Fred Mifflin

[Somalia, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just suggested and mentioned some of the areas that were being considered by the chairman of the commission. I believe it is the commission's responsibility to decide on this aspect of witnesses and their protection if necessary. I would like to leave it at that.

[Somalia, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that Justice Gilles Letourneau, the chairman of the commission, was quoted in press reports as stating that some soldiers may fear reprisals or being prejudiced in their military career. He did insist however that there is no evidence to that. Perhaps he was taking precautionary steps. He is considering a promise of confidentiality of information, a pledge that the inquiry will investigate any allegation of ongoing reprisals and an offer to allow vulnerable people, if it is shown that this is the case, to give testimony in private.

It would be improper for me or the minister to comment on any other aspects of the commission until the commission has finished its work.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1995]

(a), (b) and (c) As outlined in the 1994 defence white paper, Canada is interested in gaining a better understanding of missile defence through research and consultation with like-minded nations. We expect that these consultations will address both limited missile defence for North America and theatre missile defence within Europe. Whether Canada will choose to participate in joint research initiatives will depend on what opportunities arise, and most significantly, whether these joint initiatives are cost effective, affordable, and make an unambiguous contribution to Canada's defence needs.

In the NORAD context, the NORAD renewal negotiations are set to begin this year. Joint reseach with the U.S. in ballistic missile defence will be discussed during the negotiations, however, the outcome of these discussions cannot be prejudged. Accordingly, it would be premature to speculate on the specific form and content of possible joint research activities in the absence of any agreement that such research should in fact take place.

Question No. 178-

[Bosnia, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are 35 countries involved in the former Yugoslavia. Canada is one of them. He has asked me questions about other countries, but I can only answer the question for Canada. I have answered that question and I can do no more.

[Bosnia, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As he knows, there are activities under way by other allied countries participating in Bosnia to look at a rapid reaction force.

The Prime Minister stated in the House earlier in the week that we are aware of the plans being made but at that time Canada was not part of that activity. As I stand in the House today I have to say the same thing. Canada is not part of that activity and the decision has not yet been made.

[National Defence, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a timely question.

I want to inform him and the House there are three things with respect to existing members. First, following the events in Somalia, procedures were implemented that strictly indicated a zero tolerance toward racism in the Canadian forces.

Second, the chief of the defence staff issued to all units in August 1993 a policy to that effect.

Third, the existing commanders have been directed by the chief of the defence staff to complement their present training systems with sensitized training in the area of anti-racism.

With respect to those joining, new procedures have been implemented in which all recruiting units are required to read the policy to new enrollees and make sure they understand them. If they do not agree they are not allowed to join the Canadian forces.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. I looked at his motion and I believe it is unnecessary.

If a veteran feels that the minister has made an error in fact or law at the first decision the applicant can appeal to the Veteran's Review and Appeal Board. That is why we have a quasi-judicial board in the first place.

The hon. member compared the three levels, the minister, the review board and the appeal board. He is absolutely right, we did go back to insert the error of fact or interpretation of law at the second stage or at the review process because we felt it necessary to have it in the quasi-judicial system to equate both processes, the review and the appeal.

However, in the case of the minister the amendment makes no sense from an administrative or a policy point of view. It would not result in faster turnaround times, the litmus test of all these motions. Nor would it increase the chances of a veteran receiving a disability pension. The true safety factor for the veteran, the crux of the bill, is that he or she can claim an error of fact or law after the final decision is rendered by the new board.

This where we need this kind of safeguard, not at the ministerial level. At the ministerial level the veteran can continue to two further levels where it is important to have it written in that the veteran is given the benefit of the doubt with respect to the ability to look at, from their viewpoint, the interpretation of the law or an error of fact.

I believe the safeguard, the intent of what the hon. member is proposing, is already in place. It is an amendment which does not make administrative or policy sense. It will do nothing to help the bill. It will do nothing to reduce the turnaround time for veterans. We believe it is unnecessary and therefore I will not be able to support it.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

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

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

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

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by both my colleagues on Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 and on Motion No. 3.

I understand Motions 2 and 4 will be voted on as a group and then Motions 3, 5, and 6 will be voted on separately.

Let me speak about Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 submitted by the Bloc. As I understand it, the thrust of these amendments would add delays to the process of appointing members to the veterans review and appeal board. This is surely counter to the thrust of the bill. The proposal as it is made will take time and it will slow the process down.

I believe it runs counter to the attitude expressed by the Bloc in committee where it seemed committed to helping veterans. In short, these amendments do absolutely nothing for veterans.

Further, the motions call for reasonable representation and appointments to be made after consultation with provincial governments and approval of appointments by the standing committee of the House. On the federal side the government is a national government which represents the interests of all Canadians. That is why we have 295 members from all regions of Canada. It has ensured and will continue to ensure appointments to federal boards and agencies are qualified and are representative of Canada as a whole, taking into account such factors as region, gender and ethnicity and that appropriate and necessary consultations occur before such appointments are made.

To put the regional factor into legislation would restrict the government's flexibility in achieving a balance of all of these factors and in appointing the most qualified candidates. The federal government is the only body which can sit all of these matrixes and compare one region with another.

With respect to provincial consultation, to mandate by statute that the provinces must be consulted prior to appointments being made in virtually every federal body, as the Bloc Quebecois appears to propose, would be needlessly cumbersome, time consuming and costly. In addition, provincial statutes do not include a requirement to consult the federal government on all appointments made by the lieutenant governor in council. It would be as inappropriate to require the federal government to consult provincial governments on appointments to agencies created by federal legislation as it would be to require provincial governments to consult the federal government on appointments to agencies created by provincial legislation.

With respect to approval by the standing committee, to grant the standing committee the right to approve appointments would be to usurp the prerogative of the governor in council. It would represent a fundamental change in the executive powers of the crown, the House of Commons and the parliamentary system of government.

I remind hon. members from all sides of the House that Bill C-67 reflects the government's commitment to simply change the structure, to streamline the operation wherever possible and to ensure federal agencies continue to be relevant to Canada's needs and serve Canadians as effectively as possible.

The bill is not related to fundamental questions such as the checks and balances of the parliamentary system. Those are built in. I feel fully confident the bill as discussed and as presented with its amendments from the day we studied it clause by clause, I think on April 27, is quite satisfactory. This never really came up in discussion at any time to my memory.

I got quite a kick out of Motion No. 3 proposed by my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. He is afraid of this great fear the third party has of political patronage. I am not sure where it comes from but he nodded and tacitly agreed this was behind the proposal he made. I see a big smile on his face. I am sure he cannot be serious about this kind of an amendment. He is trying to create three classes of members, those appointed for three years, six years and nine years.

These are quasi-judicial organizations and the appointees, while they are not actually judges, are like judges. They make some very serious judgments. It would not be in the interest of the intent of the bill, it would not be prudent and it would not be wise to create a hierarchy among these members. The hon. member knows that. For the disability pension system to appear fair and transparent it must be clearly understood that all members of the new board are equal and they must be seen as equal by all parties in the House, no matter which party is in

government. I am sure the hon. member is not too worried about his party being in government for a long time. Perhaps it is a technical concern which that party has.

Historically veterans affairs, and anyone involved in veterans affairs can attest to this fact, have been treated in a non-partisan way by successive Canadian governments. I think the hon. member from the Bloc who put the amendment forward would agree with that.

Our concern remains first and foremost with the veterans and that will continue. I find it very difficult in my heart to support these amendments.