Fred Mifflin

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

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.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from my constituents from Badger's Quay, Lumsden, Templeman, Brookfield and Wesleyville. There are 57 of them.

They note that the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens who respect the law. They further note that the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and that the majority of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end them.

They are asking that Parliament make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 1st, 1995]

The following table addresses parts (a) to (f) of the question posed:

[The Late Hon. Charles R. Granger, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Newfoundlander and an outstanding Canadian. The Hon. Charles R. Granger was laid to rest in his home town of Catalina last Monday.

In his busy lifetime, Charlie, as he was affectionately called by his friends, was a journalist, union organizer, political adviser, federal and provincial cabinet minister, deputy minister, businessman, poet and historian. He was a lifetime champion of those in the fishing industry and a fierce worker helping to bring Newfoundland into Confederation.

His accomplishments and remarkable personal attributes were highlighted by his warmth, his sense of humour, vision and perspective. Above all, his love for people and his modest conduct were the mark of the man.

He was appointed as an officer of the Order of Canada in January of this year. Unquestionably, his password in life reflected the Order of Canada's motto: he desired a better country.

I am sure I am joined by all members of the House in conveying our thoughts and our prayers to his wife Betty, to their family and their many, many friends.

[Peacekeeping Act, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the National Defence Act in consequence thereof.

I have no doubt that the bill was motivated by the concern of all members for the well-being of the Canadian forces personnel and for a wise and sound decision making process on the part of the government.

Unfortunately I have to say that after close study of the bill, in my opinion it might on serious consideration make the process a little worse than the situation that we now have in place. For that reason I oppose it.

Before describing the details of my opposition, I have a general observation to make that applies to much of the thinking that emanates from our hon. colleagues on the Reform benches. It is a tendency that I see reflected in this bill to look for American models in matters of public policy in Canada.

This tendency skews the vision and certainly on our part. I do not believe we can make policy on the basis of the trends and obsessions of our American neighbours, as much as we respect and admire them. We are not them and their examples are foreign to our needs and purposes.

The government has gone to great lengths to ensure a made in Canada defence policy. In fact, members of all parties were members of the special joint committee that put together an outstanding report. I say this not in any sense of gloating but in modesty. Ninety-five per cent of it is reflected in the white paper. It is a Canadian defence policy and one that reflects Canada's needs and aspirations. I for one-I am sure I am joined by many others-would want to keep it that way.

Bill C-295 would restrict the prerogative, the speed and the discretion of the crown to determine Canada's contribution to the United Nations for reasonable peace operations. Like other military operations, peacekeeping is carried out under the authority of the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act. It provides that the minister has the management and direction of the Canadian forces and of all matters pertaining to national defence. The bill would remove the responsibility and the discretion not only of the minister but also of the government respecting military operations.

As a result, the bill would adversely affect the speed with which the government can respond to UN requests for assistance in peace operations as well as the timeliness with which it can respond to changes in the peacekeeping mandate.

One of the major problems cited by many former Canadian UN commanders is that it takes too long for the international community to become involved in times of crisis. Most recently Major-General Romeo Dallaires has been an eloquent and passionate advocate of the need for speed in emergencies, claiming that he could have saved tens of thousands of lives had he received the troops he needed when he requested them.

Bill C-295, which would add another layer in the decision making process, would ensure that it would take still longer for Canada to become involved and to provide help. In an emergency we should treat it like one and act urgently. The bill would also create an unworkable structure for the management of international Canadian forces operations. All potential operations are evaluated against a series of guidelines that include the broad political and foreign policy context, the overall mission requirements and, of course, our own military capability.

The 1994 defence white paper outlines certain key principles intended to help the government assess the various factors to be considered before deciding whether Canada should participate in a mission. These guidelines are based on the peacekeeping experience we have acquired over the last 40 years. They also illustrate in a careful but pragmatic way the new international world order that has followed the end of the cold war.

The white paper highlights the key principles that must guide the design of all peacekeeping missions. These principles are as follows: first, there must be a clear and enforceable mandate; second, there must be an identifiable and commonly accepted reporting authority; third, the national composition of the force must be appropriate to the mission, and there must be an effective process of consultation among mission partners; fourth, in missions that involve both military and civilian resources, there must be a recognized focus of authority, a clear and efficient division of responsibilities, and agreed operating procedures; finally, with the exception of enforcement actions and operations to defend NATO member states, Canada's participation must be accepted by all parties to the conflict.

Canada's experience also suggests that successful missions are those that respect certain essential operation considerations. Some were touched on by the hon. member. The size, training and equipment of the force should be appropriate to the purpose at hand and remain so over the life of the mission. There should be a defined concept of operations, an effective command and control structure and clear rules of engagement.

To look at another aspect, I believe Bill C-295 would give up Canadian sovereign command of Canadian forces elements and would create in its place an unworkable command and control relationship. In this area, in particular, I have problems with the intent of the bill.

Canadian forces personnel now serving on peace operations are always commanded by a Canadian. Command of Canadian forces personnel is no longer given up to allied or UN command, as it was during the first and second world wars. Canadian units and personnel can only be placed under the operational control, not the operational command, of the UN or other multinational commanders for specific tasks.

The practical difference between the two is that when Canadian forces are deployed under operational control, changes to the task assigned or significant changes to the area of operation cannot be implemented. For example, the UN would have to seek Canadian approval to deploy Canadian forces UNPROFOR personnel to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia from Croatia, should the need arise. Such approval would not be required under operational command.

On the other hand, a non-Canadian commander who only has operational control cannot assign separate deployment of components of a unit. For example, the force commander of UNPROFOR who has operational control of Canadian forces personnel cannot unilaterally assign, for example, B company of 2-PPCLI to the British battalion. Such a deployment would require Canadian national approval. If the commander had operational command, there would be no requirement for such Canadian approval.

Currently, commanders of Canadian contingents are directly responsible to the chief of defence staff for the Canadian contribution to the overall mission and tasks of any given operation abroad. The subclause of Bill C-295 which calls for the Canadian commanding officer to be placed under UN or other international command would be contrary to current practice and would mean less, not more national control, something my instincts tell me is far from being the intent of the bill.

Bill C-295 would restrict Canada's capability to contribute to the strength of a fast reaction force on standby. As the hon. members probably know, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself have launched an initiative to assess the short, medium and long term implications of a United Nations fast reaction force and a possible Canadian contribution to this effort in the future.

Let us come back to Major-General Dallaire's plea for rapid deployment to Rwanda and in response to other international crises. Whether or not Canada participates in a given mission, when the decision is made to participate, timeliness is often crucial. This bill, if passed, would slow the decision-making process down almost every time there is a crisis.

In summation, I regret I do not support Bill C-295. I know the hon. member has put a lot of work into it and I appreciate the comments he has made. However, under the guise of providing greater control by the Parliament of Canada of international peacekeeping operations, I believe it tends to confuse certain key concepts, some of which I have alluded to. It reduces national authority over our peacekeeping troops abroad. It significantly restricts one of the government's prime assets, the flexibility and ability to manoeuvre and shape our resources to suit rapidly changing requirements in dangerous times.

[Petitions, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House.

These petitioners are all from Gambo in Bonavista North in my riding. They note that whereas the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens, that the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life, and that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, they humbly pray that Parliament would make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[National Defence, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2)(i), I wish to table in both official languages two documents describing Department of National Defence policies. One is entitled "Housing for the Canadian Forces" and the other is "Canadian Forces Compensation".

Mr. Speaker, I tabled both documents at once; therefore, I will now table the second document.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 3rd, 1995]

(a) None was conducted and none was deemed necessary.

(b) None was conducted and none was deemed necessary.

(c) The specific policy regarding the consumption of alcohol is left to the field commander who determines the amount of alcohol permitted per day during deployment. In Somalia, members were not permitted any alcohol during the first six weeks of their deployment, following which each member was allowed two beers per day, except on special occasions where no restrictions were imposed, e.g. regimental birthday. In Rwanda, members are permitted two beers per day for six days of the week with no alcohol one day a week. The field commander may remove these restrictions for special occasions.

Until quite recently, there was no scientific evidence that personnel taking mefloquine were at an enhanced risk of a serious adverse interation when drinking alcohol. Further, the prescribing information for mefloquine does not mention concern about such an interaction. Thus, when Canadian forces members were deployed to Somalia and Rwanda, there was no evident need to warn those taking mefloquine about an interaction with alcohol. However, a Canadian medical journal has recently, on February 15, 1995, reported a single case of a likely serious interaction between mefloquine and copious alcohol ingestion which resulted in a temporary psychotic state in the patient. This is the first reasonably documented reported case among the millions of persons who have taken mefloquine worldwide in the last decade, many of whom likely drank alcohol, even substantial quantities, hence the risk of such an interaction would seem quite small. In light of this report, it is felt by the Surgeon General that it is prudent specifically to caution members taking mefloquine against the concurrent excessive use of alcohol; the necessary direction is being drawn up. Reducing the mefloquine dosage to minimize potential

mefloquine/alcohol interaction was not and is not recommended since this would enhance the risk of getting malaria.

It is important to state that responsible use of alcohol is already the expected norm in the Canadian forces for other substantial reasons, e.g., injury control, whether inside or outside Canada.

(d) The usual precautions for the prescribing of mefloquine were employed. The Canadian forces have an education based drug and alcohol prevention program, DAPP, to which personnel are to be exposed annually. The Canadian airborne regiment had a DAPP session for the junior non-commissioned members in the fall of 1992 and for senior non-commissioned members and officers before departure to Somalia. At the time of deployment, there was no published literature that indicated an adverse interaction between recreational drugs and mefloquine; therefore, specific advice was not given to those who might use recreational drugs when taking mefloquine, although it is standard policy that recreational drugs are not to be taken by Canadian forces members.

(e) There has been a longstanding caution against using mefloquine among persons for whom dizziness might be particularly detrimental. While there is no evidence that this caution is necessary, out of prudence, the Canadian forces follows it and mefloquine was not and is not used in certain occupational groups, primarily pilots and divers. Hence, in Somalia and Rwanda, pilots and divers were not to be prescribed mefloquine.

(f) Mefloquine marketed in Canada is the European formulation which has 250 mg of base drug. The U.S. formulation has 228 mg of base drug, or 9 per cent less active drug. Medical studies have been done on both formulations with similar conclusions. It is unlikely that the minimally lower dose in the U.S. preparation is of practical significance.

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member. Perhaps I could inform him and the House that the Canadian forces cannot afford to buy aircraft both for strategic airlift and for normal administrative movement of the troops.

The choice is to use either the airbus for strategic airlift and to contract out for administrative flights or to reverse it and to contract out for strategic airlift and use the airbus for administrative flights.

The hon. member may not be aware that we cannot rely on commercial aircraft for strategic airlift in time of crisis. We have decided to opt for using the airbus for strategic airlift, humanitarian purposes and for those things for which contingency plans are drawn up and may be required at a moment's notice.

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to correct what I said, there was no vote when we debated this a few nights ago.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca gave an eloquent discourse which indicated why he as a member of the third party supported our troops in continuing to discharge their mandate like the other 34 countries in the United Nations, no matter how tough it gets.

We don't quit when the going gets tough.