Jim Hart

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I returned from the Canada Remembers ceremonies in the Netherlands. I will never forget this truly emotional experience for Canadian veterans and also the genuine expression of gratitude the people of Holland displayed for the Canadian liberators of their country. The bergermeester of Arnhem told that in relation to their actions, Canadian veterans are far too modest.

I have always felt a deep appreciation for the veterans of our country. Until I visited the graves of fallen Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Netherlands and Germany, I did not have a true understanding of the death and devastation that took place 50 years ago. Being born 10 years after the war, it was not part of my personal experience, aside from Remembrance Day each year.

Canadians should always remember over 6,000 Canadians have their final resting place in Holland and in Germany. As I walked through the rows of white headstones in Groesbeck, Arnhem, Bergen-Op-Zoom, Holten, Reinberg and Reichwald war cemeteries, I was shocked. The events of 50 years ago were enhanced in my mind by the ages of those Canadians who died. Many were 18 and 19 years old. We truly lost a generation. Their contribution must always be remembered.

For those veterans who returned to Canada, we have an obligation to ensure legislation is in place to effectively and efficiently deal with their disabilities.

The raison d'être for Bill C-67 is to speed up the time veterans wait when applying for a disability pension while clearing the backlog of some 12,500 veterans currently awaiting a decision on their claim without removing any of the rights and benefits veterans currently possess.

The government has promised to accomplished this task in two years. This is a commendable goal, enthusiastically endorsed by the Reform Party. As co-critic for defence and critic for veteran affairs, I would be more than happy to speak in favour of a bill that promised to accomplish this. However, like many veterans, I am doubtful whether this bill will succeed.

After carefully analysing Bill C-67 and after consulting veterans, grassroot veterans organizations, advocates of veterans, former and current employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and former members of the Canadian pension commission and the veterans appeal board, I still have grave concerns about this piece of legislation.

The thing that must be answered is why veterans who currently average 73 years of age have to wait up to five years to receive a disability pension. For the record, the current situation is appalling. When a veteran applies for a disability pension at the first level he must wait 18 to 20 months for a decision. Seventy per cent of those who apply are turned down. The veteran then must appeal the decision and is often forced to go through two levels of appeal before a final decision is made. This can take another three years. Seventy per cent to eighty per cent of those who appeal do receive a pension, albeit often at a lower amount than expected. This is for those who are still alive after applying or appealing.

It is sad to say that because of the age of these veterans many never collect their disability pension due to the time factor and actually pass away during the process.

Let us look at the reasons for these delays. In an enlightening presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs that ruffled more than a few feathers, Mr. Hugh Peacock, a pension advocate with the Royal Canadian Legion and a former employee of the Canadian pension commission, stated the delays are caused by a variety of factors that can be addressed without introducing the reforms presented before us today in Bill C-67.

He gave the example of a typical case that he had chosen randomly from his files and outlined where the delays come from. When the advocate sent the first level application to the Canadian pension commission in Charlottetown for processing it took eight weeks from the time it arrived to create a file on a case. Then documents were ordered from the National Archives. They took 10 weeks to arrive in Charlottetown because the National Archives does not like original documents to be sent to Charlottetown, which is completely understandable.

Therefore photocopiers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, headquartered here in Ottawa on Wellington Street, must photocopy some 200 pages of material so the case can be sent to the CPC in Prince Edward Island. Once in Prince Edward Island it took five weeks for someone to review the documents and to write a precis of the case so medical advisors to the Canadian pension commission could read all of the documents. The

medical advisors took another seven weeks to make a recommendation on that case.

The Canadian pension commission then took six weeks to make a final decision. After its decision was rendered it took another six weeks for DVA to inform the veteran of that decision. That totals 42 weeks for an elderly veteran to wait for a decision on his claim. It is clear where the delays lay. It is clear the fateful decision to move the Canadian pension commission to Charlottetown is largely responsible, though not exclusively, for the delays.

This experiment in regional economic development has cost veterans dearly and I hope the government has learned a very valuable lesson from this unfortunate and unnecessary story.

I have spent a considerable amount of time detailing where the delays come from because I want to establish a very important fact. The current independent bureau of pension advocates, its lawyers and paralegals are not responsible for these delays.

The goal of the legislation is to speed up the time it takes veterans to get their disability pensions without the veterans losing any of the rights they currently possess. This is also the aim of the Reform Party, yet we disagree on the means to this end.

One of the main points of 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 moved and made a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the appeal level only.

A number of arguments have been made by the standing committee on defence and veterans affairs and in the House in this regard and I have reviewed them extensively. After careful consideration I have concluded the bureau of pension advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of 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 more applications are accepted at the first level. These applications must be well prepared because the department currently rejects 70 per cent of them but goes on to accept 80 per cent of the appeals at the second or third level.

The typical time it takes for the bureau lawyer to prepare an application is in the area of two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran knows he will be forced to do battle with the department to receive his disability pension.

The remaining delays at the first level, which commonly take a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department. Ironically, the government feels removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because it will focus on appeals only.

Under this legislation the government intends to have a departmental clerk assist the veteran in filling out the first level application. The first level decision will then be adjudicated by the department, not the Canada pension commission. It could be true that the first level decision will be faster, but will the acceptance rate be greater than 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I have to question that.

If the veteran has to appeal the case he has to then go to a bureau lawyer who now is not working for the veteran but working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The lawyer who answers directly to the minister must start to prepare the appellant's case from scratch, which will take months or years because nothing in the bill speeds up the appeal process which currently takes up to three and a half years.

If the government intends to focus all of the bureau's resources at the appeal level it is obvious the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The intent is obviously not there. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pension. With the average age of veterans approaching 74 this is too little, too late.

I firmly believe that if the process is to be speeded up the first level acceptance rate must be increased so there are few appeals. The way to accomplish that is twofold. First, have first level applications expertly filled out by a bureau lawyer so the veteran's case is solid. Second, the department should consider the success rate for past appeals, which is about 80 per cent, and use the benefit of the doubt clause more liberally to increase the first level acceptance rate. This two track approach would substantially speed up the system and serve the best interests of veterans.

Now I will tackle the issue of veterans' rights. Last week the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception stated the bill would not take away any of the current rights of veterans. This is not fact but it is a point of debate. I would argue that Bill C-67 takes away the rights of veterans in a number of areas.

It removes the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level of decision making by adding it to the department. This calls into question the veterans right to solicitor/client privilege.

At the first level the veteran will deal with a pension officer or paralegal who works directly for the department, not an independent lawyer or paralegal under the direction of a lawyer. Thus at the first level solicitor/client privilege is lost.

If the veteran errs in the information given to his pension officer who works for the Department of Veterans Affairs, it could be used against the veteran when his case is adjudicated by that department. This is a conflict of interest. It presents an arrangement that precludes any sort of confidentiality between veterans and pension officers.

The veteranalso loses solicitor client privilege at the appeal level. He has access to a bureau lawyer. However the lawyer is no longer an independent solicitor who keeps the veteran's case in confidence. He is now an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. His paycheque comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I conclude this is a conflict of interest and works against veterans.

How can the veteran be confident that the information he gives the bureau advocate will not be used against him when the advocate works for the department and not for him? The veteran is already angry and frustrated that he has to appeal his case in the first place. Now he has to trust another departmental employee with his case. Therefore under this legislation veterans will lose the right to solicitorclient privilege.

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 and the minister will be getting more power to influence the department's internal affairs.

I think every member of the House would agree that bureaucracies in the country are too big as it is. Under these proposals the minister may have undue influence over the whole decision making process, the quality of service or the rate of acceptance.

Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving direction that could deter 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 offhanded comment by the minister could affect the way his staff deals with veterans. We only have to look at the way the money markets danced and sang to the finance minister's prebudget comments, to the detriment of Canadians.

Veterans will lose a number of other rights under the legislation. I have offered the government a number of amendments that would have corrected the situation. I was in consultation with many groups of veterans including the Royal Canadian Legion which represents some 250,000 veterans. The member opposite does not have an ear for listening to grassroots consultations.

However it must be stated that it is totally unclear at this point what the regulations will say. We have not even seen the regulations or even know for a fact that they exist. The rights of veterans under Bill C-67 will no longer be law. The government has said that they will be in regulations. This is extremely important. Regulations can be easily changed behind closed doors, while laws must be changed in full view of the public.

I conclude my remarks by stating that Bill C-67 is a bad piece of legislation for Canada and for Canada's veterans. This is unfortunate because we have lost an opportunity to speed up the process so that veterans get the service and the pensions they deserve. Instead veterans face more delays and a decrease in their rights and services.

Without a commitment on the part of the government to increase first level acceptance rates this cannot be legislated. The majority of veterans will be locked into a lengthy appeal process without an independent advocate or paralegal to guide them through. The veteran is now faced with the prospect of dealing with yet another bureaucrat that works for the department.

I call on all members of the House to vote against Bill C-67. During the Remembrance Day ceremonies in the Netherlands that I took part in "The Last Post" was played at each and every one of the ceremonies. Let everyone in the House vote against the bill which sounds the last post for the rights of Canadian veterans. They fought and some of them died so that we would have the freedom to vote for what is right and for what is just. For once, let us have the courage to vote that way.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister can object all he likes but this is question period and these are the questions which are on the minds of Canadians.

The director general of public affairs was hand picked by Bob Fowler. It is amazing how often that name comes up. This inquiry has been tainted from the start. What role is Ruth Cardinal playing in the Somalia inquiry?

[Somalia Inquiry, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, national defence is not only going out of its way to discredit the testimony of Dr. Armstrong, but it is actively removing him from any involvement with the commission's inquiry even though his November 1994 allegations compelled the minister to call an inquiry. Dr. Armstrong has conveniently been posted into the former Yugoslavia theatre, just in time for the inquiry to begin.

I heard the minister's answer the first time, but my question is: Why is DND attempting to remove Dr. Armstrong from the inquiry process in seeming contempt of the government's declared resolve to get to the bottom of the events in Somalia?

[Somalia Inquiry, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, Ruth Cardinal, the director general of public affairs for the Department of National Defence, addressed the Press Club of Canada.

She discussed the deployment of Canadian forces in Somalia and said: "In the airborne story Dr. Armstrong made some allegations. One of them was that two Somalis were shot in the back by Canadian soldiers. It seemed that his story did not have credence. This autopsy report done by an independent group proved Dr. Armstrong wrong".

My question for the Minister of National Defence is: How can the government tolerate such comments which not only contradict the minister's gag order of November 24 but also prejudice the inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I was caught a little off guard. We hear a lot about the government's need for integrity and about trying to increase integrity in the House of Commons. I came here today fully prepared to talk about Bill C-67, the veterans affairs bill but was told: "Oh, we will do it later".

The government said Bill C-67 would be the first bill up today. I have concerns because I am here for a very specific purpose which was to deal with that and now we are thrust into this debate on pension plans for members of Parliament. I am more than willing to speak on this issue because it was an issue during the election campaign. The constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt spoke very clearly about their feelings on it.

The MP pension plan this legislation deals with is excessive. It is over and above what the private sector has for their pension

plans. That is what is so discouraging about this government in its facade to change and reform the MP pension plan.

The Canadian public, including Reformers, have nothing at all against pensions. We believe there should be a pension plan. Every member in this House should have a pension plan and all Canadians should have pension plans. Many Canadians fought long and hard to have pensions. Canadians get mad and upset when there is an excessive pension plan that is not available to all Canadians, such as this pension plan.

In the heat of debate, many people say things which may sometimes not be quite accurate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre stated in one of his speeches that the compensation should perhaps be increased to $150,000. I do not necessarily agree with what my friend the hon. member for Calgary Centre said. However the intent of what he was saying was that the whole compensation package for members of Parliament should be reviewed independently and brought back to this House so that the Canadian public can buy into this whole compensation situation. The figure is not important. The fact is that it is out of whack. An assessment has to be made by the people of this country that it is something they can agree with.

I do not need 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 40 minutes to say what the Canadian public is saying. It is clearly saying it wants the MP pension plan brought in line with the private sector. Why on earth can the government not see that is all it is asking?

What is the government afraid of in the House of Commons representing all the people of Canada? It is lining its own pockets. It is looking after its own self-interest. It is not representing the people of Canada. The government should be ashamed.

[Peacekeeping Act, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and support Bill C-295, put forward by my colleague for Fraser Valley East.

The part of this bill I would like to address is clause 4, dealing with the authority of the House of Commons. As everyone in this House knows, much to the distress of the Liberal government, the Reform Party strongly endorses the notion that the House must be accountable to Canadians, and not just financially accountable. Everything we do in the House must reflect the desires and expectations of the people. Only under the most extreme circumstances should Parliament act without consulting the people who elected us. This is especially true when Canadian lives are at stake.

Last year I had the privilege of being a member of the special joint committee reviewing Canada's defence policy. During this year of intense research and consultation with Canadians, we made a number of recommendations in our report, entitled "Security in a Changing World". This is one of the recommendations, and I quote:

Defence policy cannot be made in private and results simply announced. Canadians will not accept that, nor should they. Nor should the government commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision. It is our expectation that, except in extraordinary circumstances, such a debate would always take place prior to any such deployment.

This recommendation was endorsed by all members of the committee, including those sitting opposite today. Though there have been eleventh hour debates on peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia and the government's white paper on national defence did recognize many of the special joint committee's recommendations, this specific recommendation was overlooked by the minister and the government.

Currently, cabinet has the full authority to designate soldiers to be on active service for war or for peacekeeping activities. If Parliament is not sitting, section 32 of the National Defence Act requires that the House reconvene 10 days after placing soldiers on active service. Strangely, the government is not required to hold a debate on this. The notion of accountability is conspicuously absent. Canadians have no say in committing our troops to life threatening circumstances.

Clause 4 of Bill C-295 provides a method for full parliamentary review in the spirit of the special joint committee report and holds the government accountable for all peacekeeping commitments. Clause 4 states: "No Canadian forces shall serve or be committed to service in peacekeeping service or continue in such service beyond the time or expenditure limit previously approved by the House of Commons, pursuant to this section, unless the Minister of National Defence has moved in the House of Commons a resolution" outlining five criteria that must be debated and passed.

This opportunity for debate is essential. Since the end of the cold war the government has designated more troops to active service than any time since the Korean war. While we are very proud of our international recognition as peacekeepers and in some cases peacemakers to the world, the missions we have engaged in are becoming increasingly dangerous and uncertain in purpose. Canadians should be proud of our peacekeepers, because our troops are indeed the best in the world.

The first criterion in the resolution authorizes the specific mission for peacekeeping service. This is extremely important. The House of Commons must be told exactly what the specific mission is.

When I talk to my constituents about defence issues many ask me what our specific mission is in hot spots such as the former Yugoslavia. They also ask why we are still there when the troops are fired on and held hostage by the combatants. They seem to realize there is no will for peace in that troubled nation and wonder exactly what we are doing to resolve the conflict.

This brings me to my second criterion. Bill C-295 would ensure the resolution specifies the objectives, duties and role of the mission. This is important in the new peacekeeping roles we find ourselves in.

In the former Yugoslavia it is often unclear what objectives we are striving for. The classic peacekeeping role of keeping two warring factions apart from each other while they negotiate a final peace or maintaining a ceasefire to which all parties agree is absent in Bosnia. In a conflict such as this where all warring sides clearly do not want peace and look at our troops as occupiers, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what our objectives are.

If we are to send peacekeepers into dangerous situations such as this it is imperative Parliament pass a resolution specifying the objectives of our troops, what objectives they will be attempting to meet.

Canadian troops cannot be pawns in any conflict. We must have a clear role spelled out. This is particularly important when communications between Canada's peacekeeping forces and the Canadian public are weak.

The third criterion of the resolution defines the state or area in which the mission is to operate. Only Parliament should have the authority to specify where our troops are to be committed.

The fourth criterion in the resolution specifies the date on which the authority expires. It is essential for Parliament to decide the exact date on which the mission ends.

Some of our former commitments have seemed unending in scope. Our service in the former Yugoslavia is on a six-month term but other peacekeeping missions, such as our mission to Cyprus, lasted 30 years.

Giving Parliament the authority to determine the date on which the authority is to expire for a mission also gives Parliament the opportunity to cancel or renew the mission. Parliament will be able to evaluate the mission and decide whether we have accomplished our objectives. It can also re-evaluate the conflict and assess whether it has changed in scope and whether we still have a role to play.

In common with the fourth criterion is the fifth. It specifies a maximum planned expenditure for the mission. Peacekeeping missions, like anything else the government does, must have financial bounds. The nation does not have a bottomless purse. We must determine what we can afford.

Clause 4 of the bill also provides for a five-hour debate on the resolution before the question is put to the House. As with any bill, the resolution can pass with or without amendments and it can also be defeated.

The time for Parliament to become accountable to the Canadian people for designating our troops on active duty is now. We must be the ones to decide and those who represent them in Parliament are their voice.

I strongly urge all members of the House to support Bill C-295.

[Holocaust Memorial Day, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to address the House on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and my colleagues in the Reform Party to solemnly commemorate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

We remember the men, the women and the innocent children who perished at the hands of the Nazi tyranny and we honour the many Canadians who fought for freedom and justice at a time of darkness.

We recall the generation of men, women, and children that had to endure the horrors of Nazi tyranny from the 1930s to 1945. For someone born after the war, the reality of this dark period in the history of humanity seems hard to comprehend.

We see the pictures of the Warsaw ghetto, the trainloads of innocent men, women and children being sent to the concentration camps, the deadly gas chambers and the horrific mass graves. As I recall these offences of the past I try to imagine how man could commit these crimes against humanity.

I really began to grasp the magnitude of this tragedy when I saw the numbers of people who died in this horrible conflict. The death toll rivals the size of Canada in 1945. Though we do not have all the names of those who perished, the world must remember Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

I would like to reiterate the pledge yesterday by the leader of the Reform Party. He spoke for all of us when he stated: "I solemnly vow that we shall honour the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by remaining vigilant against those who would divide us by promoting hatred and discrimination".

Those who deny this event must be condemned. Besides solemnly commemorating Yom Hashoah and the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, I would like to honour the tens of thousands of Canadian men and women who fought for freedom and justice. Too many left Canada to never return. In each battle Canadians fought, and despite the odds and terrible toll they had to pay, they never failed to display great courage and resolution. It is a great tribute to our nation to know that most of those who fought in this terrible war did so voluntarily.

It has been 50 years since the Nazi concentration camps were liberated and the guns fell silent. Many soldiers and civilians who experienced the horrors of this war are doing their utmost to

make sure all Canadians and all humanity remember the cause, the course, and the consequences of this conflict.

Yet in the years to come, as veterans and victims pass on, it will be up to my generation and the generation that follows to keep alive the memory. I feel entrusted with a sacred pledge to be able to go to the Netherlands next week to represent my constituents and the Reform Party in the Canada remembrance ceremonies.

For my part, I vow to keep the memory alive and honour our fallen soldiers and the victims of this terrible event. The people and events we are honouring today must not be forgotten in the dustbin of history. It must be remembered that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

[Government Spending, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

It has come to my attention the mileage allowance veterans receive for going to doctor appointments is being decreased significantly from 23 cents to 10 cents per kilometre. Could it be these reductions were imposed on our sick and frail veterans to pay for the luxurious 11.5 per cent increase the government has made to the mileage allowance MPs and government employees enjoy?

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs assure the House he will urge the government to rescind this decision?

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

The naysayers with whom Christopher Columbus dealt obviously were Liberals. Christopher Columbus was probably the first Reformer.

Bill C-263 challenges the status quo as did Christopher Columbus. However, unlike Christopher Columbus the ideas in Bill C-263 are not as radical. They are not a form of radical change but rather are a form of necessary change to Parliament and to the operations of government and of all crown corporations.

The accountability framework we are asking the five exempted crown corporations to be moved into is the framework all other crown corporations come under. There is no reason why they should be exempted.

It is a real shame hon. members of the House did not bother reading the reports of the auditor general from 1989 to 1991 wherein he expressed concern about the subject. I refer to section 4.100 of the 1991 auditor general's report which states:

The Office strongly supported the strengthened legislative framework for Crown corporations, and has continually urged that those Crown corporations that were exempted from Part X of the FAA be brought into line with its accountability provisions. It is important that Parliament have assurance that appropriate accountability provisions apply to all parent Crown corporations. When exemptions are granted, means should be found to ensure adequate control and accountability.

I urge all members to support Bill C-263.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Christopher Columbus was a man of vision. He did not accept the status quo. Many times people told Christopher Columbus that he was wrong in what he was doing, that he should not even attempt to look beyond or explore past the horizon, and that if he dared to do so he would surely fall off a flat earth.