Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, bad cases make bad law. What do we do with a 16 year old who dealt drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years. The vet has PTSD due to his services. Should that 16-year-old be denied services, denied education benefits when she later gets her life in order? That is a hypothetical case, but a case which could be real. The Conservatives are suggesting cutting benefits for family members over 21years of age.

Let us take another case. A 50-year-old veteran who was killed in service of his country has a 30-year-old son. Should that family be allowed to have benefits? He is a 30-year-old person. The member suggested anyone over age 21 should not have services. I think families should have those services.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

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.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

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?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

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—

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's speech, but let me remind hon. members that in 2014, General Rick Hillier, the former chief of defence staff, spoke about suicide.

I quote from an article:

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

The article goes on to say:

Why would they not, given the callousness of the Harper government? In the past decade Conservatives closed offices, cut 900 jobs, clawed back benefits, killed lifetime pensions for Afghanistan veterans, and failed to spend $1.13 billion of the Veterans Affairs budget but found money to increase advertising and ceremonies for politicians to honour veterans.

Is this member suggesting the Harper government did an excellent job for veterans?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I find it rich coming from the member for Brantford—Brant, who was actually in the Conservative government when it had the decade of darkness, when it cut back. I would like to remind him. Has he forgotten the seven Conservative attacks on Canada's veterans? Conservatives killed the lifetime pension for veterans. Harper's minister insulted veterans. He closed nine veterans offices. The auditor general found the Harper government was failing veterans. The Conservatives slashed 900 jobs. Also, despite the pleas of managers, they silenced and smeared veterans, and released their medical records.

Now the member has the gall to stand up here and accuse us of not doing enough. We have been defending veterans and working to right the wrongs the Conservatives did for over 10 years. As a former serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I can say it was a decade of darkness.

[Petitions, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of my riding, I would like to present petition E-1353, which has 582 signatures.

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, during this debate, I have heard simple slogans from the Conservative Party time and time again.

This law cannot be taken in isolation. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is very important, but how do we actually prevent people from becoming criminals?

We have instituted gang programs. We have instituted education programs. We have provided more monies for families, for instance, through the Canada child benefit program, to help people not only in the inner city but also in the suburbs, to help our children. We have put in place housing programs. We are giving people tools to make good choices in their lives. I do not believe anyone wants to end up one day becoming a criminal and destroying the lives of their fellow citizens.

Could the hon. member for Edmonton Centre tell us if this law should be taken in isolation or should it be taken as part of a whole-of-government approach, looking at a plethora of programs and a plethora of laws that we are putting in place in order to improve the lives of Canadians and actually make Canadians safer?

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I think we all believe in effective public safety and the fair treatment of law-abiding firearms owners. However, we have seen an increase in the number of homicides. Since 2016, there were 223 firearms-related homicides in Canada, 44 more than the year before. That represents a 23% increase.

Bill C-71 is just enhancing background checks for those looking to get or renew a firearm licence. It will require sellers of firearms to verify if the purchaser is allowed to possess a firearm. It will require firearms vendors to keep records of sales. It places greater controls on the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms. I do not see anything wrong with that, especially for ridings like Winnipeg Centre, which has seen an increase in violence and deals with this day in and day out.

Although we can try to put more people in prison for longer, maybe we should try to keep the guns out of the hands of people who should not have them in the first place by ensuring there are adequate background checks.