Debates of May 8th, 1995

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

A recorded division will also apply to Motions 8, 9 and 12.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are grouped for debate but will be voted on in the following manner. The vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 4. Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-67, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15, on page 2, with the following:

"4. There is hereby established an independent board, to be known as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, consisting of a) not more than twenty-nine permanent members to be appointed by the Governor in Council after consultation with the government of each province and such committee of the House of Commons established or designated by that House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs; and b ) such number of temporary members as are appointed in accordance with section 6.''

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-67, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 25, on page 2, the following:

"(1.1) No appointment may be made under subsection (1) unless there has first been consultation in respect of that appointment with the government of each province and such committee of the House of Commons established or designated by the House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-67, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page 3, with the following:

"8. (1) The Governor in Council shall, after consultation with the government of each province and such committee of the House of Commons established or designated by that House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs, designate a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from among the permanent members."

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-67, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22, on page 3, with the following:

"(5) If both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are absent or unable to act, a member designated by the Minister shall act as Chairperson.

(6) If the office of the Chairperson and the office of the Deputy Chairperson are vacant, the Minister shall designate a member to act as Chairperson and that member shall act in that capacity until such time as the Governor in Council designates a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson under subsection (7).

(7) Where the office of the Chairperson and the office of the Deputy Chairperson are vacant, the Governor in Council shall, as soon as possible after the vacancies and after consultation with the government of each province and such committee of the House of Commons established or designated by that House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs, designate a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from among the permanent members."

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-67, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20, on page 2, with the following:

"(2) The terms of the permanent members appointed under section 4 shall be determined by lot, with ten permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding three years, an additional ten permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding six years and the remaining nine permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding nine years.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) and subject to subsection (4), a permanent member may agree with another permanent member to exchange the terms they were given under subsection (2).

(4) No permanent member shall hold office, whether by reappointment or by an exchange, for more than twelve years."

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to stress that we are at the report 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.

Need I remind you that this bill's goal is to restructure the entire allowance system for veterans' disability pensions? It abolishes the Canadian Pension Commission. It transfers responsibility for first decisions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It sets up a board which will be responsible for hearing review requests and appeals at every stage of the process. Lastly, it integrates the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, formerly an independent organization, into the department.

During the debate at second reading, we told the government that we agree with the basic principle of reducing processing time, but that we question the methods proposed in this bill to reach that goal. After consideration in committee, we concluded that, excepting senior officials and the government, most veterans' associations and individuals seriously doubt that this restructuration will reach the desired ends.

In addition, veterans are really worried about two issues: the increased powers of the department and their vested rights. That is why we seized the clause by clause review and now seize the report stage in the House as opportunities to propose improvements to the bill. We have attempted to meet the goal of reducing processing time while addressing their concerns.

One of the fears that keeps on resurfacing concerns the increased power of the minister.

We see the federal government concentrating more and more powers in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This tendency is a threat to equity in the case of our veterans. For the sake of efficiency it may be necessary to concentrate certain powers, but the only way to prevent abuse or monumental errors under such conditions is to provide for broader consultation mechanisms.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois had in mind when it proposed its amendments. I believe it is necessary for the government to proceed with transparency. It must consult with the provinces. It must control its centralist tendencies and its inclination to make decisions alone, as the lord and master, with respect to everything that concerns the public interest.

Partisan appointments are a real threat. Too often, political considerations tend to outweigh qualifications when appointing people to what are often positions of consequence. Lack of efficiency or bias in some public services can often be traced to such considerations.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes to counter this tendency to concentrate power, and that is the purpose of our contributions to the debate on bills like Bill C-43 on lobbyists, Bill C-65 and this particular bill. The purpose of all four amendments is to ensure that appointments to the new board are conditional on consultation with the government of each province and with the designated committee of the House of Commons.

Our amendments concern three clauses: clause 4, appointment of board members; clause 6, appointment of temporary members; and clause 8, designation of the chairperson and deputy chairperson and acting designations.

Clause 4 provides for establishing the new veterans review and appeal board, consisting of not more than 29 permanent members. As it stands now, the clause provides that these permanent members are to be appointed by the governor in council-in other words, the Prime Minister-without further ado. Our amendment proposes that permanent members be appointed after consultation with the government of each province and after consultation with the committee of the House. We felt that two consultations prior to any appointment provided sufficient guarantees that the appointment process would be valid. The process also gives appointees greater legitimacy.

We must not forget that the board's permanent members together form the staff of a quasi legal organization and must therefore be beyond reproach.

The same applies to the temporary members provided for under clause 6 of the bill. These temporary members will be employed for a particular term and for a specific duty in order to meet certain one time needs. In the case of this board, any number of persons may be appointed for a term not exceeding two years, but may be reappointed for one additional term. These temporary board members may be appointed to help alleviate the board's workload, which may have become too great through too great a backlog, too many cases or too many contested decisions. The appointment of the temporary members, like that of the permanent members, must, in our opinion, be reviewed by each province and the standing committee before taking effect. Otherwise, excesses could occur if this appointment system is not properly supervised, and nothing in this government's actions would rule out such a possibility.

Our third and fourth amendments concern clause 8, which pertains to the extremely important positions of chairperson and deputy chairperson of the board. Clauses 8(2) and 8(3) of the bill clearly define the role of the tribunal chairperson and, accordingly, all that the position involves. I would draw them to your attention, and I quote: "The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Board and has supervision over and direction of the work of the Board including the allocation of work among its members, the conduct of its work, the management of its internal affairs and the duties of its staff. The Chairperson shall make such reports to the Minister as the Minister may require respecting the use of the resources allocated to the Board". It is, therefore a very important role.

Consequently, we would like both the chairperson and deputy chairperson, who is to occupy the chair if the chairperson is absent, to be appointed in consultation with the provinces and the House standing committee. Should both positions become vacant, we ask that there be a two cycle mechanism. First, the minister would immediately choose replacements among the board members. Then, the vacancies would be filled the same way as initially, namely in consultation with the provinces and the House standing committee. With these interim appointments made by the minister, the board would not be left rudderless during the consultation process.

This, in short, is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for, to make the appointment process more transparent. The federal government must learn to consult the provinces more often. Furthermore, appointments must no longer be made behind the scene, in the back rooms of power where the government admits only its friends, powerful lobbyists and the rich. Otherwise, even the best public administration system might fall prey to incompetence and arbitrary decisions.

We do not want this to happen to the veterans' pension assessment system. Twenty four years ago, the Minister of Veteran Affairs, the hon. Jean-Eudes Dubé, agreed in this House that it was essential that decisions concerning veterans be arrived at in the spirit of fairness and impartiality. I trust that the present government finds this equally important.

This is why I expect our colleagues opposite to support our amendments in favour of more transparent mechanisms.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a few words under group two to Motion No. 3. I hope that is appropriate at this time.

A number of witnesses presenting their reports on Bill C-67 to the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs complained about the length of time members could be appointed to the veterans review and appeal board. They felt that ten-year terms with eligibility for an additional ten years is excessive, and I agree.

Appointments with terms like this allow little opportunity for new blood to come into the system. They also allow the

government to stuff the board full of political appointees who will remain long after the government has gone.

Motion No. 3, which is our amendment to clause 5 of Bill C-67, will ensure that there is plenty of turnover, allowing a frequent infusion of new blood to the board. In addition, no government will be allowed to dominate the board long after it has been voted out of power. It calls for ten permanent members to be appointed for three years, ten more for six years, and the remaining nine for nine years. Permanent members will be eligible for reappointment, but no member will be able to sit on the board for more than twelve years. Provision exists for a permanent member to trade their term with another permanent member. Length of term is decided by lot.

I encourage all members to consider seriously this amendment. It would do much to defuse public criticism of political appointees.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by both my colleagues on Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 and on Motion No. 3.

I understand Motions 2 and 4 will be voted on as a group and then Motions 3, 5, and 6 will be voted on separately.

Let me speak about Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 submitted by the Bloc. As I understand it, the thrust of these amendments would add delays to the process of appointing members to the veterans review and appeal board. This is surely counter to the thrust of the bill. The proposal as it is made will take time and it will slow the process down.

I believe it runs counter to the attitude expressed by the Bloc in committee where it seemed committed to helping veterans. In short, these amendments do absolutely nothing for veterans.

Further, the motions call for reasonable representation and appointments to be made after consultation with provincial governments and approval of appointments by the standing committee of the House. On the federal side the government is a national government which represents the interests of all Canadians. That is why we have 295 members from all regions of Canada. It has ensured and will continue to ensure appointments to federal boards and agencies are qualified and are representative of Canada as a whole, taking into account such factors as region, gender and ethnicity and that appropriate and necessary consultations occur before such appointments are made.

To put the regional factor into legislation would restrict the government's flexibility in achieving a balance of all of these factors and in appointing the most qualified candidates. The federal government is the only body which can sit all of these matrixes and compare one region with another.

With respect to provincial consultation, to mandate by statute that the provinces must be consulted prior to appointments being made in virtually every federal body, as the Bloc Quebecois appears to propose, would be needlessly cumbersome, time consuming and costly. In addition, provincial statutes do not include a requirement to consult the federal government on all appointments made by the lieutenant governor in council. It would be as inappropriate to require the federal government to consult provincial governments on appointments to agencies created by federal legislation as it would be to require provincial governments to consult the federal government on appointments to agencies created by provincial legislation.

With respect to approval by the standing committee, to grant the standing committee the right to approve appointments would be to usurp the prerogative of the governor in council. It would represent a fundamental change in the executive powers of the crown, the House of Commons and the parliamentary system of government.

I remind hon. members from all sides of the House that Bill C-67 reflects the government's commitment to simply change the structure, to streamline the operation wherever possible and to ensure federal agencies continue to be relevant to Canada's needs and serve Canadians as effectively as possible.

The bill is not related to fundamental questions such as the checks and balances of the parliamentary system. Those are built in. I feel fully confident the bill as discussed and as presented with its amendments from the day we studied it clause by clause, I think on April 27, is quite satisfactory. This never really came up in discussion at any time to my memory.

I got quite a kick out of Motion No. 3 proposed by my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. He is afraid of this great fear the third party has of political patronage. I am not sure where it comes from but he nodded and tacitly agreed this was behind the proposal he made. I see a big smile on his face. I am sure he cannot be serious about this kind of an amendment. He is trying to create three classes of members, those appointed for three years, six years and nine years.

These are quasi-judicial organizations and the appointees, while they are not actually judges, are like judges. They make some very serious judgments. It would not be in the interest of the intent of the bill, it would not be prudent and it would not be wise to create a hierarchy among these members. The hon. member knows that. For the disability pension system to appear fair and transparent it must be clearly understood that all members of the new board are equal and they must be seen as equal by all parties in the House, no matter which party is in

government. I am sure the hon. member is not too worried about his party being in government for a long time. Perhaps it is a technical concern which that party has.

Historically veterans affairs, and anyone involved in veterans affairs can attest to this fact, have been treated in a non-partisan way by successive Canadian governments. I think the hon. member from the Bloc who put the amendment forward would agree with that.

Our concern remains first and foremost with the veterans and that will continue. I find it very difficult in my heart to support these amendments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 2?

Resuming debate. The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise after the member for Châteauguay to speak to 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.

What changes will be brought about by this bill in its present form? To put it in a nutshell, we can say that this legislation merges the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board and that, in future, applications for benefits will be examined by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. His decisions will be subject to review by or appeal to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates will become part of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

As my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, said earlier, the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an independent board consisting of not more than twenty-nine permanent members, to be appointed by the governor in council for a term not exceeding ten years, but eligible to reappointment. The chairperson and deputy chairperson are also designated by the governor in council.

This bill also amends the Pension Act. Part I, which defines the Canadian Pension Commission, and Part II, which defines the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, are replaced by a new part describing the minister's powers.

In a sense, the minister is inheriting all of the functions and powers held so far by the Canadian Pension Commission in terms of first applications and first decisions. The eligibility of applications for awards will thus depend directly on the minister.

Is there not a risk that decisions relating to veterans will lack a certain impartiality and independence?

When Bill C-67 was tabled for first reading on December 15, 1994, the secretary of state for veterans argued that a thorough change in structures was required in order to substantially reduce delays in the processing of applications for awards.

According to the secretary of state, this initiative is part of the review of all government agencies and commissions which was undertaken by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

We share the view of the hon. member for Châteauguay, who is in favour of the government's basic objective of reducing administrative delays and speeding up the decision-making process in files management.

However, we also share the concern of the hon. member for Châteauguay, who is questioning the means proposed by the government party to achieve this necessary objective of reducing delays in the processing of applications.

We, of the Bloc Quebecois, believe that to subject first decisions to ministerial authority would be a step backwards and a disturbing measure. We wonder why it is necessary to repatriate pensions advocates to the department when their independence was previously considered essential.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois is that veterans' applications should be speeded up within structures that are impartial, transparent and fair. None of the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Châteauguay challenges the principle whereby the decision process and the advocate system would remain independent from the minister's authority.

Like the Reform Party critic, we too deplore the lack of consultation with veterans' associations and the government's preference for outside consultants; in this case, it sought the advice of two management consulting firms. We recognize in this the Liberals' preference for lobbyists and the well to do, the owners of these management consulting firms.

The Royal Canadian Legion and the veterans of the Canadian navy and armed forces have both expressed serious reservations about Bill C-67, but the government prefers to listen to well paid management consultants. Party fundraising does have its price, it would appear.

Three citizens came before the standing committee to say how much Bill C-67 would harm veterans. I wonder if their remarks reached the minister, who will have most of the discretionary power in the future.

We agree with the principle of reducing processing time, but we have serious reservations about the means put forward to reach this goal. Other more concrete measures might improve the processing time without requiring a revamping of the administrative structure. We are concerned about increased authority for the minister and the decrease in services to veterans.

The Chrétien government is once again showing its lack of openness, its disregard for provincial governments and its centralizing tendencies. Once again, the Prime Minister is using public funds to treat his friends better, instead of serving the

interests of Canadians. The 29 vacancies of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, high-paying full time jobs for a renewable term of ten years, will be filled by friends of the Liberals.

To prevent this new Liberal scheme, we strongly support the four motions put forward by the member for Châteauguay, which are aimed at increasing transparency within the federal government. These four motions ask for the appointments required for the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board, under clauses 4 to 34 of the bill, to be made only after consultations with the provinces and the appropriate committee of the House. This would ensure a better distribution of power by not leaving too much power in the hands of the minister himself.

These motions concern the appointment of permanent members and of temporary members, the designation of a chairperson and of a deputy chairperson as well as the designation of an acting chairperson and of an acting deputy chairperson. I strongly support these four motions put forward today by the member for Châteauguay.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

As you know, Madam Speaker, yesterday, almost everywhere in Canada, we were commemorating the end of the Second World War. In my riding of Shefford and in Grandby I had the honour to meet with some of the veterans and whether it was Mr. Benoit, Mr. Lemay, Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Saint-Onge and many others, during the Second World War, they were young and served in the military. Some of them gave five years of their lives to their country.

Today, I am going to give you my point of view on Bill C-67, an Act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act.

The immediate result of the restructuring will be the merging of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board. I am particularly concerned with this aspect of the bill which appears quite contentious to me.

Once the bill is passed, applications will be reviewed directly by the minister and his close collaborators, commissioners and officials. The decisions so taken will nevertheless be open for review and appeal in front of the veterans Board.

Consideration of the bill tends to indicate that there might be a loss of acquired rights for veterans, without proof that the recognized problems which led to this reform will be dealt with by this bill.

We can rightly believe that the fundamental argument of the government to justify the proposed changes is to speed up the timeframe for pensions to be awarded. These changes to the decision process are deemed to go directly to the root of the perceived problems.

It is with that in mind that the Secretary of State for Veterans tabled Bill C-67 on December 15. He also tabled an explanatory note which alluded clearly to the overly long delays and the slow processing of applications, and which also criticized the present pension awarding system.

Indeed, according to an analysis done by the government, the main reason for this slow process is the fact that the structures and agencies awarding the pensions are widely scattered.

The Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the Canadian Pension Commission are being blamed. In order to resolve the problem of the delays incurred in awarding pensions, the government proposes to abolish the Canadian Pension Commission, transfer its responsibilities to the minister and his officials, transfer its resources to a new appeal board, and integrate the Bureau of Pensions Advocates into the Department of Veterans Affairs. All this would come under the department's control.

The bureau will no longer serve veterans, except when an appeal is filed. According to the deputy minister, these measures should reduce the average delay following the first pension application from 18 to 9 months. As you know, those currently applying are often 70 or 75 years old. It is therefore necessary to reduce delays, and we agree with that.

Most of the groups concerned agree that current delays are too long and should be reduced. However, as pointed out in the Marshall report, the figures now available in this regard are in dispute.

The red tape involved in processing applications was noted for the first time in the 1986 report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 13, Section 13.98 and the following sections. So this problem is nothing new. It was known even in 1986.

As you can see, this delay problem did not surface yesterday. Beyond the award system as such, moving the headquarters from Ottawa to Charlottetown in 1983-84 was clearly identified as a major reason for longer processing delays.

This observation does not take anything away from Charlottetown employees, who, in my opinion, do their best to meet demand; rather, it is aimed at the system in which they operate. For example, why are fully qualified district physicians required to submit case assessments to the approval of head office physicians who are no more qualified than they are?

The central authorities' compulsive need to control everything is in a way the main obstacle leading to excessive delays in the award process. So, what undermines the present system is not the various authorities with different mandates but rather the duplication of certain phases of verification, validation and

consistency between authorities. Would it not be better to decentralize the entire decision-making process to improve access to services?

In spite of everything, the federal government is considering shortening the waiting period for pensions by eliminating the Canadian Pension Commission, transferring all of its responsibilities to the department, assigning its personnel to a new board and making the Bureau of Pensions Advocates a part of the department.

I wonder about the appropriateness of these measures which, as far as I can see, come with no guarantee of producing savings within the given time frame, while the right to be represented in the first instance is certainly being removed. The Canadian Pension Commission is an independent decision making agency. Delays directly related to this activity generally do not exceed 20 days.

Abolishing the Canadian Pension Commission is not, in my opinion, a valid way of reducing delays significantly. I cannot understand, under the circumstances, how the department can come to the conclusion that this measure will reduce the current waiting period by four months.

As for the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, it loses its status as an independent agency, becoming a part of the department. Moreover, it will no longer provide assistance to veterans filing their first application.

The issue of conflict of interest and independence concerning this Bureau was examined extensively in the late 1960s and this actually led to the Bureau being detached from the department in 1971.

Incidentally, providing this kind of assistance from the beginning ensures that applicants have support every step of the way. At present, nearly half of all first applications are approved without any further need for review. How will the approval rate be affected if there is no more legal support for applications and no independent and impartial commission?

I seriously doubt that the proposals contained in this bill will bring about any reduction in the processing time. The government's solution, in my opinion, overlooks such basic objectives as the independence of a body, as well as the decentralization of power and decision-making. The legislation should have focused more on regrouping the eligibility and evaluation steps, to speed up the process leading to a pension being awarded. As well, entirely favourable decisions should only need to go through one stage.

Most applicants are older people who need an answer quickly. As I said before, I met some extraordinary people in my riding, people who have a sense of honour, people who gave three, four or five years of their lives. Some were imprisoned; some were injured. These people need an answer quickly. This is not a question of bureaucratic reorganization, exclusion of services, or reduced assistance. The purpose is to ensure the efficiency of a process which is based on favourable consideration of veterans.

We must not merely say once every 50 years that we love our veterans. We must table legislation designed to help them. These people need our support, and we must do everything we can to provide them with quality service. In my opinion, subjecting initial decisions to ministerial authority is a step backward. It is worrisome to say the least. There will be much more control.

I truly hope that veterans will enjoy speedier processing of their applications, through measures which are based on fairness, transparency and equity.

Madam Speaker, you can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois takes its role seriously, and that it will closely monitor the government's reform. Our only concern is to ensure that veterans are satisfied with the services provided to them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[An hon. member]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 2, which will also apply to Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.