You're very brief.
Evidence of meeting #47 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vrab.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #47 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vrab.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
You should give lessons to Mr. Lobb. It would be good.
I want to thank our witnesses very much. We do have to change gears. Thank you for coming. You've added to our study.
We'll suspend to change witnesses. Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Okay, folks, we're going to get back to business. We have about an hour with this panel, and time does fly.
I want to start by welcoming Mr. Harold Leduc, who has some experience with VRAB, and also Mr. Cal Small and Abraham Townsend, from the RCMP.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Small is from the RCMP Veterans' Association. Mr. Townsend, if I'm correct, you're on the national executive of staff relations and provide the programming. You two are going to share 10 minutes, and Mr. Leduc has 10 minutes, if I understand correctly.
Without any further ado, please proceed, Mr. Leduc.
October 22nd, 2012 / 4:30 p.m.
Harold Leduc As an Individual
Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present today.
This is a very important subject for our veterans, and it's also an important subject for the nation. There is a certain promise made to veterans when they sign up and then they are disabled in the service to their country.
I'm here today because I'm seriously concerned with the way that VRAB has downturned in the last few years in not providing fair and impartial hearings that Parliament has wanted for our veterans. It has significantly changed.
I'd like to address an elephant in the room, as well. I'm sure we've all read the papers. I have an outstanding issue that's going on, with approximately 60 breaches of my privacy since I joined the board. It's the use of that information and how it was used that's under investigation, not only by the Human Rights Commission, but also I'm dealing with the minister.
I would like to put that to rest because my presentation is not about that. It's not about me. I want to end that by saying that here are my medals and my decorations. I don't wear them because I've lost pride in my service and sacrifice to this country because of the way I've been treated. I'll put that to rest.
Now what I'd like to do is go on to my presentation. As a veteran with PTSD, my heart is racing, so if I appear a little nervous or anxious, that's what's going on.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Inside I'm calm.
What I'm going to focus on is something I'm not alone in my thoughts. I have a number of colleagues who also believe this is true but they are absolutely intimidated and afraid to speak out.
As you can see in my brief—and I'll try not to read it, but I'll speak to it, though—I've provided three excerpts from different places. One is from section 3 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, which we're told continually by the Federal Court that we should follow. We all know what it says, and I won't read it.
The next one I have presented is what's in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board's introduction to new members. Of particular interest is the last sentence and just a bit before it. It reads, “...decision so that the applicant knows that a full and fair examination of their case took place. In a non-adversarial system, it is essential to remember as a member that all parties in the process are working for the applicant.” That is just about completely gone.
The third one is part of the members' code of conduct. This is found on the Internet. It's also part of the oath of office that we sign. The very last part of it states that we “shall not delegate the duty to decide to any other person.”
Unfortunately what's happened is that our staff are the ones who train us. Our staff were appointed to render fair decisions in accordance with the legislation and in a non-adversarial approach. Our staff do not have to buy into that and they don't. Sometimes the staff come from the department, and therefore they already have a bias toward the departmental policies. That impacts us in our decision-making and it's a huge impact, but I'll get into that in a minute.
I mentioned board management as a group because we really don't know who makes the decisions. The chair has delegated his day-to-day operation of the board to the deputy chair and he has essentially told all members to defer any decision-making to the legal unit. In board management we have the chair, the deputy chair, the director general, and the senior legal counsel, but we don't know who is sending us the decisions because we're not involved in any of the decision-making that impacts us.
The problem that happens is that the staff are empowered and they act as if they are another panel member, which is absolutely wrong. We are the ones who make the decision. We go to the hearing and we hear. The reason for going to the hearing is to gather the testimony and clarify the information we have.
When I first started on the board. our decisions were one or two pages long. We didn't need scads of medical information. For entitlement we only required a doctor's note that provided a diagnosis of a disability, and from that it was our job to make a connection to service, based on the evidence we had. We never searched for information as happens now. If our legal unit came up with a piece of information that was new, we just thanked them and said that was not part of the evidence we had before us.
Today I have witnessed people adding things to the file without even a thought of sending it off to the veteran and the veteran's advocate.
I've witnessed veterans and their advocates being disrespected at the hearings. I've stopped hearings because of it.
It's one of those things that makes it very difficult not to grant everybody a disability because we've changed that non-adversarial system to provide veterans with what the government and the people of Canada have said in their statute that they owe the veterans. The fact of the matter is, people still have to prove and we still need the evidence. However, we've changed that non-adversarial process to a very adversarial process.
Some members do that at the hearing by challenging the advocate and the veterans, rather than just getting clarification on the evidence. I think last week or the week before there was a situation where a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder felt as if he were being cross-examined. I heard about that story a year before you heard about it. I went to a fellow veteran's funeral and I heard about it there. I brought it back to the board and told the chair, because the chair is responsible. I don't know if anything was done with that information.
It's real. It's live. It's what is going on. I'm not here to say that everything is wrong with the board. I'm not here to say that every member is bad, that every staff member is bad. What I'm here to say is that if we speak about only the good things that are happening, we'll never get to the root of why some of the veterans, after they get their decisions, go out and commit suicide.
It's real. It's real for veterans. We're talking about real people here, not policy.
I realize that I'm starting to run out of time here.
The favourability rate is another one that impacts our impartiality. The impact on our impartiality is that it's become a factor where we were told to remember that we don't have to grant. We were told that by the deputy chair before going into hearings.
It's become such a contentious issue that has frustrated members, because they don't want to know about these favourability rates. We never had them before. We had them by region, but never by the individual. If two of us sit on a panel, and one agrees and one doesn't agree, then the one who doesn't agree gets a favourable rating, which really doesn't work statistically.
The idea behind this is that the board is in trouble. As I mentioned earlier, we didn't need a whole bunch of medical information. Now the staff and some of the members want more and more and more. I don't know why. Our job was so simple before. We took what was before us, listened to the testimony, figured out whether it was credible or not, and made a decision. But we keep being asked for more.
Section 38 of the VRAB Act says that we have the ability to go out and ask for independent medical opinions. We've been directed that we can't do that on our own, that we have to go to the legal unit. If the legal unit looks at one of the medical opinions we have, they will typically come back and give a legal opinion on a medical opinion.
It just doesn't work. I don't think we need to be doctors to adjudicate. I think we just need to be reasonable, and understand why we're there.
Mr. James Sprague, an expert on administrative tribunals, spoke to us. He told us of the importance of our independence and whatever. He told us that, really, in a tribunal itself, we're appointed by the Governor in Council, by the Governor General. We are independent from government in decision-making but dependent on the minister for administrative purposes. We were told that we shouldn't be going to the department for medical advice, but we do.
With respect to performance assessments, for my first three years on the board, I had wonderful, excellent performance assessments, and then all of a sudden they took a downturn. Information that was used before a human rights mediation was used in 2011 on my performance assessment. We don't see what the staff say about us; we get surprised by it.
That's a controlling factor, in my opinion and in the opinion of a number of members.
On the hearing loss policy, which we heard about before, I don't think there's a veteran in this country who's getting a fair hearing on hearing loss, for the simple fact that the policy was changed and we had no opportunity to discuss the department's policy. We were basically told that we would use it. It treats hearing loss differently from any other condition under the Pension Act or the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.
A concern we have as well is that we're guided by the Federal Court, but when we get Federal Court decisions, our senior legal adviser, or whoever is tasked to do this, will give any number of reasons that they don't agree with the decisions that come back, saying that we should defer to a new panel. For any decision that comes back that doesn't agree with our decisions, basically, we're given every reason that we shouldn't believe it, but any decision that comes back that agrees with the board, we rarely get any comments on it.
It's just like any decision we write that is not favourable to the applicant. Rarely do we get an opinion that comes back from our staff saying that we've made an error in our decision and we should grant favourably. I can almost guarantee that. I do not recall, in the seven years I've been on the board, ever getting a legal opinion that says that we did not make the decision within the language of sections 3 and 39 of the VRAB Act.
There's a real disconnect. Our staff are the ones who train us.
It doesn't matter who you appoint to the board. I personally don't believe in quotas, having a certain number from the military, or from this or that. I don't believe in that. Personally, I believe you need the right people. But as long as you don't fix the problems that are in a board, that are tainting the members or getting them to grant in a certain way so that they're not pressured in their jobs.... I mean, members have been told, “If you want an easy time on the board, then just listen to what we have to say.”
There is a lot more I could talk about, some of which I wrote in my brief, but I'll just leave it at that.
I'm open to answering any hard questions you folks have for me.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
We'll now turn to Mr. Townsend or Mr. Small.
You are splitting your time, so whoever would like to start, go ahead.
Mr. Small.
4:45 p.m.
Cal Small National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm Cal Small, president of the RCMP Veterans' Association. It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. If you don't mind, I will read what I have in order to keep within the time limit.
At the time I accepted your invitation I was to have been accompanied by Mr. Bill Gidley, who until the end of July of this year was the executive director of the association, and as recently as two weeks ago was a national advocate. I might add that Mr. Gidley appeared before this committee on April 3 of this year. A couple of weeks ago Mr. Gidley found it necessary to resign his position due to health issues. It is regrettable that he could not have joined me here today, because he was the one who took all the phone calls, all the emails related to matters concerning veterans affairs and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In other words, Mr. Gidley was the person in our association most familiar with the issues of interest to this committee.
The main focus of the RCMP Veterans' Association during the last few years has been to ensure our retired members are aware of the services offered by VAC and how these services can be obtained. To accomplish this we have had meetings with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, with the Veterans Ombudsman, with the Canadian Legion and with senior officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Canadian Legion service officers are not only prepared to help our retired members prepare and submit their applications to VAC, but have also trained three of our veterans in order that the association might be in a position to provide these services to its members. This was done on the assumption that retired members would find it easier to communicate information pertinent to their application to somebody with a similar background.
On October 7, 2009, past-president of the association, Mr. Dale Lively, Mr. Bill Gidley and I, as well as the late Peter Martin, former deputy commissioner of human resources for the RCMP, met with Mr. Greg Thompson, former Minister of Veterans Affairs. Among the many issues discussed was the need to have some RCMP veterans sitting on VAC committees, and in particular the need for a retired member on VRAB. Mr. Lively strongly felt that a retired member as an adjudicator would be an asset and that he or she might have more empathy with the RCMP member client and would probably be in a better position to appreciate the context related to the disability in question, and would give the board a little more credibility as well.
On November 4, 2009 the same group met with Mr. Brian Ferguson, senior assistant minister, Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, P.E.I. and the senior staff. Again, among many other topics discussed, the lack of RCMP representation on VAC and VRAB committees was again discussed. The point was made that it would be difficult for board members, who 97% of the time dealt with military clients and issues, to appreciate and understand many of the problems associated with policing.
I am pleased to note that a retired member of the RCMP is currently one of the VRAB adjudicators. This year, Mr. John Larlee, chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, has provided an opportunity to past-president Tim Hoban, Bill Gidley and myself to witness VRAB hearings. Speaking for myself, I was struck by the informality of the process, by the efforts of the adjudicators to ensure they understood the issues and, finally, by the complexities of the cases. I was not aware of the decisions made in the cases that were heard.
Finally, I am aware of the various issues and criticisms concerning the composition of VRAB, the adjudication process, as well as the board's independence relative to VAC. I don't believe, however, I am in a position to offer anything more in the nature of constructive criticism than has already been received by this committee.
The main concern of the RCMP Veterans' Association is that its members be aware of the medical and psychological issues that could qualify them for benefits from VAC, that they know the process sufficiently well to be able to access these services, and finally receive fair and transparent hearings at the various levels.
Again I would like to thank you very much for including the RCMP Veterans' Association in these hearings.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you very much, Mr. Small.
We'll now go to Staff Sergeant Townsend, please.
4:50 p.m.
S/Sgt Abraham Townsend National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members.
As introduced, my name is Abe Townsend. I'm a member of the RCMP, but I'm not here representing the organization. I'm here representing the 24,000 regular and civilian members.
I've been an elected representative since 2004. The SRR program, staff relations representative program, is the official labour relations body for our members.
While our members perform their duties as safely as possible, injury, both physical and psychological, is an unfortunate consequence of service, and subsequently, our members are entitled to disability, and in the case of death, to survivor benefits as well.
At present, there are approximately 9,500 clients, of whom 3,100 are still serving, the remainder being either retired or survivors.
I make reference to the numbers reluctantly, because each and every number represents an individual, an individual with a family, likely, that has suffered loss through service.
I look at the Veterans Affairs stats, and 75% are approved in the first instance. Of those that go to appeal, 60% are approved on appeal. Now, you've jumped the first hurdle, you've jumped the second hurdle, and 25% at the appeal board are approved. You continually jump hurdles, and we're continually getting approval, albeit in a diminishing way.
Members whom I talk with who have gone through this express frustration that the further you go in this process—they use words like “discouraging” and “distant” and “disheartening”—the more it becomes very litigious and removed from the individual, albeit that it's their case going forward.
I'd like to believe, and I do believe, that those who designed the current process had the best of intentions to balance the individual's needs against the greater community's. Sometimes when I look at the bureaucracy that has grown from this, I wonder whether that balance needs to be reassessed and adjusted so that it truly does serve the disabled veterans, whether CF or RCMP veterans or serving members, in a little more balanced way.
Those are my opening remarks.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you very much, Mr. Townsend.
We'll now go to committee members for questions.
We'll start with Mr. Stoffer, for an actual five minutes this time.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Leduc, Mr. Small and Mr. Townsend, thank you all for your service and thank you all very much for coming.
Mr. Leduc, I have to say I'm very sorry that an honoured veteran like you feels unable to wear your medals because of the way you were treated. On a personal level, I apologize to you for that.
You said that you were called during a pre-hearing discussion by the deputy chair who told you, “Remember, you don't have to award.”
What was that person's name?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, I guess I can't be hurt any more. It was James MacPhee, the deputy chair.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you.
You also said that if you, meaning the members, want an easy time on the board—I'm paraphrasing now—just do what they more or less say.
Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Can you give us any names of people who may have said that?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
If you don't mind, that would be great.
You also said that some staff members from the department are involved. Are these members from the VRAB department or from DVA?
