Mr. Chair, I'm going to try to be as brief as I can with respect to Mr. Naqvi's amendment. I'm going to substitute the word “may” for what the bill has. Instead of saying, “The strategy must include measures designed to”, it will say, “The strategy may include measures designed to”:
(a) promote the implementation of preventive measures to reduce the risk of brain injuries;
It's that it “may”. It's not yes or no but “may”. It “may”:
(b) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention
It “may”:
(c) promote research and improve data collection
It “may”:
(d) promote information and knowledge sharing
It “may”:
(e) create national guidelines on the prevention
It “may”:
(f) promote awareness and education
It “may”:
(g) foster collaboration with and provide financial support to national, provincial and local brain injury associations
It “may”:
(h) encourage consultation
Mr. Naqvi's comments and arguments were that the word “must” will limit consultation. The Liberals are simply trying to get out of the responsibilities of what this bill is designed to do and what the original intent is.
I'll go down further. It says that it “may”:
(i) identify challenges resulting from brain injury
and “may”:
(j) maintain, in collaboration with Brain Injury Canada
It “may”:
(k) establish a task force to include policy makers [and] stakeholders
This is a common-sense bill. The strategy must include these areas and these suggestions here. It's not a “may” or “maybe”. It's a “must”. That is the reason we do not have a national strategy on brain injuries. If we are not going to take a stand now, why are we doing this?
I encourage our Liberal colleagues across the way to vote this amendment down. There are no grey areas. Either it “must” or it won't. “May” gives the government the ability to skirt its responsibility.
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I'll be voting no on this amendment.