Debates of Sept. 25th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Veterans

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

Madam Speaker, families are at the centre of military life. The Canadian Armed Forces recognized this in 2000, under a Liberal government, with the Canadian Forces family policy.

A central question that the Conservatives are asking is whether the minister has the arbitrary power to deny benefits to vets and their families without due process and administrative justice. Should they be politically expedient?

The Conservatives are very quick to the gun. They take action now and think later. We know the Conservatives are willing to use ministerial executive power to punish vets and their families that offer criticism. They did this in the past with Sean Bruyea.

Should this be the case today? Should we be debating how we offer services and the types of services we offer families and who should receive those benefits? Instead, the Conservatives want to be politically expedient and debate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will give the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue time to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, a comprehensive administrative review of what happened is needed immediately. In similar cases, departments have been able to work quickly when there seemed to be a problem. I imagine that is what the minister is currently doing. When it comes to the military, the department can perform quick yet robust analyses when immediate action is needed. I think that is what will happen. I hope that is what the minister is working towards.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

While I appreciate the opportunity to speak to today's opposition day motion, I truly wish the incident had never happened and I did not have to speak on this subject.

Today, we are calling on the Liberal government to explain why Christopher Garnier, a convicted murderer, is receiving disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada for post-traumatic stress disorder that he sustained while committing a heinous crime. I hate to have to state the details of the incident, but I feel it is necessary to do so in order for Canadians and my colleagues across the floor to understand just how offensive it is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has continued to allow Garner to receive disability benefits.

In 2015, Chris Garnier senselessly murdered Constable Catherine Campbell, an off-duty police officer, by strangling her just hours after meeting her for the first time. He then put her remains in a compost bin and dumped her near a bridge in Halifax. Her remains were not found for five days.

In December of 2017, Garnier was convicted of second degree murder in the 2015 death of Constable Campbell. He and was given a life sentence, with the option to apply for parole after 13 and a half years.

This is an absolute tragedy. Constable Campbell was not only a police officer but a volunteer firefighter. She wore two uniforms and served the community with dedication. She had a family that loved, and still loves, her deeply.

When reports came out earlier this summer that Veterans Affairs Canada was providing disability benefits to a convicted murderer, I was personally appalled and I know all my Conservative colleagues and most Canadians were as well.

The disability being treated is PTSD. It was sustained by Garnier from strangling Constable Campbell to death. The PTSD did not cause him to commit the crime, and it seems that he is blaming her for his PTSD. Now the cost of this murder to receive therapy from a private psychologist is being covered by Veterans Affairs Canada, a.k.a. the taxpayer.

The Prime Minister indicates veterans are asking for more than the government can afford, yet he and his minister are prepared to give money, set aside for veterans, away to someone who does not deserve it and has not earned it. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker. You, I and all Canadians are paying for a convicted murderer to receive therapy for a disability that was caused because he murdered an innocent woman. He did not wear a uniform a day in his life and never served his country as a veteran has.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs states that Garnier is receiving benefits because his father is a veteran, yet this still does not make any sense to me.

My father was a veteran, so I am familiar with how these things can work. When I was 30 years old, I did not receive any benefits due to my father being a veteran. I stopped being considered a vet dependant after the age of 25, and it only lasted that long because I was in university, as is the case for most Canadians.

When I was hit by a car as a young man and left with disabilities, would Veterans Affairs have come to my aid after my father retired? I wonder. How is it that Garnier qualifies as a dependant? Why is Veterans Affairs so quick to provide a murderer with disability benefits. If this was a mistake, why has the minister not used his authority to stop this from happening? It is shameful that the minister has no answers to these questions day after day and that he has the audacity to ask if we can simply let this debate rest for now.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is an honour and privilege to sit on that committee and do all that I can to be a voice for veterans and advocate on their behalf here in Ottawa. During my time on that committee, I have heard countless stories about the struggle that many veterans face when it comes to obtaining their disability benefits.

I remember my first Remembrance Day ceremony as a sitting member of Parliament. A young veteran, who had served in Afghanistan, came up to me afterward and was very passionate about his experiences and concerns. One of the points he left me with was to stand up for him and his comrades and not to let the bureaucracy cheat them out of the honour they had earned by serving Canada. As my father always said, “Now is the time to stand up and be counted.”

It seems extremely unfair that the men and women who have worn a uniform and have sacrificed their lives to keep Canada safe and secure have been pushed to the back of the line so a murderer, who never served for our country, can get benefits first. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly a year and a half to receive his disability benefits, which deal with PTSD issues, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Just last week there was another mefloquine rally on the front steps of Parliament Hill. Veterans who were subjected to this drug are fighting for their benefits in recognition of the huge impact that mefloquine has had on their lives and those of their families. People like Marj Matchee and David Bona are standing up and speaking for those who cannot. Where is their support from Veterans Affairs? They get none, yet a murderer who is a non-veteran gets coverage. These veterans had no choice but to take that medication. This murderer had a choice.

The penal system in Canada covers treatment for mental health issues, such as PTSD. This could include Garnier, yet Veterans Affairs Canada is footing the bill for his private psychologist. He does not need to use resources meant for veterans and their deserving families.

Why is the minister unable to explain the rationale behind this backward decision? What is taking so long for department officials to figure out how on earth this could have happened? Canadians want a response. In the meantime, the minister should use his authority to suspend the benefits until said response is provided.

It bears repeating the Prime Minister's recent comments to a disabled veteran, stating that Canadian veterans were, “asking for more than we are able to give”. That comment was extremely offensive from the start, as our veterans have literally given their lives so we may live peacefully in our country. That highly offensive statement, compounded with the fact the government is paying for a murderer's PTSD treatment, is another virtual slap in the face to all veterans.

I am sure most of us here remember what happened to the former base commander at CFB Trenton, Russell Williams. He was convicted of committing two murders. Following his conviction, he was stripped of his commission, his ranks and awards by the Governor General on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff. His severance pay was terminated and the salary he received following his arrest was seized. His uniform was burned and his medals were destroyed.

Imagine the outrage Canadians would feel if they were paying for the private psychological treatment for Russell Williams for the PTSD he may have incurred while murdering somebody. It is a disgusting and abhorrent thought, yet this is essentially what is happening with Christopher Garnier. We get to pay for his treatment, all because his father, not him, is a veteran.

I want to make it clear that I and all my colleagues on this side of the House are 100% in favour of helping veterans and their families. Being a voice for our veterans family is one of my main goals at the veterans affairs committee. It is something I understand through my own personal experience, through multiple moves, multiple school disruptions, boarding schools, separations from my father, my parents, with challenges to myself, my siblings, my brother and my father. As they say, “Been there, done that”.

Ultimately, the issue here is that these taxpayer-funded back-allocated disability benefits are going to somebody who, one, has been convicted of murder; and two, should not qualify as a dependent, as far as I can tell.

This man took a life, violently and senselessly. Our Canadian veterans have dedicated themselves to saving lives, both at home and abroad. They commit to defend our country, its institutions and its way of life. This man has disrespected our way of life and dishonoured our country.

I call on the Liberal government to do the right thing and stop funding treatment for a convicted murderer once and for all. It owes it to Constable Campbell, to her family and to all veterans who have served our country.

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

Madam Speaker, as a serving member of 22 years, I always believe, and I know the Canadian Armed Forces believes, that family is and should be at the centre of military life. The Canadian Armed Forces recognized that in 2000, when under a Liberal government, it came out with a Canadian Forces family policy. It was the very first time there was an actual policy that defended families within the Canadian Armed Forces.

A central question that the Conservatives are asking is whether the minister has the arbitrary power to deny benefits to vets and their families without due process and administrative justice. Should they be allowed to be politically expedient when it suits their cause?

The Conservatives are very quick to the gun. They take action now and think later. We know the Conservatives are willing to use their ministerial executive power to punish vets and their families that offer criticism. They did this for 10 years. It happened to Sean Bruyea.

We will stand by veterans and their families come what may. However, services are important and who gets those services are equally important. I remember that it was very difficult to obtain the services veterans were entitled to when I was in the military.

Families are important. Do we use one case to limit the amount of services offered to all families within the military who serve?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for his service to his country.

He has talked about families and about veterans. This conversation that we have asked for is about an individual who is not a veteran. He is a member of a veteran's family. What we are asking the minister to do is to step up and stop paying for this, investigate it, and once that investigation is clear, determine at that time whether benefits should be continued. We are asking for that to happen.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, veterans, as we well know, serve our country. They sacrifice everything for our protection.

In my community of Vancouver East, we have a number of veterans who are homeless. We know that the federal government under the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. The Conservatives took office and did not restore the national affordable housing program.

Given that the member sits on the committee, will he commit to bringing this issue up at committee and bring forward a national housing strategy for veterans?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver East may or may not be aware, but that topic is actually before the committee right now. As we move forward, that will progress.

I agree with the member that there are a lot of veterans who are homeless at this point in time. How do we step up and look at improving their lives? They gave their lives for us. That is what we try to do in the veterans affairs committee, and that is what I am committed to doing, to helping not only those veterans but the families who are impacted by what is going on.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the speeches today and the questions and replies, we constantly hear Liberal members and NDP members say, “Well, the Conservatives did this.”

However, the motion is about a lack of action being taken by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister failed. His minister has failed Canadians and failed veterans in that he did not act. Any good, strong leader or minister, when hearing something as outrageous—those are his own words—as this happening, would have called and cancelled it, investigated it and made a decision on it. Then he could have come back to this House and we may have debated that decision but we would have respected him for that decision.

I am outraged. I have lost respect for the minister because he failed us. He did not make a decision. He is passing it down the line.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Yellowhead is absolutely right. This could have been resolved very quickly if at first the minister had stood up and said, “This is the first I have heard of it. I will get my committee on it. At this point we will suspend coverage of it until such time as the investigation is done.”

Throughout this debate and whenever we bring up an issue like this one, we see the government practising what I like to call squirrel politics: “See the squirrel? Oh, where did it go?” That is what the Liberals do. They distract, instead of focusing on the issue. That is the question we have today before the minister and we ask for the Liberals' support.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, about a month ago, members in this House found out that a man who was convicted of murdering a female police officer and desecrating her body had claimed that he suffered from PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, from the act of his committing the murder. This is a man who has never served a second in Canada's military, yet we found out a month ago that he was receiving private health care services from Veterans Affairs to treat his PTSD which he incurred in the act of killing a female police officer. That is wrong. There is no equivocation on it. That is not something that should be happening.

The motion before us today asks the House to instruct the Minister of Veterans Affairs to revoke the benefits for this man. Let us get into the reasons why.

First of all, I do not think there is anyone who is listening to this who thinks that somebody who has never served a day in his life in Canada's military, who has suffered PTSD from his own atrocious criminal act, should be receiving benefits reserved for our men and women who have fought for our country. This is not somebody who fought for our country. This is not someone who served our country. This is somebody who committed such a vile act against one of Canada's citizens that he has been convicted of a serious crime and is serving punishment for it. For him to receive benefits is wrong. It is flat out wrong. This should not be happening. My colleagues should support this motion because he should not be receiving benefits.

Let us get into more technical details.

First of all, he already has access to mental health benefits. For my colleagues who might not be aware of this, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that the service shall provide every inmate with “reasonable access to non-essential mental health care that will contribute to the inmate’s rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community.”

This man already has access to these services and yet he is getting priority benefits that are reserved for veterans and their families. Does he have an affiliation with Canada's armed forces? Sure, but does that make it right that a man who has committed a very serious offence has access to those benefits? No, it does not.

Our responsibility in this place is to correct wrongs when they happen. This policy should not allow this man to receive these benefits. Whose responsibility is it to fix that? It is the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Every single one of the Liberals who have spoken in here today, three years after receiving their mandate, have stood up and said that it is Stephen Harper's fault. They have said that it is Stephen Harper's fault that a man who was convicted of murder is receiving PTSD benefits from Veterans Affairs. Come on. Nobody believes that. Even Liberals are going to be hard pressed to believe that. Any Liberal member who stands up in here is saying, “Oh, it is Stephen Harper's fault.” Come on. They should do their jobs. The Liberals are three years into their mandate.

This morning, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to cover a part of his body, his rear end, tweeted, “I have asked my officials to get back to me as soon as possible with the reasons for this decision.” That is the minister's job. He should not ask his officials for the reasons of this decision. He should go to his officials and say, “Fix it. He should not have benefits. Fix it now and I want every policy option on my desk in an hour or else somebody is going to suffer the consequence for it so that this does not happen again.” That is his policy. He should bring a memorandum to cabinet if that is what it takes. He should change the policy so that we can do two things.

The Liberals are standing up in the House saying that the Conservatives do not support benefits for families. Come on. It is the minister who stood up and explained to the Canadian media that the reason he was not spending money on veterans benefits right now and why there was unspent funds was because it was like a prepaid gas card.

Every single one of my colleagues here supports the benefits for families of veterans, because many of us understand what families go through when one of their loved ones is deployed or serves. Many of us have an intimate understanding of the long-term scars that can leave on a family and on a person. Of course we want to have benefits for these families. Of course we want to recognize their mutual sacrifice. However, when someone, regardless of his affiliation to that person, commits a crime that is so heinous that he is convicted and is suffering a punishment for it, and the PTSD he suffered was from desecrating a person's body, that person should not receive those benefits. That is a decision we can make in Parliament. That is why this motion is here today.

Every single one of those guys who stands up and says that it is Stephen Harper's fault or that we do not want benefits for veterans, it is those members who are abdicating their responsibility to our men and women in uniform, because by their defending this decision and allowing their minister to get off the hook for not dealing with this after 29 days, they are the ones who are holding back benefits for our veterans. They are the ones who have their priorities backward. The Liberals are three years into their mandate. If they wanted to do more for our men and women in uniform, they have had three years to do it. What do we hear? “It's like a prepaid gas card.”

We stood in here earlier this week and asked the Prime Minister and the minister over and over again if they thought it was right for this man to get benefits. The Prime Minister's response was that he should not have to answer that question. Come on. He should be a leader and stand up for what he believes in. I am standing up for what I believe in. I will proudly stand here and say that this man should not be getting benefits.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has had 29 days to haul his officials in and say, “Fix this problem.” In any other universe that would be grounds for firing, because this is a no-brainer. That is all we are asking today.

My colleague from the NDP talked about different ways we could look at serving our veterans and their families more effectively. Yes, let us talk about that in this place. That is wonderful, but in this particular instance, for this motion, the business that is at hand today, every single member in the House has to stand up and say that it is not right that this man is getting benefits and those benefits should be revoked, and any sort of policy that allows this interpretation to happen should be changed so that someone who commits murder, who has never served a day in his life, does not get the benefits that are afforded to our men and women in uniform who have served for us. This man already has access to mental health services through the corrections act.

Anyone around the world who is watching this will be standing up and asking what is happening in Canada.

I cannot believe that the Minister of Veterans Affairs' only response to this was to say he has asked his officials to get back to him as soon as possible. That is the minister's job. He has to go and ask his officials to fix this.

Every single member in the House should stand up and support this motion. Every single Liberal member of Parliament should be going into their caucus room on Wednesday morning and asking, “Why haven't you fixed this?” If it had been our minister, I can say right now that is what would have happened on Wednesday morning. If the Liberals want to call it Stephen Harper's fault, he would never have let someone take 29 days to respond to a clear-cut case like this.

On their record, the Liberals have had three years. At what point in time are they going to stop saying that it is someone else's fault? They should get their values straight and do something right for once.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill was in cabinet under Stephen Harper. Incredibly enough, the Privacy Commissioner ruled that Sean Bruyea's case was alarming, and the treatment of his personal information was entirely inappropriate when the Conservative government used that information to silence their critics.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau said that the government's actions were despicable, dishonourable, unethical and also illegal.

Let us talk about leadership. Where was the member for those 10 years? Our minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has asked his department to 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 a case be reviewed by a senior official before a decision is rendered.

He has also requested the department address its policy in relation to providing treatment to family members who have extenuating circumstances, such as the conviction of 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.

The minister is taking action. He is doing the right thing. He is not simply standing around and taking action now without thinking.

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

He is passing it off to his bureaucrats.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the member for Calgary Nose Hill is able to answer that without any help.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, in the case that my colleague referenced, that man is actually suing this Minister of Veterans Affairs for defamation. Success; it is working so well.

I am disgusted that the member would stand up in the House and try to defend this Minister of Veterans Affairs. If he had any honour or any shame whatsoever, he would say that it is completely unacceptable to pass off to bureaucrats what our job is. Our job is to stand up for these men and women.

The member should not be standing here defending the fact that his minister does not have the compunction, or the Prime Minister does not have the brains, to stand up and say that this is wrong. They should have been on this 29 days ago, in the department, saying that this guy does not get benefits, and that if this happens again, heads will roll; this is how we are changing the policy.

That is what political leadership is. That is what leadership is, when there is a mandate to protect these people. It is not to have their colleague stand up and cover their lack of action. Come on. That is disgusting.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Knowing that she has served as minister, I would like to ask her a question.

When ministers want answers right away on what happened with a particular situation that might be hard to understand, how do they get people to find those answers and how long should it take?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, if something like this had happened in my ministry, I would have walked down, into the program level in my department, and not left until I found out who made the stupid decision, held them to account, and then changed it so that it would never happen again.

All the minister has to do is walk down and get some answers. He has had 29 days to do that. What has he done in this time period? Looked through his Twitter feed? I do not know. He sure as heck has not done that.

He needs to get his act together. The Prime Minister should not be allowing him to take this long to do it. He has thousands of people who work for him.

To every person who is in veterans affairs today, if they are giving this minister any other advice than “fix this”, then they need to give their head a shake, too.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to give my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, the chance to expand a little more on the stream that she had going in her initial speech.

I have always been a firm believer that every single person, from the time they first achieve cognitive thought, knows the difference between right and wrong. On all levels, by anyone's definition, what is happening today in the case of Chris Garnier is wrong.

Would my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, please expand upon her comments, and try to educate members opposite on how they can start to believe the difference between and right and wrong, and why we need to do what is right in this particular case?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my advice for my colleagues across the aisle would be this: stand up in their caucus on Wednesday and say, “Why am I taking calls from constituents saying that we are defending giving a cop killer veterans benefits, when he has never served a day in the military?”

That is what their caucus meetings are for. They should be holding this minister to account. They should be ashamed of putting out any talking points, anything other than “We are going to fix this”.

It is simple. Anybody who stands up in the House today and says anything otherwise does not deserve the right to be re-elected.

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

Madam Speaker, my fellow members of Parliament have brought up an issue that is important not only to me and this government but to everyone in Canada, the well-being of members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families.

I would like to reassure the House that this government is committed to improving the health and well-being of our veterans. This government has made it a priority to provide not just all Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police members and veterans the support and services they so rightly deserve, but also their families.

Most Canadians understand that the government is legally bound to protect the confidentiality of its veteran clients. This is a responsibility that we take seriously. Veterans should never have to worry that we would expose their personal information or use them as pawns for the sake of political gain, which is why I am disappointed that we are here discussing this opposition motion and ignoring the issue that has taken place.

All of us feel disgusted at the crime that has taken place. This is a feeling shared by all members in this place and Canadians across the country, but it is more important to Conservative members to try to expose more personal information for the sake of headlines.

Their focus should be on the health and well-being of veterans, in particular their mental health, which is a priority for Veterans Affairs Canada and for our government. Mental health is critical to overall wellness, and we know how important it is when it comes to our men and women in uniform transitioning to life after service.

That is why this government is committed to helping veterans living with an operational stress injury get the help they need, when they need it, and, more importantly, in person whenever possible. The three recently opened operational stress injury satellite service sites will help with this.

It is important to note that currently 96% of applications of post-traumatic stress disorder are approved, up from where it was under the Conservatives.

We took seriously the concerns of the Auditor General who criticized the previous government for not doing enough to facilitate veterans' timely access to mental health benefits, so veterans can access supports even before their application is approved.

This is also why, if it is identified that a veteran could benefit from a family member receiving counselling or other services, the department steps in in order to help the veteran. The focus of providing mental health supports to a family member is always based on the best interest of the veteran's well-being, and the decision is always made in consultation with public health professionals.

Veterans Affairs Canada offers both direct and indirect support to veterans' family members through a variety of benefits and services. The following are a few examples: case management services, transition services, mental health services, rehabilitation services and vocational assistance, caregiver recognition benefit, public service health care plan, financial benefits and disability death benefits, pastoral outreach network, VAC assistance service, and operational stress injury social support.

By providing specialized, evidence-based assessment, treatment and support, along with educational programs for individuals, couples and families, Veterans Affairs Canada is better able to assist veterans and their families.

It is clear to this government that when members serve, the whole family serves with them, which is why their health and well-being is also a priority for us. That is why families are central in the suite of benefits, programs and services that my colleagues talked about earlier.

In addition to mental health support services, the veteran family program is available at all 32 of the military family resource centres across the country.

Both this past summer and last year, I had the opportunity to attend the military family resource centre at Base Gagetown. Individuals and families told me how much they appreciate the benefits and services that are being offered and their enhancement.

What this means is that medically releasing CAF members, veterans who are medically released and their families who are in need of assistance, will now have access to more services that focus on the well-being of the entire family. This can include mental health first aid, referrals to programs and services, and access to the military family services program. This is in addition to the recently announced centre of excellence on PTSD and related mental health conditions.

Everyone here understands the value of research and the need for scientific data to make informed decisions. We are committed to working with researchers, taking an evidence-based approach to developing new programs as part of our mission to better serve veterans.

The centre of excellence on PTSD will work to advance mental health research and support to improve the treatment of mental health conditions that impact veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members and their families. It will be a place where mental health professionals across the country can create and share knowledge on veteran mental health treatments that work. The research component will be critical as the centre will work to leverage scientific advancements in the area of military and veteran mental health while also developing best practices in assessing and treating mental health conditions.

A large part of the success of this centre will be through our partnership with the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research and capitalizing on the network of over 1,000 researchers at 43 universities across our great nation. As well, we will be working alongside many other recognized Canadian centres, institutes and universities. It will place it directly into the hands of other professionals across the country working with veterans on a daily basis. It will also focus on research, clinical program and tool development, education and outreach. The centre will provide important information to front-line health care service providers on mental health conditions specific to veterans and their families.

This is a perfect complement to the existing partnerships for mental health as offered through the operational stress injury clinics, which are commonly known as OSI clinics, and by individual health professionals located throughout Canada. When it comes to mental health for veterans, timely professional treatment is the key to recovery. It is why veterans affairs funds a network of 11 OSI clinics across Canada. Ten of these clinics provide outpatient treatment for PTSD and other operational stress injuries, and there is one in-patient clinic located at Ste. Anne's Hospital in Montreal.

This week will promote awareness and spark further discussion on the realities of mental health, for which much work needs to be done.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the debate today very troubling in terms of what the government has been saying. I have not heard one Liberal stand and say definitively that this is wrong or unacceptable.

It has been 21 days now or longer, why does this minister not have a response? This is a very simple motion, with what should be a very simple definitive answer that the government supports the opposition 100% on this, that this is clearly wrong, that the murderer getting veterans benefits is wrong and that it will do everything in its power to stop it immediately. Why are none of the government members saying that? I certainly think their constituents expect them to.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no person here who is not aghast at what happened to the constable in Nova Scotia. It is the neighbouring province to my home riding of New Brunswick Southwest. This is certainly a privacy issue, it is an individual issue. No one has asked if the benefits have been changed. We cannot comment on that. It is a privacy issue. There is a family who is grieving.

What I wanted to highlight is what we have done and offered for veterans affairs services as a government, which is very significant. It is $10 billion of new money. I not only a new member to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am also the daughter of a veteran and the sister of a fallen veteran. I get it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague stood a moment ago and said that he agreed with us on the fact that this was terrible and wrong, and he said to just give them time and they would get this corrected.

Could this member not say the exact same thing, say that it is wrong that this person who has never served a day in their life is getting veterans affairs funds? Could she just not say that this is wrong and that her government will deal with this in due time?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ghastly. I think it is terrible what took place regarding the murder of a wonderful woman in Nova Scotia. Certainly, this is an individual case, and it is also a case of privacy. We are not in the position to be releasing the details.

When a member serves, the entire family serves. I know what it was like when my brother passed away and how quickly the benefits came in a couple of years ago and what that meant to my brother's family.

It is not about sharing the details of an individual case. This is a privacy issue, and perhaps the individuals involved may want to discuss it more publicly.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour of being the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence, we were doing the strong, secure and engaged, the overall plan for the military. One of the points driven home to us time and time again was that when a member deploys, so does his or her family. It is also true for veterans. A veteran is not a veteran by him or herself but is a veteran in a family context.

My concern is that we are on the floor of the House of Commons, and we have before us a very bad set of facts. There is no question that we have a bad set of facts, but as they say in law school, bad facts make bad law.

I would be interested in the hon. member's observations with respect to the overall policy that veterans benefits should be made available to the family and her concern that these egregious facts, on which every member agrees, should in fact drive a change in policy.