Debates of Sept. 25th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we are all saddened by the heinous, despicable crime we are talking about today.

Even if we ignore the crime this man committed and pretend that his PTSD symptoms are the result of an attack he experienced, we are still talking about a 30-year-old man whose treatment has nothing to do with his father's military service. Even if we ignore the crime, I do not think that Veterans Affairs Canada should have to pay for his treatment. I do not think his file should even be considered a priority.

Does my colleague agree? Should Veterans Affairs Canada not be prioritizing dependent children or children who have suffered trauma directly related to their parents' military service?

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

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the crime, we are talking about a 30-year-old who is serving time. Veterans Affairs has a program in place to make sure that our veterans are made whole when they come back. How they go about doing that is one way. I do not believe that a convicted murderer or a 30-year-old should be receiving these mental health benefits.

They are available through Correctional Services and provincial programs. They do not need to take the place of a veteran or a first responder in this case. It is shameful that we have veterans who are being denied simple services because of this. It is shameful.

I really wish the debate would just focus on this issue at hand. It is about Christopher Garnier and the murder of Catherine Campbell, and the fact that Christopher Garnier is receiving PTSD treatment from Veterans Affairs. It should be nothing else other than that.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I cannot imagine that there is a single heart in this place that does not go out to the family of Constable Campbell. We grieve with them and share the frustration of Canadians, who are upset that a convicted killer has received mental health services through Veterans Affairs Canada. Unfortunately, my friends across the way are taking advantage of a tragic situation to once again play politics with veterans benefits.

While it may be cathartic for some on that side to adjudicate this case in public, it is essential to protect the privacy of veterans who are clients of the department, and for that reason we will not be commenting on the specifics of any veteran's personal information, including the medical benefits that he or she may access.

Our government made a commitment to make it easier for the men and women who have served in uniform so courageously and given us so much to access the benefits that they so rightfully deserve. In 2015, we pledged to make it easier for veterans to access services. We said we would do more to support families, streamline benefits, reduce the administrative burden, improve the veteran's experience with Veterans Affairs Canada and help veterans make a successful transition to life after service. These were ambitious goals, and our government is making progress in leaps and bounds.

The veterans community told us loud and clear that we need to make it simpler, easier and more user-friendly to access the programs and services of Veterans Affairs. They told us about the effect of the backlog of applications for benefits and services and the time they have to wait for decisions to be made. They also told us that they do not always know about the suite of programs and services available to them, both of which are a result of the 10 years of cuts we saw under the Harper Conservatives.

Over the past three years, we have made significant improvements to both the programs and services available and our ability to communicate them to veterans. To make it easier for veterans to talk to our staff about these benefits, we reopened the nine offices the Conservatives closed, opened a tenth one in Surrey and hired over 475 new staff, including over 180 case managers.

We also increased service in the north. In 2017, our staff made 12 trips to Iqaluit, Yellowknife and Whitehorse to meet with veterans and their families. Our staff is committed to ensuring our veterans and their families are better informed, served and supported. We owe veterans the means to get back on their feet and on with their lives, and that is what our department is committed to delivering every day: helping them to accomplish that with a successful transition and, after their release from the military, to rebuild their lives and enjoy a healthy state of well-being.

We learned from the 2016 life-after-service studies that while 52% of regular forces veterans report experiencing an easy or moderately easy transition to post-service life, 32% report having trouble. With the Canadian Armed Forces projecting an average of 2,500 medical releases per year over the next five years, we recognize the importance of strengthening our transition services to members.

We also recognize that no two veterans are the same. Each has his or her own personal history and experiences that result in different needs and challenges. This is why we hear so much about the department's flexible approach to benefits and services that can be tailored to each veteran and each family's individual needs. We have worked to create a system that can be adapted to each veteran's particular needs at that particular point in time. We saw that the cookie-cutter approach left some veterans falling through the cracks.

Our pension for life not only addresses the wide variety of needs of veterans but also takes into account feedback from veterans on the need to reduce the complexity of support programs available to them and to their families. Pension for life has three key pillars: monthly, tax-free financial compensation, services and benefits, and an income replacement benefit.

This income replacement benefit will consolidate six income support benefits into one single financial benefit to simplify the administrative demand on veterans and their families. Veterans told us to streamline our programs, and that is exactly what we have done.

Let me come back to the idea that no two veterans are the same. While some prefer to interact with staff in person, other veterans prefer to find information and manage their interaction with the department themselves, using online tools. Working with feedback gathered through the service delivery review, Veterans Affairs simplified its online system, My VAC Account. It made registration both easier and more secure, simplified the language and added functionality. Veterans can now communicate with department staff, including case managers, using secure messaging in their My VAC Account. They can ask questions about their benefits and services and get reliable answers from qualified agents.

The program is proving popular and is gaining more than 1,000 new users every month. The department has also taken concrete measures to improve service delivery by telephone, and is taking the initiative to reach out to veterans to get the information needed to support claims and explain benefits.

With all of these new enhanced benefits and services, and increased efforts to inform veterans of what is available to them, application rates have increased dramatically over recent years. For example, over the past three years we have seen a 32% increase in disability benefit applications. That is good news. It means more veterans are aware of the benefits for which they may be eligible.

To keep up with the rise in demand and ensure that veterans get the services and benefits they need when they need them, the government is spending $42.8 million over two years, starting this year, to improve service delivery to Veterans Affairs Canada. Following our announcement of this funding, Union of Veterans Employees president Carl Gannon Jr. tweeted, “$42.8 million over two years to rebuild service delivery capacity...I can more than live with this.”

We're going to do better to get veterans the benefits and services they need, when they need them. Following 10 years of nothing but cuts to funding and staff, we are rebuilding the trust of veterans with the investments needed to deliver services effectively and efficiently.

In addition to new funding, we have also made changes to ensure veterans receive the benefits they are entitled to. Veterans Affairs staff triage claims to ensure that veterans who apply for mental health services receive priority in their evaluation so they can receive treatment without delay. Mental health is an area where we provide access to services before a veteran is approved, in order to make sure they are getting the support they need to get better as soon as possible. Through additional staffing and process improvements, we have been able to increase the number of disability claims processed. For example, 96% of first applications completed for PTSD are approved.

As more veterans keep putting up their hand and asking for help, we want to make sure we have the staff and the capacity to make sure they have access to the services they need as quickly as possibly. To that end, we have hired more than 475 new front-line staff, new employees, to help ensure that veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members, RCMP personnel and their families are provided with the best possible services when and where they need them.

Make no mistake, Veterans Affairs continues to strive to provide faster, more efficient and higher quality service for our clients. I think all of us here can agree that Canada's veterans deserve respect, financial security and fair treatment. Be assured, our government is committed to treating our veterans with the care, compassion and respect they have earned.

It is important to remember, too, that there is a veteran involved in this case. The government of any day and any stripe has a responsibility to his or her health or well-being. What happened in Nova Scotia is a tragedy, and there is no person in the House who does not mourn with the family of Constable Campbell. No family should have to deal with the loss of their loved one. To play politics with so tragic a situation diminishes all of us and our responsibility to everyone involved.

We know there is always more to do, especially after inheriting a system left so neglected by the party opposite. We stand by our commitment to improve the lives of the men and women who have dedicated their lives to our peace and security.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all the new and enhanced benefits indicated in the member's speech, I wonder if he believes a 30-year-old murderer of an off-duty police officer should receive treatment programs designated to address post-traumatic stress in our military, programs that were set up for veterans, even though he was entitled to treatment for mental health issues through Canada's corrections services.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across for his service in the RCMP.

This is a terrible tragedy that has come to our attention. We feel the shock and disappointment that everyone does. Our minister has taken steps to see what the best outcome can be for Canadians and veterans.

My friend across the way has had many years of experience, enough to know that knee-jerk reactions are not the way to deal with problems that may have complexities. The solutions may create unintended consequences down the line.

We are looking at this, and that is all I would like to say for now.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the question the member for Yellowhead asked, but in perhaps a different way, and that is whether the minister has made a mistake in that Mr. Garnier is entitled to funding through correctional services or the penal system. It is not as if he is destitute. It is not as if he is not going to get services. The funding that has been provided to him is designed for veterans.

This case is quite different from the cases being given by members of the government. This is a situation where funding was given to a man who committed a murder. He may be entitled to mental health services, but that is through the penal system.

As a result of what is happening, that funding should be going to veterans. We are talking about the long waiting list of veterans who are looking for benefits, and they are being taken away by Mr. Garnier.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to go through the process to find out exactly what the situation is and how it came to be where we are now.

I have to say, again, with all due respect to my friend across the way, that we heard testimony in veterans affairs committee about years, going back eight or 10 years, of requests and upset at delays and the lack of funding and the lack of resources. As a new government, we are in the position now of trying to correct mistakes that were made in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off with a golf clap. My colleague stood for 10 minutes and gave a speech. At the very end of his speech, he said that this is a horrific case. He dedicated three lines of that 10-minute speech to Catherine Campbell and Christopher Garnier and the issue at hand.

He said that the government listens to veterans. What would my colleague say to the veterans who are watching right now who rose up and said that his is horrific? They shared their own stories of Veterans Affairs turning a blind eye and shutting the door on them and shuffling them to the back. They are outraged about this. What does the member have to say to that?

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most members of Parliament will receive critical questions and remarks about services. We work with many veterans in our office. One of my staffers was walking in a shopping centre and encountered a gentleman we had been working with and asked how it had all worked out for him. He said he had received a significant amount of money from Veterans Affairs as a result of the intervention.

There are many good news stories out there that are not told and should be told, because we are working hard for our veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree].

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Constable Campbell. This is a terrible situation, and we all share a sense of outrage about what occurred. However, I would also like to offer my thoughts on this debate, because I have a specific perspective on this debate.

I have been serving for 22 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am still a serving member. I am a proud member of the naval reserves in Canada. I remember when I first joined the Canadian Armed Forces, and I was posted to Valcartier, in Quebec, our military base, with the Van Doos. It was a fun and exhilarating time, as a young man, to join the regular forces to serve full time. It was also extremely tough. It was very hard. I remember from that early period, in the 1990s, when I first joined, the work that was done by our leadership to make families a centre of the services, the centre of life in the military.

I remember taking medical mental health training with my fellow soldiers. We had to take this yearly. I learned that there were three components to serving well and learning to serve well. They were ensuring that we had a good personal life, a good professional life, and a good family life. They were the three principal spheres, and if one of them was not working well, we would find and encounter great difficulties in our professional life. We would not be able to accomplish the mission that had been set out for us, so we could not miss any of these elements.

As a serving member for 22 years, I have always believed that families should be at the centre of military life. In fact, I had a family when I was in the military. I believe that this is actually the Canadian Forces policy. Though sometimes it is not always respected within the Canadian Forces, because sometimes mission requirements do take precedence, nonetheless there are policies that are there to defend families. In 2000, the Canadian Armed Forces recognized this and came out with the Canadian Forces family policy.

In this debate, one of the central questions we are actually talking about is the level or amount of services actually offered to families. The central question the Conservatives are asking is not the one that is politically expedient. It is whether the minister should have the arbitrary power to deny benefits to vets and their families, not using due process and not using administrative justice. Should ministers be allowed to be politically expedient when it suits them?

Conservatives are quick to the gun to take action now and to think later. We know that Conservatives are willing to use their ministerial executive power to punish vets and their families who offer criticism of the government, because they did so under their previous administration, under the previous regime. They did so when they silenced vets and released their medical information without their consent. They shared that medical information. I am going to talk about that in a bit, because it is central to this case as well. I will say that we must stand with vets and their families, come what may.

Another important aspect of this debate is that services are important, and the question is who actually gets those services. I remember that it was very difficult to obtain the services vets were entitled to, especially when I was in the military. However, if we believe that families are important, and we have a family policy, do we use this one case to then limit the amount of services offered to families? Bad cases make extremely bad law. The Conservatives love using bad cases, because it is easy, but this bad case would make extremely bad law. It would make bad rules, and it would make bad regulations.

Decisions today actually do matter. They impact the services that are offered, and they impact how those rules and regulations will be interpreted in the future, not only by us in this House but by the bureaucrats and functionaries who actually carry out the orders of the executive branch. The Conservative motion, in my opinion, would lead to a tightening of the rules. This would have unintended consequences for vets and their families.

I remember, during the war in Afghanistan, how we needed to support our families to ensure that we had the widest opportunity to offer all services. We had the freedom to offer those services to those families no matter what their situation, because each family was unique and each veteran's case was unique.

I have asked hypothetical questions, and people have not been happy that I have asked them, but I am supposed to ask questions. What do we do with a 16-year-old who has dealt drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years who has PTSD due to his service. Should that 16-year-old be denied services, denied education benefits later, when she gets her life in order? Let us say that this 16-year-old committed an even more heinous crime than dealing drugs, something irreparable, destroying the lives of others in ways that cannot be repaired. It is a hypothetical case, but it is possible.

Conservative political posturing puts at risk benefits for the military family. It makes it harder for bureaucrats to give them the services they require. We could tighten the rules. We could satisfy the political expediency of the Conservative Party. We could take action now, think later and regret later.

As the member for Calgary Nose Hill said, let us talk about leadership. She talked about leadership in this debate. I remember a time, in 2009, with the war in Afghanistan going full regime, that cuts were made by the Harper Conservative government, the cabinet she was a member of and where she had the opportunity of forcing her leadership on her cabinet colleagues. They made cuts to the military while we were serving in Afghanistan. There were thousands of reservists serving on army bases right across the country. At my military base in Valcartier, I remember how the contracts of reservists, who were serving full time, were not renewed, even though they were waging a war and working very hard to advance the national interest of Canada and serving the government and the people of Canada. That put the mission in jeopardy. The Conservatives did not really seem to care about what we were doing. They just decided that they were going to tell people what they should be doing and not listen to them, even though they were the experts. Those reservists filled important roles. They were an important component of mission success for many units in Afghanistan and back in Canada, and the Harper Conservatives cut those jobs. They cancelled those contracts and caused chaos in the deployed units trying to fight a war.

I like to talk about what the Conservatives did in their decade of darkness for veterans. In 2014, retired general Rick Hillier, the former head of the Canadian military, was talking about suicide and mental health anguish among Canadian solders. He stated,

I don't think we had any idea the scale and scope of what the impact would be. I truly do not. This is beyond a medical issue. I think many of our young men and women have lost confidence in our country to support them.

Why would they not? The Conservative government at that time had killed the lifetime benefit for veterans. They did it on April 6, 2006, when it was in power and enacted the new veterans charter. The Harper minister insulted veterans and closed nine veterans offices. The Auditor General found the Harper government to be failing veterans. The Conservatives slashed 900 jobs in Veterans Affairs, despite pleas from managers. There was more than $1 billion not spent by the ministry to help veterans. A judge ordered the government to pay $887 million to veterans.

I do not believe we should release the medical information of veterans, even in debates in the House of Commons. When Sean Bruyea spoke out against legislation to strip vets of lifetime pensions, he never imagined in his dreams that the government of the day, the Harper government, would try to smear his reputation by using his medical records against him. His medical and financial details had been circulated after he criticized the new veterans charter. A Veterans Affairs official said that it was “time to take the gloves off”, which was reported in the Huffington Post. The Privacy Commissioner said that Bruyea's case was alarming and that the treatment of his personal information was very inappropriate. Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in privacy laws, said that the government's actions were despicable, dishonourable, unethical and also illegal. However, this never stopped the government from going ahead.

We can order bureaucrats to do what we want, but sometimes we need due process and time to think about these issues to make sure that we do not have unintended consequences impacting veterans and their families. It is most important that the considerations here be deliberate and well thought out, not simply dog whistle politics to try to score easy political points on the backs of veterans, using them for political expediency to advance the interests of one political party.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his comments today. However, he will know that during our time in office, we increased spending on veterans by over 35% in various categories.

One of the things that was disturbing about my colleague's speech is his trying to conflate the issue of family, using a minor as an example, when here we have a 30-year-old person who was convicted of killing a cop, who never served a day in his life, and he is collecting veterans benefits, benefits that should be going to support our veterans.

Does my colleague actually believe that this is the way to treat our veterans, when they are waiting in line for services and here we have someone who is a convicted killer of a police woman receiving benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, here is another hypothetical.

A 50-year-old service member killed in the line of duty for his country has a 30-year-old son. If we start limiting the age of the family members who are entitled to services, saying “You're 30 years old”, and I am not talking about crime; I am talking about the age.

The Conservatives have led us down a path about age. They have said that over age 21, they are not entitled. Over age 25, if they are in university, they are not entitled.

What I am saying is there is a reason for that, because we do have service members who are 50 and who have a 30-year-old son, and that service member is killed. We need to be able to support those families, and make sure they have the services that are required to help them.

That is the question. How do we make the regulations better, so we can actually serve families, and respect each and every value that we have here in Canada, all the Canadian values that are extremely important? That is an important question that we need to answer and think about, not only ourselves but with bureaucrats. We need to talk to veterans to find out how we can make these regulations better and really ensure that the services get to the people who need them the most, and that is veterans and their families. Families are at the centre of military life.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for most of the day so far I have listened to my colleague across the way who seems to be the point man for the government in the House on this today.

What the member fails to understand is this is a one-off case. The government, the minister, the Prime Minister and this member himself are hiding behind hypotheticals. They do not have the courage to actually know when something is right or wrong and to fix it.

Just like the minister who could say that this is wrong and demand that his department officials fix it, in the hypotheticals that the member is talking about, the minister could at some future point in time, should it ever come to pass, say that this is wrong, fix it.

Why is the member, who is a veteran himself, unable to understand that is how government actually works, that is the purpose of members of Parliament, and that is the purpose of the leadership of a minister, to fix the wrongs when the bureaucracy gets it wrong?

Does the member honestly think that the credibility of veterans affairs is being served by this ridiculous defence that the member is putting forward right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can counter, as well, that the opposite side has ridiculous arguments and has presented a ridiculous debate, wasting the time of the House.

Nonetheless, I will continue debating this, because it is important to the families of veterans. If I had a 16-year-old son who committed a crime, who, for instance, was dealing drugs, and I happen to have PTSD, and maybe in the service of my country I did have some terrible, dark moments in my life, and I will admit to that, nonetheless if I knew that it might, later on, limit his ability, if he managed to set himself on the right track, to obtain services which he might be entitled to, I would want him to be able to obtain those services.

I want to be sure that when we are setting regulations, we are not cutting off people who should get them. I think that is most important to veterans. We can use one case to decide thousands of people's future, but we should not be doing that. We should use one case to just think about the one simple case.

If we want to open a larger debate about services actually offered to veterans, I think we should do so in a calm and more beneficial way, which would bring greater accord to people. I do not think this case is the way to do it. The Conservatives are simply trying to score easy political points off the backs of veterans and their families, using them as pawns in their own political games so they can promote themselves on social media and get more likes on Facebook. That is all the Conservatives are doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, and we went through this earlier but I realize there are a few members who have come in as the rotation goes through. We went through the etiquette of not shouting while someone is answering or asking a question in the House. I just want to remind the hon. members to show respect and keep decorum in the House.

Resuming debate.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion when I am actually sad to have to rise in the House to speak on this issue. I normally begin my remarks with what an honour it is for me to rise on behalf of my constituents in Durham, on behalf of my experiences in the private sector and the charitable space and, as many members of the House know, speak to the issues that affect the Canadian Armed Forces, their families and our veterans. I said last week in the House that the Conservatives were going to be back here every day until the Liberals start to take some sense of ownership of their files. This is people's House. This is the House of Commons, where we are representing our constituents and the concerns of Canadians, be they veterans, family members, first responders or their families who are outraged by this situation.

I should say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

Christopher Garnier is not a veteran. He never served a day in uniform and yet he took the life of Catherine Campbell, who wore two uniforms of service for her community and country. She was a police officer and in her spare time, she was also a volunteer firefighter, a young Canadian we should be proud of and should celebrate the fact that she dedicated so much of her life to serving others. Christopher Garnier snuffed out that life and he should be treated accordingly. He should be given no benefits from the federal government, certainly not those that are safeguarded for veterans.

On all sides of the House, and the member for Winnipeg Centre knows this, we have talked about the sacred obligation to our veterans. My first response when I stood in the House was to echo the words of Sir Robert Borden and the profound duty we owe to our veterans. In fact, I have echoed the sentiment of a World War I veteran who died in that conflict, Talbot Papineau, whose famous family now bears the name of the Prime Minister's seat, on the obligations we owe.

From the moment someone joins the Canadian Armed Forces, at 18, 19, 20 or older until the end of his or her life, we owe veterans that obligation. For those seriously injured, that obligation includes supports, benefits and treatment. Mr. Garnier is not one of those people. There have been a number of absolutely false arguments put forward by the government in its stubborn refusal to just do the right thing, acknowledge there was an error and rectify it.

Mr. Garnier, in September 2015, as the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has confirmed, killed Catherine Campbell and then desecrated her remains. I will not go into the sordid details, but they are horrific. In December 2017, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced in August of this year for killing a fine Canadian. What is horrific as well to not only the family but veterans across the country is that sometime ahead of his sentencing, he started receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada.

The government's own documentation show wait times for assessment are getting past the nine-month mark on average. Therefore, in many ways, Mr. Garnier was placed ahead of veterans who are waiting for operational stress injury support, mainly counselling, psychiatric counselling and peer support services. How a convicted murderer, who never served a day in his life, received those benefits is a scandal and the failure to own that scandal by the Minister of Veterans Affairs is shameful. It was suggested that privacy or other reasons are preventing the discussion. I would invite anyone to see the coverage of the case in The Chronicle Herald newspaper or on CBC, where Mr. Garnier's lawyer told the court that his client has PTSD from committing murder, where the father of the killer admits to the court that his son has PTSD from a murder. That PTSD has nothing to do with his father's service in the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, for the minister to suggest that he does not know the file is a joke. Since I joined the Canadian Armed Forces at the age of 18 until this very day, I have either been in uniform or have been working to support those in it. When I was minister, I admitted where we fell short and worked with veterans to make a plan to make it right. I never lied, I never misled and I always read my briefings. I will debate any member on that side of the House any day on any of the issues related to Canadian Armed Forces and veterans. I will tell them, because the minister, we know from the news, does not read reports but shelves them, that there is not a single program within veterans affairs that Mr. Garnier would be eligible for or programs outside of it.

I was happy as a new member of Parliament to visit Can Praxis in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, which was trail-blazing equine therapy for a veteran, a first responder, and a member of their family who were struggling. There are some programs available for spouses and dependent children. However, we are not talking about any of those circumstances in the Garnier case. This is an adult, non-dependent who murdered someone. I am sure that murder and the horrific circumstances around it have upset his family, but that has nothing to do with the service related to that veteran. That veteran, the father, needs as much support as we can provide. His adult, non-dependent child is not eligible for any programming, and the very fact that he can be accelerated before his judicial proceeding and sentencing is even complete, receiving benefits that some veterans are waiting for, is a travesty.

What I would like to see instead of the minister hiding behind privacy, when all Canadians can see this entire sordid story online or in the newspaper, is for him to take some ownership. A mistake was made where someone said there was eligibility when there was no eligibility. There is no legislative requirement for Mr. Garnier to get support. There are no privacy concerns that the Liberals cannot discuss it. He is ineligible. In fact, if the father had committed this crime while he was in uniform, he would not be eligible for treatment. That is how black and white this issue is. The fact is that once the Liberals craft a talking point, they will not move away from it, when veterans and Canadians are asking them to show some reality here.

We are always going to have cases where we need to do better, where we find a veteran or their family has fallen through the cracks. Let us fix those cases and rebuild trust, and not erode the trust by showing veterans that we are going to allow someone ineligible to access benefits faster than them.

As the minister should know, if he would read up, the permanent impairment allowance many veterans receive under the new veterans charter, and we increased the PIA supplement, was the focus of my attention as minister. A vast majority of veterans receiving the permanent impairment allowance have operational stress injuries. It has been something the Canadian Armed Forces has been struggling with. I talked about it on the 20th anniversary of the Swissair crash, which was the first time I ever heard “operational stress injury”. That is why we were opening operational stress injury clinics and not administrative offices that people still do not use. It is amazing that the Liberals are still talking about those issues. It shows they do not understand.

As I said last week, if the minister had shown some leadership, I would rise in the House and thank him on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of veterans, for showing that if a mistake was made within the department that he will own, acknowledge and rectify that mistake. If they do not, they will hear us every day, because we are listening to Canadians. We are listening to military families and veterans who are discouraged and disappointed.

It is time for them to show ownership and stop this shameless treatment for Christopher Garnier.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the former minister take a position. He has been somewhat consistent and I would like to point out that consistency.

First, I sat in opposition for years while he, as the minister, allowed those veterans offices in every region of our country to remain closed even though hundreds if not thousands of veterans called on Stephen Harper and his government and the member as the minister to reopen those offices. They completely refused to listen to what the veterans had to say.

There is a difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. We value our veterans and the need for privacy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am having a hard time hearing the question. I want to remind the members that when the Speaker stands, normally it is quiet. I want to remind everyone that I am trying to hear the question and I cannot because of the heckling going back and forth.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will remember that in 2010, Mr. Bruyea was an individual who had some issues with regard to the Conservative Party. Because of that, the minister at the time obtained information and the medical history of Mr. Bruyea and then information was leaked to the media. The bottom line is that the Conservative Party had to apologize for breaching the privacy of a vet.

Would the member acknowledge that it is important to protect the privacy of our veterans?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I had a hard time hearing the question. I am hoping I do not have a hard time hearing the answer.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North said we should apologize to veterans. He should apologize to veterans for eroding their trust by putting a murderer ahead of veterans. He also said they value our veterans. He is a veteran. He served as an air traffic controller. I thanked him publicly for his services and I will again today.

All parliamentarians value our veterans, but right now with the Garnier case, only the Conservatives are listening to our veterans. They are outraged by the fact that a mistake was made. Rather than rectify the mistake, we see privacy concerns. We suggest we are not serving veterans by serving someone who never wore a uniform for one day.

I ask that member who has served to go and speak to the Winnipeg police, the volunteer firefighters outside of Winnipeg, and ask them whether we should be respecting a victim like Catherine Campbell by helping her murderer or rectifying the error that was made at Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague was once a minister at Veterans Affairs, I would like to ask him a question. What criteria should be used to determine whether the child of a veteran is eligible for benefits?

In this particular case, why would Mr. Garnier not meet that criteria?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The member served in the Canadian Armed Forces and I have been proud to do some veterans affairs work with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and I appreciate that. It is a good question.

The determination on benefits is a subjective one, so someone at Veterans Affairs made a decision. It was a wrong decision because there are no programs whatsoever for adult non-dependent children.

Mr. Garnier was in his mid to late twenties when he committed a horrific crime. He was not a dependent child. Even if there were a dependent child, most of the programming, either family-based counselling or some programs with the child directly, relate to operational stress, transference injury from the veteran in the home. The mom or dad who has an injury can affect the wellness of the family. I support those programs. This is not a circumstance where those programs would be eligible, because the PTSD, in the words of the killer's father, do not come from his service in uniform; they come from committing a horrific crime as an adult.

The minister should get to know the files in his own department before he embarrasses himself day after day defending a clear error.