Evidence of meeting #3 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Victor Marchand  Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Dale Sharkey  Director General, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

4:25 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

Section 35 of the Pension Act provides for the publication of guidelines for the assessment of disabilities. Among those disabilities is the hearing loss disability, and there are criteria in relation to the hearing loss as reported by an audiogram that set formally the amount of compensation received by the individual. It is under the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you.

On page 7 of your presentation, you talked about Hall v. Attorney General of Canada.

4:25 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

I can see this paragraph coming back to haunt an awful lot of people now who are concerned about the Agent Orange and Agent Purple concerns at Gagetown, where it says very clearly that the causal linkage must be established.

4:25 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

The minister and others have indicated that the benefit of the doubt for that particular case—when they were in opposition—should play as a major factor in terms of possible compensation down the road. I don't know how many people we're talking about; we're talking about a large number of people.

Would the minister himself be able to say very clearly that he or his department is going to use the benefit-of-the-doubt analysis over and above what you normally have in order to achieve some form of compensation for people who are claiming they suffer from Agent Orange or Agent Purple?

The concern I have is about someone who was at Gagetown a week after the spraying occurred, smoked for 45 years, and has cancer. Some of that cancer may or may not be linked to Agent Orange, but it also may be linked to his smoking concerns. How then would you be able to adjudicate some sort of compensation package for him if he claims that his cancer was caused because of Agent Orange forty-some years ago? That's going to be quite difficult to do, isn't it?

4:25 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

I can't answer for the minister on the reasons or the logic he would use to ascertain whether compensation should be given to people who have been exposed to Agent Orange. All I can talk to is what the board under the law will utilize, as far as onus of evidence is required, under the Pension Act.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

I guess I should rephrase my question. How many cases of Agent Orange or Agent Purple in Gagetown has your board looked at?

4:25 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

We've looked at somewhere in the area of a dozen cases, but they are claims for disability pension. I know of certain cases that were granted, but others that were turned down.

I cannot speak to specific cases. Unfortunately, that is beyond my purview.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

I understand.

There has been a fair amount of talk in this committee and from others about the possibility of having a position for an ombudsman for veterans affairs similar to the ombudsman for the military. This office would obviously advocate concerns, or question policies or directions the government is making in that particular department.

Do you see an ombudsman of veterans affairs as someone who would be able to assist you in some of the work you do, or would it be someone you probably wouldn't have many dealings with because you can only go by what the legislation states you can or cannot do?

4:30 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

The board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals or review decisions based on disability pensions. In my humble opinion, the ombudsman could not look into how the board looks at a given file or interfere with the board, any more than the minister can. We are an independent, quasi-judicial board.

Where the ombudsman could be useful to the board would be, for instance, in saying, “I've looked at your whole process, and you're taking too long to hear cases. I suggest you make the following corrections.” The ombudsman could assist us in looking at the overall picture and recommend some avenues for correction.

What.... I'm sorry?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

I just want to let Mr. Stoffer know we are over the time. I will let you finish your answer, sir.

4:30 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

Finally, under modernization there are a multiplicity of programs now—there are at least five—and only one is appealable to the board. So the ombudsman will be useful, I suspect, to a certain degree.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

All right. Thank you.

I'm trying to assess who is the keenest of my Conservative colleagues.

Okay, Mr. Shipley, you've been taking a lot of notes.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

No, I'm just familiarizing myself.

I have a couple of things. I'm new on the committee and new to the legislature, and I am finding it very interesting. When I was out campaigning for my first time, I certainly came across individuals who seemed to be struggling a bit with the decision that was brought up about the 58% or 59%. That obviously is a concern. I just want to reiterate that it seemed to be a concern of the department. Then, when you have the board, that large change from what has gone forward, it seems to have raised an issue with some folks I have talked to.

Could I go back? We have a number of vacancies and I'm wondering how we advertise. How do we make sure that it isn't who the person knows and that it's actually a person who should be there, who has the merit, who is not politically tied but has the right credentials--the medical and whatever--and that those individuals are professional people? How can we make sure? Is there a process in place, and can you explain how that actually happens?

4:30 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

Yes, sir, there is a process, and it's been in place since December 2004. In order to recruit the largest possible number of candidates, there are obvious things you can do. You can publicize, advertise in newspapers or in the official Canada Gazette. Some people actually do read it, apparently. You can have a standing offer of employment on the website. There are a variety of ways you can attract people.

The process, as it exists now, has gone through at least three cycles—two and a half, in fact. The initial step is to file an application. There is only one door to have your candidacy considered for a position. Then there is a committee that does pre-selection. The names of members are publicized on the website. They will basically verify two of the basic criteria, and that is experience and education.

Then there's a written exam. The candidates are provided with an extract of the law and a modernization publication, and the answers are there to the written exam. The exam also looks at the capacity of the individual to write and their reasoning, so there is a competency check.

If the exam is successful, there is the interview committee, which basically verifies the skills and abilities of the individual. This job has a lot of skills and abilities. When people show up, they must feel confident that the individual can communicate properly and will manage the case and the evidence correctly and rigorously. The individual needs the ability to communicate, to decide, and to write the decision. That's what the interview committee does.

Once this whole process is through, the name of the individual is placed on a list of qualified candidates. The board then provides the minister with its operational requirements. The decision to appoint someone is at the discretion of the minister.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

We have a number of vacancies right now, so we'll be looking. What time are we looking at from the start of that process until there is someone sitting at a hearing?

Secondly, as mentioned earlier, we have vacancies of 10 or 11 people. Do you fill those with temporary people? You talked earlier about using temporary people. Is that how you're managing to keep the caseloads moving along?

4:35 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

No. In order to meet the hearings right now, our best tactic has been to hold single-member panels, but it requires the consent of the advocates and the clients. We've been able to maintain somewhere in the area of six to eight hearings per week.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

If that is acceptable—and that's good—why is it not the practice?

4:35 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

It's because it is an incredibly heavy workload. I wouldn't ask my administrative judges or my members to keep that rhythm up too long. I have members who have heard over 800 cases this year. The work these people have put in is absolutely astonishing. It is incredibly impressive.

By law, there is a maximum of 29 permanent members. You can have as many temporary members as you wish.

Ultimately, I think the way to approach the appointments is to make sure that the individuals come on board for at least two years, and then they could proceed to a three-year appointment. Finally, I would top it off with a four-year appointment, so that the individual serves for a total of nine years on the board. I think that would be the ideal mini-career plan.

It shuts off the circle of the selection process. The individual can count on a mini-career in the job, where he'll be interested in improving himself in training and do even better at what he does.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Maybe I missed this, but what is the timeframe in terms of someone putting a name in now?

4:35 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

The cycle lasts about four months from application to screening, to a written exam, to interview, and to name on list. The training lasts at least nine weeks, and then you can expect the individual to be in a hearing room hearing a case.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

All right.

So now we have made a full rotation on the first round. We are back to the Liberal Party, and I believe Mr. Valley is up next.

May 30th, 2006 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to Mr. Marchand and Ms. Sharkey.

Back to the board—and I guess you will know where a lot of our questions are coming from. I thought I heard something in an answer to Mr. Perron that I thought I'd better check. I'm wondering about the make-up of the board. Are these retired professionals? Are they all of one profession? I heard the number 19 used. Do we have 19 full-time members?

I was known on the last committee--and I should warn the chair that I had to be chastised a number of times--for making comments about lawyers. So please tell me they are not 19 lawyers.

4:35 p.m.

Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Victor Marchand

No, they are not. I think the ideal composition is a mixture of individuals from varying backgrounds: from the health, legal, military, and business fields, and from public life.

To be more precise, presently we have 17 permanent and 2 temporary members.