Veterans Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I'm going to introduce our witnesses in a moment, but first I want to advise you that former minister Thompson will be coming to the committee at 12:30 today, and then we'll be proceeding up to the Parliamentary Restaurant.

At 12:10 we will have four what are, I hope, brief pieces of business, which we'll go in camera to deal with, and then we'll be prepared to receive Mr. Thompson at 12:30.

It's my hope as well that we'll proceed down the stairs and maybe briefly pop into room 112 north to see the new sculpting inlaid in the walls. This committee, four years ago, started the initiative to have them placed there. It would be nice to see those with former minister Thompson, after which we'll go directly to the New Zealand room in the restaurant and have a cordial lunch of celebration for the service that Mr. Thompson gave to the veterans of Canada.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Sir, in lieu of the lunch that normally comes right here, I'd like to move a motion, if possible, that the New Zealand room lunch for the members can be taken by the committee as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Could we hold that motion until we go into business?

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

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer. That's part of the business we'll handle then.

Without any other delay, I'll introduce you to the witnesses. We're pleased to have representatives here from—or actually, the leadership of—the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have John Larlee, who is the chair, as well as Dale Sharkey, the director general.

I understand, Mr. Larlee, that it will be only you giving opening remarks.

[John D. Larlee, Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. Please go ahead with your opening remarks, and then we'll have our traditional rounds of questioning.

[John D. Larlee]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for this invitation to appear before you in the context of your review of the new veterans charter.

With me is Ms. Dale Sharkey, director general of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

As this is my first appearance here, I would like to tell you a bit about myself. My background is in law. I left practice last year to begin a six-year term as chair of the board. On a personal note, I am the proud son of a Second World War veteran and prisoner of war. My father taught me to remember and pay tribute to our veterans. I bring that perspective to my role as chair.

I know that many of you are new to the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to spend the next several minutes talking to you about the board and its mandate.

I also know that all of you have a keen interest and commitment in making sure that the veterans affairs portfolio is honouring and serving Canada's veterans well. We share that commitment at the board. Our objective is to ensure that our traditional veterans, Canadian Forces members and veterans, RCMP applicants and their families receive the disability benefits to which they are entitled under the law.

To achieve this, the board provides applicants with an independent appeal program for disability decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This mandate has remained constant since the board's establishment as an independent tribunal in 1995, even through the introduction of the new veterans charter.

The board continues to offer redress for disability decisions, but now has the authority to review both disability pension decisions made under the Pension Act and disability award decisions made under part 3 of the new veterans charter.

It is important to note that the board does not provide redress for any of the other programs introduced by the new veterans charter. Redress for the other programs is done internally by the department.

The board's specialized program includes two levels of redress--review and appeal--for disability pension and award applications dealing with matters of entitlement and assessment as well as the final level of appeal for war veterans allowance cases.

Since the introduction of the new veterans charter in 2006, the board has seen a steady increase in the volume of applications for review and appeal of disability award decisions. Today, 46% of our review decisions and 23% of our appeal decisions are related to disability award claims.

To be very clear, the role of the board is not to write nor to evaluate the legislation. Rather, it is to ensure its fair interpretation and application in every case.

As the appeal tribunal for Canada's disability compensation programs for veterans, the board operates at arm's length from the department and the minister. Our decision-making is not influenced by them.

Our members are appointed by the Governor in Council to fulfill the board's legislated mandate. They have the jurisdiction to affirm, vary or reverse the decision being reviewed or appealed; they are not bound by the previous decision. They are, however, bound by the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the disability pension and award programs provided to our veterans.

During the past year as chair, I have come to appreciate how the board's program is designed to give those who have served Canada every opportunity to establish their entitlement to benefits.

First and foremost, the laws enacted by Parliament require that veterans receive the benefit of doubt throughout the adjudicative process. This does not mean that every case will succeed.

The laws also require that applicants provide sufficient credible evidence of the existence of a permanent disability and of the relationship to service. The benefit of doubt provision ensures that the decision-makers consider this evidence in the best light possible.

Individuals need only be dissatisfied with their disability decision to request an independent hearing before the board. There are no time limits placed on this right of appeal.

After individuals have received a decision from the department, they have access to two levels of independent redress with the board.

The first level is the review hearing. This hearing provides applicants with the first and only opportunity in the process to appear before the decision-makers, along with any witnesses they choose, and to give their testimony. To make it easier for applicants to attend in person, we convene review hearings in more than 30 locations across Canada.

The value of the review hearing should not be underestimated. Oral testimony provided by applicants and their witnesses, along with new evidence, is largely responsible for the board's decision to vary the department's decision at review.

If an applicant remains dissatisfied after receiving the board's review decision, he or she can request an appeal hearing in front of a different panel. While individuals may certainly attend their appeal hearing, the legislation does not permit oral testimony at this level. Rather, the hearing provides the representative with a further opportunity to make arguments in support of the claim.

Throughout the board's hearing process, applicants have access to free legal assistance and representation. This is significant because the hearing process is nonadversarial: no one is arguing against the claim. Our members often ask questions—not to oppose the claim but to better understand it. After all, they are required to interpret and apply legislation based on the evidence presented and to render decisions that give clear reasons for their rulings.

Adjudication is no easy job. More often than not, the claims heard by the board involve complex medical issues and legal arguments. The cases of men and women who come before the board are often compelling. These people have served their country well and honourably in times of war and peace. We recognize this and we take our role very seriously.

In 2010 the board will continue to fulfill its mandate by delivering a program of independent redress for applicants. Our operating budget of $9.9 million will be invested wisely in support of four strategic priorities. Our first strategic priority is to conduct review and appeal hearings and to render decisions based on evidence and legislation.

Currently there are 25 members on the board who hear and decide the claims. All of them were appointed or reappointed under a transparent and merit-based selection process. Half of the members are based out of cities across Canada to hear the reviews and the other half hear appeals at our head office in Charlottetown.

About 85 operational staff work in Charlottetown to support the hearing process. To the end of February, the board had finalized 5,000 review and appeal decisions since the beginning of the fiscal year. While this seems like a daunting number, it represents a manageable workload for our members and our staff.

Of course, we recognize that applicants expect and deserve timely hearings and fair decisions. For this reason, we are continually working to improve our program to better serve applicants. In 2010 we will work to communicate clearly about our program and to report regularly on our activities to you, our parliamentarians, and to Canadians.

For your information, the board began submitting quarterly reports about our program and performance to this committee in 2007. Our third quarterly report is included in an information kit for you to take away today. We will continue to provide you with this quarterly update and hope it proves useful to you.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Larlee.

We will go to questions now.

From the Liberal Party, Mr. Oliphant, for seven minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

I have several short questions. I'd like some short answers, then get into some longer questions.

First of all, thank you for your decision to take up public service in this way.

You talk about the board selection procedure, and 25 members, each hearing, then, I guess 200 cases per year, or more than that if they're working in teams. So it's quite a heavy workload for a board member.

Do you consider this a quasi-judicial board?

[John D. Larlee]

Oh, most certainly; our legislation provides that.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Do you compare your workload with other quasi-judicial boards at the federal level?

[John D. Larlee]

Yes, we do from time to time, although when I discuss, at the heads of federal agencies meetings, the number of decisions we produce, they're quite surprised, because we produce quite a volume of decisions in a year.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

How many of the board members are veterans of either the Canadian Forces or the RCMP?

[John D. Larlee]

We presently have five members who are Canadian Forces veterans.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That's five out of twenty-five.

Is there specific training given to the board members, not about legal procedures but about, for instance, post-traumatic stress disorder?

[John D. Larlee]

Yes, there is, most definitely. Not only is there quite a lengthy training program when members are first appointed to the board, but we have continuing education for members. Most recently, we were in Vaudreuil, Quebec, near Sainte-Anne's, where the operational stress centre sent their experts to give us a conference on operational stress injuries and PTSD as recently as February.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm glad to hear that.

As the chair of the board, are you consulted with respect to appointments or reappointments on the board?

[John D. Larlee]

I am consulted by the minister's office with respect to what our needs are within the board and what our requirements are throughout the country—what positions we need to have filled, as far as capacity and bilingual needs are concerned—and we're always monitoring our workload to determine what our complement should be.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Were you aware that in the last round of appointments, every single member was either a donor to the Conservative Party of Canada or a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada?

[John D. Larlee]

Mr. Chair, I was not aware of that. I don't have any difficulty answering, but I don't know if—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That information is available on public websites, and we were able to check every one. In fact, it was unanimous that every single one was either a donor to the Conservative Party or had been a candidate or in some position.

I am wondering whether that affects the arm's-length nature of your board.

[John D. Larlee]

No, it doesn't, because all our members, whether they come from military, legal, or medical backgrounds, had previous lives. But they make a commitment, when they are appointed to our board by Governor in Council appointment, that they are joining a quasi-judicial body and they have to comply with the conflict of interest and all regulations that go with the position and the code of ethics, and that includes giving up any affiliation with any political party.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I know that is a requirement, having myself sat on quasi-judicial boards in the past.

I want to switch to public disclosure of your judgments and processes. What is the practice of public disclosure of your work?

[John D. Larlee]

With respect to individual cases?