Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Guarnieri.

I think I asked for it before, but I would like you to send information on the timing of the appointments. You have two more to fill, and we want you to have them filled as soon as possible.

We're designing a veterans bill of rights to provide more service to veterans. When you get to 28, you're full. You mentioned you can go to 29 or 30. Tell us bluntly if you need 32. Do we need to put in that the resources have to be there to serve veterans, or when you're full will you have enough? We need to know how to plan for the future.

[Victor Marchand]

The optimal number operationally is 28. With 30 I would have operational spares. It's logical, with the provision of 29 permanent members, that if I can have a turnover and maintain 28 board members perpetually, I'll be operationally safe from a capacity to hear cases.

It may mean that sometimes I'll go up to 30 and then fall back down to 26 or 27. The challenge is really to keep that human resources number at an average of 28. People come and go; they're new and need to be trained. I always want to keep a core of experienced board members and never let the number of experienced board members fall too low. I can't have 28 brand-new board members at one specific time. So we need to have a planned turnover.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I'll ask the same question a little more directly, then: if your operational component were 32, would you be able to provide a higher level of service to veterans?

[Victor Marchand]

No. The optimal complement is 28. It's the capacity of BPA to put the cases forward. At the point that I had 50 board members, I couldn't hear more cases if the cases weren't being brought to me by BPA.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We will go on to Mr. Shipley for five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

We had the discussion earlier about the potential for an ombudsman to come back in. We're now talking about a bill of rights. All of these are to improve the services and to help out our veterans, so we want to move ahead with that.

If that position of an ombudsman were to get filled and the bill of rights were to come along and get into position, how would that help you with your performance?

[Victor Marchand]

I think it would help the performance of the whole portfolio, not just of the board. If the whole portfolio feels the pressure is on to get the job done, to move, obviously it will also affect the board and VRAB. In that sense, VRAB is part of the portfolio and it will be there to do the job. What the ombudsman's office will probably do for the board is provide it with important feedback on how it's doing its job and on areas in which it can improve processes in the short and middle term.

The bill of rights, I think, will be an automatic buy-in by the board, because that's our business. That's what we're in: servicing, recognizing rights. I think it's going to be an important component.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I have one other question. In terms of the members, we have two, and I think two left that basically you couldn't get filled. This committee has been very supportive of getting those filled. Obviously, a number of vacancies were sitting there.

I just want to make sure that in terms of their qualifications, having an open process based on merit and qualifications and having the lack of political influence in it makes you confident that these people are selected through a process that is clear, accountable, and transparent, so that the positions are in fact being filled by people who will serve the best interests of the veterans.

[Victor Marchand]

I will quote the candidates themselves. More often than not, candidates at the interview have said, “This is a rigorous system. It was a learning process for me on how you define and review qualifications for people to be members of your board.”

So far, the people who are in it tell us it's rigorous and efficient.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

The only thing that we do here, and likely all of us hear that, is there seems to be some lack of compassion based on documentation of benefit of the doubt. That's always an issue for our service people, our veterans who come back. They have spent their time protecting not only this country but also the democracy that we so much enjoy in this country, but when the benefit of the doubt comes, there seems to be that lack of conscience sometimes. When we go back through the review, I think you said there's a 60% and a 40% approval on some of these.

As much as we're trying to say this is all about the vets--and I think there isn't one around the table here who doesn't say that, and I really do have this compassion for those we may know as individuals--the benefit of the doubt always seems to keep flopping back up from time to time. I know that back at that time in the Second World War--and we've had that discussion--the transfer of the records from the Department of National Defence to Veterans Affairs was very difficult.

That's just a comment. You don't need to reply to that one. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

He's got four seconds. That was very well timed.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I can't speak that....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Not as well timed as the intervention that was four minutes and 50 seconds by Mr. Roy...but it was very good.

Now, we don't have anybody else really on the speakers list as far as questions go, unless I see any eager beavers. No? Fair enough.

A slightly eager beaver--yes, Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

A very short question, and I'm sure the answer will not be a long one. I've asked this before of other witnesses.

An assumption I make is that the veterans, mostly from the Second World War, Korea, and from peace-keeping, from the decades past, their cases being of a certain general nature.... Do you have a sense of how those cases are changing because the demographics are changing, the types of conflicts, the types of military experiences are changing? Are you seeing already a difference in the nature of the caseload now from what you might have seen ten years ago, for example, or ten years from now? Are you seeing a different flavour to the general case?

[Victor Marchand]

Yes. The files and the conditions being dealt with are more complex from a medical point of view. I think I alluded to that earlier. From the board's perspective, ultimately, on a mid-term basis, I would say that within the next few years, the board will progress and change because of the change in the nature of cases. It will move from a high-volume system to a high-quality system eventually. The files and the subjects being dealt with will require a lot more attention, a lot more expertise from an evidentiary point of view. So you should notice that eventually the board will evolve that way.

So instead of rendering the possibility of 7,000 or 8,000 decisions a year, it may go down to 2,000 or 3,000, or possibly 4,000 decisions a year, but each of those decisions may require a lot more time, effort, and energy in the evidentiary side of the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now, because Mr. St. Denis did what he did...Mrs. Hinton.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I just have a comment regarding something you mentioned. You were talking about the ombudsman and the bill of rights. I feel that the ombudsman position and the bill of rights are actually going to change VRAB considerably because there will be two very firm sets of rules here that are going to be adhered to, and I think you're going to see that things are going to move along a lot more quickly--at least I hope they are.

In terms of those wonderfully brave men and women who are in Afghanistan now, we've had them there since, what, 2002?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

2003.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So I would imagine that since they've been there since 2002, you would have had several of them in front of you who would have finished their tour of duty and that you would have a better idea of what their needs are going to be. So maybe in a few months' time we can talk about that particular issue.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Fair enough.

Now...going once, going twice, going three times....

Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it will be very instructive going into our next phase. I will just let the committee members know that I think there are a couple of members who would like to raise some issues not related to these matters. So I'll allow a few minutes for people to make their greetings, say their goodbyes and hellos, and then I think there are still a couple of people who would like to speak to some things.

I have a quick question before we walk around. Is it okay if we adjourn and if just the committee hangs...?

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

Yes, it's only about some information. I could get that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Valley.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

It's nothing very controversial. I could do that right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.