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.

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

—so let me rephrase that.

Without knowing everything, I would never go into somebody's business, or go into somebody's household or home or team, and say, “This is the way it should be done. The more I watch you, the more I think you're doing it wrong.” We can always armchair-quarterback things. I'm the best at telling you how my Seattle Seahawks are going to win. And don't bring up the Super Bowl, because the wounds are still too raw from that failed attempt. That was a couple of years ago. I can armchair-quarterback like the best of them.

To Ms. Duncan, the point is this. I don't think that we, as newbies, should be coming in and arbitrarily ramming down thoughts.... I think it's something that, truthfully, to spur a discussion...but this wasn't to spur a discussion. When you're mediating, or actually going through the media with this....

They were hoping that this was going to get a favourable response from all, and that the fear from the opposition was, “Oh, they have the media onside. We can't do anything about it.” But little did they know that we can do stuff about it, and we will continue to do it for as long as it takes, so that we can find that common ground I was talking about.

Mr. Chair, we talked a little bit about leading up to the election and then getting elected. A couple of weeks after being elected, I actually managed to set foot here. I was chomping at the bit. I was ready to go. I think we put 65,000 kilometres on my truck during the campaign. I can't remember how many doors we knocked on, I think 30,000 or 70,000, and the phone calls we made were close to the same amount. But I was ready to go. I was not tired. I was ready to go on October 20. I couldn't get here fast enough.

I arrived in Ottawa with two pieces of paper: a SWOT analysis of Cariboo—Prince George, the opportunities and challenges, where I thought we could make an impact; and background on Bill C-211, on which I worked with the legislative committee to try to get it to where we are today. As I've said before, I came at it with pure intentions to work collaboratively across the floor.

I have to bring it back to where I think we've kind of gone wrong. I can only speak for myself, but I bring it back to that week of May 17, when motion six was tabled and there was elbowgate or whatever you want to call it. There was the kerfuffle around that, the apology, and the questions about intent and what have you.

I think it's really important to go back to one of the things Ms. Sahota mentioned. I highlighted it, Mr. Chair, when she mentioned it. I bring this up with all due respect. She said that if you're really going to truthfully set forth with pure intentions, you don't politicize something.

Are you kidding me? Who politicized this? If this really was a discussion paper, if you and I were going to have a discussion, if we were going to talk truthfully and have a good discussion as a group or a committee or House leaders, would I go to the media first and say, hey, by the way, here's what we're going to discuss?

How would that make you feel?

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

Nursing, okay, that's an incredibly admirable industry. I just had the nurses' association in my office today talking to me about Bill C-211 and some of the things that we're doing with that bill.

Let me get back to the other part because I don't want you to question my relevance on this. I signed on the dotted line, put my name forth, because I wanted to make a difference for those in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I think every member of Parliament wants to do that. I think we all come here with the best of intentions. I think maybe we all come here with big ideas that we're going to change the world and we're going to break the bureaucracy. I too think that the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly at times and I'm not one to sit and say, that's the way it is, that's the way it has always been.

I think the people on my fisheries committee could probably see that I'm not one who likes to say, that's just the way it has always been. I think there are efficiencies that we can find in all ways, and we can move forward in being an efficient Parliament.

One of the comments that was made earlier tonight was that if we want to keep going because we're afraid of change and it's not going to be...you know, that's the furthest from the truth. The best way to find a solution is to find a common ground.

Finding a common ground starts with—and I'm going to bring it back to the word we started with earlier—trust.

I think it was mentioned that this whole Parliament is going to be wasted because there's no consensus that's going to be able to come. That's a very authoritarian or maybe not a very realistic way of thinking. If we threw our arms up every time and stomped off because we weren't able to come to an agreement on something, that's not a real-world way of thinking, to begin with.

Mr. Chair, I'm a small business owner. I think I mentioned that before. I own a hair salon. Don't judge, I do it myself. My colleague is staring at me. Yes, I own a hair salon, but I've owned many different businesses over the course of my lifetime. I've been a small business owner from right after graduating from high school. I believe that entrepreneurship is the way to independence and to wealth. It gives one a real sense of accomplishment when they can build something from the ground up and move it forward. These are words to live by. About my hockey players, I'm going to put this out there and this is going to be very embarrassing but I think if my colleague Mr. Simms—he's not even here—can use self-deprecating humour, I can do the same. I'm a big chubby guy, I'm bald, and I wear Lulus on the plane, so it should be fairly easy to pick on me.

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

There is relevance. What I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that there are things we can do away from the House, when we're having conversations with our friends about discovering best practices, and I think they're really important. When I have a conversation with Scott or some of our other colleagues talking about how they deal with such and such an issue, there is so much that we can learn from.

One thing I don't know that we've had yet, outside the interventions of Mr. Reid, perhaps Mr. Simms, Mr. Masse, who has been on the list here—I don't know whether he has been able to speak yet.... Mr. Christopherson spoke, and I listened intently to his very animated, very long, but very well thought-out speech. There are things we can learn from those who came before us, and I think that is very important.

I'm looking around the table. Apart from Mr. Simms, Mr. Masse, Mr. Reid, and you, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether there's really much parliamentary history at this table.

The value we have collectively as Parliament is that those who came before us, that which has worked...and not deciding that we know best. I think that's what we've seen with this discussion paper. It's not really a discussion paper; I think it's actually a plan to move some things forward dressed up as a discussion paper. As much as they'd like to say it's a discussion paper, I don't think it truly is a discussion paper.

I'm going to go back to trust, Mr. Chair, because this is the reason we're here. We've seen many things over the last while. I'll tell you that I'm not here to defend things that were done before. I'm a new member of Parliament. I don't have the privilege of having been part of the last Parliament, but I can tell you what I've seen in the last while.

I'm going to go back to May 17 of last year, when things weren't moving well, or it wasn't felt that they were moving well. We saw a motion, motion six, put forward by the government. The way it was done was very heavy-handed. I really think it was at that point that things went sideways. Some would argue, probably some even in my own team, that they went sideways even long before that. I think motion six was one where the term “draconian” was used.

I'm not a parliamentary history buff, so I can't say with any certainty that this has never been done before, but I believe words were used such as that “it has never been done in parliamentary history” that motion six was levied. It was all about taking away any of the perceived powers the opposition have. What they were going to do, if the government didn't like the way things were going, was just ram it down our throats.

Essentially what we saw was a very angry Mr. Trudeau, who didn't like the way things were going, and so he was going to show us. Whatever happened—I think it was called “elbowgate”.... Anyway, there was much ado about nothing, but the point of the matter was that the government decided they were going to deliver motion six, which was going to take away any of the powers or perceived powers that the opposition had. They were going to show us that if we were not going to follow their rules, they were just arbitrarily going to deliver them and impose them on us.

Mr. Chair, I was right there when the whole whatever happened, and I was asked to speak the very next day about what I saw and about intent and what have you. I guess my comments were these: that it was not for us to describe what the intent was. How would we know the intent of the person who committed the actions at the time. I'm not a mind reader. It's not for me to explain; it really is for the person who did it to explain their intent.

I think we saw a number of things from that point forward that really have led us to question this government's integrity in some things. That's not to paint all of our members of Parliament on that side with the same brush. We have some incredible members of Parliament there.

I'll go back to this. I don't think that Ms. Chagger actually authored this paper. I think this is coming from other places, and I think the actions we're seeing out of the PMO are what is leading people to mistrust it. We're even seeing it in the media, where much was being said about our previous government. The one thing the media said, however, was that at least with Prime Minister Harper you knew where you stood.

Forgive me, I can't remember the exact quote, but it was the one thing that remains true: “the Liberals are not to be trusted”. Those are not my words, Mr. Chair; that comment is from the media, which for the most part have been very kind to the government. It could be argued that they are very, very kind.

Even the people in the media, who have in the past while been very favourable, are asking what is going on. They're even questioning this as well, so it's not just the opposition. I would think that probably the majority of Canadians don't even know what we're debating, but the media are actually taking notice of some of the things that are going on.

One of the news clippings I have says that Mr. Trudeau's legacy will be that of arrogance. It speaks to the other point that I wanted to cover. What we're seeing, in terms of this discussion paper, of motion six, and of some of the actions that we see every day, is that there is a real contempt for the House and the opposition. There isn't respect.

I can't say how things were when I wasn't here—I think that will be spoken to as we move forward—so I hope you don't fault me on that. I will be the first person to stand up and say, when we were wrong, that we were wrong. I think that's very important. What we've seen out of at least the PMO, however, is that there's a real contempt for the opposition. Whether it's motion six or this discussion paper, Mr. Chair, “This is how it's going to be.”

I guarantee that this is more or less the way it was discussed: “Listen, we know that the media are on our side—they love us—so what we're going to do....”

This is probably the way the workings went: “I know what we're going to do.” They had all the people huddled together and they said, “Listen, we're going to get their goat. How about this? We're going to call a presser, and because we're all about reforming things and getting things better, we're going to issue this paper. We're going to get the public on side with this, and then the opposition is not going to have any say, because we're just going to kind of ram it through.”

It fell short, it backfired, for the first time, because the media are not as silly as we think they are; they're very smart and learned people. They can see straight through this. I think that this is the kind of backlash we're seeing. It speaks to the overall theme in the House, which then leaks into these discussions in the committee.

You know, Mr. Chair, if you and I were riding on a bus, and you told me that the sky was blue and it looked as if we were going to get showers later in the afternoon, I'd believe you.

If all of a sudden we come through the doors and you tell me that the sky is blue, I'm automatically going to say that, no, it's black. We don't have that trust. We've broken that trust. Somehow, whatever it is, we've broken that trust. I'm going to tell you this, Mr. Chair, with complete sincerity. People are probably going to laugh at this. I'm very proud to be a member of the Conservative caucus, but I'm probably one of the most non-partisan people you'll see when we're away from this House.

See, I told you people would laugh.

When I was elected by the good people of Cariboo—Prince George, what an incredible honour that was. Some people even brought up to me why they didn't vote for me, but I told them it was okay. Whether they voted for me or not, I represent the entire riding. Whether they vote for Liberal, the NDP—shame—or the others, I represent all people. I represent everyone. The media was saying, wow, the national result wasn't what you.... How's it going to be? What are you going to do? Now you're going to be in opposition; oh, heaven forbid.

While I was disappointed at the national result, I was looking forward because I think, if you talk to anybody I worked with in the past, you'd see that the best work we do is when we can find a common ground—whether it's in aviation or other areas. It's not about winning or losing. I think in a healthy relationship—I've been married for a long time—there's a give and take, and we have to recognize that.

The government has a job to do. Opposition has a job to do as well. I came here bright-eyed, very altruistic, and I said I'm going to do everything in my power to build those bridges, to work collaboratively. I had the background for my bill C-211 already built. I knew what I needed to do. I was disappointed, but I saw this as an opportunity.

I think a lot of our new colleagues were the same. We brought energy, and we all said the same thing, probably like that puppy dog. That's the great thing about puppies and dogs. Somebody said you could lock them in the back of your truck for an hour and then when you come back, they're still wagging their tails, happy to see you. I have a great black Lab that I don't get to see as much as I would love to, but that's my choice. I tell you this, Mr. Chair: every time I arrive back, it's as if he knows when I'm coming in. They probably wind him up for me just before I get in. He is so happy to see me, and he's raring to go.

It's probably how we were. The senior members of our caucuses probably saw us as being these bright-eyed and puppy-dog type of people. We were very eager to try to make new friends, even though it was across party lines.

Let me tell you this. I don't think we would be able to do what we've done with my Bill C-211 if we didn't have the kind of attitude that we would work very closely with others from across the floor. We've seen other government members who had private members' bills that have moved forward. The member from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Mr. McKinnon, I believe put forward a great bill. I think that sends hope to Canadians that we are able to work together.

My point, going back to it, is that I've become a little bit frustrated. If I can say it, I think the Prime Minister let me down, and let us down, with his actions that day, May 17 last year, and the subsequent actions that went forward. I expected better. I think Canadians expected better. I think, indeed, that those in your own government, in your own caucus, although they might not say anything publicly, would privately say they expected better.

Indeed, I've had conversations with members from all parties. Privately I think they were very forthcoming with some of their comments about some of the promises made during the campaign that were subsequently broken once you got into office. I remember one member actually saying, “I essentially lied, on the doorsteps, to my constituents, because I believed this was something we were actually going to do and be able to follow through on.” They bought in. I think Canadians, for the most part—as we saw, 39%—bought into the change Mr. Trudeau was putting forth.

That brings me back to another comment I wanted to make. Governing is hard. It requires a plan, but it also requires that the person delivering the plan, if there is a plan, or the person who's in charge—I think we all agree that regardless of where we are, there always should be somebody in charge—not rule with emotion. There should be principled leadership and a plan. I think Canadians also want to see that there's a plan. We haven't seen that. We've seen a lot of big things, but no real plan.

I think what we're seeing in some of the scrambly manoeuvres, the reshuffle, the new House leader, and the moving things around is that while they campaigned on having a plan, there really was no plan. Maybe even, Mr. Chair, if I can boldly pronounce.... I don't think they expected to be elected. They thought, this is what we're going to say, and we'll see if people actually buy it. When it got closer, perhaps they were like, “ Holy crap. I think we're actually going to be elected. How are we going to do this? Don't worry about it. Budgets balance themselves, right?”

We've kind of proven now that this doesn't happen. We've made some promises to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and we have done some big things, but we're spending beyond our means. I think that's the challenge. What we're seeing right now, perhaps with the PMO, is that they are scrambling. There's no plan, so they are ruling by emotion.

Again, going back to this paper. I doubt very much that Ms. Chagger actually had anything to do with it. Perhaps she was in the room when some ideas were being put out. I don't know. I'm just putting words in people's mouths. I'm just speaking from the heart. That's all I know how to do.

Let me take you back, if I can, because it does have relevance, Mr. Chair. I never debated prior to being elected. I can argue like the best of them with my wife. I always lose, which is okay. I always lose with my kids as well.

We had a debate. I thought I was very prepared. I had every document on every issue that was going to come up, and I was very prepared. I was ready to go, kind of like right here. We got to the venue where the debate was, and no papers were allowed. You were not allowed to have any supporting documents with you. You were on your own.

I'm not ashamed to say that I bombed miserably. As a matter of fact, the next day I was waiting for feedback—this was one of the biggest debates—from my campaign, and I knew the feedback already. As I said earlier, I'm my worst critic, so I was waiting for it. I was waiting for the feedback to say, “This where you went wrong; this is what you should have said”, all this stuff. It never came. The next day, as you and others here are probably aware, Mr. Chair, from your own ridings, we had debates. Every riding had tons of debates. The very next day I had three debates from one end of my riding to the next. I needed the feedback. I wanted to know where I went wrong.

My campaign manager, who I had been feverishly texting, never got back to me. He finally got back to me on October 9, 2015, which happened to be my birthday, at about one o'clock. It was just before I was about to leave for the third debate that day, and he came in with a sticky note and he slammed this on the desk. That's it, and he turned and walked away. That sticky note said, “Speak from the heart because if you speak from the heart you can never go wrong.”

I think others from the other side have mentioned a few times that it's important we don't get caught up in “he said, she said” and “winning versus losing.” We have to speak from the heart. All I know how to do is just tell them how it is. Whether we like it or not, that's how we do it in the Cariboo.

You know, the Cariboo is a great place. It is unbelievable. I'm very proud to be from the Cariboo. Mr. Chair, it is a place where we look you in the eye, we ask you how you're doing, and we mean it. We say, “Bless you” when you sneeze. We say, “Gesundheit”. We open doors for people. I have some incredible constituents. I worked a lifetime overseas, as I mentioned earlier, representing my region all over the world. I got a little feisty when we would be in a boardroom somewhere across the country, and somebody would ask where I was from, and I told them, and they kind of wrinkled their nose asking, “How is that working out for you?” I'll tell you, we have salt of the earth people. We have hard-working pioneer folks in the Cariboo.

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

Better is always possible. It is not on all of Parliament to be better and to make things different, it is on us. I say that because of the comment that was made that if we don't modernize, we're not going to see more reasonable people such as Ms. Sahota or we're never going to break that glass ceiling.

I always want to look for role models for my three daughters. I know I've mentioned this already, but I have three incredibly strong, very strong-willed daughters, and I always look for positive role models. I want them to be leaders. To me, it doesn't necessarily have to be a female role model; it has to be leadership role models. I don't want to make things easier for them; I want them to earn what they do. What we should be doing is creating the environment in which they can be successful.

I'll bring this back to one of my daughters, since we're going down this path. I have an adult daughter who is challenged. Her name is Kaitlyn. We have never treated her any differently. We have never made excuses for her. She doesn't know she is any different. She still has the same expectations as all our kids. She has to do the chores, grudgingly, as all my kids do. She has to do the things she needs to do to be successful. She goes out to work and she is one of the best employees. Let me tell you, every day I am so proud of her. She will live with us for the rest of her life. She gets up and trudges through the snow or she gets a ride from us or takes the bus, but she is punctual. She has done some incredible things. She could be sitting here today and you would never know that there is a disability there. She is smart as a whip in terms of working on a computer and the things she can do, but the issue is that there are things she will never be able to do. We know this. It took a long time for us, as parents, to come to terms with that.

My oldest daughter, my first born, may not ever get married, may not ever have kids. Our challenge was this—and I get teared up with this. As parents, it's not our job to make lives easier for our kids, but it's our job to teach them the ways to be successful. It's our job to guard them against people who are trying to bring them down and attack them and do those things.

I use that as a preface to this point where we talk about the gender balance and breaking that glass ceiling. I sometimes take offence at that. It's not because I don't believe we need to do everything in our power to make sure we have strong women, more women in politics. I'm going to give you the same answer I gave when I was asked at the time: there are strong women who are out there who would make incredible members of Parliament. I'm surrounded by them. We have women MPs in this House who are incredible people. My colleagues who are right here; I'm continually amazed at our members of Parliament, our female members of Parliament who have broken that glass ceiling, Mr. Chair, without the need of being propped up.

I don't want any of my kids or anybody else's kids to say they were given a pass to get into this. We have some incredible people on all sides who are strong fighters. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, because I've gone down the path here where.... I wanted to make a comment on this because Ms. Sahota said that if we don't change this, if we don't modernize this, we're not going to see more reasonable people come through those doors, and we're never going to break the glass ceiling.

I think there are other things we can do rather than take away debate or ram things down under the guise of modernizing. If that's truly what their idea is, then perhaps they should have said something, because I don't believe that was actually mentioned in the discussion paper, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

The other comment that was made was that the discussion paper was to ensure that every member's role was important. Mr. Chair, I would hazard that every member's role is already important. It's important that we keep the voice of our electors who chose us to come to Parliament and be that voice, not Ottawa's voice in our riding but the other way around.

She mentioned also that we don't want to see things change. I think that's wrong. Again, that's an incorrect statement. It's not that we don't want to see things change. I think, as my colleague mentioned earlier, it's not about not wanting to see things change.

An alternate fact that's thrown out there is that the Conservatives or the NDP members are afraid of change and that we are putting up the guard because we don't want to see anything change. That is not the truth, Mr. Chair. The reality is that there are things that should be done, but negotiations or discussions should be a two-way street.

I always bring this back to dealing with my kids or dealing with hockey players, because I'm a coach as well. I've coached sports for ever and a day. If I told my kids that they couldn't do something, they would skirt the issue and go to their mom to see if they could get something done that way. There is that trust issue there. We always told our kids that no means no. My wife and I have to be a team on this.

The reality of how we got here today is that the government members decided they were going to put forth a discussion paper. They didn't put it forth to the opposition for a true discussion. They tabled it through the media, “Let's have a discussion through the media.” There was no respect in that. Respect is earned; it's not just given. If it were truly a discussion paper, it wouldn't have been done through a presser and then, three hours later, through a motion put forth at a committee to review this.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure you can understand how that would get things up in arms and make us have a bit of mistrust, but it goes a little further back. Let's talk about how we can diminish trust. I'll go back to the conversation we had that night. Mr. Badawey said, “How come we can't just have this discussion?” It was a great question.

I think I answered with two things. Number one was trust. We can't trust that what is being said is going to actually be followed through and that we will actually have a discussion. Again, you shouldn't have to negotiate or discuss through the media. I think that was one of the things that were brought up. This all started with the presser and with issuing it through the committee. Another comment that was made was that it's all about winning and losing. I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. I think where we're at today is that we are all fighting for the voices of our electors.

It was also mentioned that we have gotten nothing done in the three weeks. Mr. Chair, to our colleagues on the committee and those who are sitting in, I would say that we have done quite a bit. We have defended democracy. We have stood up for changes. We have done exactly what those who elected us have asked us to do—to defend their voices, to make sure their voices aren't silenced. I think it's so important, as we move forward, to remember what got us here today. It was trust.

I went away, Mr. Chair, and I looked at how we got to this point. I was doing some research, if you will. There are so many different ways to diminish trust.

We all know that lying is probably the number one behaviour that diminishes trust. It also tops the list of what people say when they think that trust has been betrayed. There are things we can do, however, that do not involve lying; we don't need to deceive or manipulate to diminish trust, but can do it with simple, ordinary, everyday behaviours. I think it's important that we recognize that every government, every member of Parliament, every person wants to be perceived as trustworthy. I think again, to address Ms. Sahota's comments, that we all want to be able to work back and forth in a trusting environment. We want to operate with trust, such that if the government says they're going to do something, we can trust they're going to do it; yet we've seen that it hasn't happened on other occasions.

Often, we are blind to the impact of our own actions; we operate with an impaired self-awareness, if you will. We can diminish trust without even knowing it, if we blatantly believe that we know best.

I want to go back to the comment that was made earlier on about this discussion paper. Following media reports on the discussion paper that was tabled, the House leader said the more time she spends in this House, the more she feels its need for modernization. Well, I'm going to go back to my earliest comment; that far be it from a newbie who has spent 18 months in the House....

I don't know whether you've seen it or not, but often, even when it's not my House duty, I sit in and listen to the debates. I do truthfully want to hear all sides of the debate. I have suggestions. I think there are things we can do better, but I'm not quite sure that the term for them would be “modernizing”. I would not be so bold as to author a paper. I'm not quite sure that.... While she takes credit for authoring this paper, I would be interested to know that, for somebody...unless she has studied parliamentary procedure in a.... I'm sitting here not knowing what her background is, but I'm not quite sure that she studied parliamentary procedure in her former life. Perhaps this is something she may have had just sitting in the wings, so that at the time she was elected she could come in and—hallelujah—modernize Parliament.

It baffles me. She has a pretty weighty role, being a House leader, to have actually had time to author something like this. I know my schedule, in terms of the committees I sit on and the issues we deal with, and with our constituents. I've done some pretty incredible things, I would think, as a new member of Parliament. I have tabled four private members' bills, one through very collaborative efforts and with all-party support.

I'm very happy to see that my Bill C-211 was voted on at second reading and passed unanimously. I think we sent a strong message to our brave men and women who put uniforms on every day to serve our country and our communities and who are suffering from PTSD or mental heath injuries. I would challenge the government that it's been three weeks now since we all voted unanimously, and we need to get it to committee so that we can move this project forward, because we've done nothing, with the exception of actually creating more hope.

My point is this: that while there might be some good things in this paper—and far be it from me to pick at some of this stuff, and I'm not going to call her a liar, Mr. Chair, and far be it from me to say that—I can't honestly believe that these are actually her words that she has put onto paper here.

On that note, I do appreciate Mr. Simms' comments in the House last week or the week before where he talked about the time lag in seeing this. He admitted that he actually saw it beforehand. We've done a lot of work with Mr. Simms on our fisheries committee. He is chair of our fisheries committee, and I enjoy him and his self-deprecating humour.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in this debate. I would be remiss if I or any of our colleagues did not recognize that we lost one of our brave men and soldiers. Yesterday Master Corporal Alfred Barr, who was a member of the 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron based in Winnipeg, died in an accident. On behalf of my friends and family, our heartfelt thoughts and condolences go to Master Corporal Barr's family, his friends, and his colleagues. I thank him his service.

We are here to talk about a serious issue today. Once again, we see the Liberal government shortchange our men and women in uniform by rolling back their tax benefits. The text of the motion before us today reads:

That the House call on the government to show support and appreciation for the brave men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces by reversing its decision to take away from the soldiers fighting against ISIS the tax benefit which provides them with $1,500 to $1,800 per month for the hardship and risk associated with their deployment, and to retroactively provide the payment to members stationed at Camp Arifjan whose tax relief was cancelled as of September 1, 2016.

We are taking away money and tax relief to these brave men and women who are serving us, who answer the call without hesitation when the world calls.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I have been listening to and following along with the debate throughout the day. I am heartened to hear that the government will support the motion. I hope that by the end of the day, the Liberals will support the motion in whole and work toward retroactively ensuring that those brave men and women who are there and who had this benefit taken away from them in September will have them reapplied.

However, I am going to stay the course with my speech. Until this motion is passed, it is important that we get on record exactly what we are talking about today.

On September 1, 2016, the Liberal government ended the tax relief measures provided to 15 Canadian troops stationed at the Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. For 300 Canadian soldiers also stationed in Kuwait under Operation Impact, their benefits remained unchanged.

However, in January of this year, the departmental hardship and risk committee announced to the troops in its December 2016 quarterly meeting that all tax relief measures to CAF members deployed to Kuwait under Operation Impact would be cancelled. A bureaucratic change, a stroke of a pen, was going to impact brave men and women who put their uniforms on to serve our country so our flag could stand tall and we could remain free and indeed promote Canadian values abroad. They are facing financial hardship.

The good news is that the change will not take effect until June 1, 2017, allowing time for members and their families to adjust to this decision. How kind of the Liberals. Instead of taking time to reflect on this choice, the Liberals came up with an equally appalling solution. Instead of restoring the benefits that our troops at Camp Arifjan deserved, they decided to revoke the benefit for all our troops that were battling ISIS. I understand, through the debate, that the Liberals are reconsidering and re-examining this, but I would challenge them to agree to our motion and keep this benefit in place.

The arrogance of the Liberal government is unprecedented. The Liberals are rolling back the tax relief for our men and women who protect our Canadian values, those men and women who ensure Canada remains “The True North, strong and free”. These men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces volunteer to leave their families as they travel abroad to perform dangerous work and put themselves at risk in the service of our country. They miss important milestones such as birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, births, and deaths.

Instead of providing compensation that is a drop in the bucket for the tax-and-spend Liberals, they are choosing to take away from those who voluntarily sacrifice their lives. Instead of thanking our troops, they are telling our troops that are deployed to foreign third world countries that they are not in enough danger to justify $1,500 or $1,800 a month in additional finances.

I would like to use statistics because they tell the real story. Here is one for the House. During the last break week, from February 24 to March 5, Liberal MPs travelled throughout Canada on taxpayers' dollars spreading fluff and flowers all across the way and announcing 188 loans, grants, contributions, and government contract awards worth a combined $1.25 billion. I will repeat that for the record, $1.25 billion. Now they are going to trumpet it and say that they are spending dollars and they just announced another $650 million to be spent abroad, when indeed those who are in harm's way here at home and those who are most vulnerable and those who are wearing the maple leaf on their shoulders and protecting and promoting the maple leaf and all of our Canadian values abroad are being told that they are going to receive a pay cut. It is shameful.

The Prime Minister felt it necessary to cut the tax benefits of our military. This is simply unacceptable. The Liberals have known for months now that the Canadian troops who are deployed in the fight against ISIS have not been adequately compensated for the hardships and risks associated with their deployment and yet the decision was still made to cut this financial aid while the troops had already agreed to deploy. In cutting this benefit, the Liberals have cheated our troops and their families out of hard-earned money that they expected and counted on, and most of all, that they deserve.

I was not a part of the last government or the one before that, but all I have heard today and in recent months is that whenever the Liberals have to justify some of the things they are doing, they always like to say that Prime Minister Harper and his government started it and the Liberals are simply following through. They like to point fingers. It is a smokescreen and it is unacceptable. Liberals knew about this. If they believed the words coming out of their mouths, they would stand up for those who are putting their lives in danger for our country and our communities, but I guess it is acceptable to treat our heroes the way the Liberals are treating them.

Last night, something remarkable happened. The House stood in unanimous support of my bill, Bill C-211, and collectively we sent the message that we in the chamber value the brave men and women who serve our country and our communities. Collectively we have provided hope and I look forward to working with all colleagues to ensure Bill C-211 is strengthened where necessary and passed as quickly as possible, because with every minute, every hour, every day wasted, we are losing lives.

Over the course of the preparation for Bill C-211, I heard tragic stories from the men and women who have served our country proudly. Their stories were deeply personal and will sit with me for the rest of my life. I also had the honour of meeting with surviving friends and families of those who we lost in combat and those we lost here at home because we failed to live up to our responsibility in ensuring our soldiers are whole, that they are healthy, that they have every opportunity to integrate back into our communities and to provide for their families. I am going to say again that they are not healthy. There is tremendous stress placed upon our soldiers and their families when they are deployed, emotional, physical, and financial stress. We need to ensure that we provide every tool possible for our soldiers to be successful in their mission abroad and their mission here at home.

Taking away this tax credit from Canadians who have answered the world's call and are serving our country without hesitation is shameful. It flies against what we all stood together for here last night and against the message that this chamber delivered to all of the Canadians who were tuning in and to members of our armed forces, our brave men and women who put the uniform on every day to serve all of us and our families.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who has been such a good support for me and who has led me to understand so much at the national defence committee, on which I participate with him. It has been an honour to represent the people of my riding of North Island—Powell River in this important work.

I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the dedication of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to the Armed Forces, and I thank him for tabling this important motion. The New Democratic Party is proud to support it, as am I.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to the government's decision to take away from soldiers fighting against ISIS the tax benefit that provides them with $1,500 to $1,800 per month for the hardships and risks associated with their deployment.

I cannot express how deeply I respect the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that in my own family, with several members participating in different levels of the military, it is something we hold close in our hearts, as we know it is our family and families across Canada who send their family members to represent Canada in the Armed Forces. We can never underestimate what a sacrifice that is, not only for our men and women in uniform but for the men and women who support them.

It is an honour to represent 19 Wing Comox, and it is also deeply humbling. It is the backbone of the community. It is a reminder every day of the protection we enjoy. It is also a reminder of the duty these brave men and women bring to the fabric of our country. It is a reminder of the miracles achieved, even with the constant struggles of underfunding and lack of proper equipment. I deeply admire the tremendous efficiency of the military. It is also a reminder of the close-knit families and the bond that makes Comox so beautiful. It is also a reminder of all of those we have lost.

I have had the chance to forge a relationship with the wing commander in our community. I deeply appreciate the patience and understanding, as I have been taught so much about what happens in our riding and the impact it has on our community.

The battle against ISIS is about intelligence on the ground. I am so proud of the air crews from 19 Wing Comox who are directly involved in Operation Impact, which is Canada's military contribution to the Middle East stabilization force. We are talking about the 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron, which is an integral part of 19 Wing Comox.

With CP-140 Aurora aircraft, our fighting chances are much stronger against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the Republic of Iraq. The CP-140 Aurora aircraft from 19 Wing will undertake important intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions as well as provide overland strike coordination and armed reconnaissance coordination that will provide critical information to the coalition forces. If required, they can provide search and rescue missions. As of March 4, 2017, Aurora aircraft have conducted 732 reconnaissance missions, and I am incredibly proud of that work.

Our priority in this House is to make sure that those who serve in the Canadian Forces have the training, equipment, and support they need to deal with the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to do on our behalf every day. Unfortunately, successive governments have failed to deliver proper funding to the Armed Forces to sustain the types of deployments to which they are assigned and to make sure they have the resources they need to fulfill their role and to keep themselves safe. This includes the government delivering on efficient procurement and on increasing major capital investments in the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

It has been a wonderful experience for me to represent my riding and the base that resides in it. I have had an incredible opportunity to tour the facilities and to meet so many people who serve us. I have been impressed by the military's flexibility, how hard the members work to make sure that Canadians are protected every day, and the pride with which they do what they do internationally. They do not give up. They make things work, regardless of how hard that may be.

It is not just about equipment. The government must also ensure adequate support services are in place for the returning troops to receive the assistance they may need. Just last night this House voted on Bill C-211 on post-traumatic stress disorder. I was very happy to see this bill move forward and have the chance to be studied in committee, so we can develop a comprehensive federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder in Canada. This is so important to supporting our men and women in uniform, and also to supporting their families that face challenges when they come home.

Recently I had the opportunity to represent Canada at a NATO update. One of the things that I came away so proud of was the incredible reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard again and again about the willingness, the flexibility, the high level of standards and training that our men and women in uniform have. It just made me feel so proud.

We know, every day, that when we stand up in the international world, we can be proud of the people who serve this country, because they have stepped up for us again and again. I think it is so important that we need to make sure we are helping save lives on the ground now by addressing the deepening humanitarian crisis unfolding in Syria and Iraq.

Canada should be a leader in alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in this conflict. Again, what we heard repeatedly is that across the world people who are in crisis trust our amazing soldiers who stand up every day. I think it is important that we look at ways to welcome refugees coming to Canada, especially when we look at the reality of the American President backing away from his country's commitment to refugees. Canada must raise its humanitarian aid to refugee camps in the region, especially in Jordan, as the refugee crisis has continued to bring the Jordanian government and society to the brink of collapse.

This mission requires clarity. I do not know if the Conservatives, while in power, were very honest about the mission from the very beginning. They misled Canadians about our soldiers being involved in the ground combat and failed to make a case for Canada's military involvement.

Now we see the current government following in those footsteps with the latest announcement on the changes to Canada's military role. When the Prime Minister made the initial announcement, he left more questions than answers regarding our role in the fight against ISIS. With increased boots on the ground at the front lines, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we now have to see what commitment Canada has made to a larger military role with no end date and no parameters to define success. It is only right that our men and women in uniform know what they are being asked to do, and know what success looks like.

With Canadian troops deployed in conflict zones, those on the front lines engaging enemy forces should receive the extra tax benefit that previous deployments have received. Canadian troops have seen armed combat in this deployment, yet the government calls this mission advise and assist. We really need to know the truth here. If Canadian troops are engaged in combat operations against Islamic State fighters, how can the government justify taking away the combat tax benefit to our deployed troops?

I just want to close by saying this. I am so proud to see that all members around this House are going to support this motion moving forward. It is so important that, when we ask our men and women in uniform to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice, and when we ask those families to let them go to other countries and face huge challenges, we need to support them in the best way and make sure those families are provided the support they need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

As the committee has probably noticed, I was rather generous in my time there. It's no reflection on you, Minister. What can I say? We're all impressed by what you were saying. Since we have a question from the Conservatives and then the NDP, I will be equally generous on these next two questions.

That said, and not to cut into your time, Mr. Doherty, but I want to start by saying congratulations on the passage of your private member's bill last night, Bill C-211, on post-traumatic stress disorder. It's not very often that these are successful, but you certainly were last evening, so congratulations on behalf of the entire committee.

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-211 under private members' business.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Yellowhead and the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook for their passionate speeches in support of Bill C-211, and indeed our first responders, military members, and veterans. I also want to thank my good colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who happened to sponsor this bill, and is a tireless champion of our first responders, veterans, and military. I also want to take a moment to pay tribute to and thank our colleague from Oakville North—Burlington. I know that this is a non-partisan issue, and she has done some incredible work championing for our first responders, veterans, and military.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge those who are with us on the Hill today, and those who are tuning in on the live stream. It is so important that this bill pass. A lot of thanks have been coming to us for bringing forth this bill, but I think all of us owe a debt of gratitude and thanks to those who are with us on the Hill, because they are the ones who really champion and stand up for us and our families moving forward and every day.

Bill C-211 seeks to establish a cohesive and coherent national framework to ensure our military, first responders, paramedics, police, veterans, and correctional officers get timely access to the resources they need to deal with PTSD. I welcome the revisions that will strengthen the intent of this bill.

I also want to caution all of us here that we should not be doing anything to weaken the intent of the bill, or allow the current or successive governments to not live up to the responsibility that is due to our first responders, veterans, and military.

The bill sends a message to our silent sentinels that this is not a battle they have to fight by themselves. It is up to all of us federal, provincial, and territorial legislators to come up with a plan to ensure no one is left behind, and that our terminology and laws are consistent across the country from the east coast to the west coast. The reality is that experiencing human tragedy affects all of us differently. These incidents and experiences cannot be erased from our memory. Most of us can never imagine what our warriors go through on a daily basis, the sights, the sounds, the smells, and the images. It affects their lives and the lives of friends and families of those who put themselves in harm's way.

We have an opportunity to give back in a small way today by ensuring that our protectors have the opportunity to receive a basic standard of treatment to deal with their post-traumatic stress disorder. A national framework would ensure that a national discussion is undertaken on this issue. To date, we have had a great discussion on mental health and mental health injuries, occupational stress injuries, OSIs, and PTSD that our first responders, veterans, and military face. It is on us to continue this discussion.

Every year, a conversation happens on best practices, on treatment options, and on how best we can help as a society. The intent of this bill is to ensure that there is always a line item in our federal books, because for far too long we have left our first responders, military, and veterans behind.

I am asking for the support of all members today to ensure that Bill C-211 makes it to third reading, so that no other person is told that he or she is being too sensitive, to suck it up, to get over it. Having a standard diagnosis of care for post-traumatic stress disorder would change lives. Having consistent care and terminology with respect to occupational stress injuries, PTSD, or even with respect to industry terms, a standard of care, diagnosis, treatment, and terminology would save lives.

Let us get this bill to committee where we can discuss and amend it. Let us strengthen it. Let us make it stronger for those who put their lives on the line for all of us.

In closing, as members from all sides of the House rise to cast their votes, I ask only that they remember those who put their lives on the line, often without thanks, to protect our Canadian values and our way of life, because freedom is not free. There is a cost to freedom, and that cost is a human cost. We can do better. Let us leave a legacy of doing better, and doing better for those who put their lives on the line for us every day.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for bringing forward Bill C-211 for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to thank my good friend, the member for Yellowhead, for the work he has done and the passion he has for our military and our first responders, and the members of the NDP and the Liberal Party who have spoken about this. It is so important.

In the closing of this debate, as we get ready to again hear from the member for Cariboo—Prince George, I want to add a few comments about some of the things we see. So many of us, as we attend our Remembrance Day ceremonies, think about the importance of those who have gone before us to help protect us. I think of my wife's cousin, Everett Moore, who came back from the Second World War. He found it impossible to survive in the normal lifetime one would have expected. The war continued for him for 50 years, until he finally died. However, he did have good care. We had opportunities to visit. However, he was unable to come back and survive with that. At that time, people called it “shell shock”.

We have had so many opportunities to speak to people who are engaged in the military, so that brings it home for me. I really do understand what they go through and how difficult it is for families when such tragedies strike home. We have seen it. I think everyone in here has examples where that has happened, whether in the military, or with first responders.

The other experience I had was with the Pine Lake tornado in early 2000. As we were in it, we realized we had to be able to assist, and I was part of that. We saw the carnage that had taken place there. It was really difficult for individuals who were not trained to manage this. However, I think back to the great work done by our first responders in central Alberta. Every year, when we have the anniversary of that terrible natural disaster, we recognize the great work they did, as well as the seriousness of the loss of life.

We all recognize this. We see disasters happen, whether they are natural disasters or those that happen around the world where our men and women in our forces have to take charge or respond to terrible evils. We see it so often. What we have heard today is a great heartfelt response and support for those men and women who put their lives on the line daily and who bring it home to their families.

It is important that we recognize more can be done and that we have to go forward.

I would like to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George. I want to thank everyone in the House for recognizing how important this is. Hopefully, we can move forward with unanimous support of Bill C-211.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, well known as PTSD.

Last Saturday, I had the privilege to attend the annual first responders appreciation dinner in my riding. Having served as an RCMP officer, this topic is very close to my heart.

Bill C-211 seeks to establish a national framework to ensure that our first responders, whether it be military, paramedics, police personnel, firefighters, emergency dispatchers, veterans, and corrections officers, get the timely access to the resources they need to deal with PTSD.

PTSD is classified as a psychiatric stress-related disorder that develops as a result of a traumatic event. PTSD can develop following direct or indirect exposure to violence, accidents, war, death, or terror attacks. PTSD experienced by first responders and military personnel is the result of years of stressful job-related calls, witnessing distressing deaths, and repeated violence.

Episodes may cause an affected person to become angry, irritable, jumpy, agitated, depressed, or frightened. Many have used alcohol and drugs and have damaged relationships because of this.

The bill, if passed, will require the Minister of Health to convene a conference with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, provincial and territorial counterparts, representatives of the medical community, and patient 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 PTSD.

Every day, thousands of men and women across Canada go to work, whether first responders, police, firefighters, or military personnel, and they willingly put their lives on the line to support and protect Canadians and their country.

Their jobs demand that they be prepared to show up to any scenario at any time, ready to face the challenges of their line of work. They treat our wounds, they protect our communities, some witness some of the worst that humanity has to offer. Then they return home to their families and try to live a normal life.

When most of us would head in the opposite direction, they are the ones who run toward danger. Their heroic efforts sometimes mean they are left to deal with the haunting images, sounds, and smells, which will stay with these men and women for life. Being a witness to human tragedy and suffering can become difficult to cope with in the days, months and years afterward.

We can look today at what is happening in B.C. Our first responders are dealing with the opioid problem and how it is affecting their jobs.

As a former RCMP officer for 35 years, I personally know what first responders go through, both emotionally and physically when they arrive at a scene.

Many years ago when I was a young air cadet, probably around the age of 12, I remember talking to a lot of different veterans on Remembrance Day, and there were a lot in those days, about their war experiences. I remember one particular gentleman from our community who drank a lot. I remember him telling me that he drank to hide the past and the horrors of war. This was probably the first time I was introduced to PTSD.

As I went through my working career as an RCMP officer, I remember in the sixties when a friend of mine came off an extended period of being undercover, where he intermixed with some pretty wild and dangerous individuals. He could not switch back to a regular life and suffered immensely, both mentally and physically. He eventually had to leave the force. This was PTSD, but we did not know what was wrong with him at the time.

I had a very good friend who I will call Mr. T. He was a lot like the guy on TV, but he suffered for many years with PTSD. He could not pull those hidden demons from within himself. As his commander, he came to me and talked about suicide. He received help and I worked with him closely over the next decade and even after we both left our careers in the RCMP. He could not get rid of the ugliness with which he had to deal.

As I am saying this, I thinking of Mr. T, as he is not here anymore. He committed suicide two years ago. I wish he had called me as I would have gone wherever he was to help.

I can think of a number of my colleagues who which I worked. A number of them drank too much, but were they doing this due to PTSD? Yes, they were. However, in all honesty, we did not know what it was. We did not know what to call it years ago.

I have to thank those members who have come forward in the last number of years, whether military, RCMP, paramedics, who were proud and strong enough to make public their problems and seek help.

It is out there among our first responders. As government we must work with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to ensure that help is there for all first responders.

Unfortunately, there is a stigma around mental health issues, including PTSD. Those who are affected hate to admitting they need need assistance is showing weakness to their peers. Instead, they keep it to themselves, hidden, silently carrying a heavy weight until they can no longer bear it.

According to statistics by TEMA, an organization that supports people with PTSD through research, education, training and peer support, 188 Canadian public safety and military personnel have died by suicide since 2014. Five first responders and four military members have died by suicide in this year alone. That is nine people in only two months.

This is absolutely heartbreaking. These brave people risk their lives to serve their communities, so where are we when they need our help? They have served us, but we have not served them. This is why we so desperately need a national framework to address this issue.

The Prime Minister has already called on his ministers to act on PTSD and make the mental health of our men and women in uniform a priority, and I thank him for that.

In the mandate letter of the Minister of Heath, she is called to “make high quality mental health services more available to Canadians who need them.”

In the mandate letter of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, he is directed to “Provide greater education, counselling, and training for families who are providing care and support to veterans living with physical and/or mental health issues as a result of their service...Work with the Minister of National Defence to develop a suicide prevention strategy for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans.”

In the the mandate letter of the Minister of Public Safety, he is directed to “Work with provinces and territories and the Minister of Health to develop a coordinated national action plan on post-traumatic stress disorder, which disproportionately affects public safety officers.”

If that is not a clear directive from the Prime Minister to support exactly what the bill seeks to achieve, I do not know what is.

This is not a Liberal issue. It is not a Conservative issue. It is not any single party's issue. This is something that crosses party lines and it should be supported by all sides of the House.

Bill C-211 is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to stand together and acknowledge the very real impact that PTSD has on the lives of our men and women in uniform. The federal government must show leadership on this issue. I urge everyone in the House to support the bill. If we do not, we fail these brave men and women.

Most important, I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his private member's bill, Bill C-211.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for not only introducing this bill but for his tireless advocacy on this issue: the mental health of our veterans, public safety officers, and first responders. I would also like to thank the many people both here in the gallery and in our communities who have been advocates on this important issue.

The member's bill calls for a federal framework for post-traumatic stress disorder. It calls on the Minister of Health to work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, along with the provinces and territories, representatives of the medical community, and patient groups, to develop a federal framework to address the challenges of recognizing the symptoms and providing timely diagnosis and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

I am very pleased that our government will be supporting this legislation, with some minor amendments. I will speak a little later about some of the concerns I personally have with the bill.

This is an issue that has actually touched this House, as we lost one of our own members to a post-traumatic stress injury. Lieutenant Colonel Sam Sharpe was first elected to the House of Commons in 1908 and re-elected in 1911 and 1917 as the member of Parliament for Ontario North. He was a sitting MP at the start of the First World War and helped raise the 116th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force and commanded the battalion during its operations on the fields of Europe. His unit was present for the assault on Vimy Ridge and fought at Avion and Passchendaele.

After suffering mental injuries on the front, what at the time was called shell shock, he was hospitalized in England and subsequently returned to Canada. Lieutenant Colonel Sharpe died by suicide on May 25, 1918. Thankfully, our armed forces have come a long way since then and now recognize that mental injuries can also occur on the battlefield.

Just a few weeks ago, I met with Syd Gravel and Brad McKay, who wrote a guide to help first responders in the creation of peer and trauma support programs, entitled Walk the Talk—First Responder Peer Support. The two former police officers commented about how far the conversation had come since they built their own peer support networks in secret in 1988.

There has been a lot of work done in many provinces across Canada, including in my province of Ontario. My colleague, the Minister of Labour for Ontario, led efforts last spring that made it easier for first responders in Ontario to get treatment, created an awareness campaign, and required first responders to have a prevention plan.

I believe that the federal government can help other provinces and territories learn about the various best practices that have been created. While stakeholders are applauding the fact that this conversation is taking place, they know that there is still a lot of work to be done. Mental health and healthy inclusive workplaces are two areas where I am hoping, and working hard, to make a difference as a member of Parliament.

With regard to the specifics of Bill C-211, I applaud the member's efforts and his genuine concern for the mental health of our military, veterans, public safety officers, and first responders.

I do have concerns about the limitations in this particular bill about the mental health of our first responders and public safety officers. The bill invites the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to a conference but leaves out the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Minister of Public Safety has already been working, along with the Minister of Health, on creating a national strategy on this issue. Early last year, the Minister of Public Safety and his former parliamentary secretary held a national round table on post-traumatic stress injuries, or PTSI, and the effect on public safety officers.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I am extremely proud of our work last fall when we tabled the report, “Healthy Minds, Safe Communities: Supporting our Public Safety Officers through a National Strategy for Operational Stress Injuries”, recognizing the need for a national strategy on operational stress injuries, not just post-traumatic stress disorder.

Any framework we develop should include policies on prevention, screening, education, intervention, and treatment. We heard from witnesses who told us that mental health injuries suffered by first responders and public safety officers on the job were far more extensive than just PTSI and included broader operational stress injuries. We heard that though many will develop PTSI, they are far more likely to suffer from depression and substance abuse. Sadly, they are more likely die by suicide.

We heard from witnesses who told us that the research and data within the military context is 15 years ahead of what is available with respect to public safety officers and that very little is known about the incidence and prevalence of OSls among public safety officers.

During our study, we heard from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, which is doing tremendous work to support our military personnel and veterans facing mental health issues.

Our committee called on the government to use our report to develop a national strategy; to create a Canadian institute for public safety officer health research, an advisory council, and an expert working group to develop policies; and to share research on prevention, screening, education, intervention, and treatment nationally. The committee also urged the government to study presumptive legislation for public safety officers, as several of our provincial cousins have.

That is why our committee recommended that PTSD be considered as falling within the broader health issue of operational stress injuries, defined as “persistent psychological difficulty resulting from operational duties performed while serving” as a public safety officer, along with other mental health problems, such as depression and substance abuse.

The committee heard from public safety officers regarding the uniqueness of their work environment and the fact that they see trauma in their own communities frequently. The officers could have connections and relationships with the people they serve.

Our committee called on the government to create a Canadian institute for public safety officer health research to “enhance the mental health and wellness of our Canadian public safety officers through evidence-based research, practices, policies and programs”.

I was pleased to read the Minister of Public Safety's response to our report, in which he said that the government recognized the need for many of our recommendations. I know that the Minister of Public Safety shares my concerns about the mental wellness of our public safety officers. After all, we need to take care of our public safety officers, because they take care of us. We have a responsibility to return our military personnel and public safety officers to their families as we received them, mentally well.

Caring for the health of our public safety officers, both mentally and physically, is not only important to their well-being but ensures that our communities are safe. RCMP, police, firefighters, corrections officers, paramedics, aboriginal firefighters, parole officers, and those who work alongside them told the committee that their members can suffer greatly from mental health illnesses because of their jobs.

I also have concerns about the terminology used in Bill C-211. Mental health issues faced by our veterans and public safety officers are much braoder than just post-traumatic stress disorder alone.

Since the public safety committee tabled our report, I have also heard from a number of nurses who have experienced operational stress inuries. One in particular stands out. An Oakville resident who had a long career as a nurse recently shared a personal story about a house fire that occurred more than 20 years ago, where a woman and her two children perished. The nurses who worked on the case faced severe psychological trauma. To those nurses, I want to recognize their injuries in this House and admit that we know very little about the impact of their jobs on their mental health, and we must do better.

I believe that a national strategy and the sharing of best practices by the federal government could benefit many employee groups who are suffering while recognizing the distinct differences in their work.

I know that the Minister of Health is aware of the effects traumatic events can have on our nurses. Recently, she wrote a letter outlining that she understands that caregivers and emergency staff who provide treatment are often dealing with difficult situations that may affect their own mental health and that there is a need to provide mental health support to our health care providers.

Finally, I believe that any conversation about this issue needs to include those stakeholders who have faced these issues, and they should be at the table as part of the discussion.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to support this bill. Bill C-211 has already raised, and will continue to raise, awareness on an important issue. Again, I applaud the hon. member on his efforts.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, for bringing forward this bill to build a national framework on an issue that is critically important to Canadians, and in turn our national safety and national fabric. These are our first responders. They are military personnel, veterans, correctional officers, and police. These are the people who protect and defend us day in and day out and care for us in our most urgent times of need. It is our duty to care for them as they grapple with post-traumatic stress disorder.

While more is understood about PTSD, or as Veterans Affairs calls it, operational stress injuries, every day, there is much more work to be done. We owe it to our first responders to do everything in our legislative power to make this happen. That is why I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on PTSD, the private member's bill brought forward by my hon. colleague.

One of the greatest privileges of being a member of Parliament is the opportunity that it affords us to interact with our veterans and military personnel. I have had the opportunity to spend time on Canadian navy vessels, HMCS Halifax and HMCS Montreal, to talk with veterans from coast to coast, and to spend time with the reservists and officers of The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I am proud to be a member of the officers' mess at John Weir Foote V.C. Armouries in my hometown of Hamilton.

Unfortunately, these brave women and men who gather at these armouries know PTSD and operational stress injuries all too well. That is because, tragically and regrettably, Corporal Justin Stark, a 22-year-old reservist with The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, took his own life in those armouries. It was October 2010, and he had returned to Canada just 10 months earlier from a deployment in Afghanistan.

Please also allow me to mention what many hon. members will know and recall, because I would be remiss in mentioning The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders without acknowledging a major tragedy that faced us. Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who was shot and killed in the attack on the National War Memorial in October of 2014, was also an Argyll. As we talk about the scourge of PTSD that plagues his former colleagues, we should always remember the courage and valour of all military personnel.

We were mindful of the tragic circumstances that led Corporal Justin Stark to such a dark place when we announced an operational stress injury clinic for downtown Hamilton in January 2015. I was pleased to join my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, then minister of Veterans Affairs, for that announcement. The clinic would serve the Hamilton and Niagara areas, as well as parts of southwestern Ontario. All of these areas were previously served by a clinic in Toronto, and this brought the resources, counselling, and therapy closer to home for many veterans and personnel. One has to imagine that when dealing with such complex issues as mental health, operational stress injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder, having these resources closer to home makes a huge difference in speedy diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and care.

This is a good and practical example of the kinds of things that Bill C-211 would help to facilitate. It would help to coordinate all of these resources at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels, and clinics such as this one that were funded by the federal government and operated by the province. Bill C-211 would set in motion a long-overdue and much-needed coordinated federal-provincial strategy, so that an inventory of such resources can be taken, gaps can be identified, and people in desperate need of help can be properly served.

Unfortunately, Corporal Stark is not an isolated example. When I chaired the veterans affairs committee, we heard expert testimony on post-traumatic stress disorder in our Canadian Armed Forces. What a tragedy that these brave women and men, who enlist to defend the freedoms we cherish and value so much as Canadians, are themselves imprisoned and thereby robbed of their own freedoms on their return from duty because of the psychological terror and devastating effects of PTSD. May this sadness move us to action.

While I have focused my examples thus far on military personnel and veterans, I know of many police officers, ambulance attendants, and firefighters in my community, the greater Hamilton area, who have been equally impacted by PTSD.

It is well known that among paramedics, the incidence of PTSD is very high. Almost a quarter will be impacted. Think about that. Almost a quarter of paramedics grapple with PTSD. These are the same people we count on in our hour of need. It is time we gave them the same priority they give us. It is time to take action as proposed by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The only group of first responders for whom the rate of PTSD is worse than it is for paramedics is correctional officers, who have an incidence rate of 24% to 26%. When we talk about that, it is easy to understand the pressures they are under. When I researched my own private member's bill in the last Parliament, I encountered many correctional officers, and I have heard gut-wrenching accounts. Beneath the statistics, these are real stories, real people, real families, and real cries for help.

We know that what is stipulated in Bill C-211 is just a first step. It would require the Minister of Health to convene a conference with stakeholders from all relevant federal departments, provincial and territorial representatives, the medical community, and patient groups. It is a sound and logical step. Developing a framework is a necessary and needed result. It would be a step forward in addressing the challenges, recognizing the symptoms, and providing timely diagnosis, thereby speeding access to treatment for PTSD.

It is a complex problem. It is not going to be solved overnight. A federal framework would only go so far, but it would bring together initiatives and legislation at the provincial level in a coordinated and national strategy. Is it not time?

To me, this is a simple decision. There is only one right answer. For the sake of the mental health of people who care for and protect and defend us every single day, I urge all members of this chamber to wholeheartedly support and vote in favour of Bill C-211.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to one of the most important bills I have had to deal with since I was elected. God bless all our first responders, and God bless Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, be read the second time and referred to a committee.