Phil McColeman

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely false.

As expected, that was totally off topic and did not address the one-off case which today's motion proposes to resolve. I respect the member of Parliament for his service to our country, as I do all veterans. Let me clarify for him that on the lifetime pension issue, it was the Liberal government that brought in the new veterans charter which did away with the previous lifetime pension. It was not our government. We implemented what the previous government had put in place.

I can say this. We did not cut off the lifetime pension for veterans. We worked with veterans through the early stages of the new veterans charter, which is a living document, and was always intended to be, to work toward giving veterans the benefits they need.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

moved:

That, given the Prime Minister has told veterans that they are “asking for more than we are able to give”, the House call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to revoke the Veterans Affairs Canada benefits that have been extended to Chris Garnier, who is not a veteran, is incarcerated for second-degree murder and for interfering with the dead body of police officer Catherine Campbell, and is currently receiving benefits for a disability he sustained while committing his heinous crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Twenty-nine days ago, veterans learned, and were quite rightly outraged at the news, that Christopher Garnier, a convicted murderer, was having his PTSD treatment paid out of funds set aside for veterans. Twenty-nine days ago we called on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to intervene and right this wrong.

At first, the minister and the minister's office stayed silent on the matter. Departmental spokesmen were sent out to speak instead. As it became obvious that the outrage was growing, the minister finally relented and issued a statement. He told veterans that he shared their outrage and told them that he would seek answers for them. All seemed well. Pressure had been applied and the government seemed to have heard and seemed to have been acting.

However, as of yesterday, 29 days later, veterans still have no answers and the minister can only say that he is waiting for his officials to provide him with a report. The minister's lack of action, quite frankly, has become more outrageous than the original decision to give veterans benefits to this murderer.

Therefore, we did what we do in these situations. We appealed to a higher authority, in this case the Prime Minister. We asked him if he believed that Chris Garner deserved the veterans benefits he is receiving. The Prime Minister was not even willing to answer that simple question.

The Prime Minister and his Minister of Veterans Affairs have failed to address this issue and failed to provide veterans the answer they deserve. Here we are today, 29 days later, forcing a vote on whether or not to do the right thing and revoke these veterans benefits being wrongly extended to a murderer. It is shameful that it has taken this long for the government to make a decision on such a straightforward matter. Then again, veterans will say that under this government, waiting far too long for answers has become the name of the game.

Even the veterans ombudsman will say this. In fact, he slammed the Liberal government in a report just a few weeks ago, showing quite clearly that injured veterans are being forced to wait months longer than promised to find out if they even qualify for benefits. It frustrates veterans to know that, while the government makes them sit and wait for answers, a convicted murderer who has not served a day in his life in the military is having his private treatment paid for with funds set aside for veterans, private treatment for a disability he developed strangling Officer Catherine Campbell, putting her body in a compost bin and dumping her under a bridge.

Can my colleagues imagine what veterans are thinking? In fact, can my colleagues imagine what Canadians are thinking? Veterans who have served this nation honourably are being made to wait an average of seven months for a decision, many of them dealing with PTSD issues. Some are waiting much longer for benefits that they have earned. Veterans cannot even get an update on the status of their own claims.

Today, we will be forcing the government and all Liberal MPs to make a decision on whether they believe Chris Garnier should continue to receive benefits meant for veterans or if they believe that the minister and the Prime Minister should revoke them.

Today, I am fully expecting that members on the government side will claim that our side is advocating for changes, reductions, and revisions to the family benefits. If they do, this is a clear act that we are on the right track, because it is a desperate argument. We have no intention of touching veterans benefits now or in the future. This is a one-off situation. It is something which the policy-makers likely never anticipated when they wrote the policy to extend benefits. When mass murderer Clifford Olson was in prison and receiving OAS benefits, they were revoked when we were in power. They were revoked because the then prime minister had the leadership skills to know it was wrong. He had the management skills to pull into a room the key people who made the decision to extend those benefits. He said in the House of Commons that he personally would take all action necessary to have the benefits revoked, even if it meant bringing legislation to the floor of the House.

Clearly, this is a one-off situation. It is not about the extension of family benefits, which are very important to many veterans and their family members. This is about a 30-year-old individual who never served one day of his life in a military uniform, yet Catherine Campbell, the person he murdered, wore two uniforms. She wore the uniform of a police officer and she was a volunteer firefighter.

Today, as we consider the motion and bring it to a vote, make no mistake, this is about the failure of leadership of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is about their lack of ability to bring the decision-makers, those who made this outrageous decision in the confines of the walls of Veterans Affairs Canada to extend benefits, to the table quickly and to get an explanation from them. That is what one normally would do in the course of managing any organization or business. One would call the decision-makers to the table and say, “Explain this to me”.

If the minister is as outraged as he has said he is, why would he not do that as the first step? Why would he not travel to Charlottetown, where the offices of Veterans Affairs Canada are, sit in a meeting room with his senior officials and management people and ask what is going on. He could then come back to the House of Commons and answer to veterans and Canadians why this outrageous situation was allowed to happen in the first place. He could make a determination and have the backbone and leadership to answer the questions in the House, which the Liberals have been unable and refuse to do. It is truly shameful not only to the veterans it disrespects but the people of Canada in general.

This is an issue that needs resolution. The Liberals can intervene. They can do it, and they are refusing to do it. Instead, they are defending this individual getting these benefits. I trust my colleagues in the government backbenches will make the right decision today to get their leadership to correct this one-off situation.

[Veterans Affairs, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, he killed officer Catherine Campbell. He put her in a compost bin, and he dumped her under a bridge.

He has never worn the uniform, yet she wore two uniforms, one as a police officer and one as a volunteer firefighter.

By his lawyer's own admission, Christopher Garnier developed his PTSD from strangling her to death.

When will the minister take charge of his department and revoke veterans benefits for this killer?

[Veterans Affairs, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when asked why veterans cannot access benefits meant for them, the minister told veterans, “When you prepay at the pump, you put in 80 bucks, you don’t fill it up, you get that credit back.”

There is one guy out there who has no trouble accessing funds meant for veterans, Christopher Garnier, a murderer who never served a day in his life and went straight to the front of the line.

When will the minister revoke veterans benefits for this killer?

[Veterans Affairs, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know in this House today. The Prime Minister will not stand up and answer the question about the murderer who is collecting benefits that are targeted for veterans, not for someone who has not served in the military. This was a 30-year-old healthy individual who decided to murder an innocent woman and throw her under a bridge. The minister promised three and a half weeks ago to dig into this matter and find out what is going on. How long does it take to get an answer?

[Veterans Affairs, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to give injured veterans the support they have earned. Remember the Prime Minister told veterans that they are asking for too much, yet these Liberals are giving a man convicted of murdering a police officer, a man who is not a veteran himself, money meant for veterans. He killed her, put her body in a compost bin and dumped her under a bridge.

When will the Prime Minister step in and stop this outrageous abuse of veterans' benefits?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 18th, 2018]

With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada offices and the government’s response to Question on the Order Paper number Q-1550: (a) what was the capital cost incurred in relation to the re-opening of the offices mentioned in Q-1550, broken down by office; and (b) what is the net rent cost being paid for each of the office properties?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 4th, 2018]

With regard to projected expenditures related to the Canada Child Benefit: for each of the next five years, what is the total projected amount which will be distributed to families under the Canada Child Benefit program?

[The Angel of Dieppe, April 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, at 5:00 a.m. on the 19th of August, 1942, Allied soldiers launched a raid on Nazi-occupied Dieppe.

Of the 6,000 mostly Canadian soldiers that went ashore, 60% were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. Those who survived the carnage would be treated by nurses, including the Augustinian nun named Sister Agnes-Marie Valois.

To her, they were “my Canadians”. To them, she was “the Angel of Dieppe”. Her compassion was only matched by her bravery. On one occasion, she stood between a captured Canadian soldier and a Nazi pistol, declaring that the bullet would need to pass through her first.

Sadly, we learned recently of her passing at the age of 103. Sister Marie-Agnes, “your Canadians” are eternally grateful. May you rest in peace.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this important piece of legislation brought forward by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Our party opposed the legalization of marijuana in Canada. Our opposition was based on concerns we heard from scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials who said that the Liberal plan was being rushed through without proper planning or consideration for the negative ramifications of such complicated legislation. Most concerning to us was that the Liberal marijuana plan does nothing to keep marijuana out of the hands of children, eliminate organized crime, or address issues of impaired driving. In the Prime Minister's haste, Canada will find itself in violation of three international treaties when his marijuana bill passes, compromising Canada's integrity on the world stage.

Another voice that we heard from was that of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations. It raised an important point trying to address another practical implication that was ignored in the government's rush, which is that multi-unit dwellings are different from detached homes. The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations told us it was critical that any new marijuana law look at this fact and take it into account. The government did not.

In a detached home, what an owner-occupant does largely affects only that person. In multiple-unit dwellings, an occupant's actions in one unit can very often have a significant impact on the occupants of the other units. Noise, illegality, and overcrowding are just some of the issues that reasonable people have long recognized as matters that cannot be ignored if all tenants in a multi-unit dwelling are to enjoy their homes, and if landlords are to enjoy their investment.

Marijuana is no different. Simply put, a landlord should have the freedom to contract in or contract out the terms relevant to the lease. A property owner should also have the freedom to set parameters around that lease and use of their private property, particularly with regard to uses that create risk and uncertainty.

This bill requires that persons or classes of persons who intend to produce or sell any controlled substance or any class of controlled substances in leased premises obtain the written consent of the landlord. The bill also prescribes the manner and form in which that consent is to be obtained and the conditions under which it must be renewed.

Our party opposed the legalization of marijuana in Canada, but our party strongly supports the rights of property owners vis-à-vis their private property. Our party supports Canadians who wish to protect their communities and the health and safety of their children from the risks associated with a proximity to the production and sale of drugs. Landlords should not have to suffer the adverse effects of leasing to an individual who wants to produce a controlled substance at home. The risks are simply too high. Their tenants should be able to enjoy their homes unencumbered.

Growing marijuana in apartments, or any rented dwelling for that matter, raises serious concerns. These include safety hazards due to excessive electricity usage on wiring not designed for the proper power draws. Increased humidity brings the risk of mould. Interference with other tenants is also of concern. The safety hazards I mentioned earlier put tenants at risk as well, and frankly, the smell can be very unpleasant. There is a risk to the building's integrity, which means a risk to the landlord's investment. Insurance companies currently tend to cancel insurance policies when they learn that any marijuana has been grown. That leaves a landlord with no liability insurance, putting both the landlord and other tenants at risk.

It also leaves the mortgage holder with no coverage if the building is destroyed or damaged by fire, even if the fire is unrelated to the marijuana: no insurance, no mortgage renewal. It is not practical to permit limited home growing in multi-unit dwellings or rental units. Enforcement on the limits on growing would be extremely difficult both for landlords and for the police which the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has actively spoken about in consultations and has stated to the government.

What could be enforced is a ban on all growing in dwellings other than single family homes or a ban on inside home grown entirely. The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations urged the government to prohibit all marijuana growing in multi-unit dwellings and in rental dwellings of any size. The scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials who said that the Liberal plan was being rushed through without proper planning or consideration for the negative ramifications of such complicated legislation were simply ignored.

My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, mentioned the impetus for this bill, a constituent of hers who saw his investment completely destroyed because his tenants grew medical marijuana without consent. She has heard from many others with similar voices, and no doubt we all have. There is no recourse for landlords and the other tenants who find themselves in these situations. There are no protections, no consideration.

I urge all MPs to support this legislation. Let us address this issue in a practical way and give tenants and landlords the piece of mind they deserve.