House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I am requesting that you grant leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter requiring urgent consideration, the damaging and misleading statements made by the leader of the third party in New Brunswick on Thursday, which I became aware of late Friday-
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I received notice from the hon. member, as procedure requires. I believe the hon. member stated he wanted to have an emergency debate on the fisheries and not on the statements made about the fisheries.
I wonder if the hon. member would limit himself to debate or at least to putting forth his points on debate on the fisheries if that is what he wants to do.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, my next sentence was that the fishery in Atlantic Canada is a $1.6 billion export industry; $1.6 billion is a far cry from suggestions that the fishery is over.
Given the morale situation in Atlantic Canada right now and given the importance of the fishery and the confidence issue that is important to the fishery at this very difficult time, I feel it is timely to have a full fledged debate on the issue to set the record straight, to ensure false and misleading information is not undermining the confidence of a very vibrant industry employing tens of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is my application. I hope you will give it your consideration.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
To the hon. member with all respect, the fisheries question in Canada on both coasts is one of great importance to all of us in the House and to all Canadians.
However, I suggest the hon. member might have avenues to pursue that other than an emergency debate. It seems to me at this time at least an emergency debate on that topic would not be in order.
I thank him for his intervention on behalf of his constituents and for the work he is doing in that regard.
The House resumed from May 12 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 ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
When we last debated this matter the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan had the floor. He has 15 minutes remaining in his intervention.
Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, because there has been a lapse of several days I remind all that Bill C-67 is the Veterans Appeal and Review Board Act and that the purpose of Bill C-67 is to reduce the existing backlog of appeal pension cases and to shorten decision time on first application.
If it succeeds it will merge two existing bodies, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board, and first decisions on veterans cases will be made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the bureau of pension advocates will become part of the department and will work only on preparation of appeals.
My unease with Bill C-67 stems from two sources. The first is the change of position of the bureau of pension advocates. This has long been an extremely important first level of contact for veterans who have a case to make. To move it to the second level is totally unacceptable. The second unease I have concerns what I shall call the leadership factor in the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Reaction to need within those departments has historically been very slow. I do contend that at the sharp end of the Department of National Defence, when we are talking about our troops, it is very good. Its reaction time is good and it is flexible. The farther we move in the chain of things behind the front line, the more the bureaucracy is involved and the slower the reaction. The bill's purpose is admirable but if the effect of the bill will be to increase the size of the bureaucracy then I cannot believe it will achieve its aim.
When I spoke to the bill very briefly last week I pointed out delays of 40 and 50 years in recognizing our veterans' accomplishments. The merchant navy waited for 50 years for recognition. The veterans of Dieppe have waited for over 50 years and are finally receiving a simple clasp for a medal. The veterans of
the Korean operation have waited for well over 40 years to achieve something. Other veterans of peacekeeping operations are still waiting. There was a proposal from this side of the House, supported by some members opposite, that there be a Canadian volunteer service medal produced for peacekeepers. However, I am sorry to say that was rejected by the House. There is certainly a slowness in recognition.
The other side of this impasse in national defence I started to illustrate the other day when I spoke about problems with hearing loss of members of the Canadian forces. Way back when, and we are talking a long time ago, when I was on the rifle ranges we wore no ear protectors. It took literally years for the Department of National Defence to come up with protection for the troops on the ranges firing weapons. It took even longer for any recognition of the fault of the Department of National Defence to be echoed by the Department of Veterans Affairs when veterans applied for hearing aids. The departments dragged their feet. That is a syndrome visible within national defence and veterans affairs.
Another example is the atomic energy corporation of Chalk River. There were spills of radioactive materials. There was a spill of the main reactor in Chalk River in the 1950s. People like Jimmy Carter, not then the president of the United States but a midshipman at Annapolis, came up to help clean up that spill. I was there. I had some illness presumably attributable to exposure to radiation. I tried to declare this on my release from the forces but it was not even accepted by national defence and veterans affairs.
There is the gulf war syndrome. Our troops were in the Persian gulf several years ago and some of them have complained of a variety of symptoms. The same thing has happened in the United States. The American veterans administration has acknowledged and labelled the problem as the gulf war syndrome. It has set up a registry at veterans affairs across the United States where all gulf war veterans complaining of health problems can get a complete physical examination. There has been acknowledgement of it in the United States. Here there has been nothing yet. We are still looking at the problem.
I am not in a position to say there is such a thing as an illness contracted whether it is from the oilfields, nerve gas or from anything there. What I am saying is national defence and veterans affairs invariably drag their feet in recognizing there are problems.
There are sufficient symptoms displayed by veterans that it should not be a problem. The symptoms include loss of memory, aches in the joints, night sweats, severe headaches, loss of hair, confusion, reproductive problems, stress within family, attention disorder, fatigue, abnormal rashes, bleeding gums, irritability, breathing problems and so on. They are surely sufficient for our people to say get it out in the open and tackle this thing and either put it to rest and say there is no such thing as gulf war syndrome or there is and these are the attributes we recognize.
I have a letter from the vice-president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. He is reporting on the gulf war syndrome problem: "This report would be more extensive had I received all of the information I am waiting for. Please advise me if you would like me to keep you informed of any new developments. Our methods of gaining information are very tedious, as we are a non-profit organization that must rely on the mail system, etc. We do not have the funds to travel to interview the individuals in question. We also have full time employment and must conduct this type of research after hours. Don't get me wrong, we do this research because we believe in what we do. We must help our fellow veterans. We would like eventually to conduct an interview or have a questionnaire completed by our gulf war veterans and their spouses. This would certainly enlighten us as to the situation with regard to that".
My point is veterans affairs and national defence should take more initiative, should exercise leadership and show our serving soldiers and veterans that they are interested and lay some of these problems to rest.
We have other examples of the same thing. Somalia and the use of mefloquine is another such example. Mefloquine is a drug used as a malaria inhibitor. Years ago, I will not say how many, when I was in Korea we used paludrine which had certain side effects but nothing to the extent that apparently mefloquine does. My colleague from Delta brought this up in the last six months. He has asked for an investigation into the effects mefloquine may have had on Canadian troops serving in Somalia. He cited specifically Trooper Kyle Brown who, as we all know, has been put into prison, and Master Corporal Clayton Matchee and the men of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
I understand this drug is still in use to this day in Somalia in spite of questions about its appropriateness. Apparently Canadian troops in Somalia were given heavy doses weekly of mefloquine which, as I say, is used as protection against malaria. However, the drug is well known to have neurological side effects. The manufacturer's literature states that reactions are rare but include convulsions, psychosis, nightmares, dizziness, headaches, confusion, anxiety and depression.
The Canadian medical personnel in Somalia reported that Canadian troops experienced these side effects. In fact, the day the drug was administered in Somalia was known as psycho Tuesday.
In view of reports like this, I would expect that the Department of National Defence-and I lump veterans affairs in with it for this purpose-would show more leadership by taking the initiative to say: "Let us put a stop to nonsense like this. Let us put a stop to the stories. We will determine accurately whether mefloquine can continue to be administered, what its side
effects are, when it can and cannot be used, what its effects are with liquor and so on". We need to put these things to rest.
In conclusion, I find that leadership in national defence, lumped in with veterans affairs, is lacking today. We have been looking at a great many problems over the last year: Somalia, the disbandment of the airborne regiment and the videos pertaining to that, the reduction in the size of the forces, equipment problems, morale problems brought out in the Oehring report, having to do more with less in the way of equipment and troops as brought out by Brigadier-General Jeffries' report from Petawawa, the Fowler-Doyle-Létourneau incident, the Somalia inquiry and the staffing of the inquiry itself, the Bosnia-Croatia decisions, suicides in the forces and, more recently, the block of access to information problems. All of these things tell me that there are leadership problems in national defence.
When I look at those problems and the foot dragging that goes on, I say that Bill C-67 should be really looked at very carefully. It should not be proceeded with in its present form. I am absolutely against the relegation of the bureau of pension advocates to a review position. This is not going to help the veterans. The burgeoning bureaucracy that will be created by the combining of two levels is going to be bad news once again for the veterans and their administration.
Therefore, I speak negatively on this bill. The purpose of Bill C-67 is laudable but its implementation, I am sorry to say, may not do what we want for the veterans who are having problems.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak in the debate today on Bill C-67.
For the benefit of those viewing this at home, Bill C-67 has to do with the review procedure for pensions of people who represented and fought for our country in the last world war. It is apropos that we should be speaking about this having just gone through the victory in Europe celebrations and remembrances last week.
As we discuss the bill concerning pension reform we should keep in mind that the average age of those involved is 74 years. That means that the motivation for the government to proceed with this bill now is to try to speed up the process.
When we want to find out how things affect veterans in our country it makes sense to go to the Royal Canadian Legion. As everyone knows, the Royal Canadian Legion by and large speaks for veterans. To some degree it is supportive of the bill. Its concern has to do with four basic facts. It wants to see that these four basic principles in the adjudication of pension disputes are met.
First, it wants to preserve the benefits and services provided to veterans. That goes without saying. It does not want to see this reduced in any way.
Second, there is a need to protect the benefit of the doubt provision. If the bureau of pensions is to err on one side or the other then it would err for the benefit of the applicant.
The third principle is to ensure an independence of advocacy and adjudication. Members should keep that in mind.
The fourth principle is to achieve the necessary speed and generosity to ensure that pensions and other benefits are received by the veterans when they are entitled to them.
The Royal Canadian Legion believes these four basic principles should be upheld by the bureau of pensions. Further it has two basic problems with the bill. They are the levels of expertise to be afforded the applicant at the first application level under the new system and the need to maintain continuity of process between the first application and any subsequent review or appeal.
Members may know, but many people watching may not be aware, that when a veteran appeals for a pension it is a two-step process. If the pension is applied for and granted, that is the end of it. However only 30 per cent of veterans who apply receive a pension after the first round. Therefore, most of them go to appeal.
When veterans are talking about the continuity of process, they are saying it makes sense for their advocates at the first level to also be their advocates at the second level at appeal.
It is interesting that of the 70 per cent who are rejected at first application and go on to appeal, fully 80 per cent of applications appealed are granted. That would be the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the vast majority who apply for a veterans pension get it. Keep in mind that they are 74 years of age.
If we follow the logic of the whole process as I have described it, a veteran, whose average age is 74, requests a pension. Thirty per cent receive it and 70 per cent do not. Of those who do not receive it and appeal, 80 per cent end up winning their appeal. A lot of those would be based on the benefit of the doubt provision which is one of the four principles the Royal Canadian Legion particularly would like to have.
Another principle the Royal Canadian Legion has identified is the importance of an independent adjudicator. That is the Achilles' heel of the legislation.
The government has stated a number of times that the goal of the legislation is to speed up the time it takes a veteran to get a
disability pension without the veteran losing any of the rights the veteran currently possesses. That is a very laudable objective. However, we have identified a serious deficiency in the bill.
The 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 made part of the department reserved for appeal level only. If 30 per cent of the applicants get their pension and on appeal 80 per cent win, why are we not making the gates a little wider at the beginning?
A number of arguments were made in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and in the House in this regard and they have been reviewed extensively. After consideration I have concluded that the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the exclusive disposal of the 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 that more applications are accepted at the first level.
If 80 per cent of the appeals are granted, why not grant more of them at the first level? These applications must be well prepared in the future because the department currently rejects 70 per cent but goes on to accept 80 per cent on appeal. The typical time it takes for a lawyer to prepare an application is two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran is forced to battle the department to receive a disability pension. The remaining delays at the first level, which can take up to a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department.
The problem is not with the veteran or with the lawyer who prepares the application, the problem is with the department. Much of that was identified earlier by my colleague who went through a step by step process of showing how the application goes from Ottawa, gets copied and then ends up in Prince Edward Island because the former government decided to put the bureau in Prince Edward Island.
Ironically, the government feels that removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because it will focus on appeals only. Under the legislation the government intends to have departmental clerks assist the veteran in filling out the first level application. That is a potential problem which the Royal Canadian Legion identified because it is the skill and the proficiency with which the first application is completed that will determine its acceptance.
The first level decision would then be adjudicated within the department. It could be true that the first level decision would be faster, but would the acceptance rate be higher than the existing norm of 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt it. If the veteran then has to appeal the case he has to go to a bureau lawyer who would work directly for the department.
The current system is that an outside, independent lawyer who is acting on behalf of the veteran, makes the application and then follows through with the appeal. Under the new system a departmental clerk will complete the application and only if the application is refused would the lawyer go to work to prepare an appeal for the applicant, which would take a further two to three months. The veterans say that streamlining of the whole process is in large measure due to how well the first application is put together.
If the government intends to focus all of the bureau's resources at the appeal level, then it is obvious that the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pensions, and we must remember that their average age is 74 years.
If the process is to be speeded up the first level acceptance rate must be increased so that there will be fewer appeals. The way to accomplish this is twofold. First, have the first level application expertly completed by a bureau lawyer so that the veteran's case is solid. Second, the department should consider the success rate for past appeals, which is 80 per cent, and use the benefit of the doubt provision more liberally to increase first level acceptance. This two-track approach would substantially speed up the system and serve best the interests of the veterans. I know that it is serving the interests of the veterans that all members of this House and indeed all Canadians are firmly committed to achieving.
While the intent in this bill is certainly a step in the right direction, as with much legislation that comes before this House there are certain aspects of it that could be substantially improved. I draw again on the suggestions made by the Royal Canadian Legion that the four paramount underpinnings of the foundation of the veterans' appeal must be to preserve and protect the benefits and services provided to the veterans of Canada; to protect the benefit of the doubt provision; to ensure an independent advocate; and to achieve the necessary speed and generosity to ensure that our veterans, whose average age is 74 years, are honestly and fairly dealt with.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to address the House with regard to Bill C-67 on third reading of the Veterans Appeal and Review Board Act.
In the last few days our attention has been focused on the men and women who served our country so valiantly 50 years ago, men and women who left family and friends to fight for freedom, democracy, and peace. As I and thousands and perhaps millions of other Canadians witnessed the V-E Day celebrations here in Ottawa and on television from Europe last week, it evoked emotions of pride for this country and respect for all
those who served here and abroad. While we have honoured these veterans through pomp and ceremony, we have failed in many cases to provide them with the compensation that is due them.
I want to briefly refer to a couple of incidents that happened in my riding. First, there was a huge air show in the city of Lloydminster last week where we were able to show off both military and domestic planes in a huge air show. It was a success. The Snowbirds were involved. Of course they are based at the Moose Jaw airbase. They were very well received.
A couple of days later there was another event in my riding. It too occurred in the city of Lloydminster. It was sponsored by the Kinsmen and the Kinnettes. It was a raising of the flag ceremony. It was truly an honour for myself as well the mayor of Lloydminster and one of the MLAs from the area to be involved in the ceremony where annually they raise the flag and we reflect on our country and the democracy we enjoy and remember those who paid a heavy price for the democracy that we enjoy. There was a colour guard there and cadets present, as well as the Kinsmen and the Kinnettes and dignitaries.
Following the raising of the Canadian flag and following the ceremonies I had an opportunity to meet with a couple of veterans. They were two brothers from the area who had just returned from the Netherlands and the celebrations over there. We were able to talk with them about their own experiences, first of all on the advancement into Europe when the liberation took place and then the recent trip over there. They expressed real emotion about the warm greetings and the warm reception they received from the people of Holland for the efforts they had been involved in 50 years before.
As I spoke to one of these veterans, one of these brothers, he said he had not been able to stay the full time. He had not been involved in the entire liberation, he said, because he got hit a few times. He pointed to his left hip and said "I got hit here first and then a little while later I got hit in this hip, and then finally they got me a little higher up, in the arm and the chest. After that they decided they had better send me home."
When we think of the commitment to democracy and we think of the commitment to Canada and what we stand for that was displayed by these veterans 50 years ago, it really humbles us who have not experienced the sacrifice and hardship that they did. It elevates in our minds the value of our veterans for their dedication and for their service to our country, and not only our country but democracy around the world.
Just a few minutes ago we also listened to the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan as he also described some of the horrors of war both past and fairly recently, including the gulf war and the gulf war syndrome.
We realize that war is a terrible thing and that people are involved in it not because they enjoy it but because they feel a sense of duty and want to be involved for the pursuit of peace and democracy.
We realize once again that we do owe them more than just a thank you for a job well done. We need to come through with more than just kind words and phrases, but with actions and deeds as well. That is why it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-67, the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.
The government has stated in this House a number of times that the goal of this 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 too is the aim of the Reform Party. Yet we disagree with 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 made part of the department reserved for the appeal level only. A number of arguments have been made in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and in this House as well in this regard. They have been reviewed extensively by my colleagues in the Reform Party, my fellow MPs who sit in this part of the House. After careful consideration we have concluded that the Bureau of Pension Advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of all veterans.
Let me explain. 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 that more applications are accepted at the first level. These applications must be well prepared, because the department currently rejects 70 per cent of first applications but then goes on to accept 80 per cent of appeals at the second or third levels.
The typical time it takes for a bureau lawyer to prepare an application is two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran is forced to do battle with the department to receive a disability pension. The remaining delays at the first level, which can take up to a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department. Ironically, the government feels that removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because they will now focus on appeals only.
Under this legislation, the government intends to have a department clerk assist the veterans in filling out their first level application. The first level decision will then be adjudicated within the department. It could be true the first level decision will be faster, but will the acceptance rate be greater than the current 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of
rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt if this will change. We have no reason to believe that Bill C-67 will improve this situation.
If the veteran then has to appeal his case, he will have to go to a bureau lawyer who works for the department directly. This lawyer, who answers to the minister, must start to prepare the appellant's case from scratch, which will take months or years, because there is nothing in this bill that will speed up the appeal process, which currently takes up to three and a half years.
One gentleman who had served in the armed forces for a number of years waited approximately five years to receive a disability pension for military related injuries. This was after he had made several long trips for medical examinations for the appeal process and after he had written a number of letters to the department.
Veterans are becoming increasingly frustrated, frustrated to the point that many are unwilling to go through the lengthy appeal process. How many bureaucratic hoops must these veterans jump through to receive what they are legally entitled to?
If the government intends to focus all the bureau resources on the appeal level, it is obvious the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pension. With an average age of veterans approaching 74, this is too little and 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 this is twofold: first, have the first level application 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 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 all veterans.
The government in this piece of legislation has also proposed the merging of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board. It has been implied that this amalgamation will streamline delivery and hence cut turnaround time for pensions in half and eliminate the backlog in two years. This is to be done without affecting veterans' benefits or appeal rights.
As this House knows, the Reform Party is in favour of streamlining government and eliminating bureaucratic entanglements. However, there must be some guarantee that the veterans will receive what they are entitled to in the shortest period of time. As I have already noted, only 30 per cent of veterans' claims are accepted by the Canada Pension Commission, whereas 80 per cent of the appeals heard by the Veterans Appeal Board are accepted. Why is there such a discrepancy in the rulings of the two commissions?
Currently the Canada Pension Commission has an independent policy from that of the Veterans Appeal Board to determine what constitutes a disability. With 70 per cent rejection of veterans' claims by the Canada Pension Commission, it is evidence that they have taken a more restrictive view of the assessment of disabilities than the Veterans Appeal Board.
What position will the new amalgamated board take? Will it take a more restrictive position, as that of the Canadian Pension Commission, or will it take a more liberal position, as that of the Veterans Appeal Board? A more restrictive position taken by the board will undoubtedly increase the number of second appeals and lengthen the average turnaround time. Therefore it is essential that if the two boards amalgamate they adopt the more liberal policy of the Veterans Appeal Board. Any other position would adversely affect veterans' rights and benefits.
In addition, there is some concern from veterans whether or not the proposed Veterans Review and Appeal Board will provide for a new and independent look at each of the levels or simply be a review and appeal process. Under the new board, commissioners may hear both reviews and appeals but not of the same case. The whole review and appeal process would lose its independent look. As a result, any appeal would essentially follow the department's stated policy and procedure. The checks and balances the two independent boards have provided would be lost. Further, there would be no reason for a veteran to appeal any decision made at the first level.
We have given our veterans medals. We have honoured them in ceremonies, and rightly so. We have given our veterans parades. However, we have failed to provide our veterans with adequate financial compensation for their faithful and loyal service to this country when it was due.
We in this House have a moral obligation to provide support to veterans in a reliable and timely manner. How else can we say thank you to those individuals who laid down their lives for us?
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is the House ready for the question?
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
Veterans Review And Appeal Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deffered until 6:30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[English]
The House resumed from May 8, consideration of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Because of circumstances, the hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on group No. 4, amendments to clause 23 of Bill C-54.
For Canadians watching the debate, I will repeat that the bill is an attempt to make the administration of some of the government social services programs more streamlined, a little more user friendly, so to speak. We think that is a good idea but there is real concern expressed in this group of motions about the accountability in the administration of these acts.
The Bloc has put forward two amendments to clause 23 and Reform has put forward one amendment to clause 23. In fact, that is the only amendment we have put forward on the entire bill.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure accountability of the administration of these new rules and procedures. We think it is right and proper that our citizens have access to these programs in a way that is not unduly bureaucratic and which removes as much red tape as possible. We are also very concerned that it also removes the accountability of the department and the administrators of the program from the people because it removes needed accountability to Parliament.
We believe the amendment we are suggesting to the bill and to clause 23 specifically would make the system more accountable. We think they are very modest and sensible proposals. We have not put forward a number of amendments but we think the issue of accountability is so key and so necessary that we felt the amendment we put forward ought to be seriously considered and passed by the House.
The amendment we have put forward is set out in today's Order Paper on page 17 under Motion No. 7.
Essentially the motion calls for the minister to be required to make a report to the House every year within 30 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. The report would tally the overpayments under these programs, particularly CPP and OAS and the amount of the overpayments. At the very least, the minister and his department should be accountable to the House and therefore, to the Canadian people we represent.
The House should know exactly how much the overpayment is because it really identifies administrative error, waste and inefficiency. If overpayments are being made, clearly the department is not doing its job very well. Overpayments, of course, very properly suggest these are payments over and above what should be made.
It is necessary because the dollars available to assist people in need under programs are becoming more scarce, with the possibility of CPP going broke in the next few years. It is very important that the dollars available actually reach the people who are entitled to them. If dollars are going to people who are not entitled to them, then clearly some of the difficulties these programs are in will hit hardest the people who do need those moneys.
Therefore, we think right after the beginning of the fiscal year, the minister should give a report to Parliament through the operating committee, of the administrative error that has taken place in the last fiscal year.
It is all very well for the minister to report the overpayment and the errors that have been made by his department, but then what happens? The report will then be considered by the appropriate committee and the committee will then decide to what level the minister may have leeway to overpay for the next year.
For example, if the department has made overpayments under these programs of, say, $3 million the year before, the parliamentary committee may say to the department: "This is simply unacceptable. We will make you accountable by putting a cap of only $1 million on the errors and overpayments you can make next year. We think that is plenty of room for error and we want you to operate in that range". The committee then will decide how much margin for error that particular department can operate under.
This is sensible and sound management of very scarce and needed dollars. It would give the minister a target and goal and some parameters within which to operate. This limit would be considered by a proper authority, which is Parliament itself.
Someone running a business, a board of directors of a company, a school board, a union and even a household have to have some kind of budgetary parameters within which to operate. If there is an unlimited ability to overspend and to make errors in spending, two things happen. One is that the operation pretty soon does not operate on a sound fiscal basis and does not live within its means. The other is that money which is needed in other areas is simply not available because it has been wasted or not properly allocated in the area being considered.
I think that this is nothing but a very sensible, sound and modest way of ensuring that there is some accountability in the spending of the department under this bill. Under these new proposals we can effectively judge how well and how sensibly the program is being run.
Without this kind of accountability we lose a couple of things that are very important to sound management. One is the paper trail. There has to be some record kept of spending, where it has gone and why there has been overspending so that there can be a good assessment of how soundly things are being run. We also lose track of where the money is going. We do not want to do that. That is important not just because of some accounting fetish, but because money goes to people and the people who are entitled to the money need it and are entitled to know that is being well managed and put forward sensibly.
I urge the House to adopt this motion put forward by the Reform Party. It enhances the bill. It enhances the service to people and enhances our need to be accountable to the Canadian public.
Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to be discussing Motion No. 7 because of what the Reform Party is advocating. It is advocating that the minister's discretion with respect to forgiving overpayments should be wiped away and this special kind of power given to the highest ranking officer.