Debates of Sept. 25th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Veterans

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not want to interrupt the proceedings earlier, but there has been some going back and forth, interrupting members while they are talking. It has happened on both sides.

I know this is a very passionate issue and there are differing opinions. We may not like what we hear on one side or the other side, but we have to respect the House and those who are speaking. Therefore, I would appreciate it if before interrupting the proceedings, members would wait until questions and comments or until it is their turn to make a speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence.

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to this motion and our recent efforts to ensure veterans and their families receive the respect, support, care and economic opportunities they deserve as they transition to a post-military life.

While much has been said in the past few days, the fact remains that our government has placed the highest priority on making sure veterans and their families have the support and services they need, when they need them.

Our government also places that same priority on the privacy of Canada's veterans' personal information, which prevents us from discussing specific cases. When it comes to Canada's veterans and their families, we are not in the business of political opportunism. We are interested in getting veterans well again.

We can and should, however, look at everything our government has done in the last three years to improve benefits and services, not only for our nation's veterans but also for their families. We know that when a man or woman serves in the Canadian Armed Forces, their whole family serves with them.

Veterans Affairs Canada is a different department today than it was three years ago. It is driven by a new vision, with a focus on the well-being and successful transition of our Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP members, veterans and families.

It is this vision that saw us reopen the nine Veterans Affairs offices that were closed by the previous Conservative government, open a new one in Surrey and increase outreach into the north. It is this vision that saw us staff up and hire more than 470 employees after years of cuts. It is this vision that saw us bring benefits in line with where they should have been years ago.

Year over year, our government has committed more money to veterans programs and benefits, ensuring more and better support for veterans and their families, based on feedback directly from them. Their feedback has led to investments of $10 billion since 2016. Ten billion is a big number, a bigger number than most of us can really picture. I will explain in a little more depth how that number translates into the programs, services and benefits that our veterans now have access to every day.

First, I want to address an issue that has recently been brought up, which is lapsed funding. Over the past three years, Veterans Affairs Canada has seen a significant increase in demand for its programs and services, and that is a good thing. It means veterans are coming forward and getting the help they need. It means they are beginning to trust their government again. I am sure that is not easy to do after 10 years of distrust in the previous government.

In order to respond to this increased demand, the department has to request additional funds in the middle of the year. As many of my colleagues in the House are aware, these are the supplements. The department goes and asks Treasury Board for more money, because we have more veterans who want more of the programs and services they are entitled to, indeed, that they deserve.

Our services are demand-driven, so whether it is 10 or 10,000 veterans coming forward, they will receive those services. Instead of going back every day when we see another veteran come forward, the department estimates how many people will access benefits and how much money is needed. It is not an exact science, though.

This process guarantees that whether a veteran comes forward this year, next year or the year after that, we will always have resources available for veterans and their families to access programs and services.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I would ask that the minister talk about the relevance of the motion before us today, which is about Chris Garnier, a man who killed a police officer, a man who is not a veteran. That is what the motion is. It is not at all about what he thinks he is doing on behalf of veterans. It is about this individual and how he is getting veterans benefits.

The minister should get back on track and talk about the subject matter at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the member's comments. As the member knows, there is some latitude as to responses and speeches. I also want to remind the minister that it has to have some relevance to the opposition day motion. Therefore, I would ask the minister to make sure that there will be relevance there.

The hon. minister may continue.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this process does not guarantee that whether a veteran comes forward this year or the next or the year after that, we will always have resources available for veterans and their families to access programs and services. Lapsed funding does not result in anyone receiving less than they should.

Year over year, we have seen more financial compensation go to veterans and their families than in years previous, certainly in the previous 10 years. We have seen more veterans avail themselves of programs and services, and we have definitely seen more support being given to veterans than what the Conservatives failed to do in a decade.

I bring up the previous government because we know that they too had lapsed funding. This is not a new accounting method. It is how departments budget, but when we look at the Conservatives' record, when we look at the cuts in their Veterans Affairs departmental budgets, the cuts of 1,000 staff at Veterans Affairs and the closure of Veterans Affairs offices, it is a very different picture, one that veterans and Canadians see through.

I would like to dig in a little more on these benefits. Since January, I have held 41 town halls and round tables to meet with and hear from veterans, their families and stakeholders, and one thing I heard repeatedly was that veterans and their families needed better support and that change was needed. While there has been a lot of change at Veterans Affairs, my commitment to veterans and their well-being has remained the same. I am committed to ensuring that veterans' overall well-being is what drives everything we do. We want to make sure that veterans have purpose and are financially secure, safely housed, in good physical and mental health, resilient in the face of change, well integrated in the community, proud of their legacy and protected from political expediency.

When we look at these factors, we can all agree that without financial security, it is hard to focus on anything. That is why last December, we announced our plan to bring back a pension for life for ill and injured veterans. With that return of a monthly pension, the pension for life recognizes and compensates veterans for disabilities resulting from a service-related illness or injury with a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support and stability.

Pain and suffering compensation is one of the main benefits. It is a monthly, tax-free payment for life that recognizes veterans' service-related pain and suffering.

This compensation is paid to members and veterans with a disability resulting from a service-related injury or illness.

Veterans and members can choose to receive either monthly payments or a lump sum, giving them the flexibility to choose what works for them and their families.

As well, additional support will be available for those with severe and permanent impairments causing a barrier to re-establishment and post-service life through the additional pain and suffering compensation. This will be provided as a monthly, tax-free benefit for life.

On top of that, the income-replacement benefit is a monthly program that will replace six current benefits and provide income support for those facing barriers to re-establishment. Additionally, veterans using this benefit will be able to earn up to $20,000 per year before any reduction to their IRB payment, and that benefit is 90% of their pre-release salary, which keeps up with inflation and includes a salary increase every year for 20 years to match their expected career progression.

Set to come into force on April 1, 2019, the new pension for life combines what veterans have asked for with the most up-to-date research and understanding of a veteran's well-being, but more importantly, the pension for life will become an integral part of that comprehensive approach to veterans' well-being, reinforcing all the programs and services available at VAC, of which mental health is a priority.

Another issue surrounding mental health we have talked about recently in this House is psychiatric service dogs. Some veterans have made it clear that service dogs could be beneficial for them if they are suffering with conditions like PTSD. That is why, earlier this year, we expanded the medical expense tax credit to recognize the costs for these service animals.

The department also invested in a pilot study to explore the use of service dogs as a safe and effective support for veterans with PTSD. As was reported last week, this study was recently completed, the department is reviewing its results and the final report will help to inform policy decisions related to service dogs.

We know that military service creates unique stressors for serving members and their families, both during and after service. Veterans Affairs Canada has concrete measures in place to address mental health, including the joint suicide prevention strategy. Announced last fall, the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs committed to a coordinated collaborative approach and identified over 160 initiatives dedicated to saving the lives of veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members. One suicide is too many, and with the two departments working together, we will be better able to help military service members and veterans reduce the risk, build resilience and prevent suicide.

Because families play an important role in a veteran's life, we recognize that they are there from day one. From base to base, from day to day, they bear intimate witness to the mental health struggles that some veterans deal with. That is why sometimes it could be determined by Veterans Affairs staff and medical professionals that access for a veteran's family members to counselling and other services would assist him or her better in achieving rehabilitation. Veterans Affairs staff consult and act on the recommendations of mental health professionals from across the country. The department has a nationwide network now of over 4,000 mental health professional who deliver services to veterans and RCMP and Canadian Forces members who have post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries. Veterans and family members can also find mental health information, support and resources at the 11 operational stress injury clinics and eight satellite clinics across the country plus use of telehealth services, for those living in remote areas.

It is fundamental that we continue to learn and share best practices. Our government recently launched a centre of excellence on PTSD and related mental health conditions that will allow us to do just that. Announced in May with the Royal Ottawa Hospital, this centre will create and share knowledge on veterans mental health treatments that work and place that information directly in the hands of mental health professionals and others working with veterans on a daily basis.

While mental health is a critical factor in a veteran's overall well-being, the department's vision aims to address all aspects of wellness. That is what led to the new and enhanced benefits that rolled out on April 1 of this year. Addressing families and well-being, financial security and education and training, all were designed with a veteran's well-being in mind. One of those new initiatives is the veterans emergency fund. Veterans or family members who may find themselves in an emergency situation can now apply for those funds 24/7, because as we know, emergencies do not only happen nine to five, Monday to Friday. Another is the caregiver recognition benefit, which provides a veteran's caregiver with $1,000 a month, tax free, recognizing the invaluable role caregivers play in caring for veterans.

Two other new programs that launched this year and are proving to be very successful are the education and training benefit and the career transition service. So far, more than 1,400 veterans have been approved for funding to further their education, and more than 900 Canadian Forces members and veterans have been approved for career transition services, and it has only been five months.

These are just a few of the real differences we are making in the lives of our country's veterans.

Whether having served in the Second World War, the Korean War, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cyprus or any other mission Canada has supported, every veteran has his or her own story based on his or her service, combat experience or injury.

Veterans' needs and the needs of their families and caregivers have evolved. They will continue to evolve, and we will evolve to meet them. Our government will continue to ensure that we are meeting their needs, enhancing their well-being, and helping them to successfully re-establish their lives after service.

Before I conclude, I would like to directly address the motion that has brought us here. As I have said previously in the House, I have instructed my department to look into this particular case and how this decision was made. I have reviewed the department's findings on this issue, and I am directing it to first, ensure that the services being received by a family member of a veteran are related to the veteran's service-related illness or injury, and where they are not, that the case be reviewed by a senior official before a decision is rendered. Second, I have requested that the department address its policy in providing treatment to family members who have extenuating circumstances, such as a conviction for a serious crime.

From now on, in cases with extenuating circumstances, the decision to extend treatment to a non-veteran family member must be made by an area director in consultation with our departmental health professionals.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the great majority of what the minister has said today did not address the situation. He chose to address it at the end of his speech. From the report he received, he has decided to hand this decision off to someone else. He has decided that someone other than him should make the decision.

I want to refer to the comment my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek made about the Clifford Olson case. When this was discovered, and these are unusual circumstances, just as the minister has reflected in his instructions to his bureaucrats, the former prime minister said, “I have instructed the minister to look at what options are available to us to rectify the situation because it should be rectified.”

[An hon. member]

Immediately.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Immediately, Madam Speaker. It took legislation, and that is why the period of time happened. He painted a different canvas than that.

In this case, if the minister is not willing to take immediate action on this wrong, and I believe that many of his colleagues in the House know this is wrong, I would ask him to consider resigning from his position.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Far from it, Madam Speaker. I will stand by that veteran. I will stand by that veteran's right to privacy. This is not a case of protecting a murderer. This is a case of protecting a veteran.

The reason I took the time and trouble to spell out what this government has been doing over the past three years is that with each and every dollar of that $10 billion, we are protecting the lives of veterans and their families, even when it is unpopular to do so.

This is the most extenuating of circumstances. I have stood in the House on several occasions and said I was outraged. Everyone in the House has a right to be outraged. Every Canadian who feels outraged should be, but I will defend the veteran at the centre of this case. I will defend his privacy. I will not play fast and loose with the privacy of veterans, as that side of the House has done, as that side of the House has apologized for in the past. I will stand with veterans with every dollar we have passed in the House.

I invite members on all sides of the House to look at every member who was in the previous government during 10 years and ask where they were when we saw cut after cut to benefits, to services, to staff and to the department. Ask them where they were.

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the government. Liberal members are patting themselves on the back for what they think are all the great things they are doing. However, at the same time, veterans are falling through the cracks.

We just heard from the veterans ombudsman that the backlog is growing. It grew 50% last year, and we have just learned that in June, it grew another 10%. The ombudsman's report says it is getting worse. Veterans are not getting the services they need. The department is only meeting one-third of its own service requirements.

While the Liberals are patting themselves on the back, we have learned about lapsed spending through a question on the order paper the NDP put forward. Over $370 million has not been spent. The minister likens it to being at the gas pump and a credit for the future. Tell veterans who have been waiting for over six months for their claims to be opened that it is like $5, $10 or $20 spent at the gas pump. It is $370 million plus.

Will the minister do the right thing and hire all the staff that were fired by the Conservatives, all 1,000 staff, and get them back to work and end the backlog once and for all?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about the ombudsman's report.

The ombudsman's report was based on data that led up to, but did not include, our very first initiatives as a government, believe it or not. It went right up to April 2016. It was in that budget that we had our first measures to deal with the backlog and our first new benefits and services came into force. In fact, it was outdated data. However, I take the member's point, and I in no way want to stand here and pat ourselves on the back. We have a lot of work to do.

However, so much damage was done in 10 years, it is ironic for people on this side of the House. I liken it to coming home and finding that one's house has been vandalized, and when one starts to clean up the mess, the vandals themselves come over to say that it is not being cleaned up fast enough. It is a little rich, but we are hard at it.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very quick to the gun: Take action now and think later. The minister has power. The Harper-Scheer Conservatives used that administrative power to silence vets and their families.

When Sean Bruyea spoke out against legislation to strip veterans of lifetime pensions, he never imagined the government would try to smear his reputation using his own medical records. The Harper government was later forced to apologize for its actions, but it is just one example of that government's attempts to silence and discredit the veterans and their families who are standing up for their rights. They did this time and time again. Michel Drapeau, retired colonel, said that the government's actions were “despicable. It’s dishonourable. It’s unethical. And also illegal.”

It is incredible, because it is not only the veterans who are at the centre of what we are talking about, but also the services to their families, because the families are at the centre of military life. Without their family, the military member could do nothing. He could not be deployed because he would know that his children and spouse were not being looked after at home.

We need to ensure that those services are available all the time to all of those families, and not use administrative powers unethically as the Conservatives did to remove those services.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his observations.

I will once again tell the House that it has been frustrating to attend 40-plus town halls to talk to veterans each and every day and to their families. It will take a long time to win their trust back.

Like any other member on this side of the House, I do not like to stand up and continually blame the other side of the House for what we need to do, but it is very important that Canadians and veterans understand what we are dealing with. Most veterans get it. Most veterans understand.

We will do what needs to be done, and we will stand by veterans and their families, even when it is not politically expedient to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, because the minister beat around the bush and did not get to the point during his speech, I will get to the point directly with him.

Does the minister personally believe that it is wrong for a convicted cop killer who is not a veteran himself to receive veterans benefits, or am I simply asking for more than the minister can give right now?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I would say that my outrage should not weigh in this. I will stand by and protect the veteran at the centre of this. Even in this most extenuating of circumstances when the son has committed such an egregious crime, I will stand by that veteran's right to privacy. To talk about the psychiatric assessments of any member of any family of any veteran is, by extension, to talk about that veteran's well-being and right to privacy. I will not do that. I refuse to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as a spokesperson for the federal NDP. I will be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

First, let me start by saying that what happened to officer Catherine Campbell is absolutely shocking and heartbreaking. The pain to her family is unimaginable, and we must make sure this does not happen again. On behalf of all New Democrats, we send our condolences to her family.

The revelations regarding this case came as a shock to me, as they did to all veterans and their families and, obviously, to other members of this place and the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his department. It never should have happened, and the minister needs to fix it.

If one asked New Democrats how we have dealt with this highly unusual and outrageous case, I would note that I wrote a two-page letter to the minister on September 10 designed to make him aware of the media reports about the case and to ask him specific and pointed questions that came to me after reading the reports. I asked the minister three specific questions: was the decision to fund this care in accordance with any and all existing guidelines and/or regulations for the program and/or fund that was accessed; was the provision of care for illness unrelated to the service of veteran standard practice, and if so, what limitations are in place for such funding and provisions; and is funding still available to veterans in need of similar services from the same program and/or fund?

That said, in that letter, I let the minister know that I would be asking the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to examine the regulations for this and other programs so they can be improved to ensure that all veterans and their families have access. To date, I have not heard back from the minister, but I await his thoughtful response before taking any further steps. New Democrats asked the government pointed questions in writing so we could find out what went wrong in this particular matter and, of course, work toward a solution to fix it.

Whenever we are talking about veterans benefits, we must discuss the challenges, the needs of veterans, and must have a wholesome conversation. All parties have expressed a desire to show respect and to help veterans and their families, but clearly we know that while the Conservatives were in government, they did not respect veterans. They cut services for veterans. Now the Liberals are making promises to fix the mistakes and are failing to do so.

Let us us not forget the way veterans were treated under the Conservative government, which cut more than 1,000 caseworkers and staff whose jobs were to work directly with veterans to ensure that they had access to the programs and services they needed, as well as the follow up they needed. It closed nine Veterans Affairs offices that served more than 20,000 veterans. There was also the failure of the Conservative government to spend more than $1.1 billion approved by Parliament to help veterans.

However, it does not excuse the Liberal government's broken promises today and for its following in the footsteps of the Conservatives on so many issues facing veterans today. While money has been allocated to help veterans under the Liberal government, something my NDP colleagues and I wholeheartedly support, it is not what the Liberals promised and is clearly not enough.

During the 2015 campaign, the Prime Minister promised to re-establish lifelong pensions, but instead his minister has put forward a pale imitation of the venerable old program. As has been pointed out by independent sources, the benefits paid out under the Liberals' new lifetime pension are not even close to the financial benefits veterans would have received under the old lifelong pension. I hope the government will stop misleading veterans about this fact.

While the government made a point of criticizing the last Conservative government for not spending $1.1 billion approved by Parliament over just seven years, it has continued the same practice, leaving over $374 million unspent in its first three years. For some reason, the minister likened this to getting a credit when one buys gas at the station. This is not five dollars, $10 or $15 left at the pump; this is enough money to hire back the over 1,000 caseworkers who were fired by the Conservative government and who could help deal with the growing backlog of over 30,000 veterans waiting for their disability benefit application claims to be opened. Many of them are not even getting a response.

With regard to the provision of service dogs that veterans absolutely need, they just got a report back from their own department, which veterans have been waiting for for years. The government chose to follow that path of doing its own report and ignoring a report that was done in the United States previously. It wanted to do a made in Canada report, but now the Liberals are deciding to wait for a report out of the U.S. before they allocate more resources for service dogs. A tax credit is great for service dogs. We appreciate that step forward, but veterans need more service dogs. More veterans are falling through the cracks, but the government did not do what it should have.

The Liberals could have used that money to open more centres to help veterans. We heard from the ombudsman's report that many veterans are waiting well beyond the service standards set out by the government. Most of them are waiting more than four months. They are actually waiting six months. Women are waiting longer than men. French Canadians are waiting longer than anglophone Canadians. Why? The Liberals are failing to address and meet their own service standards.

Many veterans cannot find someone to answer the phone. I have been hearing from constituents and others across the country. I have a note from Rose Doucette, a a former Canadian Armed Forces veteran who was deployed to Afghanistan and volunteered for an extended tour. She said she has had two claims in the VAC system since September 2017, that is, for over a year, and was recently told by a medical practitioner that the VAC wait time is now expected to be 24 to 28 weeks, but that even that was not likely. She was told that the new policy was never to discuss wait times with a veteran. She has also had four VAC reassessments waiting in the pipe since February 2018. VAC is not being truthful about its service to injured veterans. This is not how we should be treating our veterans.

I held five town halls in my riding this summer to listen to veterans. We heard someone say that the call centres are based on time zones that do not meet veterans' needs across the country and that people are not answering the phone. We heard from Vivian from Port Alberni who spoke about the application and appeals process impacting the families of veterans. She said that once a spouse gets through the system, they are sick themselves from dealing with it all.

Reg of Qualicum Beach also voiced his concerns regarding the long and convoluted process that generally requires multiple attempts.

Ken of Parksville expressed his desire for better communication with veterans when they submit an application or appeal. Confirmation and receipt with an approximate timeline would go a long way in addressing this issue for Ken. He is not even hearing back from VAC.

While the Liberals are patting themselves on the back, Ken, Vivian and Rose are all suffering, along with many other veterans across the country. Rick of Parksville summed up the feeling in the room. He compared it to medical insurance companies attempting to run out the clock on sick claimants to avoid paying them. We know that a lot of veterans will not get any benefits until their applications are approved. That means they are being left out and are leaning on family members to support them for the medications and treatment they need. This is absolutely unacceptable.

As New Democrats, we will continue to work in practical and meaningful ways to improve the lives of Canadian veterans and their families, because we think our veterans deserve no less from their political leaders. The huge problems that plague the current Liberal government and the Department of Veterans Affairs are a continuation of the Conservative legacy. All members ought to work together. We have to support veterans to make sure they get the services they are rightly owed and deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member and his passion toward veterans. We heard the minister talk about the fact that he was going to punt this issue down to mid-level bureaucrats for a decision. It is important to remind the minister that the Department of Veterans Affairs is a department of the Government of Canada. It is not his department and, as a result, punting this down and not acting on it calls into question whether he is abdicating his responsibility to the House with respect to his decision-making powers. If he does not want to make those types of decisions that we are asking for today, then he should resign.

Does the member not agree that this gentleman, Chris Garnier, should not be receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs given the circumstances of this case?

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

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have made it clear that this needs to be fixed. The minister needs to address this. We have made it unequivocally clear that this has to take place.

When it comes to Mr. Garnier, or anyone who has committed a crime, New Democrats wholeheartedly believe that when someone has committed a crime we need to do everything we can to rehabilitate that individual so when they are released from incarceration they come out a better person. That is something we are committed to. We believe Mr. Garnier should be getting services from Corrections Canada so that he gets help. Clearly, he needs help, but we believe it should not be coming from Veterans Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni not only for his speech today but for the tremendous, motivated work he does on the veterans committee.

Sitting in the same meetings, we have heard the same testimony with regard to backlog. My question relates to the millions that would be available to do other things. Those millions perhaps come from the backlog. The backlog, which we heard testimony about, comes from the fact that we are informing veterans of benefits they did not know they were eligible for. That has created new pressure on the staff. I would ask my colleague to comment on whether the backlog, as he understands it, is a result of better information going to veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my friend and colleague from Hamilton, with whom I sit on the veterans affairs committee. We work together, but I refute that statement. When the Conservatives fired 1,000 caseworkers, and the backlog has grown by over 60% in a year and a half, and we read the report from the ombudsman, it is not just about veterans learning about programs. The government is not fixing the backlog that was created by the Conservative cuts. The government is also failing to deal with essential services. We even heard from the bureaucracy, through a report straight to the minister, that it is having a hard time providing essential services for veterans. The government then goes out and announces program after program without properly and adequately resourcing the department to deliver those services.

The right thing for the government to do is to not leave over $370 million on the table, but to use that money not just to hire caseworkers to help deal with the backlog, but to hire them back permanently. Veterans deserve that. They need some certainty. People serving in the military who are set to leave need to know there is certainty in Veterans Affairs, that they are going to get the support and follow-up they deserve. Therefore, the right thing for the government to do is hire back those employees, then resource the department adequately for all the new programs it has announced and not leave any money on the table.

We do not buy it, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table to go back to treasury. That money needs to be spent. If Veterans Affairs runs out of money, it can come back to Parliament and ask for supply to support it. I am certain the House would support that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by extending my deepest condolences to Catherine Campbell's family. Ms. Campbell was the victim of a horrific crime, and I cannot imagine the pain her parents and loved ones must be feeling. I also want to tell the family that Catherine Campbell's name will not be forgotten.

This story reminds us of how much more work needs to be done to address violence against women. Ms. Campbell had gone through police training, but sadly, she is no longer with us.

It was very important for me to extend my condolences to Ms. Campbell's family and to let them know that she will be in my thoughts as I fight to end violence against women, with the support of the NDP and many MPs.

Regarding veterans' benefits, it is important to understand that there is a huge backlog and that the process is extremely long and complex. In many cases, soldiers with chronic back pain, to give an example, send in all their forms and benefit claims, only to be told that their injury is not related to their military service. They then have to fight to prove that the injury really is related to their military service. That is one of the reasons frequently cited for denying benefits.

We understand that privacy is required in the case of Chris Garnier. However, judging by the information we have received and the public statements that were made, including at trial, the injury for which he is receiving treatment is in no way connected to his father's military service. There is no connection between his injury and military service.

In my opinion, Veterans Affairs Canada should not be paying benefits in this case. Chris Garnier can get the care he needs from Corrections Canada, but Veterans Affairs Canada certainly should not have to pay for his care, since this injury has no connection to his father's military service.

I do want to point out that when family members experience psychological trauma, this trauma is sometimes connected to military service. During their career, soldiers must regularly tell their spouse that they are being deployed, but that they do not know where or for how long.

This type of situation creates a tremendous amount of stress for the spouse, who has no idea if the person will come home or what that person is getting into. That is extremely stressful. In the long term, it can have an impact on the mental health of the military spouse and that of their children. In this case, there is a very clear link between the need for psychological care for family members and the military service of the spouse.

In the case of Ms. Campbell, the crime was especially heinous. The monstrosity of the crime aside, the logical conclusion is that there is no link between the injury and the military service of the father. We are also talking about a 30-year old man, not a teenager or a child who was still in their parents' care or whose parent was a soldier or veteran at the time that the injury occurred.

The important thing now is to discuss what is currently going on with veterans. Let us be clear and honest. I know veterans who served under the Pierre Trudeau government, and those who served under the Chrétien, Martin, and Mulroney governments, and even under the current Prime Minister. Not one can say that everything went smoothly under any of those governments or any prime minister. The problems at Veterans Affairs Canada have been going on for decades.

Everyone is trying to solve these problems but sadly, over time, other problems are created, especially with respect to access to services, which often discourages people. Generations of veterans have wound up feeling abandoned because they have had enough of the endless back and forth with Veterans Affairs about their cases and the never-ending medical exams. That is unacceptable. To their mind, the injury they received during their military service is so obvious that it cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, veterans regularly abandon their claims because they are no longer able to go on fighting and they cannot understand why they are made to feel guilty about asking for what they are entitled to. These are real injuries and there is no doubt about their military service, but they are regularly required to fight with the department. That is unacceptable.

Veterans come to our riding offices asking for help. They come with two-inch files full of papers, including their medical file, correspondence with Veterans Affairs Canada and third-party medical assessments, in the hopes of solving problems that sometimes seem unthinkable. The compensation requested is sometimes $2,000 or $5,000. With everything that has been done administratively to block their claims, I am convinced that it is more expensive for the department to try to prevent veterans from obtaining reasonable benefits.

Facing these kinds of situations, which happen every day, and knowing that benefits have been awarded in some cases, people have every right to wonder what is going on in the department. Why is such nonsense happening? So many soldiers need treatment, but there are also family members who have to fight, deal with delays and are turned away six times before they actually manage to speak with someone.

This is not to mention one particular group that is being deprived of services: francophones. All too often, people have a hard time obtaining services in French. Unfortunately, I know a few veterans who have ended up accepting services in English simply to speed up the process. It is extremely frustrating. We need to take immediate action today to provide better services to veterans.

I would also remind members of the $372 million allocated to Veterans Affairs Canada that has yet to be spent. With that funding, how many employees could be hired in the various offices to provide services? It is worth doing the math, since $372 million is a huge amount of money that was supposed to help veterans, but has yet to be spent. We should all be thinking about immediate action we could take together, as members, to quickly restore adequate services for veterans and their families.

Too many people never speak of the sacrifices they make throughout their spouse's military career because they do not want to affect their health. We need to recognize their sacrifices and acknowledge that they are very much linked to their spouse's military service. Any benefits received should be related to military service.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

At the root of this issue is the fact that Mr. Garnier is receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs, in spite of the fact that he never served a day in his life in Canada's military. He is 30 years old.

When we look at similar situations in terms of receiving benefits, in the case of members of this House whose dependants receive benefits, the dependants will receive benefits until the age of 21, and then if they are in university they will receive them until the age of 25.

If a serving member of Canada's military ends up committing a murder and is found guilty of that murder, not only do they lose their benefits but their entire family loses their benefits.

I ask my hon. colleague whether she agrees that this member should be receiving benefits or not, given the circumstances that I have just cited.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, there is no connection between the treatment and the military service of Mr. Garnier's father, so I do not see how he can be eligible for benefits regardless of the crime he committed.

There is no connection between the injury and the father's military service. I do not see why Mr. Garnier would be eligible for benefits to begin with. Under the circumstances, it is clear to me that Correctional Service Canada should pay for any treatment provided.

We should be focusing on what we can do now to improve services to families and veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech. Like her, my thoughts are with the Campbell family.

In her speech, my colleague said that this is a very complex case. I can assure the House that she is right. She also said that it is confidential. My colleague said she has a solution based on articles she has read and the bits of information she has gathered.

Does my colleague agree that our approach, standing up before veterans and their families, is the right approach?

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

Madam Speaker, right now, most of the veterans I know are much angrier than I am. When they see a murderer getting benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada, it is harder for them to appreciate the nuances of confidentiality and other legal issues than it is for me.

Most veterans, especially those who have fought for years to get benefits, are very angry about this situation. They really do not like how the government has handled this case.