Veterans Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you. Those were meant to be friendly comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're at time.

We'll allow Mr. Marchand a chance to respond.

[Victor Marchand]

There is no doubt that believing justice has been done is just as important as justice itself.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, exactly.

[Victor Marchand]

And it will always be a challenge, Mr. Perron, for all adjudicators and judges in this poor world of ours. However, we are always seeking to improve that part of our communication. Indeed, the Members work together regularly to do just that. But it's not an easy task.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I agree wholeheartedly with your answer. However, you have a big job ahead of you to sell your idea, because it won't be easy getting rid of that appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Victor Marchand]

I believe in this Board, and in the tremendous amount of work we are doing, and I also believe in the integrity of my colleagues and the entire staff.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That is not in question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. It's Liberal time now.

Mr. Valley, go ahead, please.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you for the opportunity again.

I want to go back to the question I asked. You did provide an answer, but it's clear that we're talking about how you can do it with the resources you have. You have all these cases. I just heard that you have about twice as many cases lining up.

[Victor Marchand]

Right.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I prefaced my last question by saying that things are changing in the military. We're at a much higher level of involvement. We're going to have more military personnel. How are we going to get all this done? I know you're confident you're going to fill the board. I don't know what's going to happen to your budget when we get all these people working for us. The fact is that there's going to be an increased caseload. You mentioned already that younger veterans are more astute at knowing their rights and applying for them and getting what they deserve.

The title of your board is the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. My question is--and I may have heard part of the answer before--how long has it been since we reviewed what you do? I don't suggest that this group be the group to do that. Does it happen internally? Do you have a method or a mechanism to say, “This is the way we've done business for 10 years, and now it's time to change the new reality”? Do you have that flexibility in the system?

You are obviously a forward-thinking person. How do you see dealing with the next five to 10 years? You may not be there. But how do you deal with that big question of how we provide the service needed in the years ahead, knowing that the cases are going to increase, knowing we are going to be more actively participating in the world, knowing all these things and the facts that you're going to have to deal with?

[Victor Marchand]

The normal life expectancy of a board is about 10 years, I agree. When the new charter was adopted for the board to obtain jurisdiction over modernization, it was a reaffirmation I think on the part of the legislator of the board's existence. For the board and its employees and the members it was an incredible compliment. It was an act of faith that the board could look at this new work and do something good about it.

There are some propositions that are fundamental no matter what happens in the next five or 10 years. I think the system has to remain non-adversarial. It's extremely important for the board to remain that way.

The second thing is to make sure the evidentiary onuses don't vary by way of too much or too prevalent expertise. By that I mean that we don't go into the realm of one expert saying this and another expert saying that and having the board rule between two experts. Always keep a relatively simple medical evidentiary basis that is reasonable. I think that will be extremely important.

The final thing is to reassert the principle of what administrative law has always been, and that is to make sure the people who are in these jobs as board members are people who are dedicated to doing the work they do.

Then you'll have a good recipe.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I just want to make sure I heard right. Did you say you want the board to remain non-adversarial or that we have to get to that point?

[Victor Marchand]

No, non-adversarial. Absolutely.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Is that the position we're in now, or are we heading that way?

[Victor Marchand]

No, no. We're in that situation now.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

So maintain that.

[Victor Marchand]

Maintain it.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I have one last quick question.

You mentioned that what we don't want is to get to where the board has to rule between experts. Have you seen that happen in other cases, in other jurisdictions?

[Victor Marchand]

Well, the common law courts are regularly faced with that. Workers' compensation boards went into that realm in the eighties and nineties, and their costs and their slowness became so prevalent that they had to scrap complete systems of medical expertise and arbitration. That's extremely important.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

And that's what we want to avoid at all costs?

[Victor Marchand]

Oh yes. We have to remain reasonable from a medical opinion or expertise point of view.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Now we're going to move over to the Conservative side. Mr. Mayes, you have it for two minutes, until we wrap up at 5:30.