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.
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
People come from the department, transferred as employees over to VRAB. For instance, our policy adviser and trainer at one time came from policy at Veterans Affairs, so it was difficult for them to make a transition.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I see. We constantly hear from the minister that he can't become involved because VRAB is a quasi-judicial, arm's-length agency that is independent from him, although that didn't happen in the Steve Dornan case.
Here is one question that a lot of members have asked me, quite clearly: Do you believe that it is a quasi-judicial, independent, arm's-length board with absolutely no influence, persuasion, discussion, winks, nods—you name it—from the department? You've been there for seven years, and I'm sorry you weren't reappointed.
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Not in an overt way. If we need a clarification on a table of disabilities, the board goes back to the department for clarification. That should never happen. We have our own expertise. We're Canada's experts in this stuff, so we should be able to figure it out on our own. That's where the influence comes in.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
My last question is for Mr. Small and Mr. Townsend.
For years you folks have asked the government for the veterans independence program for your retired members. Can you advise us how your request to have VIP for retired or disabled RCMP members is going?
4:55 p.m.
National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Do you mean at this moment in time?
4:55 p.m.
National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's my belief that it's going nowhere.
4:55 p.m.
National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We still would like to see our members and our retired veterans who are within the Veterans Affairs system of pension have this available to them, but at this time I don't believe there's the will to see it happen.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
My first question is for Mr. Small. Thank you very much for appearing here before us today.
We've heard quite a bit of testimony over the last few weeks about what the ideal composition of the board should be. Whether it's the Royal Canadian Legion or other veterans associations, what they keep coming forward with is that there ought to be more members of the board with military background.
Our Conservative government was in fact the first to appoint somebody with RCMP experience, as you kindly noted. I don't know whether you caught it, but the minister just made an announcement that there have been four new appointees, who among them have 107 years of military experience. The idea is that they would bring their military experience and their very basic common sense to the table, and bring that background to bear as they render their decisions.
Do you think that's the correct approach?
4:55 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
I would be inclined to agree there would be some benefit to having some military, and some RCMP, possibly, when you're thinking of the RCMP. You also have to remember there are many female members of the RCMP. For example, if the board is listening to a case involving an RCMP member, I rather suspect that if the member listening to the case is from the RCMP, he might bring to the hearing a different set of values from those that somebody who wasn't very familiar with the RCMP might.
As I mentioned earlier, I sat in on a hearing, and frankly I was impressed. I thought it was very informal and I thought the adjudicators made a lot of effort to make sure they understood the issues. I was quite impressed by the process. That was the only time, and I don't know what the end result was.
Yes, I think there would be some value in the composition of the board being somewhat different.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Small.
That's what we're looking at here as parliamentarians. We're looking at VRAB and asking what is working and what might be improved. We will prepare a report that makes recommendations at the end of the day.
Mr. Leduc, if I might direct my next question to you, let me begin by saying on behalf of our government, on behalf of Canadians, that I'd like to thank you for your service to our nation.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Could you tell us, though, what is working at VRAB, in light of your extensive experience there?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
What is working? What's working at VRAB is that there are some good, appropriately chosen people as adjudicators, and there are some good staff members there. But I would say that at this time it's a struggle for them to ensure they make the right decisions following the rules. It's a struggle.
I would say that what's working is not as important as what's not working, for the simple reason that people shouldn't have to fight with staff to support their decisions. I think it's important that we look at....
There's a process redesign coming at the board. The members aren't on board with it. They don't even know all the details or what's going on. They say that veterans organizations have been consulted; however, the process of redesign is going to make matters worse, if we don't fix the interference in the independence.
What the process of redesign will do is put every statement of case before the hearing in the hands of our legal unit and quality assurance analysts. They will pretty much predetermine a decision and give their opinion to the members before the hearing, so that the members are going in with a rather biased approach.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Mr. Leduc, could I zero in on what you think is actually a good aspect to VRAB?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
A good aspect of the board, ma'am, is to just follow section 39 of the VRAB Act and to have empathy for the people who are before you, whether they're RCMP, military, or whatever. I know that from my military experience—and I was a paratrooper, so it was pretty rigorous—I would rather be a paratrooper than a member of the RCMP. Those guys get beat up really bad.
5 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5 p.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
It's just that we've had a number of veterans who have come forward, and when we've put the question to them about whether they would like to see VRAB continue, to a person they've all said yes, that this is an independent avenue of appeal where they're provided with free legal counsel to appear before the board. They say that it gives them another chance to make their case, and they say to please continue to have VRAB exist.
You have a very unique insight. You've worked there for seven years. Can you point to the aspects of VRAB, though, that really function well?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, as I said, as long as the members are independent.... There are some pretty smart people on the board. Everybody on the board is smart; it's just that people have a different perspective. Don't forget that the board, when it was first established, had all military members on it, because they wanted people who walked in the other people's boots. That's basically what it was all about.
Although I'm not big into quotas, I think that at least 51% of the board members should have had some kind of service, whether it's RCMP, military, or whatever. I think you need at least one person on each panel who will have walked in that person's boots so that they have empathy. Also, we have to make sure we understand that empathy is not biased, right? There's a difference.
In 2005 when I got there, the board worked extremely well. We had a higher favourability rate than the department. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates was coming to the board rather than referring back to the department. Now, it's completely the opposite.
