Debates of May 8th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 92 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House the eighth and ninth reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

In its eighth report, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews Chapter 29, "Collecting Income Tax Debts"; Chapter 30, "Goods and Services Tax: Audit and Special Investigations"; and Chapter 31, "Ensuring Fairness of the Income Tax System: Detection of Non-Filers and Special Investigations", from the 1994 report of the auditor general.

In its eighth report the committee makes a series of recommendations concerning these chapters.

In its ninth report the committee reviews two other chapters from the 1994 report of the auditor general of Canada, which concern the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada, namely Chapter 32, "Income Tax Incentives for Research and Development", and Chapter 33, "Tax Assistance for Retirement Savings". Following the review of the last three chapters, the committee formulates another series of recommendations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the government to table a comprehensive response to these reports.

[English]

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to present.

The petitioners believe that since tobacco products are clearly linked to several diseases such as many forms of cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis among others, and according to certain studies tobacco products can contain over 4,000 chemicals with as many as 43 causing cancer in humans causing some 38,000 deaths annually in Canada, the petitioners call on Parliament to remove the exemption for tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.

The petitioners also believe in increasing the prices of tobacco rather than bringing in other enforcement provisions.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table today a petition signed by 190 people from the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

The petitioners bring to Parliament's attention the importance of mining to numerous communities across Canada. Through employment and exports of mineral products mining has a significant impact on Canada's gross domestic product.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to increase employment in the mining sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to deal with the House of Commons unanimous motion of September 27, 1991 and to settle, acknowledge and redress the issues to the mutual satisfaction of all Ukrainian Canadians throughout Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. I wish to present a petition signed by a number of petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that do decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Members Of Parliament Transition Allowance Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to replace the allowance provided by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act with an allowance funded by members' contributions to assist their transition back to private life.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today my private member's bill on members of Parliament pensions.

This bill is based on input from my constituents and represents what the average Canadian feels an MPs pension plan should look like. Unlike the current government bill on this issue, my bill would do away with the cash for life plan in favour of a privately controlled RRSP style fund with no contributions from the taxpayer. My bill would allow MPs to plan ahead for the future or provide them with funds for transition back into private life.

This proposal is fair to all MPs as they will all be treated equally. There is none of this trough regular and trough light

which we hear from the other side that will result from the current government's amendments. More important, Madam Speaker, if you can hear me through the din, it is fairer to the taxpayers as they are no longer forced to foot the bill.

I present this bill on behalf of the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan and thank them for their help in its development. I hope all MPs will take the time to carefully review the bill and if nothing else, come to the realization that what Canadians want is real reform of the gold plated pension.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported with amendments from the committee.

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There are 12 amendments on the Notice Paper at 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.

Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 12.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate, but will be voted on separately in the following manner:

(a) The vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motion No. 4.

(b) Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 7 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 10 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 11 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motions. No. 1, 8, 9 and 12 to the House.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You might find consent to consider that the motions in group one which you have just indicated, assuming the members are here, can all be treated as having been put to the House without your having to read them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-67, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 1, with the following:

"vocates continued by section 7 of the Pensions Act;".

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-67, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 12, with following:

"46. (1) The definitions "Chief" ".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-67, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 14, the following:

"7. (1) There is hereby continued under the Minister a bureau to be known as the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, consisting of a Chief Pensions Advocate appointed by the Governor in Council and such other pensions advocates, officers and employees as may be required for the performance of the duties of the Bureau.

(2) The Chief Pensions Advocate and each pensions advocate shall be appointed from among persons who are members of the bar of any province.

(3) The Chief Pensions Advocate is the chief executive officer of the Bureau and has supervision over and direction of the work of the pensions advocates and other staff of the Bureau.

1. The Bureau is not part of the Department but it shall make such reports to the Minister as the Minister may direct.

2. (1) It is the duty of the Bureau, on request, a ) to provide a counselling service to applicants and pensioners with respect to the application of this Act to them; b ) to assist applicants and pensioners in the preparation of applications for review or of appeals under the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act ; and c ) to arrange for applicants and pensioners to be represented by a pensions advocate at hearings on review or appeals under the

Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

(2) The relationship between the Bureau and a person requesting its assistance is that of solicitor and client, and the Bureau shall not be required in any proceedings before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to disclose any information or material in its possession relating to any such person."

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-67 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Madam Speaker, the current situation with respect to veterans and their families is nothing short of appalling. Tens of thousands of men and women have risked their lives for this nation yet in their latter years, when they turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability pensions, they run up against a bureaucratic nightmare. Before many make it through this quagmire they have passed on without being fairly compensated.

Veterans must wonder why the country they served so valiantly serves them now with such contempt. I find it passing strange that on a day when we are acknowledging the contribution of our veterans to this country, we are having to be critical about Bill C-67.

I want all my colleagues in the House to consider the following figures. The average turnaround time for veterans who apply for benefits is 18 to 20 months at first level. Due to the fact that the benefit of doubt clause has not been appropriately applied, only 30 per cent of cases are accepted. That is almost two years for veterans who currently average 73 years of age to find out their expected disability pension has been turned down. On the advice of their independent advocate, many appeal their cases, but this can take up to three years. Of those that appeal, 70 per cent end up receiving benefits; many may only receive a portion of the expected entitlement.

The situation is unacceptable. We are making thousands of veterans in their advanced years wait almost five years to receive a disability pension. Currently there is a backlog of 12,500 cases and 10,000 more veterans are expected to apply for benefits this year.

After being chastised by the subcommittee on veterans affairs, the government promised to act on behalf of veterans to correct this shameful situation. Bill C-67 is the government's answer.

One of my prime concerns with Bill C-67, and the thrust of Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12, is that it removes the right of veterans to have their first level application prepared by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which has been a very important body to veterans as some of our members across the way may well know.

Under the current system, each veteran's application is prepared by a trained independent lawyer. In addition, each veteran enjoys solicitor-client privilege. The government claims the use of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates by veterans at first level is too time consuming and is largely responsible for the current 18 to 20 month turnaround. However, page 50 of the report by the subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled "Keeping Faith: Into the Future" clearly states that application preparation by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates consumes at maximum five months of the 18 to 20 month waiting period and in most cases consumes only two months.

If the Bureau of Pensions Advocates overprepares its cases, why are 70 per cent turned down at first level? There is no logic in that. The removal of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level process is ominous for a number of reasons.

The veteran now relies on the department to prepare and adjudicate his or her first level decision. This is not only a conflict of interest but it also removes from the veteran the right of solicitor-client privilege. The importance of solicitor-client privilege cannot be understated.

In the subcommittee on veterans affairs report, "Keeping Faith: Into the future", Mrs. Frances L. Crummer, a witness who had been battling with the department for six years most eloquently states the need for solicitor-client privilege.

She states: "An important consideration which must not be forgotten is the average age and education level of the clients serviced by the bureau and the fact that most of them know little or nothing about how the system operates. Their link with the system is their advocate, the person in whom they place their trust". I can endorse this lady's reasoning from firsthand experience.

She goes on to say: "The solicitor-client privilege enshrined in the statute is one of the inherent strengths of the bureau and the Pension Act. It forms the basis for trust that the clients place in their advocate".

She goes on to say: "Changes could place clients in jeopardy and destroy their trust, not only in their advocate but ultimately in the system itself. No changes should even be contemplated to section 19 of the act which establishes the independence of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I feel it must remain independent of the department in order to properly service veterans and dependants".

What veterans face at first level could be an indifferent or incompetent pension officer who lacks the will or knowledge to inform veterans to pursue benefits to which they are entitled. I am also concerned that veterans may not be informed if they are able to apply for an appeal of the department's decision.

Even if the pension officers have the best intentions, I am not confident that the applications they fill out will be as good as that of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. The end result could be a fast rate of first level rejections.

I foresee another difficulty with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates' being removed from the first level. Under Bill C-67 the size of the bureaucracy will be increased. The minister will be getting more power to influence the department's internal affairs. Under these proposals, the minister may have undue influence over the whole decision making process and the quality of service or rate of acceptance.

Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving direction which could deter them from encouraging veterans to pursue benefits and services to which they are entitled. They will also be under pressure to take part in fiscal restraint. Even an offhand remark by the minister could affect the way his staff deals with veterans.

With the current rejection rate of 70 per cent and an 18 to 20 month waiting period, I have no confidence that the removal of Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level will speed up the process and improve the acceptance ratio. Advocacy will suffer from a lack of continuity.

Currently an advocate from the bureau will deal with a veteran from first level to review and appeal stages ensuring that the advocate is familiar with the merits of their client's case throughout. Under the proposed system, the pension officer after first level will have no mandate to be involved in the case. Yet the Bureau of Pensions Advocates' lawyer would be unfamiliar with the case that has been passed on to him and would be unable to properly advise the veteran on the merits of his appeal.

A second aspect of this piece of legislation which concerns me is the proposal to join the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to the department. Again I am concerned about the chances of conflicts of interest arising and the lack of solicitor-client privilege. With the BPA restricted to hearing appeals and as part of the department, I fear that the Bureau of Pension Advocates may no longer provide the objective, expert, independent advice it currently offers, and it is good at it.

As departmental employees, they may become party to any cost cutting or ratios alluded to by the minister because they will now be answerable to superiors within the department. I fail to see how this will serve the best interests of the veteran.

I encourage all members of the House to support these important amendments on behalf of all veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to be involved in the report stage reading of Bill C-67, a bill that promises to bring many benefits to Canada's veterans.

It is appropriate that we are discussing Bill C-67 today because of V-E Day and the tributes that have been paid by all members of the House to our proud veterans who are heroes to us all.

A year ago a commitment was made to veterans that we would cut in half the turnaround time it takes to receive a disability pension. I was at that committee meeting and we ensured that it was followed up in a relatively short time by standards in the House.

We have been moving step by step toward that objective. Veterans Affairs Canada has already introduced numerous measures to improve the administration of the pension system.

With the legislation we have before us for discussion today, we will now take one giant step toward our objective. Bill C-67 puts in place the legislative measures needed to make the pension system more efficient.

The legislation gives Veterans Affairs Canada the authority to make first level decisions. It focuses the efforts of the lawyers and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates on preparing appeals for veterans. It merges the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board into one appeal body with two levels of appeal.

We have worked to keep all veterans' benefits intact. This bill will not take away any of the benefits. I want to stress that. Veterans still have the right to a two-step appeal process. They can still count on the help and expertise of trained lawyers if their application goes to appeal. By making the appeal system more efficient, we will cut down on the time that it takes for veterans to get their pensions. That is what it is all about.

I thank the Standing Committee of National Defence and Veterans Affairs for its excellent work on the bill. As parliamentary secretary I sat in on all the briefings from all witnesses and all the discussions both in the steering and in the main committee.

I thank the hon. member for Labrador who chaired the committee and other colleagues who from time to time acted as chairman. The committee heard from many veterans, their spouses, former commissioners of the Canadian Pension Commission, former members of the veterans appeals organizations. We heard all their testimony.

Many points of view were brought to the committee table. Members of the committee discussed a wide range of issues that arise from the legislation. Like my hon. colleague across the

floor, I want to reiterate the respect that our committee has for Canadian veterans. I thank the witnesses and committee colleagues for their hard work.

We are very much aware of the debt of gratitude that Canada owes its veterans. Particularly over the last year, indeed, the last two years it has become very obvious that Canadians from all walks of life and from all across the country are taking time to reflect on just what our veterans have done to provide the freedom that we sometimes take for granted.

I will speak more generally to the motions and to the bill itself. I would like to stress something I said earlier. The whole purpose of Bill C-67 is really not to touch benefits. The principle of benefits is not involved. The principle of Bill C-67 is to reduce the time it takes for veterans to go through the process of application and the two levels of appeal. Indeed that is necessary.

I am disappointed that this was not done before. It is happening today. With the average age of veterans at 75 and particularly as some veterans are just now experiencing the effects of certain illnesses and discrepancies that may have occurred as long as 50 years ago, it is very difficult and time consuming to track down and document the information. It is even more important because of the average age and the difficulty as time goes on in going back through records to hone and to refine the process so that it reduces the time.

A matter of principle underlies all my specific comments on the motions as we go forward today. I will not be in favour of any amendment that increases the time it takes to provide veterans with the pensions that they rightfully deserve.

It is not a question of partisan politics. It is a question of the logic behind the motion. Does it increase the time? If it decreases the time I would be fully in favour of it. If the end result of the motion is to increase the time, then it is counter to the bill and I will not be able to support it.

I note also that all the motions put forward today are by members or stand-in members of the standing committee who had ample opportunity to raise these issues in the months that we had the bill under consideration. In may cases they come out of the blue and do not do anything for veterans. They certainly do not relate to any discussions we ever had in committee. I am not really sure of the impetus behind the motions. I cannot hold myself responsible for knowing what motivates the other side of the House.

In group one we are looking at Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12. Their intent, if I understood my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan properly, is to keep the Bureau of Pension Advocates separate so that it will be available at the first level of application.

That runs counter to the central principle of the bill, a principle agreed to at second reading and accepted by the standing committee. The refocusing of the mandate of the Bureau of Pension Advocates away from dealing with the first level of pension claims to allow it to be active in the conduct of appeals was never once discussed in any detail in committee.

It was discussed in committee in a general sense. I do not remember any strong proposals being made by members of the committee following the various witnesses who appeared before us. We reached the consensus that was reported in the bill. I do not see any reason for changes. Quite the contrary, I believe the motion proposed would further impede the progress and would cause more time for the first application to be considered.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, consideration 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, is now at report stage before the House.

As you know, this bill seeks to restructure the process for the allocation of disability pensions to veterans. The bill also repeals the Canadian Pension Commission and transfers the responsibility of all initial decisions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It also establishes a board to review decisions and to hear appeals. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which was formerly an independent body, will now be integrated into the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bureau will deal with applications made to the new board.

This bill proposes many changes. The evaluation process regarding veterans' pensions has been the subject of numerous debates over the years, ever since the issue of providing a pension for any type of disability suffered by a member of the armed forces in the line of duty was first considered.

Issues such as compensation, eligibility to a pension, assessment of that pension, as well as the review and appeal process and the support offered to veterans were all discussed, not to mention time frames, arrears and certain discretionary actions taken by the department.

The pension system currently in effect is the result of all these debates and of all the legislative measures which followed. For example, we can think of the Woods committee, in the sixties, which led to the 1971 reform of the Pension Act. History tells us that laws follow changes: they do not trigger them.

It is precisely because of change that we are trying to make the processing of applications more flexible. Our top priority is to speed up the process so that veterans who are getting older

collect more quickly the pension to which they are entitled. We should remove any barrier that stands in the way.

This stage begins with the examination of four amendments moved by Reform members. If I am not mistaken, those four motions in the first group deal with two main points. The first is that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates should remain independent from the department. The second one is that the services of that Bureau should be available for first time applications.

Reform amendments would keep the Bureau of Pensions Advocates under the Pension Act. They want to maintain the independence of the Bureau and full access for applicants. However, it has not been demonstrated in committee that this would bring substantial benefits. In many cases, it would be a waste of time.

With the witnesses who appeared in committee, we discussed access to and independence of the Bureau. As a matter of fact, no study made in the last few years questioned the existence of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Neither the assessment of pensions in 1992 nor the Marshall report tabled last Fall questioned that. The consensus was that the Bureau should remain at arm's-length with the minister.

We should not forget the main thrust of this bill, which is to speed up the processing of applications. We know full well that, even when the services of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates were used at the very beginning, only 30 per cent of the claims made to the Canadian Pension Commission were approved. When the rejected claims were sent to the next levels of decision, the approval rate jumped to 70 per cent. Only 30 per cent of the Commission's decisions were maintained, despite the legal services provided by the Bureau.

But what is even more surprising is that Mr. Chartier, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, was unable to answer our questions about the 30 per cent success rate of his organization compared to the 70 per cent success rate of the Board, which overrode 70 per cent of the first decisions made by his Commission. Mr. Chartier stated that he could not explain this difference and that he never thought about examining the issue. He told us he was very concerned about hanging on to work through careful scheduling of the files review.

I must say that what I found the most convincing during the chairman's testimony was his nonchalance in terms of the delays our veterans must face. We just have to support the department's bill even though an arbitrary decision can be made at the first level. The proposed merger is not such a bad idea after all.

The bill provides for the pensions advocates to deal with all the claims made to the new board which will be responsible for the reviews and the appeals. Hence, the free legal aid service will be maintained where needed. We hope that an increasing number of claims will be approved at the first level. This is the main object of this bill, to open up the pension allocation system and to make it a lot more flexible.

We think that a forms clerk or expert would be much more useful to help a claimant to complete the forms and make their way through the system. The goal here is to speed up the process while providing assistance at the review and appeal level to those who need legal advice or help in their approach. This is why we will oppose the amendments put forward by the Reform Party.

We will reject the Reform's motions to "judicialize" even more the process at the first decision level. We must trust the proposed change given the performance of the Canadian Pension Commission so far.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

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.