, and when we talk about taxation, it is brutal.

Electricity is not exempt.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Bow River that our government is making significant investments in Canada's agriculture sector. Our total budget for 2021-22 was approximately $4 billion, the highest amount in recent years.

These historic investments make it possible to fund innovation, business risk management, market development, and compensation for our supply-managed producers and processors. In July, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed to inject half a billion dollars to fund the new sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership. Of that amount, $250 million was allocated to the resilient agricultural landscape program to support ecological goods and services provided by the agriculture sector.

The new agreement includes stronger targets, such as a three to five megatonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; an increase in sector competitiveness, revenue and export; and an increased participation of indigenous peoples, women and youth.

To respond to the member for Bow River regarding carbon pollution pricing, we have recognized the special role our farmers play in Canada. I would remind the hon. member that much of the agricultural sector is already exempt from pollution pricing.

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and crop production are not included in carbon pollution pricing systems. We also provided exemptions for gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers for agricultural activities. There is also a partial rebate for commercial greenhouse operations.

Beginning in the 2021-22 tax year, we are returning a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions through the refundable tax credit. Farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will be eligible for an estimated $100 million in the first year. That is expected to increase year to year.

At the same time, we are standing by our farmers who are on the front lines of climate change. Along with the provinces, we delivered over $1 billion to help farmers get back on their feet after droughts, wildfires and flooding in western Canada and northwestern Ontario last year. We are there for farmers in Atlantic Canada who have suffered damages to their buildings and crops from hurricane Fiona.

I know the member will engage in some discussions after I am done my speech. I do sympathize with farmers who, last year in western Canada, lost 30% of their crops. That means 30% of crops could not make it to market because of the effects of climate change. Failing to act also has a cost to farmers.

We may differ on the ways to get there, but I believe that pricing pollution is the most cost-effective way to get to decarbonizing the processes in our agricultural sector. Otherwise, we would be stuck and bowed down with regulations that would cost farmers even more.

I welcome the hon. member's debate.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments, as well as the programs that many agriculture producers across the country enjoy.

Again, electricity and irrigation are challenges we have that were not mentioned. There is one other one that we need to mention and we need to be thinking about it now. The Americans do not have the carbon tax, but they are building a bank of vaccines for foot and mouth disease. Canada has not done anything, and it is not a matter of if, but when. We need to start looking at building a vaccine bank for our agricultural cattle industry. It is going to be critical. I hope the member understands that and will lobby for that particular vaccine bank.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do want to emphasize one point again. I mentioned the federal backstop. The reason there are no specifics to irrigation systems or electricity in Saskatchewan is because the Saskatchewan government refuses to put a price on pollution.

If tomorrow the Saskatchewan government chose to respect the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, along with Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, they could realize those specifics in each region. That is why it is incumbent on the provinces to act. Otherwise, we are going to keep facing these major disasters, which cost our communities and farmers extreme amounts of money.

On the foot and mouth disease vaccine bank, obviously he is making some good lobbying efforts. I know the cattle producers have made those same representations to me, and we are looking at this right now.

Post-Secondary Education

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, science and research are the basis of our modern life. All the technological marvels and comforts we enjoy come from that. In the research ecosystem, it is graduate students and post-doctoral fellows who do most of the work. They do the heavy lifting, and they work full time on their research. It is a full-time job.

They are paid through postgraduate scholarships through the federal funding councils: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The values of these scholarships were at one time enough to allow young researchers to live reasonable lives. I had one of these scholarships when I was doing my masters studies at the Memorial University of Newfoundland in the 1970s, and it paid for my housing and food, with a bit left over. By sheer coincidence, I am wearing my MUN tie tonight.

However, that is not the case today. The scholarship amounts have not changed since 2003. That is almost 20 years ago. Masters students now receive $17,500 annually, and Ph.D. students get $21,000 annually. That might have been enough 20 years ago, but we know how housing and food costs have skyrocketed since then. On top of that, these students have to pay their tuition, and that adds thousands of dollars to those annual costs. In fact, the average postgraduate tuition in Canada is over $7,000 a year.

These are poverty wages. This is below minimum wage, yet this is what we are expecting our best and brightest to live on. We are depending on these students for our future, and we have to keep them here in Canada, but many of them are lured out of the country to find research and educational opportunities in countries that value them more than we do.

A group of students, scientists and other concerned citizens formed a group called “Support our Science” recently. They sponsored a petition here in the House of Commons that garnered over 3,500 signatures. They were asking the government to increase the value of graduate scholarships by 48% to match inflation over the past 20 years, and to index that to the consumer price index so it does not fall behind again. They also asked that the number of scholarships be increased by 50% to match the demand for graduate students and the demand for these graduates in the innovation workplaces of Canada.

Once these students complete their doctoral degrees, they seek out post-doctoral fellowships. It is the traditional route to finding work in academic institutions and in research and development companies across the country, but the number of post-doctoral fellowships does not line up with the number of doctoral students. About 3,000 masters students receive these scholarships, and almost 2,000 Ph.D. students receive the scholarships, but there are only about 450 post-doctoral fellowships offered. Because of that, a huge number of recent graduates leave Canada for post-doctoral work elsewhere in the world. In fact, 38% of them leave the country. They are drawn by good salaries and good lab support, both aspects in which Canada does not compete well.

At its most basic, valuing these students means paying them enough, so I urge the government to do the right thing and the obvious thing, and pay these young researchers a living wage.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay regarding federal investments in science for our graduate students, scientists and researchers. In fact, I agree with just about everything he said. I must say it is good to see him flying the MUN school colours.

Canada is a leader in science and research, and the government is committed to ensuring that this continues. Every day, Canadian researchers stand at the forefront of new scientific discoveries and research breakthroughs. The Government of Canada has continued to invest in Canadian researchers, the key drivers of innovation who are helping to build a healthier and more prosperous future.

Enhancing the opportunities available to researchers has been a priority that the government has backed up with significant investments in successive budgets. Since 2016, Canada has committed more than $14 billion to support the valuable contributions that scientists and researchers make to the health, well-being and prosperity of all Canadians. For example, budget 2018 announced historic new investments in science and research of over $1.7 billion over five years, including $925 million to the three granting agencies to support fundamental science, and $462 million per year to establish permanent, stable funding to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support research infrastructure in our country.

In terms of targeted investments to support students and post-doctoral fellows, the government recognizes the critical role that federal scholarships and fellowships play in nurturing and sustaining Canada's top talent, through support for career progression and increased financial security and independence. Budget 2019 provided $114 million over five years, with $26.5 million per year, ongoing, to create 500 more master's level scholarship awards annually, and 167 more three-year doctoral scholarship awards annually through the graduate scholarships program.

The government also recognizes that students and researchers are facing financial challenges that could be a barrier to pursuing higher education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government made $450 million available through the Canada research continuity emergency fund with a view to helping our scientists and trainees get through a very difficult period.

Looking forward, to deliver an equitable, accessible and effective suite of scholarships and fellowships, the Government of Canada continues its work to promote equity, diversity and inclusion. Budget 2019 invested $37.4 million over five years, and $8.6 million per year, ongoing, to expand parental leave coverage from six months to 12 months for students and post-doctoral fellows to help young researchers better balance work and family.

Budget 2019 also invested in bursaries and scholarships for first nations, Inuit and Métis students through a $9-million investment in Indspire, while the granting agencies have partnered with indigenous people to develop a national research program to advance reconciliation. Furthermore, through budget 2022, we invested $40.9 million to support targeted scholarships and fellowships for Black student researchers.

We want to promote science in this country, and we will continue to invest in science across our nation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that, for almost 20 years, there has not been any new money for these scholarship programs I have been talking about. These are our best and brightest young researchers, and they are living in poverty.

I appreciate that the government has increased spending in some aspects of science. It supports science. However, it needs to support these students. More and more of them are leaving Canada for the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia. Many countries are providing better living conditions and studying environments than Canada.

This brain drain costs our economy almost $1 billion a year, just in lost training dollar investments. The solution is simple: Increase the scholarship amounts and increase the number of scholarships. It would be a relatively small investment that would have an immense payback for our country and for the young researchers our future depends on.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks the way I started them by saying that I agree with the member in what he is saying. The government has heard the calls from the research community to increase the value of the scholarships and fellowships, and I am happy to say that we will continue to work with the federal granting agencies and the research community to explore ways to better support our next generation of researchers and top talent.

The Government of Canada recognizes that for Canada to achieve its full potential, support for science and research must evolve. We are committed to ensuring that Canadian researchers are positioned for even more success now and in the future, and to better respond to the needs of the modern research enterprise. This is why the government recently announced the launch of the advisory panel on the federal research support system.

This panel will provide independent expert policy advice on the structure, governance and management of the federal system supporting research and talent. In a rapidly evolving global science and technology landscape, this panel will advise on how the government can be more effective in fostering research excellence and support downstream innovation to support economic growth, drive breakthroughs and address complex societal changes.

[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 6:55 p.m.)