Debates of Sept. 25th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Veterans

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that providing services is absolutely essential to a member's family. As my colleague mentioned, when a member serves, so does his or her family, in many ways. There is time away from home. There are the ghastly experiences someone goes through. I think it is responsible for us as a government, on all sides of this House, to stand up for veterans' families. The case before us, in terms of this motion, is an individual case, and I think that in good time, there will be a result that may be more amenable to people here in the House as well as across Canada.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the devotion of our men and women in uniform is undisputed and unparalleled. I assure my colleagues that just as veterans and their fallen comrades have made sacrifices to preserve our future, our government is committed to protecting them and their future. Our government made promises to veterans and all Canadians, and we are committed to keeping those promises. That is what we are doing. We have heard the concerns of soldiers, veterans and their families and we consulted the veterans' community, as well as veterans advocates and experts, on the best way forward.

That being said, we recognize that we will never make everyone happy. Our government has made a lot of positive changes over the past three years in order to better serve veterans and their families. New and improved Veterans Affairs programs have all the necessary ingredients for promoting well-being; an important one is the balance between financial, mental, physical and social well-being.

The result is a flexible set of benefits and programs that enable veterans and their families to decide what type of compensation is best for them. One of the promises was to provide a lifetime monthly pension. In his mandate letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Prime Minister clearly asked him to “[r]e-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured Veterans, while ensuring that every injured Veteran has access to financial advice and support so that they can determine the form of compensation that works best for them and their families.”

The new pension for life was announced last December and was designed to provide the greatest possible support for the most seriously injured veterans. This new approach consists of a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support and stability for military members and veterans who suffer from a service-related illness or injury.

One of the benefits that we are especially pleased to provide is the compensation for pain and suffering. It is a non-taxable lifetime monthly payment in recognition of service-related pain and suffering. This benefit is based on the extent of the impairment, and the monthly and lump-sum options give members and veterans the opportunity to choose what is best for them and their families.

The additional pain and suffering compensation, which is also a monthly, non-taxable benefit, provides additional support for veterans who have a service-related permanent and severe impairment. This benefit is paid in addition to the pain and suffering compensation and is meant to recognize the barriers to establishment in life that veterans face after service.

The income replacement benefit is another monthly program that will provide income support to veterans who need financial assistance because they are experiencing barriers to re-establishment in post-service life due to a health problem resulting primarily from service. In some cases, the benefit may also be offered to veterans, survivors and orphans, should they need it.

We realized that what we announced in December might have seemed complicated, which is why Minister O'Regan held round table discussions with veterans and stakeholders across the country. We wanted to make sure that veterans and their families understand the scope and the impact of the changes we are introducing. These meetings were also an opportunity to hear what veterans and stakeholders think about the new approach.

Overall, many people are satisfied with these changes. We are all aware that the needs of Canada's veterans have changed a lot over the past century. Since the Pensions Act was introduced, Veterans Affairs Canada has ensured that its programs and services have kept pace with those changing needs by adopting a better approach that incorporates the financial, mental, physical and social factors that play a role in the successful transition to post-service life.

It is clear that the new pension for life meets the government's promise to bring back a lifetime monthly pension. More importantly, it reiterates the government's unwavering commitment to ensuring that all veterans and their families are treated with dignity, respect and fairness, which is really at the heart of everything we do.

Over $6 billion in initiatives were announced in the 2016 and 2017 budgets, and we are investing another $3.6 billion on top of that in the flexible package of benefits and programs that is the pension for life.

We are committed to providing financial compensation for service-related pain and suffering. We are committed to providing income replacement to provide financial support for veterans during rehabilitation or to compensate them for their loss of income. We are committed to providing education, work and physical and mental health support programs for veterans. We are committed to making veterans' lives easier.

We know that every veteran has their own unique history and situation. That is why pension for life was designed to give every veteran the flexibility to decide what form of compensation works best for them and their family during the transition from military to civilian life. Pension for life provides a full suite of financial security and wellness elements to help veterans and their families transition to the next phase of their life and make choices about what they want to do next, whether it be education, work or retirement.

We have made a lot of progress in enhancing support to our courageous veterans. The government will never stop working to improve the lives of our veterans and their families.

Following a review, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has informed the department that services received by the family member of a veteran must be related to an illness or injury connected with the veteran's service. Where they are not, the case must be reviewed by a senior official before a decision can be made.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs is directing the department to address its policy on providing treatment to family members under extenuating circumstances, such as conviction for a serious crime. From now on, in cases involving extenuating circumstances, the decision to extend treatment to a family member other than the veteran must be made by a director, in collaboration with departmental health professionals.

In this specific case, it is important to understand that we cannot comment any further on the shameful murder of Constable Campbell. Our hearts are with the family, and we offer them our condolences.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I want to remind the members that when referring to another member, they must use the name of the individual's riding or their title.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

The 338 members of the House of Commons are all in favour of supporting veterans. That is not the issue. What we want to know is how the Canadian government can give benefits to a murderer who never served in the Canadian Armed Forces and, even worse, murdered someone in uniform.

November 11, the 100th anniversary of the armistice, will soon be here, and we will be meeting with our veterans at remembrance events.

My question is very simple. How will the member explain this terrible decision to them?

[Stéphane Lauzon]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot comment on this case in the House.

I will meet with veterans with my head held high. On November 11, we will commemorate the armistice as we have always done. We will stand up for our veterans.

I do not know how the Conservatives will face veterans after making cuts for over 10 years. The Conservatives shut down thousands of offices that provided front-line services to veterans.

It should be noted that our government is in the process of rehiring that staff. It is a long process. The Harper government's 10 years of inaction and cuts left us with a lot of work to do, and that is what we are doing.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation of our veterans has deteriorated. Veterans are waiting longer and longer to find out whether they are eligible for benefits. This problem started with the Conservatives' budget cuts a few years ago, but things have only gotten worse under the Liberals' watch. Veterans are waiting even longer, despite the Liberals' election promises.

My question is extremely simple. Why is the money that is supposed to be allocated to veterans in the budget not being used to help those veterans, whom the Liberals say they want to help?

[Stéphane Lauzon]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

What I like about that question is the part about how things seem to be worse under the Liberals. I can assure the hon. member that the rehired front-line officers are providing better service, suitable service. The ratio of cases per front-line officer has been considerably reduced. Each field officer now handles a dozen fewer cases. I can assure the hon. member that we are on the right track. A lot remains to be done. I agree with my colleague that we must do more. What I can say today is that we stand with our veterans and always will.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way talked about what the Liberals have done for veterans, and so forth, but in this case, I am wondering if he or anyone across the aisle has actually surveyed veterans about what they think about a cop-killer who has never served a day in the military getting benefits from Veterans Affairs because that person got PTSD from killing someone. What are veterans saying, or are they saying anything to you, or do you care what they think?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach does not want my opinion. I will defer to the parliamentary secretary. When hon. members ask questions, they should ask through the Chair, not to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Stéphane Lauzon]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We do not consult veterans on such specific, sensitive cases, on a murder as heinous as that of Officer Campbell. What I can say is that our minister and our Prime Minister have been clear: we must consult our veterans. My minister is consulting veterans. He has held a record number of consultations, round-table discussions, and meetings with veterans. That is what he has done, and that is what I intend to do in support of my minister. That is what we will do for as long as we are here.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, someone whom I have great respect for, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Before I stood up here today, I walked up to the third floor, as I often do. I went to the Memorial Chamber and looked at the Books of Remembrance. I do this because it serves as a reminder to me of the reason I have the privilege and the honour of sitting in our symbol of democracy. I do it often, out of respect for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I do it for their families. I certainly appreciate the service and sacrifices that our members of our military and their families have paid to this country.

It is a sad day in this country when veterans who are suffering from PTSD have to stand in line behind a convicted murderer who never served a day in his life, in order to receive PTSD benefits. I never thought we would get to this point, but here we are on an opposition day asking the government to do something very simple: to stop the benefits to police killer, Christopher Garnier.

Members can imagine my surprise last week when we stood in question period and asked the Prime Minister about this issue. I asked what I thought were very fair questions about how this could happen and what he was going to do to resolve it. Of course, the Prime Minister stood up, as we have heard during the debate today, and talked platitudes about veterans, and the Veterans Affairs minister stood up and gave an infomercial on all the things his government is doing. If we ask veterans, the Liberals are not doing by them very well. Veterans will tell us that.

I had a follow-up question about how he could justify a paying PTSD benefits to a person who had killed a police officer, and a volunteer firefighter as well, meaning someone would had actually worn two uniforms in her community. How could the Prime Minister justify paying those Veterans Affairs benefits for PTSD to someone after he had murdered a police officer, Catherine Campbell? The answer from the Prime Minister was absolutely ridiculous. He accused us of fearmongering, of being insensitive to the issue. He refused to answer the question. He actually sat down and did not answer the question in question period in the House, where the opposition is obligated to hold the government to account. The reaction across the country since then has been nothing but incredible in terms of the outrage against the Prime Minister, and now the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for refusing to answer the question.

It showed, as I have said many times in the House, that the Prime Minister and the current Liberal government do not want an opposition. They want an audience. I have news for the Prime Minister and the government: we are going to continue to push on those issues that are important to Canadians, and this one certainly is. It is why we are standing here today, all day in Parliament, asking the government to stop this incredibly egregious act of paying a benefit for PTSD to a convicted police murderer who has never served a day of his life, not even one single minute, in Canada's military and yet is receiving those benefits.

In fact, on that day, within that question I posed to the Prime Minister, I suggested a fact, that if a serving member of Canada's military were to commit a murder, not only would their benefits be lost, but so too would be the benefits of their family. Christopher Garnier was not a dependant, as defined under any benefits plan. Certainly under the plan for us here in Parliament, we are entitled to benefits for our dependants, as do many other workplaces. Those benefits are paid up to the age of 21, and in the case of their children being in post-secondary education, they get those benefits paid until their dependants are 25. They do not get them when they are 30. They are cut off.

It is a really simple solution on the part of the government. We are standing here today not only on behalf of veterans and their families, including the Campbell family and friends, but more importantly for Catherine Campbell herself, the police officer who was killed by Christopher Garnier in Truro, Nova Scotia, to say at all levels that this is wrong. We are asking the minister and the Prime Minister to act on this case, which is well within their prerogative.

The reaction has been swift across this country. In fact, when this case broke almost four weeks ago, Stephen McNeil, the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, said that he was initially stunned and shocked by the department's help for Garnier. He made this point in recent conversations with the veterans affairs minister and another Nova Scotia minister, whose title I do not quite know at this point as he seems to hide a lot. He stated:

I don't believe anyone in their drafting of this policy to look after military families believed that it would be looking after a convicted killer in our province, and I strongly voiced that issue with the federal government and with my colleagues and they will look into it.

Look into it? It has been four weeks. We have heard from Catherine Campbell's aunt, who wrote publicly on Facebook that Garnier had twisted the system and that she was sickened by it. She wrote:

There are actual veterans who returned from war, or multiple wars, and they are killing themselves because they can’t get help for the PTSD they suffer from through no fault of their own!

Subsequent to Thursday, the reaction I have received has been swift. There has has been anger and disbelief from right across this country. A serving RCMP member, a former co-worker of Constable Campbell, talked about the fact that they have been trying to receive PTSD benefits for seven years. There is another one that said that they received a letter, a FOAD letter, which they referred to as an “f-off and die letter” from Veterans Affairs. These are the types of examples of what people are telling me and my colleagues right across this country.

I think it was best said by Medric Cousineau, whom I call a friend. He is an advocate for PTSD service dogs. He was interviewed recently, and said that what Garnier was suffering from was not PTSD, but remorse, remorse for killing Catherine Campbell, remorse for putting her body in a composting bin, and remorse for dumping the body under a bridge.

What have we heard from Nova Scotia MPs? Nothing. Not a single word. Some of them will stand up today and tout the government's success with veterans. As I said earlier, that is arguable. We have heard nothing from Nova Scotia MPs. They sat there like crickets, when they should feel outrage about this case, the same type of outrage caused by this murder and the same type of outrage right now in Nova Scotia because of the government's abject failure to deal with the situation and remedy it properly.

We heard earlier that the minister was talking about bumping this down to some mid-level bureaucrats, some mid-level area managers, to decide in the future. I have news for the minister: That department belongs to the Government of Canada, it belongs to the Parliament of Canada, and it belongs to the people of Canada. If the minister is not going to accept responsibility and make the right decision for the sake of the Campbell family or the veterans who have to stand behind Christopher Garnier to gain those benefits, if he is not going to accept responsibility for what goes on in his department, for running his department properly and for doing the right thing, then what need is there for him? I call on this minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to resign his post and put someone in there who can do the job effectively.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to be honest in comparing what the Conservative government did for veterans in its 10 years and what our government has done for veterans in our three years. Does he have the courage to say the truth to the Canadian people?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member have the courage to stand and say that his government acts like petulant teenagers every time it is faced with a serious issue in the country? It should accept responsibility for this situation.

The decision to provide benefits for Mr. Garnier was made by the current Liberal government. It was made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs in their overall responsibility and control of government. I find it absolutely shameful that they are going to the past to try to hide the fact that they did this, and they are not willing to do anything to correct it. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting that they keep harping on that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Barrie—Innisfil for the important work he has done for veterans, for bringing forward a bill to recognize the sacred obligation to veterans, which was defeated by the Liberal government.

At the same time, I have to talk about services for veterans today. We know the Liberals want to spend their time patting themselves on the back, while the backlog is growing and while veterans are waiting longer and longer to get the services and follow-up they deserve on disability benefits.

We also know the Conservatives cut 1,000 jobs when they were in government. Does the member regret that decision to cut 1,000 jobs and how does he perceive moving forward to ensure the backlog is eliminated and veterans get the services they very much deserve?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I went across the country in my previous role as a critic for Veterans Affairs, I was the first one to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past. Acknowledging problems is the first step in correcting them.

The Prime Minister stood in Belleville, with his hand over his heart, and made promises to veterans, promises that he knew he had no intention to keep. In fact, in Edmonton, in reaction to Brock Blaszczyk, the Canadian veteran who asked a question, he said that veterans were asking for more than what he could give right now.

What veterans are asking for is what the Prime Minister promised them. He has failed veterans of our country in every aspect. Veterans are taking notice. They are taking notice of the failed promises. They are taking notice of the red herrings. They are taking notice of this issue as well. They will not forget it in 2019.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, bad cases make bad law. What do we do with a 16 year old who dealt drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years. The vet has PTSD due to his services. Should that 16-year-old be denied services, denied education benefits when she later gets her life in order? That is a hypothetical case, but a case which could be real. The Conservatives are suggesting cutting benefits for family members over 21years of age.

Let us take another case. A 50-year-old veteran who was killed in service of his country has a 30-year-old son. Should that family be allowed to have benefits? He is a 30-year-old person. The member suggested anyone over age 21 should not have services. I think families should have those services.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not even deserve a reply. We are talking about a completely different situation here. Those who are part of the military receive benefits. They receive benefits until they are 25. I guess it is a hot topic for him. I guess he cannot justify it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I cannot understand anything from here, because members are yelling back and forth. I cannot hear the answers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for her comments. That was not really a point of order, but it certainly is relevant.

I want to remind hon. members that when someone is speaking in the House, there are people who are interested in hearing he or she, not their comments. I do not mean everyone. There are only maybe two or three today who insist on having their opinions heard over and above what people are really trying to hear.

I will leave it with everyone and maybe I will impose the rules a little harsher when people start shouting across or shouting at each other.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil has 25 seconds to finish his response.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will not take that long. Clearly the member for Winnipeg Centre has an extreme amount of guilt in his heart right now for having to react in the manner in which he is, knowing full well that what his government is doing, what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs are doing is completely wrong. Canadians know it and he knows it. That is why he is acting out the way he is.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the comments coming from some of our colleagues across the floor, some who I deeply respect with respect to their service to our country. However, it is the talking points. I have listened intently to this debate.

It was August 28 when I received a message from our veteran community, asking if I heard about Chris Garnier who had heinously murdered Catherine Campbell, a Truro police officer of six years, badge 137. Catherine was also a volunteer firefighter.

In the process of the legal battle that he and his family waged, they used every dilatory motion possible to re-victimize Ms. Campbell's family, such as putting a peace bond on her family members during the court case because Mr. Garnier's family felt threatened. When the sentencing came up, all of a sudden he had PTSD. From what? He had PTSD from the murder he committed. How did we find this out? An email was sent during the sentencing, which was only about a month and a half ago.

Since August 28, when I did a video on my social media, over 90,000 Canadians have viewed it and they are angry. The comments we have received have been incredible. People are furious. I want to read one for members. It states:

“I am not allowed to lend my voice to the outrage of providing services to a non-veteran convicted murderer, however, I am absolutely speechless. Well, perhaps not speechless, but I'm trying to be polite and professional.”

“ As a citizen of this country, I am so angry and ashamed. As a Veterans Affairs employee, this is not what I signed up for when I began my career, providing services to our veterans and their families. I love my job and it is an honour to support those who are willing to lay down their lives for me and my fellow citizens, but now I just want to go home with my head hung in shame. knowing what someone in my organization has approved.”

It goes on to say, “Under family services, it clearly states that we do not cover family members' own mental health issues. It is a provincial jurisdiction, or in this case, it is a Corrections Canada jurisdiction. We only directly support veterans' family members with their mental health issues only as needed for them to participate in a veterans rehab plan.”

I offer that to members. All we have heard from the minister straight across the Liberal caucus is garbage. There is no other way to put it. It is shameful.

Veterans and first responders are listening today. I have had, if not hundreds, possibly thousands of messages regarding this issue. Chris Garnier murdered Catherine Campbell. He is currently appealing his case now because the judge was heavy-handed in sentencing. Chris Garnier met Catherine Campbell and two hours later he murdered her. He dumped her in a recycling bin, wheeled her through Halifax and tossed her away like a piece of trash. Now he and his family are trying to milk the system, using PTSD as an excuse. It is shameful.

Through my work on Bill C-211, we have worked hard in trying to break the stigma so those who are suffering can feel comfortable and know that when they come forward to talk about their stories, they will be believed. Now we have this dirt bag. I have said it, and I believe that with my whole heart.

This man is re-victimizing the family. He is taking advantage of a situation. He is using every tool possible. Now he is using PTSD as a mitigating factor, hoping to get some leniency in his sentencing. We have colleagues across the way, all whom I respect dearly for their service, coming out, spewing the talking points.

If a veteran commits a crime, he or she loses his or her benefits. My hon. colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil, mentioned it earlier that a 30 year old was not a dependant. To have a convicted murderer jumping in front of a veteran or a first responder who requires treatment is shameful.

The day after I posted my video, the minister said that he was seized with this issue. It has been 28 days. He stands in the House and blathers on. He had an opportunity at the beginning of this debate to talk about the action he had taken on this case, but he continued to spew political talking points. We can tell we are going into an election season, but on an issue like this, it is absolutely shameful.

I promised I was not going to get heated up, but I have received more messages from veterans.

One veteran says, “Hey, Mr. Doherty, I just want to scream and cry at the same time. I have been waiting in line for what seems like forever. Every time, veterans affairs has some excuse as to why. I served 21 years for my country, yet I have to continue to wait in line.”

Mr. Garnier has already been receiving this treatment, yet he was only just sentenced about a month and a half ago. He immediately jumped to the front of the line. How did he do that? We have a lot of questions. Is he highly connected? We do not know. It is absolutely shameful.

This veteran goes on to say, “I am so lit up. I don't know what to do. I don't even know if.... the thoughts that are going through my mind. I don't know what to do.”

I have two minutes left and I wish I had so much more time for this. It is absolutely shameful.

Catherine Campbell served our country and served our community. She wore two uniforms, and Christopher Garnier took her life.

It is not about hypothetical cases. It is not about “coulda, woulda, shoulda”. It is not about his father's treatment plan. It has nothing to do with that. That is what is being paraded out there. It has not even been brought up. What was brought up is that his lawyer has said that he needs treatment for PTSD because of the crime he committed, the murder he committed. That is shameful. He has jumped to the front of the line.

I am going to leave the House with this, because it is important.

Freedom is not free. Our brave men and women, who have served our country and our communities, have paid our collective debt for our freedom, our safety and our security. When they ask for help, rather than welcoming them and telling them that their bill is paid in full, they are continually refused service or told to go to the back of the line. Many of them are losing hope. We continue to lose veterans and first responders at a horrendous rate. Why? Because of issues like this. They lose faith in the process.

This is wrong. Those brave men and women, who put the uniform on every day in service to our country, to our community and to our flag, sacrifice for us. Christopher Garnier did not serve. Instead, he took the life of someone who served her community and who was willing to give her life for her community. The Campbells and our veterans and first responders deserve better than what they are hearing in the talking points from the minister.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the service from the other member and what he does in the House, and how he does not even use speaking notes. I too try not to use speaking notes, using just a piece of paper where I have written down some thoughts.

However, the decisions we make today in this House actually impact decisions that will be made in the future, and how the bureaucrats and functionaries will interpret our regulations. What do we actually do when we have a 16-year-old who is convicted of dealing drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years, and that vet has PTSD and is receiving services from Veterans Affairs. Should that 16-year-old be denied services and later be denied education benefits that she may be entitled to? She might get her life back in order, but should she be denied those services?

I would also like to highlight another thing. Let us say there is a serving member who is 50 years old. He is killed in the line of action or in service of his country. He has a 30-year-old son who did not do anything wrong, but is 30 years old. He is not 21. He is not 25. He is not going to post-secondary, but he has lost his father. It is quite reasonable to be 50 years old in the military and have a child who is 20 or even 30 years old. Should that person be allowed services at the age of 30?

This is an important question to ask, and it is what this debate is about: What level of services should we be offering to veterans and to the families of those veterans?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about hypothetical questions. It is about a real issue. It is a real issue where Christopher Garnier, a convicted murderer, is receiving mental health benefits before our veterans or our first responders, who are deserving of them.

That is exactly what these guys want to do. They want to deflect and blame others, and they want to throw hypothetical scenarios out there. Let us talk about the real issue. The real issue is that we have a convicted murderer who is playing silly bugger with the court system and our Veterans Affairs system, and taking benefits away from veterans. He is claiming PTSD. He is playing games with this. Every step of the way, he is revictimizing Catherine Campbell's family.

They deserve better. Canadians deserve better, and I will not dignify that with an answer.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments.

I just want to remind the hon. members that parliamentary language is something we try to promote as much as possible in the House. One of the words used was kind of borderline, but let us not push the envelope.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.