Debates of June 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place today to speak to the Conservative opposition day motion introduced in the House, which calls for the following:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days [although I understand an amendment has been made] of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control:

The motion goes on to detail the nature of the documents and the process for obtaining them and ultimately the submission of these documents to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for “its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament.”

Before I go any further, I will note I am splitting my time with my colleague, the MP for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Earlier this week, the Auditor General of Canada tabled three damning reports in the House of Commons, including “Report 6—Sustainable Development Technology Canada.” Under the scandal-ridden Liberal government, the SDTC has become plagued by conflicts of interest as the corrupt nature of the government has taken hold of this organization.

Let us take a look at the “At a Glance” page of her report, which reads, “Overall, we found significant lapses in Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s governance and stewardship of public funds.” As well, “Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not sufficiently monitor the compliance with the contribution agreements between the foundation and the Government of Canada.”

The Auditor General found that SDTC had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible, even though “they did not meet key requirements” and where conflicts of interest existed. In total, 123 million dollars' worth of contracts were found to have been given inappropriately, with $59 million being given to projects that never should have been awarded any money at all.

On top of this, the Auditor General discovered that conflicts of interest were connected to approval decisions. Because of this, nearly $76 million of funding was awarded to projects where there was a connection to the Liberal friends appointed to roles within SDTC, while $12 million of funding was given to projects that were both ineligible and had a conflict of interest.

In fact, the Auditor General discovered that long-established conflict of interest policies were not followed in 90 cases. That must be a record for a single organization managing hundreds of millions of dollars. In one instance, the Prime Minister's hand-picked SDTC chair siphoned off $217,000 to her own company.

At a time when Canadians are struggling to pay their mortgages, put gas in their vehicles to go to work or feed their families, the Liberal government is doing what Liberals do best, which is wasting taxpayers' dollars. They make a big show of creating the appearance of doing something while blatantly disregarding the policies and rules in order to funnel money into the pockets of Liberal insiders.

The Auditor General made it clear the blame for this scandal lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister's industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were being awarded to Liberal insiders. The minister utterly failed in his duty to protect the Canadian taxpayer.

The Auditor General also released a damning report into the taxpayer-funded contracts that the Prime Minister awarded to his well-connected friends at McKinsey. The AG discovered that over the past few years, McKinsey has been awarded almost $200 million in contracts and that 90% of the contracts awarded to McKinsey were given without following the appropriate guidelines. Are we seeing a pattern here? In many cases, it was unclear what the purpose of the contract was or if the desired outcome was even achieved.

It gets better, or should I say, it gets worse? In one case, the Canada Border Services Agency saw that McKinsey did not qualify for a contract. Can members guess what it did? It revised the statement of work so that McKinsey could qualify. That is not all. The Liberal government often sole-sourced these contracts directly to McKinsey and never even bothered to explain why a non-competitive process was justified. Can members imagine that? This is a multinational, billion-dollar company. This is absolutely concerning.

About 70% of all contracts awarded to McKinsey were non-competitive. Worse still, in 13 out of 17, or 77%, of the contracts involving sensitive data given to McKinsey, the Liberal government allowed McKinsey to operate without the necessary security clearances.

What is going on here? Why did the government go to such great lengths to break the rules? At that time, McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton. That might explain it. He was a close friend and adviser of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. I guess it should come as no surprise that the Liberals gave McKinsey hundreds of millions of dollars.

Barton was the key figure in the Liberals' Advisory Council on Economic Growth and their Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee. It was also Barton's idea to create the failed, scandal-plagued Canada Infrastructure Bank. It was Barton and McKinsey that had to pay nearly $600 million in damages for helping create the opioid crisis. Despite this, the Prime Minister appointed Barton as Canada's ambassador to China.

We cannot forget arrive scam and the damning Auditor General's report that came out in February of this year. It is a report that resulted from a motion put forward by Conservatives that called on the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit, including the payments, contracts and subcontracts for all aspects of the ArriveCAN app, and to prioritize this investigation. What did the Auditor General find? Members guessed it. She found a glaring disregard for management practices and an inability to assess the true cost of this app given the lack of information available to do a proper audit. It is an app that should have cost Canadians $80,000, but it ballooned to $60 million, and probably more.

The outrageous spending habits of the government have put the futures of Canadians at risk. It has created a cost of living crisis, making it difficult for Canadians to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. It has failed to deliver for Canadians on every level. A record two million Canadians are visiting food banks in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgages have doubled. Over 50% of Canadians are $200, or less, away from going broke, yet the government continues to refuse to take any responsibility for its failed nine years of governance.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, life has never been more difficult for Canadians. For well-connected Liberal friends, life has never been so good. The Prime Minister turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. This was made clear through a secret recording of a senior civil servant who slammed the outright incompetence of the Liberal government, calling the SDTC's actions “a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway.”

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost and is not worth the corruption. It is incumbent on the House to shine light on the failures of the government and its corruption, and to deliver answers for Canadians. That is why I hope all members in the House will vote in favour of this motion, which would deliver more transparency for Canadians.

When we get elected, common-sense Conservatives would end the corruption and fix the budget by firing the high-priced consultants.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very powerful speech.

The Bloc Québécois was in favour of the principle of the motion, but we had concerns about its wording. However, with the amendment that the Conservative Party proposed a few moments ago, it would be entirely appropriate for us to lend our support. I am confident that the House will be able to adopt this important motion. We need to get to the bottom of this.

We had concerns about the 14-day deadline for the production of documents. Just having the documents translated requires more time. Also, we were uncomfortable with Parliament making a recommendation to the RCMP. In our view, it is not up to politicians to recommend to the police that they investigate or suggest to them that offences have been committed. They are truly independent. However, thanks to the amendment that has been proposed, we now support this important motion.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the importance of getting to the bottom of this issue.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. We look forward to the vote coming to this place and to having the support of the Bloc. I am glad that we were able to address their concerns.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would simply like to remind her that the first government to be found in contempt of Parliament in the history of Canadian politics was Stephen Harper's government when it refused to provide members with budget details on law and order bills.

Today, it is all well and good to talk about transparency and accountability, but I would like to remind the House of that black mark on the record of the Conservative Party, which was found guilty by Parliament at the time.

The NDP agrees that transparency is important, and we have doubts about the Liberals' willingness to be transparent. I would like to know what measures my colleague would put in place to ensure that members of the House and the public, the people who we represent, get all of the necessary information.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is always rich to hear the NDP pretend to be an opposition party when it is more critical of other opposition parties than it is of the scandal-ridden government. The NDP leader and this member have sold out their party for a pension. The polling reflects how Canadians feel about his decision.

Today, that member has a chance to vote in favour of a motion that would actually hold the government to account. We would like to see the member support this motion to get to the bottom of this issue and provide more transparency to Canadians. The only question is if he will do it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure my hon. colleague did not mean to cast this aspersion, but the phrase she used about selling out for a pension would suggest that one of her colleagues in this place was trading their political beliefs or ideas for money. I am sure she would not want that aspersion to be cast. I think it is unparliamentary, and I would ask her to retract it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That may be subject to debate, and I do not think it is necessarily a point of order. I will leave it at that.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my learned colleague's comments here. It would appear to me that this is an ongoing problem with a government that is not careful with other people's money, everybody's money, in this entire country. I wish we were here debating something that was confined to the green slush fund. This clearly is not.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment a bit on the lack of prudence with others' money that the government continues to portray to Canadians.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that numerous investigations have taken place into the actions of the government and the departments that serve it, and it is not only STDC, but also others, as I mentioned in my remarks. Some of those investigations are still under way, and some of those investigations are being undertaken by the RCMP.

The bottom line here is that, to date, all of the reports that have been tabled have been damning to the government when it comes to how it is spending taxpayers' money and what it is allowing to continue, which is glaring mismanagement, complete disregard for the rules, conflicts of interest and no value for money.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of our Conservative motion that calls on the Liberals to end their cover-up and produce for the House, as well as turn over to the RCMP, all documents relating to corruption and self-dealing with respect to the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund, otherwise known as Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.

The staggering level of corruption, conflicts and self-dealing was revealed in the Auditor General's report that was tabled in the House earlier this week. It is a direct result of a culture of corruption embedded in the rotten Liberal government. That is demonstrated by the fact that, before the Liberals took office, under the previous Harper Conservative government, SDTC was functioning well. That is evidenced by a 2017 report of the Auditor General that went back into the Harper era and gave SDTC a clean bill of health.

The ethical spiral downward at SDTC occurred exclusively under the watch of the Liberals, and more specifically, under the former minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, and the current minister of industry. To put a timeline on when that began, I would submit it happened when Navdeep Bains, the Prime Minister's good buddy, decided, for purely political reasons, to fire the Harper-appointed chair of SDTC, who had presided over it when it received a clean bill of health from the Auditor General, and replace that chair with Ms. Annette Verschuren.

There was a major problem with the appointment of Verschuren because she had a major conflict of interest, namely that her company was receiving money from SDTC. That is a major conflict of interest that Navdeep Bains was warned about multiple times, including by Annette Verschuren herself, who, to her credit, said that she had a conflict of interest. Navdeep Bains did not care and, conflicts of interest be damned, he appointed Annette Verschuren as chair. The culture within any organization begins at the top, and the culture that was set by Navdeep Bains at SDTC was a culture where conflicts of interest did not matter.

Looking back at what has transpired since that time, and the decisions that Navdeep Bains made, both with respect to the appointment of Verschuren, as well as several other directors, it is now evident to me that Navdeep Bains wanted to turn SDTC into a slush fund where Liberal insiders could rig the system to line their own pockets by ripping off taxpayers. That is precisely what has happened at SDTC, and Navdeep Bains is the architect of that.

For years, Navdeep Bains, as the former industry minister, and the current minister turned a blind eye to all kinds of conflicts of interest, and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being funnelled improperly out the door at SDTC. The only time the minister pretended to take some interest in the corruption at SDTC was when a whistle-blower sounded the alarm over nearly $40 million in so-called COVID relief payments being approved by the board. The Auditor General, in her report, determined that those COVID relief payments contravened the contribution agreement with the Department of Industry, and that there were 66 cases of conflicts of interest in which board members voted to approve funds that were funnelled into companies that they had an interest in.

I have to note that Annette Verschuren, the chair, actually moved both motions to funnel monies into her own companies from SDTC. The rot and corruption was blatant. They were not even trying to hide it. However, it gets a lot worse than the COVID relief payments, because the Auditor General found 186 cases of conflicts of interest involving board members and consultants. In 90 cases, board members voted to approve funds that were funnelled into companies they had an interest in and benefited from, and they did not even so much as declare a conflict. Some $76 million went into those companies, voted for by board members at SDTC.

It is not just $76 million, and I should not say “just” $76 million. Tens of millions of taxpayers' money was also funnelled into companies of SDTC board members while those members served on the board. I note, for instance, that the Minister of Environment's good friend and former colleague Andrée-Lise Méthot, at the time as she served on the board, benefited to the tune of $42.5 million in SDTC funds, which went into her companies. Then there are Guy Ouimet, another board member, whose companies received $4 million in funding from SDTC, and Liberal insider and former Liberal staffer Stephen Kukucha, whose companies received $25 million from SDTC when he served on the board.

This speaks not only to major and serious conflicts of interest, but to the fact that members of the board broke the law. They broke the Conflict of Interest Act. Board members are public office holders. They are bound by the Conflict of Interest Act and the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act, which the Auditor General determined. The Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act very expressly, in subsection 12(2), provides that board members shall not profit or benefit from decisions of the board, and they profited handsomely.

In addition to that, $59 million improperly went out the door to projects that contravened the contribution agreement with the Department of Industry, and that is just scratching the surface because those are only the projects that the Auditor General audited. The Auditor General concluded that there were likely many more projects to which money went out the door improperly. Through it all, an assistant deputy minister sat in on each and every board meeting in which these decisions were made, when board members had conflicts of interest and when money went out the door in contravention of the contribution agreements, and former minister Bains and the current minister did nothing. The current minister turned a blind eye until he was caught.

One current senior industry official said that things are so bad at SDTC, he compared them to “a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway”. Based on what we know from the Auditor General's report, which likely just scratches the surface of the corruption and self-dealing at SDTC, it looks to be a lot worse than the sponsorship scandal. We are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that were improperly funnelled out the door from which board members profited.

In closing, let me simply say this is why it is time for the Liberals to end the cover-up. It is time to turn over the documents to the RCMP. It is time to call in the Mounties.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's take on something.

As I said earlier today, we have before us a government that keeps piling up scandals in a rather spectacular and surreal way. The Liberals never have to account for the previous scandal because it gets buried by a new scandal in the news.

Does this situation not help to dispel the suspicions that we have about some members of the House of Commons being involved in foreign interference, for example? Does this not hamper the government's management of international relations files?

I would like my colleague to share his overall understanding of that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this week alone we had three Auditor General's reports, all of which are an indictment of the management by the government. Frankly, what they illustrate is a culture of corruption.

We have a government that has been in office for nine years, and there has been a consistent pattern of mismanagement, entitlement, self-dealing, conflict and corruption. As bad as SDTC is, it is only one example of the corruption that we have seen from the Liberals. It is why Canadians are so hungry to see the Prime Minister call an election so that Canadians can rid themselves of this corrupt government.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as this story has been unfolding, up to and including the debate today, we have seen the Liberals claim they dealt with the problem as soon as they became aware of it. We know that this is a terrible mistruth.

We know that former minister Navdeep Bains was warned about the board appointment, which he went ahead and made anyway. We also know that senior staff were present when these votes and the self-dealing took place.

Could the member debunk the government's defence and absurd claim that it dealt with this in an expeditious fashion?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government turned a blind eye to corruption at SDTC until a whistle-blower came forward and said there were real problems with the COVID relief payments. The Auditor General concluded that there were 66 conflicts and that the contribution agreement was violated. The notion that the Liberals got ahead of this is absolutely false. The assistant deputy minister was there when all of these conflicts occurred and all of these improper expenditures were approved by the board.

They also claimed that they are not to blame because it is an arm's-length foundation. Well, I would suggest they read the Auditor General's report, which found that they completely failed to provide appropriate oversight with respect to expenditures and monitoring conflicts of interest.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about the ongoing corruption. We know that with this particular fund, there was a conflict of interest, and the government seems to lack an ethical compass. It seems like so many of these different departments are not following processes and procedures and have conflicts of interest, with Liberal friends getting ahead. We can go back to the We Charity scandal and the arrive scam. There is just so much.

Can the member speak to the lack of governance, management and ethical compass?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Auditor General's report with respect to SDTC showcases all that is wrong with the government. We had a situation where the former minister knew that the person he was appointing as chair was in a conflict of interest and appointed her anyway. Then we had ministers who turned a blind eye to the self-dealing and corruption that occurred repeatedly throughout—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock has two minutes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, the Liberal-NDP government has demonstrated a pattern of corruption. Just this week, the Auditor General confirmed widespread Liberal corruption in her shocking report on the billion-dollar green slush fund at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Specifically, the Auditor General found that SDTC did not follow conflict of interest policies in not one, not 20, not 50, but 90 cases.

The government spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to Liberal insiders and their friends appointed to run the slush fund. It also spent $12 million on projects that were both in a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. In one instance, the Prime Minister's hand-picked slush fund chair siphoned off $217,000 to her own company. Its pattern of disregard and disdain for the Canadian taxpayer is outrageous.

The Liberals would like Canadians to believe that this is arm's length and has nothing to do with them, which is patently false. Our motion would order the Auditor General to turn over all documentation related to the green slush fund scandal to the RCMP. The only question now is whether the NDP will vote to protect its political master from that investigation or follow the Conservatives' lead to ensure that this corruption is fully investigated.

The AG has the evidence that the RCMP needs to investigate. It is time to do the right thing. Canadians deserve to know the truth.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-277, An Act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy on Brain Injuries Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pick up where I left off when we were last debating Bill C-277, introduced to the House by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Specifically, this bill is about bringing forward a very interesting proposal as it relates to setting up a national framework for dealing with brain injuries. I would note that I will be supporting this bill. It is very timely, and it is important that we bring this forward.

Each year, over 20,000 people are hospitalized for traumatic brain injuries, caused by something from outside of the body, including concussions. Traumatic brain injuries represent between 8% and 10% of all brain injury hospitalizations. The leading causes of traumatic brain injury hospitalizations include falls among the elderly and motor vehicle collisions among young people ages 15 to 19 and those over 65 years of age.

Work is being undertaken across governments, with stakeholders and health care professionals, to prevent, detect, treat and raise awareness for traumatic brain injuries.

I would also add that another aspect of this is intimate partner violence, and in particular gender-based violence. A pervasive form of gender-based violence can result in brain injuries. Women account for the vast majority of people who experience intimate partner violence. People experiencing brain injury and family violence concurrently can face unique barriers in treatment and support services, which may prolong cycles of violence and put survivors at risk of repeat brain injury and potential disability.

All this being said, I would like to talk very briefly about what the federal government has done. In terms of federal action, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Health Canada currently support initiatives related to brain health, brain injury prevention, and surveillance and research, such as providing funding to support brain health innovation, including technology that evaluates cognitive brain health across diverse conditions.

They provide funding to support women survivors of gender-based violence experiencing traumatic brain injuries, as well as initiatives that build the service provider capacity. They are also conducting surveillance and research on a broad spectrum of traumatic brain injuries among various populations, including populations that are underserved, and supporting academic research and knowledge mobilization through various government agencies to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury.

All of that being said, in terms of what the government has currently been focusing on, Bill C-277 specifically calls on the Minister of Health, in consultation with representatives from other levels of government responsible for health, indigenous groups and relevant stakeholders, to develop a national strategy to support and improve brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment, as well as the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury. It also sets out specific requirements for reporting to Parliament. The resulting strategy would identify high-level guiding principles to foster a national coordinated approach to brain injuries for people living in Canada.

Notwithstanding the fact that the federal government is already doing a lot in this field of research, this field of study, this field of health care, what is being proposed by my NDP colleague specifically is to bring this all together. We might have various agencies and different levels of government working on strategies for how to help and assist people with brain injuries, but what we are lacking is what he is proposing, which is to bring that together holistically so that everybody is working off the same page, so to speak.

I do think this is really important because, unlike so many other challenges people have, brain injuries are not always widely understood. With other injuries or diseases people can be affected by, quite often we can see something physical and we are able to associate that with something going on in somebody's life or a challenge they are having. With brain injuries or concussions, for example, it is not the same. They are not that easily identifiable.

I would even argue that there is some public education in all of this that perhaps the strategy could help develop. It could become part of informing and educating people on what traumatic brain injuries are all about and how, as a society, we can help elevate conversations around them so people can be properly supported.

Once again, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing forward this really important piece of legislation. I look forward to concluding today's debate on it and then getting to a point where we can have a vote on it.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Briefly, just before I start my speech, I want to honour and remember the sacrifices the Canadian military heroes made as we commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries. Brain injury is an important issue I have heard about from residents in my community, as well as from meeting with individuals here in Ottawa as part of my role as shadow minister for disability inclusion. It is a positive step to see legislation brought forward to develop a national strategy on brain injuries for those living with brain injuries, as well as for those who support them. I am sure this is an issue that all of us in this place care about.

As such, this is something that I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to and lend support to. I also want to thank my Conservative colleagues, especially the member for Regina—Lewvan, who spoke in support of the bill previously and specifically mentioned how 5,500 women who are suffering injuries to the brain are, shockingly, suffering these injuries as a result of domestic violence. This is an eye-opening statistic that we legislators must not shy away from addressing.

Brain injuries having a national strategy is an issue that requires our attention for good reason. There are many who are affected by brain injuries across Canada. I am sure many of us know someone in our personal lives who has suffered a brain injury and who requires our support. Many of us likely have friends or family members who have been in an accident, have had a sports injury or health issue, or have been the victim of violence that has caused a brain injury. Many of us likely have also had to, or know someone who has had to, care for an individual suffering from a brain injury. The role caregivers play, who are most often a close family member, is a significant one, and one that warrants our gratitude, admiration and respect.

In Kelowna—Lake Country, just like across Canada, many are affected by brain injuries, both directly and indirectly through people they know. My community of Kelowna—Lake Country, and in fact our region, is fortunate to have many leaders who care deeply about the issue. Braintrust Canada organized bringing to Kelowna community leaders, public health officials and brain injury specialists for the West Coast Brain Injury Conference. It is there that experts will discuss brain injuries in the context of health, governance and societal fairness and inclusion.

Someone suffering from a brain injury can have it affect every part of their life. A brain injury can cause substantial disruption to a person's independence, abilities and work life. It can cause significant issues in interpersonal relationships with family, friends, co-workers or caregivers. Oftentimes, because it is an injury that is not always visible externally, brain injuries can go unrecognized. They can be episodic. This exacts a heavy toll on those suffering and their families, as it is often not given the same recognition as other, more outwardly visible, conditions.

A brain injury can affect many parts of a person's health. It can affect behaviour and how someone acts and makes decisions. It can affect cognition and how a person learns, processes and remembers. It can affect emotions and can lead to a number of related mental health challenges. Lastly, it can affect one's physical health and can cause mobility challenges and potentially physical conditions such as headaches, fatigue, pain and sensory problems.

Be it a traumatic brain injury caused by sports or a vehicle accident or violence, or a non-traumatic brain injury caused by a stroke, overdose or another reason, one thing is clear: It is a very serious injury that has long-lasting consequences and effects on a person's life.

Brain Injury Canada has determined that close to 4% of the population lives with a brain injury. That equates to a staggering 1.5 million Canadians who live with a brain injury, with 165,000 Canadians suffering a new brain injury every year. It is untenable not to have a strategy in place to support all those affected by these injuries. We also know that those living with a brain injury can face additional societal challenges.

According to Brain Injury Canada, those with a brain injury have an increased risk of homelessness because of many factors, including job loss and the lack of accessible treatment and supports. Those suffering from a traumatic brain injury can also have greater rates of incarceration.

Information provided by BrainTrust Canada shows that an individual has a significantly greater chance of developing a diagnosable mental illness after sustaining an acquired brain injury. As well, about half of people with traumatic brain injury are affected by depression within the first year after injury; nearly two-thirds are affected within seven years.

Traumatic brain injury is reported to increase the risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms. A Canadian study found that adults with concussion committed suicide at three times the population norm. Fifty per cent of patients with a concussion experience personality change, irritability, anxiety and depression after concussion.

Something that is especially worrying is the convergence between substance use and brain injuries. I am referring to overdosing leading to brain injury. This really must be talked about more. The opioid epidemic has greatly worsened under the NDP-Liberal government. While not always recognized in this regard, it is greatly contributing to brain injuries. Not all overdoses, thankfully, lead to death. However, opioid overdose can cause hypoxic brain injury, a very serious type of brain injury caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Between January 2016 and June 2020, Canada saw over 21,000 opioid-related poisonings in hospitals that resulted in hypoxic brain injury. The huge rise of these injuries warrants an immediate strategy to address their occurrences and to help with treatment. In addition to contributing to this, some people with a brain injury find themselves self-medicating after their injury as well. Many have turned to substance abuse to cope with their injury. It has been reported that someone with a brain injury is four times as likely to develop addiction issues. It becomes a vicious cycle. This is tragic.

Through the development of a national strategy on brain injuries, which Bill C-277 aims to create, the issue of overdoses in the context of brain injuries can be better addressed. This issue must be part of the strategy. We all know well that the Prime Minister has done too little to address the toxic overdose crisis. It is hoped that the bill will provide another avenue to address the shortcomings of the Liberal government in terms of the substance abuse crisis that has been impacting our communities so terribly. Members of Brain Injury Canada, who are the leading experts on brain injuries and the impact these injuries have on Canadians, have given their support to the bill and its intentions. This collaboration will have to remain ongoing, to best ensure that those suffering from brain injuries are at the table for discussions.

Conservatives hope that, with their support of the bill, a strategy will soon be in place that adequately supports Canadians who sustain brain injuries. Even though the administration and operation of health care is provincial, there can certainly be federal leadership on a national strategy.

I hope the Liberal government will take this seriously. The Liberals have a track record of photo ops on announced strategies and frameworks, which then take years to make. They do a lot of plans for plans, which lead to reports for reports, with little results-oriented actions or analysis. People with brain injuries need our attention.

My Conservative colleagues and I support this issue being elevated here.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the perfect is the enemy of the good. This saying may well apply to the current situation and to Bill C‑277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, which I have the opportunity to talk to members of the House about today. I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work to bring this proposal before us today. Unfortunately, as with all previous national strategies, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors to make people believe that the government is doing something for them. At the end of the day, it is like putting a band-aid on a wooden leg. It serves no purpose.

We have talked about national strategies for diabetes, firefighting cancers and eye health; now we are talking about a brain injury strategy. The Bloc Québécois wants to make it clear that it is uncomfortable with these national strategies. For one thing, they tend to disregard the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. One thing the bill would do is identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury. Yes, it is well intentioned.

Despite my colleague's goodwill, I repeat that professional associations and the training of health professionals are not under federal jurisdiction. Brain injuries in particular are treated by hospitals, which are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, the federal government cannot identify anything, but it can certainly help identify needs and participate in the collective effort to address the concussion epidemic.

The fact is that Quebec has developed its own organizational model to address brain injuries, known as the trauma care continuum. It has been around since 1987, which is nothing to sneeze at. We already have 37 years of expertise in this area. In addition, Quebec has its action plan for the prevention and management of concussions in sports and recreational activities.

The bill also endeavours to promote awareness and education with particular emphasis on improving public understanding and protecting the rights of persons living with a brain injury. For an awareness campaign to be effective, it must be adapted to its context. Given that the Quebec government provides the services and resources, it is in the best position to run those campaigns. In fact, there are many websites and brochures available to the public that are designed to prevent or recognize the symptoms of brain injuries.

Our second concern with this bill is that, rather than offering concrete solutions to help people who are truly suffering, it serves more as a communication tool. In fact, the only thing it proposes is to have public servants produce a report the following year, with recommendations that are often unenforceable. If this bill had more teeth, it would propose measures that would have an immediate impact rather than a document that proposes measures after the fact.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill ignores all the work that Quebec, the provinces, health professionals, researchers, organizations and so many others are doing on brain injury. Its objective is to make the federal government the puppet master, when Quebec has already had its own expertise for more than 30 years, as well as a unique approach to treating traumatic injuries, which include brain injuries. If the member wants to win the support of all parties for his bill, as he said he did, we urge him to recognize the efforts made by health care networks to help fight the effects of brain injury. We suggest that he avoid using his leader's sanctimonious and paternalistic tone, as he did on pharmacare, because Quebec did not wait for a national strategy to take action on that front.

It is clear that this bill does nothing for people with brain injuries and serves only to ease our consciences. Concrete action is sorely lacking. That said, the Bloc Québécois will still vote in favour of the bill, provided that the federal government co-operates with Quebec and the provinces and does not impose another centralizing program that encroaches on our autonomy and sweeps aside our hard-earned expertise. It is good to set the record straight and force the federal government to fulfill its obligations. It has a duty to ensure that brain injuries are prevented wherever it can, both as an employer and as a contributor to a number of sports organizations and events.

It is also the federal government's duty, through the three research councils, to fund scientific research. It is important to remember that, because it is so critical to support those who work in the universities and hospitals on treating brain injury, and the rehabilitation and recovery of individuals living with a brain injury and many others.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can only encourage the government to increase and support on an ongoing basis its participation in funding research. For 20 years it has under-funded scientific research compared to the other G7 countries and we are now suffering the consequences.

Canada is the only G7 country that is seeing a decline in the retention of researchers because they are drawn to other countries where science is better supported financially and better conditions are offered. I also want to remind the House that Canada is the only G7 country that was unable to produce its own COVID‑19 vaccine. These are two tangible examples that demonstrate that this chronic under-funding has adverse effects.

If the federal government wants to use tax tools to help families deal with additional costs or loss of income resulting from brain injuries, the Bloc Québécois will encourage it.

In short, this and future governments can take up many non-invasive and non-intrusive responsibilities without descending once again into interference.

To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. However, it urges the federal government to take a cautious approach to any future recommendations made by officials examining this matter.

As long as the federal government is willing to collaborate, rather than set conditions, we will gladly support the initiative. If it crosses a red line, we will be there to set things right. Although the federal parties might be tempted to centralize power, the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend our areas of expertise and our vision of how things should be done. We will remain vigilant, we will show no tolerance for any abuse or attempted interference, and we will defend against any encroachment on Quebec's powers.

Finally, I will conclude by saying that we would be happy to consider any tangible, meaningful contributions that would really help people with brain injuries. In the meantime, we will settle for this strategy. This bill alone will not be enough to support these people. Yes, it is good to encourage consultation, but we believe that access to health care is the real problem. Quebec needs more resources in order to provide its health professionals with better working conditions, to keep them in the public system and to improve access for patients.

The federal government has health care commitments that it is not fulfilling. It was supposed to pay 50% of health care costs in Quebec and the other provinces, but it currently covers only about 22%. If my colleague really wants to help our constituents with health care, he should push the government, which his party is propping up, to transfer the money owed to support the health of Quebeckers.

The consequences of underfunding health care make it difficult to maintain effective, high-quality service. I see the devastating effects of that in my riding. For example, people have a hard time accessing specialized treatment, which is concentrated in urban centres several hours' drive away from my constituents. Add to that the wait times for an appointment with a health care professional and the working conditions that we can offer those professionals.

We cannot accept this. It is vital that Ottawa honour its commitments so that everyone can have decent access to health care.