Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[Dale Sharkey]

With respect to the reconsiderations, I think when you look at the timeframes there, the chair referred to the fact that we were probably not working with a full board membership, and we were really trying to focus much of our effort on the very first level of review, where many applicants had not had a chance for any kind of redress, and our second priority came to the appeal. The reconsiderations were the last priority for us. So during that year it happened that we heard less. However, once we had more members and we had the time, we were able to recapture that backlog and were caught up. There's no backlog. And I think you'll see the numbers for this fiscal year will be very similar to what they are in the past history.

With respect to the increase in the reviews from 2004-05, we're referring again to that bubble of work that was moving through the system. So, naturally, the more first applications that are rendered there obviously would be more proportionate on favourables and then more individuals wishing to have redress at the first level. At the second level, when you look at the decrease, we talk about how there was a 25% increase in the volume of appeals, and I think, if anywhere, that's where representatives have some challenges in bringing forward many of the claims. As a result, we've seen a bit of a fallback there.

I can also say that from this year, when we talked about reducing our backlog in general, representatives put a great deal of effort into moving forward many of their review claims, and that certainly contributed to the 50% decrease there.

I know you're looking at me, puzzled with all these numbers.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

No, it wasn't puzzling at all. I was actually marvelling at your humility in not saying that this is the great expanded work of VRAB, but I know that's part of the attribution and I just commend you for your humility on that.

You've mentioned that the backlog has been cleaned up now. Could you tell me then, when do you call a file pending, and how old does it have to get before it moves into the area of being identified as backlogged?

[Dale Sharkey]

That's a challenging question, because in the first part of the process, whereby applicants come in and contact their representatives and wish to have their cases prepared, so many factors are not within the control of the representatives. It takes a long time to get a medical opinion. They may be trying to get archived documents.

In the past we were setting some standards around 120 days at review, where we would like to see the whole process from point of contact with the advocate to the hearing date, but in recent years there have been many more challenges. Seventy percent of applicants are from the Canadian Forces now and they're seeking opinions outside the military to justify their claims. As well, there have been huge improvements in obtaining their historical documentation, but even if they're still serving, sometimes that's a challenge. They're moving around and their files are moving around with them, so that first part of the process becomes challenging, but we certainly have great cooperation with the advocates.

Everyone realizes the most frustrating part for someone is waiting to have their claim heard, and we're all really trying to find ways to see if we can shrink that. As the chairman mentioned, one of our priorities this year is how we can work together and find more effective ways to hear them sooner.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

I don't know if the NDP wishes to contribute?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I can understand the question because I came in very late.

I'd just like to ask one very simple question of our guests, and that would be this. I've just heard you talk about the delays in claims being moved forward. Is that because of staffing problems and cutbacks?

[Victor Marchand]

No, it's a question of reorganizing our work. From the veteran's perspective, the veteran, rightfully so, sees the department as one entity, and when he files for an application he doesn't really think of BPA as the next step if he wants a review, as being something entirely different from the department, nor does he see VRAB as being something other than part of the portfolio. So I think the challenge is going to be for all for us within this portfolio to get together to work toward putting forward a much better, more efficient tracking and track of treatment of a veteran's claim. Whether that is upfront with the lawyers or with BPA afterwards, we have to get that track running just plain faster.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Now we will go over to the Conservative Party, Mr. Ron Cannan, for five minutes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests. You've presented a very informative and a positive and encouraging story to us this morning.

I just wanted to elaborate and to clean up a few points that have been mentioned and add a couple of additional ones.

Your presentation alluded to the review timeline of about seven and a half months and the appeal of about ten months. Do you see that timeline coming down now that you are at full capacity?

[Victor Marchand]

Yes, definitely, and we are going to pursue a working group with BPA to get those files moving.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Part of it is the decline in the appeals. Do you have any sense of why they have declined? Possibly the veterans are satisfied, or more satisfied now with the Veterans Affairs programs?

[Victor Marchand]

The favourability rate at the department is rising.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's very positive and encouraging.

On the provision you have for benefit of the doubt, as a couple of colleagues have mentioned, I represent Kelowna—Lake Country, in the interior of British Columbia, where we have a lot of seniors and a lot of veterans. Sitting down with them in my office and going through some of the stories...I had one specific appeal where you gave one-fifth. So sometimes on the benefit of the doubt you might only give a percentage of an award. Is that correct?

[Victor Marchand]

That's correct. Partial awards can be based on either aggravation--in other words, there was a pre-existing condition, so you can have a partial aggravation of a condition--or you can have a partial cause of a condition, and they're awarded in fifths. Full pension is five-fifths.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It's good to know it's not all or nothing; in other words, sometimes there's some compromise or reasonable benefit of the doubt.

With regard to your earlier comments in your presentation, you talked about how many people are going through your application and selection process. Maybe you could elaborate a little bit more on the benefit of this new process and how much more stringent it is.

[Victor Marchand]

In fact it is rigorous and transparent. I think both the applicants and the board are satisfied with the outcome. In other words, the quality or qualified nature of the applicants ending up in the pool is true. Those applicants who don't succeed initially can come back; they can reapply and provide better or more information. So even those who don't make it the first time can return or come back.

The end result is the objective, that is, having a pool of qualified candidates.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's excellent—open, honest, and transparent. That's what we're all about.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

Committee members, I notice that we seem to have exhausted our official speaking list, so unless anybody has something they wish to add at this point, we do have a motion to consider today.

I don't see anybody who wants to put their two cents in, so I would like to thank our witnesses very much for their presentations this morning by video conference. All the best.

I'm very impressed, by the way, that you've gone through the backlog, as alluded to by other committee members as well. That's good progress.

Thank you very much.

[Victor Marchand]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're on to the notice of motion from Mr. Shipley. I'll just read it into the record, and then probably allow Mr. Shipley to speak to it and start off things.

The motion is:

That the Committee on Veterans Affairs work with Veterans Affairs Canada to arrange a study tour of Canadian bases and their operations as part of our discussion on Health Care and the Veterans Independence Program.

That being said, I'm going to open it up and allow Mr. Shipley to speak first, because he's the originator of the motion.

A couple of people have mentioned that there may be some members of the committee who would wish to refer to last week's in camera discussion. I would say that if you want to refer to the decision, it is permissible within the procedures or rules regarding what can be referred to from in camera meetings. However, because it is a matter of national security, and if people are intent on making that trip, I would advise them to be judicious in their comments. And it is not permissible to refer to what was said by given members during that discussion, because it was in camera.

I have just prefaced that for whatever debate there will be.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, the motion I put forward is a follow-up to our last meeting in which we had discussions that focused around our veterans and some of the issues they face, either when they come back or sometimes when they come back and they have a concern about when they are being deployed, and then focused around our health care and our VIP, our veterans independence program.

The last discussion was around the motion on whether we would take a tour and have those witnesses and visits in Afghanistan. In my opinion, I believe, and it's why I put the motion forward, we have an opportunity here, because all of us, regardless of where we sit or what party we are on this committee, are concerned and want to get the feedback that we can from our veterans on some of the issues they face. They may be mental; they may be physical.

I believe we have an opportunity here that we should not avoid or miss, and that is, by visiting them from where they're deployed and from where they return, on our own soil, in Canada, by visiting our bases. I think that could be done. One of the most rewarding—and all of us acknowledged that last year, in our last term—was when we brought in families and we brought in members who came to our committee through formal...and then through an informal evening, where we actually sat down with them and talked. They talked to us about some of their issues. Their family members came in and they talked to us, and I think all of us agreed how valuable that was.

I think this is much closer to an extension of that type of service, where we could garner the information we need to fulfill and to move along quickly, quite honestly, with our health care and our veterans independence program.

That's why the motion is put forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, Mr. Shipley.

Now over to Mr. St. Denis, with Mrs. Hinton on deck.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bev raises an important and helpful issue, speaking for myself and maybe my colleagues, but they will speak for themselves.

This could be a helpful part of the review, and Mr. Marchand said in his testimony a little while ago that there are indeed two general categories of cases, those that come out of the domestic operations and those that come out of the international operations, if I could characterize it that way. So it certainly makes sense to have, at a minimum, those two separate points of view.

I see the committee's decision to take an international view of this. It fits nicely into having a view of the domestic side. I don't think we have to go to every base, every operation, just like we don't have to visit every overseas operation. So a reasonable sampling of both, I think, does make sense.

In fact, the travel could even be not tied together in terms of time, but linked in terms of it not being too far apart, so that we have binocular vision. So I don't see that we would object, but I don't want this to be seen as putting aside a decision to visit some overseas operations. I see this as a complement to that, and any planning for this should include both, as much as is reasonably possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Fair enough.

Now it's over to Mrs. Hinton, with Mr. Valley on deck.