Ian McClelland

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak in the debate today on Bill C-67.

For the benefit of those viewing this at home, Bill C-67 has to do with the review procedure for pensions of people who represented and fought for our country in the last world war. It is apropos that we should be speaking about this having just gone through the victory in Europe celebrations and remembrances last week.

As we discuss the bill concerning pension reform we should keep in mind that the average age of those involved is 74 years. That means that the motivation for the government to proceed with this bill now is to try to speed up the process.

When we want to find out how things affect veterans in our country it makes sense to go to the Royal Canadian Legion. As everyone knows, the Royal Canadian Legion by and large speaks for veterans. To some degree it is supportive of the bill. Its concern has to do with four basic facts. It wants to see that these four basic principles in the adjudication of pension disputes are met.

First, it wants to preserve the benefits and services provided to veterans. That goes without saying. It does not want to see this reduced in any way.

Second, there is a need to protect the benefit of the doubt provision. If the bureau of pensions is to err on one side or the other then it would err for the benefit of the applicant.

The third principle is to ensure an independence of advocacy and adjudication. Members should keep that in mind.

The fourth principle is to achieve the necessary speed and generosity to ensure that pensions and other benefits are received by the veterans when they are entitled to them.

The Royal Canadian Legion believes these four basic principles should be upheld by the bureau of pensions. Further it has two basic problems with the bill. They are the levels of expertise to be afforded the applicant at the first application level under the new system and the need to maintain continuity of process between the first application and any subsequent review or appeal.

Members may know, but many people watching may not be aware, that when a veteran appeals for a pension it is a two-step process. If the pension is applied for and granted, that is the end of it. However only 30 per cent of veterans who apply receive a pension after the first round. Therefore, most of them go to appeal.

When veterans are talking about the continuity of process, they are saying it makes sense for their advocates at the first level to also be their advocates at the second level at appeal.

It is interesting that of the 70 per cent who are rejected at first application and go on to appeal, fully 80 per cent of applications appealed are granted. That would be the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the vast majority who apply for a veterans pension get it. Keep in mind that they are 74 years of age.

If we follow the logic of the whole process as I have described it, a veteran, whose average age is 74, requests a pension. Thirty per cent receive it and 70 per cent do not. Of those who do not receive it and appeal, 80 per cent end up winning their appeal. A lot of those would be based on the benefit of the doubt provision which is one of the four principles the Royal Canadian Legion particularly would like to have.

Another principle the Royal Canadian Legion has identified is the importance of an independent adjudicator. That is the Achilles' heel of the legislation.

The government has stated a number of times that the goal of the legislation is to speed up the time it takes a veteran to get a

disability pension without the veteran losing any of the rights the veteran currently possesses. That is a very laudable objective. However, we have identified a serious deficiency in the bill.

The disagreement centres on whether the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of veterans at the first level or whether it should be made part of the department reserved for appeal level only. If 30 per cent of the applicants get their pension and on appeal 80 per cent win, why are we not making the gates a little wider at the beginning?

A number of arguments were made in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and in the House in this regard and they have been reviewed extensively. After consideration I have concluded that the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the exclusive disposal of the veterans. Why? I fail to see how removing the bureau from the first level will save any time in the current system. The only way to speed up the system is to ensure that more applications are accepted at the first level.

If 80 per cent of the appeals are granted, why not grant more of them at the first level? These applications must be well prepared in the future because the department currently rejects 70 per cent but goes on to accept 80 per cent on appeal. The typical time it takes for a lawyer to prepare an application is two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran is forced to battle the department to receive a disability pension. The remaining delays at the first level, which can take up to a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department.

The problem is not with the veteran or with the lawyer who prepares the application, the problem is with the department. Much of that was identified earlier by my colleague who went through a step by step process of showing how the application goes from Ottawa, gets copied and then ends up in Prince Edward Island because the former government decided to put the bureau in Prince Edward Island.

Ironically, the government feels that removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because it will focus on appeals only. Under the legislation the government intends to have departmental clerks assist the veteran in filling out the first level application. That is a potential problem which the Royal Canadian Legion identified because it is the skill and the proficiency with which the first application is completed that will determine its acceptance.

The first level decision would then be adjudicated within the department. It could be true that the first level decision would be faster, but would the acceptance rate be higher than the existing norm of 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt it. If the veteran then has to appeal the case he has to go to a bureau lawyer who would work directly for the department.

The current system is that an outside, independent lawyer who is acting on behalf of the veteran, makes the application and then follows through with the appeal. Under the new system a departmental clerk will complete the application and only if the application is refused would the lawyer go to work to prepare an appeal for the applicant, which would take a further two to three months. The veterans say that streamlining of the whole process is in large measure due to how well the first application is put together.

If the government intends to focus all of the bureau's resources at the appeal level, then it is obvious that the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pensions, and we must remember that their average age is 74 years.

If the process is to be speeded up the first level acceptance rate must be increased so that there will be fewer appeals. The way to accomplish this is twofold. First, have the first level application expertly completed by a bureau lawyer so that the veteran's case is solid. Second, the department should consider the success rate for past appeals, which is 80 per cent, and use the benefit of the doubt provision more liberally to increase first level acceptance. This two-track approach would substantially speed up the system and serve best the interests of the veterans. I know that it is serving the interests of the veterans that all members of this House and indeed all Canadians are firmly committed to achieving.

While the intent in this bill is certainly a step in the right direction, as with much legislation that comes before this House there are certain aspects of it that could be substantially improved. I draw again on the suggestions made by the Royal Canadian Legion that the four paramount underpinnings of the foundation of the veterans' appeal must be to preserve and protect the benefits and services provided to the veterans of Canada; to protect the benefit of the doubt provision; to ensure an independent advocate; and to achieve the necessary speed and generosity to ensure that our veterans, whose average age is 74 years, are honestly and fairly dealt with.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I spoke on the amendment. I have not yet spoken on the main motion.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

The hon. member opposite tells me it was 43 per cent. I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would speak about the integrity and whether it is right, proper and appropriate to foist on Canadians holus-bolus the Liberal election document as a mandate for change when that party received 43 per cent of the total votes cast. It is nothing like a majority.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians from coast to coast know by now, the holy grail of the Liberal Party is its now infamous red book, otherwise referred to as the dead book-cold and getting clammier as each day goes by. I remind members opposite the infamous red book is a two edge sword. It will also hold them very accountable for what they have not done which they had promised to do.

My question to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I ask it most seriously, has to do with the efficacy of using the red book, primarily an election document. It was a compilation of promises put together in a binder. It was a method of appealing to voters and saying this is how they could get elected.

In the last election the Liberal Party gained 177 seats, a vast majority in the House. It did so by getting something in the order of 41 per cent of the total votes cast.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I join the debate with some reluctance. I was very proud to be elected to the House and to be a member of Parliament. When I ran and became involved in politics I felt one of the most important things I could and should bring to the House is leadership.

I knew then and I know today our country is facing some very difficult times. We are into a period of financial restructuring in our country which will make what has gone on in the last year or will go on in this next year seem like child's play. Sooner or later we will have to come face to face with the reality that our country is $550 billion in debt and in the hole at the rate of $120 million a day.

If our country did not have this onerous debt then I do not think the pension problem would be necessarily as fractious as it is. The debate has brought out a level of meanness in the House which has not really been here in much of the debate that has taken place, even though there have been some very contentious issues debated.

When we talk about pensions and income we are talking about where people really live. When we take the facade off the role or the life of a member of Parliament every one of us has exactly the same problems and wishes as every other Canadian. Every one of us is making a mortgage payment or a car payment or has a child in university or has someone else they are looking after. Every one of us has financial obligations.

Being a member of Parliament does not mean one's life automatically magically changes. Many people in the House make a substantial financial sacrifice to come to the House. What happens is people are making less than they did before they were elected.

Everyone having been elected knew that before they got the job and should not complain about it once they have it. We went into this with our eyes wide open. Why should members of Parliament be prepared to make the sacrifice? That is the essence of the debate.

As our country goes into this period of travail as we learn to live within our means the people in positions of leadership have to exhibit leadership by taking the first hit by leading by example. I do not think any Canadian begrudges a fair income or a fair standard of living or a fair remuneration to a member of Parliament. However, they do not want to see members of Parliament living far beyond what is available to anybody else in a similar circumstance. Why are there two sets of rules, one for the law makers and one for everyone else? That is precisely the reason Parliament has brought disrepute upon itself, having one set of rules for everybody else and one for Parliament.

The basic question is does the remuneration package in any way help or hinder the development of good governance in our country?

In my private life I would ask the question from a business perspective. Does the remuneration package offered to people in this business help or hinder the development of the business? Does it attract and retain the very best people or does it retain people we do not want to retain who perhaps should move on somewhere else? Does it lead to the very highest ideals or does it lead to mediocrity?

I will pick up on a theme presented earlier in the debate that perhaps because the salary level is low, which has been said by the Prime Minister time and time again and others in the House, the pension is abnormally high because the salary is abnormally low.

I suspect our remuneration package does more to bring mediocrity to the House than it does to bring a level of commitment and excellence we should all hope for. The pension is such a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow any normal human being will be affected in their day to day decisions with how they can go about getting into that pot of gold.

The question is when we come here and make a decision, are we making the decisions best for the country in the long run? Are we making decisions best for the next generation or are we making decisions for the next election? Are we statesmen or politicians?

If our decisions are motivated by winning the next election rather than doing what is right for the next generation, I submit we are politicians. We will never be statesmen. The pension is so rich human nature would automatically cause people to think: "How should I respond in this situation? Will it help me or hinder me in the next election? Will it help or hinder me within my caucus? If I go against this program, am I likely not to get a nomination? Am I likely to be pushed out of caucus? Am I likely to be dropped from a committee? What would happen to my image if I am not a team player?"

That is the reason members of Parliament should be fairly compensated. They should look after their own pension arrangements like everyone else. We should be well paid and we should look after our pensions.

We should have a dollar for dollar contribution to buy an RRSP, just like everyone else. The decisions we make that affect us should not hold us harmless from the effect of these decisions on the economy as a whole.

If we in the House and those who came before us manage to mismanage our economy to the point at which 35 cents of every dollar collected by the federal government goes to paying interest on money we have already spent, should these people be rewarded with a pension for life? Hardly.

Should people be motivate to be re-engaged to have a political life because of the pension, which begs the question whether our function as members of Parliament should be to act as a board of directors. Should we be micromanaging the economy as we are wont to do?

Why all of a sudden does Parliament have to sit 180 days of the year? Why can we not retain our real lives and come here just enough to be a board of directors and have a professional civil service actually run the country?

I suspect as human nature drives this remuneration package none of us on any side of the House is perfect. What on earth is the point of the government's hiring outside third party arbitrators to make decisions on remuneration for members of Parliament and then ignoring the advice?

It is a pox on our Houses. How can we be determining what our income or remuneration should be? Why can that not be done by an impartial qualified third party and accept the results that come from that impartial third party? Why should it be done internally?

I want to close with a spirit of optimism because I have great faith in our country. I still have great faith in Parliament. Remember, what is done today can be corrected tomorrow, and that is the beauty of Parliament.

Although the legislation will pass, there will be another dawn. There will be a tomorrow. In the closing stanza of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", the poem that says water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink, the parable of the story is he will rise upon the morn, a sadder and a wiser man.

I suspect that the result of the Liberal government, having had the opportunity to do the right thing and taking a half measure, hesitant step and calling it an achievement, will rise upon the morn and rue the day sadder and wiser at the next election.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

What is there about having a pension that would lead to good governance? Does it lead to good governance or has it in the past?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as I listen to this debate unfold today, and I recognize there are good people on all sides of the House, I wonder what it is about the pension that leads to good governance. That is really what this debate is all about.

Does this pension in any way help Canada have good governance? Has it over the past 30 years had good governance? By any rational score card the answer would have to be no. We happen to be $550 billion in the hole and we are increasing our debt to the tune of $120 million a day, so that we are in debt now, every single Canadian taxpayer, $40,000. That is just the federal part of the national debt.

Then the question is: What is it about a pension that leads to good governance? Does that pension then attract and retain good people in the Parliament of Canada? My submission is no, it does not. In my view, after being here for a year and a half, I think the governance of our country would be immeasurably improved in three simple steps. The first is to get rid of the MP pension plan. We should be here doing what is right, without having this become a lifelong job and then return to the private sector.

I ask the member for Calgary West if he would respond to this question.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition. I want to make it clear that in presenting this petition I do not agree with the actions of the person represented in it.

The petition has to do with the case of Robert Latimer of Wilkie, Saskatchewan. Numerous petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that the actions of Robert Latimer were motivated by love and should not be treated similarly to actions motivated by other reasons.

It is a very difficult and very distressful situation. I certainly concur with the mood and the feeling of these petitioners that there needs to be some recognition in the laws of Canada that would allow the courts to provide for sentences with leniency for people based on the motivation of their offence.

It is my pleasure to present this petition on their behalf.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 25th, 1995]

With respect to the old age pension ( a ) how much money is paid in old age pension to citizens of Canada now residing outside the country and what are the top five countries to which payments are made; ( b ) what residency requirements are necessary as a pre-condition to collecting old age pension; and ( c ) is it necessary to have paid taxes in Canada in order to collect old age pension while living outside Canada?

[Hate Propaganda, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North for the intent and thrust of the bill.

The introduction of a private member's bill in the House is the start of a long and torturous journey before the motion may become law and it may be amended before it gets there. What we are talking about today is the general intent of what we should be striving to achieve, for the kind of society which we want, what we find decent in our society and what we intuitively recognize and know as wrong and indecent.

Earlier we had a very difficult circumstance to wrestle with, the infamous killer cards. About this time last year we were being inundated with petitions from outraged Canadians from coast to coast asking why we allow this kind of trash to be distributed in Canada. There has not been one word spoken about it in recent times because Canadians, by and large, are pretty decent people. We recognize something which has no value. If it has no value it will not be supported and the normal market forces will cause the demise of whatever should not be around. That is exactly what happened with killer cards. They have fallen from the national agenda.

The point is just because that happened does not give us the freedom to say it is a perfect world and we do not have to worry about people who would spread hate and spread propaganda and sow the seeds of dissension and hurt in our society.

That is what this bill is all about. That is the intention. It is the general intention we support.

I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. I do not think it is possible to legislate good taste. I do not think it is possible to write legislation that will keep hate propaganda or distasteful things we do not like to see off the information highway.

We should make our general intent very clearly understood so when the courts are adjudicating on a particular issue they know full well where Parliament stands representing the citizens of Canada.

We should stand shoulder to shoulder against the pernicious spread of hate propaganda and things that would hurt our society. We also have to stand shoulder to shoulder in protecting freedom of speech. Here we have these two conflicting ideals. How do we go about rationalizing and resolving these two conflicting ideas?

We have to use the whole notion of responsibility. We have to ensure anyone can get on to the information highway. We cannot prevent it in any event and so why bother trying? The information highway has grown from a year ago of 25,000 networks to 70,000 networks. The growth is exponential.

We should think of the information highway as the world's largest library with no librarian and no index. To try to put a handle on it will not work.

We should be working toward ensuring that when our courts have to make a decision based on the freedom of access to Internet that it comes back to personal responsibility. We have to ensure that everyone who gets on to the information highway recognizes they will be held accountable and responsible for what they do, just as it is done in our daily lives today.

All of us have and enjoy freedom of speech. It is part of of our culture. It is us. We also recognize that with freedom comes responsibility. We have the responsibility to use that freedom responsibly. That means I cannot go into a crowded movie theatre and yell "fire". I cannot do that with impugnity.

I can go outside and yell "fire" and people would think I am a nut. If I did the same thing in a crowded movie theatre where my actions put other people at risk I would be considered a criminal.

That is the distinction and the whole notion of personal responsibility. That is why it is so important this debate take place and that the intention of Parliament is very clear to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court at least in recent years needs some clear direction.

I do not think our Supreme Court gets up every morning wondering how to best represent the people of Canada. In my opinion in recent years the Supreme Court has been getting up in the morning wondering how to push the limits of tolerance of ordinary citizens to the expansion of these charter ideals until it drives everybody crazy.

This debate is of extreme importance. It should not be taken lightly. We are not, at least I think I speak for most people in the House, in any way constricting the right of freedom of speech. We are sending a very clear message that one had better be prepared to accept responsibility for what one does.

Earlier my hon. colleague and friend from Portneuf mentioned that the Internet is by and large self-policing. Those who have used Internet will notice if anybody does or says something outrageous on Internet it does not take very long before they are overwhelmed by a response from other people on the Internet saying it is not right.

I do not think we should dismiss the potential and strength of self-policing. For instance, when people in a bar having a beer together are spreading these ideas and reinforcing each other's ideas it is very different than putting an idea across the Internet and being responded to by an avalanche of people saying: "You're crazy, you're wrong", just as my hon. colleague from Portneuf mentioned.

We need to put this into perspective as well. There have been some particularly good articles written about smut on Internet. An article which appeared in the Globe and Mail recently made the suggestion that everybody who was on Internet was an oversexed teenager. That is not the way it is.

That certainly is part of life but I defy anybody to go to a corner store and buy a quart of milk without passing a magazine rack. We do have choices in our lives and we have to make them. We can either stop and buy a smut magazine or we can pass them by. It is a personal choice and a personal responsibility.

Using the same analogy, these magazines are now, as a result of pornography laws in Canada, not displayed where kids can get at them. They are displayed high up and many of them are covered. What do we do in a situation in which we have the expansion of the information highway through which young people are far more familiar with the mechanics of it than we are?

This poses a fairly difficult problem. How do we go about keeping our children from scanning some of these very offensive things like Deathnet and others and still keep this freedom of information and freedom of speech alive? It is kind of like a lockout. Parents have to take responsibility for their children. It goes back to personal responsibility.

I think of the people in Edmonton waging this lonely but very valid and important war. Their son committed suicide and their concern is that his suicide was as a result of depression which was enhanced because of his addiction to listening to CDs of Nirvana and death music and that sort of thing.

It is part of our society and it is incumbent on us as members of Parliament to do what we can to get at root causes of problems and try to make the extra effort so that we keep our society the kind of society it is by and large today, the kind in which we want our children and our families to grow up.

Again I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North for bringing this to the House. It will be a difficult and torturous journey but it is certainly worth it.