Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen members of the Committee.
I would like to make a few remarks before we get to a question period.
Since the inception of the Canadian disability pension system at the end of World War I, a constant feature has been the existence of an independent appeal mechanism so that soldiers and their dependants who were dissatisfied with the disposition of their claim can appeal.
The Veterans Review and Appeal Board fulfills that function today. The board and its function is sometimes greatly misunderstood.
I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Board's mandate and clarify its role in the disability compensation process. I will focus my remarks on a few subjects that are of key importance to the Board and of interest to the Committee.
As you know, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and we operate at arm's length from the minister and report directly to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
One of our greatest challenges is breaking the misconception that we are part of the department. Let me be perfectly clear that veterans who come before the board can count on a completely independent review of their disability claims. We do not write the legislation, nor do we develop the programs. We are focused entirely on providing an independent redress system to ensure that veterans are treated fairly and receive the compensation benefits to which they are entitled under the law. It is no small job.
In 2005-06 the board adjudicated 6,594 claims on reviews and appeals of claims of disability pensions under the Pension Act, and a handful of final appeals on war veterans allowances cases under the War Veterans Allowance Act. In 2006-07 the board expects to be rendering decisions on claims for disability awards under the new Canadian Forces Veterans and Members Re-establishment and Compensation Act.
We carry out this tremendous workload with a team of full-time board members who are split between our headquarters in Charlottetown and major cities across Canada. Our members are well supported by an experienced staff of 80 located in our Charlottetown headquarters.
As you know, the disability compensation decision process consists of three levels. The first level is on the application to the department for benefits and the subsequent decision is made by an adjudicator in head office, working from the files and documents submitted by the applicant. From time to time the board is the subject of public criticism because a veteran or a group of veterans did not receive a benefit they had sought.
I would like to point out to the committee that when the board issues a ruling, that ruling is based on whether or not the correct decision was made by the department. When you receive a negative board decision from an upset constituent about a board decision, please remember that this decision is not a decision based on rules made by the board, but instead it is a decision that reflects the fact that the board has found that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has properly applied the legislation created by Parliament.
For those who are not satisfied with the department's decision, there are the review and appeal levels, which are the sole responsibility of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The board provides the first and only opportunity for veterans to tell their story and explain their case before the people who will make the decision on their claim. This oral testimony, as well as the testimony of their witnesses, plays a critical role in providing the evidence that can result in the board varying the departmental decision.
In 2005-06, 58.7% of reviews resulted in a variation of the decision of the department. These days the vast majority of applicants appearing before the board are former or still-serving members of the Canadian Forces, followed by active service veterans, RCMP, and their survivors and dependants.
Having been a board member myself, I can speak firsthand of the demands board members face. The change in our applicant profile from the traditional war veteran to the younger Canadian Forces member presents new challenges for the board. The files are larger, and generally the more voluminous the file the more complex the arguments.
As well, with the introduction in April 2006 of the new Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and a new table of disabilities, the intricacies of the claims are expected to increase rather than diminish. Representatives and applicants have access to more information than ever.
Board members must remain abreast of new issues challenging the Canadian Forces and RCMP, advances in medicine and information constantly becoming available and presented at hearings. The direct consequence is that members require more time to hear and decide on a claim and the medical and legal issues are very often less straightforward than they were in past years.
Another criticism that the board frequently faces is that we are too formal, too court-like. As an administrative tribunal we make every attempt to operate as informally and as expeditiously as we can. In fact, our legislation tells us to do this.
In practice, this means that hearings are much less formal than in a court of law. However, our hearings are legal proceedings where applicants have the opportunity to be represented and make their case. The process is not adversarial, as there is no one at the hearing representing the other side; that is, presenting evidence that the applicant is not entitled to a disability compensation. The board members may question the applicant and representative to clarify issues. After all, if the issues were that clear, it is unlikely there would be an appeal.
Our hearings are not held in court rooms; they are in boardrooms and hotel facilities. Our members make every effort to make the applicants feel comfortable. They can appreciate how apprehensive applicants may feel about coming to their hearings and how matters of a personal nature may have to be addressed. For those applicants who would rather not appear, there are other options, such as proceeding by way of a written submission, or having their representative present their case in their absence. For those who are elderly or too sick to travel, we are pleased to accommodate their participation by telephone hearings.
In 2005-2006, the board held 887 review hearing days in 34 locations across Canada from Victoria to St. John's to allow applicants access to their hearing and to allow them to give testimony.
As mentioned earlier, the Board carries out two levels of appeal. Following the review level, if an applicant is still not in agreement with his or her decision, an appeal can be filed with the Board. I often encounter the misunderstanding that the same Members who heard a case at review may hear that case at appeal. That is not the case at all. It is spelled out clearly in the legislation that three new Members, who did not participate in the previous decision, will sit at the appeal level. The appeal hearing is an entirely new proceeding, new evidence can be presented, and each appeal is decided as if the case was being heard for the first time.
I sometimes hear the question, “Why can't claimants attend their appeal hearings?” In fact, appellants are welcome to attend, at their own expense, their appeal hearings. However, the legislation states that no oral evidence may be heard at appeal. Only documentary evidence and oral argument may be presented to the board.
Most appeal hearings are held in Charlottetown, and representatives are welcome to make arrangements via teleconference for their clients to listen to the proceedings, should they so desire.
I would like, for a moment, to direct my remarks at some of the rather unique aspects of the disability compensation system. For example, there are no time limits on any of the levels of redress. The board frequently receives appeals on decisions made up to 50 years ago.
Also, even though the VRAB Act states that a decision of an appeal panel is final and binding, there is an extraordinary provision that allows applicants to apply for a reconsideration of their decisions if they have new evidence, or if they can demonstrate that there was an error in law or fact in the appeal panel's decision.
The reconsideration is not another level of appeal. The claimant is simply asking the same panel to take another look at the decision based on the aforementioned reasons.
A complaint that I sometimes receive, as does the minister--and you may have heard it from your constituents--is that the board did not give the veteran the benefit of the doubt, as stipulated in legislation.
Adjudicating is not an easy job. The cases of the men and women who come before the board are often compelling. These men and women have served their country well and honourably in times of both war and peace. However, as a tribunal, we do not have the power to disregard or change the legislation. Members must decide appeals on the basis of the evidence available to them and the legislation as it stands.
The best interpretation of the “benefit of the doubt” can be found in Federal Court decisions such as Hall v. Attorney General of Canada. The decision reads:
While the applicant correctly asserts that uncontradicted evidence by him should be accepted unless a lack of credibility finding is made, and that every reasonable inference should be drawn, and any reasonable doubt resolved in his favour, he still has the obligation to demonstrate that the medical difficulty from which he now suffers arose out of or in connection with his military service; that is, the causal linkage must be established.
Everything is far from perfect in our system, and that is why we are always striving to improve our methods of operation. In the last few years we have undertaken a number of initiatives to improve service to applicants and to show Canadians that we are taking a fair, balanced, and serious approach to our responsibilities as the court of last resort in the veterans’ redress system.
As you know, a nationally advertised process inviting Canadians to make application for appointment to the board has been put in place. As well, in 2005 we conducted a client satisfaction survey with applicants who had received a decision from the board. The results have identified areas where we can improve our services, and we are in the process of developing an action plan to address those.
We recognize that applicants require more information about the process. We have been improving communications through fact sheets and our website, and we are developing a brochure that will provide appellants information on the review and appeal process.
We have also worked very hard to meet our service standard of issuing written decisions within 30 days of the hearing. This year, although our numbers are not yet final, we issued 90% of review decisions in 31.6 days and 90% of appeal decisions within 30 days after the hearing.
Most of our applicants are represented by lawyers who are independent from the board. Once we have been notified that the representative is ready to proceed to a hearing, we schedule the case for the applicants for as soon as possible.
You must remember that the time it takes for representatives and applicants to prepare their case is entirely out of our control. We monitor the age of claims and communicate frequently with representatives to ensure that cases do not stagnate in the system.
As I stated earlier, we know the system is not perfect but we are striving to improve it in areas where there are deficiencies. I am, however, proud of the work of the Board and I am thankful for the support given to this Board and its predecessors by the government, by Veterans' groups, and by the people of Canada.
I am also proud of the efforts made by the members of the board and the staff who support them. They are a sympathetic, dedicated, and motivated group of people. Sometimes we don't realize what a generous, open, and proud tradition of service we have in this country. We on the board realize what those who serve do for Canada, and we do the very best we can for them.
Thank you, gentlemen.
