Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Ronald Griffis]

No. We don't know who they call.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

Your critique of the board, which I very much appreciate, really advocates making the board a lot more like a court. You'd have independence of the decision-makers, an open process, and two levels, with the more experienced level acting as an appeal division.

You would know well, sir, by virtue of your experience in the judiciary, that administrative tribunals often don't have all the trappings of a formal court system, yet that seems to be what you're advocating. Is there room here, do you believe, for something less than, or a facsimile of, a trial court?

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes. For instance, the tribunals that we go to always suggest there is going to be an air of compatibility, that things are going to go nicely, and we're all going to be friends and all of that. That's reasonable, but I think you have to apply some reasoning to it.

For instance, in Charlottetown the three appeal court adjudicators sit on a dais above you, and you're looking up to them as you would look up to the judge in a court room. That doesn't promote congeniality in any sense.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

You also had some comments with respect to the idea that an appointment should be a tenured post.

In light of that, I'd be interested in your advice on the process to be followed to make the appointments. If we're going to be appointing people essentially as judges who can only be removed for serious misconduct, as opposed to their record, what changes would have to be made to the actual appointment process itself? It strikes me that we're appointing a bit of a different animal if we're appointing someone for life as opposed to someone for a term with performance reviews.

[Ronald Griffis]

A committee would be formed of responsible persons—perhaps there might even be a veteran on that committee—and you would examine the applicants. You would ascertain the suggested qualifications that they have, what the board is looking for, and what they did to prepare for this application. Also, the applicants would have first passed the exam and then passed the interview. If a committee is set up, I'm quite certain it could even be a video committee that might question the person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey. Your time is up.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer, please; you have four minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you for coming today and for your service to our country. It's much appreciated.

I have a question with regard to the VRAB in general. We've heard a few comments, and Jerry, you mentioned this before, but we've certainly heard criticism of VRAB today.

I want to hear your recommendations in terms of completely scrapping VRAB or in terms of what I like to think of as sharpening the knife a little. What are your thoughts on that? Could I get answers from both of you?

[Ronald Griffis]

My answer would be very brief, which is that you would fine-tune it. There are going to be some hiccups along the way, as there are with any judicial appointment or any appointment at all. If you're appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board, there are always hiccups.

By the same token, if you fine-tune the VRAB.... Let me give you an example. At any time you can ask any senior judicial person to explain to the 24 people on the board what reasonable doubt is or the benefit of the doubt. You can get people from the Supreme Court of Canada down to the local provincial court, and in a heartbeat they'll attend and give you their opinion of what benefit of the doubt is. You would find that it's extremely simple, and I don't think I'm making any great news on that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Just to interject, I think of the F-18. It's been a great airplane for many years and served us well, but I remember there were issues with it in the initial stages. It certainly needed to be honed and needed to be fixed, but it developed into a very good airplane for our servicemen and women.

I look at it that way. I think we can certainly make it better, but it's a process and we need to definitely get on with the....

Jerry, if you could provide....

[Jerry Kovacs]

Publish all the decisions so everyone can read them from coast to coast.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Right.

I'll just make a comment from my perspective. I'm a new guy here, and so some of this is definitely informative for us. It mostly is informative.

I just talked today to my cousin, who served for 20 years, and asked him what he thought. He said it's been serving him well--specifically him--and he's had no complaints. He's actually a year younger than I am, and he's already been in the service for 20 years. To him it's been a good thing. In our riding, too, we haven't heard any complaints, from my office's perspective, over the last year and a half.

What I'm saying is that we do want to work on behalf of veterans. That's what we're all here for. Whether we're on the opposition side or on the government side, we want what's best for veterans, and that's why we're here today.

Certainly there hasn't been a plethora of examples in my riding, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to fix it and make that knife as sharp as we can make it.

Again, thanks for coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. You caught me off guard there.

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen, for four minutes, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to the witnesses for being here.

I have a number of questions and I hope I'll be able to get through them.

My first question relates to what we heard in previous testimony, which was that VRAB doesn't have to accept the Federal Court decision. If a veteran goes to the Federal Court and gets something different from what VRAB has come up with, VRAB doesn't have to accept that.

Are you aware of that? How can that be?

[Ronald Griffis]

I respectfully disagree with that comment, because when a higher court tells you to do something, with all due respect, you'd better do it, and if not, then that particular judge, if he's within a reasonable distance, will call you in and say, “I gave you an order, and you'd better do it, and if you don't want to do it, get out”.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Then it's your understanding that the Federal Court does have that kind of authority?

[Ronald Griffis]

Well, when they send it back to VRAB and say, “We want you to take another look at this”, it's not rocket science. You'd better take another look at it.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay, thank you.

A couple of months ago I had the privilege to speak to the past president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Haggie. He was talking about his concerns in regard to what happens to veterans and the denial of benefits. He said that he thinks there should be a cost-benefit analysis. Basically, when veterans are denied, when they're not given the kinds of benefits they need, there's a cost to the community and there's a cost to the health care system.

Does it make sense to you that we need to be more cognizant of the fact that there's a cost somewhere, and it's to families, it's to veterans, and it's to our entire community?

[Ronald Griffis]

I disagree with that. The benefits for veterans are legislated, and yes, sometimes things are going to be out of balance, but if the veteran is entitled to that benefit, it is legislated that he will receive the benefit. Even if VAC or the VRAB, or whoever it is, were to run out of money, I would imagine they would go back to Treasury Board and say, “We need x dollars because of such-and-such.”

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

Finally, of all the rejected applications, only half result in a request for a review. My question is—and you touched on this with the RCMP—are there veterans who simply are likely to give up the benefits to which they're entitled because they feel overwhelmed, as you suggested that RCMP officer was feeling overwhelmed?

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes. I was just dealing recently with a 93-year-old fighter pilot from World War II. He received some benefits and he was trying to increase his benefits, and he became frustrated. He lives in Kemptville, Nova Scotia. He called me up. He said, “Ron, forget about it. I don't need this crap.” He just said, “Don't bother anymore.”

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

Is there a culture that sees veterans as opportunistic? Is there a culture within the board that would lean toward being more likely to deny benefits? Is that something we need to be concerned about?

[Ronald Griffis]

That, I understand, is accepted by a number of applicants, yes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That's what the applicants themselves believe.

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, we're already at your four minutes, and, excitingly enough, we have enough time for you to ask a question, Mr. Lizon.