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

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

When you're putting together your case or filling out your application in the initial scenario, the member of the military or the former member of the military, the veteran today, would have full access to his or her complete medical file from A to Z if they request it, right?

I'm assuming the adjudicator would also have full access to that file.

4:25 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

That's correct.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Then in the cases in which it's rejected because of a lack of supporting documents, it wouldn't be what's in the file, but what actually hasn't been assessed yet. Is that what you're seeing most of the time?

4:25 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

Yes, because there may be a medical report in the file that doesn't confirm a current diagnosis. For example, when they left the military, they didn't have osteoarthritis of the knees, but five years later, they do have a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knees, so they have to have the MRI report, or the X-ray report, or the medical opinion from the orthopedic surgeon that says they have it.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

That's a good point, because everybody who watches the news has noticed how many former NFL football players have suffered substantial head trauma 10 or 15 years down the road. Now there's a big enough number of cases that it's quite obvious what's occurring here.

How good is the data collection, both in DND and with Veterans Affairs, just with such examples as arthritis or shoulders that need to be replaced or hearing loss? Do you feel the data collection is suitable and acceptable, or is that another recommendation for what you'd like to see so that when you're trying to establish a benefit of the doubt and the burden of proof, you have a collection of sound data to back up what could be, in some cases, not enough evidence of a reported injury at the time when the member thought...?

4:30 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

Are you referring to military veteran health research and looking at the types of injuries that military members have during their service—

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Exactly, to further—

4:30 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

—and maintaining those database files?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

--help establish the benefit of the doubt. Do you think that is there now, or does it need to be enhanced?

4:30 p.m.

Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion

Andrea Siew

No, they're working on it. Just last year the military released a longitudinal health study, and they're working on that. They've done that in conjunction with Statistics Canada, looking at the Canadian population versus the military. It doesn't have everything and it's not complete. It was the first of its kind. It's a very good study, but it needs to be ongoing. There need to be resources on both the Canadian Forces side and the Veterans Affairs side, but that takes research.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you very much. Our time is up for this panel, so I want to thank you all very much for being here. I think you've added a lot to the study. I appreciate your being here.

We're going to break for a couple minutes while we change our witnesses.

Thank you.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Okay, folks, we are back in session.

I want to say, first of all, welcome, Mr. Ron Griffis. It's not the first time I've seen you. It's always good to see you again. I'd like to welcome as well Mr. Kovacs, who reminds me he's in my riding. He knows how to find me.

Ron Griffis is from the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping and Mr. Kovacs is from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. You know what the study's about. We welcome your participation and your knowledge in this matter.

Mr. Griffis, we'll start with you. You have 10 minutes, please.

October 15th, 2012 / 4:35 p.m.

Ronald Griffis National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping

Thank you, sir.

My name is Ron Griffis. I am the national president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting our organization here today to speak to the committee's interest with respect to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I have discussed these issues with our organization members, and we have arrived at a consensus, which is what I will be stating.

My background is military—initially infantry, and then military police, civilian police, and 22 years with the judiciary.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is a quasi-judicial organization that deals with issues pertaining to Canada's military and RCMP veterans and their requests for benefits. I understand the board has an entitlement of 29 hearing officers, and, in a letter dated September 2011 from Mr. Larlee, the chair of the VRAB, I'm informed there are 24 members. Half of them are based in cities across Canada, where they conduct hearings. I further understand one of the board members is on leave because of illness, and I respectfully suggest that he will not be reappointed when his contract expires.

An organization such as the VRAB must have the ongoing respect of all the participants. As in the military and the RCMP, respect for an organization is paramount. Lack of respect promotes disdain for an organization. I respectfully suggest that for an organization such as the VRAB and their officers to receive respect, they must be considered a truly independent board.

The appointment process for new members of the board may be considered reasonable under the circumstances. Their contract is for a set period. The reappointment process is another matter. I respectfully suggest that to secure reappointment to the board, a member must toe the line.

Part of the reappointment process is the satisfactory assessment of the board member by the chair of the board on the completion of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board member’s professional performance assessment. By any stretch of anyone's imagination, the member quasi-judicial officers who hear cases are not independent.

An understanding of the word “quasi-judicial” denotes or is related to powers and functions similar to those of a judge, such as those exercised by an arbitrator or administrative tribunal. How can an officer of the board be independent when their livelihood depends on the renewal of a contract that is dependent on a report that, in essence, reflects how the quasi-judicial officer performs his or her job?

Administrative tribunals must be free from an appearance of bias; that is, a reasonable person must conclude that an administrative decision-maker is sufficiently free of factors that could interfere with his or her ability to make impartial judgments, commonly known as a “reasonable apprehension of bias” test. This is derived from the natural justice principle, or the right to be judged impartially.

Independence is one important indicator of whether there is an appearance of bias in an administrative body. Although administrative independence is not required to be as strict as judicial independence, there are certain minimum requirements, such as security of tenure and an independent administrative control. However, administrative independence is not guaranteed under the Constitution and can be ousted by statutory language. Once a court has determined that there has been a reasonable apprehension of bias, the decision in question must be void, as there is no remedy for the damage created by the appearance of bias.

It is unheard of that a judicial officer or a quasi-judicial officer is rated as to the quantity and quality of his or her work. It is reasonable to assume that applications to the VRAB will be those of persons who have had life experiences and may have retired from their careers. At this stage of their lives and careers, it is not too much for successful applicants to expect a situation in which they will be comfortable in their employment and not have to be concerned about the reappointment process that may occur every two years or so. The reappointment process can, and will be, a distraction to the VRAB member.

It is respectfully suggested that members of the VRAB be appointed on a permanent basis, with retirement at 75 years of age. As a result of a permanent appointment, there would be a loyal and dedicated appointee who would do their best at all times to enhance the reputation of the VRAB and, by extension, of the ministry of Veterans Affairs. This type of appointment would also satisfy the veterans, as they would observe a quasi-judicial officer who is truly independent in his or her function.

Section 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act deals with the rules of evidence. If I may, I will read section 39:

In all proceedings under this Act, the Board shall (a) draw from all the circumstances of the case and all the evidence presented to it every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant or appellant; (b) accept any uncontradicted evidence presented to it by the applicant or appellant that it considers to be credible in the circumstances; and (c) resolve in favour of the applicant or appellant any doubt, in the weighing of evidence, as to whether the applicant or appellant has established a case.

I make reference to the rules of evidence, taking into consideration the accountability aspect of the VRAB. There is an accountability aspect to the VRAB that presently appears to be non-existent. For example, the hearing rooms are supposed to be open to the public. If I may, I will use in my example the hearing room located in Charlottetown, at Veterans Affairs headquarters. The public does not have access to this room, as per access to other hearing rooms located across Canada. People wishing to attend must identify themselves to the security official in the lobby, sign an entrance form, receive a visitor's badge, and then wait in the lobby until an escort arrives to be escorted to the hearing room that is under lock and key. If the person attending wishes to leave the hearing room for any purpose whatsoever, generally speaking they will not again gain access to the hearing room.

In the reach of procedural fairness rights chapter, chapter 8 of Mullan, Diana Morris indicates that:

Open courtrooms

—or hearing rooms, my words—

force the decision maker to be more careful and reflective in the ways they act and in the conclusions they reach because they are subject to public scrutiny and criticism.

At this time I again refer to a letter I received from Mr. Larlee, dated September 2011. He again states:

While our members are trained in assessing all kinds of evidence, they also have access to independent medical advice under the legislation.

I respectfully suggest that this statement tells me that the hearing officer had access to what might be called a “secret witness” who I cannot, as an appellant or applicant, examine or question. Because it is legislated doesn't make it fair and it doesn't make it just. It is just an affront to the veteran applicant and undermines the basic fundamentals of justice. It appears their decision is based on the hearsay evidence of a nameless and faceless person. How can a secret witness determine one man's fate? How would you like that?

To further quote Diana Morris:

Also, affected parties would be more likely to accept the outcome when they participate in hearings versus a decision being made in secret by a faceless and nameless person. Their participation in the decision-making process would involve being able to confront the actual decision-maker. This also contributes to the belief in participation in the democratic process.

How can we have an act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, that is not only unfair but grossly unfair to our most vulnerable and damaged citizens as a result of serving their country with pride and honour? How can this be allowed in 2012 in a country called Canada?

The mission statement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is flawed. It is, “To ensure fairness in Canada's programs for disability pensions and awards and War Veterans Allowances by providing fair and timely appeals for traditional Veterans, Canadian Forces members and Veterans, Royal Canadian Mounted Police applicants, qualified civilians and their families.”

The current process creates anger, distrust, frustration, and all of that is completely avoidable.

Would you want a nameless and faceless person to determine your fate? Neither would we. We are not asking for a handout; we are asking for fairness in the form of a fair and transparent process. Here is a golden opportunity to make that right.

It is suggested that on a regular basis, the hearing officers fail to apply the doctrine of giving the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. In failing to apply the benefit of the doubt to the veteran, the hearing officer suggests that various notes from medical practitioners, as well as verbal statements from the applicant, are not sufficient to satisfy the board, and therefore they conclude that a case has not been made out.

Going back to section 39, the act states categorically that the board shall—not “may”, but “shall”—accept any uncontradicted evidence presented to it by the applicant. In short, this is a must-do. For the board to state that they do not find the evidence credible in the circumstances is just plain not fair.

The appeal portion of the board must be addressed. When one seeks out the definition of the word “appeal” in the context of the VRAB, various dictionaries refer to a higher authority than the one that a decision is being appealed from. VRAB appeals are decided by people equal in status to those who made the original decision. Taking into consideration that there are only 24 members—and also one on sick leave—it is reasonable that they are friends and colleagues. The question that surfaces at this time is this: on what authority does my colleague of equal status have the right to overturn my decision? What gives him the right to say that I was wrong and he is right? Will friendship play a part in the decision? Will the pending completion of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board members' professional performance assessment play a part in the ultimate decision?

By the same token, if my assessment was poor and my re-engagement hangs in the balance, will this affect my judgment? If my assessment was perfect, will that affect my judgment? Who really knows the answers to such questions?

It is respectfully suggested that an appeal section be created within the board. The board should be staffed by senior long-term members who, by reason of their new appointment to this section, are a step above the regular members, with the appropriate remuneration increase. Their appointment documentation would give them the authority to conduct appeal hearings.

In conclusion, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you, Mr. Griffis.

Now we'll turn to Mr. Kovacs.

4:50 p.m.

Jerry Kovacs Member, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, veterans, good afternoon. My name is Jerry Kovacs.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for inviting the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans association to this meeting this afternoon to discuss the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Our position, shared by others, is that systemic and decision-making problems at this administrative tribunal are having negative emotional, physical, and financial impacts on veterans and their families.

I represent Mr. George Beaulieu, our president, and I speak on behalf of the executive and members of ANAVETS. I am substituting for Mr. Lorne McCartney, our Dominion Command secretary-treasurer.

ANAVETS was formed in 1840, 172 years ago. Our organization is older than Canada. A royal proclamation signed by Queen Victoria created our first unit in Montreal. The original members of ANAVETS served in the War of 1812, in Wellington’s army, and in the royal navy of the Napoleonic Wars. ANAVETS was incorporated by a special act of Parliament in 1917.

Our 20th century members served in South Africa, World Wars I and II, Korea, and in NATO campaigns, such as that in the former Yugoslavia. In the 21st century, our members have served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and peacekeeping missions worldwide.

Presently, although we're smaller than the Royal Canadian Legion, at 15,000 members we are located across the country in seven provinces under seven commands in 68 units.

ANAVETS is a non-partisan organization. Our motto is “Shoulder to Shoulder”. Our members stand shoulder to shoulder in serving their communities, promoting camaraderie, and advancing advocacy issues on behalf of veterans across Canada. Safeguarding and promoting the rights and benefits that veterans have earned and deserve working for Canadians at home and overseas is an important part of our job.

That’s the big picture.

Now permit me to address today’s subject. Why are we here? Our focus today is on the role, responsibilities, and performance of VRAB with respect to serving veterans.

One of our major concerns is the treatment of military personnel who, while on duty, have suffered physical, psychological, and emotional injuries. We believe that the Canadian government has a duty and an obligation to provide the best possible care and support for those injured in the line of duty. VRAB plays an important role in ensuring that injured veterans are treated fairly with regard to their appeals for benefits that have been reduced or denied by Veterans Affairs Canada.

What are the issues? They are numerous.

One is the performance of VRAB. Another concerns appeals of VRAB decisions where not enough information is provided to appellants, where appellants need to know but do not know why their applications have failed, and where appellants should know where adjudicators erred in decision-making.

Third is a review of Federal Court decisions.

Number four is the length and cost of the process to veterans. Anybody who appeals a decision in court has to go through a lengthy process that costs them money and that is sometimes very emotional. It takes up to a year for VRAB decisions and up to three years for appeals to the Federal Court. Veterans can pay as much as $40,000 out of their pocket to appeal their case, because they have to hire a lawyer.

Number five deals with the reasons for the process. Adjudicators should adhere to the legislation, as has already been mentioned by our comrades from the Royal Canadian Legion here. The process should involve a liberal interpretation of the legislation that favours veterans and ensures that the benefit of the doubt is always in favour of veterans.

Number six is the publication of VRAB decisions, which encourages transparency.

Number seven is a review of processes and service standards. That has been discussed.

Number eight involves retroactively compensating veterans at the end of a lengthy appeal process.

Number nine has already been mentioned: veterans representation on VRAB.

Where have these issues been discussed? It is right here, in the Veterans Ombudsman's report dated March 2012: “Veterans' Right to Fair Adjudication”. The work has been done for you, ladies and gentlemen.

What are the recommendations? Quite simply, they're found on page 20. There are seven of them. I'm sure that our good friend Mr. Guy Parent has sent your offices a copy of them. It's a comprehensive report. He even hired lawyers from Ottawa to conduct an objective review of VRAB decisions that have been appealed to the Federal Court.

I'm going to take 10 minutes to say something very simple here. I feel embarrassed.

ANAVETS agrees entirely with these recommendations, which you undoubtedly have had a chance to read during the past six months. We wish to make a number of additional recommendations that reiterate and support those contained in the Veterans Ombudsman's report.

With all due respect to our colleague Mr. Stoffer, we do not believe that VRAB should be abolished. It is a higher quasi-judicial authority that, if it functions properly and effectively, ensures that veterans receive a fair shake.

The same as in the courts, the same as in a civil or criminal court, when judges make good decisions at the lower level, there is less chance of an appeal to a higher level. The same thing applies at the departmental level: good decisions in the Department of Veterans Affairs should result in fewer appeals to VRAB.

VRAB must focus on its purpose and objectives and adhere to its legislative mandate. You've heard numerous references made to the sections of the act that apply; VRAB needs to meet its mandate and meet the same legal requirements as other quasi-judicial administrative tribunals that serve Canadians.

We also believe that a veteran should be on every VRAB panel. I conducted my assessment from the VRAB website, and I looked at the 24 members. Oh, my gosh, what a surprise; quelle surprise. There are seven lawyers, two nurses, two teachers, and no psychologists or psychiatrists, no social workers, no court case workers, no paralegals, no law professors, and no families of veterans. There are lawyers, civil servants, former Conservative politicians, tribunal members, a couple of teachers, and some political advisers and assistants, although it doesn't say for whom they were advisers.

VRAB decisions should be available online to the general public for increased transparency. We do this in our court system. Anybody can walk into a courtroom on Elgin Street or into the Supreme Court of Canada or the Federal Court and observe. Increasing transparency and accessibility should result in better decisions, as was already mentioned.

Appellants must know the reasons for the decisions. They must know how to prepare their cases, what documents are required, and how others are treated in similar situations.

We've heard a little bit about this next point already. We've been pushing VRAB to publish its decisions on its website, and there are some very good reasons that it doesn't want to. VRAB has published 19 decisions on its website this year, because they say that the cost of publishing decisions would be $2 million to $3 million.

Okay. There is an alternative called the Canadian Legal Information Institute, which is funded by the law societies across Canada. They publish legal decisions on their website for free, or my favourite word en français, gratuit. To date, CanLII, for free, has published 189 VRAB decisions on their website.

Therefore any concerns that VRAB has about the cost of publishing decisions are mitigated by the fact that there are some law societies across Canada, CanLII, who are willing to publish all of them—all of them—for free. What a sweet deal. For any of you who are in business, if somebody came to you and offered to do something for you for free to enhance the nature or quality of your business, would you say no?

Our opinion is this: your job is very easy here. Monsieur Guy Parent, the Veterans Ombudsman, has done the work. He's made seven recommendations and conducted an in-depth study of appeals to the Federal Court. All you have to do is say, “Monsieur Parent, thank you very much for all the work you've done on behalf of veterans” and accept his recommendations.

In closing, I'd like to ask a few rhetorical questions.

In 1998, almost 15 years ago, the Auditor General of Canada brought to the attention of the Government of Canada systemic problems at Veterans Affairs. Since then there have been ombudsmans' reports, stakeholder meetings, Veterans Affairs committee meetings, a veterans bill of rights, a new Veterans Charter, and numerous lawsuits, and appeals started by veterans who were denied rights and benefits entitled to them by law.

Why do you need to invite representatives from veterans organizations to your committee meetings to tell you what you already know? Why do you need to invite bureaucrats from the department to fly here from Charlottetown, at taxpayers' expense, to tell you there are problems that you already know about? Why do you need to invite VRAB management to come to Ottawa, when they know what needs to be done but cannot provide you with the information or statistics to prove they are solving problems when you asked them two weeks ago today? Why do individuals such as the Veterans Ombudsman and veterans groups such as ours, who are continually sending email messages and letters and making phone calls to VRAB, need to bring to their attention, and now to yours, systemic problems that everyone is aware of? Why do veterans need to engage in long—years' long—expensive, protracted lawsuits against the Government of Canada to obtain financial awards and benefits to which they are entitled by law? Why, why, why do we need to push and pressure civil servants, who are supposedly working for Canadians and who know their job descriptions and what is going on in their department or tribunal, who are paid to do the right thing—why do we need to tell them? Why is it so hard to do the right thing for veterans and their families?

We are all here, I hope, to serve the best interests of veterans, people who have made significant contributions to Canada and Canadians. Our response should not be to engage in administrative appeals and litigation that involves winning or losing. This is not about winning or losing. Our response should be supporting veterans—all of them, all of the time.

Sometimes I tell people that for many veterans the real war starts when they return to Canada and have to fight their government for disability benefits they are legally entitled to receive. Serving Canada by fighting enemy forces and insurgents overseas in the defence of the freedoms and values we cherish is honourable; coming home and being forced by your government to fight Canadian government lawyers is disgraceful.

In conclusion, we want to know why. You should be asking the same questions: Why has VRAB not been implementing all of the Veterans Ombudsman's recommendations? What does it take for Canadians working at Veterans Affairs Canada and VRAB to get things done and do things for veterans every day?

During an era of federal budget cuts that negatively affect veterans, why is it necessary to force veterans into a position in which they must hire expensive lawyers at the appellate level to fight their government for services and benefits that they are legally entitled to receive?

We are all sitting here around this table, shoulder to shoulder, as Canadians who care about our country and about how veterans are treated. Let’s all work together to ensure that the legal obligations to deliver services and benefits to veterans become a reality.

Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you very much to both presenters.

I will point out that both were very extensive and went quite a bit over the time we expected. I'm going to limit the questioners to four minutes, and we will try to get through one round, with a choice at the end of the meeting as to whether to extend the meeting by a few minutes or to stop when we reach the end of the time.

I'm going to start with Mr. Stoffer. You have four minutes.

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both very much for coming.

Ron, thank you very much for your eloquent example of what is going on. You are right; I don't believe that other gentleman will be reappointed when he applies again.

Mr. Kovacs, thank you very much.

You will notice that the veterans bill of rights does not include an article that says you have a right to have your decisions made in a timely manner. I remember that when the bill of rights came forward I suggested this to the government of the day, but I wasn't successful in getting it in there.

Mr. Kovacs, you're right, and Ron and the previous presenter are right, that it could take years for a process to get through to the VRAB. Let me give you an example.

John Doe calls up 1-866-522-2122. He is a veteran. He calls in and says, “I have a problem.” Why can't the person on the phone—hopefully they are not Service Canada or Quantum, a private agency handling calls for DVA now—send someone to that individual's home to say, “Sir, if you are making an application for a benefit, here's what you have to have in order to possibly be successful” and describe all the medical files, all the documented papers, and all of that right from the very beginning.

That doesn't happen. That person has to go through a string of assistants, either through their veterans' organization or BPA or some other group. As you know, many of them don't even pursue it; they just give it up. If they are denied the first time, they just stop.

Is there not a way we can make it much simpler, when the veteran makes the initial call to 1-866-522-2122, to ensure that the person on the phone then says, long before the initial application, “We're going to sit down with you. We're going to help you right from the very beginning to access all the programs and services you need, and we believe that you should have this and this document and that document when you make your initial application”?

Is it not possible to do that, to make it much faster for the veteran, RCMP member, or family member when it comes to applying for a benefit? The status quo just seems to take far too long.

5:05 p.m.

National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping

Ronald Griffis

Yes, there is way to do it, if people want to do it or want to implement it. It's not rocket science. Just about anybody—I myself, or some other veterans' organization—could assist. We can sign a document of confidentiality and, for no money whatsoever, go to see the veteran in our community or within so many kilometres or miles and do this, or if VAC wants to deal with it themselves, that's possible too.

Yes, it is possible, and it's reasonable under the circumstances. It can be done.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Kovacs, thank you for bringing the CanLII point forward. They mentioned this to the VRAB board here the other day. They had a concern about the translation of decisions and making sure they were in French and in English. They said they could work on that problem.

I agree with you. When you can get something for free and have all the decisions online, that may be very helpful for all decision-makers and for people in the future. Thank you for raising the issue.

That's my time.

5:10 p.m.

Member, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada

Jerry Kovacs

Let me address the second one first.

CanLII is a private organization, so it's not bound by the Official Languages Act.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

No, but the decisions are published.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Mr. Kovacs, you're going to have to be fairly brief, please, because we are caught for time here.

5:10 p.m.

Member, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada

Jerry Kovacs

CanLII can do it. If you go to their website, there is a list of federal government agencies and tribunals for which they publish decisions in English, French, or both. There are a number of them.

Second, your idea for a checklist is excellent. When I practised law and when a client came into my office and wanted a will or a real estate transaction or anything done, we had a checklist. It took down basic information and it included a list of documents and asked if the person had all these documents.

It was very easy to do a checklist. Many lawyers use checklists.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you, Mr. Kovacs.

Ms. Adams, you have four minutes, please.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Thanks very much to both of you gentlemen for appearing here today.

Mr. Griffis, my first questions are to you, sir. While the name of your organization doesn't reflect it, in addition to representing members of the Canadian armed forces, you also represent members of the RCMP.