Debates of Sept. 25th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we do not know all of the details of this case. As legislators and members of the House, we have to be very careful that we take into account all of the information.

However, as I said earlier, by all means, we should be providing this mentally ill young man with health care. The tragedy is that government after government have cut services for mental health care and we are reaping the tragic results of that. However, we should be providing this young man with mental health care through Correctional Service of Canada, not Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. The government has provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funds. The Government of Canada has opened up the nine regional offices throughout Canada that were previously closed. We have brought in tax benefits and other benefits related to mental health. This government has been very progressive in ensuring that our veterans and their families get the services necessary, such as the pension for life. There is so much that this government has done.

Given that the NDP promised to balance the budget, how would it propose to do a fraction of what we have been able to do?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would have done it by spending intelligently. We would have done it by making sure that every dollar went where it was needed, instead of leaving $372 million on the table that belonged to veterans and their families.

Yes, the Liberals opened offices, but they opened them without staff. On this nonsense about providing service, I would like him to explain to me how people can go 29 and 32 weeks without any response from Veterans Affairs. Is that at all looking after the veterans and families of our country?

I am sorry, but I am a shade upset by the conduct of this government and the previous government. A fake pension is not a pension, and they know it is a fake pension, and so do the veterans of this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; and the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by extending my condolences to the family of Catherine Campbell. I can only imagine the heartbreak that they have gone through.

As members know, we are supporting the motion.

I want to start by referring to question period earlier today when we had a very theatrical performance by the Minister of Veterans Affairs which I thought was entirely inappropriate, quite shameful in fact. I have been in this House for 15 years almost, and I have not seen a performance that was so inappropriate for any minister, as bad as the performance we saw this afternoon.

I wanted to cite that because after question period, we saw another indication of the complete disarray and chaos reigning within the Ministry of Veterans Affairs. What we saw, in complete contradiction to what the minister said in question period, was an announcement by Veterans Affairs that the department will no longer pay benefits for incarcerated relatives of veterans.

That is not what the motion calls for. The motion calls very specifically for Veterans Affairs Canada to pull the benefits that have been extended to Chris Garnier, and yet what the government and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs did was actually pull all of the benefits to all of the relatives of veterans who are either in a provincial or federal institution, whether it is as a result of the possession of marijuana which will soon be legalized or as a result of shoplifting, all of which are potentially impacted by PTSD as we know. The Ministry of Veterans Affairs reacted by pulling all of the benefits, but when questioned, Ministry of Veterans Affairs officials said that they could not confirm whether Mr. Garnier, who is the principal focus of the debate today, would actually have his benefits withdrawn.

We had the sad spectacle of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and then an announcement by the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, which seems to have impacted we do not know how many relatives of veterans, yet the government does not seem to be dealing with the fundamental issue that we are debating here in the House. I say that is sad because I believe our nation's veterans deserve much better than the kind of improvised service and talking points and the theatrical performance that we saw from the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

I come from a community that deeply appreciates our nation's veterans. On the cenotaph before the city hall in the city of New Westminster are the names of many of our nation's veterans who participated in a whole series of conflicts dating back to the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean conflict. Two of my relatives' names, those of my grandfather and my uncle, are on that cenotaph before the city hall.

On Remembrance Day, New Westminster turns out in remarkably strong numbers, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 strong. The city of New Westminster turns out to remember our nation's veterans on Remembrance Day. Whether it is pouring rain or there are high winds, it does not matter; the community turns out in the thousands to commemorate our nation's veterans.

Just up the hill from the city hall and the cenotaph that I spoke of is the headquarters of the Royal Westminster Regiment. That armoury is always filled with 1,000 or 1,500 people celebrating at a service prior to the Remembrance Day ceremony at the city hall. The 1,000, 1,200, or 1,500 people who are at the armoury then walk down in silence toward the cenotaph to commemorate with thousands of other citizens of New Westminster on Remembrance Day. A number of the veterans of the Royal Westminster Regiment have given their lives over the years, and New Westminster remembers.

The other community I represent is the city of Burnaby. On Remembrance Day there is always a service that is completely full which is held at the veterans hospital, the George Derby Centre. Members will remember just a few years ago under the former Conservative government that this hospital facility was cut of its funding and the hospital was passed over to the provincial government. What we have seen since then, as I go to George Derby frequently to honour our nation's veterans, is that the services for those veterans at the George Derby Centre in Burnaby have been severely cut over the years. We are seeing more and more frequently veterans calling for better services. The services that existed before had been slashed by the previous government and those cuts have continued under the current government.

There is a lot of rhetoric in the House of Commons and often we will see members of the government stand up and read talking points that are provided to them. They are supposed to put forward a strong argument about why the government has been doing everything it is supposed to do. However, I know from first-hand experience, and I think my colleagues in the NDP caucus can say the same thing, that it is very clear the benefits, programs and supports that should be going to our nation's veterans simply are not. It is simply that.

Peter Stoffer, the former NDP veterans critic, made a reputation nationally for speaking out for our nation's veterans. He always said that the government has an ongoing fiduciary responsibility towards all of our nation's veterans. However, whether it is the previous Conservative government or the current Liberal government, that is simply not the case.

This should not be a partisan issue. This should be something that we all unite on. There is no doubt if we ask 100 Canadians from coast to coast to coast that 100% of them would say that providing those benefits to our nation's veterans has to be a priority regardless of which government is in power. Yet as my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, just mentioned, hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years, and over $1 billion over the last 10 years, has gone wanting at the same time as we are seeing our nation's veterans not being able to access programs, not being able to access housing, and often being left aside. That is simply unacceptable.

No Canadian would find it acceptable that there are veterans in our country who are homeless. No Canadian would find it acceptable that there are veterans who are trying to access addiction facilities and simply are not being provided with the supports that they need. No Canadians would find it acceptable that mental health services or employment services are not being provided to veterans or that they would have to wait months at a time before they could even access primary services.

Getting beyond the rhetoric, the question is simply this: Is the government doing nearly enough for our nation's veterans? The answer is no. The answer is that it is simply not. The answer is that there are veterans who will be sleeping outside tonight. That is unacceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada. Canadians support our nation's veterans and that any veteran would have to sleep outside is simply unacceptable. That veterans who struggle with mental health issues do not get the services they need is simply unacceptable. That veterans who struggle with addiction issues are not given access to long-term addiction programs that will actually provide them with the supports they need is simply unacceptable.

I have spoken about this in the House before. The Last Door in New Westminster provides long-term addiction services but has not been able to get access from Veterans Affairs so that veterans could be referred to its very effective program.

These are all signs of a ministry that is not doing its job, a minister that is not doing his job and a government that is not responding to the needs of our nation's veterans, regardless of the talking points. I understand that talking points are handed out to Liberal MPs, that they do not have a hand in drafting them, that they are supposed to read what is printed before them. Surely there is an MP in the Liberal caucus who is willing to stand up and say that the short-changing of our nation's veterans has to stop and that we have to go by the principle that all Canadian veterans are entitled to housing, mental health support and services, full stop. That is what should be happening.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would all agree that we do not want to have knee-jerk policy changes that would have unintended consequences, but would my colleague not agree that it has taken almost a month from when this was first reported to when we are have finally gotten a response from the government, a completely inadequate one?

Would it not have been an appropriate response for the minister to have said initially that by all appearances this seemed to be wrong, that he would take action and have a report back on his desk within 24 hours, and that his department would look at a policy moving forward that would ensure this was taken care of? Would that not have been the appropriate response that anyone could reasonably expect from a minister, rather than waiting for many weeks and then getting mixed messages? Even the Prime Minister said he would not answer the question. It is quite shameful.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I would have to agree with the member, Mr. Speaker. I have seldom seen it. She too has a long experience in the House of Commons. I have seldom seen a file that has been handled as badly as this one. The minister first said there would be a response, but we did not get one. He defended what happened and then stopped defending it.

As we heard just a few hours ago in the House, the minister said something quite the opposite to what was eventually announced. The substance of the issue of whether or not Mr. Garnier is still getting those veterans supports has still not been addressed.

We, and even government members, do not know how many veterans and their relatives will be impacted by a policy shift that goes in a different direction from what today's motion is calling for, and what members have been speaking to today. Potentially hundreds of veterans and their relatives will be impacted.

This has been badly handled, botched in a way that is so inappropriate when we think of the importance that all Canadians attach to our nation's veterans. They deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his passion for this file. I also want to again express my condolences to the Campbell family.

I agree with my colleague who said that veterans could be supported and that we must do more. That is the position we have taken.

Does the member recognize that we opened the Centre of Excellence on PTSD and Other Related Mental Health Conditions, re-opened nine trauma treatment offices closed by the Conservatives, and operated 19 clinics to serve our veterans? That is what we have done.

Does the member opposite agree with us?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all that they are doing enough for the veterans of this country. I do not agree at all that the new programs announced, which are in fact former programs, are adequate for Canada's veterans. I do not agree at all that cutting $372 million allocated for veterans is an appropriate way of running things.

The NDP criticized the Conservatives when they took away more than $1 billion from veterans. The Liberals are doing exactly the same thing to the tune of about $150 million a year. That is not appropriate. Instead of being partisan, they should be asking what is the right course of action for our veterans.

The Conservatives' actions were not appropriate, nor are those of the Liberals at this time. The Liberals have a responsibility to meet the needs of veterans, to return the $372 million that was taken away from them, and to provide veterans with the services and housing they need. In my opinion, that is the message Canadians want to give the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I thank the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, the member for Brantford—Brant, for his motion today. It is disappointing that I even have to rise in this place today to speak to the despicable situation the government has put itself in. It was so disappointing when the Minister of Veterans Affairs found out that a convicted murderer, Chris Garnier, who is not a veteran, was receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada for PTSD, which he has experienced because he killed police officer Catherine Campbell. It is benefit he should never be entitled because of his heinous crimes.

We have to remember that this individual, Christopher Garnier, picked up Catherine Campbell off duty, took her back to his apartment, broke her nose, strangled her, desecrated her body by treating it like garbage and dumped it underneath the Macdonald Bridge in Halifax.

Catherine Campbell was not just an outstanding police officer, but also a volunteer firefighter. I extend my condolences to her family. I hope that with this whole situation, they not have been revictimized by the actions of Veterans Affairs in extending benefits to the killer of their daughter, benefits he is not entitled to. That, to me, is very disgusting.

This whole debate today is disgusting. It is disgusting because of this vicious act of murder by Garnier. I am disgusted by a policy decision that may have been made erroneously by Veterans Affairs Canada. I am disgusted by the shameful behaviour of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He comes in here every day full of pompous bravado, pounds his chest and rails against the opposition, but refuses to do anything to help our veterans and is allowing this murderer to be ahead of veterans in the line for services for things like PTSD. That is a lack of leadership, and I am disgusted by it. All of the veterans who have contacted us as members of Parliament are disgusted by the behaviour of the government and the failure of leadership by the Prime Minister in not interceding, correcting the behaviour of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and making sure these services are rescinded.

Let us look at the facts, because we are hearing all sorts of rhetoric from the Liberal benches. Christopher Garnier is not a veteran. He is 30 years old. He has never put on a uniform and there is no way he is entitled to any benefits from Veterans Affairs. The Liberals are claiming privacy because of his father, who was a veteran. However, let us be clear that these types of services are allowed for the dependant children and spouses of veterans, and they are still waiting in line while this non-dependant, 30-year-old adult is getting benefits that other families' loved ones should be receiving right now to deal with PTSD and operational stress injuries.

The fact is, if we look at the court case, as well as what has been reported in the media, Chris Garnier's father, Chris Garnier's lawyer, and Chris Garnier's psychologist all admitted in court and to the press that his PTSD is a direct result of his murder of Catherine Campbell. His PTSD is guilt and remorse for the vicious attack and the way he desecrated the body of his victim. He should never ever qualify for a Veterans Affairs benefit.

We need to keep in mind that Correctional Service Canada offers mental health and counselling services to all those who are incarcerated. There is no reason why Veterans Affairs Canada should ever feel it needs to provide service to anyone who is incarcerated. It has every opportunity to provide those services through other government agencies, and Correctional Service Canada has those services readily available to convicts right across the country.

We heard during question period, while we were hammering away at the Minister of Veterans Affairs for his ridiculous answers and shameful behaviour and his disrespect toward veterans, especially the family of Catherine Campbell, that the Liberals were going to rescind this policy. However, if we look at the details of what was announced, they are trying to provide cover for the minister, who still refuses to rescind the benefits of Christopher Garnier.

Throughout question period, we heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs hide behind privacy and say over and over again that he is going to stand by our veterans. First, Christopher Garnier is not a veteran. He should never receive veterans benefits. No adult child of a veteran gets any benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. If the minister is so convinced that he needs to stand by our veterans, what would he do in the case of former Colonel Russell Williams, who was a serial killer? When we were in government and found that out, we rescinded all of his veterans benefits and his veterans pension, because he should not be entitled to any of those as an incarcerated serial killer. Therefore, how can the minister today stand in this place and say that he will stand by any veteran, despite any heinous crime they commit, when the precedent was set by our former Conservative government that we would not provide benefits to someone like Russell Williams, a former colonel in the air force?

The minister talks about standing by our veterans. Well, Sean Bruyea is suing the minister for defamation of character. That is how the minister acts. He stands by everyone, but look how he is treating Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. It is his government that is taking him to court for something he never did.

We keep hearing from the Liberal benches. We hear from the members for Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North. They get up and talk about all of the things they are doing. However, let us look at the real metrics of what the Liberals have done for veterans. Wait times under the Liberals have gone up from 16 weeks to seven months. Veterans are waiting longer under the Liberal government to get the benefits they are entitled to.

We just heard announced this past week that veterans are now going to be denied service dogs for PTSD, despite all of the research showing a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms among our veterans from those dogs. What is Veterans Affairs doing under the minister? It is going to take away this great animal husbandry program that provided companionship for veterans and reduced the impact of their PTSD and other operational stress injuries. Also, even though the Prime Minister promised he would not take veterans back to court, it was this minister who actually beat veterans in court with the Equitas lawsuit. What a great track record we have here.

Of course, the Liberals have cut $372 million in veterans benefits as a result of lapsed funding over their three-year tenure. I guess when the Prime Minister stood in Edmonton and told a veteran right to his face in a town hall meeting that he was “asking for more than we are able to give”, it proves the point that they had the money. They just do not want to spend it on our veterans.

The benefits program is just a shell game. It is not a pension for life. It is just a bunch of programs they put together and tried to reinvent the wheel with.

In closing, if there are any members on the Liberal bench who want to stand up for our veterans, rather than stand for their Minister of Veterans Affairs, they should stand tonight and vote yes for this motion and ensure that we stop and rescind all of the policies and programs that are being offered to Christopher Garnier.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I had a number of round tables with veterans from my riding of Oakville about three years ago to ask how things were for them and whether they were able to access services. I heard uniformly that they were having difficulty accessing services. I heard from a mother whose son had served, a veteran who suffered from PTSD, and the concerns she had about adequate support and adequate treatment for veterans.

That is why I am so glad to see that our government has been reinvesting in veterans, has opened the new centre of excellence for post-traumatic stress disorder, and has launched the joint suicide prevention strategy along with the Canadian Armed Forces.

My question to the member is, where was he? Where was he during the 10 years when the Conservatives lost the trust of the veterans community? Where was he when it came to improving mental health services? Where was he when the Auditor General said that the Conservatives were not doing enough to facilitate veterans' timely access to mental health services and benefits? Where was he during that decade?

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

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the member that I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I went across this country and met with our ill and injured. I actually opened the centre of excellence at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre that helps support our troops and our veterans in actually moving ahead in dealing with PTSD and operational stress injuries.

Where was that member? He said he met with veterans three years ago? Why has he not met with them in the last three years? If he met with veterans groups today, as I do, he would know that they are disgusted by the government and the way it is using veterans as props rather than actually delivering services.

All we have to do is look at the metrics I have put out there. There is $372 million in lapsed funding through Veterans Affairs. Wait times for veterans have gone from 16 weeks, which is the mark, to seven months under the Liberal government. That is shameful.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. We sit on the defence committee together. From time to time, we actually see eye to eye. However, I regret that this is not one of those issues.

The reality of the situation is that the member has been trying to characterize the former Conservative government as a friend of veterans, when in reality, that was not the case. Let us look at some of the facts: killing lifetime pensions for veterans; closing nine veterans affairs offices; and forcing a court to instruct the former Conservative government to pay $887 million to veterans.

How can the member possibly claim that the former Conservative government was doing great things for veterans, when the record shows completely otherwise?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Kingston and the Islands should not throw stones at glass houses.

Let us actually look at the facts. The Liberals talk about opening offices, but they have actually extended the wait times. Veterans are waiting up to seven months for services. That is not performance. The member talks about money not spent. There is $372 million of lapsed funding under the Liberals.

People need to actually look at doing things for our veterans. That is why I was so happy that at our national policy convention in Halifax this summer, we brought forward a new policy called duty of care, which says:

The Conservative Party of Canada, recognizes and accepts unreservedly the existence of a Social Covenant between the Government of Canada and those who have served in the Armed Forces of Canada (The Military Covenant).

We are going to honour that. The member talked about ending lifetime pensions. We have to remember that this happened under the Paul Martin government when it brought forward the new veterans charter. Again, the member needs to get his facts straight.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his impassioned speech.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, I have numerous veterans I work with frequently. I can think of one right now who has a service dog that really helps him with his post-traumatic stress disorder. He cannot find housing, because they do not take dogs.

When we look at the gaps in services, we really need to commend the people, like those at the Comox Military Family Resource Centre in my riding, who work day in and day out with these veterans.

Could the member talk about what it really means for veterans on the ground when over $300 million is left on the table, when there are services and needs veterans have today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from North Island—Powell River, a beautiful riding that I have had the opportunity to visit a couple of times. I met with the military family resource centre there, along with the JPSU and the integrated personnel support centre. They do great work.

To know that there is money on the table that is not being used for things like PTSD service dogs for those veterans who need those services is really disappointing. All the research shows, both Canadian and American research, that those service dogs do a great job.

The more we can do to support veterans, like those in her riding, the better off we are going to be as a nation and the better off we will be finding people who want to serve in uniform, knowing that they will be properly cared for by having in place a military covenant.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his continuing support for veterans, both in his riding and across the country.

I have some very serious concerns about how this particular debate has been unfolding. Let us start with how we got to this point. In this case, when citizens learned that a man convicted of murdering a female police officer was receiving veterans benefits and then learned that this particular man was not a veteran and has never served, it created a strong level of outrage. Let us also be clear that these concerns came first and foremost from the family of the victim. I mention that so we can be perfectly clear that this was not something dreamt up by the opposition party. These are legitimate concerns raised by the family of a murdered police officer, concerns raised by veterans who know full well that this was never what post-traumatic stress disorder benefits were created for and finally, concerns raised by everyday Canadians.

Even the Liberals' own veterans minister has conceded and stated in this place that “there are many of us who are uncomfortable with the decision that was made.”

What happened next? Well, we know that the Prime Minister was asked about this. What did he have to say? This Prime Minister demonstrated an unaccountable level of arrogance when he told Canadians that he would not answer questions on this subject, that for some reason, he should not be held accountable for this decision. It is all part of the same pattern of a Prime Minister who has one set of rules for everyone else but a very different set of rules for himself and his inner circle. He says that these questions are playing politics with tragedy and he will not answer them. He even called these questions “disgusting political games”.

What happened next? The minister did his usual tap dance, and of course, the go-to Liberal talking point was to blame Harper. This, of course, is how Liberals try to cover for their ongoing failure, despite the fact that they are three years into their own term. Keep in mind, it was not previous prime minister Harper who set Liberals' own performance standards on serving veterans, which we learned recently has resulted in the Liberal government failing to even meet its own veterans service targets.

Despite these failures to serve actual veterans, somehow the government found a way to provide veterans benefits to a cop killer who was never a veteran. Now, this outraged the family of the victim. As well, we have cases where veterans are in court fighting the Liberal government to fulfill its promises made to veterans. Veterans see a convicted murderer, who is not a veteran, receiving the benefits they fought for, and in some cases are still fighting for. That creates a level of outrage, and people are going to ask the Prime Minister why it is happening under his watch.

This Prime Minister may not like the question, but to call it a disgusting political game and then refuse to answer? Would this Prime Minister seriously pick up the phone and accuse the family of the victim of playing disgusting political games because they are outraged by this decision by his own government? That is what this is about: accountability. This family wants answers. This family deserves answers.

Earlier today, the minister joined this debate, and I followed his comments closely. Only at the very end of his speech did he actually address the issue we are debating. The minister told us that if veterans services are being received by a family member of a veteran when they are not related to the veteran's service-related illness or injury, the case will be reviewed by a senior official before a decision is rendered. Let us fast forward to this afternoon when we were in question period. While in question period, the CBC released a report that entirely contradicted what the minister told this place this morning. CBC now reports that Veterans Affairs Canada will no longer “pay for benefits for incarcerated relatives of veterans in the wake of the Christopher Garnier case.”

While I believe that many Canadians will strongly support this new policy, it does raise a few troubling questions. Why did the minister tell us something completely different this morning? Why was the minister in this place during question period arguing in favour of the do-nothing approach? Why is it that we only learned of this important new policy from the CBC and not from the minister during question period? Seriously, is the minister even running his own department?

On the weekend, we witnessed a minister responsible for border security who clearly has no idea what is going on in his department, and now this today. This, of course, all comes back to what I view as the core problem here. Let me recap first.

When this subject first arose, the Prime Minister called it “disgusting political games” and refused to answer it, yet here we are. Not only has the question been validated but the department has actually changed its policy because of it.

Let me quote again. CBC now reports, “Veterans Affairs Canada will not pay for benefits for incarcerated relatives of veterans in the wake of the Christopher Garnier case.” I repeat, “in the wake of the Christopher Garnier case.” It was never a foolish political game. Those were real concerns from real people. For the Prime Minister to simply blow them off with his usual habit of trying to shame anyone who dares to expect accountability from him is getting tired.

It also points to a pattern with the Prime Minister. In the past, when the Prime Minister did not like uncomfortable questions, he would often accuse the opposition of throwing mud. Many of those uncomfortable questions led to the Prime Minister and members of his own cabinet being found guilty of ethics violations. In other words, I am seeing a bit of a pattern. When the Prime Minister hits the mass outrage button over a question he does not like, all too often it is because he does not know the answer. He just does not want to reveal it. Generally, this only applies to the Prime Minister and his inner circle, one of which is the Veterans Affairs minister. This matter has shown us that the Prime Minister needs to be more accountable to Canadians.

Now I will go back to the topic at hand. We can commend the department for changing this policy, thanks to the concern raised by the opposition. I say thanks to the department, because the minister clearly knew nothing about it. Otherwise we would have learned about this policy change from him instead of from the CBC during question period today.

That leaves only one important unanswered question. We know that Veterans Affairs will no longer pay for benefits for the incarcerated relatives of veterans. What we do not know is whether the Liberal government will stop providing veterans benefits to Christopher Garnier. We have asked this of the minister repeatedly. He has refused to answer, and he hides behind his department. In fairness to the minister, perhaps like this most recent policy change, he does not know. Maybe he is waiting for his department to tell the CBC, so it can tell us. Whatever the answer is, the minister has had ample opportunity to provide a simple answer, and he refuses to do so.

This is not ministerial accountability in this place. Everyone in this place knows that. We can all send a message to the minister, who is a BF to the Prime Minister. We can vote to stop these benefits. That is what I am asking all members in this place to do: join with the Conservatives in saying “no more” in this case. That is what this motion is about, and that is what it should remain when we stand in our places today and vote as hon. members.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in some of my interventions today, I shared my dismay that we are not debating policy here, that we are not actually debating what we could be doing differently and setting the policy that directs this in a way that would prevent something like this from happening in the future. I am wondering if the member opposite can share his insight into how he would develop this policy in such a way that certain thresholds would be adhered to in terms of where the tolerance level is and for what general activities there would be a tolerance level.

Can the member contribute to a policy objective rather than just trying to pick on one particular scenario that occurred?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is outrage from the family, outrage from veterans and outrage from Canadians in regard to this specific case.

Now the department has changed the policy, but the minister has shown less than to dignify us with a proper response. The member wants to talk about policy, but when policies are put in place and people start falling through the cracks, when there are failures and gaps in that policy, then it is up to backbench MPs and not just the opposition to go to their Parliament here to hold the government and their ministers to account. That is exactly what we are supposed to do.

The member can try and say if we only had the perfect policy, but then we would not need ministers anymore, and we would not need MPs anymore. We are here to fight for our constituents to make sure their voices are being heard. We want that member to hear that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my first occasion rising in the debate today, because I am troubled by it. I am having trouble with it, and obviously every Canadian is offended by the idea that a convicted murderer is getting benefits from Veterans Affairs even though that person was never a veteran. On the face of it, it is outrageous, and that is what troubles me.

We are having an entire debate about a specific personal instance. I am going to vote for the Conservative motion. I do not see any reason that I would not. However, the difficulty I have is that I have respect for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He appears tortured before us. He appears to have confidential information that he cannot divulge. If that were true, I am asking my friend for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, how would we explain this?

There is no political advantage for the minister to deflect as he has been doing. It entirely goes against political advantage. It is indefensible. Could the minister possibly have confidential information that he cannot divulge? That is the part I am really struggling with here.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to hear the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman answer the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but she will have to settle for another member from B.C.

I go back to when we see a policy and a specific case where it is fundamentally wrong, and all of us feel that in this place, then the minister should not simply say, “Well, there are concerns”, and then huddle back. He had 29 days to address this. That is not accountability.

I would like to see more accountability from the government. I will be voting in favour of the Conservative supply day motion. I am happy to hear that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will stand with us on this issue. I really do hope that Liberal members consider standing with us as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.