Veterans Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2010

[John D. Larlee]

Our approval rate is 59%, review, and 36% on appeal.

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

Okay, so it's 59% at the first level.

[John D. Larlee]

That's to the end of February. It's not a complete fiscal year.

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

Right.

So 59% of that 5,000, when it came to you, you folks looked at the information, and then approved it. Am I correct?

[John D. Larlee]

That's correct. They were successful.

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

What that tells me, then, is that the people initially who received the claim said no, went to you, and you eventually said yes. My question is why can't the folks who initially get it make that initial approval?

What you're doing in many cases is this. The front line people are saying, “No, we can't do this. I don't have the authority to make this decision. No, it has to go to Charlottetown for review and appeal.” And 59% of the cases are correct, so my question--and I'm thinking this for my Conservative counterparts, who like to reduce the size of government--is why can't those folks who initially get it make that initial approval on their own?

I speak to a lot of front line folks, and they're told they only have a certain level of responsibility that they can authorize. After that it has to go to a higher level. I'm thinking it drags out the process. I have a lot of older fellows, and they're being told this can take weeks, months, and in some cases a couple of years before you're finally heard out.

That's my first question.

Second, you provide legal expertise. I know most of these really great fellows and ladies across the country who provide legal assistance for veterans. My question to you is this. If a veteran wishes to seek legal advice outside of the DVA-appointed legal advisers, why wouldn't they be allowed to do that?

[John D. Larlee]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to answer Mr. Stoffer's second question first.

The Bureau of Pensions Advocates is a ministerial matter. That group of lawyers would come under the minister in veterans affairs, and we're separate and independent. So I think your question probably is not something that I can answer.

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

Okay, that's fair. Thank you.

And the first one?

[John D. Larlee]

On the first one with respect to the percentages, I also have to underline that when we talk about approval rates, the clients, the veterans, RCMP and Canadian Forces serving members, when they apply under the Pension Act or under the new veterans charter to the department and they receive a decision, they may have been approved, when it comes to us, for entitlement, but are not satisfied with the assessment. So when we increase that assessment from 5% to 15% or 20%, that is recorded in those percentages. That's a favourable decision--of course it's a favourable decision--but that does things with the amount of cases that come before....

So they're not all necessarily immediately turned away at the first level, which is the department.

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

The reason I ask that is in the customer service world, let's say you're checking in and you have extra baggage; I say I have to charge you for it; you say, no, you want to speak to my manager; and the manager says it's okay, I'll let you carry this one on for free. That makes the front line person look not very good.

If I'm a veteran and I go to you, the front line, let's say in Halifax, and you turn me down, saying, no, we can't do it, but then it goes to Charlottetown and they approve it, that makes the front line person look not very good, don't you think?

[John D. Larlee]

Well, that's a matter for the department. All I can speak for is the board.

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

I know. Exactly.

[John D. Larlee]

I'd love to say we're the good guys....

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

This is my last one for you, and this is the scenario: the benefit of the doubt. For the last six months of his life, an 87-year-old World War II veteran is having severe flashbacks and he's suffering from what the doctors diagnose as post-traumatic stress disorder. He goes to DVA; he makes a claim; he's denied because there's no proof he's suffering from wartime illnesses.

Where does the benefit of the doubt apply in this man's case? He's already dead, so it didn't work out for him, but how does the benefit of the doubt apply in that situation?

When I explain the benefit of the doubt to veterans and RCMP, I explain that it's like the tie goes to the runner, in baseball terms. In many cases that I've seen, we ask that the benefit of the doubt be applied. It comes back refused because it says they need more medical evidence.

For an aging World War II veteran, what more medical evidence does he need when he has a clinical analysis that he has post-traumatic stress disorder more than likely caused from his wartime activities? Yet he was denied.

Where would the benefit of the doubt apply in that particular case?

[John D. Larlee]

Again, Mr. Chair, when I talked about benefit of the doubt earlier, I talked about credible evidence, oral testimony, and that any other witnesses can be presented in favour. So when we hear cases on review and even on appeal, any additional evidence, whether it be witnesses or whatever, can be used.

I can't speak to specific cases for specific veterans. But in general it's not only the medical evidence that's looked at, it's all of the evidence taken together. And when that is placed before the sitting members at review, they apply the best method and the benefit of the doubt to favour the applicant.

Now when we talk about review, we have two members who sit at review. At review hearings if the members cannot agree, the most favourable decision for the client or the veteran or the RCMP or the Canadian Forces member or veteran goes in favour of the individual.

I bring that in because you mentioned a tie; it happens at review. On appeal it's a three-member panel, and of course it's the majority.

That does happen in cases, so we do our best to make sure that we apply all we can in the legislation to provide for our veterans to get all the benefits available to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Larlee.

Now we will move on to Mr. Kerr for seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Larlee and Ms. Sharkey, thank you very much for coming today.

I think our friend Peter Stoffer has pointed out that we know that this is a complicated area, a continuing challenging area. The questions are penetrating, and we realize you can't answer all of them because you're in a quasi-judicial role, so the issue continues for us.

I would like to start by just pointing out--Ms. Sgro and certainly the others over there would not have been part of that visit last year--that we certainly appreciated the briefing we got and the understanding of how the process works. And it's a compliment I gave the former government for setting this board up. I think you would find the family connection back then with the party of the day was rather obvious when it was set up. So when you look at that question, you realize that's not necessarily a new affiliation. It has happened.

The point I'd want to stress from all of us is that we understand and appreciate the fact that the board is independent from the government and has to do its own work. I think that's how it has to work.

I would like to ask...and I realize you're limited in what you can say. We are doing the charter, obviously looking for ways we can suggest changes or improvements to the process and how to make it a little better for the vets. With the new vets coming on board, we realize the challenges continue to change. But looking at it, how would you describe the differences since the charter has come in, and what should we be aware of and mindful of as parliamentarians as we're making suggestions? I know you can't make direct recommendations, but you have obviously run into changes since the charter has come into place. Maybe you can highlight what some of those are for us.

[John D. Larlee]

First of all, when the charter was implemented and we started rendering disability awards, it was business as usual for the board and the hearings in the sense that our board at review determines disability entitlement and disability assessments. With the charter coming online, our work continued the same.

Our work with respect to the charter is to determine the entitlement and the assessments. As I said in my opening remarks, we are not--and that's through the legislation--involved with, in our decisions, the additional services provided by the charter. We deal only with the disability awards.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate that. I'm not trying to put you in an awkward spot, but we're trying to find ways we can suggest how we can streamline or make things work better together. There's no question that starting from a veteran's first day of trying to get something done within the department and ending up at the end of the day with you folks, it could be months and months later.

The minister has made the comment that we'd like to streamline where we can. We'd like to become more efficient. We think a lot of improvements have taken place over the years, a lot of positive things, but in this case there still seems to be a level of frustration, not necessarily pointed in one direction.

I'm just wondering, in that sense, have you seen any change in timing or in how an approach is done or in the kinds of questions you're faced with that perhaps weren't there earlier on?

[John D. Larlee]

Our work is evolving quite rapidly with more complicated medical conditions as a result of the PTSD cases and those of operational stress issues. We're always working towards educating our members to keep up to date. But with respect to the charter and how we've changed matters, I guess we're working all the time to make sure our members are fully informed on all issues—medical, administrative, law, dealing with hearings, military—to make sure that we can address these issues that come before us.

As I said earlier, we do not evaluate or recommend on preparing legislation. That is for the parliamentarians. For us at the board, it's business as usual, whether we're under the Pension Act or under the new veterans charter.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate that. I realize that you're in a bit of a bind trying to respond to the question, but we have to make the effort to try to find out where we can offer advice on improvements and the relationship because we can't interfere directly. I think it's probably important for us to pick up on at least the nuances and allow those who are allowed to ask you directly to ask the question.

When you talked about the 30 locations across the country, again, as the population changes and the new vets come on board, one of the things we hear—whether it's a Sainte-Anne's issue or others—is how much the newer veterans are looking forward to getting as much done as close to home as they possibly can, whether it's for long-term service or rehabilitation, education, and so on.

Are you finding that 30 locations is a satisfactory number? Is it done by formula somehow? Is it restricted by numbers? Can you comment on that?

[John D. Larlee]

We monitor from the previous year where the requirements were. We set our schedule a year ahead of time—not that it can't be changed. We have identified that those centres are close to where the requirement is. But we've also invested greatly in teleconference facilities, and that option is available to them in some areas—not the 30 centres, but other areas that we have also—where we, with the representative of your pension advocates, make arrangements for the most feasible way to have the review hearing as close as possible to the veteran or the client, as the case may be.

The short answer to your question is that the 30 centres are working quite well, but as I stated earlier, we're always working to improve and deliver our services more efficiently and to render the part of the process over which we have control as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Larlee, and thank you, Mr. Kerr.

That concludes our first round of questions.

We'll now go to the second round of questions for five minutes, with Madam Crombie of the Liberal Party.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Larlee. There are a couple of things, but I think I want to pursue Mr. Stoffer's line of questioning, that in six out of ten cases there are mistakes made that are changed later. Is it concerning to you that the number is so high?

[John D. Larlee]

Mr. Chairman, in addressing my response to the honourable member, I would point out that appeals are almost a fresh look at a case. The appeal panel is not necessarily bound by the previous decision, and neither are the revision hearings. So it is not a matter of their having to find an error in the previous decision; it's that they receive more evidence and information, and with that comes the ability of the reviewing panel to make a change in the previous award.