Debates of May 12th, 1995

Question Passed As Order For Return

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

What was the total number of full time employees at each job classification in the respective federal departments for fiscal 1994?

Return tabled.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 third time and passed.

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of 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 purpose of this bill is to revamp the process for awarding disability pensions to veterans. The bill also repeals the Canadian Pension Commission. It transfers responsibility for all first level decisions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It establishes a Board that from now on will be responsible for reviewing decisions and hearing appeals. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, now an independent agency, will become part of the department.

Since this bill was tabled in the House of Commons, I have spoken in debate on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois as the veterans affairs critic. Since first reading of the bill on December 15, we have always said we supported any measures that would speed up the process that helps veterans obtain a decent pension.

Everyone agrees there are substantial delays and backlogs in the current process. Consider that the average age of veterans is 73. A study carried out in 1992 mentioned a turnaround time of up to 18 months in the case of first level decisions and delays of up to 36 months when objections are raised and a decision must be reviewed or appealed. In some particularly sad cases, the delay is unbelievable. Something had to be done to improve the process.

Before the House today is the government's response to this need. A response that has generated both criticism and concern. The federal government has opted for the tried and true to deal with this problem, in other words, for concentrating power in the hands of fewer people. That is why, although we welcomed the intent of the bill, which is to shorten the delay in awarding pensions, we still felt there was considerable cause for apprehension and concern.

We are in fact afraid this bill will not achieve what we all want it to achieve. We are also afraid of the disastrous impact it may have on the vested rights of veterans.

Throughout the various stages at which the bill was examined, we heard many comments, all marked by the same feelings of concern and apprehension.

Considering the merits of the bill's objectives, no veterans organizations took a stand against this legislation. However, these organizations found much to criticize, both regarding the substance and the form of this legislation.

As we approach the final passage of this bill, it may be useful to recall these criticisms. In fact, they led us to formulate certain conditions we feel are necessary to guarantee some transparency in this new process for awarding pensions to veterans.

The first criticism that drew our attention was about the consultation process prior to the bill. A veterans' association complained about the consultation process and wondered why the department had not been evenhanded in the way it selected its partners. It is, of course, easier to consult someone who thinks as you do than someone who objects to your proposals or questions your motives.

Another objection came from the Royal Canadian Legion. Its president said that the proposed changes would not, as intended, reduce by half the time required to make the actual pension payment. That is, not unless most of the first level decisions are affirmative.

However, from now on these decisions will be made by the department, which is said to have a very negative attitude towards veterans. And that is where most of the delay occurs in the current process. This is not very encouraging for the Legion.

We also heard from representatives of Canadian army, navy and air force veterans. They said they were very concerned about losing the services of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates at the first level. They could not understand why the government was proceeding with such sweeping changes when the review of pension assessments had been instrumental in implementing many measures that were all aimed at reducing the turnaround time.

They also fear that the minister will use this power to bring in restrictive policies regarding the processing of claims. The same refrain comes from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. The guild says that Bill C-67 contains very little to convince them that the turn around time for claims will be reduced.

The guild also fails to see how the new board will be able to eliminate the backlog or how putting power into the hands of one person will achieve the desired result, which is reducing processing time. Therefore, instead of being a reassurance, this bill is a worry. Although its objective is to reduce processing time, there is no reason to believe that it actually will. The government and the officials who drafted this bill are asking us to take a leap of faith. The only thing that we can be sure this bill will do is reduce veterans' services, mainly the legal services at the first level. We can also be sure that it concentrates power within

branches and the department, and that ultimate power will lie in the hands of the minister.

Despite all of these criticisms, these worries, there is one glaring reality which will not change, that is the time required to process claims.

I would like to point out to the House how long these lags are. We all know that, from the time we are born, we are all relentlessly getting closer to our deaths, and that, once we reach a respectable age, we all realize how little time we have left. How can we tolerate that the applications submitted by veterans, whose average age is 73, get bogged down in the bureaucracy, that veterans have to wait ages and ages while their health deteriorates and their standard of living suffers?

I would like to give you two examples. In its February 23 issue, Le Journal de Québec ran a story on Yvon Bureau, a former member of the Royal 22nd Regiment based in Valcartier. On April 17, 1964, while on a peacekeeping mission in Cyprus, he was injured. After waiting 30 years, the government finally decided that he was entitled to a pension. It took them 30 years. They maintained that his condition was not related to his service, to the accident he had in the line of duty. They even had him consult a psychiatrist. And it was only recently, after the government obtained opinions from many different experts, that his right to a pension was acknowledged. But he is not finished waiting yet, because he was not granted benefits for those 30 years he was waiting. He will have to take his case to all of the avenues of appeal, if not to the Federal Court, in order to obtain full and true justice.

There are many other similar cases. For example, Frances Crummer, a very worthy person who was willing to submit a paper to the standing committee reviewing this bill. Mrs. Crummer, the widow of a veteran, has stopped counting the years she and her late husband had to put up with the pension system and all of the paperwork they have done. She went through three applications, one after the other: the initial application, the application for review and the application for appeal. She went to the hearings of the review board and of the assessment board. After going through nine decisions, two amended decisions, one decision in the form of a letter, eleven appeals and six hearings, Mrs. Crummer still has not given up, but that does not deter her from harshly criticizing this bill.

After seeing such examples, how can we claim that the current bill will prevent similar situations? In one case, the file was studied for 30 years and, in the other, it took 12 decisions for the applicant to gain some ground. In my opinion, the problem is simple: there is either a lack of will to resolve problems or, simply put, people are making sure that they continue to have work by taking their sweet time closing files. If this is the problem, it is not only scandalous, but absurd.

The review of pensions by two consulting firms and the department in 1992 at a cost of $670,565 concluded that it could take 18 months for a first level decision and up to 36 months, if there were complications. Given this information, you will understand our desire from the outset to be involved as much as we could in a bill that would identify the system's shortcomings and propose corrective action to remedy them.

This is not to be, however. We note that the shortcomings are not clearly identified, that the proposed merging of agencies in favour of the department and the new board will serve much more to consolidate the minister's authority, that these measures limit services to veterans and, finally, that it is not clear that all these changes will accelerate the process.

Is this not, perhaps, a backhanded manoeuvre by the Minister of Finance and his budget to save a few bucks on the backs of the veterans? Is it not, perhaps, instead a less than subtle way to find positions for the party faithful? I can assure you that these questions are foremost in the minds of anyone who examines the bill for what it is and not for what it claims to be. Naturally, we have received no answer to this sort of question. There is, however, one thing we know for sure and that is that the bill will do nothing to reduce the time required to settle veterans' applications, because it fails to deal with the basic problems.

These problems, as the review clearly indicated, are: duplication and cumbersome operation, the slowness in implementing computerized communications and, most of all, the acknowledgement, in practice, of the veterans' right to priority treatment at the medical specialist's office. Nothing in the bill deals with these problems. Our approach in reviewing Bill C-67 was guided by our desire to help reduce delays and to ease as much as possible the concerns expressed by both veterans' associations and experts.

That is what we tried to do during clause by clause consideration and at the report stage before the House. Our proposals in this regard were rejected, and that is unfortunate. We, however, still feel that special measures should apply to the physicians and medical experts who become involved in the award application assessment process.

For example, whenever the minister exercises his power to order an applicant or pensioner to undergo a medical examination, he should require that the designated medical expert give priority to his request by conducting the examination and reporting results as expeditiously as possible, as is done for any review or appeal application to the veterans board.

When the board seeks the advice of an independent medical expert, it should instruct this medical expert to give the applicant or appellant the required examinations without delay and

report examination results as soon as possible. Similar measures would save a lot of time, since many witnesses have testified that medical visits and examinations account for a large proportion of undue delays, something about which the government has not yet summoned the courage to intervene.

I can understand that the medical profession is subject to quotas, that it is free to decide how to run its business, and that it is a very delicate matter to ask a professional to fit more patients into his or her appointment book. At least, those are the excuses we heard from the Liberal members on the committee. However, the question we must ask ourselves is this: When we decided to send our young people to the front, on the eve of a promising future, to put their lives on the line to defend their country, did we ask them if they had appointments? No. We did not ask their permission. These young people decided to serve in the military because of a sense of duty, a sense of honour, a sense of urgency. They were there when their country needed them; they did not make anyone wait. It is not the physicians we should be concerned about in this case. We should only be concerned with the person who is aging and cannot afford to go through the regular channels. Our society must recognize that, on the basis of the sacrifices they made, we owe our veterans the privilege of coming first in our health care system. I hope that physicians will hear this reasoned and heartfelt appeal.

We also rose in this House at report stage to try and obtain guarantees for veterans, in this respect. We suggested ways of accommodating concerns expressed regarding concentration of powers in the hands of the minister. We suggested a more transparent approach to selecting the members of the new board, one which would require that the provinces and the standing committee be consulted before any member is selected. But this solution was rejected by the Liberal majority, who did not want this greater degree of openness and democracy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs mixed everything up, claiming that our initiative would weigh down the processing of applications. It would not. We know very well that appointments are for ten year terms. Moreover, the bill includes transitional provisions that should ensure a smooth transition to the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

This refusal by the federal government to consult the provinces and the standing committee on appointments to the board shows how little it cares about the provinces and about openness. Under the circumstances, the government can well be accused of wanting to centralize more than ever and of ignoring the provinces. It can well be accused of wanting to put its own benefit and that of its friends before the public interest by taking advantage of public issues in this way.

Bill C-67 fits in perfectly with such bills as Bill C-65, Bill C-76 or Bill C-43 on lobbyists. This bill reflects the federal government's will to centralize. No wonder it is concerned. Out of concern for efficiency, having failed to remedy the inadequacies of the Canadian Pension Commission, it is now concentrating the whole first level decision making process in the hands of the minister, rebuilding a two tiered board, the membership of which will come from political appointments made without any consultations, and concentrating legal assistance at the level of reviews or appeals before the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board. These services are being transferred to the department so they will be easier to control. Now that is typical of this government.

There is a great deal to criticize in this bill. However, the need for change tends to override any criticism, at least that is the message we get from veterans associations that did not openly oppose the bill. In their representations we read a desire to reduce delays, even if this meant making some concessions in terms of services or opening the door to arbitrary decisions.

That is the main reason why we will support Bill C-67 on third reading. However, as is the case with the veterans associations, our support is mingled with a great deal of concern and dissatisfaction. I feel we could have done far better. I think we could have considered, first and foremost, the interests of those who risked their lives and defended our freedom at the cost of physical and mental suffering. At a time when we are given this opportunity to commemorate our veterans, that we have failed to do so is unfortunate, disturbing and indeed distressing.

Keeping our commitments to them is even more important than expressing our gratitude. We must not forget that the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War will probably be the last time those who experienced these historical events come together to participate in these ceremonies.

There are still about 3,000 World War I veterans, 505,000 veterans of World War II, now averaging 73 years of age, and we also have 20,000 veterans of the Korean War.

I realize that military personnel who participated in UN peacekeeping operations will apply for disability pensions, but not in the same numbers as after the Second World War.

That is why we must deal with the backlog in processing pension applications as soon as possible. With our support on third reading, I would nevertheless urge the government to reaffirm its commitment to our veterans. It must give them the assurance that giving applicants for disability pensions the benefit of the doubt is not just an empty phrase. The new section

in the Pension Act, section 5(3) introduced in clause 47 of the bill, and also section 39, must become part of the process.

It is essential that from all the circumstances of the case and all the evidence presented either to the minister or to the new board, every reasonable inference be drawn in favour of the applicant. Any uncontradicted evidence must be accepted. Any doubt, in the weighing of the evidence, as to whether the applicant or appellant has established a case must be resolved in his or her favour.

Only then will the principle of benefit of doubt become part of the process, and only then will the new pension award system introduced by this bill reflect the initial intent of the legislator with respect to our policy for compensating our veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday I returned from the Canada Remembers ceremonies in the Netherlands. I will never forget this truly emotional experience for Canadian veterans and also the genuine expression of gratitude the people of Holland displayed for the Canadian liberators of their country. The bergermeester of Arnhem told that in relation to their actions, Canadian veterans are far too modest.

I have always felt a deep appreciation for the veterans of our country. Until I visited the graves of fallen Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Netherlands and Germany, I did not have a true understanding of the death and devastation that took place 50 years ago. Being born 10 years after the war, it was not part of my personal experience, aside from Remembrance Day each year.

Canadians should always remember over 6,000 Canadians have their final resting place in Holland and in Germany. As I walked through the rows of white headstones in Groesbeck, Arnhem, Bergen-Op-Zoom, Holten, Reinberg and Reichwald war cemeteries, I was shocked. The events of 50 years ago were enhanced in my mind by the ages of those Canadians who died. Many were 18 and 19 years old. We truly lost a generation. Their contribution must always be remembered.

For those veterans who returned to Canada, we have an obligation to ensure legislation is in place to effectively and efficiently deal with their disabilities.

The raison d'être for Bill C-67 is to speed up the time veterans wait when applying for a disability pension while clearing the backlog of some 12,500 veterans currently awaiting a decision on their claim without removing any of the rights and benefits veterans currently possess.

The government has promised to accomplished this task in two years. This is a commendable goal, enthusiastically endorsed by the Reform Party. As co-critic for defence and critic for veteran affairs, I would be more than happy to speak in favour of a bill that promised to accomplish this. However, like many veterans, I am doubtful whether this bill will succeed.

After carefully analysing Bill C-67 and after consulting veterans, grassroot veterans organizations, advocates of veterans, former and current employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and former members of the Canadian pension commission and the veterans appeal board, I still have grave concerns about this piece of legislation.

The thing that must be answered is why veterans who currently average 73 years of age have to wait up to five years to receive a disability pension. For the record, the current situation is appalling. When a veteran applies for a disability pension at the first level he must wait 18 to 20 months for a decision. Seventy per cent of those who apply are turned down. The veteran then must appeal the decision and is often forced to go through two levels of appeal before a final decision is made. This can take another three years. Seventy per cent to eighty per cent of those who appeal do receive a pension, albeit often at a lower amount than expected. This is for those who are still alive after applying or appealing.

It is sad to say that because of the age of these veterans many never collect their disability pension due to the time factor and actually pass away during the process.

Let us look at the reasons for these delays. In an enlightening presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs that ruffled more than a few feathers, Mr. Hugh Peacock, a pension advocate with the Royal Canadian Legion and a former employee of the Canadian pension commission, stated the delays are caused by a variety of factors that can be addressed without introducing the reforms presented before us today in Bill C-67.

He gave the example of a typical case that he had chosen randomly from his files and outlined where the delays come from. When the advocate sent the first level application to the Canadian pension commission in Charlottetown for processing it took eight weeks from the time it arrived to create a file on a case. Then documents were ordered from the National Archives. They took 10 weeks to arrive in Charlottetown because the National Archives does not like original documents to be sent to Charlottetown, which is completely understandable.

Therefore photocopiers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, headquartered here in Ottawa on Wellington Street, must photocopy some 200 pages of material so the case can be sent to the CPC in Prince Edward Island. Once in Prince Edward Island it took five weeks for someone to review the documents and to write a precis of the case so medical advisors to the Canadian pension commission could read all of the documents. The

medical advisors took another seven weeks to make a recommendation on that case.

The Canadian pension commission then took six weeks to make a final decision. After its decision was rendered it took another six weeks for DVA to inform the veteran of that decision. That totals 42 weeks for an elderly veteran to wait for a decision on his claim. It is clear where the delays lay. It is clear the fateful decision to move the Canadian pension commission to Charlottetown is largely responsible, though not exclusively, for the delays.

This experiment in regional economic development has cost veterans dearly and I hope the government has learned a very valuable lesson from this unfortunate and unnecessary story.

I have spent a considerable amount of time detailing where the delays come from because I want to establish a very important fact. The current independent bureau of pension advocates, its lawyers and paralegals are not responsible for these delays.

The goal of the legislation is to speed up the time it takes veterans to get their disability pensions without the veterans losing any of the rights they currently possess. This is also the aim of the Reform Party, yet we disagree on the means to this end.

One of the main points of disagreement centres on whether the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of veterans at the first level or whether it should be moved and made a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the appeal level only.

A number of arguments have been made by the standing committee on defence and veterans affairs and in the House in this regard and I have reviewed them extensively. After careful consideration I have concluded the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of veterans. Why? I fail to see how removing the bureau from the first level will save any time in the current system. The only way to speed up the system is to ensure more applications are accepted at the first level. These applications must be well prepared because the department currently rejects 70 per cent of them but goes on to accept 80 per cent of the appeals at the second or third level.

The typical time it takes for the bureau lawyer to prepare an application is in the area of two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran knows he will be forced to do battle with the department to receive his disability pension.

The remaining delays at the first level, which commonly take a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department. Ironically, the government feels removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because it will focus on appeals only.

Under this legislation the government intends to have a departmental clerk assist the veteran in filling out the first level application. The first level decision will then be adjudicated by the department, not the Canada pension commission. It could be true that the first level decision will be faster, but will the acceptance rate be greater than 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I have to question that.

If the veteran has to appeal the case he has to then go to a bureau lawyer who now is not working for the veteran but working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The lawyer who answers directly to the minister must start to prepare the appellant's case from scratch, which will take months or years because nothing in the bill speeds up the appeal process which currently takes up to three and a half years.

If the government intends to focus all of the bureau's resources at the appeal level it is obvious the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The intent is obviously not there. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pension. With the average age of veterans approaching 74 this is too little, too late.

I firmly believe that if the process is to be speeded up the first level acceptance rate must be increased so there are few appeals. The way to accomplish that is twofold. First, have first level applications expertly filled out by a bureau lawyer so the veteran's case is solid. Second, the department should consider the success rate for past appeals, which is about 80 per cent, and use the benefit of the doubt clause more liberally to increase the first level acceptance rate. This two track approach would substantially speed up the system and serve the best interests of veterans.

Now I will tackle the issue of veterans' rights. Last week the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception stated the bill would not take away any of the current rights of veterans. This is not fact but it is a point of debate. I would argue that Bill C-67 takes away the rights of veterans in a number of areas.

It removes the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level of decision making by adding it to the department. This calls into question the veterans right to solicitor/client privilege.

At the first level the veteran will deal with a pension officer or paralegal who works directly for the department, not an independent lawyer or paralegal under the direction of a lawyer. Thus at the first level solicitor/client privilege is lost.

If the veteran errs in the information given to his pension officer who works for the Department of Veterans Affairs, it could be used against the veteran when his case is adjudicated by that department. This is a conflict of interest. It presents an arrangement that precludes any sort of confidentiality between veterans and pension officers.

The veteranalso loses solicitor client privilege at the appeal level. He has access to a bureau lawyer. However the lawyer is no longer an independent solicitor who keeps the veteran's case in confidence. He is now an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. His paycheque comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I conclude this is a conflict of interest and works against veterans.

How can the veteran be confident that the information he gives the bureau advocate will not be used against him when the advocate works for the department and not for him? The veteran is already angry and frustrated that he has to appeal his case in the first place. Now he has to trust another departmental employee with his case. Therefore under this legislation veterans will lose the right to solicitorclient privilege.

I foresee another difficulty with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates being removed from the first level. Under Bill C-67 the size of the bureaucracy will be increased and the minister will be getting more power to influence the department's internal affairs.

I think every member of the House would agree that bureaucracies in the country are too big as it is. Under these proposals the minister may have undue influence over the whole decision making process, the quality of service or the rate of acceptance.

Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving direction that could deter 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 comment by the minister could affect the way his staff deals with veterans. We only have to look at the way the money markets danced and sang to the finance minister's prebudget comments, to the detriment of Canadians.

Veterans will lose a number of other rights under the legislation. I have offered the government a number of amendments that would have corrected the situation. I was in consultation with many groups of veterans including the Royal Canadian Legion which represents some 250,000 veterans. The member opposite does not have an ear for listening to grassroots consultations.

However it must be stated that it is totally unclear at this point what the regulations will say. We have not even seen the regulations or even know for a fact that they exist. The rights of veterans under Bill C-67 will no longer be law. The government has said that they will be in regulations. This is extremely important. Regulations can be easily changed behind closed doors, while laws must be changed in full view of the public.

I conclude my remarks by stating that Bill C-67 is a bad piece of legislation for Canada and for Canada's veterans. This is unfortunate because we have lost an opportunity to speed up the process so that veterans get the service and the pensions they deserve. Instead veterans face more delays and a decrease in their rights and services.

Without a commitment on the part of the government to increase first level acceptance rates this cannot be legislated. The majority of veterans will be locked into a lengthy appeal process without an independent advocate or paralegal to guide them through. The veteran is now faced with the prospect of dealing with yet another bureaucrat that works for the department.

I call on all members of the House to vote against Bill C-67. During the Remembrance Day ceremonies in the Netherlands that I took part in "The Last Post" was played at each and every one of the ceremonies. Let everyone in the House vote against the bill which sounds the last post for the rights of Canadian veterans. They fought and some of them died so that we would have the freedom to vote for what is right and for what is just. For once, let us have the courage to vote that way.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best veterans legislation in place of any country in the western world. Only France comes close to it.

Let us not be too negative. As we discuss the bill and talk about these issues in the House of Commons let us remember that the veterans whom we have honoured, and rightly so, over the past number of days were not always against something. They were for something. They went out and fought for freedom. They fought for the world we enjoy today. They fought for this country today. We should not say all the time that they fought against something.

We have legislation before us now that is among the best in the House. We have another example of the new decorum brought to the House by the Reform Party. Its members are trying to shout across the floor and raise a disturbance. They were to come here to bring a new dignity to Parliament.

I would like to add a few words of support for the legislation that the Secretary of State for Veterans has brought forward to improve the veterans pension process. Veterans pensions are awarded for disability or death related to military service. Civilians who served in close support of the Canadian Armed Forces during wartime may also be entitled to pensions. Addi-

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

When we take all recipients into consideration we find that some 150,000 Canadians receive veterans pensions. The 1995 rates provide for a minimum of $81.50 per month for single pensioners and $101.88 for married pensioners. The maximum benefit paid per month is $1,629.97 for single pensioners and $2,037.46 for married pensioners.

Most of my colleagues on both sides of the House already have direct experience with the current pension process. In every province and territory we find veterans or other dependants who receive the benefits. In Ontario alone we find over 51,000 pension recipients. This is because Canadians from all provinces and territories served our country in the two world wars, Korea, and with the regular forces on peacekeeping missions. They served Canada well. Now it is time for Canada to pay its dues by making sure veterans receive the pensions they deserve.

Veterans do not deserve the delays they have encountered under the current system. Systems have to be updated. It is a sad state of affairs when a veteran has to wait 18 months or up to three years in some cases after the first application before he or she can receive a pension.

The people at Veterans Affairs Canada are doing their best to speed the applications through the system, but the people at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board are trying hard to clear away the backlog of applications, but it gets harder every day.

The whole system is overloaded right now. I understand that about 13,000 veterans are expected to apply for pensions this year. The administrators are doing what they can with the system that is now in place. It is high time we changed that system. The people who work in the current system want to see it changed. They know they could serve veterans more effectively if the process were streamlined. Veterans also want to see their cases settled more quickly.

I am sure there is hardly a member in the House who has not at one stage or another been asked by a constituent to help them out on a veteran's case.

The current process dates back to 1971. Individual parts of the administration of veterans pensions have been studied and changed since that time, but there has been no comprehensive reform of the entire process. The consequence of the piecemeal changes has been that an already complex process has become even more complicated and cumbersome. The measures before us will simplify the process from start to finish.

In 1992 Veterans Affairs Canada conducted a study that identified a number of ways to improve the pension process. One of the most important ways of improving it was to speed up the turnaround times. Many of the recommendations of that 1992 study have been implemented. However, to reduce turnaround times we now need the legislative changes included in Bill C-67.

The legislation before us provides legislative change directed to giving effect to three proposals. First, responsibility for decisions will be transferred to Veterans Affairs Canada for the Canadian Pension Commission. Second, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates will become part of Veterans Affairs Canada and will concentrate on preparing cases for appeal. Third, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board will be merged to create the new veterans review and appeal board.

There will be no changes to benefits under the legislation. The two-tier appeal system will be maintained. Whereas the Canadian Pension Commission now decides on first applications and first appeals and the Veterans Appeal Board decides on final appeals, under the legislation before us the new veterans review and appeal board will be responsible for two levels of appeal.

It is important to make very clear that veterans are not losing their appeal rights under the legislation before us. The new board will speed up the turnaround time. It will address the current backlog of cases awaiting appeal, but it will not deny appeal rights to veterans who have been told by Veterans Affairs Canada that they are not eligible for pensions, or who are not satisfied with the amount the department has awarded them.

The new board will continue to report to Parliament and its members will continue to be governor in council appointees. The permanent membership of the combined board will eventually be reduced by eight, but only after the backlog has been eliminated. By unifying the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board into a single appeal body, the government is helping to pare down the system. This is part of the government-wide review of agencies and commissions led by the minister responsible for public service renewal. The objective is to simplify public sector structures and streamline their operations wherever possible, while improving service to the public.

That is why we should support this bill. I am sure that all members of this House recognize the importance of providing better service and faster turnaround times for our veterans. I am sure that all members endorse the objectives of streamlining the operations of government agencies, boards, and commissions.

In the recent days of remembering the veterans who fought and remembering the 50th anniversary of the ending of World War II, we saw many heart-rending circumstances. I remember on one occasion when I was in Holland with a number of members from this House of Commons we had ceremonies before our cenotaphs over there. In the Groesbeek cemetery, as

we prepared to have our memorial cenotaph ceremony the farmers in the field surrounding that area left their horses standing in the field and left their hoes and other tools in the field and came over and stood around the cenotaph with us.

We know that the Dutch feelings have been poured out to Canadians, not only during the last number of days but indeed during the last 50 years. It is one reason why we cannot hesitate for one moment to try to provide better medical services for veterans in this country. At the same time, we must remember the people who today are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces in very difficult areas of this world.

Medical attention to veterans is very important. When we consider that the average age of World War II veterans today is 73 years, it becomes more important that the process for their receiving pensions that are coming to them is speeded up.

We all remember the days of our youth when young people were going off to war, whether it was the Korean War or the second world war. Others remember people leaving for peacekeeping operations. I remember very well that when I was in elementary school we had truckloads of these young Canadians passing by our rural school on their way to their training base and indeed some of them on their way overseas. They threw chocolate bars and candies to us in the schoolyard as they went by. Today these are the people we are talking about in this House of Commons. If there is any way we can speed up the process, get them their pensions, and make their days more comfortable at this time, then I am sure that is the objective of every member of this House.

If we do not remember our veterans, if we do not look after them, then we as a nation are not keeping faith with those who died. They are their buddies. For those who returned home, it is our duty and the duty of any government and the Parliament of Canada to support anything that can be done to make the lives of our veterans more comfortable in the days they have left.

I would ask the House to give third reading to this bill today so that we can get on with the process of putting it into place to try to get that backlog cleaned up in the meantime and make the process much speedier for the future without damaging the quality of service that is given to veterans in the hearing of their cases.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because I was a member of the committee that studied this bill, and since they are talking about fast-tracking the process at some point or other, I would like to ask my colleague to explain why it is such a long process, because it makes no sense at all that it takes so much time.

Earlier, I gave two examples: the case of the veteran who has been trying to obtain a pension for 30 years and the case of the applicant who has now received, I think, some 12 or 14 decisions, but is still awaiting the verdict.

In committee we were told that only 30 per cent of all cases brought before the Canadian Pension Commission were accepted while 70 per cent of all cases subsequently submitted for review were accepted. Why? The commission could not explain this, it never looked into it, wondered, etc. The question I have always asked myself is whether partisan appointments to this commission were the reason.

At a certain point, the Bloc Quebecois proposed that from now on-do not forget that these people are appointed for 10 years-the provinces be consulted, that the process become more transparent and that the government start appointing people for their competence and not their political affiliation. I was surprised that the Liberal Party opposed the idea at the time. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the issue.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He is quite right. If we want to talk about partisanship, I do not know the people who served in those positions, so I am not in a position to comment on their partisanship or otherwise on the floor of the House. However, I can tell the hon. member that it is the policy of the government to appoint well-qualified people to any boards or commissions that require appointments in the country, and the level of appointments to the various veterans boards will indeed be of good quality people.

The other thing that has to be considered is not just their qualities academically, but they also have to have humanitarian qualities. They must have an understanding and a feeling for what they are doing. If you do not have a feeling for what you are doing when you deal with people's problems, that is when you run into difficulty.

The hon. member probably hit it on the head when he mentioned partisanship. Anybody can talk about partisanship when they are in opposition. We used to do it ourselves. We are hearing the same thing today. However, I do not want to get into that, because it is a non-winner for everybody. The only thing that is a winner for the veterans of this country is that they get speedier service and that the people who are making those decisions are indeed qualified to make them, both from the understanding of the case before them and their feeling for the subject with which they are dealing.

Sometimes cases are held up because all of the information is not there. I have dealt with cases myself where if I had had the information that was given to me several days or months

afterwards I could have had the case pushed forward much more quickly for the veteran. Everyone along the line must have a real feeling for veterans issues. The appropriate information must be in the hands of the decision makers.

I could not agree more with the hon. member that the quality of people making the decision is extremely important. That is why any appointees in that area of decision making or any other area of decision making in government, in the public service, on boards or commissions, must be of the highest calibre of both personal and academic qualities.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is this on debate?

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are still on questions or comments. Is the member rising on questions or comments?

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

No, I am not.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see no one else standing. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about waiting. I have been waiting all week to get in a few words on this bill, with the vagaries of government.

I would like to ask the Speaker if this debate is now cut off in five minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So I have five minutes.

I would like to start by saying that the intention of Bill C-67 is indeed good. I agree with the words of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke that we must give veterans all the recognition possible and speed things up.

This bill proposes to reduce the existing backlog of appealed pension cases and shorten the decision time. I do not think, with the way they are going about it, this will be achieved.

The big thing I want to put front and centre is that I totally object to the removal of the Bureau of Pension Advocates from the first level. This is something that has given veterans the real representation they need to make their cases. By withdrawing it from that level and putting it into the second level the government is doing them a real disservice.

The intent of the bill is to cut down the waiting time. I really wonder about that. I would like to share some of my experience with members of the House.

Let us look at recognition of veterans today. How long does it take for us to recognize what is happening? It has taken us over 50 years as a government, the Liberals or the Conservatives or whoever, to recognize the merchant navy. Merchant navy people have been trying to plead their case for all those years. Finally we are doing something about it.

It took veterans of the Korean War 40 years to get a medal of their own. They said they thought they deserved something more than just a British Commonwealth medal or a United Nations one. It took 40 years for that.

Dieppe was one of the costliest battles of World War II, the Dieppe landing. It took 50 years to get just a little clasp for a medal to recognize that very significant action, debatable action though it may be, at Dieppe. It took 50 years for that.

We are still waiting for a Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping operations. A proposal was put to the House to achieve it, but it was negated by the House. So those veterans are still waiting.

All in all, National Defence and Veterans Affairs are very slow in reacting to anything. I suspect that C-67 is not going to improve that at all.

Over my lifetime I can look at hearing problems within the military and of course with the veterans today. Hearing was recognized as problem, with people going onto the firing ranges and practising weaponry with no ear covers whatsoever. The result is that many of us have hearing loss today. It took years, literally decades, for the departments to recognize the problem and do something about it. That has left today's veterans with the same problem.

Many of us went up to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in Chalk River to clean up nuclear spills. The departments of national defence and veterans affairs to this day are putting their hands out saying that they will not talk about it.

I went to clean up a spill in 1952 or 1953 and as a result, I became ill. When I retired some 30 years later, I put down as part of my release procedure that I had been subjected to this problem. Neither national defence nor veterans affairs would give recognition to it.

On agent orange, our people have been to Vietnam. Perhaps they have been subjected to the effects of agent orange.

I could go on but I see the Speaker is getting ready to close off debate. I must respect the Speaker's right.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes the next time the matter is debated. I apologize for interrupting his speech.

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know there are differences of opinion on some of the clauses of the bill. Notwithstanding that, I wonder if there would be consent to proceed to the vote. We could amend the bill as some members want in committee. I know that Monday is a very important veterans day for the war amputees in Canada. Perhaps we could do that. Some of the remarks of the hon. member could perhaps

be heard at third reading instead. I found his remarks very profound and interesting, given his vast knowledge.

Given the interest of so many people, I wonder if by unanimous consent we could do that because it involves improving benefits to so many Canadians who deserve it so much.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The point has been made that we are at third reading of the bill, so there will not be a committee process for the bill to go through. We can do it by unanimous consent.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent.

It being 1.30 p.m., we will now proceed to Private Members' Business.

Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

I would like to start by thanking the members of the Private Members' Business subcommittee for realizing the importance of this legislation to the social fabric of our nation. Moreover by making this private member's bill votable, subcommittee members have acted upon a key principle which has been advocated by our minister of immigration in many forums.

The minister and I on numerous occasions have said that Canada has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants. Members know that both of us have personally benefited from that tradition.

When I came to Canada from Croatia in 1968, I agreed to obey the laws of this nation. At that time I did not have the same rights as those who were already citizens. I could not vote. I could not have been a member of Parliament nor work for the federal government. I obeyed the law and was particularly careful to be on my best behaviour.

The day that I finally did become a citizen was one of the happiest days of my life. To this day I have continued to uphold the laws and virtues of this country and I will continue to do so.

The majority of our immigrants are model citizens. They work very hard to succeed in this country and they do so in a law-abiding manner.

However, a very small group of immigrants, and for that matter visitors, do not play by the rules. Some in this very small group have come to this great country, taken advantage of its generosity and disobeyed its laws. I would like those individuals to know that law-abiding immigrants and for that matter all Canadians, firmly believe that those individuals who are not citizens and who repeatedly show disrespect for the laws and people of Canada do not deserve to be here.

Our laws have always recognized that serious criminality should have the consequence of removal from Canada. The current Immigration Act explicitly states as much and my bill reinforces that principle.

The immigration enforcement improvement act simply aims to improve the way in which removal of violent offenders is executed. It streamlines a deportation procedure which has failed in the past, a procedure which has led to several inexcusable tragedies. Members may recall two of these inexcusable tragedies which occurred last spring.

In April of last year, a 23-year old young woman by the name of Georgina Leimonis was murdered in the trendy Toronto restaurant, Just Desserts. She had been having coffee with her boyfriend. One of her killers, O'Neil Grant, was a non-citizen with a lengthy criminal record. Prior to the murder, he had been granted a five year stay of his deportation. Lawrence Augustus Brown, the shooter, had immigrated to Canada 10 years earlier and also had an extensive criminal record.

The murder of Georgina Leimonis sent shock waves through Toronto and the entire country. In my riding of Cambridge, 20 grade 10 students from Galt Collegiate took the time to express their shock and anger over the murder of this young, vibrant woman. Their letters moved me to a point where I knew something had to be done. I would like to share some of their comments with members here today. Amy Gibson wrote:

We like to think of Canada as the best country in the world and I agree most of the time. We have a lot of freedom here-but what happens when we have so much freedom that we lose security? The murder of Georgina Leimonis is a good example. She didn't do anything wrong, she was innocently sitting in a cafe when she was shot. Soon we will be afraid to leave our houses.

Katharina Daldrup wrote:

I just immigrated to Canada 23 months ago and had found it to be a non-violent country. I was shocked by this incident and strongly feel that everything possible must be done to prevent incidents like this one.

Devon Edwards echoed the comments of the majority of his classmates when he expressed how deeply saddened he was to read of the murder of Georgina Leimonis.

The death of Georgina Leimonis was tragic but it was not an isolated incident. Less than two months after her murder, a 25-year old metropolitan Toronto police officer, Constable Todd Baylis, was killed while on duty.

Constable Todd Baylis and his partner had been out on a routine foot patrol when they spotted a suspect who was a known drug trafficker. As they began to pursue the suspect, a gun fight broke out and Constable Baylis was shot in the head before he could even draw his weapon.

Constable Baylis' killer, Clinton Gayle, was very well known to police and immigration authorities. He had a lengthy criminal record which included several convictions for trafficking in narcotics, possession of unregistered and restricted weapons, assault, attempted theft and escape from custody. It was because of his criminality that Clinton Gayle had been ordered deported in 1991. At the time of Constable Baylis' murder, Gayle was out on $2,000 bond and had been awaiting deportation for a two year period.

I truly believe that Clinton Gayle would have been deported prior to the murder of Constable Todd Baylis had the measures contained in Bill C-316 been in place.

Before I go any further, I would like members to know that the two cases I have just outlined are not isolated incidents. This is not just a Toronto problem. Tragedies such as these could have occurred and have occurred in Montreal, Vancouver and other parts of the country.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made great strides to limit access by serious criminals to immigration procedures that delay their removal from Canada. As a result of measures contained in Bill C-44, the rights of serious criminals to appeals under the immigration system have been limited. These same individuals will no longer be eligible for any form of early release or parole if they are serving a sentence for a criminal offence.

I applaud the minister for his swift action on these two elements and for his efforts to improve enforcement of deportation orders. However, I remain concerned that there is still room for serious offenders to fall through the cracks from the time they are sentenced to the time they are deported. My bill aims to fill those cracks.

Bill C-316 would permit a court, in addition to any other sentence, to order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more. These serious criminals would have access to appeals within the criminal process but not to appeals currently available under the Immigration Act.

I understand there is some concern that the measures contained in this bill could be interpreted as a double punishment against non-citizens, a harsher sentence than a Canadian citizen committing the same crime would receive. The reality is that distinction currently exists. Non-citizens do not have all the rights of citizenship and non-citizens who commit crimes are currently subject to a criminal sentence and deportation. The only difference is that with Bill C-316, sole responsibility for both matters would lie with the courts rather than with the immigration department.

The measures being proposed would not only accelerate the deportation process of violent offenders but would also save the Canadian taxpayers money. The savings would primarily come from not having to duplicate the court hearing process. An offender's immigration status would be determined by the sentencing judge after an individual has been convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more as opposed to having one court determine criminality and the other immigration status.

Although it may take judges some time to get their heads around this legislation, if we have the courtroom, the lawyers and a judge familiar with an individual's past and present record, does it not make sense to deal with both issues at once? I submit to you that it does and that the Canadian taxpayers would prefer to see it done this way. I also know that there are judges and crown prosecutors who would prefer to have it done this way.

There are two additional measures of significance in this bill of which members should be aware. The first relates to how we treat offenders who came to Canada at an early age. Immigration advocates have argued that deporting someone who came to Canada as a child is unjust.

Some have even said our society should accept some responsibility for the way Clinton Gayle acted because he came to Canada in his early teens and was essentially a product of our environment. I agree with that argument to a certain degree. There has to come a point when we as Canadians say enough is enough.

My bill proposes anyone who came to Canada prior to the age of 16 and has remained free of criminal conviction for a period of at least five years should be exempt from deportation.

The second measure provides for the removal by court order of foreign offenders to their country of origin if reciprocal conditional release provisions exist in that country. The Transfer of Offenders Act currently makes provisions to transfer an offender to his or her country of origin if the offender chooses to be transferred and if a bilateral agreement exists.

Bill C-316 will remove that decision from the offender and will transfer it to courts thereby allowing a judge to order that an offender will serve the remainder of his or her sentence in their country of origin. I acknowledge my proposal may require certain bilateral agreements to be amended but I am confident that can be done with relative ease.

Concerns have been raised in reference to the possible deportation of family members with the offender. I advise the House these measures are currently contained in the Immigration Act. The reason for this is if the family members are financially dependent on the offender or if the offender was their sponsor, once the offender was transferred to his or her country of origin there would be an absence of financial support for the offender's family. This is currently done at the discretion of an immigration officer and under my bill it would be left to the discretion of the courts.

The two key elements of the bill, namely that sentencing courts be allowed to order the deportation of a person convicted of an indictable offence carrying a penalty of 10 years or more, and that the crown be permitted to initiate the transfer of foreign nationals to their country of origin, were contained in the final report of the safety net conference held in Hamilton last fall.

At this conference parliamentarians of different political stripes, immigration officials, immigration lawyers, enforcement authorities and victims groups specifically recommended the changes today being proposed in Bill C-316.

The bill has received the endorsement of the Canadian Police Association, the Metro Toronto Police Association, Victims of Violence and CAVEAT. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has on several occasions stated consideration should be given authorizing judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing rather than requiring a separate step. He included this suggestion in his strategy for immigration and citizenship entitled "Into the 21st Century". He mentioned it during his speech on Bill C-44. I know he has been giving Bill C-316 the utmost consideration because we have discussed it on numerous occasions.

I have received a great deal of co-operation from the minister's office in preparing for today's occasion. However, I am aware the minister has some technical concerns with the bill and I have advised him I am prepared, willing and able to accept any amendments required to address the technical and drafting elements of the bill he is concerned with.

In conclusion, I leave members with the following to ponder. On April 2, I attended a memorial service for Georgina Leimonis in Toronto. Although the Leimonis family is still grieving the loss of Georgina, it does not want such a tragedy to be repeated. Members of the family have asked me to do everything in my power to see these amendments are enacted, and I am asking members for their support.

I would also like members to remember these often repeated words which Miss Kristina Kolesnyk of Galt Collegiate shared with me in her letter following the death of Georgina Leimonis: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Please support Bill C-316 so Canadians can feel more secure in their homes, neighbourhoods and on their streets.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Reform Party on Bill C-316 put forward by the hon. member for Cambridge.

It is very encouraging after a year and half to see the Liberals finally starting to realize Canada has a crime problem and action does have to be taken. Part of this action by necessity involves taking a hard look at our immigration policy. We must examine the safeguards now in place to deter immigrant criminals from coming to Canada.

We must also scrutinize how to remove those who slip by the safeguards and cause pain to Canadian people. Our constituents expect no less from us.

I will go through the bill in some detail and outline some of the flaws I see in it. I understand the Canadian Police Association had a major part in the drafting of the legislation. Nevertheless, there are some problems. I hope as I go through these the hon. member can either ease my concerns about some of the problems I see or commit himself to strengthening the provisions, intents and phrasing of Bill C-316.

My first concern lies in what I see as the basic discriminatory nature of the bill. The purpose of Bill C-316 is to give Canada's judges an extra option when dealing with criminal immigrants. Not only could criminal charges be laid but the judge as a punishment could order deportation of the criminal, a unique sentencing option available only for immigrant criminals.

Compare this with section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Under the bill those immigrants charged with a serious criminal offence will be under added pressure to plea bargain away the threat of deportation, a threat not facing a Canadian citizen in the same position. This provision appears to discriminate on the basis of national origin. For this reason alone I am fearful the bill would be struck down on its first charter challenge as being unconstitutional.

Section 3.8 raises questions on the constitutionality of the bill. Under this section criminal immigrants ordered deported by a judge could never be entitled to a conditional release, statutory release, temporary absence or accelerated review under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There will

be instances when a judge will be unable to have a criminal immigrant deported. I will touch on these instances later.

If our criminal justice system is unable to carry through on a deportation it will have once again discriminated against a non-Canadian. Canadian criminals will be eligible for parole. Non-Canadian criminals, however, will have to serve out their full sentence no matter what circumstances surrounding their behaviour while in custody.

Without a deportation an individual under these circumstances could spend the rest of his or her life in prison at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. This again potentially violates both the word and spirit of section 15.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Reform MPs believe in effective laws to deter crime, like the member who sponsored the bill. Reformers, however, believe in laws that will stand up under the scrutiny of our most basic rights, even challenges from the Trudeau charter, which many feel has failed to protected the basic fundamental rights of Canadians. That is another debate.

We want laws will stand the test of time and unfortunately the bill as it is written fails to deliver.

Aside from these basic concerns there are a number of other serious problems with the bill that must be addressed at some point. Section 4.3 is one example of the short-sighted nature of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, a judge can add deportation as an additional punishment for non-Canadian criminals with any chance of parole removed. Yet section 4.3 states the criminal can only be deported to his home nation with the consent of that foreign state.

Many countries like Somalia and Vietnam refuse to take back criminal nationals. Under the bill we could develop a backlog of criminals in limbo ordered to be deported but not allowed to leave, all the while with the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for their time in jail.

Section 4.6 again highlights the seriousness of the bill's flaws. This section states no foreign criminal can be deported unless the criminal's home state either has conditional release laws similar to Canada's or agrees to conditional release provisions similar to Canada's.

In effect the hon. member is asking the rest of the world to adopt Canada's haphazard criminal justice and parole systems. If others do not do so, and there are dozens such as Vietnam and the state of California, the federal government would be unable to deport them.

I now ask the House to look at section 4. 5 of Bill C-316. It reads: "The order may provide for the removal from Canada to the foreign state of members of the family of the foreign offender on the same basis as described in section 33 of that act", that being the Immigration Act.

When an individual commits a crime care for dependent children is assumed to be passed on to another family member, a wife, husband or other relative. When this is not possible, as is the case with a single parent, these dependants become wards of the state. Whether the provincial family services departments across the country would allow for the deportation of children into uncertain and potentially dangerous circumstances is not clear. This is an issue that should be examined at length before the House debates Bill C-316 again.

Finally, I wish to bring to the attention of the House what I see as the largest oversight in the bill. Section 2 states section 3(f) of the Immigration Act would be amended by adding the following: the bill is to "ensure the expeditious removal from Canada of any person who has entered Canada and has subsequently been convicted of a serious criminal offence while in Canada".

What does the word "entered" mean and to whom does it apply? The answer can be found in the Immigration Act definitions. According to the act the word "entry" and all its derivatives are defined as follows: "Entry means lawful permission to come into Canada as a visitor". The bill will only apply to those in Canada on a temporary basis. The bill will not affect criminal immigrants at all, only those temporarily in Canada who will have to leave in any event when their visitor's permit expires.

I share the hon. member's concerns over criminal immigrants. During my time with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration these concerns were brushed aside time and again by Liberal MPs. The hon. member for Cambridge is a rare exception to that rule. This general indifference to criminal immigrants is sad to see since the small majority stains the entire immigration process.

After all, each of us in the House has a family history that extends beyond this country's shores. Each of us is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants.

I and the rest of the Reform Party share this member's basic concerns that those who come to Canada unwilling to contribute peacefully to the betterment of our country but choose instead to violate its laws and threaten its people have no legitimate place in Canada.

Regrettably Bill C-316 as it now stands has too many loose ends and too many unanswered questions. Should the member seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the bill and have the material referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I would be more than willing to support him. The issue is too important to leave any longer and certainly has merit for further consideration.

If he chooses to push ahead with the bill as is I will support it in second reading on principle and intent. If, however, each issue mentioned in my speech is not addressed and the numerous

loose ends in the bill are not tidied up I will be unable to support it at third reading.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Cambridge.

One of the things that makes Canada so great is the make-up of its population. People have come to Canada from all over the world, including those who came hundreds and hundreds of years ago over the land bridge from Asia.

However, as delightful and as strengthening as all of that is, there are a very small minority of immigrants from time to time within the country who refuse to take the benefit of and contribute to this longstanding tradition. Those relatively very few people break our laws and victimize our citizens. Some of these people are dangerous. This is unacceptable. Our country must deal with that very small group of people.

The hon. member's bill focuses on that very small number of immigrants or others who come into this country illegally and have committed serious criminal offences, sometimes violent. This bill distinguishes the criminals from the overwhelming majority of law-abiding immigrants.

I attended the CAVEAT Safety Net Conference this past September in Hamilton, Ontario. The conference was composed of leading justice reform and community activists as well as victim advocacy groups and persons from many other disciplines. The main goal of this conference was to put together draft legislation and public policy that would improve the safety of every Canadian. This bill takes into account many or some of the concerns raised at that conference.

The bill would do the following. It permits a criminal court to order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more. It would accelerate the deportation process that already exists today. Currently deportation orders can only be issued by immigration officials. However, this bill would authorize criminal court judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing and obviate the need for a second deportation step procedure.

The bill would not apply to anyone who arrived in Canada prior to reaching the age of 16 with some provisos.

Canadian laws have always recognized that serious criminality should have the consequence of removal from this country. The bill aims to improve the procedure under which violent and serious offenders are deported. Offenders will be required to serve at least a portion of their sentence in Canada in order to ensure that fundamental justice from the perspective of Canadians will be served.

The bill also provides for the removal by a court order of foreign offenders, that is non-citizens and persons illegally here, to their country of origin if reciprocal conditional release provisions exist in that country.

I should bring a few background facts to the attention of the House. The current state of immigration procedures reveals that approximately 40,000 to 50,000 persons-a layman's guess based on publicly available information-remain in the country in violation of the terms of their admission or for whom arrest warrants have been issued. That includes people who have been ordered deported.

Of this huge number, about 70 per cent are in the metro Toronto area. Many of those individuals will already have left the country on their own accord without checking in. Their names should not be on the system any more but we do not have a viable way of checking people out. There are about 2,000 warrants for people who have been ordered deported due to their criminal conduct.

We have a relative shortage of immigration officials. We have a great number of other government tasks we must do across this huge country and the people who are there are doing their best to manage our immigration laws and procedures.

In short, the bill would take the current two step procedure of conviction and deportation and combine them into one for serious offences, not for minor criminal offences.

In a private member's bill intended to amend existing legislation, as my hon. friend opposite has pointed out, there are always some procedural and substantive issues which arise. We in the House realize that. The procedure today is to adopt the bill in principle and refer it to a committee. My friend opposite has mentioned a number of things which will have to be looked at in this bill. I do not agree with everything on his list, but he has hit most of the hot buttons.

I would want colleagues to look closely at the application of this bill to the dependents of deportees. In addition, there would have to be some procedural preparation for criminal court judges to enable them to handle this type of procedure in the sentencing procedure at the end of a criminal trial. That needs some work as well. I know that colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee will be able to do exactly that if the bill is adopted and referred by the House.

All of this would only happen with the co-operation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which I hope the hon. member for Cambridge will have. I would like to congratulate him on putting forward a private member's bill which addresses a procedural need. I hope it will fill the arguable procedural void

which exists now, the arguable duplication procedure which exists now, and that at the end of the day we will have a good and fair procedure, one which is efficacious for the intended purpose.