Debates of April 17th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise as the elected representative for the new riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's loyal opposition. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is a new riding that was created as of the last election, and I believe it is one of the most majestic ridings across this country, if not the most majestic one. It starts at the Great Divide at the Alberta border, where the last stretches of the CP Rail mainline were completed to connect this country from coast to coast back in 1885. I was a proud employee of CP Rail for a short time in the 1980s and got to see some of those important sections of track.

I want to recognize the importance of all the people who still live in the area and are descendants of employees who built that nation-building railway, which linked us from coast to coast to coast. It is an incredible piece of our history. I am so proud and honoured to represent an area that was so important in being able to complete that link.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. This is the third iteration of legislation introduced by the government in this 45th Parliament dealing with this issue. I raise this because it is an obvious indication of the failures of this government and former Liberal governments to recognize what is needed to bring law and order to this country. It is also an obvious indication of the inability of the Liberal government to draft legislation that is effective and properly worded in order to pass the scrutiny of this House. That is the purpose of this House: to scrutinize legislation that is being proposed by the government to make sure that it is the best we can do for Canadians. That is an honourable job we are all elected to do, and we on the Conservative side, as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, will continue to do everything within our power to make sure legislation introduced by the government is truly the best it can be for Canadians.

The Liberal government first introduced Bill C-2. It has basically been shelved because it was so problematic. Last fall, it introduced Bill C-2, which fell short of protecting Canadians, while overreaching in other areas. Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individuals' freedom and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Those are important pieces that have been removed from this bill because we heard from Canadians how important it is that their privacy be respected and, which I would say is the most important piece, that government overreach not be extended to the Liberal government.

Now the Liberals have taken parts out of Bill C-2 and reintroduced them in Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is void of the provisions that Conservatives opposed in parts of Bill C-2. Law enforcement requires the tools they need to combat crime and keep our communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will carefully review this legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not repeat the past failures. We will also ensure that we hear from experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. There are experts in the field who know best how a bill will be interpreted, how it may be implemented and what unintended consequences may lie ahead if a poorly drafted bill is allowed to pass. We have seen incidents like that in the past.

I want to take a bit of a sidestep right now to talk about some of the crime stats that have been the result of previous poorly legislated bills passed by a former Liberal government. I will talk about highlights and percentages that are increases since 2015, when the Liberal government came to power, through 2023. Total violent crime is up 49.84%. Total homicides are up 27.75%. Gang-related homicides are up 78.35%. All three levels of sexual assaults are up 74.83%, and for sexual assaults, 90% of the victims are women.

This is concerning. The increase in crime is all in the realm of the past 10-plus years of Liberal governments. I am quoting stats from 2015 to 2023. Those increases resulted from bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, from the first Liberal Parliament, when I was first elected to this place.

I will talk about some of the stats in British Columbia. The total number of violent crime violations was 26,062. That is up to 33,926, an increase of 30%. Extortions went from 359 to 1,592, a 343.45% increase in extortion. Just in British Columbia, we have seen how the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have led to these problems and increasing problems that continue under the Liberal government's realm. Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence was affected by Bill C-5. Bill C-75 rolled back the issues around bail reform.

I want to step back a bit to earlier in the interventions today when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola referred to the echo chamber that seems to be in this place today. Even though this bill is a government bill, the government members are not rising to speak to it, not even to ask questions of Conservative members during the questions and comments phases of today's interventions. I raise this because I fear that it is what law enforcement authorities may be perceiving while waiting for legislation so they can do their jobs. Empty echo chambers, from a government that has had over 10 years to address the crime, fraud and corruption, are increasing the impact on Canadians after 10 years of inaction, while criminals are treated more leniently than victims are supported by their own government.

I revert back to how our debate today echoes with what witnesses repeatedly tell us at committees. The citizens of this country often provide input and good direction for the government, but the government continues to be an echo chamber.

It is high time the government took what it is being told by Canadians and addressed the crime, fraud and corruption that have become a plague in our communities.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I know the minister generously told the House that he would be open to amendments that could improve the bill. Does my colleague have any ideas for an amendment or something that could improve the bill?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this legislation very closely, scrutinizing it closely, like we do with every piece of legislation that comes before the House, to make sure that appropriate amendments are proposed, and hopefully passed, at committee.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment further on this echo chamber, because I find it absolutely fascinating that the government legislation is not receiving any questions or scrutiny from the Liberal members across the way. We have the Speaker looking around the room and only seeing members on this side of the House stand to talk about it. That is important.

We take our job seriously as members of the opposition. What does the member from B.C. think about the Liberals taking their job seriously as members of the government?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oshawa for that really interesting question about the echo chamber. I will mimic my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he spoke of the echo, echo, echo chamber in here.

I think it is telling that today there are no questions and no interventions coming from the Liberal side. We can only surmise why that might be, but understanding how the Liberal government operates, there are some members in this chamber at times who are the only ones to speak during the intervention process or present speeches from the government side. Its backbench members are basically muzzled. It sounds like the entire government side is muzzled today on these interventions.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to get up a third time to ask a question about this bill.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member feels the bill is an improvement over Bill C-2. I would like to know what specific element of change he would like to see in this bill at committee.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Liberal side for finally being one to stand up. I think he has been the only one in the last while here to present questions.

I am not going to take the liberty to talk about what amendments might be put forward at committee. We will carefully scrutinize the bill. We will listen to the witnesses who are called to committee to testify on the bill, to the stakeholders and to law enforcement, who can hopefully guide all members of the House and the members of the committee on the best way to improve this bill if it needs to be improved.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what the Liberal member on this side was asking.

What ideas does the member have? What amendments would you bring forward? We hear a lot of criticism from the Conservatives constantly. We want to hear what amendments and ideas they would bring forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would just remind members to speak through the Chair. I am not bringing forward amendments.

I invite the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies to offer his comments.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those amendments would be developed during the scrutiny of the bill.

We can see where the language in the bill needs to be clarified, whether with respect to the definitions or how the bill is going to be interpreted. I spoke about that in my intervention.

We could hear from enforcement authorities and from individuals who have been affected by not having this legislation in place so that we can improve the bill.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity to discuss, debate and advance legislation that is going to address the real challenges facing Canadians, it is important that we do so in a fulsome way. This system that we have, our Westminster parliamentary democracy, gives us all specific roles to play. The government advances government legislation and the official opposition has a duty to test what the government puts before the House before it comes into force. This bill is an example of why it is so important that we have an official opposition in our system. It demonstrates the effectiveness of Canada's Conservatives in holding the Liberal government to account for over 11 years.

We have seen a history that has not changed since the last election, or with the selection and then election of a new Liberal Prime Minister. When Liberals are given the opportunity, they will try to grab as much power as they can with both hands, and they usually do it in times when Canadians need help the most and we are looking, as parliamentarians, to try and find ways to help them, to help Parliament work and to help Canadians.

What we saw with the evolution of the legislative process that led us to Bill C-22 is only the most recent example of that, but it will not be the last. There have been some signals about what is to come.

If we look back, even at the COVID pandemic, we saw in the House so much uncertainty and so much anxiety about what was going to happen and what the government would need to do. Perhaps there would be runs on banks. The government sought the approval of the House to have the ability to spend without any accountability from this place for a period of time that was without precedence and without limit on the types of things they would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on.

It was a late hour when it was proposed and there was minimal manning in the chamber. There was only a small cadre of government and opposition members from all parties present, and we had to make decisions quickly. The government had the benefit of the full apparatus, including hundreds of thousands of public servants, but the official opposition, without that advantage to give fulsome review to the proposal by the government, pushed back and was able to place limits on the power that the government was looking to grab, which it did not need.

This is an example similar to that. In Bill C-2, we saw, in response to what has been a growing crime problem in our country over the last decade, a solution to problems that we did not have and an effort to suspend the legal rights of Canadians for convenience, I suppose. It would be for the government to justify why it would have needed some of those powers, and it was not able to make the case publicly or in this place, so Bill C-2 did not proceed.

Bill C-12, also known as the Bill C-2 redo, made it through the House and now we have Bill C-22. These are bills born out of that one piece of legislation.

Why did we oppose it? There were provisions on things that the government, as I said, failed to make its case on. Limiting Canadians' ability to use cash in transactions was one of them.

Allowing individuals other than peace officers, without a warrant, to open Canadians' mail was another, as well as having warrantless access to medical records and private electronic communication.

Again, the government did not demonstrate necessity. It did not say that it was born out of a national security imperative or say that the tools we had did not sufficiently solve the problem for which they prescribed this solution. We are looking to get the result that, of course, is going to help with the scourge of crime in our streets. I know that speakers before me have gone through the truly alarming crime statistics. I know that some have offered anecdotes and that some have offered testimony of very real and painful situations for victims of crime.

We could have addressed this many months ago in the way that we are addressing it now, with the bill brought before the House, made better by the opposition who look to, with all parliamentarians, discuss, review, hear from experts, stakeholders and Canadians, and make further improvements and amendments to the bill when it is at committee

What will the scope of those amendments be? I do not sit on the committee where it will be reviewed. If I have the opportunity to take part in those hearings, I do have some areas that I would look to examine, including questions that are not answered in the legislative text but would be resolved by regulation. We need to get certainty around what that would look like because that is outside the purview of Parliament. We want to have certainty on a number of things. Protecting Canadians also means protecting their rights. We also need to be protected from government overreach. We all have a duty to do that. I am pleased that we are examining the bill in its latest form. It sounds like it will have support to advance to committee, including from the opposition who helped to sharpen the iron.

What we want to see, at all times here, is that Canadians have in Parliament a mechanism to make things better, where there is a check against it. The balance in the chamber has changed in the last week, with a majority of members now on the government side. If we had been in that situation many months ago, the bill would have passed unchanged. The government clearly believes this to be an improvement.

I started by talking about how government looks to grab power with both hands. We are going to see, over the next couple of weeks, the government looking to undo what it agreed to for the duration of Parliament, and that is the composition of our committees. I want to take my last minute to implore all members, members in the governing party especially, to consider that we are better collectively when we are able to improve on that legislation through a truly collaborative process, and not just simply by majority rule or by diminishing or eliminating the rights of the minority. We need to protect the rights of Canadians.

I look forward to the study of the bill at committee, so that we can do that, especially at this time, as we have seen, over the last 11 years, the scourge of crime in our streets.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I really did not see a lot of substantive debate on this particular bill, rather than to outline a number of irrelevant facts.

[An hon. member]

Crime is just an irrelevant fact?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a little bit of intervention because I am being heckled as I am trying to make a very important point.

It is important that the bill get through the different stages. We are looking forward to the committee stage of this process. We have consulted extensively with different stakeholders, including law enforcement, civil society and academics, as well as industry. We are looking forward to a robust debate at committee. I want to know what kinds of recommendations the member opposite would have for amendments.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister would take a minute to reflect on what I said and consider the role he played in bringing forward the failed legislation in Bill C-2 before this House. If it were not for Conservatives, who sharpened their pencils and actually turned the pages, we would be facing laws that infringed on the rights of Canadians, and he would be the author of that.

If the minister wants to talk about substance, why is this bill devoid of substance on areas that are going to be prescribed in regulation instead of being debated in the House, examined and enshrined in law? What is it that needs to be done in the back rooms? Is it the same kind of thing, the same kind of thinking that led to the bill that was Bill C-2, that was such a failure—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

moved that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of constituents of Scarborough—Woburn. Today I am also speaking on behalf of the many families and individuals who are impacted by sickle cell disease right across this country, and reflect on some of the pain and challenges that they go through.

I would like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for seconding the second reading of this bill. I would also like to recognize an advocate, Biba Tinga, who is joining us here today. This legislation comes from the other place, from Senator Mégie and also Senator Ince. They brought this proposed piece of legislation forward to this House. It is an honour for me to be able to speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of community members across this country who support this. I also want to acknowledge the role of parliamentary Black caucus members from the Senate and the House of Commons who have been working on this issue for many years. I would like to thank both senators for their leadership and compassion.

If this bill is passed, it will make a significant, positive difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians across this country. For far too long, sickle cell disease has had a negative impact on too many Canadians. Bill S-201 represents a massive opportunity to improve the lives of Canadians today and in the future. This disease is life-threatening. It often has the ability to reduce someone's life by up to 30 years. There are 6,000 Canadians who are suffering from this disease today. It disproportionately impacts people of African and Caribbean descent. It also impacts people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent and members of racialized communities.

Due to its genetic nature, the disease affects every single part of the body. A person with sickle cell disease is highly vulnerable to organ failure and abnormal lung function, as well as loss of vision. Sickle cell disease also causes extreme pain. In many instances, it requires long visits to the hospital. When a person is in a crisis, in an episode, the illness affects patients' daily lives. This severe pain requires very strong painkillers to mitigate the pain. Often those suffering from sickle cell are stigmatized and labelled as drug-seekers. Far too often, their pain is dismissed, and they are subject to unfair treatment, labelling and judgment.

Additionally, people with sickle cell disease do not suffer alone. Their families suffer. When there is an absence of adequate health care providers, the families take on the role as caregivers. Besides the emotional toll of watching their loved ones suffer, all of these factors put a high strain on caregiving family members to be in a constant state of readiness since a crisis can happen at any given moment.

Due to the nature of this disease, many patients and family members suffer from employment instability, and they find themselves carrying the weight on their shoulders alone. Alarmingly, sickle cell disease does not qualify for the appropriate benefits within our Canadian system, such as the disability tax credit. With many patients or their families navigating unemployment due to the illness, the cost grows quickly, both financially and psychologically.

This is very troubling, especially because people who suffer from sickle cell disease normally come from low-income neighbourhoods. Some 41% of those who suffer from sickle cell disease live in the lowest-income neighbourhoods in the country, amounting to roughly triple the rate of the general population. As such, many with sickle cell disease face barriers ranging from decreased educational opportunities, lack of financial stability due to the risk of work termination, issues with obtaining accommodation, lack of recognition of a disability and exclusion from many government programs.

This ends up causing an ongoing cycle that disproportionately impacts our society's most vulnerable communities. It is crucial that health care professionals be able to recognize the symptoms and respond accordingly. Unfortunately, too many frontline health care professionals lack the professional awareness and knowledge in identifying and treating the disease. Moreover, access to specialized health care remains heavily dependent on geography, with services fragmented right across the country.

These issues extend beyond hospitals because they are rooted in the system and institutional barriers that exist. This is specifically true in the case of blood donation requirements for the long-term treatment of sickle cell. We need more donors to meet blood demands. As the complexity of this illness increases, there is a need for donors of African and Caribbean descent to make those donations, as they are most likely compatible.

However, Canada permanently bans donations from individuals who have had malaria or who have recently visited countries where there are high cases of malaria, unlike countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and France, which instead impose temporary deferral programs. This disproportionately affects Canadians of African and Caribbean descent, the very communities that need these types of blood donations the most.

Now is the time for members of this House to support a national framework for sickle cell disease in this country. Bill S-201 proposes a comprehensive national framework to improve how Canada understands the diagnosis and treats sickle cell disease. At its core, the bill is about coordination rather than duplication. It is about consistency rather than patchwork. It calls for the federal government to work collaboratively with provinces and territories, health care providers, researchers, experts and community organizations to ensure that patients receive timely, evidence-based and compassionate care, no matter where they live.

In addition, the bill pushes for a national standard of care and universal newborn screening across the country, recognizing that early diagnosis, consistent treatment and equal access to care can significantly improve the outcomes and prevent avoidable complications. Bill S-201 also looks beyond the clinical setting. It recognizes the need for public awareness and anti-stigma campaigns to reduce misinformation, support families and encourage community participation in areas such as blood donation and peer support.

The bill highlights the importance of a more diversified blood supply, especially since many patients benefit from closely matched blood donations from people of African and Caribbean descent. It also addresses the financial realities of living with sickle cell disease by calling for stronger financial supports, better disability recognition and more equitable access to medication, so that treatment is not determined by postal code or one's ability to pay.

Ultimately, the urgency of this bill cannot be overstated. Sickle cell disease is a severe and life-altering condition, yet it has long been marginalized and systematically neglected, despite being one of the most common genetic diseases in the world. Bill S-201 is an important step toward correcting that neglect, and building a more fair, coordinated and humane system for patients and families across our country.

I would like to take a moment to recognize some of the many people who, for the last many decades, have been looking for ways to mitigate the impact of sickle cell disease and build better lives for Canadians.

I would like to thank those who have worked on this topic in this House. There have been tireless advocates like Kirsty Duncan, who unfortunately passed away earlier this year. She was a strong advocate for this issue. Her torch was carried by the Hon. Jane Cordy, who introduced Bill S-211, which called for the designation of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. There is also the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was the one who sponsored that bill in this House. The bill was passed and it has been law now for almost a decade.

I want to thank some community members, but before I do that, I want to say that there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have added to this effort over the last four decades, in Ontario and across the country. I wanted to take a moment to speak about a few people who have gone above and beyond.

Outside the government, there are folks like Biba Tinga, as I said, who is with us today. She is the president of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada and one of the main drivers of the bill. I want to recognize her work. For more than a decade, she has been advocating for better treatment, more options for patients and families, and stronger public understanding of the disease. Her work is focused not just on the medical component. It is also focused on looking for ways to deal with the everyday realities that people go through, including stigma, employment disruption, mental health pressures and, of course, financial strain.

As members may know, I served as a member of the Ontario legislature for 10 years. While I was there, I met many advocates from the Ontario side who worked for decades to better the lives of Canadians suffering from sickle cell disease. I want to recognize the work of the Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario, specifically Lanre Tunji-Ajayi, who has been raising awareness and has been advocating for better screening and care and a better public understanding of sickle cell disease within the community and within government.

I have to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary work of Nurse Dotty Nicholas. She has done incredible work in Ontario. She was awarded the Order of Ontario in 2010, and in 2006 she worked with the Ontario government, with then premier Dalton McGuinty, to put in place screening in Ontario that has been replicated right across the country.

I want to thank TAIBU Community Health Centre and its executive director, Liben, for the extraordinary work they are doing in this area. They are looking for ways to focus on prevention, restoration and advancement. Their work with the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario develops specialized community-based care and improved access to genetic counselling and primary care.

Finally, I want to take a moment to thank one of the pioneers of all this work, the late Lillie Johnson, who advocated for decades for the screening of newborns.

The bill is about fairness. It is about correcting the mistakes of the past. Systemic barriers were put in place, and people suffering from this very common genetic disease were not provided with the right types of tools necessary to advance themselves in a fair way in society when it came to employment, benefits and medication. I have met many people who suffer from sickle cell disease. I have known people growing up in my community who have passed away from the disease. In fact, people very close to me have suffered and passed away from this disease. It is a very devastating disease.

When people go into an episode, they can hardly move their body. The pain is so strong, and they do not know when it is going to hit. As Canadians, when talking about one of the most common rare diseases that exist in the world, we can do a better job, and the leadership is going to start in the House. If we pass the national framework for sickle cell disease, we would have the opportunity to build a better life for thousands of Canadians directly and indirectly through their networks, communities and families, and strengthen the ability for people to build themselves up, do exactly what they want to do, contribute as much as they can to build this beautiful country and make it an even better place.

One of the highlights of my political career has been to introduce and speak to this bill. I want to thank all members of the House for listening today and thank all those who will support it. I appreciate their time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

This is a good time to remind members, since this is the first hour of debate on a private member's bill, that when the mover of the motion gets up to speak, they have 15 minutes, and then there is five minutes for questions and comments afterward.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this important bill to the House. I believe that the problem is going to grow even bigger in the next decades. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians may be faced with something like this.

I have a technical question. Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. Bill S-201, which we are discussing today, focuses only on a single rare disease. Does the hon. member believe that this framework would contradict the existing law we have in place?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has done his homework, and I appreciate that. This is a disease that has often been neglected. My father tells me that back in Grenada, 40 or 50 years ago, they were using, and this is not a joke, leeches and blood sucking in order to try to figure out what was going on. The disease has had a short history in medicine when it comes to main medicine practices. We are at a stage right now where the scientific revolution that is taking place with so much change provides us with such an opportunity to actually focus on a disease that, even within the rare diseases that exist, traditionally has not been given the opportunity to be studied, researched and invested into. The bill would provide us with an opportunity to do much better and especially align it with the science and technology to improve the lives of so many Canadians, because the medicine is out there.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois fully understands the urgency of addressing the issue of sickle cell disease. This is a very noble gesture on the part of my colleague. However, as he probably knows, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. A number of the points raised by the bill are already being addressed by Quebec's health care system.

It is true that there is value in raising awareness. However, does my colleague not agree that there are some unnecessary redundancies in certain parts of the bill that are already being addressed by the Quebec ministry of health?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing the seriousness of this disease. The fact is that some provinces and territories are doing great things and some are not doing as much as they possibly could. There is a huge opportunity to build a national network that would not only do the research, but collectively collect the data. As they say, if there is no data, there is no problem. We do not even know the statistics across the country. There has to be a national framework to bring all of that together, to build better educational programs and to share best practices.

This is never, ever about taking anything away from the provinces. It is about giving the provinces the ability to share and enhance what they are currently doing.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Woburn for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. In fact, in the fight against sickle cell disease, a lot of the work starts in Scarborough. There are some incredible heroes who have been doing the work, and there are so many individuals in our communities who are impacted by it.

I am just wondering if the member can reflect on the journey that people in Scarborough have faced, the response that the bill would give them and the confidence that the bill would give them in order to make sure that their lives are improved.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a recent town hall in Scarborough at Markham Road and the 401 at Global Kingdom Ministries. We held a community forum there, and we had many people, 100-plus people, come in from the region to talk about this. People told us stories about what they go through in their lives. My friend refers to them as warriors, folks who tell their personal stories. Members can imagine being a young person who has just finished university, 21 years old, at the top of their game, but they do not know when the next episode is going to come. This is about making sure that we put in place the right types of processes to allow people to reach their full potential, and that is good for Canada.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and specifically today to speak to Bill S-201, an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease.

To begin, I want to acknowledge the important intent behind the legislation. Sickle cell disease is a serious, lifelong condition that affects approximately 6,000 Canadians and their families across this country. It is a painful, complex and often under-recognized illness. Better coordination and improved awareness within our health system are important.

For those Canadians affected, this disease has had a profound impact. Families face repeated hospital visits, chronic pain crises and uncertainty around access to consistent treatment and care. These are real challenges, and Canada currently has no coordinated data infrastructure for sickle cell disease. Therefore, we are not able to properly track outcomes, evaluate treatments at scale or ensure that best practices are shared effectively across the country. That gap is part of the reason conversations like this one are so important.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, while the prevalence may be lower than in larger urban centres, we are no strangers to the challenges of rare disease management. Patients in rural, remote and coastal communities often face additional barriers simply because of geography, whether that is access to specialists, access to diagnostic services or access to ongoing treatment support. In fact, after affordability, access to health care is the second-biggest concern that I hear about in my riding of Long Range Mountains. Many Canadians living in rural, remote and coastal areas experience these same challenges, often waiting extended periods of time to see specialists. Therefore, coordination can be very useful.

Bill S-201 proposes the development of a national framework that touches on a wide range of areas, from health care provider training to public awareness, neonatal screening, research networks and even the analysis of potential tax credits and changes to disability and drug coverage programs.

In principle, coordination and information sharing across jurisdictions can be beneficial. We should always be open to improving how provinces and territories learn from one another and how best practices can be shared. Canadians definitely benefit from governments working together.

Conservatives have supported efforts to raise awareness and improve outcomes for Canadians living with this disease. We supported the recognition of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day and have consistently supported broader efforts to strengthen frameworks that improve health outcomes for Canadians. We also recognize the importance of advancing a rare disease strategy to support treatment development and of working with provinces to improve labour mobility through nationally recognized credentials for health care professionals. These are practical steps that could help strengthen care across the country, and especially in areas where barriers to access exist.

However, there are considerations that must be addressed with this legislation. We must be very careful about jurisdiction. Health care delivery is, and must remain, the responsibility of the provinces. Any national framework must respect that division of powers. If federal initiatives move too far in setting standards without clear collaboration, we risk creating friction with provincial systems that are already managing significant pressures.

In fact, this bill uses the term “standards” rather than “guidelines”, which differs from comparable federal health framework legislation. The choice of language is important. Clinical practice is determined by medical professionals and provincial systems, and any federal role should be clearly advisory in nature.

We have seen in previous framework legislation, including in areas such as Lyme disease and firefighter cancer frameworks, that the most effective federal role is often one of coordination and guidance rather than prescriptive direction. In this case, the bill would benefit from clearer language around what is intended as guidance and what is intended as a binding expectation to reflect reality.

Second, while this bill would not include a direct appropriation of funds, it points to areas that would carry cost implications. A national research network, expanded neonatal screening programs, public awareness campaigns, enhanced training and potential expansions to drug coverage and disability supports are all meaningful initiatives, but they do come with fiscal implications that have not been fully defined yet, so transparency on those costs is important. At present, there is no fiscal appropriation and no Parliamentary Budget Officer estimate. Before this is finalized, Parliament should have a clear understanding of what the measures would cost and how they would be implemented.

Third, there is a question of duplication. Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. We need to ensure that this framework complements that strategy rather than overlaps with it, so that there is no confusion over how support is delivered. When dealing with rare diseases, efficiency, coordination and clarity in policy design are essential. Families affected by sickle cell disease need streamlined support, not overlapping systems.

That said, I want to recognize that the objectives in this bill align with important policy goals we have supported in the past. For example, improving caregiver recognition and support is something Conservatives have long advocated for, including making caregiver benefits more accessible and more responsive to real-world needs. Likewise, streamlining access to disability supports and improving drug approval and treatment pathways for rare diseases are areas where there is room for constructive work.

We also recognize the importance of early diagnosis and awareness. Long wait times and limited access to health care professionals can create a higher risk for these Canadians. Therefore, neonatal screening, when done appropriately and in partnership with provinces and territories, we recognize, can make a meaningful difference in outcomes for patients with a rare disease like sickle cell, but again, the keyword is partnership.

The framework must be developed in collaboration with provinces and territories. Conservatives believe the federal government should work with provinces on national health objectives. It must be developed collaboratively with provinces and territories, with clinicians, with patient advocacy groups and with those who are directly affected by the disease. Without that collaboration, the most well-intentioned framework can fall short in implementation.

We also need clarity on accountability. The bill would distribute responsibilities across multiple departments. While coordination is important, Canadians also expect clear lines of responsibility so progress can be measured and reported in a meaningful way.

The appropriate next step is to send this bill to committee. In committee, there is an opportunity to strengthen the legislation, improve its language, ensure it respects provincial jurisdiction and address the fiscal unknowns that remain. It is also the place to hear from stakeholders, medical professionals and provincial partners to ensure that the framework is both practical and effective. We believe amendments should be considered to ensure that provincial collaboration is explicit; that terminology, such as “standards”, is clearly defined in line with advisory clinical practice; and that cost implications are fully examined before implementation proceeds.

These are not objections to the intent of the bill but recommendations to ensure that if the framework moves forward, it does so in a way that is responsible, collaborative, grounded in the realities of the health care system and the regions of the country, practical and respectful of jurisdiction.

Canadians living with this disease and their families would definitely benefit from better coordination, better awareness and better outcomes. The question is not whether we should act, but how we act, and how we do it in a sustainable and co-operative way. For that reason, we support sending the bill to committee, where it can be strengthened and improved to ensure that it delivers real results for Canadians while respecting the roles of provinces and the importance of fiscal transparency.