Bob Ringma

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

"Bilingualism has failed". It continues:

Two languages should be an asset, but administration of "official bilingualism" has taken a potentially wonderful and unifying asset and made it hurtful and divisive.

I could go on with many more such quotes expressed by average Canadians, but I believe this sampling gives a very good picture of the public's attitude toward the act.

If I heard "hogwash" from across the way, referring to what ordinary people are saying, I resent it. Canadians should have the right to express their opinion, especially on commissions such as the Spicer commission.

Now that we have clearly established the shortcomings of the act it is time to address the merits of the motion as it pertains to reviewing the act.

In his 1975 annual report on official languages, Commissioner Spicer wrote:

But surely there is merit in keeping more meaningful accounts. Without them, those dealing with language reform will have to continue waffling on the recurring questions of costs-hearing, but being unable to contradict convincingly such delicious polemical estimates-as $3 billion per year for bilingualism.

It would seem more sensible to pull the whole lot of linguistic items together, specify the purpose for each, tote up the terrifying sum, add 10 per cent for integrated cost, then publish and defend the thing as the high but necessary price for being Canadian.

Those words were written 20 years ago but have been ignored ever since. I am not here to make any wild claims about the cost of official languages because the truth is that I do not know the cost. The truth is that no one knows the cost.

Why do we not know the cost? It is because the accounting practices used for these programs have taken more twists and turns than contestants in a Chubby Checker dance-a-thon.

Mr. Spicer knew this in 1975 and the government knows it today but refuses to act. On two separate occasions I put motions before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages but was turned down both times. That is why I am getting rid of some of my frustration in proposing the motion originally put forward by Jean-Robert Gauthier.

The people in this committee say that we have the numbers from the commissioner and there is no need for verification. However the truth is that the numbers are not verified in any meaningful way. The commissioner gets the numbers from the Treasury Board which he accepts at face value. Treasury Board produces these numbers based on cost reports produced by all departments and agencies.

The guidelines for producing the reports clearly state that certain costs are not to be counted, such as the person years and salaries of employees taking language training as well as those of staff hired to replace the employees on language training. They do not count those costs.

Treasury Board says that its books are open to the auditor general, but if the books do not contain all the information it is difficult to conduct a thorough audit. It must also be stated that the auditor general has never turned his attention to the full range of language policies and programs.

We know that in 1991 the auditor general looked at the Translation Bureau, found many problems and concluded:

It became clear the Translation Bureau would have to undergo major changes to correct the weaknesses we identified.

In 1993 a follow up audit was conducted and the following conclusion was reached:

Despite these efforts, however, we note that significant weaknesses still exist. We are particularly concerned about cost reduction.

This is but one small area of the official languages program. After 26 years has not the time come to fully probe the entire menagerie created by the Official Languages Act?

The only question that remains is: Who should carry out such an important review? I have already stated that the official languages committee has no desire to perform such a task. Nor would it be the appropriate body as it is out of step with the demographic and linguistic realities of Canada. It would also be impractical to impose this duty on any parliamentary committee as they are dominated by the Liberal government which I believe is committed to the status quo.

My motion simply calls for the appointment of someone to conduct a thorough and balanced review of the work done so far. This someone should be the auditor general. The office of the auditor general is highly respected by all Canadians. It is at arm's length from Parliament and therefore free from political interference. The auditor general is already on the payroll, meaning there will be no extra cost to the taxpayer to conduct this vital review.

As indicated in the Reform Party's blue sheet, we support the concept of official bilingualism. However, we do not approve the way the act has been implemented during the past 26 years. That act was never subjected to a complete review. This is totally unacceptable to those who care about the linguistic policy's integrity.

It should also be mentioned that the B and B commission correctly pointed out that each province is the ultimate authority on its own territory. Consequently, any future linguistic reform should be conducted through the provincial authorities. The Reform Party shares these views but, unfortunately, the principle is not found in the act as such.

Over the past nearly 20 minutes I have illustrated the shortcomings in the act as seen by official languages commissioners, bureaucrats, academics and average Canadians. I have stated logically why we must revisit the act and who should carry out the review: the auditor general.

The issue of language has proven to be the subject of very emotional and sometimes illogical debate in the House. We have seen it directly within the year. It is regrettable as the issue is far too important to be reduced to such a level of squabbling and name calling. Therefore I call on all members of the House to be cognizant of the sensitivity of the issue as they enter into debate today and in the coming months.

I bring the motion forward in the hope of furthering open and honest discussions on Canada's language policy. Partisanship and ideology will do nothing to enhance a true exchange of ideas.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and look forward to hearing some intelligent and thought provoking debate on the motion before the House.

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, and as the anniversary of the original Official Languages Act approaches (1969-1994), the government should thoroughly assess the way the act is applied in Canada by appointing some individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so far, and reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on official languages.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to begin debate on this private member's motion which calls for a review of the Official Languages Act.

This motion may seem familiar to members, and so it should. It originally appeared on the order of precedence last fall as M-107. At that time it was sponsored by Ottawa-Vanier MP Jean-Robert Gauthier who, as we know, has since moved on to the other place.

When Mr. Gauthier answered the call from above his worthy motion was dropped from the order of precedence. More than likely Mr. Gauthier and I have different motives for bringing this motion forward. The fact that I have chosen to do so speaks to the credibility of the motion and the widely held view that the Official Languages Act is not working as it was intended.

The Reform Party supports individual bilingualism but we oppose enforced bilingualism as dictated by the Official Languages Act. We would replace the Official Languages Act with legislation reflecting the philosophy of territorial bilingualism. We believe the primary responsibility for language and culture should rest with the provinces. Parliament and other key federal government institutions would continue to offer bilingual services.

Why do I say the act is not working? A quick look at the Commissioner of Official Languages 1994 annual report provides us with some insight into this claim. According to the commissioner our audits showed that French does not have equitable status as a language of work in the national capital region. He went on to say the shortcomings are essentially the same in Quebec and in Ontario.

This is what our present commissioner had to say about the act. A look back reveals that his predecessors shared a similar point of view. Former commissioner D'Iberville Fortier said: "It seems to me that we are clearly not at the point where we can claim to have translated the act into action in a manner that is judicious, consistent and unequivocal".

In a similar vein, former commissioner Max Yalden accused the government of being inconsistent, unimaginative and indiscriminate in its implementation of the act.

The first Commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer, was often critical of the government's implementation of the act. His 1991 report "Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future" clearly spelled out Canadians' view on the issue:

The view was often expressed that Canada's official languages policy has contributed significantly to the current crisis, including animosity toward Quebec and/or toward French. Frequently used terms describe bilingualism as divisive and as breaking up the country.

An independent review of the application of the official languages policy is badly needed to clear the air, with a view to ensuring that it is fair and sensible. Otherwise there is risk that rising public dissatisfaction and misunderstanding will lead to

rejection of the policy as a whole with irreparable damage to the principles of linguistic equality in federal institutions.

One purpose of the review should be to make clear to Canadians the cost and benefits of official languages policy and activities and explain far more clearly its goals and methods. Such a review should evaluate public information efforts as well as investigate all of the public's expressed concerns.

This recommendation, like all the others contained in the $25 million document, was ignored by the government of the day, just as the Liberals continue to ignore the views of the thousands of Canadians who took part in this process. Despite this lack of government attention to the concerns expressed by Canadians, that recommendation is as valid today as it was in June 1991.

The people intimately involved with the act, the commissioners, say the act is not working as it should.

Other noted Canadians share this sentiment. In an interview celebrating the 20th anniversary of the founding of the B and B commission, nine of the commissioners talked about their original work and how it had been implemented by the Official Languages Act. Mrs. Gertrude Laing was less than complimentary about the way the act had been implemented in the public service. In discussing the wholesale creation of bilingual positions and the massive second language training program, Mrs. Laing said that they "failed to respect individuals' feelings and needs, fears and aspirations".

On those same issues co-chairman Davidson Dutton commented that it was "two steps forward and one step back". Mr. Paul Lacoste, in discussing language of work, lamented the decision not to follow the commission recommendation to set up unilingual language work units and called the language of work policy in the public service a failure.

Similarly Mr. J. B. Rudnyckyj regretted that the Official Languages Act contained such weak provisions with respect to Canada's ethnic minorities. All the commissioners were disappointed that bilingual districts had never been proclaimed as they were a key feature of the blueprint for equal partnership.

Gilles Lalande, deputy commissioner of official languages from 1980 to 1985 and co-secretary of the B and B commission also called the bilingual districts a cornerstone of language reform but said the subject had received little more than lip service and empty declarations of intent. He also said:

The language reform envisaged by the B and B commissioners never took place.

Mr. Lalande was equally pessimistic about the act itself saying:

Implementation of the act remains fragmentary and tentative.

He concluded by saying:

We have to admit that collectively we may have been overly ambitious and taken the wrong tack. It is high time to get our priorities straight.

Other prominent Canadians have also questioned the validity of the current act. Professors Denise Réume and Leslie Green in their 1991 article published in "The Network on the Constitution" wrote:

The main goal of any language policy should be to promote linguistic justice. Nothing in the conventional analysis even addresses this question.

Noted Concordia University sociologist Hubert Guindon stated in a 1978 article: "No matter how lofty its ideals, the legacy of the political disaster created by" the federal "official language policy is there for everyone to see". According to Professor Guindon, the act hinders rather than facilitates the changes needed as a consequence of the social modernization of the Quebecois. It contributes to a climate of ambiguity for immigrants in Quebec and uncertainty for the large private corporate sector in Quebec.

We have seen that several language commissioners, bureaucrats and academics believe the act has failed. If we return to the Spicer forum for a minute we could also see that average Canadians hold similar views. I have heard that firsthand in the west.

Here are a few short quotes from that 1991 report:

Pierre Trudeau's vision of a multicultural and bilingual society for Canada was a noble one, but it is apparent now that it simply will not work.

[Petitions, June 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in accordance with Standing Order 36 on the subject of gun control.

The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. The petitioners also request that Parliament support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.

[Underground Economy, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to both sides of the motion presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

One positive side is that the member is looking for solutions to a problem. I endorse that. I encourage members to do that type of thing. The other positive side to the motion is that it reflects what many constituents are thinking. There are constituents who are saying that the present situation is unfair to legitimate business. There are other constituents who are saying that we can work our way out of it.

I refer to a letter from a constituent who came to see me in my constituency office in Nanaimo some weeks ago. His name is Gary Chandler. His thoughts were to give each taxpayer a new deduction on income tax which would represent 5 per cent to 10 per cent of taxable income for improvements to a principal residence. Canadians have more savings per capita than the people of most countries. The measure would free up enough of that money to reduce unemployment. It would also cut into the underground market as legitimate receipts would be required.

When I read the letter and talked with the gentleman I thought it was an attractive idea, that it was something positive to undercut the burgeoning underground economy. I am not an expert in this regard so I decided to find out what my colleagues in the Reform caucus thought. I passed it on to them and the caucus financial committee discussed it. They went at it in some detail. However they found that they could not support it for the following reasons.

First, they said the taxes that would be forgone by this type of exemption would make it quite costly. The next point they brought to my attention was that it would therefore be necessary to extend the same tax privilege to other areas such as car repair, small appliance repair and household appliance repair. All sorts of areas would stand in line and say: "Us too". Before we knew it we would have a whole series of exemptions that would affect the way we do business.

The third reason they gave was that it would move us, certainly as a party, away from our proposal for a flat tax system. A lot of Canadians are complaining about the tax system. We have to make it simpler and easier to understand. The forms have to be simpler and so on. This type of exemption would move us away from that area.

The final reason they could not support it was found when examining the reason for having the underground economy. This is the principal one. The reason we have an underground economy is the same reason my colleague pointed out a few minutes ago. The government's spending level is too high. Therefore the taxation level is too high. We keep pounding at that over and over again. We realize we have a $550 billion debt and it is growing. We have to do something about it.

The government is now taking some small steps toward reducing deficit spending. We do not feel it is enough, but it is the basic reason behind the fact that we have an underground economy. Unless we tackle that first we will not solve the bigger problems.

I compliment the member for Mississauga South for raising this initiative and for trying to solve the problems. While it is reflective of the thinking among constituents asking how to solve the problems, nevertheless overspending and the high taxation rate on the part of government must be overcome first.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, of course they have problems in Quebec. Of course they must stand up and defend them, but I will come back to what it is I am saying.

We want to be the official opposition and yes, we will wait for a byelection to have it happen properly. In the meantime, the Bloc is doing nothing more than being the advocate of everything in Quebec and is not acting as the official opposition for all Canadians.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I partly agree with the hon. member's words. He is certainly right when he says that the Reform Party is against big government, against too much government and against too much control by Ottawa over the provinces.

I agree that we would like to have decentralization as outlined. But at the same time, and I will repeat what I just said. I see in the Bloc's motion a totally political manoeuver to bring the separation issue into the debate today.

I can say that I heard the Bloc previously describe federalism as dominating. I also agree with that. But we have to change the government, we have to change the system first. We need decentralization, but we do not have it yet. We must work in order to achieve it.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is stimulating for me to rise today to address the Bloc motion which denounces the government for its tardiness in addressing Quebec's demands for outstanding payment in three critical areas.

What does the Government of Quebec want? If we examine the request we see that the Parti Quebecois or the Government of Quebec says that it is owed $79 million for costs incurred during

the Oka crisis of 1990. This bill is mainly for overtime paid to the Quebec provincial police. Quebec claims that Indian affairs is a federal jurisdiction and the government has a crisis fund from which the money should be paid.

On the surface it seems like a reasonable request and is reasonably justified. If we were to get into the details we might find room for argument. After all we all know that if the provinces request through their attorneys general the aid of the civil power for their police it is a provincial obligation to pay.

In any event, Ottawa says that it has already paid $5.3 million. It has asked the federal auditor general to review the claims on both sides and propose a fair division of costs. This seems like a quite reasonable position which I submit should be given a chance to work.

The second claim on the part of the Parti Quebecois or the Government of Quebec is for $119 million for moneys spent on the education of young natives in the James Bay region of northern Quebec. The spending of $119 million for the education of natives was very laudable and worthwhile.

The PQ claims that the 1978 James Bay agreement contained provisions for Ottawa to pay a portion of the costs, but that since 1987 it has refused to pay its full share. The response from Ottawa is that it has already spent $450 million over the past several years and that additional costs were incurred by the province of Quebec without federal approval. According to reports, Ottawa is quite willing to discuss this matter in further detail but Quebec is unhappy with the pace of the negotiations to date, if not the negotiations themselves.

I submit that the negotiation process should be encouraged so that a fair and equitable agreement can be reached on this important matter. It seems that in this play between the government and the PQ and even the BQ, Reform has almost taken the position of honest broker.

The final claim of the PQ is for $135 million under the stabilization payment programs for 1991-92. The PQ says that richer provinces, including Ontario and my province of British Columbia, got money under the program which compensates provinces if they lose revenue because of an economic downturn.

Ottawa's reply in this case is that the finance department analysed Quebec's application on the same basis as other provinces that applied that year and the application was turned down, as was that of Saskatchewan. If that is the case, then Quebec has no claim.

Having looked at the demands and Ottawa's response to these demands, it is also very important for all of us to look at the motivation behind these claims. The Parti Quebecois is currently engaged in a campaign to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. The PQ is calling it a sovereignty campaign but it is just that, a campaign to separate.

We read in the polls that the campaign shows the separatist side is losing. We must ask ourselves the question: Could it be that the PQ and their BQ allies are simply looking for an issue to help buoy the sagging separatist cause? If we examine the theory we see that such a tactic could bring positive gains to the yes side.

First, if Ottawa refuses to pay, the PQ and the BQ can tell Quebecers that Ottawa just does not care. That it is just another example of why Quebec must separate from Canada, because Ottawa cannot be trusted to live up to its commitments.

If Ottawa gives in and pays what the PQ says it is owed, then the separatist forces can trumpet: "This is a victory against domineering Ottawa". Either way, the PQ and BQ can score political points. This is what troubles me about the bills being presented by the PQ and the motion presented by the Bloc today. It appears to be motivated by crass politics and is not a genuine desire to enhance the lives of Quebecers.

At the same time I have to applaud members of the Bloc for their dogged determination to bring before the House issues that affect their constituents, the people of Quebec. They are very good at that. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that this determination is not based on anything more than achieving the Bloc's stated political goal of separation.

I must also admonish the Bloc for neglecting its role as the official opposition. If the Bloc wants to maintain the role of official opposition, it has to widen its focus and begin to address the many greater areas of common concern in Canada. It must not be allowed to simply use its position to further its own agenda.

Dedicating limited supply days to debating motions such as the one we have before us today means that the affairs of the nation as a whole are put on the back burner while we all address issues which affect just a limited portion of our society. That is the problem. To me it is an abuse of the parliamentary process and to a large degree an affront to the majority of Canadians, even to Canadians in Quebec who are tired of seeing themselves used as nothing more than pawns in the political games being played by the Bloc and its PQ allies in Quebec city.

If the PQ and the BQ want to separate, then let them hold their referendum without delay and let Parliament get on with the business of running Canada for all Canadians. It is time for parliamentarians to demand the Bloc either fulfil its role as the official opposition or step aside for a party that is willing to do the job. The Bloc must not be allowed to hold Parliament hostage any longer.

It is within the power of Parliament to remove the mantle of official opposition from the Bloc and bestow it on a true opposition party. This has not happened to date because the Prime Minister appears unwilling to do it.

Therefore I appeal to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to write the Prime Minister and ask him why he is an accomplice to these political games; ask the Prime Minister to allow the House to conduct a free vote on which party should be the official opposition.

It is time for us all to move forward in the interest of all Canadians. The Bloc is hindering this process with the type of motion that is in front of us today. Canadians say enough, and I say enough, and enough to the motion before the House as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, because there has been a lapse of several days I remind all that Bill C-67 is the Veterans Appeal and Review Board Act and that the purpose of Bill C-67 is to reduce the existing backlog of appeal pension cases and to shorten decision time on first application.

If it succeeds it will merge two existing bodies, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board, and first decisions on veterans cases will be made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the bureau of pension advocates will become part of the department and will work only on preparation of appeals.

My unease with Bill C-67 stems from two sources. The first is the change of position of the bureau of pension advocates. This has long been an extremely important first level of contact for veterans who have a case to make. To move it to the second level is totally unacceptable. The second unease I have concerns what I shall call the leadership factor in the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Reaction to need within those departments has historically been very slow. I do contend that at the sharp end of the Department of National Defence, when we are talking about our troops, it is very good. Its reaction time is good and it is flexible. The farther we move in the chain of things behind the front line, the more the bureaucracy is involved and the slower the reaction. The bill's purpose is admirable but if the effect of the bill will be to increase the size of the bureaucracy then I cannot believe it will achieve its aim.

When I spoke to the bill very briefly last week I pointed out delays of 40 and 50 years in recognizing our veterans' accomplishments. The merchant navy waited for 50 years for recognition. The veterans of Dieppe have waited for over 50 years and are finally receiving a simple clasp for a medal. The veterans of

the Korean operation have waited for well over 40 years to achieve something. Other veterans of peacekeeping operations are still waiting. There was a proposal from this side of the House, supported by some members opposite, that there be a Canadian volunteer service medal produced for peacekeepers. However, I am sorry to say that was rejected by the House. There is certainly a slowness in recognition.

The other side of this impasse in national defence I started to illustrate the other day when I spoke about problems with hearing loss of members of the Canadian forces. Way back when, and we are talking a long time ago, when I was on the rifle ranges we wore no ear protectors. It took literally years for the Department of National Defence to come up with protection for the troops on the ranges firing weapons. It took even longer for any recognition of the fault of the Department of National Defence to be echoed by the Department of Veterans Affairs when veterans applied for hearing aids. The departments dragged their feet. That is a syndrome visible within national defence and veterans affairs.

Another example is the atomic energy corporation of Chalk River. There were spills of radioactive materials. There was a spill of the main reactor in Chalk River in the 1950s. People like Jimmy Carter, not then the president of the United States but a midshipman at Annapolis, came up to help clean up that spill. I was there. I had some illness presumably attributable to exposure to radiation. I tried to declare this on my release from the forces but it was not even accepted by national defence and veterans affairs.

There is the gulf war syndrome. Our troops were in the Persian gulf several years ago and some of them have complained of a variety of symptoms. The same thing has happened in the United States. The American veterans administration has acknowledged and labelled the problem as the gulf war syndrome. It has set up a registry at veterans affairs across the United States where all gulf war veterans complaining of health problems can get a complete physical examination. There has been acknowledgement of it in the United States. Here there has been nothing yet. We are still looking at the problem.

I am not in a position to say there is such a thing as an illness contracted whether it is from the oilfields, nerve gas or from anything there. What I am saying is national defence and veterans affairs invariably drag their feet in recognizing there are problems.

There are sufficient symptoms displayed by veterans that it should not be a problem. The symptoms include loss of memory, aches in the joints, night sweats, severe headaches, loss of hair, confusion, reproductive problems, stress within family, attention disorder, fatigue, abnormal rashes, bleeding gums, irritability, breathing problems and so on. They are surely sufficient for our people to say get it out in the open and tackle this thing and either put it to rest and say there is no such thing as gulf war syndrome or there is and these are the attributes we recognize.

I have a letter from the vice-president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. He is reporting on the gulf war syndrome problem: "This report would be more extensive had I received all of the information I am waiting for. Please advise me if you would like me to keep you informed of any new developments. Our methods of gaining information are very tedious, as we are a non-profit organization that must rely on the mail system, etc. We do not have the funds to travel to interview the individuals in question. We also have full time employment and must conduct this type of research after hours. Don't get me wrong, we do this research because we believe in what we do. We must help our fellow veterans. We would like eventually to conduct an interview or have a questionnaire completed by our gulf war veterans and their spouses. This would certainly enlighten us as to the situation with regard to that".

My point is veterans affairs and national defence should take more initiative, should exercise leadership and show our serving soldiers and veterans that they are interested and lay some of these problems to rest.

We have other examples of the same thing. Somalia and the use of mefloquine is another such example. Mefloquine is a drug used as a malaria inhibitor. Years ago, I will not say how many, when I was in Korea we used paludrine which had certain side effects but nothing to the extent that apparently mefloquine does. My colleague from Delta brought this up in the last six months. He has asked for an investigation into the effects mefloquine may have had on Canadian troops serving in Somalia. He cited specifically Trooper Kyle Brown who, as we all know, has been put into prison, and Master Corporal Clayton Matchee and the men of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

I understand this drug is still in use to this day in Somalia in spite of questions about its appropriateness. Apparently Canadian troops in Somalia were given heavy doses weekly of mefloquine which, as I say, is used as protection against malaria. However, the drug is well known to have neurological side effects. The manufacturer's literature states that reactions are rare but include convulsions, psychosis, nightmares, dizziness, headaches, confusion, anxiety and depression.

The Canadian medical personnel in Somalia reported that Canadian troops experienced these side effects. In fact, the day the drug was administered in Somalia was known as psycho Tuesday.

In view of reports like this, I would expect that the Department of National Defence-and I lump veterans affairs in with it for this purpose-would show more leadership by taking the initiative to say: "Let us put a stop to nonsense like this. Let us put a stop to the stories. We will determine accurately whether mefloquine can continue to be administered, what its side

effects are, when it can and cannot be used, what its effects are with liquor and so on". We need to put these things to rest.

In conclusion, I find that leadership in national defence, lumped in with veterans affairs, is lacking today. We have been looking at a great many problems over the last year: Somalia, the disbandment of the airborne regiment and the videos pertaining to that, the reduction in the size of the forces, equipment problems, morale problems brought out in the Oehring report, having to do more with less in the way of equipment and troops as brought out by Brigadier-General Jeffries' report from Petawawa, the Fowler-Doyle-Létourneau incident, the Somalia inquiry and the staffing of the inquiry itself, the Bosnia-Croatia decisions, suicides in the forces and, more recently, the block of access to information problems. All of these things tell me that there are leadership problems in national defence.

When I look at those problems and the foot dragging that goes on, I say that Bill C-67 should be really looked at very carefully. It should not be proceeded with in its present form. I am absolutely against the relegation of the bureau of pension advocates to a review position. This is not going to help the veterans. The burgeoning bureaucracy that will be created by the combining of two levels is going to be bad news once again for the veterans and their administration.

Therefore, I speak negatively on this bill. The purpose of Bill C-67 is laudable but its implementation, I am sorry to say, may not do what we want for the veterans who are having problems.

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

So I have five minutes.

I would like to start by saying that the intention of Bill C-67 is indeed good. I agree with the words of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke that we must give veterans all the recognition possible and speed things up.

This bill proposes to reduce the existing backlog of appealed pension cases and shorten the decision time. I do not think, with the way they are going about it, this will be achieved.

The big thing I want to put front and centre is that I totally object to the removal of the Bureau of Pension Advocates from the first level. This is something that has given veterans the real representation they need to make their cases. By withdrawing it from that level and putting it into the second level the government is doing them a real disservice.

The intent of the bill is to cut down the waiting time. I really wonder about that. I would like to share some of my experience with members of the House.

Let us look at recognition of veterans today. How long does it take for us to recognize what is happening? It has taken us over 50 years as a government, the Liberals or the Conservatives or whoever, to recognize the merchant navy. Merchant navy people have been trying to plead their case for all those years. Finally we are doing something about it.

It took veterans of the Korean War 40 years to get a medal of their own. They said they thought they deserved something more than just a British Commonwealth medal or a United Nations one. It took 40 years for that.

Dieppe was one of the costliest battles of World War II, the Dieppe landing. It took 50 years to get just a little clasp for a medal to recognize that very significant action, debatable action though it may be, at Dieppe. It took 50 years for that.

We are still waiting for a Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping operations. A proposal was put to the House to achieve it, but it was negated by the House. So those veterans are still waiting.

All in all, National Defence and Veterans Affairs are very slow in reacting to anything. I suspect that C-67 is not going to improve that at all.

Over my lifetime I can look at hearing problems within the military and of course with the veterans today. Hearing was recognized as problem, with people going onto the firing ranges and practising weaponry with no ear covers whatsoever. The result is that many of us have hearing loss today. It took years, literally decades, for the departments to recognize the problem and do something about it. That has left today's veterans with the same problem.

Many of us went up to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in Chalk River to clean up nuclear spills. The departments of national defence and veterans affairs to this day are putting their hands out saying that they will not talk about it.

I went to clean up a spill in 1952 or 1953 and as a result, I became ill. When I retired some 30 years later, I put down as part of my release procedure that I had been subjected to this problem. Neither national defence nor veterans affairs would give recognition to it.

On agent orange, our people have been to Vietnam. Perhaps they have been subjected to the effects of agent orange.

I could go on but I see the Speaker is getting ready to close off debate. I must respect the Speaker's right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about waiting. I have been waiting all week to get in a few words on this bill, with the vagaries of government.

I would like to ask the Speaker if this debate is now cut off in five minutes.