Debates of June 6th, 2024

National Strategy on Brain Injuries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague is making a not-so-subtle attack on the leader of my party regarding the gains we have made in pharmacare for people with diabetes and for women who want oral contraceptives. Soon, all of that can be negotiated with the provinces, at the time of their choosing, obviously.

I would like to remind the member that the Union des consommateurs, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux are all calling for public universal pharmacare. It bears repeating that Quebec civil society is in favour of this approach, which is the best way of controlling and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. I would invite my Bloc Québécois colleague to read the Hoskins report, which provides a lot of insight on this issue.

I would like to commend my NDP colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for his private member's bill, which will be a big help to Quebeckers and Canadians. I am going to talk about more than just concussions, which are a major health issue for many young athletes. Concussions are a real problem in many sports. I would obviously invite the sports federations to be diligent and responsible when it comes to these young people's equipment, training and games. Unfortunately, young Quebeckers, young Montrealers, are sometimes getting brain injuries.

Obviously, my NDP colleague's bill is not limited to concussions. It is a little-known fact that for every National Hockey League player who gets a concussion while playing hockey, over 5,500 women in Canada unfortunately experience the same type of injury as a result of domestic violence. I think it is worth pointing out that my colleague's initiative will help expand research, awareness and education on this particular scourge as well.

After reading up on brain injuries and this bill's noble objective of establishing and developing a national strategy to “improve brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment as well as the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury”, I can confirm that this affects a huge number of people.

More than 165,000 people suffer traumatic brain injury every year in Canada. It is not always visible. Sometimes it is not the result of an accident, shock, domestic violence or abuse. I was fascinated by the idea that brain injury is a silent epidemic, that it can happen at any time, at any age, that it can strike children, teens and adults. It is a much bigger problem than most people realize. Traumatic brain injuries are 44 times more common than spinal cord injuries, 30 times more common than breast cancer and 400 times more common than HIV-AIDS. This affects a lot of people.

This bill has an absolutely clear objective. It is important to note that this is being done collaboratively and in partnership with others. What my NDP colleague wants is for the federal Minister of Health, in consultation with representatives of the provincial governments, indigenous groups and relevant stakeholders, to develop this national strategy to support and improve awareness, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and recovery for people living with a brain injury.

It is hard to argue against the virtues of this dialogue, this partnership, which is designed to identify best practices and pool research to find solutions together, that is, with the federal government, provinces, indigenous groups and the relevant associations all working together. A number of groups across Canada have been consulted and support this bill. In particular, the Regroupement des associations de personnes traumatisées craniocérébrales du Québec supports the idea of a national strategy championed by the federal government in partnership with the provinces. I would like to emphasize once again the importance of this private member's bill introduced by my NDP colleague.

I am not going to use up all my speaking time. That way, there will be some extra time for my colleagues who will be closing this debate in the next few minutes.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on his work. I hope that his bill will receive the support of all parliamentarians so that we can find solutions for everyone who has the misfortune of dealing with a brain injury.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this important private member's bill. I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing forward Bill C-277. I suspect I will echo many of the comments made already this evening. I believe there is broad support for this bill. It is definitely great to see an important step forward.

The bill would provide for the development of a national strategy to support and to improve brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment, as well as the rehabilitation and the recovery of persons living with brain injuries. Brain injuries, unfortunately, are becoming exceedingly common, and there are a number of factors for that. Perhaps part of it is that we are getting better at detecting and diagnosing these injuries, but I understand that a lot more work needs to be done to address the treatment aspect and how it would be monitored going forward.

Unfortunately, we do not understand brain injuries as well as we should or as we need to, and how that pairs with mental health. Many Canadians struggle with the negative impacts of mental health. There are 165,000 Canadians who suffer a brain injury each year. That is a staggering number of Canadians who are impacted by brain injuries, which speaks to the need for Bill C-277. An estimated 1.5 million Canadians are living with these injuries presently. I will repeat that 165,000 Canadians suffer an injury each year. That is why we need a strategy, more treatment and a better understanding through a national framework.

The member who brought the bill forward touched on a number of important aspects intertwined with brain injuries and health, one of which is opioids. Nearly 22,000 opioid-related hospitalizations have resulted in brain injuries from 2016 to 2020. We also know that brain injury survivors are four times more likely to develop addiction issues. I applaud the member for bringing this bill forward. He has commented in this place on the importance of how this is impacting opioids and addictions.

Taking a step back, the issue of addictions is, unfortunately, far too prevalent across the country. We are in a mental health and addictions crisis. That is seen in northwestern Ontario where I am from, in the district of Kenora. Far too many people are struggling with mental health and addictions that lead them to homelessness or some other precarious and vulnerable situations. We are seeing this over and over again. It has led to concerns for the safety of vulnerable residents struggling with their addictions, for the safety of other residents, of tourists and of the small business community in the downtown core in Kenora. An increase in crime has accompanied this, as well as other negative health outcomes.

With the addictions crisis and the lack of treatment and recovery options that exist, people have, unfortunately, shared needles and have been doing a number of unsafe things. We have seen an increase in HIV cases across the Kenora district as well, all stemming from this addictions crisis. In 2022, statistics show there were more HIV cases in Kenora than in the previous eight years combined. That shows the dramatic increase as a result of the addictions crisis. That is part of the reason the Conservative Party has been staunch in its support for more treatment and recovery options, which are incredibly lacking in northwestern Ontario, and I think right across the country. People struggling with addictions need places they can go to hopefully break through that cycle so that they can lead drug-free lives.

The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who brought this forward, has also spoken about how domestic violence plays into this. It is another very important topic to speak about. Brain Injury Canada estimates that 35% to potentially as high as 80% of women who experience domestic violence also experience symptoms of a traumatic brain injury. These are staggering numbers. I share them here today to again underscore the importance of this legislation.

I want to now go to the bill specifically. There are many things in it that are encouraging and are positive steps forward. I want to refer to a couple that are of particular interest to me and that I think are particularly positive. The bill talks about the content of such a strategy. It mentions that it would “promote awareness and education with particular emphasis on improving public understanding and protecting the rights of persons living with a brain injury”.

As well, it would “identify challenges resulting from brain injury, such as mental health problems, addiction, housing and homelessness issues and criminality, including intimate partner violence, and work to develop solutions in collaboration with stakeholders”.

There is one more that I will end on. It would “encourage consultation with mental health professionals, particularly in educational institutions, sports organizations and workplaces, to provide persons who are suffering from the effects of a brain injury, including mental health and addiction problems, with a support system within the community”.

The bill is very well crafted, but those are three that are of particular interest to me. I want to stress this with respect to sports organizations particularly. I have had a bit of experience with that throughout my life, playing sports, and now, being back home as a football coach in my community as well. The need to recognize head injuries, concussions and how to identify them is definitely evolving and people are getting better at that, and I think sports organizations are doing great work in that. There is definitely a long way to go in that regard.

It is a bit interesting that we are having this debate today. It is also the kickoff to the Canadian Football League season today. It is a big deal in my household. I know that the defending champions, the Alouettes, are going to be in Winnipeg to take on the Blue Bombers. That is what makes me think about the importance of this bill because we have seen, both in amateur sports and professional sports, incredible measures being taken to address concussions. I will stick with football because it is one that is dear to me.

We have seen more concussion spotters, independent of any team, who are able to identify players experiencing symptoms and can have them pulled from the field and properly assessed. I know that up until that point, it was quite easy for players to be a bit stubborn about what they were experiencing and, frankly, to push off some of the stigma. There was a bit of a stigma to it. If they were not bleeding or did not have an obviously broken bone sticking out through their body, then people would tell them that they were fine. Also, the CFL, the Canadian Football League, as well as the NFL in the United States, are bringing forward the use of guardian caps, a protective shell over the helmets of football players that can now be used in games. The Canadian Football League has estimated it has seen a 42% decrease in training camp concussions, as well as a 20% reduction in head impact severity.

This is all to say that there is great work being done already, and it is important that we support that and that we advance that work. I think this bill will help address that with sport organizations in particular.

I want to thank the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing this forward, and all the previous speakers who have spoken quite eloquently on this bill. I look forward to seeing this come to fruition in the near future.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, which was put forward by my colleague, the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I was more than eager to second the bill.

This is an issue that I am more than happy to be able to speak to today. There is so much I would like to cover. I will try to get through as much as I can.

This is an issue that is impacting Canadians across the country and very much impacting constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We are all impacted by brain injuries in some way, whether it be ourselves, a family member, a loved one, a neighbour or somebody we know in the community. It is an issue we need to talk about more here in this chamber.

We know brain injuries profoundly affect individuals and families, disrupting their lives and requiring significant ongoing support to navigate the complexities that follow. I heard my colleagues mention these numbers, but they need repeating to emphasize the seriousness of the issue. There are 165,000 Canadians who suffer traumatic brain injuries each year, with 1.5 million Canadians living with traumatic brain injury. That is a tremendous number.

To put it into perspective, brain injury occurs at a rate greater than that of multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, HIV/AIDS and breast cancer combined. I feel that this information really allows us to see just how large this is and how many people are impacted by traumatic brain injury.

There is also an extremely high prevalence of brain injury in overdose survivors. I want to reiterate that, here in British Columbia, we are seeing six deaths per day from the toxic substance crisis. These numbers may be even higher now, and I would have to find them. However, as of December, the toxic substance crisis had claimed 13,000 lives in British Columbia since it was declared a public health emergency there in 2016. Among those who are surviving these overdoses, there is an incredible number of people who are not being tracked and that we just do not know are experiencing these symptoms.

I thought the following was interesting: I was reading a story in a paper called The Discourse, which is a local paper that does incredible work. Julie Chadwick, a local reporter, had done a story on traumatic brain injury. She was quoting Dr. Elizabeth Plant, a Cowichan Valley-based family physician who specialized in addiction treatment. Dr. Plant pointed out that, for every overdose death, it is estimated that there are 20 to 30 non-fatal overdoses.

That is 20 people to 30 people who may very well be experiencing the symptoms of a traumatic brain injury. Currently, we do not have the systems in place to be able to identify them and ensure that the people who are getting discharged from hospital are getting the follow-ups required or getting supports and wraparound services. These things may be required to address the symptoms so that the problem does not escalate and become bigger and bigger. When we identify and address issues right from the onset, we have better long-term success for individuals and their loved ones.

Brain injuries impair essential functions necessary for everyday life, including problem solving and maintaining relationships, housing and employment. As I said, brain injuries impact entire families and communities.

I am going to move on because I realize I am already almost halfway through my time. There is a scarcity of funding resources and support for brain injury survivors, both in the health care system and in community services. This is a big problem; it is exactly why my colleague brought forward the bill. We need more than a patchwork approach. We need more than non-profits that are struggling to access funding and do not know from year to year whether they are going to have long-term sustainable funding. They are doing the best they can for communities.

We need to see a national strategy, a national approach to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We can then ensure that we have the right people to provide the supports and that people who are struggling with the symptoms of traumatic brain injury and their loved ones know where to turn, how to get supports and what supports are available. These are all parts of an essential strategy. This is the reason, at least to my understanding, that my colleague has brought forward the bill.

Now, there are a lot of incredible organizations across Canada doing the work required to meet the vital needs of people in our communities. One such organization is the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society, a small, local non-profit that has been serving Nanaimo for over 35 years and has been providing critical supports to individuals and families who have been impacted by brain injury. Nanaimo is, of course, within my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

As we know, brain injuries are multi-faceted. Interconnected with brain injuries are mental health issues, substance abuse, homelessness and intimate partner violence. These are all factors that need to be considered when we are looking at traumatic brain injury and how to best support people.

Such organizations as the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society provide comprehensive programs and services to brain injury survivors and their families, helping them manage daily challenges and improve their quality of life. Again, as I was speaking to earlier, despite its crucial work and increasing demand for services, we are seeing the increasing demand first-hand here in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

The Nanaimo Brain Injury Society is an example of an organization that, despite its long record of incredible, life-saving work in our communities, is relying on year-by-year funding from grants, donations and service contracts to maintain these vital services. This is not okay. They need to know that they have long-term, sustainable funding to provide those supports and services.

Another point I want to mention is that the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society has been a leader in advocacy initiatives, collecting data in provincial and federal point-in-time homelessness surveys, and it collaborates with community partners, families, government and other stakeholders to address brain injury issues holistically. Now, one such example is its work. It brought this issue forward to the City of Nanaimo. The mayor and council of Nanaimo sent a letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, myself and my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. What they said is very important for us to hear. The letter reads:

Canadian statistics alone paint a stark picture of the prevalence and consequences of brain injuries with British Columbia bearing a significant burden. The correlation between brain injuries and issues such as mental health challenges, substance use, and homelessness underscores the urgency of implementing effective support systems and interventions.

The letter goes on, but I have limited time to talk about the importance of having a national brain injury strategy to prevent the staggering number of preventable deaths and non-fatal overdoses that have been highlighted in the B.C. chief coroner's report.

We are seeing the impacts of brain injuries in all our communities. It is time for us to see support from all members of Parliament, across party lines. From what I am hearing so far, it sounds like we do have support, which brings me great optimism. This is vital, and it is not only the support but also seeing the bill put through in a timely manner. Canadians across the country need to see a national strategy. They need to see the supports in place. They no longer have time to wait. I hope that all members of Parliament will support this vital bill going through today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his five-minute right of reply.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I am joined in Ottawa today by two very special individuals: Janelle from my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, with whom I started this conversation all the way back in 2018, and Michelle from Brain Injury Canada. The bill was not solely my idea. It has had many authors, and many people have been involved in mounting a campaign to bring it to where it is today.

I am so heartened by the speeches I have heard from colleagues right across the House, and I really want to take time to recognize those individuals. They are the Liberal member for Yukon, the Conservative member for Regina—Lewvan, the Bloc member for Montcalm, the NDP member for Courtenay—Alberni, the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands, the Conservative member for Kelowna—Lake Country, the Bloc member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the Conservative member for Kenora and my New Democratic colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I thank each of them for sharing their personal stories and the stories from their ridings. I really think that helped illustrate what a pan-Canadian issue this is. Especially at this time of year, the House of Commons can become quite a partisan place. On an issue such as this, where we had members from all parties speak in support of the bill and share personal stories, it is really a moment for me to personally reflect on and be thankful for. I thank all those members. I hope that, next week, when we come to a vote, the bill will receive unanimous support to be sent to the health committee.

I do not want to repeat a lot of things, because I think I outlined a lot of this in my introductory speech. In Canada, the societal consequences of brain injuries are quite profound. To my Bloc colleagues, who have always been stalwarts for provincial jurisdiction, I want to say this: I believe the bill respects provincial jurisdiction. I am fortunate to come from a province where the New Democratic Party is in government. I do not want to intrude on its obvious jurisdiction over health.

My goal with Bill C-277 is to recognize that this issue is bigger than any one province or territory can handle on its own, just by virtue of the stark statistics we are dealing with. This is really just an effort to break out of the siloed approach to problems that are affecting people in every single province. We are trying to coordinate a strategy where we make use of best practices, find out ways we can educate the population and develop awareness, prevention and treatment plans.

People from every single province have spoken up about the bill, and they have related their personal lived experiences. We have people from Quebec, from the Maritimes, from my home province of B.C., from the Prairies and from up in the territories. There is an incredible campaign being mounted in support of the bill, and I really want to recognize those people's efforts; they are the ones who have spoken to other MPs and to the government, which has brought us to the point where it looks as though a successful vote is possible.

I will say this to my colleagues: Let us get this bill to committee, hear from witnesses and see if there are ways we can improve the language. I remain open to that. My ultimate goal here is not just for myself personally; it is for the people who are attaching real importance to this, because a brain injury is such a dominating feature in their lives. They are looking to us to lead, to pay attention to an issue that affects so many Canadians and really affects their quality of life.

I thank all the individuals with lived experience who have shown the courage to share their personal stories. I thank the organizations that do the important work of raising awareness every single day. I thank the numerous city councils from across Canada that have spoken up and urged MPs to support the bill.

With that, I thank my colleagues for lending their support to the bill. I look forward to it coming to a vote so that we can get it to the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a close colleague of mine in Regina—Lewvan, home of the Depot, which I am very intimately connected with.

How does my colleague see the future of the Depot? Does he have any concerns with regard to the Depot in his riding?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Depot should always stay in Regina.

In regard to Bill C-20, it gives some oversight to the RCMP and CBSA, and they welcome that oversight. However, whenever I go to the Depot, in the heart of Regina—Lewvan, I talk to new recruits. I was able to talk at a troop graduation ceremony. One thing that they are constantly asking for is to have more support from all leaders, whether it be provincial, municipal or federal. They sometimes feel like they are really left on their own, especially when it comes to some of the parties in this House, and when it comes to some Liberal and some NDP members in the House. They know that they are encouraging some of the anti-police or defund the police movements.

What they really want to see is a collective voice to make sure that there is support for our men and women in uniform. I stand tall and I stand proud with them. I will always support our RCMP men and women in uniform who are keeping our communities safe across the country. I want them all to know that. I really appreciate the work that they put in to keeping Canada safe.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so that I could join the debate during this evening's sitting and contribute my thoughts on Bill C-20.

I have been reviewing some of the committee records, as well as some of the prior debate on what members have said about the bill. I just want to kind of run down what this bill is about, so that people back home in my riding of Calgary Shepard will know about it.

In my riding, I have a few former members of the RCMP. Some of them are long-time members. One member served almost 30 years. After 30 years of service to the RCMP, a person's body is not what it used to be, so they have to step back. One of our members who used to serve here, the former member for Yellowhead, Jim Eglinski, who then became the mayor of the county of Yellowhead, was also a long-time member of the RCMP. Famously, he had made quite a famous arrest on Vancouver Island of a man who had tried to assassinate an Indian cabinet minister on the island. I will always remember that Wednesday in the House when he first rose from our side to ask the question, because he actually had been the arresting officer in that particular situation. It was in the news because this particular individual, after he had served his time in jail and after he had gone through an Indian government program, had been allowed to travel again to India, but he happened to be travelling with an official Government of Canada party. It was just a memorable situation.

It was easy to tell that Jim had served in the RCMP for a long time, even while he was a member of Parliament here. He would tell us stories as well, including the time he had been in a mine collapse, and yet somehow managed to survive and make his way out.

Some of these men and women in uniform do some pretty extraordinary things. I remember when I was working in one of the provincial government departments. The chain of command went up to the minister's office. We would go back and forth over some of these odd situations that fish and wildlife officers would find themselves in, where they were assisting RCMP officers out on very remote provincial highways and doing things like busting kidnapping attempts. They were doing drug busts with RCMP officers, because at times they would find themselves without the proper equipment out in the field, so they would need the help of fish and wildlife officers. Those were very unusual situations.

I have been going through the summary of the bill and what the bill would do. Very briefly, again, it would establish an independent body that would now be called the public complaints and review commission, as a replacement for the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would authorize the chairperson of the public complaints and review commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes, of the imposition of disciplinary measures, in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It would amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for an investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would also amend the English version of federal statutes, orders and regulations to replace references to “the force” with references to the RCMP. Finally, it would make, at the back end, some amendments to other acts. These are called consequential amendments, to bring everything into line.

At second reading, this bill was read three times in the House before it went to committee. I would say that at committee it received some pretty extensive review. Close to 20 meetings were held in order to review this particular piece of legislation. It came out in the fall, and it kind of lingered there. The government did not move it forward up until report stage on May 3 and then, once again, on June 4. I will note that the government has not seemed to be in an extreme rush, because it was November of 2022 when it went to committee. It got out in the fall and then it was only on May 3, 2024 and June 4, 2024, that it came back to this House for further debate, and get it off to that other place.

I am sure when the House leaders are meeting that the government House leader plans things. There is a Yiddish proverb that says that man plans and God laughs. In a lot of ways, two years for this type of legislation to come to the House to be considered is a very long time. It has probably defeated all of the plans that the government made. This was also a previous piece of legislation, Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, as well as Bill C-3 in the 43rd Parliament. As we know, the 43rd Parliament ended in August of 2021. The Prime Minister called a very unnecessary election on the same day that the Taliban took over Kabul and the fall of the democratic government in Afghanistan happened.

I will mention a few of the concerns I noted from committee. A few of the concerns included a lack of consultations. Some of the stakeholder groups mentioned that concern.

There was concern expressed, and other members have expressed concern here, that there will probably be difficulty in obtaining the specialized types of individuals they will want to appoint as Governor in Council appointees for the board for this commission because of the unique set of skills, knowledge and experience that they will need in order to make sure that they can hear the CBSA and RCMP cases. Like I mentioned, I have a few RCMP officers who are now retired from the force or have left the force, including one who worked at the Calgary airport as part of the RCMP team there, and some of the younger officers too.

Policing is a difficult job and I have a great appreciation for all those who pursue it, including my former executive assistant. She joined the Ottawa Police Service as a uniformed officer just a few months ago. She will be completing her time with the Ontario Police College later in August, will be graduating from the college there and will be back here in OPS as a uniformed police officer. I always joke that she is the first person in my office in nine years to get a real job after politics. I see a few members chuckling on that side. I think too many members here have staff who linger on or get a desk job. She is actually going to be doing something productive, and I am really happy that she found a thing that she is going to love doing. Hopefully, the rest of her life she will have a long, successful career and I wish Cheyenne all the best of luck with that.

The third concern that was expressed was the lack of independence for access to information requests. There are a few portions in there that would allow the commission to rule certain things as ineligible for an access to information request. Again, there is a lack of a mandated review period. Those statutory reviews, as we know, do not always happen on time, but even when they are missing from legislation, legislation can then linger on without having parliamentarians take a closer look at it. I do not think it is the end of the world.

I hope the House will indulge me for a moment. I do have a member of my riding, a very special person who is retiring. Christine McIver is a truly special Albertan and a friend of mine. She is the retiring founder of the Kids Cancer Camps of Alberta. This was her passion project for decades. I did not know her son Derek, but heard so many stories about him. He passed away from cancer. He was the inspiration for the work that she was doing. Just like Christine, I am a parent who sat in many NICUs and many ICUs with some of my kids, including the one who passed away, so I share that with her. Again, I imagine her sitting in a pediatric ICU waiting to be told that the neurosurgeon had removed a mandarin-sized orange from her son's brain. He had medulloblastoma, a hyper-aggressive brain cancer. Derek would pass away in her arms on April 26, 1991, so it has been a long time. From her grief, she started to raise funds. She built a camp and a network, and she has created over, if I count in my head quickly, 20 camp programs single-handedly, which now she has passed on to others to continue her work.

Famously, a lot of the fundraising started with giving toques with a logo of a bear that had a crooked smile on its face. It is neat because Derek, post-surgery, had a crooked smile, resulting from having so much brain matter removed, so they put the little bear picture on toques that were very popular and many of us still have them. A concept of a Derek bear was born. Christine became “Crazy Bear”, as she would say, because she was so passionate about this project. She received a lot of medals, awards and achievements over time. I just wanted to tell Christine, Crazy Bear, to rest assured that her mission is accomplished. I wish a very happy retirement to her.

With that, I go back to my Yiddish proverb: Man plans, God laughs. One never knows what life will put before us. Bill C-20 has taken a long time to get here and there have been three different pieces of legislation. I look forward to questions from the other side.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought forward some proverbs. I have one that I would share with him. We often talk about the fact that there are two Bloc parties in this House; there is the Bloc Québécois, and then there is the “block everything party”. We know that at committee the Conservatives tabled over 75 amendments and many that they took away. They filibustered the committee for weeks and stopped Bill C-20 from coming forward.

I am just wondering how the member comes to terms with the fact that members of his own party were responsible for filibustering the committee with motions that were not even related to the bill. How does he explain that to his constituents and to Canadians?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously disagree with the member. I have been at committees where I have proposed 40-plus amendments, and I think of my amendments as being substantive. That is what we came here to do: to work the hours that are needed to make legislation better, to make sure that we make the points on behalf of stakeholders, on behalf of the residents of our ridings, and if we have good ideas to improve legislation, to propose them, to speak to them and to vote on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the CBSA has serious governance problems. The ArriveCAN file exposed that, as did the lack of oversight at the port of Montreal, which is a nexus for car theft. Many whistle-blowers have identified systemic internal problems.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the CBSA should be placed under third party management while the governance problems are sorted out. What does my hon. colleague think about this proposal?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that morale among the workers, the officers who work for the Canada Border Services Agency, is rather low these days. It is hard because the Liberal federal government refuses to support them in the very difficult work that they do. This agency is being asked to do a lot of things in our country. It takes care of the ports and airports and also ensures that people who stay longer than their immigration visa allows are sent back to their country of origin. It is hard work and they need support from a federal government that is on their side. The workers do not have that support today.

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

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Joliette asked the member a question about the possibility of putting the Canada Border Services Agency under third party management, his response was not really clear. Do the Conservatives approve of this measure?

Also, how do they envision the right of appeal for people who feel they received abusive or inappropriate treatment at the hands of border services officers? What might that look like?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable people to file complaints and report incidents that happen at the Canadian border.

One of my constituents sent me an email a few months ago describing how he was mistreated. He and his wife were coming back from the United States and they felt they were treated inappropriately. In some cases, these incidents are so serious that it will be up to the commission to determine what really happened. In others, they involve service-related problems that can be resolved at a lower level by a director. I do not often see such serious cases. I think this is the first that I have seen in nine years, and it just happened in the last three or four months.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today and speak, this time to Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. It is an honour to rise on this important piece of legislation. It would establish the complaints and review commission, and it would be amending certain acts and statutory instruments as well.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a brief period during clause-by-clause of this bill, so there were many important amendments put forward by all parties to help ensure that we get this bill right. That is the role of committee, and it should be the role of all parliamentarians to get those things right at committee. I appreciate, though we had some hiccups along the way as we always do, the general collaboration to get that completed.

On that note of getting the bill right, it is important that we have a fulsome debate because the bill would help foster public confidence and trust in our federal law enforcement agencies, namely the RCMP and CBSA. Public trust and confidence in all of our institutions is paramount to democracy, but particularly to institutions focused on public safety and national security. It is of the highest importance to ensure that trust is there.

A related issue we are dealing with presently in this chamber is that Conservatives are asking the government to release the names of MPs who are reported to have engaged with hostile foreign nations. However, just this morning, at the public safety and national security committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us, “Boo hoo, get over it.” Comments like this do the opposite of ensuring that there is trust in public institutions, when legitimate concerns are brought forward on something as serious as foreign interference and the involvement of members of this chamber, and the government says to get over it, to look the other way and that there is nothing to see.

Coming back to Bill C-20, I will note that the bill does not really seem terribly important to the government, despite its claims that it needs to be passed. This is the third attempt the government has made to pass the bill, as has been mentioned by members. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, and it died on the order of paper. In the 43rd Parliament it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called an unnecessary early election for his political gain in the middle of a pandemic. Of course, he called that election despite having voted a couple of months before the election to do just that, and I will come back to that a bit later. Clearly, the government says it cares, and its track record says otherwise. The bill has not been a priority for the government to move through.

I want to take a bit of time to talk about what the bill would actually do. It would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the public complaints and review commission, under its new name. The Commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA.

The bill would also codify timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to interim reports, reviews and recommendations of the complaints commission. There would be information sharing between the RCMP, the CBSA and the commission. The bill would also require mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to the commission's recommendations, and it would require mandatory reporting of race-based data by the commission. Lastly, the bill would create a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.

While there would be many positive changes made, there are still a number of concerns that have been raised. First, one of the concerns is that there was a lack of consultation, something that seems to be a recurring theme, unfortunately, for the government. I spoke about this just yesterday in the chamber in regard to Bill C-61.

The government continues to say that it is consulting with first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and that it has a broad-based bill that is supported and co-developed. However, at the same time, we continue to hear concerns raised by first nation leaders impacted by the bill that their voices have not been heard and that they do not want it move forward as quickly as it has been until they have their say and amendments are brought forward. We need to hear from experts on every piece of legislation.

In the case of Bill C-20, various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged a number of problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. One particular concern is having police investigate police. The National Police Federation told the committee:

First, the PCRC should end the practice of the police investigating the police. Under the current CRCC model, members of the RCMP are tasked with investigating most of the public complaints filed. It has been noted many times that our members handle these investigations of their colleagues in a professional and impartial manner. However, this does create a perception of bias and possible conflict of interest.

Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, whom I am looking forward to visiting this weekend with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, also expressed concerns about this. He noted that his community makes up 70% of the traffic at a port of entry nearby. He told the committee:

If a traveller complains about a border officer, the likelihood of them having an interaction with that officer again is very minimal, but in my community, it's very high. If somebody complains about an officer's conduct or about the service they received, the likelihood of them encountering that officer again is very high. There's no other border crossing in Canada that would be like that.

Having said that, doing this outside of the agency is definitely helpful in ensuring that it's a fair and independent process and a process where the person who is complaining—and I would argue the officers themselves—can be assured that it's more of an objective process than an internal process.

Bill C-20 would not fully address the issue, as the new complaints commission would still rely on RCMP and CBSA resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments at committee stage to increase the independence, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties.

I want to come back to the issue that I alluded to earlier in my comments, not just about Bill C-20 but also, more broadly, about the government's approach on many bills and topics that it claims to be a priority, though their actions say otherwise. One that is interconnected in some ways to this one is with first nations and Inuit policing. The government has promised for years that first nations and Inuit police services would be designated as essential and would be allocated the proper resources.

The former minister of public safety, who, we know, was rightly turfed from his position, said in 2022 that the legislation would be right around the corner and that he was working around the clock. We have seen nothing but delays and excuses since. To this point, the current public safety minister says many of the very same things, but Conservatives will believe it when we see it.

I hope that the government takes the issues in Bill C-20 on indigenous policing, the issues in Bill C-61 and many other issues seriously, and that we are able to get the important work done.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2019, Mary Foster from Solidarity Across Borders said, “We have enough experience to know that making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere.”

Having the ability to challenge the findings of the CBSA's investigations is essential to maintaining Canadians' trust. That is my first point for my hon. colleague.

Also, I want to know whether he is concerned that the process will be long and complicated, which could result in most individuals giving up before the end of the process and simply throwing in the towel.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, I do believe that I did touch on that a bit in my comments. Of course, we have to ensure that this process is independent and that it is free of any conflicts. It is a process that must be effective and thorough, and on the same point the member mentioned, it has to be one that people would be willing to go through.

I do share similar concerns, as I highlighted, which is why I think it is important that we continue to have these important discussions and debates so that we can ensure that the bill does what it is intended to do and that it is an effective piece of legislation, not one that continues to perpetuate some of the status quo, which is already not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about how this government operates and how it operates through such poor governance and mismanagement. Of course, even in the last 24 hours, we have had a new Auditor General's report talking about conflicts of interest and really serious allegations. I am wondering if the member could expand on some of the comments that he was making during his intervention on that topic.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is right. The scandals and the mismanagement know no bounds with the government.

However, an important aspect as well is the prioritization of legislation. Everything seems to be a priority for the government, but nothing actually ends up moving. As I alluded to earlier, with Bill C-61 yesterday, the government wanted to rush through to get to committee, and I am happy that we were able to pass a motion from the Conservative side to get that done, but there were 33 sitting days that the government had when it could have brought it forward, and it chose not to. When the clock starts to tick in June, all of a sudden it seems like it is a priority.

Unfortunately, we see that over and over again with legislation that pertains to indigenous and first nations peoples across the country. It is not a priority until time is running out for the government, and then it is scrambling to get it done.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members on the public safety committee submitted 33 amendments for Bill C-20, but they withdrew over 75% of them. Meanwhile, they dragged out the Bill C-20 meetings repeatedly by filibustering other parties' amendments and moving motions that were completely unrelated to Bill C-20. How does the member account for that?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the characterization the member brought forward. It is important that we bring forward amendments at committee and have those important discussions to improve legislation. As I mentioned, and as my Bloc colleague mentioned, there are concerns with this legislation, and there are things that need to be improved.

Canada's Conservatives are proud to do our work in committee to hold the government to account, and we are going to continue to do that, instead of continuing to blindly support the government, as the NDP has been doing.