Debates of Feb. 9th, 1995

Committees Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5) (a) , the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until the usual time of adjournment on Monday, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to further defer that vote until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the suggestion. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, for the Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin second reading on Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act.

The legislation is straightforward and its objectives are simple. We want to streamline the veterans pension application and make the decision making process an improved service to Canadian veterans.

The bill before us does not change benefits that veterans now enjoy, nor does it reduce the right Canadian veterans have to a complete and thorough appeal process with free legal assistance.

Veterans have been faced with long delays when they apply for pensions, sometimes very long delays. We know that those delays are usually caused by the elaborate process we have put in place. We want to simplify that process to provide veterans with their benefit as quickly as possible.

As most hon. members will be aware, veterans pensions provide compensation for service related injuries, wounds and disabilities. Civilians who served in close support of the armed forces during wartime may also be entitled to pension benefits.

Additional pension benefits can be paid to a pensioner's spouse or dependent children. Survivor pensions are payable to the spouse of a deceased pensioner.

This legislation will affect a wide range of people, veterans, their spouses, their dependents and others. More than half a million Canadian veterans are alive today and at this moment there are about 150,000 veterans or their survivors who are getting disability pension benefits. We get about 13,000 claims a year. That is a lot of applications. Canadian veterans are still applying for benefits in large numbers.

Some members of this House may be asking why we are getting so many applications almost 50 years after the end of the second world war. It is simply because many of the wounds and injuries received in the line of duty half a century ago are beginning to have a real effect on the lives of our veterans. The effects of those old wartime injuries have become more obvious, more painful and more difficult to live with, and now many finally have decided that maybe it is time to get some help.

These veterans have reached a time in their lives when the benefits available for the disabilities they received serving Canada so many years ago can make a real difference in their lives. They really need the benefits now. That is why we are processing so many applications.

We have also found that many of the applications are taking longer to process. Many are going through the appeal process because in the years immediately following their service in the armed forces it was easier in the average case to make the connection between the veteran's service and the resulting disability. As the years have passed it has become more and more difficult to find the link between service and disability.

I want to emphasize that the first benefit to which our veterans are entitled is the benefit of doubt. If there is a real doubt about whether a claim is justified, that doubt goes to our veteran. Our system is designed to help veterans by providing assistance in preparation of first applications, and that will continue to be the case.

The disability pension process was designed to be fair but the process was not designed to be fast. Now with the average age of our veterans at 73, these Canadians can no longer afford lengthy delays.

Under our current system successful disability pension applicants will wait on average 18 months for their first pension cheque, a year and a half. Clearly that is not good enough. If the

application is turned down and its appeal is successful it can now take up to three years. Clearly that is not good enough.

These delays are not the fault of the people who work with the current process. It is the fault of the process itself. We know that the only way we are going to catch up is to make the overall system more efficient.

There have been a number of attempts over the years by governments to make changes in the pension process. There has been some tinkering, or some small process has been changed. In some cases this has assisted the veteran but in some cases it has only added to the bureaucracy. Add to those problems the number of first applications we have and we have a situation which is simply no longer acceptable and must be changed.

Most veterans have reached the time in their lives when they want to enjoy their pension benefits. Surely they deserve that. Some will use the disability pension cheque as an added source of income in their retired years. Surely they deserve that. Others need the veterans benefits to obtain the medical services they need. Surely our veterans deserve that.

Over the past year we have commemorated many important events leading to the end of the second world war. I am very pleased and proud to be part of the `Canada Remembers' program. This program makes Canadians and people around the world aware of the dedication and sacrifice our veterans made for us and for democracy around the world.

Canadians want our veterans to be treated fairly. They want us to do the right thing and they want us to do the thing right. Our veterans deserve that. Therefore, we will improve the process with the bill before us today.

At present a veteran applies directly to the Canadian Pension Commission or contacts the department or one of several organizations which will act on his or her behalf. Some veterans go to such organizations as the Royal Canadian Legion or the War Amps of Canada. Others go to the Bureau of Pension Advocates which is now involved in most of the applications for pensions. However immediate involvement of legal assistance at the point of first application almost assumes legal dispute.

It was certainly never the intention, however, just by providing legal advice at that point, to make it look as though we were going to contest the application. That is not what we want, that is not what Canadians want, and that is certainly not what our veterans want.

Canadian veterans should not need legal help to apply for pensions. With the passage of this bill they will not need such help. The need for legal advice and assistance will come in the appeal process.

Our lawyers in the Bureau of Pension Advocates are highly trained people. They will continue to work hard for Canada's veterans where their expertise is needed. Why have legal experts using their time in the detailed preparation of a case that is not going to be contested anyhow?

At present, the department receives the application on behalf of the Canadian Pension Commission and prepares a medical summary and opinion. It examines the degree of the disability and recommends the amount of assessment. In many cases it is obvious the applicant will be approved but the department cannot approve it. It sends the application to the Canadian Pension Commission. The CPC has to decide on two things, the first one being entitlement. Does the applicant have the qualifying service? Is the injury or condition likely to be a result of that service? Then, assessment. That is based on the degree of disability and it is a decision on how much pension to pay.

The Canadian Pension Commission makes its decision on those two issues: entitlement and assessment. It then passes the decision on to the department which informs the veteran and delivers any cheque or payment.

If the Canadian Pension Commission decides that the applicant is not entitled, the applicant can go before something called the Entitlement Board. If the commission had agreed that the applicant is entitled but the applicant does not agree with the assessment, there can be what is called an assessment hearing.

Both the board and the hearing are made up of members of the Canadian Pension Commission. If the applicant does not like either decision at this level he or she can appeal again. At this time it goes before the Veterans Appeal Board.

After all of that, we arrive at a final decision on whether a disability pension will be awarded and, if so, how much. The information goes to the department and then begins the process of having the first cheque delivered to our veteran.

In a nutshell, that is the system as it currently exists. It relies on the work of four different government bodies: the Bureau of Pension Advocates which provides free legal assistance when veterans apply; Veterans Affairs Canada which completes medical examinations, summaries and opinions, and does the administrative work, including preparing and researching files, communicating with clients and calculating and making payments; the Canadian Pension Commission which decides on first applications and then hears initial appeals; and finally, the Veterans Appeal Board which hears final appeals.

The system is thorough. The system is fair but the system is not fast. It can take up to three years from the time the veteran first applies until the first cheque is delivered. Our Canadian

veterans deserve better than that. We have been looking for ways of speeding up the process for a period of time.

In 1992 Veterans Affairs Canada completed an evaluation of the process. The following spring it consulted with major veterans' organizations, employee unions, staff and other stakeholders. The evaluation made 55 recommendations on ways to improve the pension process and we have implemented those that we could.

Now has come the time to act on those recommendations that need legislation, the long term recommendations that streamline the process.

The legislation before us acts in three broad ways. First of all, Veterans Affairs Canada, the department, makes the first decision. In many cases veterans affairs employees will be able to counsel and assist veterans with pension applications in their own homes and communities.

Second, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates becomes part of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bureau will no longer be involved in first applications, therefore the bureau's lawyers would concentrate on helping veterans in the appeal process.

The third broad area concerns the appeal bodies. As I have said, the Canadian Pension Commission hears first applications. If first applications are now to be heard by the department, then the Canadian Pension Commission in handling only appeals would have the same mandate as the Veterans Appeal Board. This legislation merges the two agencies into one body. The Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board will be combined into the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to hear appeals at the first and if necessary the second level.

I want to emphasize that we maintain two levels of appeal. However, we do it with much more flexibility built into the system. We will have board members who are not locked into just one level of appeal, meaning that we can utilize the board members' time with maximum efficiency.

Some members of the new board will be deployed across the country to hear initial appeals. If the applicant wants to continue the appeal process, final appeals will be heard by different members of the same board. We will again speed up the appeals process by combining the expertise of both former agencies and having them concentrate only on appeals, not on first applications.

One overall theme is important to all these measures. We will maintain all veterans' benefits and appeal rights. Decisions will still be based on the principle that veterans receive the benefit of the doubt. Two appeal levels will continue to be available.

The Government of Canada spends about $1.1 billion on disability pensions. Nothing in these proposed changes will affect the amount of money veterans receive through the process.

Our only objective is to make sure that the veterans get their applications dealt with faster. I am sure the House will agree that our veterans deserve this. I know we all recognize the debt that Canadians owe to our veterans. Veterans deserve their disability pensions and this is the time when many veterans need them the most.

I hope all members of this House will join me in supporting this bill because this is an occasion where we, together, can further help those who have served our country so well. Surely our veterans deserve that.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois during the debate on second reading of Bill C-67. This bill is of paramount interest to veterans. I have just listened to the secretary of state and I share his desire for continued recognition of all those who kept war away, maintained peace and continue to enrich our society through their community involvement.

We owe a lot to the veterans and that is why all of us, regardless of party, want to improve their living conditions. Canada has not failed in its duty. From the very start, it established and maintained resources for veterans.

These resources became more structured after the first world war. A system of pensions was born. Pensions were awarded according to disability criteria established by an independent body. It was not long, however, before criticisms were raised.

The main criticism, still heard today, concerns the delays in the pension process. This issue was given a hard look in the 1980s. In chapter 13 of his 1986 annual report, the Auditor General of Canada established that the disability pension process took an average of 13.2 months. The delay was criticized at the time. The Auditor General proposed improvements in efficiency, including automating the process and computerizing files. It was felt these measures could increase productivity by 25 per cent.

In 1987, legislative reform to do with the Veterans Appeal Board brought a flood of optimism. The Minister of Veterans Affairs at the time took the opportunity to affirm his confidence in the processing of pension applications. He said, on June 26, 1987, in the House, and I quote: "Hon. members will be aware of the substantial progress that has been made in reducing delays in the disability pension process. In the last two and one-half

years the time required to process pension applications has been cut by well over half. At the same time, a far greater percentage of decisions are going in favour of the veteran today than was the case previously".

The Conservative minister, the Hon. George Hees, went further, and I quote: "These very satisfactory results have been achieved in the face of an almost 100 per cent increase in case load. It is quite a remarkable feat for any operation to double its work-load while slashing its turnaround time by over half".

After an exclamation like that, all opposition members applauded. Even the Auditor General of Canada in his 1988 report estimated that the follow-up to his 1986 audit examination was adequate. He indicated, and I quote, "The department took positive action after making a decision on the best way to handle each case".

Yet we are sceptical now of this great optimism. Consider for instance that, according to the most recent studies, in 1992 the process took on average 18 months from the time of the initial application until the first decision. We believed things were better but that was not the case. To an ageing veteran, such a delay is incredible and unacceptable.

The longer waiting periods can be attributed to several factors. Numerous studies cited the department's move to Charlottetown in 1984 as a major one. The most recent of these studies, conducted at the department's request in 1993, also indicates very clearly the context of such delays and the accumulated backlog.

At this point, I would like to quote an excerpt from volume 4 of that study. "The move to Charlottetown gave rise to a significant loss in the organization's memory and technical skill. Partially in response to this loss, additional quality control procedures and steps were added to prevent serious errors on the part of employees not sufficiently familiar with the process or lacking full training. In time, some of these additional control measures and procedures took root, with the result that applications are now to a great extent processed sequentially and manually, which takes an unnecessarily long time".

Another important factor merits consideration. From 1982 to 1990, that is for nine consecutive years, the number of first applications increased continuously and regularly. For each of those eight years, the number of first applications increased on the average by close to one thousand. The number of first applications has gradually increased from 5,300 in 1982 to 14,100 in 1990.

Everyone will agree that a pension allocation system, regardless of how efficient it is, cannot do any better than its original capacity permits when it has to process 14,100 first applications in 1990, as opposed to 5,300 in 1982. Because of these factors, processing takes longer, and veterans, who do not have the time to wait, have to wait longer.

Therefore, we are in favour of the government's fundamental objective of reducing processing times and accelerating the process. This objective must take precedence over all other concerns.

However the official opposition wonders about the way with which the government proposes to attain this necessary objective. The bill proposes to merge the Canadian Pension Commission by transferring to the minister all jurisdiction over first applications on the one hand, and on the other, by transferring to the appeal board all staff and jurisdiction over the review process.

In the same breath, the government is bringing the Bureau of Pension Advocates back under the department's jurisdiction and has taken away from first-time applicants for veteran's benefits the right to approach the bureau for recourse.

Allow me to review the basic elements of the bill, starting with how it deals with the Canadian Pension Commission. The department proposes to eliminate, so to speak, the Canadian Pension Commission. The department justifies this measure by saying that the Canadian Pension Commission's favourable trial decisions were found to be consistent with favourable recommendations by the medical advisory services.

The department then questioned the existence of an independent commission which merely rubber-stamps the departmental services' recommendations. It then thought of replacing this commission with an initial decision at the departmental level and allocating commission resources to the review and appeal board in order to speed up the process.

We are concerned about this. For the first time since the pension allocation system is in place, initial decisions are subject to departmental authority. We understand that this measure is aimed at bringing the decision-making process closer to those directly affected. However, this measure to be implemented under departmental authority must respect the principle of impartiality at this stage. To process initial applications faster, we need to open up the decision-making process to those who do the work.

Another important element of this bill is the conversion of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from an independent agency to just another organization within the Department of Veterans Affairs. This proposed conversion challenges government policy since 1971, when the bureau was set up outside the department in the name of openness.

We hope that this openness will be maintained for seniors applying for the first time who served many years ago. Of course, many things have happened and many laws have changed since then. We sincerely hope that removing this step will help veterans cut through departmental red tape. The report of the Senate sub-committee chaired by the hon. Jack Marshall,

which was released last autumn, reflects the scepticism this measure elicits.

The department intends to refer only cases heard after initial decisions to the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. In a way, this is like saying a veteran only needs legal assistance when he has to apply for review or appeal and when a decision, although favourable, is not satisfactory. This is an interesting assumption.

One wonders why it is necessary to merge the Bureau of Pensions Advocates with the department. Of course, if this speeds up the processing of veterans' claims, we are all for it. However, we must make sure that the integrity of the process is maintained.

The Bloc Quebecois earnestly hopes that veterans will see their claims processed more expeditiously, within structures that are fair, transparent and just. For years, many suggestions have been made at various levels for improving the pension allocation system. I would like to recall some of these suggestions which were included, for instance, in the assessment study of disability pensions conducted at the request of the department and released in 1993.

This study involved the organizational services branch and two consulting firms: Coopers & Lybrand and Deloitte & Touche. The latter firm dealt with issues relating to the pensions process.

Upon examining the firm's report in volume 4 of the study, one is struck first of all by the extent of control measures and additional procedures that cause undue delay. In 1992, these measures and procedures were applied within the department at the Veterans Services Branch, the Benefits Division, the Medical Advisory Branch, the district offices, decision-making support and non-medical benefits, the program planning and pension services, the pensions distribution service, the Medical Claims Research Section, standards and operations, supplementary benefits section and administration section.

This is just to illustrate how complex the system is. Imagine: every pension claim with its own specific file has to go through all these levels, each of which has several file check points. That is a major cause of undue delay, and that is why the study's recommendations included a substantial reduction in the number of check points within the department.

The department's study gives the distinct impression that the proliferation of these check points may be exacerbated by a climate of suspicion that prevails within each section and in relations between the sections. One feeds upon the other. I do not know whether this view of the pensions allocation system is held by the parties concerned, but this climate of suspicion may have helped to compartmentalize the various sectors and their activities. The answer would be to break down the walls and make the process more flexible. The bill seems to reflect the study's recommendations.

It is unfortunate to note, as the study does, that many suggestions for improving the system had fallen on infertile ground. The firm of Deloitte and Touche noted that, during its stay in Charlottetown, it was literally flooded with useful suggestions for improvement, which had been made internally, with no response. Here were first line employees making all sorts of suggestions, employees really hoping to improve the quality and the performance of the service. For people living in an atmosphere of mistrust, this is a rather odd sort of behaviour.

These suggestions, many of which were similar to other approaches contemplated over the years in various reports, proposed amalgamation of pension entitlement and evaluation processes; a single document on service for all needs; more involvement of regional advisors in the application review process; requirement that applications be accompanied by a diagnostic report and physician's medical report. These suggestions would certainly help cut delays.

Finally, seven main recommendations emerged from the study evaluating veterans' disability pensions. The only one that seems relevant to the bill is the third one, which provides that the department and the Canadian Pension Commission should streamline the decision-making process by combining pension entitlement and evaluation, by cutting the number of quality and process controls and by transferring responsibility for primary decisions to the group of pension medical advisors.

Do all these measures aimed at improving the process of pension allocation jeopardize the principle of arm's length relationship with the department? The study on pensions carried out for the department in 1992 would seem to have not gone unnoticed. During fiscal years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, a number of changes were made to the pension process. The Estimates suggest that these changes would streamline operations and improve processing times.

A good number of the proposed improvements have already been implemented. To quote the Estimates for 1994-1995, "One of the most significant implementations resulted in a change in internal procedures which enabled the CPC to adjudicate on entitlement and assessment simultaneously. It is expected that this new procedure, implemented in May 1993, will reduce turnaround times in the first application process by four months".

So the minister has done his homework. It is 1995 now and we can no longer say that the average turnaround time for first applications is 18 months. Substantial improvements are presumably being implemented at this time. The system for recording medical benefits claims was apparently reorganized in 1993.

A new computerized system for pensions and the status of pensions was to have been implemented in March 1994, thus finally allowing computers to meet veterans' needs. If I may quote once again from the 1994-1995 Estimates: "Changes in procedures that have improved client service include sending favourable special awards and assessment hearing decisions directly for simultaneous pay and promulgation. Approximate turnaround time savings for favourable assessment hearings and special awards average 40 days and 45 days respectively".

Work on reducing turnaround times and the backlog is therefore underway at this time. This all augurs well, although there is always room for improvement. Let us hope that the bill proves to be helpful in this sense in bringing about further improvements in the system. Any delay for veterans is unwarranted. It is with this outlook in mind that the former Hon. Senator Marshall carried out his work in early fall of last year.

In the report of the Senate sub-committee he chaired, there is a very interesting section, called: "What is "the" system and how can it be improved now?" This section contains 10 very practical recommendations, numbered 32 to 41. They are very down-to-earth recommendations on how the system could be improved, by reducing delays and the backlog. The committee recommends the following: "That requests for service documents be forwarded electronically to Outside Documentation Section and that the documents be provided at no cost for veterans' organizations which operate a service bureau".

If we can believe how hard the department has been trying over the past two years to reduce delays, this recommendation should be implemented without a problem. And, furthermore, we are in the era of the information highway.

I continue to quote recommendations 32 to 41. "That the pages of the copy of the service documents be numbered to facilitate the work of the Précis Writers who will add their own extracts of the service documents, without typing, to the submission of the application for pension, and forward the package to the Medical Advisory for comment. That this documentation to which a copy of the Commission's decision would be attached serve as the "statement of case" in the next stage of the process, the hearing".

Can you imagine doing it any differently? Such sample solutions show that the kind of structure in place contributes little to the causes behind the delays and backlog. It seems that, to a much greater extent, the delays and backlog are due to entrenched ways of doing things that have resisted change.

The Canadian Pension Commission's persistent reluctance to give veterans the benefit of the doubt led to the following recommendation in the Marshall report: "That serious efforts be made by the Canadian Pension Commission to apply the provision of the `benefit of the doubt' at the first decisions level, in accordance with the Pension Act".

We feel like giving the benefit of the doubt to new services, new organizations better able to give veterans the benefit of the doubt.

The Senate subcommittee's report also contained the following recommendation aimed at speeding up assessments: "That the senior district medical officers rule upon assessments at the district level; that assessments for claimed conditions be determined by senior district medical officers in the early stages of the preparation of pension claims; that senior district medical officers rely on reports prepared by medical specialists qualified in the field relevant to the veteran's pensionable condition in order to raise the assessment of their patients who are veterans".

These recommendations are consistent with the desirable, contemporary objectives of process devolution and decentralization and with the department's intentions.

To conclude with my examples of concrete measures, the Senate sub-committee ruled on the decision-making process for awarding disability pensions by making this recommendation: "That all fully favourable decisions rendered by the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board -be ideally less than a page in length, and that unfavourable or partly favourable decisions strictly deal with the reasons why the application or appeal is being turned down".

These measures are likely to speed up the process and reduce the backlog of cases. We must check how such measures will be implemented, if we have not done so already. The Bloc Quebecois is committed to pursuing the changes designed to make the system even more effective.

Speeding up the process and reducing the backlog is mostly an administrative matter involving program structure, the department, the organizations, regulations, procedures and control measures. All these elements are involved in the exact way a public service is provided.

Administrative order must be based on principles. In the case of the veterans pension awarding process, some principles were established and applied. These principles are: equity, impartiality, uniformity and vested rights.

The government's bill can be neatly summed up by listing three recommendations contained in the briefing paper on pension reform, namely delegating the first-level decision-making process to the department; concentrating the appeal preparation work done

by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates; and merging the Canadian Pension Commission with the Veterans Appeal Board.

Does this bill challenge the basic principles behind the pension system? That is what we are concerned about and what we want to look into.

We agree with the worthwhile goal of speeding up the process and reducing the backlog in the veterans disability pension awarding process.

However, before making a final decision on this bill, we will pay attention to what veterans, veterans' organizations and public entities affected by the proposed reform have to say about Bill C-67. Our first priority will be to listen to their positions with attention and respect and, to the extent possible, support their wishes for the future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Louis-Hébert-U.S. president's visit.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-67 on behalf of the Reform Party. After initially reading Bill C-67, reviewing it, reading it one more time and reviewing it again, I thought it was necessary to put a face to the word veterans. I did not have to go very far to put a face to that particular group of people.

As a matter of fact, even in the Chamber we see constables walking around doing their duties. Often we see medals on their chests from campaigns of yesteryear. It is good to know that these people have served our country in that way.

In my community of Summerland in the Okanagan I looked around to see if I could find some examples of veterans. Again I did not have to go very far. Steve Dudson comes to mind, the gentleman who served as dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa. He is still very active in the local legion in Summerland.

Other names also came to mind such as Mr. Ed Lanfdale who served in World War II. He is very active with the Kiwanis Club in Summerland and is involved in all kinds of fund raising activities for worthwhile groups and organizations in the Okanagan. Also there is Don Bowen. I cannot forget about him because he served under me at the cadet squadron in Summerland. He was a Korean war veteran. He is still wearing a uniform today and serving his community by helping out the cadet program in Summerland.

Then I looked to my own family and I did not have to look very far to find veterans. I go back to my grandfathers who both served in World War II, my uncle who served in Korea, and several other family members. Some were distant but had names like Donnan, Killipf and McFadzen. All these are names of people in my family who served for their country and are veterans.

It made me very proud that one thing these people seemed to have in common even today, although we are far away from war in this country, is that they are still serving their country. This made me very proud as a Canadian to know that our veterans who once served for their country still continue to serve our great nation in one form or another today.

The current situation with respect to veterans and their families is nothing short of appalling. Tens of thousands of men and women have risked their lives for this nation. Yet, in their later years when they turned to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability pensions, they ran up against a bureaucratic nightmare. Before many make it through this quagmire they have passed on without being fairly compensated. Veterans must wonder why the country they served so valiantly now serves them with such contempt.

I want all my colleagues in the House to consider the following figures. The average turnaround time for veterans who apply for benefits is 18 to 20 months. That is at the first level. Due to the fact that the benefit of the doubt clause has not been appropriately applied only 30 per cent of cases are accepted. That is almost two years for veterans who are currently at the average age of 73 years old.

On the advice of their independent advocates many appeal their cases, and this can take up to three years. Of those who appeal, 70 per cent end up receiving benefits and many may only receive a portion of the expected entitlements. This situation is unacceptable.

We are making thousands of veterans in their advanced years wait almost five years to receive benefits. Currently there is a backlog of 12,500 cases and 10,000 more veterans are expected to apply for benefits this year.

After being chastised by the subcommittee on veterans affairs the government promised to act on behalf of veterans to correct this shameful situation. Bill C-67 is the government's answer.

I have been told the main intent of this piece of legislation is to cut the existing turnaround time for veterans' disability pensions by up to half without affecting veterans' benefits or their appeal rights. I have been assured by the minister and the deputy minister that the department will achieve their stated goal within two years.

My main concern, however, has been to determine whether such an objective is feasible without adversely affecting the rights and benefits of veterans.

For well over one month now I have been deliberating over this piece of legislation. During this time I have consulted with a number of veterans and veterans' organizations. After careful consideration and in the best interests of all Canadian veterans I must come out in opposition to Bill C-67. The bill adversely affects the rights and the benefits of veterans.

Even though the Liberal government claims to have the best interest of veterans in mind, this piece of legislation was drafted and approved by cabinet without consulting veterans' groups. This lack of consultation with the grassroots was particularly ominous given the fact that after cabinet approval the government informed groups that were more favourable to the proposals first.

The National Council of Veterans was informed of the department's proposals in March 1994, while the Royal Canadian Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans were not consulted until the summer of 1994. Why this unacceptable disparity?

It is also disturbing to note that Bill C-67 was not based on the advice of veterans but on the advice of two management consulting firms. This lack of consultation with grassroots veterans is evident throughout this piece of legislation.

One of my prime concerns is that Bill C-67 removes the right of the veterans to have their first level application prepared by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Under the current system each veteran has the application prepared by a trained, independent lawyer. In addition each veteran enjoys solicitor-client privilege. There will be reference to solicitor-client privilege throughout this speech because I find it very important.

However, the government claims that the use of the bureau by the veterans at the first level is too time consuming and is largely responsible for the 18 to 20 month turnaround. Yet if we turn to page 50 of the report "Keeping the Faith into the Future" we find the breakdown of the time. The report from the Senate committee states that the time required to process a claim at the first level in the department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, was 11 to 13 months and only 5 months with the bureau.

In my own investigations I found that most of the time it was two months with the bureau. One must also ask: if the bureau overprepares its cases, why are 70 per cent of them turned down at the first level?

The removal of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level process is ominous for a number of reasons. First, the veteran is now reliant upon the department to prepare and adjudicate his or her first level decision. This is not only a conflict of interest but it removes the veteran's right of that solicitor-client privilege. The importance of the solicitor-client privilege cannot be understated.

In the subcommittee report on veterans affairs, "Keeping the Faith", Mrs. F. L. Crummer, a witness who has been battling for six years with the department, most eloquently states the need for solicitor-client privilege. She states:

An important consideration which must not be forgotten is the average age and education level of the clients serviced by the bureau and the fact that most of them know little or nothing about how the system operates. Their link with the system is their advocate, the person in whom they place their trust.

The solicitor-client privilege enshrined in the statute is one of the inherent strengths of the bureau and of the pension act. It forms the basis for the trust clients place in their advocate.

She goes on to say:

Changes could place clients in jeopardy and destroy their trust not only in their advocate but ultimately in the system itself-. No changes should even be contemplated to section 19 of the act which establishes the independence of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I feel it must remain independent of the department in order to properly service veterans and dependants.

I would like to remind this House that my primary concern is to speed up the process without taking anything away from our veterans.

Another concern I have with respect to removing the bureau from the first level decision making process is that veterans will be dealing directly with the department whose employees have been known to not have the best attitude. Mr. Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations, recently stated:

The problems which occurred in regard to the old legislation were, in our view, largely ones which might be attributed to either attitude, lack of knowledge or possibly incompetence. In other words, regardless of the framework of the new legislation the results will depend upon the manner in which the administration thereof is carried out-. The ability to reduce delays in adjudication will depend upon the will of the administrators to make the system work.

Knowing that an attitude problem exists within the department, I find it incomprehensible that the department believes it can offer veterans a better service than the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. What veterans face at the first level could be an indifferent or incompetent pension officer who lacked the will or the knowledge to inform veterans to pursue benefits to which they are entitled.

I am also concerned that veterans may not be informed they are able to apply for an appeal of the department's decision. Even if the pension officer has the best intentions, I am not confident that applications they fill out will be as good as that of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

Let us examine once again the people we are dealing with here. A 73-year old man or woman entering the Department of Veterans Affairs used to go to the bureau and now they will approach a counter-I am told that one of the biggest disability claims is for hearing loss-and be instructed that they must fill out the draft of the application form, a 10-page complicated application form for their disability pension. Most elderly veterans who find dealing with bureaucracy extremely stressful would also find it too complicated to fill out.

Considering the fact that the veteran will be assisted by a departmental pension officer without the solicitor-client privilege, I am concerned that the application may also form an entrapment whereby the veteran may mistakenly commit incorrect information that is official on his record. The end result would be a fast rate of first level rejections.

I foresee another difficulty with the bureau being removed from the first level. Under Bill C-67 the size of the bureaucracy will increase and the minister will get more power to influence the department's internal affairs. Under these proposals the minister may have undue influence over the whole decision making process and the quality of service or the rate of acceptance.

Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving direction which could deter them from encouraging veterans to pursue benefits and services to which they are entitled. They will also be under pressure to take part in fiscal restraint. Even an offhanded remark by the minister could affect the way his staff deals with veterans.

I would like to remind this House that my primary concern is to ensure that the process is speeded up without taking anything away from veterans. With the current rejection rate of 70 per cent and an 18 to 20 month waiting period, I have no confidence that the removal of the bureau from the first level will speed up the process and improve the acceptance ratio. In fact advocacy will suffer from the lack of continuity.

Currently an advocate from the bureau will deal with a veteran from the first level to the review, to the appeal stages, ensuring that the advocate is familiar with the merits of the client's case. Under the proposed system the pension officer, after the first level, will have no mandate to be involved in the case whatsoever.

The case will be turned over to the bureau lawyer, who will be unfamiliar with the case at that point in time. It will be passed on to him and in my opinion that will cause further delay. He will be unable to properly advise the veteran on the merits of his appeal until after some time considering his application. At this point I must ask a number of important questions.

First, how can veterans believe that the counsellor is acting on their behalf and that the information they give, which is in confidence, will not be used against them when the department is also adjudicating the decision?

Second, who exactly will adjudicate decisions at the first level and how will they be trained?

Third, how will the removal of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level decision speed up the decision making process when currently the initial application at the bureau level is such a small part of the delay? The delay is in the department, not with the bureau.

Fourth, will a fast rejection rate at the first level lead to even more congestion at the appeal level?

Fifth, given the fact that the government promises to halve the backlog within two years, where exactly will the promised savings in time be made?

A second aspect of this piece of legislation that concerns me is the proposal to join the BPA, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, to the department. Again, I am concerned about the chances of conflict of interest arising and the lack of solicitor-client privilege.

With the bureau restricted to hearing appeals and as a part of the department, I feel that the bureau may no longer provide the objective, expert, independent advice which it currently offers. As departmental employees they may become party to any cost cutting or ratios alluded to by the minister because they will now be answerable to superiors within the department. I fail to see how this will serve the best interests of the veterans.

A third aspect of this legislation which concerns me is the merging of the Canadian Pension Commission with the Veterans Appeal Board. From my research I have determined that currently the pension commission has a much more restrictive view of what constitutes a disability than does the Veterans Appeal Board. However, when working independently they provide a system of checks and balances.

The proposed amalgamation of the boards could see the more liberal policy of the Veterans Appeal Board watered down, which would adversely affect veterans rights and benefits. This would not be acceptable to me or to the Reform Party.

In addition, I am concerned that the proposed veterans review and appeal board will not examine base their examination of each review and appeal on the merits of each case. Rather it would decide whether the department followed its own stated policy and procedure. This would be a further erosion of veterans rights and benefits.

A fourth aspect of concern is the proposal that the review panel in clause 23, the appeal panel in clause 32, the minister in clause 82, be given the right on their own motion to reconsider a

decision they have made and amend or rescind that decision if it determines that an error was made with respect to any finding or fact or interpretation of any law.

This power is unprecedented. In court one cannot be tried for the same crime twice after sentencing. This is not due process. In fact I wonder if this is even constitutional.

When I met with the deputy minister to discuss this bill, he assured me there was no need to worry about apparent conflict of interest, lack of client-solicitor privilege or attitude among the department employees. He argued that veterans will be given the benefit of the doubt at all levels of decision making.

How can I possibly be confident that the department will apply the benefit of the doubt when it has not been used liberally in the past? The benefit of the doubt was given to adjudicators under the Pension Act and the Veterans Appeal Board Act to improve the odds of veterans receiving early acceptance.

The commissioners and members of the Veterans Appeal Board were, as stated in the act, to bend in favour of the applicant. Yet in practice this does not happen. As pointed out in the subcommittee on veterans affairs report, the commission did not apply the benefit of the doubt but rather rubber stamped the advice of the pensions medical advisory.

Why now should the department be trusted to apply the benefit of the doubt? No wonder the Bureau of Pensions Advocates over prepares cases.

I would like to sum up my remarks by stating that Canada and Canadians have a legal obligation under the Pension Act to pay compensation for death and disability relating to military service. In addition to the legal obligation I feel that we also have a moral obligation to support veterans in a reliable and timely manner.

I understand the government is trying to rush this bill through the House. I have numerous reservations about the effect of this bill.

The Royal Canadian Legion which represents 240,000 veterans also has numerous concerns. I just received a letter from the dominion president the other day in which he lays out many of the concerns. He states: "In light of these concerns, the Royal Canadian Legion considers it to be most important for the parliamentary committee to deal with and resolve the concerns before endorsing the legislation. At the same time, it is recognized that there is a need to move quickly. The Royal Canadian Legion stands ready to contribute to the process".

In conclusion, I would like to read once again from "Keeping the Faith: Into the Future". I would like to commend the people who sat on that committee, particularly the Hon. Jack Marshall who has recently retired. It is a superb piece of work.

On page 85, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden articulated Canada's obligation to veterans when he addressed the soldiers about to depart for the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917.

"You can go into action assured of this and as the head of government I give you this assurance, that you need to have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show you just appreciation for your service to the country in what you are about to do and what you have already done. The government and the country will consider it their duty to provide to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?