Madam Speaker, Motion No. 11 put forward by my colleague is aimed at amending clause 73 of the bill, which amends a number of sections in the Pension Act. The section in this act specifically targeted by the hon. member's proposed amendment is section 82 of the Pension Act.
This section deals with the minister's power to review certain decisions made in the pension award process. This power applies first of all to his own decisions relating to initial applications not under the responsibility of the new board. This reviewing power may extend to all initial decisions made by the Canadian Pension Commission until its dissolution.
Section 82 of the Pension Act also provides that the minister's review may lead to the confirmation, reversal or amendment of the decision being reviewed. However, such changes can be made only if the minister determines that there was an error with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law.
The minister may review these decisions of his own initiative, but he may also do so on application if new evidence is presented to him. It is this last part of section 82 that the Reform motion would amend. This proposed amendment provides clarification in several respects.
First of all, the amendment specifies that the decision review application submitted to the minister must come from the original applicant behind the decision. An application by a third party to review a decision under the minister's authority may not be admissible.
The amendment goes on to say that the original applicant may also, in support of his application to the minister, submit arguments to the effect that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law. It is the same power as that given to the minister to review a decision. Therefore, we think that the original applicant behind the decision should be allowed to submit to the minister any arguments that the minister could use to review a decision of his own initiative.
Finally, with this amendment, it will still be possible to submit, in addition to arguments on points of fact and points of law, new evidence in support of an application for review by the minister. Indeed, under section 82 of the Pension Act, an applicant in receipt of a decision may ask the minister to reconsider his decision by putting forward new developments pertaining to his initial application. As I understand it, the possible reconsideration of a decision made under the authority of the minister is intended as another avenue for applicants who are not satisfied with the decision made in their case.
This means that there are several recourses available to veterans applying for disability pension. Before even going to the new veterans board, applicants could file an application for review or appeal directly with the minister. This can be done provided new evidence can be introduced. It can also be done under the Reform Party amendment proposal if the applicant alleges that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law on which the decision was made.
We support Motion No. 11, as it seems to make a great deal of sense. It gives veterans more rights, while at the same time clarifying an ambiguity no doubt created by noted legal scholars and drafting officers. This way, the reviewing powers of the minister are made clearer. Therefore, we support Motion No. 11.