CONTENTS
Monday, May 8, 1995
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12282
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12285
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12285
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12286
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12286
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12286
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12288
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12288
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 12290
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 12290
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12291
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12292
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12294
Bill C-324. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 12295
Bill C-67. Consideration of report stage 12296
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 12296
Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12 12296
Division on motion deferred 12300
Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 12300
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 12305
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 12306
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 12307
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 12307
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 12307
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 12308
Division on motion deferred 12310
Division on motion deferred 12311
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 12311
Division on motion deferred 12313
Bill C-54. Report stage (with amendments) 12314
Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 12314
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12316
Division on motion deferred 12320
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12320
Division on motion deferred 12321
Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 12322
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 12324
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 12324
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 30; Nays, 133 12326
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 12327
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 106; Nays, 57 12327
Bill C-67. Consideration resumed of report stage. 12328
Motion Nos. 1, 3, and 10 negatived on division:Yeas, 27; Nays, 136 12328
Motion No. 2 negatived on division:Yeas, 57; Nays, 106 12329
Motions Nos. 7 and 11 negatived on division: Yeas, 57; Nays, 106 12330
Motion for concurrence 12330
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 30 12331
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 12331
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 12332
Consideration resumed of motion 12332
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 56; Nays, 103 12332
12279
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 8, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for over a
year now, Canadians have been planning to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the events that led to the end of the second world
war. Hundreds of commemorative activities have already been
held in various communities across Canada. Through
ceremonies, concerts, exhibitions and storytelling, Canadians
are paying tribute to those who gave their lives to overcome
tyranny.
There are no words to express the pride I feel toward my
country, a country that was effectively created by the men and
women who fought for our freedom. It is because of both those
who did not come back and those who are still among us, along
with the thousands of Canadians who supported their efforts,
that we now enjoy a quality of life and freedoms without
parallel. Today I want to thank and honour them.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois wishes to salute the election of the Mayor of
Paris, Jacques Chirac, as President of the French Republic.
During his seven-year mandate, Mr. Chirac, a man of vast
experience, will probably have to face the major challenges that
await France as the next millennium approaches. When Quebec
Premier Jacques Parizeau visited France in January, the new
French president said that if Quebecers decided in favour of
sovereignty, France would no doubt be among the first to say
that it would accompany them along that road.
For his part, the Prime Minister of Canada implied a few
months ago that Jacques Chirac had as little chance of winning
the presidential election as the sovereignists had of winning
their referendum. Again, history is waiting for our Prime
Minister just around the corner.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is National Nursing Week. As a nurse, I
realize the important role nurses fulfil in our health care system
and the many challenges they face daily.
Nurses face the seemingly never ending challenge of
providing more services at higher standards with less funding.
This is the result of a combination of today's fiscal constraints,
rising health costs, public expectation, and the expanding role of
health services.
Changes in the role nurses play have great potential to
improve cost effectiveness in our health care system. For
instance, in many cases nurses can provide the necessary
education, guidance, and care without the patient having to visit
or revisit a physician.
Our health care is too important an issue to be left only to
politicians. Health care debates and decisions must involve all
major players, and nurses are ideally positioned. I ask all
members in the House to join me in saluting all of Canada's
nurses today.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that May 8 is World Red
Cross and Red Crescent Day. This day is meant to celebrate
international understanding and promote the humanitarian
cause of the Red Cross Society of Canada.
This year's theme is dignity for all and respect for women.
World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day acknowledges the
millions of people suffering from the consequences of war due
to ethnic and other violence, natural disasters, and malnutrition.
It appeals to people all over the world to respect the dignity of
those most in need. For nearly 100 years, the Canadian Red
Cross Society has maintained a Canadian tradition of providing
humanitarian assistance whenever and wherever it is needed.
Often the Red Cross is the only organization allowed to bring
assistance to war zones.
12280
Please join me in congratulating the many volunteers of the
Red Cross Society for their selfless efforts and understanding
work and in wishing them a very successful Red Cross and Red
Crescent Day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
50th anniversary of V-E Day in Europe, we will recall that
although far from the battle, all of America was deeply
concerned about the events taking place in Europe. While
thousands of Quebecers and Canadians were fighting abroad,
thousands of others contributed to the war effort on the home
front.
I am referring in particular to all those women who provided
support to the combatants. I am thinking about the nurses, the
women who worked on farms and in factories and those who
produced war materials. To all those women who, through their
courage and hard work, contributed to the war effort, we are
expressing today our most sincere admiration and deepest
gratitude.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform Party MPs have given thumbs up to the first piece of
legislation in Canadian history to actively keep government
honest and accountable to Canadians.
The taxpayer protection act is a chance for governments to
show Canadians that government can be responsible with tax
dollars while giving Canadians an opportunity to have a direct
say on how much money they can afford to pay.
The taxpayer protection act would require deficit control and
reduction. It would limit expenditure increases to the rate of
growth in the economy or population growth. It would also keep
tax increases in check in the same way. The taxpayer protection
act would not say how the money is to be spent but how much
money is to be spent.
The Liberals are famous for stealing good political ideas
before, during and even between elections. I therefore challenge
the Liberals to embrace this Reform idea, a federal taxpayer
protection act, and show Canadians that even they can be truly
responsible and accountable.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on this 50th anniversary of V-E Day to pay tribute to
the Canadians who helped bring about the end of the second
world war.
(1405 )
During the war thousands of men and women from the
Dominion of Newfoundland proudly served with the allied
armies, navies, and air forces. Thousands of others served with
the merchant navy, risking their lives to keep the vital shipping
lines across the Atlantic open.
Members of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit
worked in Britain to ensure the continuing supply of lumber,
while many others joined the British Home Guard.
At home, people felt the reality of this war as well. In the fall
of 1942 four allied ships were sunk by U-boats off Bell Island of
Newfoundland, the only community in North America to come
under direct enemy fire. Sixty-nine men were killed and a
memorial now stands in Lance Cove in their honour.
As Mr. Churchill said 50 years ago, ``Today is V-E Day; long
live the cause of peace''.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
1940s young men and women left Canada's farms and factories,
villages and cities to fight a war that had to be fought. They were
young men and women like Earl Grummett, who fought from
D-Day's beaches to Holland along the Maple Leaf route; like
Stanley Kudoba, who spent the war's last hours fighting the
enemy in a small Dutch village; or like Lottie Kosiorek, who
was freed from a forced labour camp.
Today we celebrate those who triumphed over Nazism and
fascism 50 years ago. How thrilling it was for us to hear the
Dutch Prime Minister say on Saturday, ``Thank you, Canadians,
from the bottoms of our hearts''.
These men and women were the glory of their times. Let us
honour them today in our times for the great deeds they did for
all of us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to mark National Forest Week, I would like to
acknowledge the great contribution made by the federal
government and
12281
all other participants to the model forest program. This program
has gone a long way toward integrating principles of sustainable
forestry into logging operations in Canada.
[English]
The model forest program has in just three years firmly
established a nationwide network of ten large-scale model
forest partnerships. The worldwide notoriety of this project has
helped to place Canada in a leadership role in forest
management.
These partnerships are comprised of willing and committed
individuals, encompassing a broad spectrum of our society,
including academics, students, traditional and non-traditional
forest-based industries, foresters, and First Nations groups.
[Translation]
I wish to congratulate all the dedicated people working
together for the sustainable development of Canadian forest
resources.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government and the
hon. Minister of Natural Resources in particular for establishing
National Mining Week.
This is a timely recognition of mining's importance to Canada
and to regions of the country such as northern Ontario.
[Translation]
In Ontario, with 56 mines and 103 quarries, the mining sector
contributed $4.9 billion to the economy last year. There are 300
companies providing mines with services and equipment.
[English]
The mining industry is a high-tech industry, very much part
of our new economy. It is developing technologies for robotics
and process control and anti-pollution systems. In addition, the
mining industry has invested heavily in training and boasts a
highly skilled workforce.
Ontario's mines have played and continue to play a leading
role in developing these technologies. In areas like northern
Ontario, mining is an integral part of our heritage. Mining is
also an essential part of our present and our future.
I look forward to National Mining Week as an annual
celebration to raise the profile of mining among all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as an Allied force veteran, it is with emotion that I
share in this pride we are all feeling today on this 50th
anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe.
On this occasion, let us remember that more than one million
Quebecers and Canadians joined the armed forces during the
second world war and made a major contribution to the
liberation of Europe, notably Belgium, where I was born, from
its oppressor. And more than 42,000 of them lost their lives in
the process.
I want to draw attention to the courage of the Quebec service
members who fought in the Netherlands, among other places,
where many distinguished themselves. We thank all those
Quebecers and Canadians who served at the front, were killed at
sea, on land and in the air or risked their lives to overcome
tyranny.
* * *
(1410 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): 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.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems
to be only those countries with declining economic prospects
that are forced to get rid of their national railways. Mexico,
12282
buffeted by the currency traders, is offering its national railway
to outside investors. Canada is doing the same.
Yet the American government continues to pour money into
its rail and port system. One recent example is $1.6 billion to
improve rail and terminal facilities in Long Beach, California,
to ``enhance export capabilities''.
The Netherlands Parliament has just approved an expenditure
of almost $6 billion for a 75-mile link to connect Germany's
Ruhr industrial belt to Rotterdam.
If the Liberals could see what the Dutch and the Americans
see, that trade and transport are intertwined, we would be
investing to aid our exporters instead of giving up on the CNR
and selling it out.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the 1993 violence against women survey by
Statistics Canada, 29 per cent of women, or 2.7 million women,
who have ever been married or lived in a common law
relationship have been physically or sexually assaulted by their
partners. Forty-four per cent of the cases involved a weapon and
45 per cent resulted in physical injury.
We are all painfully aware of the seriousness of the problem
and the negative consequences not only to those involved but to
society as a whole. In fact we may have been so overwhelmed by
the tragic statistics and pleas for help over so many years that I
fear we may have become desensitized to the severity of the
problem.
I call to the attention of the House Motion No. 15 to Bill C-41,
which would assist in addressing this most serious problem. I
ask all members to seriously consider this motion as our
opportunity to send a clear and tough message to spouse abusers.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the House that Edmund Burke said that all
that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men or
women to do nothing.
Fifty years ago today one million Canadians took up the
charge to fight the evil. I was reminded of this yesterday at a
church service of the Branch 6 Legion, which had three Victoria
Cross members. They were Billy Bishop, Tommy Holmes, and
David Currie. David Currie was a second world war veteran who
risked his life to defend a group of tanks in the army in 1944.
I would like to thank all Canadians and in particular the Grey
and Simcoe Foresters and Branch 6 for their help during the war.
I would like to thank their families as well for what they put up
with in order to ensure that we have the democracy we have
today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
mark today the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Europe and
the end of the second world war.
Thousands of Canadians took part in this conflict from which
many never returned. Today, we pay tribute to these soldiers for
their courage and their bravery. May 8, 1945, is the day that
freedom triumphed over oppression and tyranny.
I hope that that day and all of the sacrifices that made it
possible remain deeply etched in our memories so that this
tragedy will be the last of its kind.
* * *
(1415 )
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health care system in this country is now in serious
crisis; five-month waits for heart surgery, thirteen-month waits
for hip replacement, and increasing numbers of bed closures are
now commonplace.
Every year tens of thousands of Canadians are shocked into
reality when they find out timely and accessible health care is
not available to them. The primary reason for this is there is not
enough money to pay for the demands on our health care system.
The time for solutions is now, otherwise we will see the
demise of publicly funded health care in Canada. Therefore we
must define essential health care services and ensure that all
Canadians are covered regardless of their financial status. We
must amend the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to
work with different funding models. We must also ensure
federal funds given to the provinces go to health care and are not
siphoned off into other programs.
We must be innovative to work to ensure that high quality,
accessible health care is available to all Canadians.
The Speaker: Before we proceed to question period there is a
point of order which I will permit from the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to proceed immediately with statements by ministers.
Following the minister's statement and the two normal
responses from each party in opposition, I think you will also
find
12283
a disposition on the part of the House to permit the hon. member
for Kamloops to say a few words.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride
to rise this afternoon in this place of piece to mark the 50th
anniversary of the end of the war in Europe.
On May 8, 1945, before some of us were born, Canadians old
and young paraded in the streets, gathered on Parliament Hill, lit
victory bonfires; church bells rang and children shouted in joy.
The second world war was over in Europe and loved ones would
soon be coming home.
With the news that the great war was over so too was the worry
that a father or a son, a sister or a friend would not live to see and
feel the peace for which they had fought and for which so many
had died.
In the homes of Canada the sounds of victory that bellowed
from Europe echoed like a profound sigh of relief.
[Translation]
And for those who had lost a loved one in the war, there was at
least the consolation that others would not have to suffer from
the same pain that gripped them, and that the war would no
longer make young widows out of young brides.
Today, thousands of Canadian veterans are commemorating
this anniversary in a very special way: They returned to
Europe's battlefields of 50 years past. They returned to say their
goodbyes to friends who are dead but not forgotten. Several of
them returned to Holland, a grateful country which warmly
welcomed them. They were greeted as liberators. They were
showered with the same love and exuberance that they received
in the spring of 1945.
[English]
Today, as they did 50 years ago, the Dutch people are
welcoming Canadians into their homes and hearts. They are
showing the gratitude that a people have for their liberators; the
gratitude of a people who know what freedom is because they
had it taken away. It is the gratitude that a people have for the
soldiers, some of whom are in the gallery today, who ended their
starvation and who fought a desperate battle against a vicious
enemy. It is the gratitude for the young Canadian soldier far
away from home who fought beside a brother at one moment and
then in a burst of fire became a memory the next. It is the
gratitude for those young Canadians who fought through the
cold and the mud, through the rain and the blood, through the
pain, until the people of Holland found their liberation and
Europe found its victory.
Ik bedaank het nederlandse volk for de gast vrijheid.
The battle in Holland was not a battle for conquest; it was a
battle for freedom. It was battle that cost the lives of 7,000
young Canadians who lie buried in the peace they won.
Canada paid a great price for that peace. It is a price we
measure each time a veteran sees a small Dutch child, as we saw
today near Parliament Hill. It is the price of making the world
safe and decent for all our children. It is the price our country
was willing to pay.
(1420)
[Translation]
This morning, the MPs of this House attended ceremonies to
honour the sacrifice of those who served Canada in those six
years of conflict. We gathered at the War Memorial to pay
tribute to those who gave their lives for freedom and to honour
the peace we inherited from them.
In his eloquent speech at the Groesbeek cemetery in Holland
on Saturday, the Prime Minister said: ``You made it possible for
us to live, grow and prosper in peace. Your legacy is a proud and
independent country which grew from infancy to adulthood
during the war''.
[English]
On this day, the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, we oblige
ourselves to preserve this legacy for all the days to come. We
oblige ourselves to keep this vigil of peace constant from parent
to child, from teacher to student, from generation to generation.
We pay tribute to their great sacrifices and to the ideals that
inspired those sacrifices. Canadians fought and died on the
fields of Europe to preserve the democratic ideals that make
Canada the envy of the world.
Today we stand proud on the world stage because 50 years ago
our veterans dug in and told the enemy: ``We are the Canadians.
We are the bitter enemy of your oppression. We will not rest
until your tyranny has ended. We will not rest until we share our
freedom with the world''.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, exactly 50 years ago the war ended in Europe and
the end of the world conflict, which came on August 15, 1945
with the surrender of Japan, seemed imminent.
Today we celebrate the triumph of freedom and democracy.
But we also commemorate the sacrifices made by those to whom
we owe this victory and this legacy of freedom and democracy.
12284
The road to victory was a long and arduous one. From Italy to
France, from Belgium to the Netherlands, tens of thousands of
our soldiers gave their lives to liberate Europe from its
oppressors.
[English]
Today we want to thank them, all those who served on the
front, the sailors and airmen from every part of Canada, the
merchant seamen, the nurses, all the men and women who risked
or lost their lives in order to defeat tyranny.
We must never forget that more than a million of our fellow
citizens enlisted in the Canadian forces during the second world
war; 100,000 were wounded and more than 45,000 made the
ultimate sacrifice.
Although far from the conflict, the whole of the American
continent was profoundly touched by the war that had inflamed
Europe. As thousands of young people left for the front,
thousands of other citizens contributed to the war effort on the
home front in the factories, on the farms and in the militia.
[Translation]
I would like to recall the particularly heroic role played by
thousands of soldiers from Quebec who fought in the
Netherlands, side by side with their fellow citizens from other
Canadian provinces. There was the Régiment de Maisonneuve,
the Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the Royal 22e Régiment and the
Régiment de la Chaudière.
The extent of human loss and the horror of the suffering
inflicted on nations during this endless war are beyond belief.
The figures themselves which refer to thousands of dead are
shocking but fall far short of expressing the grim facts. For
instance, they do not reflect the horror of the concentration
camps and the genocide of the Jews.
And at home, who can adequately describe the sorrow of
mothers and fathers who lost a son in the flower of his youth?
What can we say to widows and orphans, brothers and sisters,
bereft of a loved one who went overseas and met a hero's fate on
the battlefield? The most eloquent and authentic memorial to
those who died is the silence that prevails among the little
crosses that mark the grassy graves, row on row, in cemeteries
spread over Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
These people went into battle and these lives were sacrificed
so there would be no more wars and so future generations would
be spared this horror and suffering. Unfortunately, many bloody
conflicts are raging throughout the world.
(1425)
And now, consider those who have accepted the responsibility
for maintaining peace in the world. I am thinking of the UN
peacekeeping force and especially our Canadian soldiers now on
peacekeeping missions. Every day they witness acts of atrocity
against civilian populations.
The ceremonies being held today hold out some hope that the
world will remember the horrors of the second world war and
learn the lessons it teaches us.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue to thank those who died and
those who survived this monstrous tragedy. Let us honour their
memory.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the victory in
Europe, V-E Day, let us give meaning and commitment to our
promise to remember.
Let us truly remember the people involved, in particular our
service people, our merchant seamen, the men and women of
ferry command and civilians overseas. Let us truly remember
also those who served in Canada, including the families of those
overseas.
Let us truly remember those who were killed or wounded in
action. Let us remember what Stan Waters, a former commander
of the Canadian Armed Forces, once told us, that there are no
hyphenated Canadians in the graveyards of Europe; just
Canadians period.
[Translation]
Let us remember those who were wounded and those who lost
their life. We must not forget Stan Waters, a former commander
in the Canadian Armed Forces, who once told us: ``There are no
hyphenated Canadians in the graveyards of Europe, just
Canadians period''.
[English]
Let us truly remember the millions who died in the Holocaust
and the millions of civilians who were killed during the war
around the world and let us truly remember and honour those
who made it safely through to V-E Day, many of whom are still
with us.
Let us truly remember that the struggle for freedom, liberty
and democracy is never over. It goes on all over the world,
including here in Canada. It is not a struggle to be taken for
granted.
This principle is captured in the motto of the supreme
headquarters of the allied powers in Europe: ``Vigilance is the
price of liberty''. This principle can be captured here in Canada
without a motto by declaring that if we value freedom and
democracy we must work at retaining or improving it every day
of our lives.
Let us celebrate the anniversary of V-E Day by truly
remembering the price of freedom was not just paid in the past.
Let us honour the sacrifices of the past by discharging with
meaning and commitment our ongoing obligations to the
preservation and improvement of democracy today.
12285
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe.
Some 500,000 Canadian veterans of World War II are still with
us today to rejoice in the V-E Day celebrations. They, along
with their families, friends and all who supported them, are very
special people, for they serve to demonstrate that good can
triumph over evil. They left home and country and travelled to
foreign lands and seas to combat tyranny and oppression.
Today we pay tribute to their great sacrifices and to those
ideals of peace, freedom and democracy that inspired those
sacrifices.
While tens of thousands commemorate the anniversary
throughout Canada via a number of venues, many vets have
returned to Europe to revisit old battle sites, to tell a new
generation about the horrors of war, to reacquaint themselves
with old friends and make new friends; especially to remember
their fallen but not forgotten comrades, the 45,000 who paid the
ultimate price so that we may know a legacy of peace and
freedom today.
In the Glen, the regimental newspaper of the Calgary
Highlanders, is published a short poem with the heading ``The
War in Europe is Over!'' It reads:
We came from all walks of life from coast to coast
Making one of the finest fighting forces in the the world
Yes, unity was achieved and victory was the result
Soon we expect to go home and back to a normal life
Let us not forget
Let us not allow ourselves to fall for lies or propaganda
Which will have French-speaking Canadians against
English-speaking Canadians, Jews against Catholics
And Protestants against Catholics
East against west
We must go back and maintain our unity achieved through
Sweat and blood
We won a great victory for mankind
Above all we must remember those comrades of ours who gave
Their lives fighting to make a world which will know no war
And in which there will be real happiness for all
Let us go back together as Canadians to make Canada
A happy place for all
We must not fail
(1430 )
For all who cherish freedom today, remember to thank a
veteran.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
12285
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Statistics Canada reported a decline in
the unemployment rates for Canada and Quebec. There is,
however, a sad truth behind its report, since the decline can be
explained, not by an increase in the number of jobs, but by the
departure of 38,000 people from the labour market. If the level
of unemployment is dropping, it is because the unemployed are
giving up trying to break into the job market and are abandoning
all new efforts.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. With the lack of job creation measures and with
cuts of more than $6 billion to unemployment insurance, does
the minister realize that the sole effect of his government's
action in the past 18 months is to hide the actual number of
unemployed, rather than reduce unemployment?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Leader of
the Opposition that over the past year Canada has seen the
highest level of job growth of any of the 22 countries of the
OECD. There have been 461,000 jobs created in this country. It
is the best job growth number.
That is not enough and we want to continue. Much of that has
been as a result of the government providing the major stimulus.
We can see over 100,000 of those jobs attributed directly to the
infrastructure program, which was a major election
commitment we made. We have provided stimulus right across
Canada. Thirty thousand Canadians alone have been affected by
new employment and new opportunities through our strategic
initiatives and a number of other areas.
We certainly are not saying it is sufficient, but it is on the right
track. All that is lacking is the full dedication of all members of
this House to the crucial issue of job creation rather than
spending their time on other issues which are not as relevant to
the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks enthusiastically of job creation,
but he is forgetting to mention that no jobs have been created in
Canada in the past five months.
Instead of focussing on creative measures, talking about
regional development and committing to defence industry
conversion, will the minister acknowledge that all he is doing at
the moment is considering a project that would reduce the
number of Canada employment centres from 100 to 30, as
proposed in a document produced recently by his department?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon.
gentleman would want to apologize for the absurd statement he
just made that not one job has been created in the past five
months. Several thousand jobs have been created in the hon.
gentleman's own riding.
12286
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the government always quotes statistics for a full
year. I would ask him to check his figures for the past five
months.
Since the federal government has shown it is incapable of
fighting unemployment creatively, and since the problem has
taken on such proportions, particularly in Quebec, where we
have over 800,000 people on welfare now, how does the
Minister of Human Resources Development explain the federal
government's stubborn refusal to give the Government of
Quebec jurisdiction in matters of manpower training, when it
alone can establish the appropriate and integrated measures that
will really create jobs?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the claim made by the hon.
Leader of the Opposition is interesting. Only a few weeks ago
the minister for manpower in the province of Quebec admitted
that the SQDM itself was not up to doing the job and is now
subject to a major review.
The hon. member is suggesting that we transfer the large
network of investments we have provided in this country over
the past 50 years to help Canadians get back to work to an
organization which itself is subject to review by its own
provincial government. I do not think that is a good investment.
I do not think the people of Quebec would like to see us provide
that major rupture in the opportunity to provide for the chance of
Quebecers and Canadians to get jobs.
What would be far more appropriate is if the hon. Leader of
the Opposition and his counterparts made a real dedication
today to start working with us in a co-operative partnership. We
could combine all our efforts and all our resources for all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last Friday,
the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gordon Thiessen,
confirmed to the finance committee that the bank's current
monetary policy is similar in every respect to the one pursued by
his predecessor. In fact, the governor referred to the continuity
of the bank's policy.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm the governor's
comments that the Bank of Canada's current monetary policy is
similar to the one which was in effect under the previous
government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said a
number of times in this House that we disagreed with the Bank
of Canada's policy during the last recession, when interest rates
were going up. But, we certainly agree today with the bank's
policy, given the current objective of having and maintaining a
low inflation level, and given the high price paid to achieve that
goal.
It is in the interest of the Bloc Quebecois and everyone else to
keep inflation low, because this is a major asset for job creation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister realize that, if we are not careful, we
could, as mentioned in the most recent report of the Bank of
Canada's governor, recreate the situation which prevailed in
1990, when Canada was the first country to go into a recession,
before the United States, before Europe, before the rest of the
world, because of a policy of excessively high interest rates?
The governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that last week.
We are doing exactly the same thing again.
How does the Minister of Finance explain that the Bank of
Canada's policy remained the same under his government,
particularly in light of the fact that there are 800,000 fewer jobs
than in 1990, and also considering that, before he took over the
finance portfolio, he felt that this policy had a devastating effect
on economic growth and job creation? There are 800,000 jobs
gone.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
must first tell us if he wants to keep inflation down, if he accepts
the one to three per cent bracket. If he does not accept it, then let
us have a debate on the issue. If he does accept it, I am sure he
will agree that we must anticipate inflation.
In any case, I find the hon. member's question somewhat
puzzling, given that, in the last month, interest rates have gone
down at least four times. There is a very distinct downward
trend. I do not understand the timing of the hon. member's
question.
[English]
The member, following on the Leader of the Opposition, talks
about job creation. The Minister of Human Resources
Development pointed out very clearly that the numbers upon
which the Bloc Quebecois is relying are simply not correct and
that in fact there is job creation. Simply to fill in the answer
given by my colleague, in the last quarter alone there have been
100,000 new jobs created in the private sector. The other side
ought to know that.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at one point in time the policy of the government
12287
respecting direct to home satellite communications was to
restrict access to a Canadian owned and operated company. Two
weeks ago the federal cabinet overturned that CRTC decision.
(1440 )
The Minister of Industry said the cabinet did so because it
favoured more competition and that any links to Power Corp., a
direct beneficiary of the decision, were merely coincidental.
However, the government also abandoned its own time line for
implementing that decision and adopted Power Corp.'s
recommendations in that regard as outlined in a memo to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that
Power Corp., a Liberal connected firm, so completely
influenced the content and the timing of a cabinet decision in
which it had a direct interest?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been previously
debated very fully in the House, a cabinet decision was made by
the Government of Canada to protect competition and to protect
Canadian consumers. I am sorry the leader of the third party is
not interested in the view of the Canadian consumers who have
overwhelmingly supported the decision that we have taken to
review the licensing procedures which were set out rather
discriminatorily by the CRTC.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue is not competition. The issue is insider
influence and potential conflict of interest.
Power Corp. told the government to abandon its original time
line and cabinet threw out the original time line. Power Corp.
told the government not to alter the DTH policy panel's report
and the government did not change the panel report. Power
Corp. instructed the government to seek CRTC support for the
changes and the government dutifully trotted off to see if it
could get CRTC's support. It looks like cabinet did everything
Power Corp. asked for and then some.
Why was Power Corp., a major player in the direct to home
satellite business, allowed to set government time lines and
policy in these matters?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third
party says that this issue is not about competition or consumer
choice. It is exactly about consumer choice and competition.
That is why the Consumers' Association of Canada in a letter
to the government on April 19 pointed out very specifically it
was very concerned that preference may be given to one
Canadian direct to home company over another. It said that what
was even more disconcerting was that there may be an attempt to
mothball this technology until a time when cable companies and
telephone codes have overcome any technological edge. CAC
believes the recommendations of the policy review panel
argument address the issue of cultural protection in a fair and
practical manner. The letter states: ``I realize my language is
strong, however it reflects the general frustration felt by many
consumers''.
This government decision was about protecting Canadian
consumers and offering choice in television viewing, something
the hon. member should understand is an important part of
Canadian cultural policy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister reads briefing notes to
answer a question I did not ask.
What we object to is not competition in the industry. What we
object to is the process of policy making and its susceptibility to
influence by the Liberal family compact. The Canadian owned
Expressvu has well established ties with the CRTC. Power
DirecTv is part of the Liberal family compact as well. It is time
to clear the air.
What changes is the government proposing to the broadcast
licensing process to ensure that policy making is open,
transparent and free from undue insider influence?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of
the third party who seems more interested in protecting a
particular interest, we have an interest in ensuring full
competition, transparency and protecting the Canadian
consumers. That is why we have brought the issue to the most
open and democratic forum in the country, the Parliament of
Canada. That is where the issue will be decided.
If the member has a charge to make, he should make the
charge. If the member believes in fair and open competition and
consumer choice in the emerging satellite television industry,
then why does he not join us in debating, discussing and
reforming these issues on the floor of the House, which is
exactly what we have proposed?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last Monday, the Minister of National Defence announced
that the government had approved the Canadian Forces plan to
almost triple the number of low level flights over Labrador and
northern Quebec.
12288
(1445)
Yet, the environmental assessment panel reviewing the issue
had recognized the obvious need for monitoring studies and
other efforts to identify any negative effect to the extent
possible.
Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the decision
made by her colleague, the Minister of National Defence, is
environmentally risky and flies in the face of prevention and
sustainable development?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the federal
government's decision to increase the number of low level
flights follows a recommendation by the Quebec Premier's
spokesman on native issues, Mr. Cliche, who said in the April 6,
1995 edition of Le Devoir, and I quote: ``It remains to be
demonstrated whether or not the impact is acceptable to the
population. That is why a research institute must be created''.
That was the recommendation of the Quebec Premier's
spokesman, and we followed it.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the minister did not follow this matter very closely. In
fact, many representations were made by aboriginal people
complaining about the effect of low level flights on the
environment and their quality of life.
Does the Minister of the Environment undertake to include in
future agreements with Canada's allies a clause providing for
the cancellation of contracts as soon as the environment and the
local populations start feeling the negative impact of these
flights?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the first
question, I tried to emphasize that representations for the
creation of a research institute were made by the Quebec
Premier's spokesman, among others. We therefore decided to
establish the institute in question.
As far as I know, Mr. Cliche is the Quebec Premier's
spokesman on native issues. We are now working with the
Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Indian Affairs
to ensure that the institute to be put in place by September will
be responsible for reviewing other issues besides the
environment.
We know that the studies conducted over eight years did not
show an environmental impact. Obviously, the decision on
where the flights will take place will be made by this new
institute we are creating in collaboration with the Minister of
National Defence and the Minister of Indian Affairs.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to become a recipient under the Atlantic groundfish strategy
program one must prove ``an historical attachment to the
groundfishery'' but not need.
It was reported this flaw allowed Prince Edward Island's snow
crab fishermen to make $200,000 last summer, then only five
weeks later collect $340 per week under the TAGS program.
Why? Because they once had an historical attachment to the
groundfish industry.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development amend
his disastrous social program experiment so that need is the
primary eligibility criteria?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a real disservice to
criticize a program which is providing important benefits for
close to 30,000 Canadians as a disastrous experiment.
We are giving an opportunity to people whose industry has
collapsed to find not only a way of maintaining income benefits
for their families, but also to begin to find some way to make
adjustments to new jobs and new employment opportunities, a
program that has been in effect for nine months.
It constantly amazes me that the Reform Party is so anxious to
overturn and discredit initiatives designed to help Canadians
deal with their immediate problems. It shows that whatever
notion there is about Reform, it has nothing to do with investing
in people.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the minister to stand up before Canadian taxpayers
and say that giving people who make $200,000 a year more
money is an important benefit to the country.
(1450 )
TAGS is now at least $385 million in the hole. Funds are being
diverted from training, the most promising component of the
program, to cover the shortfall. As illogical as it seems, the
minister continues to defend giving those who make over
$200,000 per year financial support.
Given the serious financial constraints of TAGS, will the
minister now focus the few dollars we have left on those people
who really need the money and not on those making over
$200,000 a year?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons there are
cost
12289
overruns in the program is that since the program was
announced over nine months ago, my colleague, the minister of
fisheries, for reasons that are totally beyond the control of
anyone certainly in this Chamber, has had to close down 14
additional sectors of the fishing industry.
That kind of calamity, which is the result of a ecological
disaster being visited on us, is the reason why the program is
facing the kind of pressures it is.
As I said in the House last week, we have established an
independent evaluation through Price Waterhouse which has
given us a series of clear recommendations on how to correct
those programs. The recommendations are now being
implemented, including those which apply to income testing.
At the same time we have to continue to apply the test of
fairness to those who have had attachment to the fishery so we
can begin to provide an alternative for them to be removed from
the fishery.
Clearly fairness is not a word in the Reform Party's
vocabulary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Last Friday, in response to a question we had put to him, the
Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs said that, upon
returning to the House, the President of the Treasury Board
would be able to provide us with an answer regarding the
damning statistics on the working language of public service
employees in the national capital region. Indeed, the latest
report released by the Commissioner of Official Languages
shows that only 44 per cent of francophone federal employees in
the Ottawa-Hull area are able to work in French when not
dealing with public inquiries.
How can the President of the Treasury Board not see in the
fact that only 44 per cent of francophone federal employees in
the national capital region are able to work in French an utter
failure of institutional bilingualism?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the official languages commissioner also pointed
out, there has been improvement and yes, more improvement is
needed.
The official languages commissioner and Treasury Board
have co-authored a brochure that deals with the question of
language of work and the rights and responsibilities of public
service employees. That is being distributed now.
Second, the commissioner made a number of
recommendations on how we can strengthen language of work.
We agree with all of those recommendations and will implement
them.
Third, we will conduct audits to ensure that they are
implemented and that the rights and responsibilities of public
service employees in the official language of their choice is in
fact respected.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the good will demonstrated by the President of the
Treasury Board but there are other problems. I will point out to
him that the Commissioner of Official Languages also
confirmed that French was hardly ever used in written
communications between public service employees in the
national capital region.
How can the President of the Treasury Board tolerate that, in
the federal capital, only one out of ten French speaking
employees can use French in written communications?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a great deal of communication goes on in the French
language and there should be more. There should be a comfort
level for employees who have that as their mother tongue to be
able to use it in correspondence.
We encourage deputy ministers and other officials at the
beginning of a meeting, as I have done most recently at the
beginning of a couple of meetings, to welcome everyone to use
the official language of their choice so that we can give real
meaning to the language of work policy.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): 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?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a criminal matter. The
police are investigating.
Our position in any of these investigations is to co-operate
with the police, provide assistance and any information we have.
However, we have to stay at arm's length from any criminal
prosecution.
12290
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): 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?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this is an allegation of
criminal events. It is up to the Sûreté to do the investigation. We
will co-operate fully with the police.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
Environment.
The latest federal budget marked the end of the Green Plan
introduced in 1990 by the previous government. The Minister of
the Environment has, to all intents and purposes, confirmed that
this program, which before its funding was gradually cut back
represented a unique environmental initiative, has been phased
out for good.
In November 1993 the Minister of the Environment said that
many positive things had come out of the Green Plan and she did
not want to make sweeping changes just to be able to say she was
the new minister.
That being said, why did the minister drop the Green Plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did not drop the
Green Plan. In fact, we built on what the previous government
left behind. Unfortunately, under the previous government, 60
per cent of the environment budget was sunsetting funding, to
expire after five years in the case of the Green Plan and the St.
Lawrence action plan.
Thanks to the Minister of Finance, instead of having 60 per
cent of its project funding at risk, Environment Canada's budget
consists totally of long term and secured projects.
In the case of the St. Lawrence action plan, for instance, we no
longer have to go back to cabinet for additional funding, since
the project is 100 per cent funded through the annual budget.
And the Green Plan, which was about to expire and was cut three
or four times by the previous government, will no longer be
subject to the political whims of the day.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of
the Environment.
We on this side of the House understood, despite what the
minister just said, that the Green Plan had been cut by the
government opposite.
That being said, does the Minister of the Environment realize
that without the Green Plan, her environment commissioner will
be similar, in a way, to the commissioner of official languages,
and will observe and criticize, year in year out, and will not have
the tools to take any kind of action?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the
answer to the hon. member so there is no misunderstanding.
Until the last budget, 60 per cent of the funding of
Environment Canada was sunset funding. It meant that at any
time, if one wanted to pursue the Great Lakes action plan, if one
wanted to pursue the St. Lawrence action plan, if one wanted to
pursue the North American waterfowl management plan, one
had to continually go back to cabinet. Only 40 per cent of
funding was long term and secured.
As a result of the work of the Minister of Finance, we now
have 100 per cent long term funding. The green plan money that
was scheduled by the previous government to run out after the
election will be rolled into the permanent budget of the
Department of the Environment so that we may have long term,
100 per cent funding which is not be subject to cuts by individual
ministers for photo ops.
* * *
(1500 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another question for the Minister of the Environment.
The World Bank and especially the International Monetary
Fund are slow in making environmentally sustainable
development a priority. In light of Canada's financial support of
these institutions and the recent discussions at the Hamilton
meeting of the G-7 environment ministers, can the minister tell
us whether the G-7 leaders in Halifax will discuss measures that
would turn the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
into environmentally sustainable institutions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not only
the question of the hon. member but the work he put into the
preparation phase for the G-7 environment ministers meeting.
12291
I want to underscore the consensus at the G-7 environment
ministers meeting that in the review of international
institutions, in particular the IMF and the World Bank as the
ministers of finance are calling for more transparency so we are
very specifically calling for more environmental transparency
and more recognition of the fact that sustainability and
sustainable development must be a very key part of any decision
making on lending practices of the IMF and any practices of the
World Bank.
Underlining the need for transparency, an open public process
and sustainable development are the keys to any real reform of
these international institutions.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can the
Deputy Prime Minister confidently stand in the House today and
state publicly for the record and for the benefit of the provinces,
which will be burdened with the administrative nightmare of
Bill C-68, that the Liberals' gun legislation is constitutional in
all its aspects?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): I thank the Deputy
Prime Minister for that answer.
Questions remain unanswered regarding whether sections of
Bill C-68 may be contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms.
The constitutionality of Bill C-68 is in question, and courts in
Alberta and B.C. have declared the orders in council under Bill
C-17, which have been used again by the Minister of Justice, to
be invalid.
Would it not be prudent for the government to resolve these
matters before proceeding to ram Bill C-68 through before the
summer recess?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of the federal
government to ram the bill through Parliament, nor is it the
intention of the federal government to delay the bill unduly. It is
taking a natural course through the House of Commons.
It is presently before the standing committee. We have
witnesses and the witnesses are making excellent presentations.
It is going as it was meant to go, and hopefully we will receive
further good testimony from the witnesses, which we can review
and perhaps make substantive amendments to the bill before it
leaves committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Health Canada recently approved a variety of genetically
altered tomatoes for import into Canada, without any studies
being done on the long term effect of this product on consumers.
How does the minister explain the government's rapid
capitulation to the forceful lobby of the American company
Calgene and its approval of this product solely on the
information provided government officials by the company?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Health Canada approved this product for import,
because scientists at the Department of Health are satisfied that
it presents no danger to Canadians and must be safe.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
say that the response the minister has given us is very
reassuring.
I have a supplementary. Given that a number of genetically
engineered products will be submitted to Health Canada for
approval in the coming months, would the minister assure us
that she will require Health Canada to undertake more serious
studies before approving such products?
(1505)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people at Health Canada are there to protect the
health of Canadians. They take their work very seriously and
will continue to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is sponsoring an anti-tobacco
conference in none other than the beautiful Italian resort of
Bellagio. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Health said the government is not donating a single penny to
this conference. Yet information shows that Health Canada is
giving $900,000 and the International Development Research
Centre, a crown corporation, is giving another $2 million of the
taxpayers' money to fund this conference.
Who is correct, the IDRC and Health Canada or the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of Health?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that three million
people die worldwide now as a result of tobacco. In our tobacco
demand reduction strategy, a small percentage of the moneys
allocated
12292
were put aside for international tobacco control. Some of those
moneys were given to IDRC.
I believe, as do the members of the government, we cannot
conquer the tobacco problems simply by working within our
own boundaries. We must extend our help outside to developed
and developing countries.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister of Health that she
cannot suck and blow on her tobacco reduction strategy at the
same time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: If we keep having language like that this place
is going to go up in smoke.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health's own department showed that consumption
of tobacco is up by 20 per cent in Ontario, Quebec, and New
Brunswick in the last 10 months. Yet our tobacco reduction
strategy just mentioned by the hon. minister has been cut by 50
per cent. Why is the government spending $3 million abroad
while our smoking problem in Canada gets progressively worse?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where he gets all of his figures, but they
are not always correct.
We are using the money from the tobacco manufacturers to
combat their problems. During the tobacco demand reduction
strategy the government imposed a surtax on the profits of the
tobacco manufacturers. That is what we are using to combat
tobacco and smoking.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
A recent report from the Ottawa Sun indicated some provinces
have not implemented federal government guidelines that
regulate in our drinking water the levels of the cancer causing
agent THM. What is the government doing to insist that the
provinces adopt federal guidelines as soon as possible?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the quality of drinking water in Canada and the
governing of such is a shared responsibility. In this case it is a
shared responsibility among provinces, territories and
municipalities.
The federal government does work with the provincial and
municipal levels of government to set guidelines for water
treatment. As mush as possible, we encourage other levels of
government to adopt those guidelines, but that is as much power
as we have in the matter.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The auditor general's 1994 report virulently denounced the
poor management performance of senior defence officials that is
costing us, and I quote the auditor general, ``hundreds of
millions of dollars annually''. However, despite the cuts made at
National Defence, four new assistant deputy minister positions,
with average salaries of over $100,000, were created over the
past two years. Furthermore, the pay scales for the deputy
minister and the chief of defence staff were increased by
$20,000.
In this period of fiscal restraint, how can the minister justify
these indecent salary hikes and the creation of four new costly
senior positions at the Department of National Defence?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as to the specifics, the Minister of Defence is in the
best position to answer exactly how his department is being run.
He and every other minister take the remarks of the auditor
general very seriously and take the suggestions and try to work
better cost efficiencies in all departments.
We are at the same time going through a downsizing in the
public service as a result of the reduction in programs and
services, again as a result of meeting our deficit reduction
targets. Overall, in the Department of National Defence and all
other departments there is a reduction in the number of
employees by some 45,000.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
fail to understand the President of the Treasury Board's reply.
He is in favour of cuts, yet new positions are being created.
Does the President of the Treasury Board approve of the new
deputy minister positions and the salary increases, which go
totally against the recommendations of the auditor general, who
decries bad habits and the creation of these positions? Does the
President of the Treasury Board approve of this?
12293
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the Minister of National Defence is the one who
runs his department and is the person who is in the best position
to answer that question.
There are some shifts in positions. Some positions may
increase in some areas and decrease in other areas. Overall there
is a decrease, which is in accordance with the policy of the
government with respect to getting its deficit and debt reduction
program under control.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is continuing the concept of double
standards, one for the politicians and the other for Canadians.
In the legislation it very quietly introduced one Friday
afternoon and then attempted to jam through Parliament last
Thursday, it is continuing one standard of pensions for ordinary
Canadians and one set of principles for pensions for its
members, their very own porky pension plan.
Why can the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that
Canadians want her to lead by example and show restraint rather
than padding her own pockets with her own porky pension plan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the gall of the hon. member to get up after the whip of
the Reform Party last week suggested a 50 per cent increase in
the compensation level for members of Parliament, a 130 per
cent increase in the salary.
The government has taken a responsible position by reducing
MP pensions by some 33 per cent of the compensation package
and at the same time setting a minimum age and ending double
dipping.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand why the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to
answer the question, considering she is to be entitled to $2.7
million of this porky pension plan.
The Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, in British-
The Speaker: When questions are addressed they are usually
addressed to the minister who has the administrative
responsibility for it, so it is not so much a personal question. The
last question that was asked was answered, and rightly so, by the
President of the Treasury Board. He is the one who has the
administrative responsibility in this area.
I ask the hon. member to please keep that in mind as he
formulates his question.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, to the President of the Treasury
Board, B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell has said that
elected officials should be treated no differently than other
British Columbians when it comes to receiving pension benefits
from taxpayers. Further, he states: ``There should be a single
standard for all people of this province with MLAs paying the
same taxes, having the same choices as other British
Columbians''.
(1515)
Does he disagree with the Liberal leader in British Columbia
or is he trying to put one over on Canadians at the federal level?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the exaggerated and extreme figures the
third party manages to drag up.
It is incredible that the member would get up after one of the
members of his party, the member for Calgary Centre, the whip
of his party, to propose such an outlandish increase in the
compensation level for the members of the House. That is not a
fiscally responsible position. His party is not taking a fiscally
responsible position on the question of MP pensions.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
On page 25 of the red book under the heading ``securing new
markets'' it states Canada must resist Washington's hub and
spoke approach to trade by providing political, demographic and
economic counterweights to the United States.
Given those ideals, how did the government come to abandon
that policy last Friday when it decided to make CN Rail shares
available to U.S. interests which will inevitably pull Canadian
export products through its economy and to its benefit?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fail to follow the reasoning of the hon. member
because, as he would know, Canadian Pacific has no restrictions
on its share ownership. I have not seen and I am pretty sure the
hon. member has not seen any major change in the way Canadian
Pacific handles its shipments as opposed to CN.
The main reason for the decision taken on Friday is western
farmers and people from coast to coast want to maintain
competitive rail systems in Canada. We believe CN on a level
playing field with Canadian Pacific is the best way to achieve
that.
12294
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have an
important question for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In view of the strong provincial role in managing Canada's
natural resources and the particular importance of mining to
many areas of the country, especially northern Ontario, could
the minister explain why it is appropriate that the federal
government declare the second week of May national mining
week?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to declare
the second week of May national mining week.
We are all aware that a prosperous minerals and metals
industry is very important to all of Canada and benefits the
economy of all Canadians. We attach great importance to those
areas of federal jurisdiction that relate to mining such as
international trade, international environment and the science
and technology necessary to understand and develop policies in
relation to those areas.
We work in partnership with the provinces and industry in
these key areas. All provincial ministers of mines, all provincial
mining associations and the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources of the House recommended the proclamation of such
a week.
The Speaker: This would bring to a conclusion the question
period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order relates to remarks made by the
Minister of Transport about a question I asked in this House on
Friday, May 5, 1995.
The Minister of Transport said I had betrayed a confidence of
this House and questioned my integrity because I was quizzing
him about a current issue. I did not rise on a point of order on the
spot because I could not believe what I had just heard, given the
seriousness of the accusations.
Unfortunately, on checking Hansard, I found that what I had
heard was indeed what the Minister of Transport had said.
My question is this: How can I have betrayed the confidence
of the House by asking the Minister of Transport a legitimate
question on an issue featured on the front page of such leading
newspapers as La Presse and The Globe and Mail with regard to
the government's decision to privatize CN?
The figures quoted in my questions did not come any lock-up
but were taken from the comments-
(1520)
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I reviewed last Friday's
Hansard and read what was said. I also requested the videotape
in order to see exactly what had gone on.
As far as the hon. member's question is concerned, it is not up
to the Chair to answer and apologize, but I think that, at this
stage, what the minister meant and what the hon. member
understood is a matter of debate.
I will take this incident under advisement if you want me to,
but at this point, I do not consider this to be a point of order. If
there is more to it, I am listening.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): For clarification, Mr.
Speaker, when remarks are made which are ruled
unparliamentary, can we request that they be withdrawn? I think
that is what my colleague wants to know.
The Speaker: Absolutely. When unparliamentary terms are
used, members may ask that they be withdrawn. It is up to the
Chair to decide, however. According to what I read in Friday's
Hansard-and if you wish I will reread and review what was
said-at this point, I must say that I have not found that the
language used at the time was unparliamentary. However, I will
review the matter and report to you as appropriate.
_____________________________________________
12294
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
92 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to table in this House the eighth and ninth
reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In its eighth report, the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts reviews Chapter 29, ``Collecting Income Tax Debts'';
Chapter 30, ``Goods and Services Tax: Audit and Special
Investigations''; and Chapter 31, ``Ensuring Fairness of the
Income Tax System: Detection of Non-Filers and Special
Investigations'', from the 1994 report of the auditor general.
In its eighth report the committee makes a series of
recommendations concerning these chapters.
12295
In its ninth report the committee reviews two other chapters
from the 1994 report of the auditor general of Canada, which
concern the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada,
namely Chapter 32, ``Income Tax Incentives for Research and
Development'', and Chapter 33, ``Tax Assistance for Retirement
Savings''. Following the review of the last three chapters, the
committee formulates another series of recommendations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the
government to table a comprehensive response to these reports.
* * *
(1525)
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to present.
The petitioners believe that since tobacco products are clearly
linked to several diseases such as many forms of cancer, heart
disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis among
others, and according to certain studies tobacco products can
contain over 4,000 chemicals with as many as 43 causing cancer
in humans causing some 38,000 deaths annually in Canada, the
petitioners call on Parliament to remove the exemption for
tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.
The petitioners also believe in increasing the prices of
tobacco rather than bringing in other enforcement provisions.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased
to table today a petition signed by 190 people from the
Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec.
The petitioners bring to Parliament's attention the importance
of mining to numerous communities across Canada. Through
employment and exports of mineral products mining has a
significant impact on Canada's gross domestic product.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to increase
employment in the mining sector, promote exploration, rebuild
Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and
keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant
to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to deal with
the House of Commons unanimous motion of September 27,
1991 and to settle, acknowledge and redress the issues to the
mutual satisfaction of all Ukrainian Canadians throughout
Canada.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. I wish to present a petition
signed by a number of petitioners from my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families that do decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) 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.
(1530 )
He said: 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
12296
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.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
14 minutes.
_____________________________________________
12296
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as
reported with amendments from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are 12
amendments on the Notice Paper at report 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.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12 will be grouped for debate. A vote
on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 12.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate, but
will be voted on separately in the following manner:
(a) The vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motion No. 4.
(b) Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 7 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 10 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 11 will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now propose Motions. No. 1, 8, 9 and 12 to the House.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You
might find consent to consider that the motions in group one
which you have just indicated, assuming the members are here,
can all be treated as having been put to the House without your
having to read them.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) 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.
8. The Bureau is not part of the Department but it shall make such reports
to the Minister as the Minister may direct.
9. (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
12297
(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.
(1535 )
He said: 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.
(1540 )
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.
12298
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.
(1545)
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.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
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
12299
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.
(1550)
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.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
consideration 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, is now at report stage before the
House.
As you know, this bill seeks to restructure the process for the
allocation of disability pensions to veterans. The bill also
repeals the Canadian Pension Commission and transfers the
responsibility of all initial decisions to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs. It also establishes a board to review decisions and to
hear appeals. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which
was formerly an independent body, will now be integrated into
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bureau will deal with
applications made to the new board.
This bill proposes many changes. The evaluation process
regarding veterans' pensions has been the subject of numerous
debates over the years, ever since the issue of providing a
pension for any type of disability suffered by a member of the
armed forces in the line of duty was first considered.
(1555)
Issues such as compensation, eligibility to a pension,
assessment of that pension, as well as the review and appeal
process and the support offered to veterans were all discussed,
not to mention time frames, arrears and certain discretionary
actions taken by the department.
The pension system currently in effect is the result of all these
debates and of all the legislative measures which followed. For
example, we can think of the Woods committee, in the sixties,
which led to the 1971 reform of the Pension Act. History tells us
that laws follow changes: they do not trigger them.
It is precisely because of change that we are trying to make the
processing of applications more flexible. Our top priority is to
speed up the process so that veterans who are getting older
12300
collect more quickly the pension to which they are entitled. We
should remove any barrier that stands in the way.
This stage begins with the examination of four amendments
moved by Reform members. If I am not mistaken, those four
motions in the first group deal with two main points. The first is
that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates should remain
independent from the department. The second one is that the
services of that Bureau should be available for first time
applications.
Reform amendments would keep the Bureau of Pensions
Advocates under the Pension Act. They want to maintain the
independence of the Bureau and full access for applicants.
However, it has not been demonstrated in committee that this
would bring substantial benefits. In many cases, it would be a
waste of time.
With the witnesses who appeared in committee, we discussed
access to and independence of the Bureau. As a matter of fact, no
study made in the last few years questioned the existence of the
Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Neither the assessment of
pensions in 1992 nor the Marshall report tabled last Fall
questioned that. The consensus was that the Bureau should
remain at arm's-length with the minister.
We should not forget the main thrust of this bill, which is to
speed up the processing of applications. We know full well that,
even when the services of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates
were used at the very beginning, only 30 per cent of the claims
made to the Canadian Pension Commission were approved.
When the rejected claims were sent to the next levels of
decision, the approval rate jumped to 70 per cent. Only 30 per
cent of the Commission's decisions were maintained, despite
the legal services provided by the Bureau.
But what is even more surprising is that Mr. Chartier, the
chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, was unable to
answer our questions about the 30 per cent success rate of his
organization compared to the 70 per cent success rate of the
Board, which overrode 70 per cent of the first decisions made by
his Commission. Mr. Chartier stated that he could not explain
this difference and that he never thought about examining the
issue. He told us he was very concerned about hanging on to
work through careful scheduling of the files review.
I must say that what I found the most convincing during the
chairman's testimony was his nonchalance in terms of the delays
our veterans must face. We just have to support the department's
bill even though an arbitrary decision can be made at the first
level. The proposed merger is not such a bad idea after all.
The bill provides for the pensions advocates to deal with all
the claims made to the new board which will be responsible for
the reviews and the appeals. Hence, the free legal aid service
will be maintained where needed. We hope that an increasing
number of claims will be approved at the first level. This is the
main object of this bill, to open up the pension allocation system
and to make it a lot more flexible.
(1600)
We think that a forms clerk or expert would be much more
useful to help a claimant to complete the forms and make their
way through the system. The goal here is to speed up the process
while providing assistance at the review and appeal level to
those who need legal advice or help in their approach. This is
why we will oppose the amendments put forward by the Reform
Party.
We will reject the Reform's motions to ``judicialize'' even
more the process at the first decision level. We must trust the
proposed change given the performance of the Canadian
Pension Commission so far.
[English]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
A recorded division will also apply to Motions 8, 9 and 12.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are grouped for debate but will
be voted on in the following manner. The vote on Motion No. 2
applies to Motion No. 4. Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 will be voted on
separately.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-67, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15, on page
2, with the following:
``4. There is hereby established an independent board, to be known as the
Veterans Review and Appeal Board, consisting of
12301
(a) not more than twenty-nine permanent members to be appointed by the
Governor in Council after consultation with the government of each province
and such committee of the House of Commons established or designated by that
House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs; and
(b) such number of temporary members as are appointed in accordance with
section 6.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-67, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 25, on page 2,
the following:
``(1.1) No appointment may be made under subsection (1) unless there has
first been consultation in respect of that appointment with the government of
each province and such committee of the House of Commons established or
designated by the House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs.''
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-67, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page
3, with the following:
``8. (1) The Governor in Council shall, after consultation with the
government of each province and such committee of the House of Commons
established or designated by that House to consider matters respecting
veterans affairs, designate a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from
among the permanent members.''
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-67, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22, on
page 3, with the following:
``(5) If both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are absent or unable
to act, a member designated by the Minister shall act as Chairperson.
(6) If the office of the Chairperson and the office of the Deputy
Chairperson are vacant, the Minister shall designate a member to act as
Chairperson and that member shall act in that capacity until such time as the
Governor in Council designates a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson under
subsection (7).
(7) Where the office of the Chairperson and the office of the Deputy
Chairperson are vacant, the Governor in Council shall, as soon as possible
after the vacancies and after consultation with the government of each
province and such committee of the House of Commons established or
designated by that House to consider matters respecting veterans affairs,
designate a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from among the permanent
members.''
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-67, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20, on
page 2, with the following:
``(2) The terms of the permanent members appointed under section 4 shall
be determined by lot, with ten permanent members to be appointed for a term
not exceeding three years, an additional ten permanent members to be
appointed for a term not exceeding six years and the remaining nine
permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding nine years.
(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) and subject to subsection (4), a
permanent member may agree with another permanent member to exchange
the terms they were given under subsection (2).
(4) No permanent member shall hold office, whether by reappointment or
by an exchange, for more than twelve years.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
once again, I would like to stress that we are at the report 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.
Need I remind you that this bill's goal is to restructure the
entire allowance system for veterans' disability pensions? It
abolishes the Canadian Pension Commission. It transfers
responsibility for first decisions to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs. It sets up a board which will be responsible for hearing
review requests and appeals at every stage of the process. Lastly,
it integrates the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, formerly an
independent organization, into the department.
During the debate at second reading, we told the government
that we agree with the basic principle of reducing processing
time, but that we question the methods proposed in this bill to
reach that goal. After consideration in committee, we concluded
that, excepting senior officials and the government, most
veterans' associations and individuals seriously doubt that this
restructuration will reach the desired ends.
In addition, veterans are really worried about two issues: the
increased powers of the department and their vested rights. That
is why we seized the clause by clause review and now seize the
report stage in the House as opportunities to propose
improvements to the bill. We have attempted to meet the goal of
reducing processing time while addressing their concerns.
One of the fears that keeps on resurfacing concerns the
increased power of the minister.
(1605)
We see the federal government concentrating more and more
powers in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This tendency is
a threat to equity in the case of our veterans. For the sake of
efficiency it may be necessary to concentrate certain powers, but
the only way to prevent abuse or monumental errors under such
conditions is to provide for broader consultation mechanisms.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois had in mind when it proposed
its amendments. I believe it is necessary for the government to
proceed with transparency. It must consult with the provinces. It
must control its centralist tendencies and its inclination to make
decisions alone, as the lord and master, with respect to
everything that concerns the public interest.
12302
Partisan appointments are a real threat. Too often, political
considerations tend to outweigh qualifications when appointing
people to what are often positions of consequence. Lack of
efficiency or bias in some public services can often be traced
to such considerations.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes to counter this tendency to
concentrate power, and that is the purpose of our contributions
to the debate on bills like Bill C-43 on lobbyists, Bill C-65 and
this particular bill. The purpose of all four amendments is to
ensure that appointments to the new board are conditional on
consultation with the government of each province and with the
designated committee of the House of Commons.
Our amendments concern three clauses: clause 4,
appointment of board members; clause 6, appointment of
temporary members; and clause 8, designation of the
chairperson and deputy chairperson and acting designations.
Clause 4 provides for establishing the new veterans review
and appeal board, consisting of not more than 29 permanent
members. As it stands now, the clause provides that these
permanent members are to be appointed by the governor in
council-in other words, the Prime Minister-without further
ado. Our amendment proposes that permanent members be
appointed after consultation with the government of each
province and after consultation with the committee of the
House. We felt that two consultations prior to any appointment
provided sufficient guarantees that the appointment process
would be valid. The process also gives appointees greater
legitimacy.
We must not forget that the board's permanent members
together form the staff of a quasi legal organization and must
therefore be beyond reproach.
The same applies to the temporary members provided for
under clause 6 of the bill. These temporary members will be
employed for a particular term and for a specific duty in order to
meet certain one time needs. In the case of this board, any
number of persons may be appointed for a term not exceeding
two years, but may be reappointed for one additional term.
These temporary board members may be appointed to help
alleviate the board's workload, which may have become too
great through too great a backlog, too many cases or too many
contested decisions. The appointment of the temporary
members, like that of the permanent members, must, in our
opinion, be reviewed by each province and the standing
committee before taking effect. Otherwise, excesses could
occur if this appointment system is not properly supervised, and
nothing in this government's actions would rule out such a
possibility.
Our third and fourth amendments concern clause 8, which
pertains to the extremely important positions of chairperson and
deputy chairperson of the board. Clauses 8(2) and 8(3) of the bill
clearly define the role of the tribunal chairperson and,
accordingly, all that the position involves. I would draw them to
your attention, and I quote: ``The Chairperson is the chief
executive officer of the Board and has supervision over and
direction of the work of the Board including the allocation of
work among its members, the conduct of its work, the
management of its internal affairs and the duties of its staff. The
Chairperson shall make such reports to the Minister as the
Minister may require respecting the use of the resources
allocated to the Board''. It is, therefore a very important role.
(1610)
Consequently, we would like both the chairperson and deputy
chairperson, who is to occupy the chair if the chairperson is
absent, to be appointed in consultation with the provinces and
the House standing committee. Should both positions become
vacant, we ask that there be a two cycle mechanism. First, the
minister would immediately choose replacements among the
board members. Then, the vacancies would be filled the same
way as initially, namely in consultation with the provinces and
the House standing committee. With these interim appointments
made by the minister, the board would not be left rudderless
during the consultation process.
This, in short, is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for, to
make the appointment process more transparent. The federal
government must learn to consult the provinces more often.
Furthermore, appointments must no longer be made behind the
scene, in the back rooms of power where the government admits
only its friends, powerful lobbyists and the rich. Otherwise,
even the best public administration system might fall prey to
incompetence and arbitrary decisions.
We do not want this to happen to the veterans' pension
assessment system. Twenty four years ago, the Minister of
Veteran Affairs, the hon. Jean-Eudes Dubé, agreed in this House
that it was essential that decisions concerning veterans be
arrived at in the spirit of fairness and impartiality. I trust that the
present government finds this equally important.
This is why I expect our colleagues opposite to support our
amendments in favour of more transparent mechanisms.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to address a few words under group two to
Motion No. 3. I hope that is appropriate at this time.
A number of witnesses presenting their reports on Bill C-67
to the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs
complained about the length of time members could be
appointed to the veterans review and appeal board. They felt that
ten-year terms with eligibility for an additional ten years is
excessive, and I agree.
Appointments with terms like this allow little opportunity for
new blood to come into the system. They also allow the
12303
government to stuff the board full of political appointees who
will remain long after the government has gone.
Motion No. 3, which is our amendment to clause 5 of Bill
C-67, will ensure that there is plenty of turnover, allowing a
frequent infusion of new blood to the board. In addition, no
government will be allowed to dominate the board long after it
has been voted out of power. It calls for ten permanent members
to be appointed for three years, ten more for six years, and the
remaining nine for nine years. Permanent members will be
eligible for reappointment, but no member will be able to sit on
the board for more than twelve years. Provision exists for a
permanent member to trade their term with another permanent
member. Length of term is decided by lot.
I encourage all members to consider seriously this
amendment. It would do much to defuse public criticism of
political appointees.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by both my
colleagues on Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 and on Motion No. 3.
I understand Motions 2 and 4 will be voted on as a group and
then Motions 3, 5, and 6 will be voted on separately.
Let me speak about Motions 2, 4, 5, and 6 submitted by the
Bloc. As I understand it, the thrust of these amendments would
add delays to the process of appointing members to the veterans
review and appeal board. This is surely counter to the thrust of
the bill. The proposal as it is made will take time and it will slow
the process down.
(1615 )
I believe it runs counter to the attitude expressed by the Bloc
in committee where it seemed committed to helping veterans. In
short, these amendments do absolutely nothing for veterans.
Further, the motions call for reasonable representation and
appointments to be made after consultation with provincial
governments and approval of appointments by the standing
committee of the House. On the federal side the government is a
national government which represents the interests of all
Canadians. That is why we have 295 members from all regions
of Canada. It has ensured and will continue to ensure
appointments to federal boards and agencies are qualified and
are representative of Canada as a whole, taking into account
such factors as region, gender and ethnicity and that appropriate
and necessary consultations occur before such appointments are
made.
To put the regional factor into legislation would restrict the
government's flexibility in achieving a balance of all of these
factors and in appointing the most qualified candidates. The
federal government is the only body which can sit all of these
matrixes and compare one region with another.
With respect to provincial consultation, to mandate by statute
that the provinces must be consulted prior to appointments
being made in virtually every federal body, as the Bloc
Quebecois appears to propose, would be needlessly
cumbersome, time consuming and costly. In addition, provincial
statutes do not include a requirement to consult the federal
government on all appointments made by the lieutenant
governor in council. It would be as inappropriate to require the
federal government to consult provincial governments on
appointments to agencies created by federal legislation as it
would be to require provincial governments to consult the
federal government on appointments to agencies created by
provincial legislation.
With respect to approval by the standing committee, to grant
the standing committee the right to approve appointments would
be to usurp the prerogative of the governor in council. It would
represent a fundamental change in the executive powers of the
crown, the House of Commons and the parliamentary system of
government.
I remind hon. members from all sides of the House that Bill
C-67 reflects the government's commitment to simply change
the structure, to streamline the operation wherever possible and
to ensure federal agencies continue to be relevant to Canada's
needs and serve Canadians as effectively as possible.
The bill is not related to fundamental questions such as the
checks and balances of the parliamentary system. Those are
built in. I feel fully confident the bill as discussed and as
presented with its amendments from the day we studied it clause
by clause, I think on April 27, is quite satisfactory. This never
really came up in discussion at any time to my memory.
I got quite a kick out of Motion No. 3 proposed by my hon.
colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. He is afraid of this great
fear the third party has of political patronage. I am not sure
where it comes from but he nodded and tacitly agreed this was
behind the proposal he made. I see a big smile on his face. I am
sure he cannot be serious about this kind of an amendment. He is
trying to create three classes of members, those appointed for
three years, six years and nine years.
These are quasi-judicial organizations and the appointees,
while they are not actually judges, are like judges. They make
some very serious judgments. It would not be in the interest of
the intent of the bill, it would not be prudent and it would not be
wise to create a hierarchy among these members. The hon.
member knows that. For the disability pension system to appear
fair and transparent it must be clearly understood that all
members of the new board are equal and they must be seen as
equal by all parties in the House, no matter which party is in
12304
government. I am sure the hon. member is not too worried about
his party being in government for a long time. Perhaps it is a
technical concern which that party has.
Historically veterans affairs, and anyone involved in veterans
affairs can attest to this fact, have been treated in a non-partisan
way by successive Canadian governments. I think the hon.
member from the Bloc who put the amendment forward would
agree with that.
Our concern remains first and foremost with the veterans and
that will continue. I find it very difficult in my heart to support
these amendments.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question on Motion No. 2?
Resuming debate. The hon. member for La Prairie.
(1620)
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to rise after the member for Châteauguay to speak to 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.
What changes will be brought about by this bill in its present
form? To put it in a nutshell, we can say that this legislation
merges the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans
Appeal Board and that, in future, applications for benefits will
be examined by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. His decisions
will be subject to review by or appeal to the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board. Finally, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates will
become part of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, said earlier,
the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an independent
board consisting of not more than twenty-nine permanent
members, to be appointed by the governor in council for a term
not exceeding ten years, but eligible to reappointment. The
chairperson and deputy chairperson are also designated by the
governor in council.
This bill also amends the Pension Act. Part I, which defines
the Canadian Pension Commission, and Part II, which defines
the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, are replaced by a new part
describing the minister's powers.
In a sense, the minister is inheriting all of the functions and
powers held so far by the Canadian Pension Commission in
terms of first applications and first decisions. The eligibility of
applications for awards will thus depend directly on the
minister.
Is there not a risk that decisions relating to veterans will lack a
certain impartiality and independence?
When Bill C-67 was tabled for first reading on December 15,
1994, the secretary of state for veterans argued that a thorough
change in structures was required in order to substantially
reduce delays in the processing of applications for awards.
According to the secretary of state, this initiative is part of the
review of all government agencies and commissions which was
undertaken by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
We share the view of the hon. member for Châteauguay, who
is in favour of the government's basic objective of reducing
administrative delays and speeding up the decision-making
process in files management.
However, we also share the concern of the hon. member for
Châteauguay, who is questioning the means proposed by the
government party to achieve this necessary objective of
reducing delays in the processing of applications.
We, of the Bloc Quebecois, believe that to subject first
decisions to ministerial authority would be a step backwards and
a disturbing measure. We wonder why it is necessary to
repatriate pensions advocates to the department when their
independence was previously considered essential.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois is that veterans'
applications should be speeded up within structures that are
impartial, transparent and fair. None of the suggestions put
forward by the hon. member for Châteauguay challenges the
principle whereby the decision process and the advocate system
would remain independent from the minister's authority.
Like the Reform Party critic, we too deplore the lack of
consultation with veterans' associations and the government's
preference for outside consultants; in this case, it sought the
advice of two management consulting firms. We recognize in
this the Liberals' preference for lobbyists and the well to do, the
owners of these management consulting firms.
The Royal Canadian Legion and the veterans of the Canadian
navy and armed forces have both expressed serious reservations
about Bill C-67, but the government prefers to listen to well
paid management consultants. Party fundraising does have its
price, it would appear.
Three citizens came before the standing committee to say how
much Bill C-67 would harm veterans. I wonder if their remarks
reached the minister, who will have most of the discretionary
power in the future.
(1625)
We agree with the principle of reducing processing time, but
we have serious reservations about the means put forward to
reach this goal. Other more concrete measures might improve
the processing time without requiring a revamping of the
administrative structure. We are concerned about increased
authority for the minister and the decrease in services to
veterans.
The Chrétien government is once again showing its lack of
openness, its disregard for provincial governments and its
centralizing tendencies. Once again, the Prime Minister is using
public funds to treat his friends better, instead of serving the
12305
interests of Canadians. The 29 vacancies of the Veterans Review
and Appeal Board, high-paying full time jobs for a renewable
term of ten years, will be filled by friends of the Liberals.
To prevent this new Liberal scheme, we strongly support the
four motions put forward by the member for Châteauguay,
which are aimed at increasing transparency within the federal
government. These four motions ask for the appointments
required for the new Veterans Review and Appeal Board, under
clauses 4 to 34 of the bill, to be made only after consultations
with the provinces and the appropriate committee of the House.
This would ensure a better distribution of power by not leaving
too much power in the hands of the minister himself.
These motions concern the appointment of permanent
members and of temporary members, the designation of a
chairperson and of a deputy chairperson as well as the
designation of an acting chairperson and of an acting deputy
chairperson. I strongly support these four motions put forward
today by the member for Châteauguay.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): As you know, Madam
Speaker, yesterday, almost everywhere in Canada, we were
commemorating the end of the Second World War. In my riding
of Shefford and in Grandby I had the honour to meet with some
of the veterans and whether it was Mr. Benoit, Mr. Lemay, Mr.
Brodeur, Mr. Saint-Onge and many others, during the Second
World War, they were young and served in the military. Some of
them gave five years of their lives to their country.
Today, I am going to give you my point of view on 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 immediate result of the restructuring will be the merging
of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal
Board. I am particularly concerned with this aspect of the bill
which appears quite contentious to me.
Once the bill is passed, applications will be reviewed directly
by the minister and his close collaborators, commissioners and
officials. The decisions so taken will nevertheless be open for
review and appeal in front of the veterans Board.
Consideration of the bill tends to indicate that there might be a
loss of acquired rights for veterans, without proof that the
recognized problems which led to this reform will be dealt with
by this bill.
We can rightly believe that the fundamental argument of the
government to justify the proposed changes is to speed up the
timeframe for pensions to be awarded. These changes to the
decision process are deemed to go directly to the root of the
perceived problems.
It is with that in mind that the Secretary of State for Veterans
tabled Bill C-67 on December 15. He also tabled an explanatory
note which alluded clearly to the overly long delays and the slow
processing of applications, and which also criticized the present
pension awarding system.
Indeed, according to an analysis done by the government, the
main reason for this slow process is the fact that the structures
and agencies awarding the pensions are widely scattered.
(1630)
The Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the Canadian Pension
Commission are being blamed. In order to resolve the problem
of the delays incurred in awarding pensions, the government
proposes to abolish the Canadian Pension Commission, transfer
its responsibilities to the minister and his officials, transfer its
resources to a new appeal board, and integrate the Bureau of
Pensions Advocates into the Department of Veterans Affairs.
All this would come under the department's control.
The bureau will no longer serve veterans, except when an
appeal is filed. According to the deputy minister, these measures
should reduce the average delay following the first pension
application from 18 to 9 months. As you know, those currently
applying are often 70 or 75 years old. It is therefore necessary to
reduce delays, and we agree with that.
Most of the groups concerned agree that current delays are too
long and should be reduced. However, as pointed out in the
Marshall report, the figures now available in this regard are in
dispute.
The red tape involved in processing applications was noted
for the first time in the 1986 report of the Auditor General of
Canada, Chapter 13, Section 13.98 and the following sections.
So this problem is nothing new. It was known even in 1986.
As you can see, this delay problem did not surface yesterday.
Beyond the award system as such, moving the headquarters
from Ottawa to Charlottetown in 1983-84 was clearly identified
as a major reason for longer processing delays.
This observation does not take anything away from
Charlottetown employees, who, in my opinion, do their best to
meet demand; rather, it is aimed at the system in which they
operate. For example, why are fully qualified district physicians
required to submit case assessments to the approval of head
office physicians who are no more qualified than they are?
The central authorities' compulsive need to control
everything is in a way the main obstacle leading to excessive
delays in the award process. So, what undermines the present
system is not the various authorities with different mandates but
rather the duplication of certain phases of verification,
validation and
12306
consistency between authorities. Would it not be better to
decentralize the entire decision-making process to improve
access to services?
In spite of everything, the federal government is considering
shortening the waiting period for pensions by eliminating the
Canadian Pension Commission, transferring all of its
responsibilities to the department, assigning its personnel to a
new board and making the Bureau of Pensions Advocates a part
of the department.
I wonder about the appropriateness of these measures which,
as far as I can see, come with no guarantee of producing savings
within the given time frame, while the right to be represented in
the first instance is certainly being removed. The Canadian
Pension Commission is an independent decision making agency.
Delays directly related to this activity generally do not exceed
20 days.
Abolishing the Canadian Pension Commission is not, in my
opinion, a valid way of reducing delays significantly. I cannot
understand, under the circumstances, how the department can
come to the conclusion that this measure will reduce the current
waiting period by four months.
As for the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, it loses its status as
an independent agency, becoming a part of the department.
Moreover, it will no longer provide assistance to veterans filing
their first application.
(1635)
The issue of conflict of interest and independence concerning
this Bureau was examined extensively in the late 1960s and this
actually led to the Bureau being detached from the department in
1971.
Incidentally, providing this kind of assistance from the
beginning ensures that applicants have support every step of the
way. At present, nearly half of all first applications are approved
without any further need for review. How will the approval rate
be affected if there is no more legal support for applications and
no independent and impartial commission?
I seriously doubt that the proposals contained in this bill will
bring about any reduction in the processing time. The
government's solution, in my opinion, overlooks such basic
objectives as the independence of a body, as well as the
decentralization of power and decision-making. The legislation
should have focused more on regrouping the eligibility and
evaluation steps, to speed up the process leading to a pension
being awarded. As well, entirely favourable decisions should
only need to go through one stage.
Most applicants are older people who need an answer quickly.
As I said before, I met some extraordinary people in my riding,
people who have a sense of honour, people who gave three, four
or five years of their lives. Some were imprisoned; some were
injured. These people need an answer quickly. This is not a
question of bureaucratic reorganization, exclusion of services,
or reduced assistance. The purpose is to ensure the efficiency of
a process which is based on favourable consideration of
veterans.
We must not merely say once every 50 years that we love our
veterans. We must table legislation designed to help them.
These people need our support, and we must do everything we
can to provide them with quality service. In my opinion,
subjecting initial decisions to ministerial authority is a step
backward. It is worrisome to say the least. There will be much
more control.
I truly hope that veterans will enjoy speedier processing of
their applications, through measures which are based on
fairness, transparency and equity.
Madam Speaker, you can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois
takes its role seriously, and that it will closely monitor the
government's reform. Our only concern is to ensure that
veterans are satisfied with the services provided to them.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 2, which will also apply to Motion No. 4. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
12307
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
(1640 )
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
them motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-67, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 23, on
page 6, with the following:
``28. An appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or
may appear before it, in person or by representative and at their own expense,
to present documentary evidence and written or oral arguments, but the appeal
panel shall not accept oral testimony.''
He said: Madam Speaker, our intervention on this is very
short, sweet and simple. It concerns only clause 28. We do not
mean to change the intent or meaning of clause 28. Very simply,
we ask that the wording be clarified to ensure that appellants
will clearly understand their rights. As it is worded now, it is
vague as to rights. The intent of our motion is to clear up the
language to ensure that appellants clearly understand their
rights.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my hon.
colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan.
Motion No. 7 confuses what was a confusing situation which
was clarified in the amendment. It is difficult if one was not a
committee member to wrap one's mind around this, but
essentially the clause instructs the applicant in what can be done
at a certain process in the bill.
In the amendment we clarified with respect to documentation
presented at the hearing that the documentation could be both
written and oral, documentation as differing from evidence.
Nobody meant to change, as the hon. member said, the intent of
the clause. The intent was that oral and written documentation
could be presented. Therefore when the veteran came to present
his case the documentation could be taken in front of the board
having been considered by the board and then the veteran could
speak giving oral documentation. Oral evidence could not be
presented and only documented evidence could be submitted.
In committee we essentially did what is being achieved by the
proposal being made by the Reform Party. It wants to insert the
term oral. In fact that was taken out of the first clause on
amendment because it was considered to be confusing.
This does not appear in the bill because we felt it was not
necessary to reprint the bill and we would save the government
the expense of doing it since there were so few amendments.
However, to clarify the clause we divided clause 28 into two
subclauses to say that subject to subparagraph (2) the applicant
could make oral and written documentation but at his own
expense et cetera, and could present oral argument.
12308
(1645 )
To make sure that the understanding is there in subclause (2) it
is stated that only documented evidence, as opposed to oral
evidence, can be submitted under subclause (1). Therefore, I do
not believe the wording does anything to improve on the
amendment being made.
This would be amplified in regulations and would be crystal
clear to the applicant. Therefore, I do not think there is any need
for an amendment to clarify the subclause.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 7, introduced by the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, echoes debates which took place in
committee. At our very first meeting to study Bill C-67, on
February 16, our colleague pointed out that clause 28 is
ambiguous. This clause stipulates the manner in which a request
to appear before an appeal panel of the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board must be made. It stipulates that an appellant may
present evidence and arguments to support a case, but at the
same time, as it now stands, the board cannot hear oral
testimony.
Therefore, our colleague asked Brian Chambers, a legal
advisor for the Department of Justice, a few questions. He tried
to explain to us the nuance between ``oral arguments'' and
``evidence presented under the form of testimony''.
Unfortunately, his explanation was not compelling in the least,
and we still had doubts and found the clause ambiguous. We
therefore reached the consensus that we would have to modify
clause 28, in order to clarify what was meant by the word
``evidence'' and by the word ``arguments''.
This is what the amendment proposed by the Reform member
does. The amendment essentially aims to specify that, when an
appellant submits evidence, what is meant is documentary
evidence. By the same token, when the clause mentions
arguments presented by an appellant before the appeal panel of
the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, we can only understand
that to mean oral and written arguments. This would clarify that
a veteran or that person's representative cannot present oral
testimony which contains evidence. All oral presentations must
be limited to arguments, that is, the reasoning on which the
appeal request before the tribunal is based. No new facts can be
submitted in this manner at this stage. If an appellant or a
representative wishes to submit new facts as evidence, they
must do so in writing, in the form of a document.
The official opposition agrees with this point and
consequently supports the proposed amendment and Motion No.
7 concerning clause 28 of Bill C-67.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-67, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 14,
with following:
``48. Section 24 of the Act is replaced by the following:
``24. (1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term
of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and
no pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that
imprisonment, except that the Minister has discretion to direct the payment of
the pension or part of it to any person who was being or was entitled to be
supported by the pensioner at the time of the arrest of the pensioner or, if in
the opinion of the Minister it would be of exceptional benefit or advantage to
the pensioner, the Minister may in the Minister's discretion direct the payment
of the pension or a part thereof to or for the pensioner.
(2) On the pensioner's release from imprisonment, payment of his pension
shall be reconsidered as from the date of release and in accordance with the
extent of the disability of the pensioner then shown to exist or, in the case of a
pensioner pensioned on account of the death of a member of the forces, in
accordance with the rates set out in Schedule II or determined pursuant to
sub-section 34(7) or 45(3), whichever rates are applicable.''''
He said: Madam Speaker, while researching this bill it came
to our attention that section 24 of the Pension Act was being
repealed with this bill. Section 24 of the Pension Act states:
24.(1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and no
pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that
imprisonment,
Given the cost of incarceration to the public purse, it is only
fitting that the government not pay a government funded
pension to a prisoner.
12309
Section 24 of the Pension Act must not be removed. This
section of the Pension Act is also very reasonable.
Consideration is taken of the dependants of the pensioner who
rely on the pensioner's disability pension income. It also gives
the minister discretion to allow the pensioner to continue to
collect the pension if special circumstances exist.
(1650 )
Therefore I call on all members to support Motion No. 10.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, our response to this motion is a fairly simple
one and I will not waste many words.
A disability pension is a right that should not be taken away.
The pension is awarded for injuries sustained serving Canada. It
would be wrong to deny this right after it has been justifiably
earned.
I may say parenthetically the discretion is already there to do
that but in the memory of anyone I have spoken to in the
department no one can ever remember it being used. I wonder if
there is really a necessity for it. Whether there is a necessity or
not, we do not support the motion for the reasons I have given.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, proposes to amend clause 48 of the bill.
This amendment would have the effect of maintaining section
24 of the Pension Act, a section that the bill would repeal. So
what does this section say?
The new section 24 is amended to reflect that the Canadian
Pension Commission no longer exists and that all its powers will
revert to the minister.
This section concerns what happens when a veteran, for
whatever reason, is sent to prison. In such cases, section 24
provides that the pensioner may be subject to certain sanctions
including the suspension of his pension and transfer of the
pension or a part thereof to dependants. Also, upon his release,
his pension will be subject to reassessment.
We must understand the principles and moral issues that are
involved when we give this kind of authority to the minister. On
the week-end, I heard a broadcast on veterans of the Vietnam
war: how it had affected them; how they coped with their
memories of the war; how they had been rejected by their fellow
citizens who were too anxious to forget about this shameful
period in the history of the United States; how the deep
psychological wounds and the terrible burden they carried as
participants in this war made it extremely difficult for them to
readjust to a society that would prefer to forget all about them.
Many of these Vietnam veterans are now leading a life of
crime. We cannot dismiss the thought that there may be a
connection between crimes committed and their wartime
service. Of course, there is no excuse for crime as such, but we
cannot be blind to the fact that behaviour is influenced by past
experience.
Furthermore, being punished for a crime is one thing but
entitlement to a pension is something else. To link the two would
be to make a moral judgment that a modern society cannot afford
to make. If a crime is committed, the Criminal Code contains all
the provisions to punish the crime, and the courts are there to
determine sentencing. That is one thing. If a veteran applies for
a pension as compensation for a disability arising from his
military service, the pension review system is there to determine
his eligibility and evaluate the level of compensation to which
he is entitled. That is another thing.
Let me give you an example. I used to work for a large Quebec
company. I worked for 35 years, which entitles me to a pension.
So, if, tomorrow morning I were to commit an offence, for
whatever reason, and was sent to jail, would the judge be
entitled to suspend my pension? No, of course not. I am entitled
to what I am entitled to. The loss of my freedom is the cost I
must pay for my offence. It is intolerable to think that the
Reform Party wants to keep a veteran's pension from him as
punishment.
This is the absurdity at issue. A retired person is still retired,
even in prison. Similarly, a pensioner who is entitled to a
disability pension as a veteran is still a pensioner, even in
prison. A just society would not make payment for services
rendered conditional on good behaviour.
(1655)
It is as if we did not believe in our penal and our legal systems.
As if we felt they did not do the job well enough and we had to
compound the punishment with other penalties.
This is all in bad taste. It is the old right. I was hoping we had
seen the last of a right that mixes up everything in the social
contract everyone has a share in. Veterans deserve to be
compensated for risking their life and for being wounded. We
made this commitment long ago. It is a right, and, in my opinion,
nothing and no one can take it away from them, because no one
in this House can give them back their health or a limb they lost.
This is why veterans have a pension. It is a disability pension.
We must not get it all mixed up and think that, because
someone commits a crime, we have to take away not only his
freedom but his right to a pension.
You can see why we cannot support anything so backward as
Motion No. 10. We understand why the government used Bill
C-67 to remove this archaic provision, which has no place in
civilized society.
12310
I hope veterans are reassured. As far as we in the Bloc
Quebecois are concerned, we will not mix their rights with any
other conditions whatsoever. We therefore oppose Motion No.
10.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-67, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 26,
with following:
``do so on application if the person making the application alleges that an error
was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law or if
new evidence is''
He said: Motion No. 11 is an important amendment to section
82 of the bill. During the clause by clause study in committee, an
amendment was made to section 32 of the bill because it was
agreed by all that veterans had lost a right and that the
amendment to section 32 restored that right.
Section 32 originally denied veterans the right to have the
appeal panel review a decision based on the applicant's claim
that there had been an error with respect to a finding of fact or
interpretation of law.
Veterans could only apply based on new evidence. After being
amended in committee, veterans can now apply for a review
based not only on new evidence but based on a claim that an
error had been made with respect to a finding of fact or
interpretation of law.
Section 82 of the bill is exactly the same as section 32 except
instead of referring to the appeal panel it is refers to the minister.
Considering the unanimous consent the amendment to section
32 received in committee, there is no reason for this bill to
restrict veterans to applying to the minister for a review based
on new evidence only.
Veterans should have the right to apply to the minister for a
review based on the claim by the veteran that there had been an
error with respect to any finding of fact or interpretation of law.
I call on all members to support this important motion.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say.
I looked at his motion and I believe it is unnecessary.
If a veteran feels that the minister has made an error in fact or
law at the first decision the applicant can appeal to the Veteran's
Review and Appeal Board. That is why we have a quasi-judicial
board in the first place.
(1700 )
The hon. member compared the three levels, the minister, the
review board and the appeal board. He is absolutely right, we did
go back to insert the error of fact or interpretation of law at the
second stage or at the review process because we felt it
necessary to have it in the quasi-judicial system to equate both
processes, the review and the appeal.
However, in the case of the minister the amendment makes no
sense from an administrative or a policy point of view. It would
not result in faster turnaround times, the litmus test of all these
motions. Nor would it increase the chances of a veteran
receiving a disability pension. The true safety factor for the
veteran, the crux of the bill, is that he or she can claim an error of
fact or law after the final decision is rendered by the new board.
This where we need this kind of safeguard, not at the
ministerial level. At the ministerial level the veteran can
continue to two further levels where it is important to have it
written in that the veteran is given the benefit of the doubt with
respect to the ability to look at, from their viewpoint, the
interpretation of the law or an error of fact.
I believe the safeguard, the intent of what the hon. member is
proposing, is already in place. It is an amendment which does
not make administrative or policy sense. It will do nothing to
help the bill. It will do nothing to reduce the turnaround time for
veterans. We believe it is unnecessary and therefore I will not be
able to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 11 put forward by my colleague is aimed at
amending clause 73 of the bill, which amends a number of
sections in the Pension Act. The section in this act specifically
targeted by the hon. member's proposed amendment is section
82 of the Pension Act.
12311
This section deals with the minister's power to review certain
decisions made in the pension award process. This power
applies first of all to his own decisions relating to initial
applications not under the responsibility of the new board. This
reviewing power may extend to all initial decisions made by the
Canadian Pension Commission until its dissolution.
Section 82 of the Pension Act also provides that the minister's
review may lead to the confirmation, reversal or amendment of
the decision being reviewed. However, such changes can be
made only if the minister determines that there was an error with
respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law.
The minister may review these decisions of his own initiative,
but he may also do so on application if new evidence is
presented to him. It is this last part of section 82 that the Reform
motion would amend. This proposed amendment provides
clarification in several respects.
First of all, the amendment specifies that the decision review
application submitted to the minister must come from the
original applicant behind the decision. An application by a third
party to review a decision under the minister's authority may not
be admissible.
The amendment goes on to say that the original applicant may
also, in support of his application to the minister, submit
arguments to the effect that an error was made with respect to
any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law. It is the same
power as that given to the minister to review a decision.
Therefore, we think that the original applicant behind the
decision should be allowed to submit to the minister any
arguments that the minister could use to review a decision of his
own initiative.
Finally, with this amendment, it will still be possible to
submit, in addition to arguments on points of fact and points of
law, new evidence in support of an application for review by the
minister. Indeed, under section 82 of the Pension Act, an
applicant in receipt of a decision may ask the minister to
reconsider his decision by putting forward new developments
pertaining to his initial application. As I understand it, the
possible reconsideration of a decision made under the authority
of the minister is intended as another avenue for applicants who
are not satisfied with the decision made in their case.
(1705)
This means that there are several recourses available to
veterans applying for disability pension. Before even going to
the new veterans board, applicants could file an application for
review or appeal directly with the minister. This can be done
provided new evidence can be introduced. It can also be done
under the Reform Party amendment proposal if the applicant
alleges that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact
or the interpretation of any law on which the decision was made.
We support Motion No. 11, as it seems to make a great deal of
sense. It gives veterans more rights, while at the same time
clarifying an ambiguity no doubt created by noted legal scholars
and drafting officers. This way, the reviewing powers of the
minister are made clearer. Therefore, we support Motion No. 11.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 11.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent
of the House to defer the recorded division on the motion until
the time of adjournment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from May 5, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules and related acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, last
year the member for Calgary Centre rose in the House to raise
the issue of the complexity of the tax system.
12312
It is really interesting and instructive to listen to the Liberals
who, in many of their speeches in the House as well as outside,
tell us how everything is new and wonderful and everything is
under control now that they are here. We are so pleased about
that.
When I look at Bill C-70 I come to the conclusion it is
everything the same as before. The old Conservative way of
doing things or the old Liberal way of doing things of making
the whole income tax all the less compatible with ordinary
human beings gives me some sense of distress.
Last year my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre addressed the
House while we were debating Bill C-27. In that speech he read
the following excerpt from the Income Tax Act. I will give the
House the interpretation of the Income Tax Act regarding
superficial loss as presented by my colleague for Calgary
Centre:
Section 54 of the act is replaced by the following: 9CO was the disposition
deemed by paragraph 33.1(11)(a), subsection 45(1). Section 48 as it read in its
application before 1993, section 50 or 70, subsection 104(4), section 128.1 or
subsection 128(11.3), 144(4.1) or (4.2) or 149(10) to have been made-
24. (1) Section 55 of the act is amended by adding the following after
subsection (3):
Notwithstanding subsection (3), a dividend to which subsection (2) would
but for paragraph (3)(b), otherwise apply is not excluded from the application
of subsection (2) where the dividend is received as part of a series of
transactions or events in which
(a) a person or partnership-
It goes on and on.
(1710 )
He raised the issue in the House during debate on Bill C-27 to
put over the fact that we all know the Income Tax Act is such a
huge volume of information that there is no conceivable way the
average individual can possibly walk up to and address the bill
or address the Income Tax Act. That was where my colleague
from Calgary Centre stopped.
Today we debate Bill C-70. How things have changed in the
last year since the Liberals have taken over. How many
wonderful new ideas they have an how wonderfully they are
bringing the Income Tax Act into line with ordinary Canadians. I
see within the bill an amendment to the particular section I was
dealing with a moment ago, superficial laws.
I am not a tax lawyer. I am not a lawyer. I am a taxpayer. I am
not a chartered accountant.I am a taxpayer along with many tens
of millions of other Canadians. I was rather hoping that with all
of the words the Liberals continue to give to us, they might have
lived up to the concept of tax reform.
I read this section to find the following. They have changed it.
It now reads: ``Paragraph (e) of the definition superficial loss in
section 54 of the act is replaced by the following: (e) was a
disposition of property by the taxpayer to which paragraph
40(2)(e.1) 25 or subsection 85(4) applies''.
I thank the Liberals for making it so much clearer for me as an
ordinary taxpayer to understand this section on superficial loss.
Of Course I jest because the Liberals have done nothing to
simplify the Income Tax Act. If anything they have added more
layers, more things to be taken off as one would with an onion
when taking it apart. They have added more layers to the onion
of the Income Tax Act.
I find it rather interesting that one of the most creative
thinkers with respect to taxation in Canada is a parliamentary
secretary in the government. His ideas for the single tax, a
proposal for tax reform, have never been approached, have
never been touched by the government. I do not really
understand why unless the Liberals have been around for far too
long.
Taking a look at some of his concerns, he points out that when
we have a taxation system so complex, first it leads to a situation
in which ordinary citizens like me, like probably most of the
people either reading Hansard or watching this on television
today, are saying to themselves: ``He is right, the income tax is
so complicated I go to H & R Block or an accountant; I pay $35,
$50, $100 or $150 to an accountant to get the job done''.
I do not mean to do a disservice to accountants but the plain
fact of the matter is that when ordinary taxpayers reach a
situation in which the tax act is so complex, so convoluted, so
completely overlaid as in the picture I gave of onions and onion
rings with layer upon layer of problems, we end up with ordinary
citizens at a severe disadvantage.
The problem is if we keep the complicated system we now
have there will be continuing and ever widening abuse of the
system. When there is a leak, when there is a problem within the
tax system that has to be fixed, to come up with yet another
band-aid that sits on top of the existing band-aids, we end up
with the problem we presently have; people taking a look at
loopholes upon loopholes and ways of getting around the
system.
(1715 )
There is another problem with the tax act being as complex as
it is. The government is coming to the House now with a bill to
enact 1994 taxation legislation when people were filing their
income tax returns about a week ago. To me this smacks of an
attitude problem: ``We will get around to it''. These ideas are
imposed on Canadians: ``That is just the way it is. Oh, by the
way, we will get around to using the rubber stamp of Parliament
later to actually enact the legislation''.
This is not acceptable. The last time I looked we lived in a
democracy. This act should have come before the House for
debate long before people were filing their 1994 tax returns, not
afterward.
12313
I do not really understand why this government refuses to take
seriously the concept of at least looking at a flat tax or single tax
system. The major advantage to a single tax system is that we
could eliminate the volumes and probably millions of words and
figures, paragraphs, subparagraphs and subsections. We could
get it down to something an ordinary citizen could understand.
We would be able to file taxes in a way that is appropriate to
ourselves and not to the demand of a government which simply
says: ``Sorry, that is the way it is to be''. It would give us some
flexibility.
With a flat tax system we would be able to treat all income the
same way. One of the problems when people look at a flat tax
system comes when they listen to the council of concerned
Canadians and other wonderful organizations like that which do
knee-jerk reactions and say with a flat tax or a single tax system,
only the people at the top end with the high income will be
advantaged.
Then some people unfortunately in the news media take a
knee-jerk, short term reaction to that. They listen to that and
accept it as being a statement of fact. They then go ahead and
literally throw out the baby with the bath water rather than
looking first at what exemptions there would be. They would be
absolutely minimal.
The income of people who are presently working within the
system and taking every advantage they possibly can with all the
exemptions and exceptions would be captured. That is number
one.
Number two, we would end up taking the personal exemption
to a significantly higher level than where it presently is. That
would mean that people at the low end of the scale who are
presently in the $12,000 to $14,000 income area and are paying
$600 or $700 in taxes in all likelihood would be advantaged
under a flat tax system.
Number three, because of all the exemptions, just increasing
marginal tax rates does absolutely nothing to increase income or
revenue for the government. What happens is that we end up
going back to what I was speaking of just a few minutes ago
which is the whole issue of the convoluted ways people can get
around paying tax by exception or by exemptions.
By coming up with a single tax it would simplify things. It
would allow flexibility of filing dates. It also has the very
distinct possibility of ending up with people at the low end of the
scale being advantaged rather than disadvantaged.
(1720 )
Does flat tax have a problem? Yes, there are some problems
with the flat tax system. However, I challenge the Liberal
government, I challenge the ministers of the government and I
challenge the Prime Minister: If the flat tax or the single tax is so
unpalatable and unworkable, why would the government of the
largest economy in the world, the United States, be looking at a
flat tax or a single tax? When we continue to throw more and
more convoluted regulations and logic into our income tax
system, why would we not be prepared to at least strike an
independent committee, even a subcommittee of the finance
committee, to look at the concept of flat tax?
We know that good, new ideas are not necessarily to come
from that side of the House. They might be interested to know
that the Reform Party is establishing a task force on taxation. We
will involve members of Parliament. We will involve political
researchers. We will involve people within our party. We will
get as much input as we possibly can so that when we come out
the other side we will have a package which Canadians can look
at.
No changes have occurred between the time my colleague
from Calgary Centre brought up these paragraphs and where we
are now. I am sure that if we waited for the Liberals to come up
with any new ideas on the issue of taxation, we would wait a long
time. Therefore, in the spirit of reform we are establishing the
task force.
In addition to the task force, we will also be bringing forward
in the very near future under a private member's bill a taxpayers
protection act. We have spoken about that in the House. It has
been spoken about in provincial legislatures, as well as during
the Manitoba election campaign. We will be bringing forward a
taxpayers protection act.
If Canadians want something new, if they want something
different, if they a fresh idea, the Reform Party will deliver.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), a recorded division on the proposed motion is
deferred until the time of adjournment.
12314
(1725 )
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, an act
to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment
Insurance Act as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are 17 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-54, an act to amendment the Old Age Security Act, the
Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 will be grouped
for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to all the other
motions in the group.
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 will be grouped for debate. The
vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 13 and 15.
[English]
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but voted
on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 12 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
I shall now propose the motions in the first group to the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-54, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 16, on page
1.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
[
English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if there would be agreement that the motions that have
been grouped together under the first group be deemed to have
been read in order to allow more time for members to make
speeches instead of reading the motions into the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on
page 21, with the following:
``section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any''.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on
page 22, with the following:
``section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any
of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that
section or subsection, and the Commissioner of''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on
page 22, with the following:
``decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may''.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 12, on
page 29, with the following:
``(2) Subsection 108(3) of the Act is''.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 33,
with the following:
``53. Subsections 35(1)''.
He said: Madam Speaker, I now address the House on Bill
C-54, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
In Motion No. 1, I propose the following amendment:
That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 1.(2), which reads as
follows: ``Review Tribunal'' means a Canada Pension Plan- Old Age
Security Review Tribunal established under section 82 of the Canada Pension
Plan.
This amendment put forward by the official opposition is
aimed at keeping separate the appeal processes of the Canada
Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program.
Bill C-54 integrates the appeal processes of the Canada
Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program. Yet, the auditor
general said in his report that the two-tiered appeal process for
Old Age Security permits the satisfactory settlement of the few
12315
cases there are. The process is simple, fast and informal, and
cases are heard in the regions where the appellants live.
As for the Canada Pension Plan's three-tiered appeal process,
the auditor general criticized it quite openly. So why propose to
integrate both processes and use the Canada Pension Plan's
process deemed deficient by the auditor general?
The government is not simplifying the appeal process in any
way. On the contrary, client services will not be improved one
bit with these measures.
Under clause 34, page 20, the first level of appeal of the
Canada Pension Plan will become a ``reconsideration''. Under
clause 16, page 8, the reconsideration which is presently
optional in the case of Old Age Security will become a
mandatory minister's review.
Under clause 35(1), page 21, the Review Tribunals of the
Canada Pension Plan will be authorized to hear appeals relating
to Old Age Security and, under clause 35(4), page 22, appeals
that were directed to the former review committees of the
Canada Pension Plan.
Finally, the Pension Appeals Board will be authorized to
appoint temporary members. At the present time, someone who
is dissatisfied with a decision made in accordance with the
Canada Pension Plan is entitled to three levels of appeal.
(1730)
The first level appeals are directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development. The second level appeals are heard by
the Review Tribunals established in accordance with the Act.
Finally, the third level appeals are heard by the Pension Appeals
Board.
In 1993-94, there were 23,046 first level appeals for an
increase of 0.5 per cent compared to the previous year. Of that
number, 83 per cent concerned disability benefits. A total of
27,077 appeals were processed during those two years.
Also, 3,300 second level appeals were filed. Of that number,
2,675 were dealt with. During the 1993-94 fiscal year, the
Pension Appeals Board received 498 new benefits appeals made
under section 83, chapter C-8 of the Canada Pension Plan. It
heard 274 of those appeals. Moreover, at the request of one of
the parties, the board suspended 55 appeals to be heard later.
The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, does not believe
that streamlining appeals made under the Old Age Security Act
and the Canada Pension Plan is an improvement. To be
consistent with the proposed amendment to Motion No. 1, I
present the following amendment to Motion No. 8:
``That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 25 because it combines the
Old Age Security appeal process with the Canada Pension Plan appeal
process''.
Therefore the following clause, clause 25 must be deleted: ``The
definition of ``Review Tribunal'' in subsection 2(1) of the
Canada Pension Plan is replaced by the following: ``Review
Tribunal'' means a Canada Pension Plan-Old Age Security
Review Tribunal established under section 82''.
To be consistent with the amendment to Motion No. 1, Motion
No. 9 should read as follows:
``That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on
page 21, with the following:
``section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any''.
The purpose is to eliminate any reference to appeals to the
Review Tribunal.
For the sake of consistency, Motion No. 10 should read:
``That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on
page 22, with the following:
``section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any
of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that
section or subsection, and the Commissioner of''.
To be consistent, Motion No. 11 should read as follows:
``That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on
page 22, with the following:
``decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may''.
Consistency is needed regarding Motion No. 14 to keep the
appeal process separate:
``That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 29,
with the following:
``(2) Section 108 of the Act.''
Motion No. 16 also refers to appeals made under the Old Age
Security Act:
``That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50''.
The same applies to Motion No. 17:
``That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page
33, with the following:
``53. Subsections 35(1)''.
I will leave it to the member for Mercier to explain the official
opposition's amendment to Motion No. 3, which goes along the
same lines as my proposed amendments, since it deletes clause
16 in Bill C-54, because on one hand, this clause provides for a
ninety day period before appealing to the minister against a
decision and, on the other hand, it states that the minister may
stay payment of the benefits during the appeal process.
Moreover, I have a proposed amendment to Motion No. 12
which is in agreement with my colleague's.
12316
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thought I would take
the opportunity to reply to the hon. member.
(1735 )
Frankly, the behaviour of the Bloc opposition on this bill has
been to produce the most puzzling, curious, strange, unorthodox
and bizarre set of amendments I have seen in a long time in this
House.
It was not so long ago that the hon. gentleman was on his feet
suggesting problems were being encountered by seniors having
to make application on an annual basis to receive their benefits.
The bill before us tries to expedite that by allowing for
automatic renewal when we have all the information we need.
But the hon. gentleman is now introducing an amendment to
force people to go back to the old system of having to make an
annual application again. He has stood logic on its head. He has
absolutely reversed the position he has taken in the House. It is
absolutely and totally contrary to the very words he was
expressing in the House only a few short weeks ago. He said
there was an impediment, a problem being faced. He says he
does not know. He does not know. If he had understood the bill
he would not be presenting such absurd amendments.
It seems he is saying now that people with spousal benefits
will be required to reapply for their application, which will
affect 20,000 people per year, rather than giving them the
automatic renewal we propose. Madam Speaker, do you
understand that? Can you contemplate the rationale, the reason
the hon. member would want to impose upon people eligible for
spousal benefit the requirement to constantly go back and
re-engage, reapply, go through the rigmarole, go through the
bureaucratic red tape? I do not understand. If he were some kind
of bureaucratic menschen who takes great delight in having
people jump through hoops, then maybe it would make some
sense.
Bill C-54 is a clear example of how we have taken into
account the problems faced by people over the past several years
in ensuring that they can have renewals. We are now attempting
to eliminate those problems, especially in the case of the spousal
benefit, which is available for those who are 60 to 64.
If we have a female client whose birthday is in June, let us
assume she would also qualify for the OAS, she clearly has some
needs. If the motion proposed by the hon. member were
accepted, that person would be forced to obtain, complete, and
return all application forms to Human Resources Development
around the month of December, before her birthday. We know
how busy things get, how much time there is to delay.
In other words, the hon. gentleman who proposes this
amendment has some kind of perverse delight in forcing people
to fill out forms, go to offices, reapply, and go through all the
paper work. It must be a strange form of entertainment for him,
but it certainly makes no sense when it comes to healthy people.
They will still get their money, but it will take longer, it will be
more inconvenient, it will be more bureaucratic, and it will cost
the government more money to go through the forms.
Madam Speaker, I do not know. You figure; I cannot. I simply
do not understand such tortuous reasoning from the hon.
gentleman that he would propose an amendment that would
force people to engage in this kind of jumping through hoops
simply for no reason at all. When we look at the bill with the
whole range of amendments proposed by hon. members
opposite, they are giving the message that they do not want to
help people gain access to their old age benefits without fuss or
bother.
(1740 )
[Translation]
This is a clear example that there is a big mistake, that the
Bloc Quebecois is proposing the wrong measures for senior
citizens who are only asking for an efficient system. Yet, the
Bloc is proposing, in these amendment, a process which is very
complicated, very difficult and which makes no sense.
[English]
For the sake of the convenience of our seniors, especially the
20,000 women on social benefits who would want to be able to
make full and complete access, not only is this amendment
absurd, but it would be counterproductive; it would be against
their interests. Therefore, it deserves to be defeated.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on this bill.
As our country moves into the 21st century, many significant
changes are occurring, changes that are of great concern to the
citizens of our country. First, the demographics are changing
quite dramatically. We have an aging population. In twenty
years there will be three to four workers for every retiree.
We are in a fiscal crisis. That crisis will only get worse. This
government, as have preceding governments, has not had the
courage to deal with that onerous problem, which seeks to sink
the social programs that we have come to cherish in our country,
social programs such as OAS, CPP, and UI. It is against this
backdrop of crushing tax burdens to virtually every citizen that
we see this bill come forth.
It is therefore with great consternation, justified as it is, that
our people on social programs, the aged, the infirm, and the poor
ponder their future, most of whom have indeed worked very
hard to be the backbone of this country. We saw today many of
12317
those members here who have fought and given their blood and
their soul so that we may enjoy the freedom we have today in
this the most beautiful country in the world. Some are well off
but others, as I said before, just scrape by. This can similarly be
said of our social programs, which are indeed scraping by also.
All the people we have spoken about who are relying on our
social programs ask themselves if they will have enough to
survive. This is indeed a common denominator, whether we are
speaking of someone from British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec,
or New Brunswick.
Bill C-54, an act to amend OAS, CPP, the Children's Special
Allowances Act, the UI act, and so on, is conspicuous not for
what it does but for what it fails to do. It is an opportunity lost as
we head into the era of the implosion of our social programs, for
there are no great innovative ideas in this program.
What is required is to put forth social programs on firm fiscal
footing. That is not what this bill does at all. Rather, it is window
dressing. While it will save the taxpayers some $10 million,
which is to be applauded, it does nothing when one looks at the
overall spending of social programs of some $80 billion.
One of the great fallacies of Canadian politics is the myth that
the Reform Party is against social programs and the poor. I
recently had a conversation with a member of this House who
said to me ``You in the Reform Party are really not for the poor at
all, are you?'' Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact I say
that we are the only political party in the House that wants to
ensure that the poor and the needy are taken care of in this
country. As I said before, the opposite is true, from the barbs we
receive across the way.
Every other party engages in a fiscal program that, due to its
inability to get government program spending under control,
crushes the ability of the government to pay for the social
programs it offers to the Canadian people in a mythological
fashion.
Today government spending in general is about $120 billion.
Because of the budget being put down now-and I do not lay the
blame completely as the government's fault, because preceding
governments have contributed significantly to it-what the
Canadian public does not understand, and what has not been
communicated adequately to it, is that in three years' time there
will not be $120 billion to spend, but rather $102 billion. Where
will the money be cut? Where will it be found? Those who will
suffer are those who are poor. Those who are rich will not suffer
because they have the money to take care of themselves. We in
this party always attempt to be constructive, not merely
obstructionist.
(1745 )
Let us take a look at the big picture to see exactly what we are
looking at. Old age security costs us $14.4 billion every year and
is rising because of the demographic changes which I previously
mentioned. GIS costs us $4.3 billion and is rising. CPP costs us
$13.2 billion and UI costs us $19.1 billion and is rising. It is
impossible to pay for that.
Therefore we in this party have always been of the mindset,
and we have put forth time and time again, that we need to target
our social programs to those truly in need. What is so wrong
with removing the social payments from those people who are in
the upper third income bracket? If we explain to the Canadian
public that the money it receives is borrowed from its children
and grandchildren it will be very reasonable and understand the
situation cannot continue.
It is an absolute affront to engage in the generational blunder
that we continue to foist upon coming generations by giving
them a burden of debt which will significantly contribute to the
negative environment in which they will live in the future.
Another thing we in the Reform Party wish to do is focus on
the family and allow the family to take care of itself. Families
are better than any government at doing that.
I ask my constituents what the biggest problem they have
right now is. They are burdened with an unwieldy tax. Tax
crushes their ability to take care of themselves, their children
and other family members, particularly when they are in need.
We should allow family members to take care of themselves. If
we manage to invoke a tax decrease for them, and there are many
ways to do that, they will be empowered to take care of
themselves and their families.
It is interesting to look back at the early 1990s. The
government of the day reduced taxes. What happened?
Government revenues increased. What happened after that? The
government of the day started to tax wildly; an orgy of taxation
which included the GST.
When I visit the business community virtually every business
person I speak to will say remove the GST. It is an unwieldy
system as it stands. That money has to be found somewhere else.
We do not advocate it being removed, we are saying streamline
the GST, lower it, simplify it and there will be an added benefit
because so much of it goes to bureaucracy in trying to manage
the unwieldy taxation we have. Taxation in general, as I
previously stated, is so unwieldy it is crushing the ability of
Canadians to take care of themselves.
I implore the hon. minister who is here today to go to the
Canadian public again. He should not rely on bureaucracy, the
people who appear in committee or in his office. I ask him to go
to the Canadian people. He should walk out there to ask
Canadians what their concerns are. He should ask them how we
12318
can improve the current situation so that the poor people of
Canada and those who are bereft of hope can be taken care of. I
implore the minister to do that. I know members of my party
would be more than happy to help him to that end.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development was so happy to be
able to hit the Bloc Quebecois that he did not read correctly the
amendments that we are proposing. And to be able to hit even
harder and with more gusto he is taking clause 2, instead of
subclause (2) in clause 1.
(1750)
The Minister of Human Resources Development who is going
to speak afterwards should apologize to my colleague, the hon.
member for Argenteuil-Papineau.
White hair is a sign of wisdom, because the amendment that
we proposed is not the one that the minister mentioned. We are
not opposed to speeding up the process, on the contrary. What
we are opposed to, however, is senior citizens being required,
without good reason, to deal with voice mail services. Yes, we
are going to oppose part of these reforms, but before addressing
the specifics of this bill, we have to say that it is presented as
trivial, simply intended to streamline services for senior
citizens or handicapped persons.
The truth is, under its trivial appearances, this bill contains
provisions that we find very serious, because we believe that
they open the door to abuse, and we are going to say so.
I proposed in these series of amendments that we revert to the
current Act, under section 16, Reconsiderations and Appeals,
because the new clause from this defender ``extraordinaire'' of
Canada's senior citizens introduces a 90-day appeal period
where there was none.
When we talk to senior citizens, seniors of all ages, it is
important to remember to give them whatever time they need.
We have to remember that these people often need help and are
not able to reach the public servants who could give them access
to a minister or an appeal board. So, we do not agree that there
should be an appeal period, particularly since it is an
amendment to the old legislation and we do not see why we
should go backward like that.
Obviously, under the new amendment, the minister can allow
a longer period for an appeal. He will decide whether there will
be one or not. Generally speaking, under this bill, the minister
will have a lot of discretion, and discretion in this context does
not mean that he will not announce certain things, but that he
will act as he pleases.
We think that where elderly persons and handicapped persons
in particular are concerned, they must have as many avenues of
redress as possible. They should not have to rely on the
discretion of the minister, even if he is well intentioned and says
that he wants to accelerate the process. The discretion is left to
any minister who, at one point, could abuse this power.
Once again, I ask the Minister of Human Resources
Development to apologize for the harsh words he had for my
colleague. I want him to know that he is not the only one who has
ideas and that he is far from being the only one to come to the
defence of the elderly. I do not want to question his intentions,
but our role is to see to what excesses these amendments could
lead. When one knows that the whole act is based on an
application which will be handled by public servants over the
phone, you have to be extremely vigilant. This is our
responsibility. I would even go as far as to say that this is our
duty.
(1755)
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, our concerns with this bill as it now stands with
its proposed amendments relate to a closer examination of the
bill which reveals some aspects of it are contrary to the public
interest because they involve a reduction in bureaucratic
accountability. Our proposed amendment is an attempt to
correct the most flagrant of these violations of the public
interest.
I will first speak on the proposed Bloc amendments. Grouping
three motions deals with a combination of two review tribunals
into one. At the present time there are two review tribunals, one
under the old age security and one under the Canada pension
plan. Bill C-54 proposes to combine the two. The Bloc motion is
against the idea.
As Reformers we are against waste caused by duplicity and
extra waste of time which will result in extra costs as well. As
usual, when extra labour is involved taxpayers will find
themselves involved in paying more taxes. I fear in this case it
will be a waste of overall tax dollars. Hence, Reform is opposed
to the Bloc motion to retain the two tribunals but is in favour of
creating one panel from two. This suggests a more accountable
spending of our tax dollars. Hence, less government is better
government as I see it.
I will digress a bit and give an example. Government is
expensive. Costs rise and we have more bureaucracy. It follows
that if we try to eliminate unnecessary numbers even in the
Chamber we do not have to increase the numbers of MPs to have
good government. If we try to decrease the numbers we are
looking at a government which will be just as effective, maybe
even more.
12319
Let us look at some of the statistics. According to my figures
the United States has about 270 million people and about 435
representatives. We have 27 million people and 295
representatives.
I was recently in the United States talking to some American
citizens, asking whether they feel they had adequate
representation. They told me they felt adequately represented. I
am coming back to less government which we are addressing
today.
If the new electoral boundaries act becomes law we will have
even more representatives in the House. I am aware that my
province of British Columbia stands to benefit from the increase
in numbers. However, when we look at the costs of roughly
$500,000 per member for office budget, travel costs, telephone,
salary, et cetera, it is an enormous cost to the taxpayer. If we can
make do without that, I think we should.
If there is less government interference in Canadian lives it is
more than possible Canadians will be happier. I have often heard
expressed in my riding that people would like less interference
by government in their lives. Consequently it follows that less
government is better government. It will enable us to cut the fat.
I will use an example to help express my feelings. In March
1991 the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate
made recommendations. In the report to the Senate and the
House of Commons on matters of joint interest these
recommendations include in general terms where savings could
be found in five areas.
It suggested a greater collaboration between the two Houses
on a wide range of matters; for instance, the Senate buses and the
busses we use. We could have one system. Others included
contracting out of various services, review and reduction of
service levels, increased transparency of House expenditures
and efficiency improvements.
Again, what am I talking about? We are returning to cost
efficiency. We are returning to saving taxpayers money. I have
to oppose the Bloc amendment and agree with the government
one at this time, that we do condense and go to one overall body.
I make this comparison mainly to point out that wherever
possible in government matters it is our responsibility as
legislators to show accountability through cutting out
duplication, no matter where it occurs. Taxpayers would feel we
are making an effort to watch the spending of tax dollars while at
the same time maintaining efficiency and responsibility.
(1800 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Could I ask the member
if she is debating Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17?
Mrs. Jennings: I am on Motion No. 3 right now, Madam
Speaker.
In answer to the Bloc proposal, I must conclude that we
should address accountability and efficiency at the same time.
Reformers prefer that one tribunal should operate within the
existing moneys allotted to the Canadian pension plan tribunal. I
would hope the government would address the wisdom of such a
move.
Under clause 46 of the bill, the government wishes to credit
into the Canada pension plan account extra money from the
consolidated revenue fund to help administer the Canadian
Pension Plan Act. Again I stress that Reformers would like to
see this new tribunal function with the existing funding it
currently employs.
If Canadians are having to make do with less and work harder
for less there is no reason why a government tribunal should not
find ways to do the same. These are hard times we are into today.
While we would like to be optimistic, it is incumbent on us to
reinforce in the Canadian electorate that we do care and are
sincere in addressing cutbacks. Since it is the public's money
being administered here there must be some accountability in
the process.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to address the issue before us. I will focus quite
distinctly on the motions in this group which the Bloc is
proposing.
In this grouping we have an interesting juxtaposition of
Liberal philosophy where the Bloc members want to maintain
the two separate boards that are conducting reviews and the
Liberals are proposing to combine the two existing groups into
one.
The comment I will make is appropriate to the philosophy of
the government. It is looking at who is administering the
programs and trying to reduce these numbers, as it is in some
other bills that are floating around these days.
The Liberals are talking about reducing the number of
members on the board of the CBC, and other tribunals and
appointed boards. They are reducing the number of people
which is a move, in most instances, that could be applauded.
However, one needs to ask the question whether it is being done
arbitrarily and capriciously or whether it is actually based on a
fair assessment of the workload. The important factor being
omitted here is how many people can do the work efficiently.
The missing question, whether talking about the CBC board,
this tribunal or any of the other boards it is proposed to reduce is,
has there been a rational study of the actual amount of work that
needs to be done? Also, what would be the actual savings
accomplished by it?
The Bloc is proposing we keep these two boards separate. To
the best of our knowledge the workload these people would be
12320
carrying would be such that the amendment the Bloc is
proposing is not justifiable. There should be one panel instead of
two. There would be a certain degree of overlap and that overlap
could be avoided if we were to combine them.
(1805 )
On a very broad spectrum, we need to address very carefully
the administration of these social programs. As one of my
colleagues already outlined, total government expenditures are
some $160 billion a year, $40 billion of which is interest. The
debt is continuing to grow. Even under the present Liberal's
plan, we will still be adding $32.9 billion to the debt.
You do not have to be a great mathematician to compute that.
If you add $30 billion at current interest rates, you will probably
be adding in the neighbourhood of $3 billion to $5 billion a year
in interest. As soon as you do that, there will be less money for
social programs. It is $160 billion total, $40 billion of interest
and interestingly a little more than $50 billion on the four main
programs of old age security, Canada pension, guaranteed
income supplement and UI. These programs need to be cut as
well as the administration of them.
While we applaud the government's move to reduce the
number of boards that do these reviews, we are reducing the
crew members on the Titanic as it is most surely going down. It
is a small and ever so gingerly taken step in the right direction
but it does not address the real problem. We need to bring down
total spending in these programs. It must be done dramatically.
It must be done quickly so that we do not lose it all.
I want to say one other thing. Undoubtedly the Liberals as our
opposition would be declaring: ``The Reformers want to cut
these programs''. We do not. I have said this often. How I wish
that the Conservative government and the Liberal government
before that one would have been diligent in managing the fiscal
affairs so that we did not have this huge debt.
If we did not have a debt so large that we are obligated to pay
$40 to $45 billion per year on interest, we would have more than
enough money to look after all the needs of all of these people.
The numbers declare it. It is $52 billion for these four programs
and $40 to $45 billion for interest.
We are talking about cutting these programs because we
cannot cut the interest. It is not an option. If the previous
governments would have been diligent in managing our affairs
so that we would not have this debt load, we would be able to
carry on with a very good solid social programs. Management is
what is really critical here.
I encourage the members of the House to be opposed, with all
due respect to my friends from the Bloc, to these amendments
because we do achieve a small efficiency by going to a single
board. At the same time I must emphasize strongly that it is not
even the tip of the iceberg. It is one chip on the top of the tip of
the iceberg. We are missing the whole point here.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the division on the motion now before the House
stands deferred. The vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9,
10, 11, 14, 16 and 17.
(1810 )
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-54, in Clause 3, be amended by striking out line 21, on page 2,
and substituting the following:
``on the first day of the fourth month after the month in which this Act is assented
to.''
He said: Madam Speaker, I move this motion for reasons of
fairness and efficiency, which is the proper combination we
have attempted to apply throughout Bill C-54.
When the bill was first introduced in the fall of 1994 it
contained provisions that made reference to April 1, 1995 as the
date that notification for the application would be made for
those to have the retroactivity provision reduced from five years
to one year.
April 1 has come and gone. Therefore in the cause of fairness,
the amendment that we moved which I will read for the
enlightenment of members is that we would replace April 1,
1995 with the comment or the phrase ``on the first day of the
fourth month after the month in which this act is assented to''. It
12321
is a somewhat complicated legal way of saying that people will
have three months beyond the passage of this bill in which they
would be informed of the new provisions so that they would be
able to make their plans and their applications.
The old age security system has had a somewhat unusual or
eccentric provision which gave people five years in which to
make application for their OAS. It meant that those who were
able to receive advice from various experts could delay making
application for tax purposes for an extended period of time. This
provision brings the bill into line with other provisions of the
Canada pension plan and other acts. There would be the standard
one-year provision in which people could make application for
their OAS. We would give them three months to make that
application through the proper information circles.
We are attempting to ensure that the five-year retroactivity
period is reduced to one year so there is no loophole that allows
people to get a tax advantage. At the same time it ensures a
proper period of information for those who want to have at least
one year beyond 65 years to make application for their benefits.
Therefore I recommend this motion to the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker,
perhaps the minister of Human Resources Development expects
that, inspired by what he said earlier, we will want to maintain
April 1 as the implementation date of the act. We will support
this amendment. Considering the delays which occurred, as
usual, our position being a reasonable one we will support this
amendment.
However, I would like to take the time at my disposal to reply
to the hon. member of the Reform Party who criticized earlier
our proposal to maintain the two appeal or revision tribunals,
that is one for the old age pension plan and the other one for the
Canada pension plan. As hon. members know, these two plans
are very different. They are not financed with the same funds
since the Canada pension plan is paid for by workers who
contribute to its fund while the old age pension is financed by all
taxpayers.
(1815)
As we know, the government's intention is perhaps to merge
the two plans in some way as announced in the budget speech.
We believe however that having only one board is far from being
the best solution. I believe this has nothing to do with the costs
linked to the board as my hon. colleague said earlier. The fact is
those two boards will have to deal with cases that are very
different.
Some witnesses before the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development explained to us how difficult it was for
handicapped persons to be heard by the board. Unfortunately,
the model that was chosen and the merger will not be based
basically on the old age pension appeal board but on that of the
Canada pension plan.
We believe that their merging is not a good idea. We do not
think it will lead to savings. Quite the contrary, we think that in
the interests of seniors who will have to deal with a board that
handicapped persons were not satisfied with, and in the interests
of the handicapped who have a right to a better process than what
is currently available to them, it would be better to maintain two
boards and to improve the existing Canada pension plan appeals
board.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Motion No. 2 is a motion to move the start up time of
the amendments in the bill. The big concern we have is that the
vote on Motion No. 2 will come before the vote on most of the
proposed amendments to the bill.
The position members of the House might take on this bill as
to whether it should come into effect at all surely would depend
on all the motions being voted on and then the House making a
judgment as to whether the bill should be put into effect. In
Motion No. 2 we are being asked to put the bill into effect
without knowing what might be in the bill, because there are
several other amendments that will then be voted on.
On that basis I suggest the method of dealing with the bill is
not very logical and that the motion is not appropriately placed.
I suggest the minister consider moving the motion to a more
appropriate place in the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the yeas
have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
12322
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 will be grouped for debate. The
vote on motion No. 4 will apply to motions Nos. 13 and 15.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-54, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 12,
with the following:
``sion or Statistics Canada,''.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-54, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 26,
with the following:
``tions or Statistics Canada, or to''.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C- 54, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38, on
page 29, with the following:
``ment of Supply and Services or the Canada Employment and Immigration
Commission;''.
She said: Madam Speaker, clause 20 is entitled ``Access to
privileged information'' and reads as follows:
Except as provided in this section, all information with respect to any
applicant or beneficiary or the spouse of any applicant or beneficiary,
obtained in the course of the administration of this Act, is privileged and no
person shall knowingly, except as provided in this Act, make available or
allow to be made available any such information to any person not legally
entitled to it.
(1820)
The next paragraph allows the Departments of National
Revenue, Finance, Supply and Services, Canada Employment
and Immigration Commission, Statistics Canada or Canada Post
access to the information.
We do not agree with Canada Post having access to the
information. We were not told, we were not explained
adequately why privileged information could be available to
Canada Post, especially since Canada Post, through several of
its components, is now broken up, and we know the government
tendency in that respect. So, in this amendment and the others,
we oppose having privileged information available to Canada
Post.
I must say that we hesitated and that it is with reluctance that
we accept privileged information being available to the agencies
or departments that we have mentioned.
We are living in an age where the danger of disclosure of
private information is ever increasing due to the interconnection
of government data bases and its potential consequences. In
these days and ages we are running the risk of coming under the
watchful eye of Big Brother, as described by a famous novelist.
Because of some arguments that were made, we concurred
with the proposition, although reluctantly, and I wanted to make
that quite clear. Again, a very large part of this legislation will
be managed by phone. A very large portion of the information
will be transmitted by computer. In this age of technology, there
is always the risk that the information will fall into the hands of
people who could put it to bad use.
Consequently, we are firmly opposed to giving Canada Post
access to privileged information, considering the changes made.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this motion is the first of a set of three amendments that
would remove the minister's ability to disclose limited client
information to Canada Post.
I am truly surprised that members opposite have brought this
amendment at report stage. It reveals a lack of understanding of
the purpose of this provision of Bill C-54 and perhaps-and I
underline ``perhaps''-an unwillingness to prepare for the
future.
The government realizes the importance of using new
technologies to provide better service to Canadians. This is
especially important with regard to our income security
programs for seniors. The provision of Bill C-54 that the
opposition seeks to delete would enable the minister, under very
restrictive conditions, to release limited information about
clients to Canada Post where it is necessary for the
administration of old age security, the Canada pension plan, or
the Children's Allowance Act, as the case may be.
(1825 )
It is widely recognized that there are certain advantages to
having a specialist work for us. One could hardly doubt that
Canada Post is a specialist in the field of getting letters out to
Canadians. This is exactly the reason for this provision.
Bill C-54 would allow the department to transmit the text of
letters electronically to a Canada Post processing centre, where
computers would print them and machines would place the
letters in envelopes. Clients would receive information about
their old age security or Canada pension benefits more quickly.
The department would save money. Most people in my riding
would think this is a very good idea.
Moreover, the confidentiality of the information clients
provide to the government is protected in several ways. Canada
Post employees are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the
mail they deliver, whether they receive the mail in a red
mailbox, on a street corner, or electronically by computer. Bill
C-54 could never change that.
The Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, and the
Children's Special Allowances Act provide that it is an offence
punishable on summary conviction to disclose client
information to anyone not entitled to have that information. Bill
C-54 even strengthens this protection by extending it from just
employees of Her Majesty to any person who may have access to
client information. This portion of Bill C-54 allows the
government to provide service to clients more effectively and at
a lower cost.
12323
In spite of opposition attempts to raise the spectre of personal
information being sold to those who have no rights to it, Bill
C-54 actually strengthens the government's ability to protect
clients' information. It is actually the opposition motion that
could and would jeopardize the client confidentiality.
Canada Post is bound by law to protect that confidentiality.
The opposition would have us open this up to other suppliers
with the legal safeguards. Senior citizens, who would benefit
greatly from the changes proposed by this bill, have a right to the
facts, the correct facts. This bill would allow the government to
send mail electronically through Canada Post in much the same
way it currently puts letters in mailboxes.
The government is committed to finding efficiency where it
can and to using new technology where possible to save money.
This bill does not provide unrestricted access to information to
Canada Post employees or to anyone else. However, this bill
does provide adequate and even stringent penalties for illegal
disclosure of information.
Bill C-54 provides sound, appropriate, and highly desirable
changes to the acts governing our income security programs. We
have all discussed in detail the concerns raised by the
opposition, which in some way was reflected in Motion No. 4.
Motions 13 and 15 seek to do the same thing to the Canada
pension plan and to the Children's Special Allowances Act.
For this and many other reasons I suggest these motions be
withdrawn and that all members support the speedy passage of
Bill C-54.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member who spoke
before me. I am very glad to hear that there are some stringent
prohibitions on the use of personal information under this act;
that was very reassuring. I think we all share the concern that
underlies the Bloc motions we are discussing. We do have to
guard against government intrusion into our personal lives,
especially in an unwarranted way that is not serving our interest
but is intruding upon our individual liberties.
(1830)
I was very interested in the Bloc speaker who was concerned
about personal information falling into the wrong hands. That is
a very legitimate concern in Canada.
I suggest the Bloc look at another bill before the House, Bill
C-68, in which there is a great deal of personal information
being amassed by a bill before the House, very personal
questions being asked in a process of registration and
determination. I suggest that if Bloc members really have a
concern about personal information falling into the wrong hands
they should be equally concerned about Bill C-68.
This is an issue that was properly raised. I was interested to
hear the remarks of my hon. friend from the government side.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, obviously, I fully support my colleague for Mercier.
However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the provisions of
Bill C-54 aiming to change access to some information because
the government intends to increase the number of departments,
organizations or even individuals that will have access to
personal information used in the administration of the acts that
will be amended by this bill.
Under the previous act, that is to say the one that is currently
in force, the following organizations have access to this
information: the Department of National Revenue, the
Department of Finance, the Department of Supply and Services,
the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission,
Statistics Canada, and the provincial authority. Those
organizations can have access to that information as long as it
deals with the entitlement of beneficiaries or the amount of
benefit, or if their disclosure is essential to the legislation's
application.
One has to be very careful, when trying to obtain personal
information on senior citizens since it could be used for other
purposes. We have to protect our seniors against potential abuse.
The government did not prove that disclosing that privileged
information was necessary and essential. The government
always has to prove to senior citizens that the information
collected will not be used abusively.
Governments interfere more and more in the privacy of
people, as we saw recently in the Bristow case. It should be
pointed out that the information provisions of Bill C-54 add the
following organizations to those departments which can have
access to such information: the Canada Post Corporation, a
decision which we oppose; the Correctional Service of Canada;
the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; members of
Parliament who intervene on behalf of applicants or
beneficiaries; any other person designated by the minister as a
health care professional; and the Department of Veterans
Affairs, as regards the administration of the above-mentioned
acts or any other federal act administered by that department.
Consequently, some information will be accessible to a larger
number of departments, including Canada Post. The government
claims that it is a good thing to include that corporation, on the
grounds that, through the use of new techniques, it could help
accelerate the processing of cheques to pensioners. It is obvious
that the government is experiencing enormous difficulties
solving its administrative problems. However, it has not
demonstrated the need to transmit information to Canada Post.
12324
Such demonstration is essential if the Bloc Quebecois is to
support that section of the bill. We particularly object to the
inclusion of that corporation, because it is increasingly more
present in the lives of Canadians. It has increasingly more
information on each of us. Although the collection of that
information is often necessary, the government must always
justify beyond any doubt such new intrusions in the private lives
of citizens.
The government feels that the changes to the disclosure
provisions do not represent a major departure from the current
rules. The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with that statement;
indeed, the communication of confidential information to the
Canada Post Corporation is a major change. Even though these
changes must comply with the Privacy Act, we feel that it is not
acceptable to include Canada Post.
(1835)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred. This division will also be applied to motions Nos. 13
and 15.
[English]
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but voted
on separately.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-54, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 39, on
page 15, with the following:
``23. Subsection 37(4) of the Act is replaced''
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-54, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 16,
with the following:
``the Minister shall, unless the person has''.
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-54, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 20, on page
16, the following:
``(5) Within the first 30 days that the House of Commons sits in a fiscal
year the Minister shall lay before the House a report showing:
(a) the number of remissions and the total of all amounts remitted during the
preceding fiscal year pursuant to paragraphs (4)(a), (b) and (c);
(b) the recommendation of the Minister as to the number of remissions and the
total of all remissions to be made in the fiscal year under paragraph (4)(d) as a
result of erroneous advice or administrative error made in the preceding fiscal
year;
(c) the recommendations of the Minister as to how the number and amount of
remissions under paragraph (4)(d) may be reduced.
(6) The report of the Minister shall be referred to such committee of the
House that the House may name for the purpose, which shall recommend a
limit in the amount of remissions that may be made under paragraph (4)(d) in
the fiscal year.
(7) The Minister may not remit any amount in a fiscal year pursuant to
paragraph (4)(d) prior to the date a recommendation has been made by a
committee pursuant to subsection (6) for the fiscal year.
(8) The Minister may not remit any amount in a fiscal year pursuant to
paragraph (4)(d) that would cause the total amount of remissions to exceed
the limit recommended by the committee for that year.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I move the following amendments to motions Nos. 5
and 6. In Motion No. 5:
That Bill C-54, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 39, on
page 15, with the following:
``23. Subsection 37(4) of the Act is replaced''.
In Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-54, in clause 23, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 16,
with the following:
``the Minister shall, unless the person has-''.
12325
He said: Madam Speaker, our purpose is not to delete this
clause altogether but to amend it. The one-year period for
collecting overpayments is maintained and the minister is
obliged to remit the amount owing in the cases specified.
Consequently, subsection 37(2) is maintained and the one-year
statute of limitation continues to apply, and I quote:
(2) Where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which the
person is not entitled, or a benefit payment in excess of the amount of that
benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt
due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in proceedings commenced
(a) at any time, where that person made a wilful misrepresentation or
committed fraud for the purpose of receiving or obtaining that amount or
excess amount; and
(b) in any case where paragraph (a) does not apply, at any time before the
end of the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which that
amount or excess amount was received or obtained.
In his report, the Auditor General estimates that debts arising
from pension overpayments are occurring in the range of $120
million to $220 million each year. According to the Auditor
General, past efforts to prevent and detect overpayments have
been minimal and largely ineffective. These figures appear in
the Auditor General's report of 1993, on pages 483 and 486.
The Auditor General also indicated that ``over 90 per cent of
appeals relate to claims for Canada Pension Plan disability
benefits. Over the past five years, the percentage of disability
claims denied rose steadily and now stands at 44 per cent. Over
the same period, the percentage of those denials that were
appealed also increased, from 36 per cent in 1988-89 to 60 per
cent in 1992-93. Prior-year statistics indicate that the majority
of these appeals will be successful''. These figures appear in the
1993 Auditor General's report on page 488.
Furthermore, the Auditor General estimates overpayments for
disability pensions alone at $35 million. A provision that would
allow the minister to suspend benefits during the appeal process,
together with the increase in the number of appeals justified and
filed by the department, might be seen as an underhanded way to
reduce the number of overpayments.
Similarly, the decision to repeal this section and thus repeal
the statute of limitation of one year on recovery of
overpayments must have been dictated by the government's
inability to process appeals on time.
The government appears to be incapable of doing anything
other than tightening its rules and increasing the number of
appeals to avoid overpayment. Seniors will therefore be the
victims of the government's inability to resolve its
administrative problems.
(1840)
Furthermore, following the delay in issuing guaranteed
income supplement cheques for seniors, which occurred near
the end of April, I raised the following question in the House
regarding the government's inability to manage files regarding
seniors on April 27:
``Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Since last Friday, Communication Québec, MP's offices and even the PMO
have been flooded with calls from obviously very concerned pensioners.
According to the Consumer Help Office, approximately 258,000 pensioners
will see their old age pension cheques reduced by 50 per cent.
How can the minister explain that so many seniors received or will receive
this year a pension cheque not including the guaranteed income supplement to
which they are entitled?''
I also asked the minister a supplementary question, which was
the following:
Mr. Speaker, does the minister deny that the Department of Human
Resources Development's difficulty in processing requests is creating
hardship this year, mostly among seniors?
The Minister of Human Resources Development's answer was
alarming, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, if in some cases there have been overpayments or problems
that do not fit the regulations, of course we will be sending out these letters.
But to make the kinds of exaggerated claims the hon. member has, purely to
frighten and scare people, is frankly not the responsibility of a good member
of Parliament.
In the May 3 issue of the
Journal de Montréal, headlines such
as ``Vraie course contre la montre pour le supplément de
revenu''-race against time for the income
supplement-clearly expose the problems facing seniors with
low incomes. They are being penalized by the government's
inability to fix its bureaucratic problems.
Journalist Monique Richer mentioned in her article that
people who are 65 years old or older and who did not receive
their guaranteed income supplement at the end of the month of
April have been lining up since the beginning of the week at Guy
Favreau Complex to find out what is going on.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois therefore proposes
that the one-year limit on overpayments not occasioned by
fraud be retained-there would be no limit in the case of
fraud-so as to force the government to improve the
management of the program and not unduly penalize seniors,
who could have to pay back major sums a number of years after
an error had been made. It would also force the minister to
forgive overpayments in the following instances: when a debt
cannot be recovered sufficiently quickly; when the costs of
recovery are likely to be at least as high as the debt itself; when
repayment would cause undue hardship for the debtor; and when
the debt is the result of incorrect advice or an administrative
error.
In closing, Bill C-54 provides in these instances that the
minister ``may'' reimburse. We propose that there be no
discretionary power in the above instances in order to protect the
interests of seniors.
12326
[English]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank you for the opportunity to reply to the remarks of the hon.
member concerning the portion of Bill C-54 which removes the
time bar on the recovery of overpayments made under the old
age security program.
Let us begin by laying out the facts of the current provisions
which have led the government to bring the changes contained in
Bill C-54.
The fairness of our current system of income security for
senior citizens is marred slightly by the fact that the programs
within this policy area often deal with overpayments somewhat
differently. This results in a situation which can be confusing
and therefore not all together equitable.
For instance, restrictions placed on the recovery of old age
security overpayments have resulted in some clients retaining
benefits to which they were not legally entitled.
One such restriction is the time bar which limits the
government's ability to recover overpayments to amounts
received by clients in the current or immediately preceding
fiscal years.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.44 p.m., call
in the members.
_____________________________________________
12326
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1900 )
[English]
The House resumed from May 5, 1995, consideration of the
motion.
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think you would find unanimous consent that Private Member's
Motion No. M-314 which we have before us today be done after
all the other votes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________