Veterans Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2023

[Christopher McNeil]

The majority of our cases are reviews, and that's a panel of two people. That's the majority. Our appeals have been dropping significantly over the last three years for a lot of reasons, but the majority of our work is with two people.

I should say that post-COVID one of the advantages for veterans is they have the choice, so we are seeing a lot more virtual hearings. We are having less of the in-person hearings post-COVID. We don't know what that number is going to be when it settles, but it is settling.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I want to bring Mr. Woodman in on this.

One thing we recommended in the December 2012 report is that veterans who decide to proceed to the Federal Court for judicial appeal have representation from the bureau.

Has that happened?

[Steven Woodman]

No, it hasn't.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Has it been looked at?

[Steven Woodman]

It's been considered, I believe.

The major issue at this point is that there aren't many cases that actually go to the Federal Court. The change, if you will, in the approach of the board to many of the issues that would otherwise have gone in years past to the Federal Court is partly an explanation for that. Most of the cases that go are almost always represented by lawyers pro bono, and that has been fairly successful in addressing some of the issues that have arisen.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

I now turn the floor over to the second vice-chair of the committee.

Mr. Desilets, you have six minutes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bouchard, your president mentioned that if no real procedural changes are made, these additional resources—I assume he was talking about the $6 million—will not, in themselves, eliminate the backlog. So I'm still wondering what the solution is, but I'm also wondering if there has always been a backlog.

[Jacques Bouchard]

The simple answer is yes. There's always been a backlog, but unfortunately, it's been longer than it used to be lately.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

During my first term, I attended three or four board hearings. I find that very difficult for these people. I don't think it's your fault, but it's pretty hard from a human perspective. People sometimes have a hard time expressing themselves, they are poor people who may have psychological problems. It's sad to see that these individuals are ill equipped.

It may be a coincidence, but none of the four cases I attended were heard or led to a decision. In each case, the file was referred to the requester on the grounds that a document or a photocopy was unreadable, that an examination had to be redone, or for some other reason of that kind.

I'll go back to my question. You talked about the $6 million, but you seemed to want to implement procedural changes. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I understood. Can you talk a little bit about what these procedural changes might entail?

[Jacques Bouchard]

As I mentioned, we've simplified some of the processes over the past three years. We're now piloting a new process for early resolution of cases where the issue in dispute is fairly narrow. We'll define what that looks like in the next few weeks. We've conducted a pilot project for this, with five cases, and we will be doing another one in August with five others. We should be able to give you more information after that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

When you were talking about procedure, you were talking about a more efficient way to meet the demand. I imagine there must be other cases of paratroopers breaking their knees or people with hearing problems. I get the impression that it almost becomes automatic after a certain number of years. There must be other identified or identifiable cases that could be dealt with more quickly.

[Christopher McNeil]

You could do a probability study to say that, in certain types of cases, certain factors apply. The ones we see the most are hearing loss and tinnitus. I've spoken to this committee before about how I believe this creates the greatest route to do some process that would be shorter on the front end. That's partly because we interpret the VAC policy and guidelines more favourably, so we have a very succinct process, as Jacques said. Last year, we did about 1,000 of those cases in three months.

Our mistake in the past has been—if I can talk about mistakes—in creating processes where we could hear more cases. We improved the hearing thing, but what we didn't do was reduce the time at the front end that staff does and reduce the time at the back end. We are now trying to make the whole thing...reduce this amount of work here and reduce the amount at the back end, which, in the end, reduces the burden on veterans.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodman, you alluded earlier to the fact that Canada—it always feels strange to say this—is one of the only places in the world where a board like this exists. Is that what you said?

[Steven Woodman]

No. I wasn't talking about the board. I meant lawyers like us who provide legal aid to veterans.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

How does it work elsewhere?

[Steven Woodman]

In Australia, for example, people have no right to counsel. Only here do people have the right to legal advice.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay, I see.

The issue we're seeing today is that you're unable to meet the deadlines you set for yourselves for claims, whether it's the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, Veterans Affairs Canada or elsewhere.

Did you rely on conclusive studies carried out elsewhere by countries that may have achieved better results than we have? I imagine you will answer yes.

[Steven Woodman]

We didn't, no. Obviously, our job, or our lot if you will, is to represent veterans and be their voice. At the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, we need to know how to do our job properly. If the government changed its approach, we would obviously change how we do our job, but for now, that's how we do our job.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You could also say “if the government changed”, period.

In closing, I'd just like to say that a few months ago I called on Mr. Bouchard's services to get some figures. I received an answer very quickly and the figures were disconcertingly clear.

I'm also grateful to all three of you for answering the questions. It's always difficult to get answers at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desilets.

Now, I'm pleased to give the floor to Ms. Rachel Blaney for six minutes, please.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for being here today. I always enjoy hearing from you.

Mr. Casey asked you a question about statistics and numbers. Could you formally send that to the committee? I would really appreciate that.

My first question is for Mr. McNeil.

I'm trying to understand the process here. When the VRAB makes decisions that are different from the VAC decisions, how does that work in terms of interpreting or changing policy?

To clarify, I understand that VRAB has a more favourable outcome—I think is what you said—for tinnitus claims than VAC. When that happens, it may not seem fair to all veterans. I'm wondering how you work with VAC to balance that. Does that happen?

[Christopher McNeil]

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board and VAC don't work together, per se, to say what their policies are, because we have to sit in judgment of their policies. I assume they have a process internally that looks at our decisions over time.

I've had the advantage of meeting regularly with the deputy minister to talk about cases. For example, we've met a couple of times on hearing loss and tinnitus. The board interprets the VAC policy much more generously than VAC does, so we're seeing an influx of those cases. We obviously reach out to VAC and say, “If we're going to get here at the same time, then maybe there's a way we can do this.”

Yes, it's like how the Federal Court makes a decision and the board has to reflect on what it's doing in respect of that. Well, we are the tribunal, and I assume that VAC has a process to stay atop of those decisions.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that. I'll have to look into that.

You also mentioned in your discussion with us—correct me if I'm wrong—that you saw a 30% increase in cases coming to the board. I'm wondering, with that increase, whether you are seeing a particular pattern.

[Christopher McNeil]

There are a couple of things with regard to our increase. One is that we have a lot of hearing loss and tinnitus cases. That's why we've done that.

There are the cases of the backlog, but there are two effects of the backlog on the board. One is that when you bust the backlog, some of those flow down. The initiatives that VAC has taken on those cases with a more favourable policy on partial entitlement or around MST.... Those cases then create a boomerang effect. People who were denied under the old policy are coming back to say that they now want to be treated, and those cases come back.

Those are the two real...of what's driving us. We expect that the backlog bubble will go away at some point. We will deal with that bubble, and we will come back to a normal number, to what we usually have. However, those are primarily.... We're being driven.... Fifty per cent of our cases.... I think that last year 40% of our cases were hearing loss and tinnitus.