Debates of May 8th, 1995

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

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

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-67, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 23, on page 6, with the following:

"28. An appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or may appear before it, in person or by representative and at their own expense, to present documentary evidence and written or oral arguments, but the appeal panel shall not accept oral testimony."

Madam Speaker, our intervention on this is very short, sweet and simple. It concerns only clause 28. We do not mean to change the intent or meaning of clause 28. Very simply, we ask that the wording be clarified to ensure that appellants will clearly understand their rights. As it is worded now, it is vague as to rights. The intent of our motion is to clear up the language to ensure that appellants clearly understand their rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan.

Motion No. 7 confuses what was a confusing situation which was clarified in the amendment. It is difficult if one was not a committee member to wrap one's mind around this, but essentially the clause instructs the applicant in what can be done at a certain process in the bill.

In the amendment we clarified with respect to documentation presented at the hearing that the documentation could be both written and oral, documentation as differing from evidence. Nobody meant to change, as the hon. member said, the intent of the clause. The intent was that oral and written documentation could be presented. Therefore when the veteran came to present his case the documentation could be taken in front of the board having been considered by the board and then the veteran could speak giving oral documentation. Oral evidence could not be presented and only documented evidence could be submitted.

In committee we essentially did what is being achieved by the proposal being made by the Reform Party. It wants to insert the term oral. In fact that was taken out of the first clause on amendment because it was considered to be confusing.

This does not appear in the bill because we felt it was not necessary to reprint the bill and we would save the government the expense of doing it since there were so few amendments. However, to clarify the clause we divided clause 28 into two subclauses to say that subject to subparagraph (2) the applicant could make oral and written documentation but at his own expense et cetera, and could present oral argument.

To make sure that the understanding is there in subclause (2) it is stated that only documented evidence, as opposed to oral evidence, can be submitted under subclause (1). Therefore, I do not believe the wording does anything to improve on the amendment being made.

This would be amplified in regulations and would be crystal clear to the applicant. Therefore, I do not think there is any need for an amendment to clarify the subclause.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 7, introduced by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, echoes debates which took place in committee. At our very first meeting to study Bill C-67, on February 16, our colleague pointed out that clause 28 is ambiguous. This clause stipulates the manner in which a request to appear before an appeal panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board must be made. It stipulates that an appellant may present evidence and arguments to support a case, but at the same time, as it now stands, the board cannot hear oral testimony.

Therefore, our colleague asked Brian Chambers, a legal advisor for the Department of Justice, a few questions. He tried to explain to us the nuance between "oral arguments" and "evidence presented under the form of testimony". Unfortunately, his explanation was not compelling in the least, and we still had doubts and found the clause ambiguous. We therefore reached the consensus that we would have to modify clause 28, in order to clarify what was meant by the word "evidence" and by the word "arguments".

This is what the amendment proposed by the Reform member does. The amendment essentially aims to specify that, when an appellant submits evidence, what is meant is documentary evidence. By the same token, when the clause mentions arguments presented by an appellant before the appeal panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, we can only understand that to mean oral and written arguments. This would clarify that a veteran or that person's representative cannot present oral testimony which contains evidence. All oral presentations must be limited to arguments, that is, the reasoning on which the appeal request before the tribunal is based. No new facts can be submitted in this manner at this stage. If an appellant or a representative wishes to submit new facts as evidence, they must do so in writing, in the form of a document.

The official opposition agrees with this point and consequently supports the proposed amendment and Motion No. 7 concerning clause 28 of Bill C-67.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 7. 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.

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

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-67, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 14, with following:

"48. Section 24 of the Act is replaced by the following:

"24. (1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and no pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that imprisonment, except that the Minister has discretion to direct the payment of the pension or part of it to any person who was being or was entitled to be supported by the pensioner at the time of the arrest of the pensioner or, if in the opinion of the Minister it would be of exceptional benefit or advantage to the pensioner, the Minister may in the Minister's discretion direct the payment of the pension or a part thereof to or for the pensioner.

(2) On the pensioner's release from imprisonment, payment of his pension shall be reconsidered as from the date of release and in accordance with the extent of the disability of the pensioner then shown to exist or, in the case of a pensioner pensioned on account of the death of a member of the forces, in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule II or determined pursuant to sub-section 34(7) or 45(3), whichever rates are applicable.""

Madam Speaker, while researching this bill it came to our attention that section 24 of the Pension Act was being repealed with this bill. Section 24 of the Pension Act states:

24.(1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and no pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that imprisonment,

Given the cost of incarceration to the public purse, it is only fitting that the government not pay a government funded pension to a prisoner.

Section 24 of the Pension Act must not be removed. This section of the Pension Act is also very reasonable. Consideration is taken of the dependants of the pensioner who rely on the pensioner's disability pension income. It also gives the minister discretion to allow the pensioner to continue to collect the pension if special circumstances exist.

Therefore I call on all members to support Motion No. 10.

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

Madam Speaker, our response to this motion is a fairly simple one and I will not waste many words.

A disability pension is a right that should not be taken away. The pension is awarded for injuries sustained serving Canada. It would be wrong to deny this right after it has been justifiably earned.

I may say parenthetically the discretion is already there to do that but in the memory of anyone I have spoken to in the department no one can ever remember it being used. I wonder if there is really a necessity for it. Whether there is a necessity or not, we do not support the motion for the reasons I have given.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, proposes to amend clause 48 of the bill. This amendment would have the effect of maintaining section 24 of the Pension Act, a section that the bill would repeal. So what does this section say?

The new section 24 is amended to reflect that the Canadian Pension Commission no longer exists and that all its powers will revert to the minister.

This section concerns what happens when a veteran, for whatever reason, is sent to prison. In such cases, section 24 provides that the pensioner may be subject to certain sanctions including the suspension of his pension and transfer of the pension or a part thereof to dependants. Also, upon his release, his pension will be subject to reassessment.

We must understand the principles and moral issues that are involved when we give this kind of authority to the minister. On the week-end, I heard a broadcast on veterans of the Vietnam war: how it had affected them; how they coped with their memories of the war; how they had been rejected by their fellow citizens who were too anxious to forget about this shameful period in the history of the United States; how the deep psychological wounds and the terrible burden they carried as participants in this war made it extremely difficult for them to readjust to a society that would prefer to forget all about them.

Many of these Vietnam veterans are now leading a life of crime. We cannot dismiss the thought that there may be a connection between crimes committed and their wartime service. Of course, there is no excuse for crime as such, but we cannot be blind to the fact that behaviour is influenced by past experience.

Furthermore, being punished for a crime is one thing but entitlement to a pension is something else. To link the two would be to make a moral judgment that a modern society cannot afford to make. If a crime is committed, the Criminal Code contains all the provisions to punish the crime, and the courts are there to determine sentencing. That is one thing. If a veteran applies for a pension as compensation for a disability arising from his military service, the pension review system is there to determine his eligibility and evaluate the level of compensation to which he is entitled. That is another thing.

Let me give you an example. I used to work for a large Quebec company. I worked for 35 years, which entitles me to a pension. So, if, tomorrow morning I were to commit an offence, for whatever reason, and was sent to jail, would the judge be entitled to suspend my pension? No, of course not. I am entitled to what I am entitled to. The loss of my freedom is the cost I must pay for my offence. It is intolerable to think that the Reform Party wants to keep a veteran's pension from him as punishment.

This is the absurdity at issue. A retired person is still retired, even in prison. Similarly, a pensioner who is entitled to a disability pension as a veteran is still a pensioner, even in prison. A just society would not make payment for services rendered conditional on good behaviour.

It is as if we did not believe in our penal and our legal systems. As if we felt they did not do the job well enough and we had to compound the punishment with other penalties.

This is all in bad taste. It is the old right. I was hoping we had seen the last of a right that mixes up everything in the social contract everyone has a share in. Veterans deserve to be compensated for risking their life and for being wounded. We made this commitment long ago. It is a right, and, in my opinion, nothing and no one can take it away from them, because no one in this House can give them back their health or a limb they lost. This is why veterans have a pension. It is a disability pension.

We must not get it all mixed up and think that, because someone commits a crime, we have to take away not only his freedom but his right to a pension.

You can see why we cannot support anything so backward as Motion No. 10. We understand why the government used Bill C-67 to remove this archaic provision, which has no place in civilized society.

I hope veterans are reassured. As far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, we will not mix their rights with any other conditions whatsoever. We therefore oppose Motion No. 10.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 10. 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.