Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

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

Not to give you a hard time, but of those 5,000 that have been rejected by the department, over 65% come back changed. With those 3,200, has your department identified where those problems are or why that is?

[Bernard Butler]

I wonder if I might weigh in on that issue, Mr. Lobb.

As in life, nothing is as simple as it appears on its face. As Rick has said, there are a few things to keep in mind. One is that these are legislative provisions whereby Parliament has said that these benefits are payable for service-related disability. If you look at that stark figure and say that of the 20,000 applications, 75% are favourable, and then you look at the balance, there's a lot of complexity within that. Of the ones that are favourable, other questions may arise out of those cases—

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

That leads me to my next question—

[Bernard Butler]

There may be issues around degrees of entitlement or there may be unhappiness. A veteran may say, “The department says I should get a 20% assessment for my bad knee, but I think it should be 25%.” He or she may then choose to appeal that ruling.

It's a process that's actually very generous. The design is to try to maximize the generosity, if you will—the fairness, or the liberal construction—to try to make sure that veterans do receive the benefits to which they are entitled, but when you have a system that's designed that way, you're always going to have folks who are able to do so trying to maximize it, which is what they should do.

On issues coming back to the department or clients coming back in, bear in mind that it's open enough so that if they have been turned down at the first decision but they have some new evidence, or if they didn't have enough evidence--maybe they didn't have a medical diagnosis--the system allows them to come back with an updated report. It opens the door to—

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

I have one last quick question.

Of the 46 adjudicators, does the department rank their outcomes in terms of approvals versus rejections? Is there a way that you rate them? They're going through so many hundred per year. Do you say, “Joe is rejecting 95%, while Sally down the hallway is approving 90%.” Is there a way to measure that?

[Rick Christopher]

We don't measure that.

Other than making sure that we're doing quality assurance and training, we do not interfere with the decision-making of the adjudicators. We do not put any pressure on them and say they have to average a certain number of approvals or rejections. We do not interfere in the decision-making process. We recognize that each case has its own merits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Christopher.

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to both of you. I'm sorry I had to step out.

Mr. Butler, I say this with great respect. You talked about the generosity of the program. In fairness, the generosity comes from the men and women who serve. It's their sacrifice and it is their families who give their generous lives to our country in order for us to do the things that we're able to do.

I think there are a lot of veterans—not necessarily in this room, but across the country—who would think that the service is not that generous. On the Agent Orange ex gratia payment, there are a few hundred thousand people, I think, who would question that. I just say that as a comment.

I do have one case for you that came up with me recently. I know that you can't talk about a specific case, but you can talk about the generalities of it.

I have a gentleman—Blair Davis is his name—from Nova Scotia who applied for a benefit because of bruxism. Bruxism, as you know, is the grinding of the teeth due to suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He was denied. He took his case to VRAB. He was denied. He took it again, and he won his case.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board actually agreed with him. The problem is that the legislation says there's no benefit for you. The officials at VRAB agreed with him that, yes, he now has bruxism. It's causing him a huge problem in his quality of life, but unfortunately the legislation says there's no benefit for him.

I'm wondering if you're aware of that. That's just one of many questions I could ask you about, but with the time I have, I can't. To me, this is a concern. Probably many other people have applied across the country.

Are you aware of that problem? Also, is there any possibility that we can change it to ensure that men and women who suffer from bruxism due to PTSD can actually get a benefit when they win their case through VRAB?

[Bernard Butler]

If I might, Mr. Stoffer, I'll thank you for the question. I do appreciate your correction on the issue. Once I said “generous”, I knew that it was poorly chosen, and I was thinking “flexible”. I appreciate the correction.

On the issue of bruxism, I'm certainly not aware of the particular case to which you refer, but I am aware that the issue around bruxism and the related issues around dental damage and so on have been an issue over the last while. I can tell you that I am aware of it and that we are looking at it to see what we can do.

As you know, with our treatment programs through our veterans health care regulations, for disabilities for which entitlement is awarded—meaning a pension service-related condition—then treatment associated with it falls under our treatment regulations. Sometimes the challenge becomes showing a direct link between the outcome and the condition.

I appreciate your raising it. We are sensitive to it and, from a policy point of view at least, we are looking at it.

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

Okay.

I have another question for you. It's indicated that 73% of initial applications are approved. How many of those are appealed? An example might be a person who gets 5% for hearing loss but feels he deserves 15%. How many of those 15,000 actually make it to an appeal?

[Rick Christopher]

It's difficult to tell by the year. We talked about some departmental reviews and how 68% were favourable. The issue we have is that we don't know from year to year which years they came from: they might be favourables and they came back. In 2011-2012, about 2,200 came back. Now, whether those were from the previous year or from years before, I don't know. I don't have that stat.

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

Than on roughly 20,000 you have claims, and 15,000 are approved. Of that 15,000, possibly 2,200 have come back for a possible review.

[Rick Christopher]

About 2,200 have come back for review. Now, whether they're—

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

Is that out of the 15,000?

[Rick Christopher]

It's out of the 20,000, because as Bernard was saying earlier, they were approved, but the applicant did not agree with the assessment.

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

Again, I'm just trying to figure this out. Of the 15,000 that are awarded initially, how many of those 15,000 actually appeal the decision they receive?

[Rick Christopher]

I don't have that number. I know that 2,200 come back, but as I said, some of those will be considered to be positive.

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

Is it possible in the future to have that sent to the committee?

[Rick Christopher]

Yes, we can provide that number.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Do you want that as a written answer?

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

Yes, please.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

If you can squeeze in a real fast one, you have—

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

No, I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are you okay?