Mr. Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act.
The purpose of this bill is to revamp the process for awarding disability pensions to veterans. The bill also repeals the Canadian Pension Commission. It transfers responsibility for all first level decisions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It establishes a Board that from now on will be responsible for reviewing decisions and hearing appeals. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, now an independent agency, will become part of the department.
Since this bill was tabled in the House of Commons, I have spoken in debate on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois as the veterans affairs critic. Since first reading of the bill on December 15, we have always said we supported any measures that would speed up the process that helps veterans obtain a decent pension.
Everyone agrees there are substantial delays and backlogs in the current process. Consider that the average age of veterans is 73. A study carried out in 1992 mentioned a turnaround time of up to 18 months in the case of first level decisions and delays of up to 36 months when objections are raised and a decision must be reviewed or appealed. In some particularly sad cases, the delay is unbelievable. Something had to be done to improve the process.
Before the House today is the government's response to this need. A response that has generated both criticism and concern. The federal government has opted for the tried and true to deal with this problem, in other words, for concentrating power in the hands of fewer people. That is why, although we welcomed the intent of the bill, which is to shorten the delay in awarding pensions, we still felt there was considerable cause for apprehension and concern.
We are in fact afraid this bill will not achieve what we all want it to achieve. We are also afraid of the disastrous impact it may have on the vested rights of veterans.
Throughout the various stages at which the bill was examined, we heard many comments, all marked by the same feelings of concern and apprehension.
Considering the merits of the bill's objectives, no veterans organizations took a stand against this legislation. However, these organizations found much to criticize, both regarding the substance and the form of this legislation.
As we approach the final passage of this bill, it may be useful to recall these criticisms. In fact, they led us to formulate certain conditions we feel are necessary to guarantee some transparency in this new process for awarding pensions to veterans.
The first criticism that drew our attention was about the consultation process prior to the bill. A veterans' association complained about the consultation process and wondered why the department had not been evenhanded in the way it selected its partners. It is, of course, easier to consult someone who thinks as you do than someone who objects to your proposals or questions your motives.
Another objection came from the Royal Canadian Legion. Its president said that the proposed changes would not, as intended, reduce by half the time required to make the actual pension payment. That is, not unless most of the first level decisions are affirmative.
However, from now on these decisions will be made by the department, which is said to have a very negative attitude towards veterans. And that is where most of the delay occurs in the current process. This is not very encouraging for the Legion.
We also heard from representatives of Canadian army, navy and air force veterans. They said they were very concerned about losing the services of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates at the first level. They could not understand why the government was proceeding with such sweeping changes when the review of pension assessments had been instrumental in implementing many measures that were all aimed at reducing the turnaround time.
They also fear that the minister will use this power to bring in restrictive policies regarding the processing of claims. The same refrain comes from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. The guild says that Bill C-67 contains very little to convince them that the turn around time for claims will be reduced.
The guild also fails to see how the new board will be able to eliminate the backlog or how putting power into the hands of one person will achieve the desired result, which is reducing processing time. Therefore, instead of being a reassurance, this bill is a worry. Although its objective is to reduce processing time, there is no reason to believe that it actually will. The government and the officials who drafted this bill are asking us to take a leap of faith. The only thing that we can be sure this bill will do is reduce veterans' services, mainly the legal services at the first level. We can also be sure that it concentrates power within
branches and the department, and that ultimate power will lie in the hands of the minister.
Despite all of these criticisms, these worries, there is one glaring reality which will not change, that is the time required to process claims.
I would like to point out to the House how long these lags are. We all know that, from the time we are born, we are all relentlessly getting closer to our deaths, and that, once we reach a respectable age, we all realize how little time we have left. How can we tolerate that the applications submitted by veterans, whose average age is 73, get bogged down in the bureaucracy, that veterans have to wait ages and ages while their health deteriorates and their standard of living suffers?
I would like to give you two examples. In its February 23 issue, Le Journal de Québec ran a story on Yvon Bureau, a former member of the Royal 22nd Regiment based in Valcartier. On April 17, 1964, while on a peacekeeping mission in Cyprus, he was injured. After waiting 30 years, the government finally decided that he was entitled to a pension. It took them 30 years. They maintained that his condition was not related to his service, to the accident he had in the line of duty. They even had him consult a psychiatrist. And it was only recently, after the government obtained opinions from many different experts, that his right to a pension was acknowledged. But he is not finished waiting yet, because he was not granted benefits for those 30 years he was waiting. He will have to take his case to all of the avenues of appeal, if not to the Federal Court, in order to obtain full and true justice.
There are many other similar cases. For example, Frances Crummer, a very worthy person who was willing to submit a paper to the standing committee reviewing this bill. Mrs. Crummer, the widow of a veteran, has stopped counting the years she and her late husband had to put up with the pension system and all of the paperwork they have done. She went through three applications, one after the other: the initial application, the application for review and the application for appeal. She went to the hearings of the review board and of the assessment board. After going through nine decisions, two amended decisions, one decision in the form of a letter, eleven appeals and six hearings, Mrs. Crummer still has not given up, but that does not deter her from harshly criticizing this bill.
After seeing such examples, how can we claim that the current bill will prevent similar situations? In one case, the file was studied for 30 years and, in the other, it took 12 decisions for the applicant to gain some ground. In my opinion, the problem is simple: there is either a lack of will to resolve problems or, simply put, people are making sure that they continue to have work by taking their sweet time closing files. If this is the problem, it is not only scandalous, but absurd.
The review of pensions by two consulting firms and the department in 1992 at a cost of $670,565 concluded that it could take 18 months for a first level decision and up to 36 months, if there were complications. Given this information, you will understand our desire from the outset to be involved as much as we could in a bill that would identify the system's shortcomings and propose corrective action to remedy them.
This is not to be, however. We note that the shortcomings are not clearly identified, that the proposed merging of agencies in favour of the department and the new board will serve much more to consolidate the minister's authority, that these measures limit services to veterans and, finally, that it is not clear that all these changes will accelerate the process.
Is this not, perhaps, a backhanded manoeuvre by the Minister of Finance and his budget to save a few bucks on the backs of the veterans? Is it not, perhaps, instead a less than subtle way to find positions for the party faithful? I can assure you that these questions are foremost in the minds of anyone who examines the bill for what it is and not for what it claims to be. Naturally, we have received no answer to this sort of question. There is, however, one thing we know for sure and that is that the bill will do nothing to reduce the time required to settle veterans' applications, because it fails to deal with the basic problems.
These problems, as the review clearly indicated, are: duplication and cumbersome operation, the slowness in implementing computerized communications and, most of all, the acknowledgement, in practice, of the veterans' right to priority treatment at the medical specialist's office. Nothing in the bill deals with these problems. Our approach in reviewing Bill C-67 was guided by our desire to help reduce delays and to ease as much as possible the concerns expressed by both veterans' associations and experts.
That is what we tried to do during clause by clause consideration and at the report stage before the House. Our proposals in this regard were rejected, and that is unfortunate. We, however, still feel that special measures should apply to the physicians and medical experts who become involved in the award application assessment process.
For example, whenever the minister exercises his power to order an applicant or pensioner to undergo a medical examination, he should require that the designated medical expert give priority to his request by conducting the examination and reporting results as expeditiously as possible, as is done for any review or appeal application to the veterans board.
When the board seeks the advice of an independent medical expert, it should instruct this medical expert to give the applicant or appellant the required examinations without delay and
report examination results as soon as possible. Similar measures would save a lot of time, since many witnesses have testified that medical visits and examinations account for a large proportion of undue delays, something about which the government has not yet summoned the courage to intervene.
I can understand that the medical profession is subject to quotas, that it is free to decide how to run its business, and that it is a very delicate matter to ask a professional to fit more patients into his or her appointment book. At least, those are the excuses we heard from the Liberal members on the committee. However, the question we must ask ourselves is this: When we decided to send our young people to the front, on the eve of a promising future, to put their lives on the line to defend their country, did we ask them if they had appointments? No. We did not ask their permission. These young people decided to serve in the military because of a sense of duty, a sense of honour, a sense of urgency. They were there when their country needed them; they did not make anyone wait. It is not the physicians we should be concerned about in this case. We should only be concerned with the person who is aging and cannot afford to go through the regular channels. Our society must recognize that, on the basis of the sacrifices they made, we owe our veterans the privilege of coming first in our health care system. I hope that physicians will hear this reasoned and heartfelt appeal.
We also rose in this House at report stage to try and obtain guarantees for veterans, in this respect. We suggested ways of accommodating concerns expressed regarding concentration of powers in the hands of the minister. We suggested a more transparent approach to selecting the members of the new board, one which would require that the provinces and the standing committee be consulted before any member is selected. But this solution was rejected by the Liberal majority, who did not want this greater degree of openness and democracy.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs mixed everything up, claiming that our initiative would weigh down the processing of applications. It would not. We know very well that appointments are for ten year terms. Moreover, the bill includes transitional provisions that should ensure a smooth transition to the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
This refusal by the federal government to consult the provinces and the standing committee on appointments to the board shows how little it cares about the provinces and about openness. Under the circumstances, the government can well be accused of wanting to centralize more than ever and of ignoring the provinces. It can well be accused of wanting to put its own benefit and that of its friends before the public interest by taking advantage of public issues in this way.
Bill C-67 fits in perfectly with such bills as Bill C-65, Bill C-76 or Bill C-43 on lobbyists. This bill reflects the federal government's will to centralize. No wonder it is concerned. Out of concern for efficiency, having failed to remedy the inadequacies of the Canadian Pension Commission, it is now concentrating the whole first level decision making process in the hands of the minister, rebuilding a two tiered board, the membership of which will come from political appointments made without any consultations, and concentrating legal assistance at the level of reviews or appeals before the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board. These services are being transferred to the department so they will be easier to control. Now that is typical of this government.
There is a great deal to criticize in this bill. However, the need for change tends to override any criticism, at least that is the message we get from veterans associations that did not openly oppose the bill. In their representations we read a desire to reduce delays, even if this meant making some concessions in terms of services or opening the door to arbitrary decisions.
That is the main reason why we will support Bill C-67 on third reading. However, as is the case with the veterans associations, our support is mingled with a great deal of concern and dissatisfaction. I feel we could have done far better. I think we could have considered, first and foremost, the interests of those who risked their lives and defended our freedom at the cost of physical and mental suffering. At a time when we are given this opportunity to commemorate our veterans, that we have failed to do so is unfortunate, disturbing and indeed distressing.
Keeping our commitments to them is even more important than expressing our gratitude. We must not forget that the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War will probably be the last time those who experienced these historical events come together to participate in these ceremonies.
There are still about 3,000 World War I veterans, 505,000 veterans of World War II, now averaging 73 years of age, and we also have 20,000 veterans of the Korean War.
I realize that military personnel who participated in UN peacekeeping operations will apply for disability pensions, but not in the same numbers as after the Second World War.
That is why we must deal with the backlog in processing pension applications as soon as possible. With our support on third reading, I would nevertheless urge the government to reaffirm its commitment to our veterans. It must give them the assurance that giving applicants for disability pensions the benefit of the doubt is not just an empty phrase. The new section
in the Pension Act, section 5(3) introduced in clause 47 of the bill, and also section 39, must become part of the process.
It is essential that from all the circumstances of the case and all the evidence presented either to the minister or to the new board, every reasonable inference be drawn in favour of the applicant. Any uncontradicted evidence must be accepted. Any doubt, in the weighing of the evidence, as to whether the applicant or appellant has established a case must be resolved in his or her favour.
Only then will the principle of benefit of doubt become part of the process, and only then will the new pension award system introduced by this bill reflect the initial intent of the legislator with respect to our policy for compensating our veterans.
