Madam Speaker, before I get to the topic of my late show question, I do have to say that it is disappointing this evening to again see the government talk out, and therefore deny, the opportunity to expedite a good private member's bill. Bill C-316 was debated tonight, and it would have been excellent if that debate had been allowed to collapse so that we could have ensured that it would meet the CRA deadline to get organ donor information included on tax forms. However, as we have seen on a number of occasions from this government, it insisted on filling the time and thus not allowing this good private member's to pass, even at the risk of the bill not now passing in time before the next election.
Nonetheless, I do want to address the issue of Christopher Garnier tonight. This issue has really captured the attention of Canadians. He is a person who received veterans benefits even though he never actually served in the Canadian Armed Forces. He received benefits related apparently to PTSD he acquired as a result of his commission of a terrible crime. The crime was the murder of Constable Catherine Campbell, who did serve her country as a volunteer firefighter and a police officer.
This obviously offends the sensibilities of veterans, as well as all Canadians, who were shocked to learn that someone who had committed a crime in Canada and never served in the Canadian Armed Forces was and is receiving benefits that are supposed to go to Canada's veterans. The government at the time did not provide meaningful answers. Subsequently, in response to our questions and advocacy, the Liberals have brought in policies that, hopefully, will prevent this kind of situation from happening again. Obviously, that is a positive step, but it remains the fact, as far as we know and have been told, that Mr. Garnier continues to receive those benefits.
Notwithstanding any policy changes in the future, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about this specific case. Does he believe that Mr. Garnier should be receiving these benefits, which arise not from his service to this country, but rather from the apparent PTSD he got as a result of his terrible crime of murdering Constable Catherine Campbell? Does the parliamentary secretary believe that Mr. Garnier should still be receiving those benefits? Does he believe that? If he believes Mr. Garnier should not be receiving those benefits, then why will the government not act to ensure that in this specific case those benefits will not continue? If he does not believe that, maybe he should explain why he believes this person should still receive those benefits.
Again, should Christopher Garnier continue to receive benefits from Veterans Affairs despite never having served his country?