Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay, here is my next question. If Mr. Chicoine wanted to see my results because he had a friend who had a similar case, and he wanted them in French, what would happen?

[Karen Rowell]

If we got a request like that, for a decision to be used in another case, it would have to be de-personalized.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

[Karen Rowell]

Again, we're protecting veterans' personal—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The way I look at it is, if there are 5,000 cases a year, what would stop somebody from issuing 5,000 requests a year to see all the cases translated?

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Karen Rowell]

I understand.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

You are obligated to publish them in both official languages.

[Karen Rowell]

We are required to do so, yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Right. Therefore, I'm not sure why there's a hindrance. I'm not sure why that is such a stumbling block to the publication of these results.

[Karen Rowell]

As Mr. Larlee mentioned, the challenge for us is the cost associated with it. It would amount to one-third of our budget.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

What would happen if Mr. Chicoine asked for 3,500 results to be translated into French? Where would you get the money from?

[Karen Rowell]

I don't know is the short answer. We wouldn't have the money today to do that.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

But you're obligated under the language laws to do it.

[Karen Rowell]

That's correct.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay. Mr. Lobb, I'm going to read the blues on this to make sure I understood what took place.

Thank you for that. You have left time for Mr. Stoffer to ask a question.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for coming.

Mr. Larlee, I say this in fairness to you, I don't think it's probable that in two minutes you could reply to Mr. Leduc's testimony, that we had the other day and which you said earlier you had listened to.

He said on three separate occasions that the board management and staff “interfered with our independence as decision-makers”. He was told by James MacPhee, the deputy chair, “Remember, you don't have to award.” He said, “It's obvious that we're being intimidated.” He also said that the culture of interference is so obvious that board management, their legal and QA units also pressure members through memos to second-guess favourable decisions while typically sending unfavourable ones through without scrutiny.

The board is aware of a process redesign, he said. He indicated that unfortunately, it will provide an opportunity for greater interference because the cases will be analyzed and potentially determined by our legal and QA units before the hearings.

I don't think it's fair to suppose that you could possibly reply to all of that in a minute, and so I wonder whether it would be possible, at your convenience, for your board to send us a written reply to Mr. Leduc's testimony, because it was not favourable to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board in that regard.

I have another question and I'll provide an example. Ken Whitehead from Dartmouth has 3,660 hours of flight time on a Sea King as a navigator and 4,000 hours of flight vibration testing. He had former lieutenant-commander Dr. Heather MacKinnon, a flight surgeon for over 20 years, give him the medical analysis. I know you can't remark on a specific case, but the VRAB decision on that said first of all that he was a navigator on a ship. That was wrong. He was a navigator on helicopters. Second, they said that Dr. Heather MacKinnon's evidence was not credible enough. This was in August of this year.

Is it any wonder that people like me who represent veterans get so upset when we hear those deliberate or non-deliberate mistakes, which affect the life of a veteran? He's one of many whom we deal with on a regular basis.

I've done that testimony, and your board has the decision before you, so if it's at all possible, could you write to us to explain how a decision of that nature can be such a major mistake? Someone said he was a navigator on a ship, which we wasn't, and that the medical evidence of retired lieutenant-commander Dr. Heather MacKinnon, one of the finest people in the country, wasn't credible enough. How do you think she feels when she reads that?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Larlee, he's given you the option to write back after you've thought about his very subtle questions. I'm sure you want a chance to reflect on them.

I would like to say before we break that on Wednesday we'll be doing instructions on the VRAB study. I should point out that our analyst is ill and may be away for some time. Therefore, we're going to have with us, excited and ready to go, Mr. Martin Auger. He'll need the instructions put very carefully.

Wednesday's meeting will be spent basically dealing with that issue, plus some other budget business and so on.

Ms. Adams.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, we had some informal discussions earlier. Would it be appropriate to send a note or some token of appreciation on behalf of the committee to our hard-working researcher as he struggles with this illness?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

—or send him a bottle of something, or whatever.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I thought more of flowers, but a bottle of orange juice?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're checking, yes. We appreciate that suggestion. We'll make note of it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Maybe a box of NeoCitran.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Larlee and staff, I want to thank you very much for coming back to a rather shortened session.

If you could write back on the requests as you see fit, it would be appreciated.

If there's nothing else for the good of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses and I want to thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned.