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.