We recognize the need for an action plan. But does that mean we need a law? I'll leave that question there for now.
I'm not sure your answer has convinced me. That wouldn't prevent me from voting for a bill. The provinces and Quebec also have action plans in place. So it's about coordinating, so to speak, and sharing best practices, and that's what's going to enable us to better respond to this problem.
There is one aspect of the bill that I consider to be key, and which I stressed during our discussion with Ms. Beauchamp, who recently appeared before committee. I'm talking about research. However, it falls under federal jurisdiction.
We absolutely need to know more about brain injuries. In my opinion, research is one aspect of the national strategy that really needs to be front and centre. The more we invest in research, the more we'll know. That way, we'll be better able to reduce stigma and better understand the problems people face in general.
Furthermore, paragraph 2(2)(b) of the bill, which is part of the section outlining the national strategy, mentions that this strategy must include measures to “identify the training needs”. Given what you've just told us about collaboration—and I'll take your word for it here—I'm sure you'd be open to the moving of an amendment specifying the need to collaborate to identify training needs.
In my opinion, this would make this national strategy a little easier to swallow for those provinces that are currently struggling to provide care, because they don't have the necessary resources, which the federal government should have transferred to them.
If we want the strategy to succeed, the provinces need to be treated as partners right from the start and not feel like, suddenly, choices will be made for them by the omniscient federal government.
The success of this strategy depends on collaboration. So let's work together to identify needs, rather than determining them for the provinces. They will have things to tell the federal government, because they're the ones on the ground.
Finally, I wonder why an organization is targeted in a bill. I've rarely seen that. I'm not saying the organization is irrelevant or isn't extremely relevant, but why put its name in a bill?