Bob Ringma

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-67, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 1, with the following:

"vocates continued by section 7 of the Pensions Act;".

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-67, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 12, with following:

"46. (1) The definitions "Chief" ".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-67, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 14, the following:

"7. (1) There is hereby continued under the Minister a bureau to be known as the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, consisting of a Chief Pensions Advocate appointed by the Governor in Council and such other pensions advocates, officers and employees as may be required for the performance of the duties of the Bureau.

(2) The Chief Pensions Advocate and each pensions advocate shall be appointed from among persons who are members of the bar of any province.

(3) The Chief Pensions Advocate is the chief executive officer of the Bureau and has supervision over and direction of the work of the pensions advocates and other staff of the Bureau.

1. The Bureau is not part of the Department but it shall make such reports to the Minister as the Minister may direct.

2. (1) It is the duty of the Bureau, on request, a ) to provide a counselling service to applicants and pensioners with respect to the application of this Act to them; b ) to assist applicants and pensioners in the preparation of applications for review or of appeals under the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act ; and c ) to arrange for applicants and pensioners to be represented by a pensions advocate at hearings on review or appeals under the

Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

(2) The relationship between the Bureau and a person requesting its assistance is that of solicitor and client, and the Bureau shall not be required in any proceedings before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to disclose any information or material in its possession relating to any such person."

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-67 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Madam Speaker, the current situation with respect to veterans and their families is nothing short of appalling. Tens of thousands of men and women have risked their lives for this nation yet in their latter years, when they turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability pensions, they run up against a bureaucratic nightmare. Before many make it through this quagmire they have passed on without being fairly compensated.

Veterans must wonder why the country they served so valiantly serves them now with such contempt. I find it passing strange that on a day when we are acknowledging the contribution of our veterans to this country, we are having to be critical about Bill C-67.

I want all my colleagues in the House to consider the following figures. The average turnaround time for veterans who apply for benefits is 18 to 20 months at first level. Due to the fact that the benefit of doubt clause has not been appropriately applied, only 30 per cent of cases are accepted. That is almost two years for veterans who currently average 73 years of age to find out their expected disability pension has been turned down. On the advice of their independent advocate, many appeal their cases, but this can take up to three years. Of those that appeal, 70 per cent end up receiving benefits; many may only receive a portion of the expected entitlement.

The situation is unacceptable. We are making thousands of veterans in their advanced years wait almost five years to receive a disability pension. Currently there is a backlog of 12,500 cases and 10,000 more veterans are expected to apply for benefits this year.

After being chastised by the subcommittee on veterans affairs, the government promised to act on behalf of veterans to correct this shameful situation. Bill C-67 is the government's answer.

One of my prime concerns with Bill C-67, and the thrust of Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12, is that it removes the right of veterans to have their first level application prepared by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which has been a very important body to veterans as some of our members across the way may well know.

Under the current system, each veteran's application is prepared by a trained independent lawyer. In addition, each veteran enjoys solicitor-client privilege. The government claims the use of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates by veterans at first level is too time consuming and is largely responsible for the current 18 to 20 month turnaround. However, page 50 of the report by the subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled "Keeping Faith: Into the Future" clearly states that application preparation by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates consumes at maximum five months of the 18 to 20 month waiting period and in most cases consumes only two months.

If the Bureau of Pensions Advocates overprepares its cases, why are 70 per cent turned down at first level? There is no logic in that. The removal of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level process is ominous for a number of reasons.

The veteran now relies on the department to prepare and adjudicate his or her first level decision. This is not only a conflict of interest but it also removes from the veteran the right of solicitor-client privilege. The importance of solicitor-client privilege cannot be understated.

In the subcommittee on veterans affairs report, "Keeping Faith: Into the future", Mrs. Frances L. Crummer, a witness who had been battling with the department for six years most eloquently states the need for solicitor-client privilege.

She states: "An important consideration which must not be forgotten is the average age and education level of the clients serviced by the bureau and the fact that most of them know little or nothing about how the system operates. Their link with the system is their advocate, the person in whom they place their trust". I can endorse this lady's reasoning from firsthand experience.

She goes on to say: "The solicitor-client privilege enshrined in the statute is one of the inherent strengths of the bureau and the Pension Act. It forms the basis for trust that the clients place in their advocate".

She goes on to say: "Changes could place clients in jeopardy and destroy their trust, not only in their advocate but ultimately in the system itself. No changes should even be contemplated to section 19 of the act which establishes the independence of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I feel it must remain independent of the department in order to properly service veterans and dependants".

What veterans face at first level could be an indifferent or incompetent pension officer who lacks the will or knowledge to inform veterans to pursue benefits to which they are entitled. I am also concerned that veterans may not be informed if they are able to apply for an appeal of the department's decision.

Even if the pension officers have the best intentions, I am not confident that the applications they fill out will be as good as that of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. The end result could be a fast rate of first level rejections.

I foresee another difficulty with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates' being removed from the first level. Under Bill C-67 the size of the bureaucracy will be increased. The minister will be getting more power to influence the department's internal affairs. Under these proposals, the minister may have undue influence over the whole decision making process and the quality of service or rate of acceptance.

Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving direction which could deter them from encouraging veterans to pursue benefits and services to which they are entitled. They will also be under pressure to take part in fiscal restraint. Even an offhand remark by the minister could affect the way his staff deals with veterans.

With the current rejection rate of 70 per cent and an 18 to 20 month waiting period, I have no confidence that the removal of Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the first level will speed up the process and improve the acceptance ratio. Advocacy will suffer from a lack of continuity.

Currently an advocate from the bureau will deal with a veteran from first level to review and appeal stages ensuring that the advocate is familiar with the merits of their client's case throughout. Under the proposed system, the pension officer after first level will have no mandate to be involved in the case. Yet the Bureau of Pensions Advocates' lawyer would be unfamiliar with the case that has been passed on to him and would be unable to properly advise the veteran on the merits of his appeal.

A second aspect of this piece of legislation which concerns me is the proposal to join the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to the department. Again I am concerned about the chances of conflicts of interest arising and the lack of solicitor-client privilege. With the BPA restricted to hearing appeals and as part of the department, I fear that the Bureau of Pension Advocates may no longer provide the objective, expert, independent advice it currently offers, and it is good at it.

As departmental employees, they may become party to any cost cutting or ratios alluded to by the minister because they will now be answerable to superiors within the department. I fail to see how this will serve the best interests of the veteran.

I encourage all members of the House to support these important amendments on behalf of all veterans.

[Members Of Parliament Transition Allowance Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to replace the allowance provided by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act with an allowance funded by members' contributions to assist their transition back to private life.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today my private member's bill on members of Parliament pensions.

This bill is based on input from my constituents and represents what the average Canadian feels an MPs pension plan should look like. Unlike the current government bill on this issue, my bill would do away with the cash for life plan in favour of a privately controlled RRSP style fund with no contributions from the taxpayer. My bill would allow MPs to plan ahead for the future or provide them with funds for transition back into private life.

This proposal is fair to all MPs as they will all be treated equally. There is none of this trough regular and trough light

which we hear from the other side that will result from the current government's amendments. More important, Madam Speaker, if you can hear me through the din, it is fairer to the taxpayers as they are no longer forced to foot the bill.

I present this bill on behalf of the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan and thank them for their help in its development. I hope all MPs will take the time to carefully review the bill and if nothing else, come to the realization that what Canadians want is real reform of the gold plated pension.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Indian Affairs, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us try another one. At the same reserve we now have allegations of financial misappropriation through paying $255,000 in legal fees to a co-president of the aboriginal committee of the Liberal Party. How does the minister justify this?

[Indian Affairs, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since I did not get an answer last week, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about the allegations of widespread sexual abuse at the Lac Barrière reserve.

The minister has apparently known about this for months. Why has he done nothing?

[National Forestry Week, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the start of National Forestry Week.

Forestry was a major force involved in the founding of many of the communities within my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan and continues to be a vital economic activity throughout the riding today. At the same time, the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan have a great respect and appreciation for not only the revenue but also the beauty provided by the forests. We realize the importance of striking a balance between the environment and the economy.

To help celebrate National Forestry Week, a constituent of mine, Mr. Ed McDonald, a forestry technician with 40 years experience, has graciously donated western cedar seedlings to each member of the House of Commons. On behalf of Mr. McDonald, I invite all MPs to pick up a beautiful B.C. seedling from the antechamber. In planting these cedars, I hope all members will become more aware of the value of our forests in both environmental and economic terms.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of many residents of Ontario in which they note that morale in the Canadian forces is in decline. They note the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment and other negative factors having bearing.

Therefore, they request that Parliament at the earliest time initiate a wide-ranging public inquiry, replacing many that are being convened piecemeal, into the Canadian Armed Forces, which would investigate, report, and make recommendations on all matters affecting its operations: tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale, and welfare.

[Peacekeepers, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Judge Advocate General is not the be all and end all of the legal process in Canada. He may be for the Department of National Defence but he is not for Canadians at large.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to rethink the answer, leaving out the Judge Advocate General and including someone else in authority.

[Peacekeepers, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in response to the Bloc's question. I listened carefully and it is not adequate for me.

In my opinion the Canadian public is entitled to the information, and the democratic process is being violated by this blocking of the Access to Information Act.

If we consider the continued refusal to release information at the request of the commissioners we understand were appointed to conduct the inquiry, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain in simple terms why she believes Canadians' right to this information can be subverted in this way?

[Raf Ferry Command, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday marks the 50th anniversary of V-E Day. Under the banner "Canada Remembers" Canadians will spend that day paying tribute to those Canadian soldiers who fought for their country in the second world war.

However the "Canada Remembers" slogan has a somewhat hollow ring. Many civilians contributed much to the war effort, at great risk to themselves, but have been largely forgotten. One such group was RAF Ferry Command to which I would like to pay tribute. Ferry Command was a group of determined civilian pilots who delivered more than 10,000 planes to the battle zones of Europe and Asia.

Ferry Command began in November 1940 when pilots from Canadian Pacific Air Services ferried seven Lockheed Hudsons non-stop across the Atlantic and continued their work for the duration of the war. Their casualty rate was a significant 20 per cent.

I would like to ask all members in the House today to take a moment to remember the brave men and women of Ferry Command.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us try another.

Last year a group from this same Algonquin reserve sent the minister a letter pleading with him to remove the chief, who is unelected and has been convicted of assault.

The minister has a fiduciary responsibility for the personal safety of band members and this tragedy is clearly a violation of the person. What does the minister intend to do about this?