Evidence of meeting #45 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 board.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ray Kokkonen  National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Brigadier-General  Retired) Joseph Gollner (Patron, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Colonel  Retired) John Eggenberger (Vice-President, Research, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Andrea Siew  Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion
Ronald Griffis  National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
Jerry Kovacs  Member, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada

3:55 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

As we've said in our presentation, we believe the role of the VRAB is very important as a quasi-judicial organization. However, the benefit of the doubt clause and its interpretation is probably the most misunderstood application. That needs to be revisited from a legal perspective, in terms of what it means and what the evidence requirements are.

If you could look at the VRAB adjudicative guidelines—it's an internal VRAB document—it would give you a strong indication of how restrictive and instructive the medical evidence requirements are.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Ms. Adams is next. You have five minutes.

October 15th, 2012 / 3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

I also thank you for coming today and for your service to our nation. It was very nice to see you this morning at the launch of the benefits browser, so thank you very much for that.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is a board at arm's length from the government, but of course our Conservative government, and I would imagine every Canadian, expects that members of the board would treat veterans with the utmost respect, the highest level of respect, for their dignity and to ensure that every opportunity be fair and to extend the benefit of the doubt is extended to them. That is certainly our expectation, and that is really why we're looking at VRAB through these committee hearings: to understand how we might better serve the veterans, which is our government's number one focus.

You saw some of that through the transformation agenda. The initiative right now has done certain things, such as the plain language initiative. We did the benefits browser today and the My VAC Account last week, but in particular, the plain language initiative is something that I think, Andrea, you're getting at. The plain language initiative was announced a couple of days after the ombudsman came out, and I know that is one of the issues that you've raised in the document you just circulated. Let me just find the page.

It is on page 5 and “recommends that decision letters must provide sufficient reasons in support for a decision and provide access to all of the evidence”. You further recommend that publishing all decisions would be helpful, but you're asking, though, for very plain language to ensure that veterans understand exactly why they have been turned down and what information is still required, and that's exactly what the plain language initiative offers.

Our letters now go out in very simple, straightforward language when a decision is rendered. They enumerate for the veteran why they were approved or why they were turned down or what information is missing. That is already being done as part of the transformation initiative, so thank you very much for highlighting that again.

You both mentioned that you would like VRAB to continue, which is different from what the NDP has brought forward. They have called for VRAB to be completely dismantled.

Could you tell me, in your experience, what types of members the government should look for? What type of experience should they look for when making appointments to VRAB?

4 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

The Legion has been proactively advocating for many years to have military or RCMP experience on the board to represent those who are appearing in front of the board. It's important to have a balanced board with both military and non-military experience, but if you have the military or the RCMP experience in front of the board, the requirement to have such stringent evidence may not be required. You would have somebody who has had the same experience, who has been deployed and has an army, navy, or air force background.

There are no female veterans on the board, yet a number of female veterans go in front of the board. Nobody has experienced what a female veteran has experienced; I've said to this committee on several occasions that what women experience in the Canadian Forces is different from what men experience, but there is no female military or RCMP representation on the board.

It's to have a very balanced board and a larger makeup of relevant operational military experience. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board will show that right now 86% of the veterans coming in front of the board under the new Veterans Charter have peacetime service, and so the experience should be there.

4 p.m.

National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association

Ray Kokkonen

I completely support what Andrea has said. We definitely need the military experience.

Andrea, I don't know if you mentioned the medical aspect. One of our issues was that there's a marked lack of medical expertise on the board, and in some cases the board is second-guessing professional medical opinion. When we're talking about a balanced organization, we need the military experience and we need some medical expertise that is readily available, whatever way it's done.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Thank you. That's both military and medical.

When the chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board appeared before this committee, he stated that approximately 5,000 cases are decided by VRAB each year, and of those, fewer than 1% are referred to the Federal Court. Is that your understanding?

4 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

Yes, that's correct.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

What about you, Mr. Kokkonen?

4 p.m.

National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association

Ray Kokkonen

That is our understanding. We also had a tour of VRAB, and those were the numbers we were given.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Thank you.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you, Ms. Adams.

We now go to our visitor today, Mr. McKay, for five minutes.

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for your participation and attendance.

Just on those questions, it appears that being a member of the Conservative Party or being a political adviser seems to be a sine qua non of being on this board. But I digress.

Sixty-five percent of the decisions made by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board modify initial rulings. If I put that in a criminal law context and say that 65% of decisions made by trial judges are buried, there wouldn't be a person in Canada who wouldn't say that this is a huge problem. Can we arrive at any understanding of why 65% of the decisions referred to the board end up being modified?

4 p.m.

National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association

Ray Kokkonen

You're speaking of the original departmental decisions being sent for review.

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Yes. As I would understand it, according to the notes here, 75% go through without any problem. However, 25% have problems, and of that 25%, 65% are modified or buried. That's a fairly significant change. What's the basis for it?

4 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

As I mentioned in my presentation, one of the issues is that the evidence requirements are onerous. The burden is on the veteran. At each level, additional medical evidence is required. That's one of the issues.

The other thing is that it's not quite so easy as saying that Veterans Affairs delivers 20,000 decisions, and 75% of them are favourable, which is about 15,000, so those are the other 5,000 decisions. Those aren't necessarily the 5,000 that go in front of the board, because you could be bringing a favourable decision to the board. It could be an entitlement issue. It could be an assessment issue.

To look at, it's not an easy process. The VRAB does vary. At the review level, it's 50% of the decisions, and at the appeal level, it's another 30%. Our view is that it's probably related to the evidence requirements. As well, it's complex.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Would it be your view, then, that the evidence requirements be lowered and that it become much less like an insurance hearing and more like what it's supposed to be, which is a liberal interpretation in favour of the veterans?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

I think the evidence requirements need to be looked at to see if they're actually too restrictive. That's why I raised the issue of the VRAB adjudicative guidelines, the application of the benefit of the doubt and how that's being applied, and the composition of the board. If you had more military experience on the board, with people who understood current operations, maybe the evidence requirements would not have to be so stringent.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

The composition does seem a little light on the military side. Four people out of the 24 seems awfully peculiar.

4:05 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

There are six board members with military and RCMP experience—five with military experience and one with RCMP experience.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

The RCMP is a different function, but let's put that aside for the time being.

The other thing I don't understand is that of the appeals to the Federal Court, more than half are kicked back. I've had some experience with the Federal Court, and I don't think the percentage is anywhere as close in any other review process.

Again, what is your explanation for the Federal Court sending decisions back?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

The Veterans Ombudsman, in his report, was very clear about some of the issues. When they go back to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, they're not necessarily overturning the decisions; they're sending them back to the board to have them reheard, because there may have been legal issues relating to those decisions.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

The ombudsman also says,

In applying the guidelines established for this review, the Ombudsman found that all the letters examined failed a test of adequacy in the reasons given for the decisions.

In other words, the reasons were nonsense.

4:05 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

I agree.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

What kind of an operation is this? The reasons were nonsense. No wonder they won't publish them: they'd be ripped to shreds by any competent lawyer.

Am I missing something? I'm new to this committee, but I'm looking at this and I'm thinking, my goodness, this is outrageous.