Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Gaudet.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Shipley of the Conservative Party for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Marchand and Ms. Sharkey, on the teleconference today.

I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what my colleague, Mr. Gaudet, said in terms of the issues that fall around benefit of the doubt.

First of all, I do want to congratulate you. To know that the backlog has disappeared is certainly a positive step forward. That's important, and I guess that happened under the full membership that you now have in place on the board.

I was a little late because of another committee. I'm not just sure when you got full membership. Is it because of full membership that you were able to clean up the backlog?

[Victor Marchand]

In the fall of 2006, when we endeavoured to hold single-member panels, by then we had a group of at least 10 new board members who were in training. So in other words, when the new people were arriving, the senior board members were striving to keep up the rhythm, and I was able to tell them that reinforcements were coming. I think that's what kept them going all through the fall. Beginning in 2007, the new board members could kick in and take over the load, starting at the beginning of this year.

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

That's good to hear. I'm looking forward, down the road, in some sort of an audit, to see the number of appeals that you hear in relationship, now, to the number of the full membership. That is always going to be kept intact, I guess.

The other part I wanted to follow up on from Mr. Gaudet, and it always comes back, is about a number of elderly vets—I'm not talking about the new ones—because of the benefit of the doubt, mostly because they've not had health records available. When they were in active duty, health records weren't kept. They did things that were not reported. Even if they were, they weren't transferred. It just seems that when there seems to be clear evidence, from time to time, of individuals I've known, they always seem to be battling the benefit of the doubt. I wonder if you can comment beyond what you said to Mr. Gaudet on that.

[Victor Marchand]

I think it's important to give you an idea of what a board member could face in these circumstances.

On any given morning he can have before him an 85-year-old veteran of active force, with nothing more than his service docs that go back 60 years. The next case can be a regular force infantryman who is claiming for chondromalacia patella and has his medical attendance records.The board member can see that he complained that he was treated for his knees over a period of six weeks, six months, or six years, sometimes, and he has the medical opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who supports his claim to the effect that he got his chondromalacia patella during regular force service.

So the board member is faced with a dilemma, in a sense, because in one matter he is afforded an incredibly high-quality level of evidence. But he has to rule on an active-force 85-year-old veteran who can sometimes remember the circumstances of his accident back in 1943 in Italy and there is nothing on file to support or corroborate the occurrence of the accident. So the board member has to exercise an incredible amount of judgment in ascertaining what to do, and he has to decide that morning.

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

And I don't take away from that judgment they have to make. Always remember that these are veterans who likely don't have a good reason not to tell you the truth.

[Victor Marchand]

I agree fully, sir.

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

I have just one other point.

As we're going through the whole appeal, getting ready—and you've just talked about the case when you have a veteran who comes forward of later years.... First of all, they're likely struggling about how to get there.

I'm wondering whether you have some comments about the newly appointed ombudsman and how that might be helpful—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Time is up.

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

Oh, I'm sorry.

I guess you get to give a short answer then. I've just been given the time out signal.

How would that ombudsman be of benefit to you?

[Victor Marchand]

We dwell in the world of recourse, evidence, rights, and regulation, and how we can humanely and compassionately apply them. What the ombudsman will be able to do is handle the needs of people. If we can communicate regularly about problems and claims he may receive based on needs, our job will be that much more enriched.

I think there is going to be a need there for a working relationship. We may understand things, with the ombudsman, that we could not perceive in our realm of evidence and administrative law and rules and regulations and onuses. That's an asset for us.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to the Liberals now, with Mr. Valley for five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

I won't be taking my full time, so I'll pass it on to my colleagues.

You mentioned a number of times, and with good reason, that a large part of your focus has been on making sure board members are bilingual and making sure they provide services in both official languages.

In my riding—and I've probably said this before, because I say it quite often—60% of my population is first nations, and language is an issue: it's a barrier. I deal with it every day when I'm in the north, simply because of health care issues. Language is a problem.

Can you tell me, realizing that there are only two official languages but that there are other problems out there, how would a board member—or do you have a board member who...? I guess you can't have a board member who would possibly understand every dialect that's out there, but how would you proceed with that? Would someone be hired, or would somebody be allowed to accompany this individual, whether it's in a first appeal or at Charlottetown? How do we deal with someone who can't speak one of the languages?

[Victor Marchand]

This is a very good question, because most board members are confronted with four languages when they take on this job: there is French, English, military, and medical. So they have to develop an acute understanding of communication tools.

From a very practical point of view, board members must rely on steady and constant quality information to do their job. In the case of language per se, whether it be for first nations or any other group, we provide them with all the necessary translation services available. We have all those services available to us.

So far, in the years I've been with the board, to my knowledge we've never encountered any problem with that.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you for that answer. I believe I have asked that question before, but I like to have it reaffirmed. It gives me confidence, when I have to deal with aging veterans in my own area, that they'll have the services they need when they have to come to you. So thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have for questions. I'll pass on my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Valley.

Mr. Shipley, you're very lucky, because I know you weren't quite finished your line of questioning, and lo and behold, there's a Conservative spot. So sir, you have five minutes to continue.

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

I have just one further question, and then I think that's all I have.

Under the new Veterans Charter, veterans can now obtain a disability award, and it comes in a lump sum rather than being taken out in a pension. How has that been received, and how is it working?

[Victor Marchand]

We have heard new cases under the new system. The board members have, with ease, ruled on those cases. I have not heard of any board member having any difficulty making those rulings.

Our experience is still relatively limited in this area. I could possibly provide you with a number of cases heard under this new system, but no complaints have been filed with us, as far as I know, in the handling of those matters.

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

Thank you.

I don't have anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're now going to move over to Mr. Sweet, I believe, for the remainder of that time.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I was particularly happy that the complaints against VRAB are now acceptable in any form. Is that correct that, from what I heard, they could basically fax in, phone in, email in, or is there an actual restriction on the format in which they present their complaint?

[Victor Marchand]

None whatsoever.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Fantastic. That makes me very happy.

I'm also looking at the numbers from 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. We have the luxury of having them juxtaposed in front of us. I noticed an increase in reconsiderations from 2004-05 and 2005-06, but then a dramatic decrease in 2006-07. Also, on a straight line, the appeals seem to be diminishing as well, from a high of 1,756 in 2004-05, to a low of 1,271 in 2006-07. Can you give me an idea about what you would attribute the declining numbers to, and particularly the very graphic one that's cut in half, the reconsiderations?

[Victor Marchand]

If I may, I would defer to Ms. Sharkey on this.