Todd Doherty

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the comments coming from some of our colleagues across the floor, some who I deeply respect with respect to their service to our country. However, it is the talking points. I have listened intently to this debate.

It was August 28 when I received a message from our veteran community, asking if I heard about Chris Garnier who had heinously murdered Catherine Campbell, a Truro police officer of six years, badge 137. Catherine was also a volunteer firefighter.

In the process of the legal battle that he and his family waged, they used every dilatory motion possible to re-victimize Ms. Campbell's family, such as putting a peace bond on her family members during the court case because Mr. Garnier's family felt threatened. When the sentencing came up, all of a sudden he had PTSD. From what? He had PTSD from the murder he committed. How did we find this out? An email was sent during the sentencing, which was only about a month and a half ago.

Since August 28, when I did a video on my social media, over 90,000 Canadians have viewed it and they are angry. The comments we have received have been incredible. People are furious. I want to read one for members. It states:

“I am not allowed to lend my voice to the outrage of providing services to a non-veteran convicted murderer, however, I am absolutely speechless. Well, perhaps not speechless, but I'm trying to be polite and professional.”

“ As a citizen of this country, I am so angry and ashamed. As a Veterans Affairs employee, this is not what I signed up for when I began my career, providing services to our veterans and their families. I love my job and it is an honour to support those who are willing to lay down their lives for me and my fellow citizens, but now I just want to go home with my head hung in shame. knowing what someone in my organization has approved.”

It goes on to say, “Under family services, it clearly states that we do not cover family members' own mental health issues. It is a provincial jurisdiction, or in this case, it is a Corrections Canada jurisdiction. We only directly support veterans' family members with their mental health issues only as needed for them to participate in a veterans rehab plan.”

I offer that to members. All we have heard from the minister straight across the Liberal caucus is garbage. There is no other way to put it. It is shameful.

Veterans and first responders are listening today. I have had, if not hundreds, possibly thousands of messages regarding this issue. Chris Garnier murdered Catherine Campbell. He is currently appealing his case now because the judge was heavy-handed in sentencing. Chris Garnier met Catherine Campbell and two hours later he murdered her. He dumped her in a recycling bin, wheeled her through Halifax and tossed her away like a piece of trash. Now he and his family are trying to milk the system, using PTSD as an excuse. It is shameful.

Through my work on Bill C-211, we have worked hard in trying to break the stigma so those who are suffering can feel comfortable and know that when they come forward to talk about their stories, they will be believed. Now we have this dirt bag. I have said it, and I believe that with my whole heart.

This man is re-victimizing the family. He is taking advantage of a situation. He is using every tool possible. Now he is using PTSD as a mitigating factor, hoping to get some leniency in his sentencing. We have colleagues across the way, all whom I respect dearly for their service, coming out, spewing the talking points.

If a veteran commits a crime, he or she loses his or her benefits. My hon. colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil, mentioned it earlier that a 30 year old was not a dependant. To have a convicted murderer jumping in front of a veteran or a first responder who requires treatment is shameful.

The day after I posted my video, the minister said that he was seized with this issue. It has been 28 days. He stands in the House and blathers on. He had an opportunity at the beginning of this debate to talk about the action he had taken on this case, but he continued to spew political talking points. We can tell we are going into an election season, but on an issue like this, it is absolutely shameful.

I promised I was not going to get heated up, but I have received more messages from veterans.

One veteran says, “Hey, Mr. Doherty, I just want to scream and cry at the same time. I have been waiting in line for what seems like forever. Every time, veterans affairs has some excuse as to why. I served 21 years for my country, yet I have to continue to wait in line.”

Mr. Garnier has already been receiving this treatment, yet he was only just sentenced about a month and a half ago. He immediately jumped to the front of the line. How did he do that? We have a lot of questions. Is he highly connected? We do not know. It is absolutely shameful.

This veteran goes on to say, “I am so lit up. I don't know what to do. I don't even know if.... the thoughts that are going through my mind. I don't know what to do.”

I have two minutes left and I wish I had so much more time for this. It is absolutely shameful.

Catherine Campbell served our country and served our community. She wore two uniforms, and Christopher Garnier took her life.

It is not about hypothetical cases. It is not about “coulda, woulda, shoulda”. It is not about his father's treatment plan. It has nothing to do with that. That is what is being paraded out there. It has not even been brought up. What was brought up is that his lawyer has said that he needs treatment for PTSD because of the crime he committed, the murder he committed. That is shameful. He has jumped to the front of the line.

I am going to leave the House with this, because it is important.

Freedom is not free. Our brave men and women, who have served our country and our communities, have paid our collective debt for our freedom, our safety and our security. When they ask for help, rather than welcoming them and telling them that their bill is paid in full, they are continually refused service or told to go to the back of the line. Many of them are losing hope. We continue to lose veterans and first responders at a horrendous rate. Why? Because of issues like this. They lose faith in the process.

This is wrong. Those brave men and women, who put the uniform on every day in service to our country, to our community and to our flag, sacrifice for us. Christopher Garnier did not serve. Instead, he took the life of someone who served her community and who was willing to give her life for her community. The Campbells and our veterans and first responders deserve better than what they are hearing in the talking points from the minister.

[National Defence Act, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we should be building that into every piece of legislation because as we move forward, as we adopt, as our hon. colleague mentioned in a comment earlier on, the things that we know today we were not aware of yesterday. As we move forward, we should have a form of periodic review in every piece of legislation.

[National Defence Act, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my hon. colleague an answer in complete honesty. He knows how I feel with respect to self-harm and suicide and the mental health challenges faced by some of our brave men and women who put the uniform on every day in service to our country. We must be doing everything in our power to encourage them to stop suffering in silence and to come forward.

Without going into the details of the bill, because I am not well aware of it, if that would break the stigma and encourage those who are suffering, those who put the uniform on, those who see human tragedy every day to come forward and not fear persecution for doing so, I would be for that. However, again, this is not my area of expertise.

[National Defence Act, September 21st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is 2018, and as we move through the history of our country, as we move forward, so must our pieces of legislation adopt and adapt. The things we knew yesterday may be different from what we know today.

Prior to offering a more in-depth answer to that question, I would say that I do not know the piece of legislation well enough to be able to offer a knowledgeable and well thought out answer.

[National Defence Act, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our hon. colleague from Edmonton West.

It is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-77.

Today we are talking about Bill C-77 and the military justice reforms from the government. Essentially in the eleventh hour and pre-writ for the most part, the government has chosen to table a bill which it has said is going to be absolutely transformative and is so important. The Liberals believe very strongly in it, yet there are so many other pieces of legislation that came before this bill, such as changing the words to our national anthem and the cannabis piece of legislation, and now we have Bill C-77 which talks about enshrining victims' rights into our military justice system.

I will say right at the outset that the Conservatives always err on the side of victims and believe that victims' rights should always be there. As a matter of fact, it was our previous Conservative government that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights Act. We support enshrining victims' rights into the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71.

People who are listening to this debate should not get that bill confused with the backdoor registry Bill C-71 that has been talked about in the last couple of weeks, which the Liberal government is trying to bring through this House and unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners. I am talking about Bill C-71 which was brought forward by the previous Conservative government. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour actually thanked us. It will go down in Hansard that we actually had a Liberal thanking us for all the hard work that we did. We actually did the hard work on this file.

Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are almost identical, with the exception of a couple of minor things. All the Liberals did was take the cover page off and change the name, which is what we see them do very often with a lot of the good pieces of legislation they have brought forward. They did change C-71 to C-77. They have to put their Liberal spin on it, and we will get into that in a bit.

Also, prior to getting into the depth of this, I will say that this is not my file. I do not profess to be proficient in all the legal terms and all the benefits that Bill C-77 would bring, but I will talk about victims' rights.

It is interesting that earlier during question period and throughout the week, we were talking about a gentleman who committed a heinous crime and through the course of committing that crime gave himself PTSD. He committed murder. He actually murdered an off-duty police officer, put her into a garbage bin and then rolled it out and like trash tossed her aside. Now he has actually stepped in line with veterans, stepped in line before the veterans, and is receiving mental health services.

I receive messages from veterans and first responders every day about mental health challenges. I also receive messages every day from victims of crime who felt that when the Liberal government came in and started its hug-a-thug programs, the process was rigged against them. I actually get calls and messages from law enforcement officers who say that the system is now rigged against them, that it is harder for them to do their job. We should be doing everything in our power to give those whom we trust to protect us, our silent sentinels, every tool to be able to do their job, to be able to do their mission and come home and remain healthy and productive.

We should be giving the victims every opportunity to be protected and to know that when their day in court comes, the focus will be on them and their rights and not on the person who committed the crime.

I sat through the debate on Bill C-75. This is a piece of legislation where the government is looking to speed up our judicial process. We should not be speeding up the process. We should be making it effective, making sure that those who come before the courts get the appropriate rights and freedoms that we all enjoy, but those who are found guilty, if they do the crime, they better do the time.

I will not get into that. I am not a lawyer, but there is a lawyer sitting in front of me. There are far too many lawyer jokes that I could insert here, but I will not do that.

It was interesting to sit through the debate on Bill C-75. I listened to the witnesses who came before committee. They were very articulate and they all said the same thing. They all had the same concerns. They said we should not weaken our system, that we should make sure that victims are not revictimized through the court process. They want to know that they will get their day in court, that every tool available will be there to make sure that the perpetrator of a crime, if found guilty, will serve the time.

Bill C-77 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71. There are a couple of changes which I will talk to right now.

The main difference between the two bills is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act in Bill C-77. This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. I will not say “will”. This document says “will”, but I would say “may”. I still believe in our judicial system. They may face lighter punishment if convicted.

It also would mean special consideration for indigenous members, taking in their background and perhaps what they went through. We have heard horrific stories over the years.

We need to make sure that there is a parallel system and the addition of special consideration for indigenous members that results in sentences that are perhaps less harsh versus their other CAF colleagues and comrades. The concern would be that perhaps that could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies. It may be well intended but it could have unintended negative consequences.

We support getting the bill to committee where we can study it further and hear from groups that come before us and offer their opinions. I look forward to that.

I want to go back to the couple of hours of discussions I sat through on Bill C-75. I am conscious of the short amount of time I have to speak, but I want to comment on this. My hon. colleague down the way mentioned this as well. First, we should do everything in our power to give those who are enforcing our laws every tool possible for them to complete their mission and to remain healthy. Second, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that we institute mental health components within our legislation to make sure that they come home healthy. We should not be trying to speed up our judicial system. We should be finding ways to make it effective.

[Ethics, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, guilty, guilty, guilty: guilty of breaking Canadians' trust, guilty of furthering his family's interests, guilty of Liberal entitlement, guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Prime Minister is the first one in the history of our country to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws.

When will the Prime Minister start holding his guilty ministers to account so everyday Canadians will no longer be bilked out of their money and their jobs?

[Ethics, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record, because the Ethics Commissioner actually found the former minister of fisheries guilty of providing a contract that would benefit his family.

I can understand if my hon. colleagues have been put up to talk on this and haven't read the report, but they are continuing to absolutely deceive Canadians. Why do the minister and his colleagues continue to deceive Canadians?

[Darren Anderson, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of Darren Anderson. Darren and I grew up in Williams Lake together.

From his earliest years, all Darren wanted to be was a firefighter like his grandfather, father and uncle. He wanted to be the best there was as a husband to his beautiful wife Michelle, as a father to his daughters Gracie, Noa and Sofia, and as a firefighter, serving for 17 years in the Strathcona County fire and rescue.

Darren rose through the ranks to become a lieutenant. He even started the fire fit program for Strathcona County. Just 12 days ago, he competed in the national fire fit challenge and won bronze for his age, over 40. Sadly, seven days later Darren lost his battle with PTSD.

Darren loved life, he loved his family and he loved his job.

I spoke to his mom Marlene and his father Gord last night. Still reeling from the death of their son, their concern focused on those left behind.

His friends, his fire family, even the young paramedics who attended the Humboldt tragedy, asked me to convey this message to his colleagues: Darren was so honoured and proud to be part of the firefighting and first responder family. Please take care of one another. Take a moment to ask one another if they are okay. Please, be well.

I say to Gracie, Noa and Sofia that their dad truly was a hero and made a difference in the world. He touched the hearts of all who knew him, and he will be greatly missed.

[Ethics, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the former fisheries minister stood in this House and completely deceived Canadians, and through his inaction, the Prime Minister is complicit in this deception. The minister has said that there was no financial gain to his family, yet the Ethics Commissioner found that the minister's “decision provided an opportunity to further the private interest of Mr. Thériault”, the minister's family. The commissioner added that his “compensation by the company depended on it being granted the licence.”

Why does the Prime Minister sit silent and allow his minister to mislead Canadians?

[Ethics, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a serious ethics problem. He is the first prime minister in the history of our country to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws. His Minister of Finance is guilty of breaking ethics laws. Now, during his summer of failure, his most trusted cabinet minister and his close childhood friend was also found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

Will the Prime Minister finally act and fire his close friend or does he truly believe his friends and all Liberals are above the law?