Certainly. That's a good question.
I mentioned a bit of it in my opening address. Basically, in the first recommendation we said that as a measure of performance the board was using the percentage of decisions returned from the Federal Court. I agree with you that 100% is a target. Certainly we put these targets out there and they are almost impossible to reach, but the point on that one is that over the period of time in both cases that went to Federal Court they came back for the same reason. What was important there were the common denominators. We certainly would be looking in future to make sure that any decisions returned to the board eliminate some of those common denominators so they are not returned for the same reasons over a period of years, and so that there is a lesson learned from the court judgment so that the board in the future looks at these types of common factors. That was one of the important ones.
The second one had to do with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the board working together when a decision is returned from the Federal Court, to make sure if there are any changes that need to be made in the process, or in giving the Federal Court cases priority in reviewing, so that people who have been waiting for four or five years already don't again encounter a lengthy delay.
The third recommendation, which is based on the first report we published in the ombudsman's office, has to do with the reasons for decisions. There must be clear transparency. The individual who applied for benefits must know exactly what evidence was used by the board to arrive at the decision at which the board arrived. That is very important. In fact, we have an upcoming report that will be out in two months or so that has to do with the use of evidence by the department, so it will certainly address the heart of that recommendation.
The fourth one had to do with the publishing of the decisions. Again I go back to my point on cases of interest, that when they're defined by the board as cases of interest, they're not quite what we intended. We intended for transparency's sake that all decisions, as other tribunals do in Canada in a quasi-judicial tribunal, should be published for everybody to benefit.
The fifth recommendation had to do with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates representing clients in Federal Court. Again, this is because they have been representing clients from the department review to the veterans review process, to the veterans appeal process, and in many cases they brief pro bono lawyers as to the particulars of the case. There is a certain bond that is created between a pension advocate and a client, so that would be comfortable for the client as well.
The sixth recommendation had to do with service standards. We talked about that already.
The seventh recommendation had to do with retroactivity. In some cases retroactivity is applicable to the date of application, where in other cases it's applicable to the date of the decision. We think there is an unfairness issue there that needs to be looked at.