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.