Evidence of meeting #49 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

Guy Parent  Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Diane Guilmet-Harris  Legal Counsel, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Gary Walbourne  Director General, Operations, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
John D. Larlee  Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Kathleen Vent  Acting Director, Legal Services, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Karen Rowell  Director, Corporate Operations, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

It will take roughly 11 months, together.

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Operations, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you very much.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you, and we will go to Mr. Hayes for five minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Parent, it's really nice to be in your company. You had a distinguished military career. I see you are a retired chief warrant officer. That's nice. My father is also a retired chief warrant officer, so I know we're well represented up there.

This is a really well-done report. The recommendations are extremely comprehensive. I'm a new member to the committee so I'm learning a lot. I've taken the opportunity to go through this report. I'm also pleased that the law firm Borden Ladner was involved. I had some experience with them in my time as a municipal councillor. They're a highly reputable law firm, so I expect they did very, very good work to assist you.

We heard from one witness who suggested that if VRAB decisions were tracked so that the public could see how board members were ruling, this would increase the favourability rate.

Would you agree with that?

4:10 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

It's a good question. Again, I think what's important here is transparency. It's not about increasing favourability but about informing the board, other members, of previous decisions and how they were arrived at. Everything goes hand in hand. If we made recommendations as to how decisions should be published and how the evidence is used to arrive at a certain decision, this becomes a really important tool for everybody who is involved in the adjudication process, whether it's the applicant, the adjudicator, or members of the board. I don't know that it would increase the favourability rates, but it certainly would put people in a position to make better informed decisions.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Is there anything negative that you think could come from the record of a board member's decision being made public?

4:10 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

Not that we can see. Obviously, the cases are de-personalized—I guess that's the right word—so I can't see any, unless Diane has comments on that from a legal aspect.

4:10 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Diane Guilmet-Harris

From a legal perspective we need to balance the public interest to know about the cases with the privacy of the individuals, but the Privacy Commissioner has issued a series of guidelines to administrative tribunals in order to achieve that balance.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you.

In your opening comments today, sir, you commented on a couple of points, that decision-makers need to have all the information necessary to make decisions at the earliest point in the process. Again, you said that it's important to move things quickly, but it's more important to get things right from the beginning.

Can you elaborate on what point in the process people need information and what information you're finding is missing in the early part of the process that could actually be made better in terms of procedures?

4:10 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

That's a good point.

I referred to a report in my opening address from McInnes Cooper. It actually reviewed the adjudication process from start to finish. It found three reasons for the high favourability rate at the first review from VRAB. It had to do with the personal presence of the individual, but also with the fact that new evidence was brought about, and in some cases evidence that was already available at the adjudication but was not deemed important or relevant at the time and was not presented at the adjudication.

What we're saying here is that it might be worth—not the time, certainly, because time is of the essence in many cases—the effort to make sure that any evidence that is available at the adjudication process is actually presented there and then rather than during a later appeal process. I think that's an important aspect of it.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Again, I'm new to the committee. I'm getting the sense that VRAB has a reputation problem. I expect that we agree on that to some extent, but that's the message we're getting from the veterans.

In your opinion, how should VRAB go about repairing its public persona?

October 29th, 2012 / 4:15 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

That's a good question. I go back to the same key words: transparency and culture

The fact is it shouldn't be a secret the way the board operates, the way board members are selected, the way decisions are made and if they're published. When everything is transparent, there are no assumptions, and I think people would feel more comfortable with the system.

With respect to the culture itself, people should not feel like they are in a court of law defending a criminal act that they may or may not have committed. They're there to testify about something that has affected their lives and their families. There needs to be a culture, an attitude from the board, of respect and dignity that people are not there to defend themselves, that they're there to tell the board that they served, they were injured, and therefore they should be eligible for some benefits.

It's transparency and culture. The more we know about the board, its membership, its process, the easier it's going to be for people to accept and trust the board. I think that's important.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you, Mr. Parent.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you.

Now we'll go to our guest panellist for five minutes. Mr. Weston, it's nice to have you here today.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Parent, for being here today with your colleagues. As the chair indicated, I'm not a regular member of the committee, but I do appreciate a lot of the issues surrounding the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Not unlike other members of Parliament, I get a lot of inquiries from time to time with respect to decisions. I have a couple of questions for you today.

First, our government has launched several initiatives aimed at improving the decision-making process and the related appeals process for veterans. I understand that Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board are undertaking a plain language effort to make decision letters more clear to our veterans.

Do you believe this effort and a similar effort undertaken not only by our government but by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to use this plain language decision-making process is a positive initiative for our veterans?

4:15 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

That's a good question.

I'll start from why we did the Veterans Review and Appeal Board report, and why we did the first report, which had to do with the reasons for decisions. That actually covers the whole spectrum of adjudication from start to finish. As I said before, we'll be publishing a report on how people use the evidence and the process.

We can talk about board structure, about location, about a lot of different issues concerning the board, but the process is what's important.

The previous question from the member sitting next to you, that had to do with.... I'm losing my train of thought there.

The fact is that the information that should be there at the front should be looked at in its entirety rather than be put at the back, at the end of the process. All of these things are important. The process needs to be fluid and transparent. That's why we're working on that aspect of it.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Do you find that clarity is a big issue? That's what I'm asking about in terms of the plain language.

4:15 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Guy Parent

It's a big issue. In a sense, it's the key issue. You cannot access any benefits or programs in Veterans Affairs Canada unless you go through this application process. Definitely it's the key issue.

That's why I said we decided to do that in the second year of my mandate. The first year we did reconstructing, but the second year we decided to take on the application process. It's a huge issue. If that could be cleaned up and improved, of course, it's something that will need continuous improvement, not just a little tweak here and there. It will need to be consistently looked at and improved.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

You're saying that is a benefit, this initiative. It is a step in the right direction.

4:20 p.m.

Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Okay, thank you.

I want to follow up on what Mr. Casey asked you. He asked you a question and referred to something since your report. He talked about a specific case. Have any other new issues come up since your report with respect to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board that you think should be addressed?

4:20 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Diane Guilmet-Harris

I am the lead with respect to the follow-up report. What we're specifically looking at is to determine the extent to which the department, the tribunal, as well as the minister have actioned the recommendations that we've put forward in our report.

It's restricted to the original recommendations. We are not going outside of that. We're going to be looking at departmental as well as VRAB administrative policies and practices. We're going to take a sampling of approximately 50 VRAB decisions that would have been issued from June until December so that the tribunal and also the department have a sufficient timeframe to start implementing some of the recommendations.

We also will be updating the Federal Court decisions to see whether or not we're still seeing the same issues coming up. We'll also be looking to see whether there's any legislative or regulatory amendments since the announcement that the minister has accepted our recommendations.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I must say that it's a pleasure to be here on your committee today.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Well, it's nice to have you here. Thank you very much.

That will end round one. We have time in round two for one four-minute question from each side.

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen, please, for four minutes.