Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good morning, folks. Welcome to another meeting of our veterans affairs committee.

Our witnesses this morning are from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Laura Kell is a legal adviser, and Victor Marchand is the chair.

Generally we allow you 20 minutes. You can split the time however you wish. Then we'll open it for questions.

The floor is yours.

[Victor Marchand, Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

Good morning, Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

I have just a small opening statement to situate the board.

As you all know, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is a quasi-judicial, independent administrative tribunal that has existed since 1995, when pension reform was instituted. Since then the board has adjudicated over 100,000 appeals from veterans, mostly in the disability pension area.

The board is arm's length. It has a regular complement of approximately 28 to 30 full-time board members, and on average the board produces some 7,000 decisions a year.

We're proud of our track record because most of the board's decisions are issued within 30 days of the actual hearing. Veterans appreciate the rapidity with which we hear their cases. Overall we are still handling a workload of 700 cases per month. We hold hearings in some 30 locations across the country, and our output is maintained at approximately 6,500 decisions a year.

In a nutshell, that's where the board is right now. We continue to hear as rapidly as possible all the appeals that come from the department to us.

That's really all I can say at this point. I'm ready to answer questions should the committee have any.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just before we switch it over to the committee members for questions, does Ms. Kell have anything to add to the discussion?

[Laura Kell, Legal Advisor, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That was an incredibly brief presentation.

Ms. Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

It was very brief but to the point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First let me join my colleagues in welcoming Monsieur Marchand back to the committee. I want to convey my appreciation for the good work he did during my tenure as minister.

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Valley.

I would like to focus on the appointment process to VRAB and the impact the recent appointments of ex-politicians have on the integrity of the process.

In 2004 we added a screening process that was intended to vet potential candidates and ensure that only qualified people would reach the board. It was also intended to give veterans and other knowledgeable individuals who had worked with veterans in medical and community settings a fair opportunity to join the board.

Given that half the appointments are now former Conservative appointments, do you think applicants have the same sense of fairness that they might have previously had? Do you believe there is still a point in having a screening process, when at the end of the day the selection is so politically biased?

My supplementary turns to Agent Orange. I wonder if you could provide the committee with some broad statistics as to how many Gagetown appeals your board has heard in the last year, and what the outcomes have been. More particularly, what have these appeals indicated in terms of the quality of information available to determine whether a veteran has been exposed to and harmed by Agent Orange? Do you know how many appeals the department has refused to date? Do you have an estimate of the pending workload ahead of you?

[Victor Marchand]

Well, to answer your first question, Mrs. Guarnieri--

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

There were a lot of questions.

[Victor Marchand]

--the selection process, which was put in place in the fall of 2004, held its first series of candidate screenings in early 2005. At this point, we're up to the sixth cycle of screening candidates. We have screened, I would say, an average of 150 candidates per cycle. So far, we would have seen some 500 candidates applying for an appointment to the board.

The criteria are published, and as you know they are on our website. They seek to review basic criteria: education, experience, knowledge, university education or experience that is equivalent to university education. Some preference is given to people who have a legal or medical background. In essence, those are the criteria.

In our experience, the screening usually excludes one-third of the applicants. Then there is a written examination and another one-third are lost. And finally, the last third make it to the interview. About 10% fail at the interview stage.

All the candidates on the list of qualified candidates go through this screening process: the pre-selection, written examination, and interview. The criteria are tested at each stage of the process.

Since the selection process has been adopted, some 17 persons have been appointed to the board. The qualifications of these 17 persons were right on the criteria, as far as I remember. I was involved personally in both the pre-selection, the written examination verification, as well as the interview process. Their names were all on the list of qualified candidates.

Having sat on the interview committee, I have seen most of the candidates, and I must say I was, and still am, very impressed by the quality of persons who applied for those jobs.

The selection process will profoundly affect the culture of the board now that people have to compete. It has changed the attitude of the board members. They are motivated. They insist on being up to par. That process has increased the value of the candidates to an extremely high degree. It has influenced, and will continue to influence, the long-term quality of the work of the board.

That's my impression of what the selection process and appointment of qualified candidates has brought to us so far.

On the Agent Orange issue, according to the latest statistics--you'll have to be kind here, because these are just off the top of my head--something in the area of 1,400 disability pension claims were made by military at the department. The last time I saw some statistics on that, some 500 of these applications had been adjudicated upon by the first-level adjudicators, and overall some 25 claims had been recognized and accepted. Most of these claims were for service persons in Vietnam. Half a dozen were for claims based in, I think, Gagetown.

The adjudication thereof was based on the Institute of Medicine's categorization of conditions associated with, or recognized as being possibly linked to, or probably linked to--I forget the actual categories--exposure to Agent Orange. Often the dilemma in those cases is that the actual exposure to the agent is the critical component.

With regard to the status of studies and reports on the subject, I think the latest came from Dr. Furlong in November. He drew some statistical conclusions after the fact on possible heath effects from exposure to Agent Orange.

So as far as I can recollect, those in a nutshell are the latest events from a research point of view and the statistics that I can recall on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Mr. Marchand.

Just so that everybody knows, the first round of questions is generally seven minutes, except for the NDP with five.

We let you go longer in response to the question, but that means Mr. Valley doesn't get a chance to question now. He'll be up in a later rotation. I think he understands.

Monsieur Perron, for the Bloc.

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

Good day, Mr. Marchand.

First off, I apologize for my tardiness.

This is not the first time that we've spoken, sir. As you know, I'm not a big fan of the review and appeals process. What bothers me the most about it is how you go about selecting the people who will oversee the process and the appearance—and I emphasize the word appearance—of a conflict of interest among lawyers called upon to defend a veteran. Ms. Guarnieri has just touched upon that subject.

Counsel for the veteran is paid by the department. He comes under your responsibility and that bothers me. Let me tell you about one case in particular, that of Mr. Armand Pilon. I'm sure you've heard speak about that incident. I found it truly disgraceful that after contacting the lawyer who defended Mr. Pilon before your Board, he called me to tell me to close the books on this matter.

How could this lawyer be the person representing the veteran before the VRAB, and at the same time, be the person making a case against him to me? That's quite a dilemma. Moreover, Mr. Marchand, the veteran in this case was not given any benefit of the doubt. Mr. Pilon and his wife testified before the Board. All Board members said they believed Mr. Pilon, but that didn't change the decision, namely that Mr. Pilon was not entitled to any compensation.

I mention Mr. Pilon's case in particular, but I know of many others. I'm curious to get your reaction because this case niggles me. I would suggest that we offer this veteran a lump sum amount or a certain number of hours so that he can have his own lawyer, just as if he were presenting his case in a real court of law.

[Victor Marchand]

Up until 1995, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was an independent agency. In 1995...

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

You paid for this independent agency.

[Victor Marchand]

No, from a legislative standpoint, it operated as an independent agency prior to the 1995 reform. Subsequently, responsibility for the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was transferred to the department. The advocates who now handle the cases form a division within the department. There are about forty lawyers in all spread across the country and they work in a totally independent manner. They are not instructed to handle files in a particular way. They are fully autonomous in terms of preparing their cases.

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

Mr. Marchand, you know very well that I won't bite the hand that feeds me. Before 1995, the board operated with taxpayers' money provided either by your department or by National Defence. How can you expect these persons to be impartial when they are paid by the very same taxpayers, who are veterans, and to oppose their boss? I see a problem with this arrangement.

[Victor Marchand]

Well, now I have a problem. This has not been my experience with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. As a Board member, I heard a number of cases. I was a full-time Board member for several years and I listened to all of these lawyers argue their cases before me. I can honestly say, Mr. Perron, that contrary to what you may think, these advocates argue with conviction and are dedicated to their work. They enjoy representing veterans and systematically do good work.

That has been my personal experience. There's nothing else I can say.

As for Mr. Pilon, because I'm not familiar with his case, it is rather difficult for me to comment.

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

I don't wish to discuss his case. I was simply giving you an example.

[Victor Marchand]

As I said, I'm not familiar with his case. In any event, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case currently before the Board.

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

I wasn't asking you to comment. I was simply giving you an example. Generally speaking, I like to give out sound examples, so as not to look foolish.

If the people seated at this table are honest, they will tell you that they receive many telephone calls and complaints from veterans about the lawyers who are representing them before your Board. I get calls on a regular basis.

If you like, I can forward these complaints to you via e-mail. You'll see that your inbox will be quite full, Mr. Marchand.

Do you wish to continue?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

No, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I have to say I've missed these kinds of sessions, because I get to see the animation and the passion of Mr. Perron again. It's good, sir.

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

I let my heart talk once in a while. Instead of using my head I use both my head and my heart. When I see injustice, I cannot stand injustice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I understand. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, his head and his heart and the debates he would have. That's very good.

We don't have the NDP with us this morning, so next I'll move on to Mrs. Hinton. Before I do, though, I just want to make a quick mention of something. I believe earlier--and I was a little surprised, because I think it's one of the first times I've ever seen this--I saw a recording device that was placed on the table.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Yes. The press use them all the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I understand that.