Bill C-211 (Historical)

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act

An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder

This enactment requires the Minister of Health to convene a conference with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, provincial and territorial government representatives responsible for health and representatives of the medical community and patients’ groups for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework to address the challenges of recognizing the symptoms and providing timely diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 55 of the Standing Committee on Health.

I want to thank all our witnesses for coming today. I apologize for the delay; these things happen here. I hope it doesn't inconvenience you too much, and I want to thank you for your patience. We will go later than we had planned. I hope that's all right with everybody.

Today, first we'll be studying Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder.

Our witnesses today include Dr. Anne-Marie Ugnat, executive director of the centre for surveillance and applied research in the health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Welcome.

By video conference, we have Dr. Jitender Sareen, professor of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.

As an individual, we also have Natalie Harris, advanced care paramedic in the county of Simcoe.

We'll offer you the opportunity to make a maximum of 10 minutes of opening remarks, and after that we'll go to questions.

We'll start with Dr. Ugnat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We will come back to order.

I want to make sure everybody knows that we're going to do drafting instructions for this thalidomide study. If anybody has recommendations on changes or recommendations that we want in the report, we should have them prepared for May 18. That's a week from today. We're also going to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-211 that day. We're going to have witnesses for Bill C-211 on Tuesday.

That's it, but again, if you have some thoughts on this issue, we'd sure like to have them.

Mr. Webber, I understand you have a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The clerk sent around a list of proposed witnesses this morning for Bill C-211 and needs our approval of the witness list, so that we can make sure they're invited and they get here on time.

Is the list all right with everybody, or does anybody have a question or want to make a change on it? The witnesses are all based on recommendations from the committee members. This is for meeting two on May 16.

Do we have the approval of the committee?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I thought we had agreed that we were doing one day on Bill C-211.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a bit of committee business to do.

We have some budgets to talk about for the thalidomide study. Do I have a motion to approve $4,700 for witnesses and testimony?

(Motion agreed to)

Now we have the budget for Bill C-211, respecting a framework on post-traumatic stress disorder. We've proposed $10,100 for witnesses, travel, a video conference, and working meals.

(Motion agreed to)

We want to talk about the schedule. Two meetings are locked in. That's the thalidomide meetings for next week. The clerk has just reminded me that today is the last day for witness lists for Bill C-211. I'm proposing that we do Bill C-211 on the 16th and have witnesses. Then on the 18th, we'll do clause-by-clause. With everybody's agreement, the 16th and 18th will be on Bill C-211.

We're proposing consideration of M-47 for May 30 and June 1. Is that in order for everyone?

Mr. Oliver.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Bill C-211 relates to PTSD, while the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security examines operational stress injuries, which includes PTSD, as well as anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.

Have you considered broadening the scope of the bill to include OSIs more broadly, rather than just focusing on PTSD?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks for sharing that. Do not apologize for getting emotional. I think all of us around the table here have either friends or family who put their lives on the line for us. All of us owe those individuals more than can ever be paid.

I'm so impressed with what you have done here. It is so rare that a private member's bill receives unanimous consent like this at any stage of the legislative process.

Can you take a moment and explain to those who are listening why you think Bill C-211 received support from all sides of the House?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There are many. I get emotional when we.... As I said, there's a heavy burden when you're listening to these stories. You have people you consider heroes who are pinning their hopes on what we're doing. I used to think that I handled stress very well, but I think the weight of the world has been placed on our shoulders, and that speaks volumes to the issue and the need for us to do something.

I will answer the question. I developed a challenge coin with respect to my bill. I don't know if anybody has seen it. Mr. Chair, if it's okay.... On one side it has my parliamentary crest. On the other side it has the shields of first responders and our troops.

At Christmastime we were back in our ridings, and I was walking through a lobby. As you know, our days are fairly busy. Our schedules are not ours anymore. I saw a friend of mine who is in the RCMP and whom I've known for a very long time. As I was going by, I patted him on the shoulder and said, “Thanks for everything you're doing.” I kept going, but I was drawn back. I don't know why. I went back and said, “I'm really sorry to bother you.” He was meeting with his team at that time. I said, “I don't know if you know, but I have a private member's bill with respect to PTSD. It's called Bill C-211. I have a challenge coin that I want to give you, and I just want to say thank you for everything you're doing.” Then I left and went on my way.

We went away for Christmas. When I came back, there were emails, voice mails, and messages from this gentleman. Finally I phoned him and I said, “What's up?” He said, “I just have to tell you. I don't know if you believe that things happen for a reason.” This is very altruistic, for those who are here. He said, “I want to ask you if you remember when we saw each other before Christmas.” I said, “Of course I do.” He said, “Something drew you back to see me, and you gave me your challenge coin. Nobody knows this, but I was at my darkest point. I was essentially saying goodbye. Nobody knows this. Since getting that coin, I've come out to my wife, and I've sought treatment. I want to be the face of your bill, because you are saving lives and that day you saved my life.”

You can see how emotional it is. That's just one. We had a gallery filled with people. Every day they send us the same. There are so many. We can save lives.

Sorry. I'm a big baby, but this is real. It's not made up. A simple pat....

When 284 members of Parliament stood unanimously on March 8, 56 days ago, there was a giant of a firefighter suffering from PTSD who was emotional and was crying. He said, “For the first time, I have hope.” To me, that's shocking. I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable for us as leaders within our country. We have to do better, and we have to be better.

Is there one story? There are many stories. That's one. His story.... It was released that day. His name is Kent MacNeill, staff sergeant for the RCMP. Every day, I'm inundated with the same. We have thousands of stories that are the same, whether it's a survivor or a wife, as I read earlier. It's crazy.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I really appreciate your comments.

Every government comes out with a mandate, and they choose to allocate funds and move forward with it. We know from the nature of government and from the nature of the day-to-day that sometimes we fail or we lose sight of our best intentions.

My bill came out before the mandate letters did and we moved forward with those. Bill C-211 calls for a national framework to be developed, working with our provinces, working with legislators, working with industry and academics from across our nation. There are groups that are doing some incredible work. There are provinces that have followed through with different pieces of legislation.

But as we stand today, there are still inconsistencies in what is being delivered from one end of our nation to the other. Leadership needs to be seen. This is calling for a piece of legislation so that irrespective of government, there will be a line item to ensure that the responsibility to our warriors and our front-line workers will be maintained and that as we move forward, we're moving forward in lockstep and taking care of those who serve their communities and their country.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Thank you to you and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to be here to speak with respect to Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder. I'd also like to thank all members of Parliament for their support at second reading, when all 284 MPs present voted in favour of sending Bill C-211 to this committee. I'm hoping that we can see the same show of support at third reading.

I think we've done something unique in this Parliament. We've been able to show support across all party lines for a very worthy cause, and that is getting our warriors the support they need and deserve when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder. Bill C-211 seeks to establish a cohesive and coherent national framework to ensure our military; first responders, including firefighters, paramedics, police personnel, and emergency dispatch; our veterans; and our correctional officers timely access to the resources they need to deal with PTSD and mental health injuries.

We're only just beginning to understand the term PTSD. In truth, even in the three years of working towards getting elected and tabling this legislation, the discussion has grown even louder. This is good, but it is very easy to forget that it was only 30 years ago that there was no classification and no name given to the demons we now know to be PTSD.

When I first started doing research for this bill, I was shocked to read that PTSD wasn't even officially recognized until 1980, when the American Psychiatric Association added it to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are generations of individuals who have lived this nightmare that we are only now starting to talk about publicly. There are generations of individuals who have struggled with PTSD who we have lost.

I know some of you in this room better than others, but I think we all have one thing in common, and that is, at our very core, when we chose to put our names forward, it is and it was because we hope to inspire change and to do better for future generations than had been done in the past, irrespective of party lines.

I was told from the outset that the likelihood of getting Bill C-211 passed was slim to none, that I shouldn't get my hopes up, and that, since I am an opposition member, the government would never let this pass. As I met with people first from my riding, then from all across this country, and indeed, across party lines, I began to see what I already knew. This is not a Conservative issue, it's not a Liberal issue, nor is it an NDP issue. I've heard very real stories from our brave men and women who have made sacrifices. I also heard from the families and colleagues of those who lost their fight and those who are still in the thick of this terrible disease.

Colleagues, by getting Bill C-211 to committee today, we've already beaten the odds and the naysayers. We have proven that we can put aside party politics and work together to leave a legacy, or have we? Will C-211 die at committee stage? That's the message we've received, that this is a feel-good moment, that the box has been checked off, but it now affords the excuse that there was no consensus at committee.

We've heard that before in this Parliament, haven't we? I apologize for this comment, but you have to understand that lives are at risk here. Every minute we delay or decide that we need to study something further, lives are lost. It has been 563 days since those around this table were elected. It has been 556 days since I first landed in Ottawa with the background for Bill C-211. It's been 462 days since I first tabled C-211, and 57 days since we stood together. In all that time, we have lost lives.

Mr. Chair, I offer to you that a mere one year ago, only about 800 metres from here, an RCMP member chose to end his battle mere steps from the front of Parliament. We need to be better, and I challenge all of you that we can do better. There is so much work that needs to be done. The message we have delivered to this point has been that we have heard the stories, that we believe the stories, and we will act. In doing so, we have given our warriors hope, and this, indeed, is a heavy burden to carry.

We have an opportunity before us today to get this bill through committee because as it stands, the standard of care, education, and even our terminology, be it OSI or PTSD, still varies from one province to the next.

Our government has said that PTSD is a priority and it is outlined in the mandate letters of the Ministers of Public Safety, Veterans Affairs, and Health. This is our chance to align all of our work done to date on this issue and get a line item on the federal books, so that no government, present or future, will be able to move forward without our warriors.

A national framework would ensure that every year a conversation is happening on best practices, on treatment options, and on how best we can help as a society, so that no one is left behind.

I have said this before and I'll say it again. We have received many emails, many of them full of heartbreak and tragedy as a result of careers. I'd like to take a moment, if you will, to read one that I received a little over a year ago.

“As I write this, I'm trying hard to hold back the tears. The truth is I'm unsure how I even have tears left. I've cried every day since his death and it's been over a year. I can only manage a day at a time, and even that at times is too much. I don't know what tomorrow will bring. I guess no one really does. We were only married three years and he was my one true love. He would have been 30 this year. Our son will never know his father. He will never know the incredible man he was. My husband only wanted to serve and to save. Sadly, no one could save him. It's odd how everyone gathers around you at first, then life goes on. I don't get the invites anymore. It's like other wives don't want to be reminded of this, of how this could have been them.

“Mr. Doherty, your bill is too late for my family, but I hope you will be successful. My pain endures and I'm not sure there is a fix. I will tell my son that his dad was a hero and saved lives. I believe if my husband knew of you and your efforts, it just might have given him enough hope that he would have reached out, that he would have hung on. Please keep fighting for this. For us it is too late, but you and your colleagues will save the lives of others.

“Thank you.”

Mr. Chair, this is one of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of emails, messages, and comments on social media we have received and private meetings we have held, since tabling our bill. It truly is overwhelming. We have heard the stories of those who are struggling today, those who are receiving help, and those who are left behind to somehow pick up the pieces.

We have to come up with solutions, so we don't lose another life to PTSD. I'd like to ask the committee members—and I also mentioned it in my speech at second reading—if the cost of action on the national framework for PTSD is too great for our government, be it the federal government or the provincial government, what then is the alternative? What is the cost of inaction? How many more lives are we willing to lose before government steps up to the plate? What value do we place on those who we ask to serve our country without hesitation, to answer our call without hesitation, to run into burning buildings, to run towards gunfire? When we call, they answer, any time, any place, and for any reason, with no questions asked, but have we been there for them? Have we answered their call?

These are all questions we need to be asking ourselves today, for all of those who are still fighting. When they talk to one branch of government, are they then referred to another or a different office, or a different phone number, or shuffled to the next wicket? Have we turned a blind eye and said, “It's not my problem”? For those who have a friend, family member, or loved one who has lost someone to PTSD through our inaction, are they spending their lives on hold waiting for someone to listen to them?

This is unacceptable. We must and can do better for our fellow men and women. This begins with education and a willingness to learn. It begins with the bold action of saying, “Enough is enough”, so that regardless of our party politics, we can and will finally do something about this terrible disease.

Let's stop making excuses. Let's not further delay or deny action. Those of us, around this table and in this House, can do this. It is the federal government that can set the tone and provide leadership right across our nation on this terrible disease.

This issue has been studied by other committees. We can build on their work and move this legislation forward. Only through bipartisan support and co-operation can we hope to achieve effective and viable strategies, terminology, and education to help deal with PTSD. Let's choose to give back in the one small way that we are able to by ensuring that our protectors have the opportunity to receive basic, standard care and treatment to deal with their PTSD, and by ensuring that our terminology and laws are consistent across the country, and that our heroes in the east are treated the same as our heroes in the west, because for too long, we have left our first responders, our military, and our veterans behind.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, it has been an interesting spring session. I read earlier, from the wife of a fallen officer. One line sticks out, “I don't know what tomorrow will bring. I guess no one really does”.

For those who have been following our journey, those who are in the room with us today, and those who are watching across our nation and internationally, tomorrow is just another excuse for delay. Sometimes, tomorrow is too far away. Let's not wait for tomorrow, Mr. Chair and colleagues. We can make a difference today.

I'm asking for your support to ensure that Bill C-211 moves forward in a timely manner, because it will save lives. At second reading, we proved to our community of warriors that we stood in solidarity with them. I'm telling you today that this committee and our House collectively have the power to leave an incredible legacy.

With that, I'll end. I just want to say, once again, thank you, and I appreciate and will take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Today at our health committee meeting we're going to talk about two bills, and then we're going to do a little bit of committee business at the end of the second bill.

The first issue we're going to talk about is Bill C-211, and we have as witness MP Todd Doherty, who is going to give us opening remarks on Bill C-211.

Mr. Doherty, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're going in camera to talk about witnesses for the thalidomide study, and we have to talk about Motion M-47, as well as Bill C-211 very briefly.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have passed a motion now. That meeting is cancelled, so we'll have to adjust our schedule on that.

We have to take our meeting from the 13th and we're going to move it to.... Are you proposing that it be May 4? That means our sickle cell study and Bill C-211 will be moved to May 4.

We'll move on to the next thing. We've passed around a budget for M-47 that totals $27,700. I need a motion to support that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I think I'm trying to keep it fairly structured.

Our colleague Mr. Ouellette asked me to mention my bills that I came to the House with. As I said, I took the nomination back in 2014. I had the year to work to getting elected. I arrived in the House two weeks after being elected. I had the framework for Bill C-211, but I also had a framework or some ideas for three other bills I wanted to do.

One was with respect to a national appreciation day for first responders. The other one was a bill that dealt with prolific offenders and their release, making sure that it wasn't just up to a judge to decide whether the community or the victims were notified upon their release, that it was mandatory that if high-profile offenders, schedule III, were being released, we didn't rely on the whim and whimsy of a judge to decide: it would actually be mandated.

The other one was to deal with the Canada Evidence Act and a standardized date format with respect to evidence. Mr. Chair, let's say you were pulled over. Maybe there was something in your car that was untoward or what have you and it was entered into evidence. If the well-meaning RCMP officer or police officer at the time entered it into evidence as “010103”, what date is that? Is it January 1, 2003, or is it March 1, 2001? There's an issue. That was another one of the bills.

Then, of course, there's Bill C-211 that I entered and that we are moving forward with.

I hope that satisfied—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

How do we diminish trust? That was a question that was brought up last week. A number of different things were done that have diminished the trust. It goes back to my comment that I and others arrived here with the best of intentions. We weren't jaded when we got here. We're not jaded now, but trust has been broken.

This goes to the point where I said that you bypass all the people there. You choose to email, text message, or delegate the delivery of a difficult message to others. Whether Ms. Chagger wrote this or not, I think it came from the PMO and was delivered to her to delegate that message. I think that's a big one. You tell half truths, use spin, avoidance, weasel words, and communication not grounded in integrity, forthrightness, and honesty. That impacts trust.

That's where we sit today. When one side is deliberately opaque or evasive and uses evasive communications, it offers a different kind of transparency. Now, there's a word we've heard quite a bit over the last 18 months. This government was going to have a new, open, and transparent way of governing. Perhaps as things have gone on, they've had the best intentions that this was going to be the way, but maybe there wasn't a plan on how they were going to deliver that, so they're making it up as they go. As a government, we have a very effective opposition, one of the strongest we've seen in a long time. Maybe what we're seeing on the other side is scrambling because we have been so effective in what we're doing. Ms. Duncan is nodding her head. I think that's perhaps...or maybe that's....

At any rate, here's another way you diminish trust, Mr. Chair. You over-promise and under-deliver. Some call it hype. Others reference it by saying, “all hat, no cattle”. That's a saying we use back in the Cariboo. The yield is the same, that if you don't take your own words seriously, why should anyone else trust them? That's what we've found over the course of the last while.

Again, budget 2017 was tabled....

You're going to ask me why I'm saying this, Mr. Chair, and getting to the point of asking if this is relevant, really, to what I'm saying. It absolutely is, Mr. Chair. For the reason as to why it's relevant, I'm going to go back to why, in my opinion, this paper was tabled at the time.

What happened the very next day? The budget was tabled. The government knew that things were weak in that area, that it probably wasn't going to be the flash-bang, whiz-bang budget they were looking at. They needed a diversion, a smokescreen if you will: whiz-bang. It was a diversionary tactic.

I would offer this up, Mr. Chair. Again, I don't know whether this is true or not. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? That's above my pay grade. But I would think that the diversionary tactic of tabling this paper is taking away the discussion about the budget, and how it maybe fell down in areas. What are we talking about instead? We're not talking about how softwood and forestry companies weren't mentioned, not even once, or a plan to get a softwood lumber deal, which is so important to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether you've heard me speak in the House about this. There's relevance here. Over 140 communities in the province of British Columbia are dependent on forestry. These communities were waiting for budget 2017 to come out in order to see what the plan was to hopefully get either some relief—I don't know what that looks like—or get a deal done. They never saw that.

I know you're leaning into the mike about relevance, but trust me, it's all structured.

The reason this paper was tabled was to really steer away from what the budget was or was not going to do for Canadians. For the last three weeks, this has really monopolized a lot of the discussion in the House, and here in this committee.

I'll go back to the document that I built here. It's interesting, because as we talk about trust and perhaps why it was broken, we play the blame game. We've seen that a lot. I don't know if that was done in previous governments, or what have you. It's, “Well, this government did this, and Conservatives did that, so we're going to continue doing it this way”, or “We're not as bad as those guys; the reason we're not getting something done is because these guys left it behind.”

I offer this: if you truly had a plan to govern, you wouldn't need to play the blame game. You wouldn't need to play that game. There is a time when you need to lead, but there's a time when you have to build consensus. True leaders build consensus. They're really consensus builders.

Think back to some of the best leaders you've ever had, the best coaches you've ever had. I don't know whether you've played sports at all, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned, I coached for a long time. There are times when you have to lead, but you have to have a plan on what the goal is, on how you're going to move forward. Then you have to build that consensus as you move forward.

To go back to what I said earlier on, the Standing Orders are the rules of the game. You can't just arbitrarily change the rules of the game because you don't like what's going on. It's not for you to do that, to arbitrarily change the rules, take away the voice of Canadians, silence the opposition, because you don't like that the opposition is actually holding your feet to the fire, and actually standing up for the electors. Fundamentally, it's wrong. That's why you're seeing our backs up against the wall.

Mr. Chair, I don't know how many hours you've sat in that chair over the last while, but when you look to point blame.... I don't think we should have blame anyway, but there's been a lot of blame shuffled our way. We're here doing our job, and that's being the voice of the electors. If I take you back to O’Brien and Bosc, our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it brings you right back to what it is we're talking about.

I mentioned freedom of speech. It's not about our being able to stand up and say the things we want. It's about being the voice of our constituents. We are fighting for our voices and for our constituents' voices. I think that it's interesting when you have leadership in the House from the government standing up and saying that we could be getting on and doing better things and more productive things. I'll tell you this. My electors, my constituents, expect me to be a strong voice, to fight for their voices here in Ottawa, and to make sure that in no way are those voices silenced or lessened—and that is what we're seeing with this discussion paper.

I've gone on a bit about how we build trust and how we've diminished trust, how that happens. I want to talk about how trust flourishes. I think it's important that leaders who build trust operate with three trust basics: they give trust first; they communicate effectively; and they authentically show up. Isn't that amazing? They authentically show up. I think that's important, because it goes back to my comment about contempt for the House.

Again, I can only speak from what I know. Sometimes it feels to the opposition that QP—or, as Ms. Duncan would like to call it, AP, answer period—is almost like an inconvenience for our Prime Minister to be there, and perhaps for some of his ministers. They have better things to do, rather than be held accountable to the people, which, again, is what we were elected to do.

It's very interesting. I'll go back to the comment that they authentically show up. Leaders who build trust operate with three basic trust elements: they give trust first; they communicate effectively; and they authentically show up. If we are truthfully going to have a conversation and be relevant, here's a novel idea, Mr. Chair. If we are going to modernize the House, how about our Prime Minister showing up and being truly engaged? That's a novel idea. How about our ministers showing up? I'm not going to say “all” ministers, because I think there are some ministers who, as I said earlier, actually answer some great questions. They don't need speaking points to actually answer; they know their files pretty well. But if we are to be better, let's have true engagement. Let's not look at it like they're bored, like we're beneath them. I'll remind them through this, and through you, Mr. Chair, that they were once in our position. Again, going back, I've seen some comments from those who were in opposition previously, and some were pretty good hecklers, too, if I do say so myself. How soon we forget what it's like to be on the other side.

Second, effective leaders understand workplace trust that thrives and creates these pockets of excellence. It goes beyond the basics. Here is another way we can make trust flourish in this area: we become really good at what we do. I always said to my team, when I was in aviation or when I was coaching, “Look, if you're a goal scorer, be the best goal scorer you are. If you're a fighter, heaven forbid, do what makes you famous, but be the best at what you're doing.” My thing is this. Whatever file I'm on, whether it's the fisheries file or our work with PTSD, which my Bill C-211 is about, I want to become an expert on what I'm doing. This is the greatest compliment I can get.

To give you an example, I'm overseas and I'm meeting with FedEx. I'm sitting there with FedEx VPs across the way from me. I'm a lowly Canadian aviation executive, and I'm having the conversation with FedEx.

Mr. Chair, regardless of what is being said across the way, I'm having a conversation with you. If they choose to listen to it or not, it doesn't matter.

The greatest compliment I had was that I knew their industry. I knew their business. I knew FedEx inside and out. I think that's incumbent on us, as members of Parliament, to be the best members of Parliament we can. Be interested, be relevant, become the experts, and be good at what you're going to do.

To go back to the comment I made earlier on, about sometimes our Prime Minister seeming disinterested, I don't know whether that's true or not. I really don't. I've had some constituents who have been here and who have wanted to meet him. He's been gracious. He's actually met with them, or taken a picture with them or what have you. Honestly, he is.... I'll give compliments where compliments are due.

As I mentioned, just being a kid from the Cariboo, I'm not one to follow procedure. I don't know the politically correct thing to say or do. I had my mayor from Prince George here. I'm very proud of our communities and I'm proud to show them off. It was funny, because I said that it wasn't so much I wanted them to meet the Prime Minister, I wanted the Prime Minister to meet my mayor. That's really what it was.

So I knocked on the door. Like, who am I to barge past the security? They asked me what I was doing. I told them I was a member of Parliament—“Don't you see the ring?”, that type of thing—and talked about privilege and what have you. To the Prime Minister's credit, he took 10 minutes out of his busy schedule and he actually met with my mayor.

I don't know whether he's disinterested. I don't know whether he is...if this is above him or not, but that's the look that we get on his face.